E-text prepared by the Online Distributed Proofreading Team
([http://www.pgdp.net])
from page images generously made available by
Internet Archive
([http://www.archive.org])

EDUCATION IN ENGLAND
IN THE
MIDDLE AGES

EDUCATION IN ENGLAND
IN THE
MIDDLE AGES

THESIS APPROVED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF
SCIENCE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

BY
A. W. PARRY, M.A., D.Sc.
PRINCIPAL OF THE TRAINING COLLEGE, CARMARTHEN

London: W. B. CLIVE
University Tutorial Press L^d.
High St., New Oxford St., W.C.
1920

PREFACE.

The purpose of this book is to give an account of the provision which was made in this country for Education during the period from the Introduction of Christianity to the Eve of the Reformation. Preparatory to writing it, I tried to examine all the relevant, available evidence with the object of discovering the factors which contributed to the educational development of the nation during the period under consideration.

Whilst this work was in progress, the late A. F. Leach published his Schools of Mediaeval England. His book, however, differs essentially from mine, his aim is different, the conclusions he arrives at are different; further, as he does not quote the authorities for the statements he makes, I did not find his work of direct assistance. This criticism does not apply to his Educational Charters, a collection of documents of inestimable value to all students of English Educational History.

I have tried to acknowledge in every case my obligations to other writers. In addition, I give in an appendix a list of the authorities I have consulted, and of the other books I have studied for the purpose of this investigation. Still, as a great part of this book was written whilst I was on military service (1914-9) and I was consequently dependent on notes which I had compiled at various times and places, it is probable there may be some omissions and inaccuracies. My defence must be the special circumstances of recent years.

May I take this opportunity of expressing my indebtedness to Professor Foster Watson, D.Litt. As one of his former students I owe to the stimulus and encouragement I received from him, my interest in matters relating to the History of Education. I wish also to refer in appreciative terms to Mr. J. E. G. de Montmorency’s State Intervention in English Education. Mr. de Montmorency was the first writer to give a connected account of the development of English Education, and it is only fitting that those who essay a similar task should realise their obligations to the one who first “blazed the trail.”

I must also thank Mr. G. St. Quintin and Mr. S. E. Goggin for relieving me of the distasteful task of correcting the proofs, and the Rev. Dr. Hughes for kindly preparing the Index.

A. W. P.

Carmarthen,
January 1920.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.

The history of education during the Middle Ages is closely interwoven with the history of the Church. Professor Foster Watson quotes with approval Cardinal Newman’s dictum, “Not a man in Europe who talks bravely against the Church but owes it to the Church that he can talk at all.”[1]

It is possible to trace three stages in the development of the English educational system during the period with which we are concerned.

The first stage covers a period from the Introduction of Christianity to the Norman Conquest. The Introduction of Christianity was the means by which education became possible for this country, and so it naturally came about that the provision of facilities for education was generally conceived of as a part of the function of the Church. In this connection it is important to realise the relationship of the State to the Church in Anglo-Saxon times. As Professor Medley points out,[2] the Church and the State during this period were largely identical. The bishops were ex-officio the advisers of the kings, and they sat in the local courts not only exercising jurisdiction in those cases in which the clergy were affected, but also concerning themselves with questions involving the morals of the laity. In a more real sense than at any subsequent time, the Church of England, during the Anglo-Saxon period, was the Church of the English nation. During this time the activities of the Church were essentially the activities of the State, and the work which was done for education might be conceived of, indifferently, as either the work of the Church or of the State.

The second stage dates from the Norman Conquest, which brought to a close this identity of Church and State. William I., impelled by a desire to effect certain reforms in the Church on the model of those he had witnessed abroad, separated the ecclesiastical from the civil courts, and, by the ordinance he issued, authorised the ecclesiastical authorities to utilise the secular power for the enforcement of their sentences. From this time and right up to the Reformation, Church and State were distinct in this country.

This separation of Church and State resulted in a number of duties, other than those which were strictly spiritual, being tacitly regarded as a part of the function of the Church. The provision of Educational facilities is included among these duties, and it was left to the Church to make such arrangements for the organisation, maintenance, and control of education as she deemed fit.

A third stage evolved when the social consciousness of the community (or rather of a part of the community) first realised that education was not a matter for the ecclesiastical authorities alone. The first manifestation of this in England occurred when teachers began to recognise that they exercised a function distinct from the special functions of the priesthood and consequently proceeded to associate themselves in an organisation for the protection of their common interests and thus initiated a movement which ultimately resulted in the establishment of universities. At a later date, various economic developments produced certain social changes which not only made education an object of greater desire but also brought it about that wealthy merchants, gilds, and civic communities, as well as churchmen, took part in the work of providing additional facilities for the education of the people.

For the sake of convenience we may distinguish these three stages as:—

I. The Anglo-Saxon Period.

II. Education under Church Control.

III. Education passing out of Church Control.

BOOK I.

THE ANGLO-SAXON PERIOD.

CHAPTER I.

THE WORK OF THE MONASTERIES.

The introduction of Christianity to this country subsequent to the Saxon invasion was effected by means of two independent agencies—the Roman mission under the leadership of Augustine which arrived in Thanet in 597, and the Scottish missionaries who, in response to the invitation of Oswald, king of Northumbria, took up their residence in the island of Lindisfarne in 635.

The primary task of these missionaries was obviously that of converting a people who professed a heathen religion to an adherence to the Christian faith. The accomplishment of this main task, however, involved two additional tasks, the one moral, the other social. A dismal picture of the moral condition of the settlers in this country in the fifth century has been painted by Montalembert. Basing his account on Ozanam’s “Germains avant la Christianisme” he asks, “What could be expected in point of morality from persons accustomed to invoke and to worship Woden, the god of massacres, Freya, the Venus of the North, the goddess of sensuality, and all those bloody and obscene gods of whom the one had for his emblem a naked sword and another the hammer with which he broke the heads of his enemies?” He continues, “The immortality which was promised to them in their Valhalla but reserved for them new days of slaughter and nights of debauch spent in drinking deep from the skulls of their victims. And in this world, their life was but too often a prolonged orgy of carnage, rapine and lechery.”[3] Herein lay the moral task which awaited the Christian missionaries. They had to replace the existing national ideals with the ideals of Christianity—ideals of the highest standard of personal morality. The social task undertaken by the missionaries was that of elevating this country from a condition of barbarism into a state of civilisation. Referring to the results of the introduction of Christianity, Green writes, “The new England was admitted into the older commonwealth of nations. The civilisation, art, letters, which had fled before the sword of the English conquest returned with the Christian faith.”[4]

What means could be adopted by the missionaries to accomplish the ends they had in view? It is obvious that continual teaching and instruction would be imperative to meet the needs of the converts to the new faith, and it is equally clear that it would be necessary to provide for the creation of a native ministry in order that the labours of the early missionaries might be continued. Teaching, consequently, occupies a position of the greatest importance, and it is to the educational aspect of the labours of these missionaries rather than to the religious or the ecclesiastical aspect that our attention is now directed. It may be advisable for us to remind ourselves that these missionaries came to this country speaking the Latin tongue, that the services of the Church were carried on in that language, and that such books as existed were also written in Latin. It is necessary to make this point clear in order to show that schools for instruction in this language would be imperative from the very first.

It is also important to remember, as Montalembert points out, that the conversion of England was effected by means of monks, first of the Benedictine monks sent from Rome, and afterwards of Celtic monks.[5] We may here lay down a general hypothesis, which the course of this thesis will tend to demonstrate: the educational institutions established in this country were due to an imitation of those which had been in operation elsewhere. The Christian missionaries to England, for example, did not originate a system of education. They adopted what they had seen in operation in the parent monasteries from which they came, and, in so doing, they would naturally adapt the system to the special needs of the country. Some exceptions to this general principle may be found; they will be noted in their proper place.

Accepting this hypothesis, before we can proceed to consider the special work for education of the monasteries in this country, it is necessary briefly to review the meaning of monachism and to consider the extent to which monasteries had previously associated themselves with educational work.

The origin of Christian monasticism is due partly to the moral conditions prevalent in the early centuries of the Christian era and partly to the mystical and ascetic tendencies which manifest themselves in some individuals. Though the generally accepted view of the moral condition of Roman society in the days of the Early Church[6] may be exaggerated and the description given by Dill[7] represent more fairly the condition of things that actually prevailed, yet even this modified account portrays a social condition in which moral ideals—except in rare cases—barely existed. To yield to the lusts of the body seemed to be almost inseparable from life in the world. Repeatedly did the Apostles and the Church Fathers find it necessary to warn the members of the Church against the grosser sins. The multiplicity of temptations, the low moral standard, the absence of any social condemnation of infractions of the moral code tended to the growth of a belief that bodily mortification and a vigorous asceticism should be practised by those who desired to be real and not merely nominal Christians. Effectively to achieve such an ideal tended to a withdrawal from a participation in social life, from a life of fellowship with others, to a life of isolation, in order that by a severe discipline of the body and a life given up completely to prayer, contemplation, and meditation, the soul might enter into a closer communion with God.

This ideal of isolation was not altogether new. In the deserts of Egypt, during the early centuries, devout Jews had given themselves up to a solitary and austere life of chastity and prayer, combining a system of religious contemplation with a stern régime of physical discipline. Here then was an example ready to be imitated by the enthusiastic Christian. Abandoning life in the world, which in so many cases meant profligacy and vice, the convert, to whom the Christian religion had become a reality, endeavoured to find in the isolated life of a hermit the opportunity for contemplation which he considered imperative for the salvation of his soul.

The reputation for sanctity and austerity gained by certain hermits caused others desirous of a similar life to build their cells in close proximity. Gradually the custom arose of building an enclosure round a small group of cells and of recognising one man as the spiritual head of the group. Certain rules were agreed to, and a common oratory was shared. The first rules for a community of this type were drawn up by Pachomius who founded a coenobitic community at Tabenna in 320 A.D.

For our purpose, it is important to note that Pachomius considered that attention should be paid to the education of the inmates of the community. Classes were to be held for those whose early instruction had been neglected, whilst no one was to be allowed to remain who did not learn to read and was not familiar, at the very least, with the Book of Psalms and the New Testament.[8]

A third stage in the evolution of monasticism is associated with the name of St. Basil of Caesarea. Instead of founding his monastery in some remote district, he built it near a town and received into it not only solitaries who had become convinced of the dangers of living alone, but also the poor, the oppressed, the homeless, and those who, for various reasons, had become weary of life in the outer world and sought an asylum for their remaining days. Not only men but also women and children were received by Basil: so great was his success that he ultimately established in different centres several industrial coenobitic communities.

The reception of children by Basil naturally brought forward the question of their education. These children fell into one or other of two classes; in the one class were those who, like the infant Samuel, were offered by their parents for the cloistral life from a tender age; in the other class were those who were subsequently to return to the world. St. Basil organised schools for the former of these classes; children were to be admitted to them when they were five or six years of age; details with regard to the mode of their instruction were prescribed; general rules of discipline were laid down.[9] Under certain circumstances, children who were not destined for the monastic life could also be received in these schools.[10] In addition to teaching the elements of grammar and rhetoric and the facts of scripture history, Basil provided for a number of trades to be learned and practised as soon as the children were able to profit by the course. Among the trades recommended were weaving, tailoring, architecture, woodwork, brass work, and agriculture.[11]

Cassian was the first to transplant the rules of the Eastern monks into Europe. He founded two monasteries in the neighbourhood of Marseilles for men and women respectively. In 420 he wrote De Institutis Renuntiatium, in which he records the rules to be observed in the institutions he had founded. The code of rules here enunciated constituted the law of monasticism in Gaul till it gave place to the regulations of Benedict. Cassian in his youth had studied the works of Greek learning, but in his later years he showed a great distrust of pagan literature and strongly opposed its study. He considered that the fascination of such literature distracted the soul, and desired that even the memory of the classical writings should be eradicated from his mind. The underlying conception of the rule of Cassian was that the monastery was a school in which a future stage of existence was the dominating and controlling thought.

Reference must next be made to Cassiodorus (479?-575)—the great Italian statesman turned monk—who did much to develop study among ecclesiastics and to make the cloister the centre of literary activity. He founded a monastery at Vivarium in Bruttium, which he endowed with his Roman library containing a magnificent collection of manuscripts, and to which he himself retired at the age of sixty. During the remaining years of his life he devoted himself to literary work; of his numerous writings the most important is his Institutiones Divinarum et Saecularium Lectionum. A more important work accomplished by Cassiodorus than the writings he produced was his organisation of the monastery scriptorium. This served as a model for the series of Benedictine monasteries which subsequently came into existence. Hence to Cassiodorus must be assigned the honour of realising that the multiplication of manuscripts was a recognised employment of monastic life. Consequently, he conferred a boon of the greatest value upon the human race. As Hodgkin expresses it, there was in existence an accumulated store of two thousand years of literature, sacred and profane, the writings of Hebrew prophets, of Greek philosophers, of Latin rhetoricians, perishing for want of men with leisure and ability to transcribe them. Were it not for the labours of the monks it is highly conceivable that these treasures would have been irretrievably lost to the world.[12]

The number of the monastic institutions rapidly increased. Gradually the evils arising from a lack of definite control and from the want of a code of rules to check individualising tendencies, began to manifest themselves. To St. Benedict of Nursia is due the more adequate organisation of monastic life. In addition to the laws of chastity, poverty, and obedience required from the professed monk, he recognised the importance of labour not only for self-support but also as a duty towards God. The code of rules, drawn up by him for the use of the monasteries under his care, was found to meet a great need of the religious communities of the time, with the result that the Benedictine rules became almost universally accepted by all monastic establishments.

Of these rules, the one that exercised a profound influence upon educational development is headed Concerning Daily Manual Labour.[13] It runs:—

“Idleness is the enemy of the soul: hence brethren ought at certain seasons to occupy themselves with manual labour and again at certain hours with holy reading. Between Easter and the calends of October let them apply themselves to reading from the fourth hour until the sixth hour.... From the calends of October to the beginning of Lent let them apply themselves to reading until the second hour. During Lent let them apply themselves to reading from morning until the end of the third hour, and in these days of Lent let them receive a book apiece from the library and read it straight through. These books are to be given out at the beginning of Lent.”

The great importance of this rule arises from the fact that whilst monks were becoming very numerous, books were very few. Hence in order that the requisite number of copies might be available, writing had to be taught; in order that the monks might be able to read the books, it is conceivable that in some cases reading also would have to be taught. Moreover, the copying of manuscripts was considered to comply with the regulation as to manual labour prescribed by the Benedictine rules. Consequently wherever a Benedictine monastery came into existence, there books were multiplied, and a library gradually developed. As the years went on, the Benedictine labours in the intellectual world increased. Mabillon remarks, “Almost alone, the order of St. Benedict for several years, maintained and preserved letters in Europe. There were frequently no other masters in our monasteries, and frequently the cathedral schools drew theirs from the same source.”[14]

The purpose of this digression has been to show that by the time that the monks entered upon their mission in this country, the idea of monasticism was firmly established on the continent. The monastic houses consisted of communities of men or of women who, leaving the outer world behind them, dedicated their lives to the worship and the praise of God. They concentrated their attention upon the world to come, and, as far as possible, they endeavoured to anticipate it in the present stage of existence. Labour, either physical or mental, was one of their special obligations. Limiting ourselves to intellectual labour, we note that to some was entrusted the instruction of the children who were brought to them and of those members of the community who still needed education; to others was assigned work in the scriptorium; to others was allotted the task of giving instruction in singing and of making due preparation for the musical part of the monastic services; others, according to their capacity, continued their studies, and, by the chronicles which they wrote, enable posterity to reconstruct the history of their days.

Our problem is now a narrower one: does any evidence exist to show that the educational organisation of the monasteries in this country corresponded with the educational work of the continental monasteries? Fortunately, for our purpose, a complete answer in the affirmative can be obtained from the works of the Venerable Bede.

That it was customary for schools to be established in monasteries is a fact that can be readily demonstrated. Bede writes that he “was given at seven years of age to be educated by the most reverend Abbot Benedict and afterwards by Ceolfrid; and spending all the remaining time of my life in that monastery, I applied myself wholly to the study of scripture, and amidst the observance of regular discipline and the daily care of singing in the Church, I always took delight in learning, teaching, and writing.”[15] This passage, alone, practically establishes the fact that the educational activities described as existing in continental monasteries were also to be found as a normal part of the monasteries which were established in this country. Lest it might be maintained that the monastery at Wearmouth was exceptional the decree of the Council of Cloveshoo may be quoted. At that council it was decreed that “abbots and abbesses should take care that scripture reading was everywhere studied.” Again it must be borne in mind that copies of the scriptures existed only in the Latin language and that for the reading of scripture it was an essential condition that ability to read Latin had been previously acquired. Further, at the same council, it was enacted that boys “everywhere in the schools were to be compelled to address themselves to the love of sacred learning.”[16]

The work of the monasteries in connection with higher education is also attested by Bede. The Irish monasteries, in particular, acquired a reputation in this respect. Many English youths of every social grade crossed over to Ireland, attracted thither by the greater fame of the monasteries, for the purpose of extending their studies.[17] Bede records that scholars went about from cell to cell, gathering learning from monastic teachers.[18] It is noteworthy that at these monasteries food, books, and teaching were supplied freely and willingly. Aidan instructed, among others, twelve boys of the English nation at his monastery at Lindisfarne: some of these acquired fame in later years, e.g. Basil, who became Bishop of Lindisfarne, and Eata, who became Prior of Melrose. Briefly, we may say that nearly all the learned men of this period were either monks or were closely connected with monasteries. Among them we may mention Aidan, Bede, Wilfrid, Theodore, Hadrian, Benedict Biscop, Aldhelm, and Augustine.

The formation of libraries and the work of the scriptorium occupied as high a place in the newly-established English monasteries as they did in those monasteries which served as models for them. Benedict Biscop—the father of English culture[19]—who was the founder of the twin monasteries of Wearmouth and Jarrow, is particularly famous for his labours in connection with the establishment of libraries. He visited Rome six times in all, and each time he returned he brought back books with him to this country. Of his fourth journey Bede remarks that he “brought back with him a very large number of books of all kinds.”[20] Biscop’s sixth journey to Rome was almost entirely devoted to the purpose of acquiring additions to his collection of books, a collection which included classical as well as ecclesiastical literature.[21] In some cases monasteries arranged for the mutual exchange of books.[22] As an instance of the activity of the scriptorium may be quoted the famous library of York, which was composed of transcripts of the parchments collected by Biscop. Ceolfrid, who became Abbot of Jarrow, and who subsequently was also placed in charge of the monastery of Wearmouth, took considerable interest in the scriptorium. Montalembert quotes the statement that Ceolfrid had had made two complete copies of the Bible according to the version of St. Jerome, as a refutation of the “stupid calumny” which represents the Church as having interdicted the reading and study of the scriptures.[23] The preservation of such Anglo-Saxon literature as remains, is undoubtedly due to the action of some of the monastic scribes. The poems of Caedmon were written first of all in the monastery of Whitby; so, too, the Northumbrian poet, Cynewulf, owes the preservation of his works to the scriptorium of the monastery he ultimately entered.

The teaching of singing naturally occupied an important place among the educational activities of the monasteries. Bede describes himself as being in charge of “the daily care of singing in the Church.”[24] John, Abbot of the monastery of St. Martin’s and precentor of St. Peter’s, Rome, one of the most famous of the teachers of music of the day, came to this country for a time on the invitation of Biscop and at the request of Pope Agatha. Abbot John taught the monks not only how to sing but also how to read aloud. His efforts were not limited to Wearmouth alone; those who were experts in music, from “almost all” the religious houses, came to him for further instruction, and in this way the influence of his teaching was widely spread.[25]

When we pass to the question of what was taught in the monasteries, we find that the scholars were trained to read the scriptures in Latin and to be familiar with the services of the monastery, and that writing and singing were also subjects of instruction. Two of Bede’s works are probably school-books: his “Librum de orthographia, alfabeti ordine distinctum” and his “Librum de metrica arte, et huic adjectum alium de schematibus sine tropis libellum, hoc est de figuris modisque locutionum, quibus scriptura sancta contexta est.”

Though it may not be just to regard Bede as the typical product of the English monasteries of the time, yet it may fairly be pointed out that the whole of Bede’s education was received in these monasteries. Even if we regard him as the best-educated of the English monks, his example will still serve to show the extent of learning which could be acquired in the monasteries of this period. Sandys writes, “His skill in Latin verse is shown in his elegiacs on Queen Ethelfrida and in his hexameters on the shrine of St. Cuthbert.... His Greek learning is indicated in his treatises and in the references to a Greek MS. of the Acts which are to be found in his Liber Retractionum. The Latin authors most frequently quoted by him are Cicero, Virgil and Horace and (doubtless at second hand) Lucilius and Varro.”[26]

Apart from the education, in the technical sense of the word, given by the monks, they were also responsible for reforms which, in the wider sense of the term, were also educational. Thus, the higher ideals of life prevalent in the monastery were introduced into the country as a whole. The age was a turbulent and disordered one, in which neither moral nor ethical obligations prevailed and in which might alone was right.[27] The monks established, in the country of their adoption, a number of communities, in which the ruling principles were those of Charity, Chastity, and Obedience. The ideals prevailing in these monasteries reacted upon the social customs of their neighbourhood. The strong individualism of the Teutons was modified by the attitude of obedience to recognised authority characteristic of the monk; the qualities of savagery tended to yield to the examples of self-denial, self-control, and care for others.

The monasteries also played an important part in the economic development of the country. At times, and in certain localities, the economic condition of the people seems to have sunk to a low ebb. Bede tells us that “very often forty or fifty men being spent with want, would go together to some precipice or to the seashore and there, hand in hand, perish by the fall or be swallowed up by the waves.”[28] From the earliest times industrial activity had been a feature of monastic life. Speaking of St. Basil, his biographer tells us that “by the labour of his monks over wide desert places, hopeless sterility gave place to golden harvests and abundant vintages.”[29] Manual labour was a common employment in the English monasteries.[30] The builders of the monasteries also necessarily introduced new arts into the country. Thus Benedict Biscop brought over masons and glaziers from France.[31] Lamps and vessels for the use of the Church were made, and the craft taught to the Northumbrians.[32] All the furniture and vestments “which Benedict could not procure at home he took care to purchase abroad.”[33] The knowledge of the art of fishing by means of nets, which apparently was not known in some parts, was introduced by the monks.[34] Though slavery was not condemned by the Church at this time,[35] yet the Church fostered the feeling that slavery was not consonant with the dignity of the human soul, and the monasteries used their influence in opposing this custom. Aidan employed some of the gifts of money he received for the monasteries, for the redemption of slaves.[36] Wilfrid granted liberty to the slaves on the land that had been bestowed to the monastery founded by him.[37]

It must be borne in mind that in this country the monasteries originally were not merely communities of men or women who were dedicated to a life of contemplation, but were essentially centres of missionary enterprise. Bede tells us of monks who went into the surrounding country and villages to preach, baptize, and visit the sick.[38] Of Aidan and his company of “shorn monks” and laymen, we learn that they traversed the country trying to convert those who were not yet converts to Christianity, and stirring up those who had previously accepted the faith to alms and good works.[39] Similarly Chad, one of the disciples of Aidan, proceeded to preach the gospel “in towns, in the open country, cottages, villages, and castles.”[40] In brief, at the period with which we are now concerned, these monasteries served the purpose of spiritual outposts, from whence messengers went out to extend the message of the Christian faith.

It is interesting to note that the monasteries were thoroughly democratic in their selection of members. The monks preached that “Christian men are brothers, whether high or low, noble or ignoble, lord or slave. The wealthy is not better on that account than the needy. As boldly may the slave call God his Father as the king. We are all alike before God, unless anyone exceeds another in good works.”[41] So, whilst on the one hand kings like Ceolwulf and Ini became monks, on the other hand redeemed slaves were admitted as inmates of the monasteries, and, if they proved themselves capable of profiting by instruction, were advanced to the priesthood.[42] Certain undesigned effects followed. With the progress of civilisation, the warlike qualities which originally had gained territory for the Teutonic invaders needed to be supplemented by the intellectual gifts necessary for legislation and administration. These abilities could only be found in the ranks of the clergy. As a result, priests became in practice the ministers of the Crown; the names of Dunstan and Lanfranc readily occur as illustrative instances. A general study of Bede, apart from specific instances, tends to support the suggestion that Cuthbert, Theodore, Wilfrid, and Aidan, among others, also exercised a considerable influence over kings. As a second undesigned effect may be mentioned the fact that, as the monasteries admitted boys who showed vocation and promise, regardless of their social position, and gave them the best education of which the monasteries were capable, so it happened that the monastery was practically the only avenue through which promotion became possible to the able and competent who were handicapped by circumstances of their birth. Passing outside our period, we may refer to the case of Nicholas Breakspear, who from being a servant lad at St. Albans rose to the position of Pope.

CHAPTER II.

EDUCATION UNDER THE SECULAR CLERGY.

In the preceding chapter we stated that the evangelisation of England was mainly the work of monks. Though this statement is true, yet we must not lose sight of the fact that the work of the secular clergy was slowly developing side by side with that of the regular clergy, and ultimately superseded it. It is consequently necessary that we should next investigate into the work for education which was effected by them.

By way of introduction, we may point out that the method of work of the secular clergy and their mode of organisation closely resembled that of the regular clergy, and at times was scarcely distinguishable. Just as Augustine and his band of monks settled in the capital of the kingdom of Kent and built there a monastery, in which the bishop shared a community life with his monks, and which served as the centre from which their labours were directed, so a secular bishop with his companions settled in the chief town of another kingdom, where a church was ultimately built and a community life established. Thus in 604, Mellitus was consecrated bishop and sent to preach to the East Saxons. The new faith was accepted both by the king of the East Saxons and his people. A church dedicated to St. Paul was subsequently built at London—the capital of the kingdom. This church, instead of being a monastic church, as was Christ Church, Canterbury, belongs to that category of churches known as collegiate churches.

For the sake of convenience, we may here point out the main differences between monasteries and collegiate churches. A monastery consisted of a community of men or women under the rule of an abbot or abbess. The members of a monastery had taken certain vows and were bound to live in accordance with the rules of that Order to which the monastery belonged. A collegiate church consisted of a number of clergy forming a corporate body and living under the supervision of a Dean or Provost and responsible to the bishop. The origin of such churches has been traced to St. Augustine of Hippo, who arranged for his clergy to live together under his direction in a kind of community, though without the imposition of monastic vows. A further development took place about 750 when Chrodegang, bishop of Metz, drew up certain rules for the use of the clergy who were living with him. The clergy who lived according to these rules were called “canons.” The rule of Chrodegang was introduced into England, but it was not generally accepted;[43] and consequently the term “canon,” in this country, originally meant little more than a man who was a member of a college of clergy, who served a church in common and had a common claim on its revenue.

We may also note here that when a bishop’s official seat or throne (cathedra) was placed in a church, it thereby became a cathedral church. Sometimes the cathedral church was a monastic church, sometimes a collegiate church; in each case the church was known as a cathedral. From the standpoint of the development of education, as will be subsequently shown, the distinction between a collegiate cathedral church and a monastic cathedral church is an important one, but this distinction cannot always be clearly made, because during the early centuries of Christianity in England, a cathedral church was at times in the possession of the regular clergy, and at other times in the hands of the secular clergy. Thus Christ Church, Canterbury, was originally monastic but is said to have fallen into the hands of the seculars during the archiepiscopate of Ceolnoth (837-870), after which it again returned to the monks and remained monastic till the Reformation. So too, Gloucester Cathedral was originally monastic, then Offa transferred it to the secular clergy, later it again became monastic.

Whether or not the cathedral church of a diocese was monastic, the bishop of a diocese was the head of the secular clergy and obedience was due to him from them; on the other hand, the monks owed their obedience directly to their abbot, from him to the head of their order, and ultimately to the pope.[44]

In this chapter we propose to limit ourselves to the labours for education of the bishop and the secular clergy, though, as we have previously indicated, the line of demarcation between the work that was definitely monastic and that which may definitely be assigned to the secular clergy cannot always be clearly drawn.

The educational problems which had to be faced by a bishop and his band of secular priests were similar to those which had to be dealt with by the missionary monks. Latin, the language of the Church, had to be taught to those who were ignorant of it and who wished to be attached to the Church in an official capacity. A knowledge of music was necessary for those who desired to take a personal part in the worship offered by the Church. In addition, the principles of Christianity had to be taught more fully to converts; the children of the faith required instruction; arrangements had to be made for more advanced instruction for those who were desirous of receiving it. Schools had to be founded for these purposes, and these schools were the original schools of England.

We have already adopted as our hypothesis that the schools of this country were not a new discovery but were modelled on those which existed elsewhere. Our first problem consequently, is to discover where these models were found.

Mr. Leach, in his Schools of Medieval England, maintains that “the true models and source of the schools of England are not the schools of the Church but the schools of heathendom, the schools of Athens and Alexandria, of Rome, of Lyons, of Vienne. They were in fact the very same “heathen” or “pagan” or, in other words, Graeco-Roman institutions, in which Horace and Juvenal, Jerome and St. Augustine had learned the scansion of hexameters and the accredited methods of speech-making and arguments.”[45]

This statement calls for examination. The schools to which Mr. Leach refers came into existence about 50 B.C. and owed their distinctive characteristics to the influence of Greek thought upon Roman activities. Three grades of these schools are usually recognised:—

(1) The Schools of the Litteratores. In these schools only reading, writing, and calculation were taught; they were never very highly esteemed, and their teachers, who were generally slaves, were frequently ill-remunerated.

(2) The Schools of the Grammatici. Originally these schools dealt simply with grammar, i.e. with words and their relations; but the conception of grammar developed so that it came to include both a study of Latin and Greek Literature and also a range of subjects embracing mathematics, music, and elementary dialectic. Ultimately these schools were to be found in almost every city of the empire and, generally speaking, were supported either by public funds or by endowments.

(3) The Schools of the Rhetores. These were the most important schools; admission to them was not possible until the “toga virilis” had been assumed. Here the pupils studied carefully and minutely all matters relating to success in the art of oratory—an art which at that time had to be mastered by all who purposed to devote themselves to public life. But oratory, as the term was then understood, denoted much more than the art of declamation. It included a mastery of the existing literature, an acquaintance with the knowledge of things so far as that knowledge was then available, and a good vocabulary. To this must be added the power of playing upon human emotions, combined with grace of manner and effective delivery.

The following reasons may be advanced in support of our contention that Mr. Leach is in error in considering these Graeco-Roman Schools as the models of our English Schools, which, as Mr. Leach himself admits, owed their existence in the first place to the labours of Christian missionaries.

(1) In the pagan schools, there was no thought of the moral aspect of instruction. The literature on which the schoolboy was nourished was created in the atmosphere of paganism and teemed with mythological allusions.[46] The scholar was taught that the ideal age lay in the past rather than, as Christianity taught, in the future. The great deeds held up for his admiration were those associated with the Roman heroes who had read the fate of their campaigns in the flight of birds or the entrails of the victims at the altar.

(2) As Professor Woodward points out, “it is an invariable law that the accepted ideals of the adult generation shape its educational aims.”[47] At the period in which the schools referred to by Mr. Leach were flourishing, scepticism in religious matters was prevalent. Terentius Varro had urged that the anthropomorphic gods were mere emblems of the forces of nature. Lucretius had argued against the immortality of the soul. Cicero, the greatest thinker of the time, barely veiled his scepticism. Moreover, it was generally recognised that religion had lost its control over the moral life of man. It is thus evident that the ideals of Christianity and the ideals of the Graeco-Roman schools were fundamentally opposed. In no essential respect could the schools of paganism furnish a model for the schools of Christianity.

(3) The attitude of the Christians of the early centuries towards classical literature serves to illustrate still further the attitude of the Christians towards the pagan schools. Classical literature was obnoxious to the early Christians because the general interpretation of life revealed by these books was hostile to the Christian view. The beauty and charm of the mode of expression made little or no appeal to men who were confronted by the hideous reality of current licentiousness, even though the prevailing manner of life might be cloaked by the elegance and grace of its presentation.

As an alternative hypothesis we suggest that the schools founded by the bishops in England were modelled on the schools of Christendom rather than on the schools of paganism. To substantiate this hypothesis, it is necessary that we should briefly consider the origin and character of these early Christian schools.

The germ of the essentially Christian Schools may be traced from the custom of the great apostles of gathering round them their disciples and the aspirants for the priesthood, for purposes of instruction and discipline.[48] Gradually three types of schools were evolved:—

(1) Schools for Catechumens. It is assumed that some form of instruction would be given to Christian catechumens prior to their admission to the Church. These classes were held either in the porch of the church or in some other part of the building, and were controlled by a master appointed for that purpose. The first of these schools of whose existence we have any evidence was established by St. Mark in Alexandria.[49]

(2) Catechetical Schools. This type of school also originated at Alexandria, and arose out of the intellectual activities which made that city so important a centre during the first and second centuries of the Christian era. Pantaenus, a converted Stoic philosopher who took charge of the school at Alexandria in 170 A.D., introduced a wide range of studies into the curriculum and made use of his old learning to illustrate and defend his new faith.[50] Pantaenus was succeeded by two of the most noted of the Fathers of the Early Church, Clement, who was formerly his assistant, and Origen, who assumed the direction of the Catechetical School at the age of eighteen years.[51]

(3) Bishop’s Schools. The origin of these schools may be traced to the fact that circumstances compelled Origen to leave Alexandria in 231. Subsequently, at the invitation of two bishops, he opened a school at Caesarea. It proved so successful that similar schools were opened at a number of centres. Teaching was carried out either by the bishops in person, or by a deputy appointed by them. To these schools came candidates for ordination, the younger clergy whose instruction needed to be continued, as well as those who, for some reason or other, wished to avail themselves of the educational facilities thus provided.

One other type of educational institution must also be referred to. We have already indicated the service rendered to the Church by St. Augustine of Hippo in connection with the establishment of collegiate churches, and it is equally important to note his contribution to the educational organisation of the Church. Prior to his conversion to Christianity, St. Augustine had been a teacher of rhetoric, and was the author of certain treatises dealing with the seven liberal arts. Subsequent to his consecration to the episcopate, he established a seminary for those who were in course of preparation for ordination. This seminary, though planned on community lines, was essentially an educational establishment with the avowed object of making its members as efficient as possible in the ministry which awaited them.[52] The institution proved a great success. Many priests, who were trained there, subsequently became well-known; the seminary itself furnished a model to be imitated by various bishops.[53] Ultimately, this idea of St. Augustine’s was adopted by Pope Leo I.;[54] and the example thus set by Rome was followed by several bishops in Gaul, notably by Sidonius Apollinaris, Bishop of Clermont, St. Hilary, Bishop of Arles, and Gregory, Bishop of Tours.

The schools established by the bishops in Gaul are of special interest to us, because the first available reference to education in this country is the statement by Bede that Sigebert “wishing to imitate what he had seen well ordered among the Gauls” “instituit scolam in qua pueri litteris erudirentur.”[55] It is consequently necessary that we should next turn to the educational system of Gaul at this time.

There had existed in Gaul from Roman times (as in other parts of the Empire) schools of the Graeco-Roman type to which we have previously referred. The barbarian invasions, however, brought these schools to an end. When social conditions reasserted themselves, the old condition of things had passed away and Christianity had become a power in the land. In the educational reconstruction which followed, the bishops played an important part and two types of schools were ultimately to be found in Gaul, the monastic schools and the episcopal schools.

The monastic schools taught theology mainly, but instruction was also given in speaking, reading and writing Latin, in copying manuscripts, in painting and architecture, and in elementary notions of astronomy and mathematics.[56] The most famous of these schools were those of Luxeuil, Soissons, Lérins and Saint-Vandrille. At the last-named school there were about three hundred scholars.

The Episcopal Schools were closely modelled on the type originated by St. Augustine. They were mainly intended for those who proposed to offer themselves for ordination. The curriculum of these schools was narrower and more definitely theological than that of the monastic schools. The best known were those of Paris, Poitiers, Le Mans, Clermont, Vienne, Chalons-sur-Saône and Gaps. These schools, however, differed from the seminary of St. Augustine on which they were modelled because the special circumstances of the time rendered it necessary that classes were also held in connection with them for the boys, who were attached in some capacity or other to the cathedral church. Thus the choir boys and others who were desirous of preparing themselves for subsequent employment in any capacity in which the education available would afterwards be of service to them, found in these classes the opportunities they sought.

Our analysis of the educational institutions existing in Gaul in the sixth century has brought out that there existed, as models for imitation, the monastic schools and the episcopal schools. In addition, schools had also developed in connection with the parish churches, but we propose to deal with that development later. We have already considered the monastic schools of this country; our present problem is then to consider whether there is any evidence that schools, conducted by the bishop himself or by his deputy, similar to those we have shown to have existed in France, were to be found in this country.

Our reply is emphatically in the affirmative. Thus there was a school at Hexham. Bede tells us of Herebald, who was a member of the school kept by St. John of Beverley, whilst Bishop of Hexham. “When in the prime of my youth,” Herebald is reported to have said, “I lived among his clergy[57] applying myself to reading and singing.”[58] Another school existed at Canterbury, and during the time it was conducted by Archbishop Theodore and the Abbot Hadrian it ranked as the most famous of the episcopal schools of this country. With regard to these two famous teachers, Bede writes: “They gathered a crowd of disciples, and there daily flowed from them rivers of knowledge to water the hearts of their hearers; and, together with the books of Holy Writ, they also taught them the arts of ecclesiastical poetry, astronomy, and arithmetic. A testimony of which is, that there are living at this day some of their scholars who are as well versed in the Greek and Latin tongues as in their own in which they were born.”[59] It is owing to the labours of these two men that England, for a time, occupied the leading place in the schools of the west.[60] One of the most celebrated scholars of the school of Canterbury was Aldhelm, who can claim the distinction of being the first Englishman who cultivated classical learning with any success, and the first of whom any literary remains are preserved.[61] Bede describes Aldhelm as “a wonder of erudition in the liberal as well as ecclesiastical learning.”[62] It is from a letter written by Aldhelm that we gain an insight into the curriculum followed at Canterbury, and learn that the course of study pursued there included grammar, geometry, arithmetic, metre, astronomy, and Roman Law.[63]

A third famous episcopal school was that of York, of which we possess a full account in Alcuin’s poem “De Pontificibus Sanctae Ecclesiae Eboracensis.” Alcuin writes in most eulogistic terms of the work of this school, and, more particularly, of the educational labours of Archbishop Albert, to whom Alcuin was personally indebted for the instruction he received.

“He gave drink to thirsty minds at the fountain of the sciences. To some he communicated the art and the rules of grammar; for others he caused floods of rhetoric to flow; he knew how to exercise these in the battles of jurisprudence, and those in the songs of Adonis; some learned from him to pipe Castalian airs and with lyric foot to strike the summit of Parnassus; to others he made known the harmony of the heavens, the courses of the sun and the moon, the five zones of the pole, the seven planets, the laws of the courses of the stars, the motions of the sea, earthquakes, the nature of men, and of beasts and of birds, and of all that inhabit the forest. He unfolded the different qualities and combinations of numbers; he taught how to calculate with certainty the solemn return of Eastertide and, above all, he explained the mysteries of the Holy Scriptures.”[64]

The library of the school at York was particularly famous, and included the works of Jerome, Hilarius, Ambrose, Augustine, Athanasius, Orosius, Gregory, Leo, Basil, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, Chrysostom, Aldhelm, Bede, Victorinus, Boethius, Pliny, Aristotle, Cicero, Virgil, etc. Mullinger remarks of this library: “The imposing enumeration at once calls our attention to the fact that the library at York at this period far surpassed any possessed by either England or France in the twelfth century, whether at Christ Church, Canterbury, St. Victor at Paris, or at Bec.”[65]

The school at York is also important because it is the first known instance in English educational history of the bishop’s school being conducted by a member of the staff of clergy associated with the bishop, instead of by the bishop himself. On the death of Archbishop Albert, his successor, instead of taking personal charge of the school, entrusted that duty to Alcuin. This was a special case of the principle of the division of labour, and the example thus set at York was of considerable importance in the subsequent development of education in this country.

As Alcuin is commonly regarded as the most important educator of the first half of the Middle Ages, and as it was through Alcuin that England influenced continental education, a slight digression from the main purpose of this chapter, for the sake of indicating the importance of Alcuin, may be allowed. The only education which Alcuin received was obtained at the bishop’s school at York, and a consideration of this fact should assist us in realising that these schools were in practice the universities of the period. The reputation which Alcuin gained must have spread beyond the borders of this country, because Charles the Great, who had determined upon a scheme of educational reform in the dominions ruled by him, invited Alcuin to come to his court to occupy a position analogous to that of a Minister of Education of modern days. This position Alcuin occupied for fourteen years, and during that period the famous capitularies of 787, 789, and 802 were issued.[66] The effect of the reforms carried out by Alcuin was, that scholars were attracted from all parts of Europe to the court of Charles the Great, the Palace Schools were developed and invigorated, learning was promoted among the clergy, and the activities of the monastic and episcopal schools were stimulated. It has been suggested that the reforms attributed to Alcuin owed little to his individual genius, but were based entirely upon the practice he found in operation in York.[67] If this is so, then the educational facilities provided in this country in the eighth century must have been of much greater importance than is commonly conceived. The available evidence is, however, too scanty for any definite statements to be made on the subject.

Alcuin was a voluminous writer, and his works bear further witness to the intellectual activity of his day. They include epistles, poems, exegetical works, dogmatic writings, liturgical writings, biographical writings, studies, and dialogues.[68] His educational writings include works On Grammar, On Orthography, On Rhetoric, On Dialectic, etc. They are written in the characteristic Anglo-Saxon dialogue form. In his On Grammar, Alcuin shows that true happiness is to be found in the things peculiar to the soul itself rather than in those things which are alien to it; of these things, “wisdom is the chief adornment.” Progress in wisdom was to be obtained, so far as secular knowledge was concerned, by the “seven ascents of theoretical discipline,” i.e. the trivium and the quadrivium.

We have thus brought forward evidence to show that episcopal schools existed at Canterbury, York, and Hexham, and that advanced instruction was available at these centres. The general hypothesis we submit is that the cathedral city of each diocese became gradually recognised as a place of higher education, and that it was commonly regarded as the duty of the bishop to provide, either personally or by deputy, such higher education as the circumstances of the time rendered possible.

Facilities would also be required at these centres for elementary instruction, and also for instruction in the “specialist” art of writing. As the demand for such instruction arose, so the Church endeavoured to meet it, and classes were established for this purpose. Thus, in a letter written c. 796 by Alcuin to Eanbald II. Archbishop of York, he recommends that separate masters should be appointed to teach those “qui libros legant, qui cantilenae inserviant, qui scribendi studio deputentur.”[69]

With the spread of Christianity in this country, the parochial system originated. For this purpose, the Saxon “tun” was taken as the unit of ecclesiastical organisation and it became known as the “parish,” the specific area placed under the spiritual over-sight of the parish priest. We must again remind ourselves that Latin was the language of the Church, and that to participate in the worship offered by the Church, to join in its psalms, to understand its doctrines properly, or in fact to become in any sense of the word a “churchman,” a knowledge of Latin was imperative. A custom naturally arose that the parish priest should keep a “school of grammar,” or, as we should term it to-day, should hold a Latin class for those who were desirous of learning that language. In course of time this custom became obligatory and a part of the law of the Church. Thus, at the Council of Vaison held in 529, it was decreed that each priest, who was in charge of a parish, should also have at his house a class of young men for the purpose of preparing them for the sacred ministry. These young men were also to be engaged in teaching the small children. The bishop in his visitation of the parish made enquiries as to whether this law was carried into effect.[70]

The enactment of Vaison was repeated by subsequent decrees of the Church, notably by that of Tours, and the establishment of schools of grammar to be taught by the parish priest was a definite part of the system of the Church.[71] This requirement was reiterated from time to time. Thus Theodulf of Orleans, the coadjutor of Alcuin in carrying out the educational reforms of the kingdom of Charles the Great, issued a letter to his clergy in 797 in which he reminded them that “Presbyteri per villas et vicos scolas habeant, et si quilibet fidelium suos parvulos ad discendas litteras eis commendare vult, eos suscipere et docere non renuant.”[72]

Were these parochial grammar schools to be found in England? The direct evidence is very slight. In a letter which Alcuin wrote to Offa, King of Mercia, about 792, he recommends to him a schoolmaster;[73] this schoolmaster, however, does not appear to possess a strong moral character, as Alcuin warns Offa not “to let him wander about with nothing to do nor to become a slave to drink, but to provide him with scholars and require him to teach these diligently.” Then in another letter written by Alcuin and attributed to 797, the Bishop of Hexham is advised to pay attention to the education of boys and youths. It is stated in this letter that “it is a great work of charity to feed the poor with food for the body but a greater to fill the soul with spiritual learning.”

Apart from this evidence, there are a few references in Domesday Book which tend to support the idea of parochial schools and which we will subsequently consider. All that we can do here is to assume that, just as the Church in this country followed the general practice of the Church in the establishment of schools in connection with monasteries and cathedral churches, so she also followed the custom and precept of the Church in establishing schools in connection with the parish churches.

CHAPTER III.

THE EDUCATIONAL REVIVAL.

The Danish invasions checked temporarily the remarkable educational progress this country was making. Beginning early in the ninth century, the era of Danish reconnoitring excursions closes with the year 855; the era of methodical plundering with the year 876. As a consequence of their various immigrations, the greater part of the English coasts were ruined and devastated. Towns and ecclesiastical buildings were plundered and burnt. “The Church with its civilising and cosmopolitan influences was for a time swept out of great districts which fell momentarily into heathen hands.”[74]

After a long and fierce struggle with the invaders, Alfred, the West Saxon king, held them in check, and compelled them to make peace with him. Subsequently, in the tenth century, through the successive efforts of Alfred’s son, daughter, and grandson, the territory formerly yielded was regained.

From the ruin and desolation that the Danes had occasioned, it was the aim of King Alfred to raise his country. No sovereign could recognise more fully the value of Education than Alfred did. His general attitude is evidenced by the preface he wrote to his translation of Gregory the Great’s Pastoral Care. In it he refers to the reputation that this country at one time enjoyed on account of the wisdom and learning of its clergy. Then he proceeds to show that the decay that had set in had been so great that learning had practically disappeared from the country. He aimed at making his people familiar with the contents of some of the chief religious books, and, as the knowledge of Latin had by this time practically died out in the country, he sought to get them translated “into their own land-speech.” Not content with simply expressing a wish that this might be done, he endeavoured to stimulate the efforts of others by the example he set. In order that education might make greater progress in the future, he suggested that every English child born of free condition and who had the means or faculty, should during his youth “be given over to teachers ... till such time as they may know well to read English writing.” Those who evinced an interest in letters should then proceed to a study of Latin.

It is an interesting question to consider how and where these educational advantages were to be secured. Alfred himself had written: “So clean was learning fallen off from among English folk that few there were on this side Humber that could understand the service in English or even turn an errand writing from Latin into English. And not many were there, I ween, beyond Humber. So few they were that I cannot bethink me of so much as one south of the Thames when first I took the kingdom.” The suggestion of Alfred is that “now we must get these from without if we would have them.” Unfortunately no reliable evidence is available to assist us in suggesting an answer to the problem.

The educational activities of Alfred are described at length in Asser’s Life of Alfred.[75] The authenticity of this life, however, has been called in question, and though Stevenson argues strongly in its favour yet the evidence against is so strong that it is difficult to admit its claim to be considered what it professes to be. Still, even if the work is not a ninth century production, there is indisputable evidence of its existence in the tenth century. We can, therefore, regard the work as setting out the educational ideas which tradition, at any rate, considered to be in harmony with the character of King Alfred. From this pseudo-Asser, we learn that Alfred first acquired the power of reading Anglo-Saxon by the aid of a master, who was most probably one of the priests associated with the court. Alfred’s ambition to learn Latin was difficult of accomplishment because of the scarcity of teachers of that subject. For the education of his children, Alfred arranged that they, together with the young nobles and some promising youths of lower origin, should be instructed by masters who should teach their pupils to read both Latin and Saxon. Thus the king established at his court a Palace School similar to that founded by Charles the Great.

Though all the details given in Asser cannot be accepted as true, yet the general statement that Alfred played an important part in stimulating the educational activity of his country is unquestioned. His efforts must be regarded as the beginning of a national concern for education, as Alfred, though a pious and religious king, was actuated not by a desire to recruit the ranks of the priesthood but by a wish to make his subjects capable of discharging more effectively the duty they owed to the state. This, he considered, could be secured through education. If this contention is sound, then Alfred was the first Englishman to recognise the sociological significance of education.

There is, unfortunately, no evidence that the efforts of Alfred, in the direction of improving the education of his country, met with any success. There would be practical difficulties in securing a sufficient number of keen and capable priests from abroad; the secular clergy of this country had scarcely proved equal to the trust reposed in them. To the thoughtful observer of the day the end in view could be obtained only through the restoration of monasticism. We learn that Edgar, as a youth, had made a vow to restore as many monasteries as possible,[76] but “until Dunstan and Athelwold revived learning in the monastic life, no English priest could either write a letter in Latin or understand one.”[77] We must therefore turn to those “three torches” of the Church—Dunstan, Oswald, and Athelwold—in order to learn how a revival of interest in education was effected.

We are fortunate in possessing two biographies of Dunstan which were practically contemporary writings, as one was written within sixteen, and the other within twenty-three years of his death. “Both of these are dedicated to his successors, who knew him well, as being his fellow scholars and his own disciples.” Dunstan was born at Glastonbury in 925, and the old monastic buildings in a semi-ruinous condition still existed there at that time. They were then tenanted by some Irish scholars who had come to Glastonbury to visit the tomb of Patrick the Younger.[78] To these clerks Dunstan was sent at an early age for instruction. He made rapid progress and not only acquired a mastery of grammar, but also showed excellence in other branches of study.[79] Consequently, he exposed himself to the charge of “studying the vain poems and trifling histories of ancient paganism, to be a worker of magic.”[80]

Dunstan, whilst still a young man, was introduced to the court of King Athelstan by Aldhelm, Archbishop of Canterbury, stated by Adelard, one of the biographers of Dunstan, to have been his uncle. A serious illness and the jealousy of some of the nobles led to Dunstan’s retirement from court. On the advice of Alfeah the Bald, bishop of Winchester, he took the monastic vows,[81] and in 946 was made Abbot of Glastonbury. He did all in his power to develop the growth and importance of the monastery, and it is interesting to find that under his rule, the establishment of Glastonbury was more of a school than a monastery; “the words ‘scholasticus’ and ‘discipulus’ come more naturally than ‘monachus.’”[82] After holding various bishoprics, Dunstan became Archbishop of Canterbury in 959, and was then in a position to undertake the task of restoring the monastic conditions of the country and consequently of stimulating its educational activities.

Turning to the coadjutors of Dunstan in his work of reform, we note that Athelwold (who became Abbot of Abingdon in 953, and Bishop of Winchester in 965) was one of his pupils. He attained “a most generous skill in the art of grammar and the honeyed sweetness of verse; he was not only familiar with the Bible, but also with the catholic and most famous authors.”[83] Oswald, the other colleague of Dunstan, had been for some time an inmate of the monastery at Fleury.

The point which we wish here to emphasise is that the men of the time who were in a position to judge were of the opinion that the only effective method of producing a reform in the educational condition of the country was primarily through the erection of monasteries, destined to be centres of intellectual activity. With this object in view, they used every possible means to build or restore monasteries in different parts and to place over them men who were not only spiritually minded but who were also men of learning and ability. We learn that in pursuance of this policy, forty monasteries for men and eight for women were erected during the reigns of Edgar and his sons.[84] The men at the head of these institutions taught personally in the schools. Thus we learn of Dunstan being in charge of the school at Glastonbury,[85] and of Aethelwold who “did not scorn ever to explain the difficulties of Donatus and Priscian to little boys.”[86]

Efforts were also made to keep in touch with foreign monasteries, especially those of Ghent, Corbeil, and Fleury. These monasteries were appealed to, to send men of learning to the English monasteries, and also for advice in the conduct of the monasteries.[87] In 968 the Abbot of Ramsey sent to Fleury for a master to rule the schools, because “the study of letters and the use of schools had almost died out in England.”[88] The master sent in response to this appeal was Abbo, who is described as being well versed in the trivium and the quadrivium.[89] Abbo spent two years at Ramsey and wrote a book Quaestiones Grammaticales for the purpose of testing the knowledge acquired by the monks of his monastery.[90] Among the pupils of Abbo was the anonymous author of the Vita S. Oswaldi (a work which shows that the writer was a man of culture and learning), and Byrhtferth, who wrote commentaries on Bede’s mathematical treatises and shows a knowledge of Latin authors.[91]

In 817, by the council of Aachen, it had been decreed that no one was to be admitted to the monastery schools unless he was destined for the monastic life. It does not appear that this distinction was observed in England during the Saxon period, and it seems probable that the English monasteries continued to receive pupils irrespective of whether or not they intended ultimately to enter the monastery. Thus we learn that the scholars of Dunstan at Glastonbury were of all ages, from the little boy[92] to the man who had already taken priest’s orders.[93] Then, of the pupils of Wulfstan, we learn that they included both young and old, and that many of them subsequently became secular priests.[94] Again, in the picture drawn by Aelfric of a monastery school of the period,[95] it will be noted that the pupils included not only a professed monk but also others who were engaged in secular pursuits. We also read that the boys who attended the school at Ramsey Abbey were allowed to go outside the cloisters for play and recreation.[96]

We may summarise the educational work of Dunstan and his comrades by pointing out that a new race of scholars sprang up in the restored cloisters, some of whom were not unworthy to be ranked with the disciples of Alcuin and Bede. One of these pupils was Aelfric,[97] at one time Abbot of Eynsham, who is of special interest as the writer of certain educational and other works: an Anglo-Latin Grammar, a Glossary, and a translation of various extracts from Latin writers into Anglo-Saxon under the title of Homilies. Aelfric’s Grammar is of special interest from the point of view of the study of the principles of teaching, as it indicates the writer was desirous of presenting his subject to his pupils in such a manner as to facilitate their progress. “I am well aware,” he writes, “that many will blame me for being willing to devote my time to such a pursuit as to turn the Art of Grammar into English. But I destine this lesson book for little boys who know nothing, not for their elders. I know that words can be construed in many different ways, but to avoid raising difficulties I follow the simplest meaning.”[98]

From Aelfric’s Colloquy we are able to learn something of a monastic school at work. The Colloquy consists of a dialogue between the master and various boys, and was intended as a First Latin Exercise book. Aelfric accompanies the Latin prose with an Anglo-Saxon interlinear translation. The dialogue opens with the request from the boys that the master would teach them to speak correctly. This, of course, relates to the ability to converse freely in the Latin tongue. Incidentally, the next question throws some light on the mode by which it was then customary to stimulate the boys to apply themselves to their school tasks.

Master: “Will you be flogged while learning?”

Boy: “We would rather be flogged while learning than remain ignorant; but we know that you will be kind to us and not flog us unless you are obliged.”

Then, towards the end of the Colloquy, there is a conversation between the Master and a professed monk.

M.—“Were you flogged to-day?”

B.—“I was not because I was very careful.”

M.—“And how about the others?”

B.—“Why do you ask me that? I daren’t tell you our secrets. Each one knows whether he was flogged or not.”

Of the boys in the supposed school, one was a professed monk, others were ploughmen, shepherds, hunters, fishermen, hawkers, merchants, shoemakers, salters, and bakers. The daily routine of each of them is gone through, and in this way an extensive vocabulary is introduced. One of the passages implies that the school was not restricted to the “free” classes. Thus, after the ploughman has given an account of his day’s work, the dialogue continues:—

M.—“O magnus labor est.”

A.—“Etiam, magnus labor est, quia non sum liber.”

Then the boys in turn argue which occupation is the most useful, and a counsellor is called in to decide the question. The Colloquy closes with some good advice: “All you good children and clever scholars, your teacher exhorts you to keep the commandments of God and behave properly everywhere. Walk quietly when you hear the Church bells and go into Church and bow to the Holy Altar, and stand quietly and sing in unison, and ask pardon for your sins, and go out again without playing to the cloister or to school.”[99]

So far we have described the monastic revival that took place under Dunstan. Dunstan, however, quite clearly realised that the monasteries alone would not provide sufficient opportunities for the revival of education in England. Though nearly fifty monasteries had been erected, yet that number would meet the need of only a comparatively small section of the community. Further, no monastic institution north of the Humber (with the doubtful exception of Ripon) had escaped the destruction wrought by the Danes. Under these circumstances, Dunstan determined to stimulate the parish priests to a sense of their duty in the matter of education. In the preceding chapter[100] we noted that about 797, Theodulf of Orleans had promulgated certain canons at a diocesan synod; these canons Dunstan adopted, and secured their enactment for this country. They run:—[101]

10. And we enjoin that no priest receive another’s scholar without the leave of him whom he formerly employed.

11. And we enjoin that every priest in addition to lore do diligently learn a handicraft.

12. And we enjoin that no learned priest put to shame the half-learned, but amend him if he know better.

13. And that every Christian man zealously accustom his children to Christianity and teach them the Pater Noster and Creed.

22. And we enjoin that every man learn so that he know the Pater Noster and Creed, if he wish to lie in a hallowed grave, or to be worthy of housel; because he is not truly a Christian who will not learn them, nor may he who knows them not receive another man at baptism, not at the bishop’s hands ere he learn them.

21. And we enjoin that priests diligently teach youth, and educate them in crafts that they may have ecclesiastical support.

It is impossible to estimate the extent to which these canons were complied with. It is, however, noteworthy that evidence exists that in the first half of the tenth century it was customary for boys of good family to receive education from a priest. Thus Odo, who was Archbishop of Canterbury from 942-959, was taught “by a certain religious man while a boy in the household of the thane Athelhelm.”[102] Again, Odo’s nephew, Oswald, was taught by a priest named Frithegode, who is said “to have been skilled in all the learning of that age in England, both secular and divine.”[103]

In dealing with education in Anglo-Saxon times, it is necessary to use even the slightest evidence of the existence of educational activity. Domesday Book is, of course, the great authority for the social condition of England at this period, and it is essential we should turn to that work for the purpose of investigating whether or not it contains any references which in any way relate to education.

As Professor Vinogradoff tells us, we get a good deal of information in the “Survey” about the tenure of churches.[104] “They are a necessary element of every township organisation. The parish church is the “tun kirke” of Old English times, and a tenement of a hide or two virgates is of right reserved to it.” The parish priest was remunerated in various ways, partly by tithes, partly by glebe, partly by “church scot.” It is in connection with this latter payment that we can trace a connection between the churches and education. In 376 A.D., Gratian issued an edict, which was applied in Britain, that teachers were to be paid in “annones,” that is, a measure of corn. Now “church scot” was a species of tax imposed on houses or buildings for the payment of the priest.[105] There are two passages quoted by Vinogradoff which seem to connect this payment of “church scot” with the “annones,” which were perhaps originally intended as payments for the work of the priests as teachers of schools. On page 441 he writes:—

“Every socman possessed of a hide has to pay one carriage load of corn, called annona, to his parish church, and there is a provision for the case of non-performance of this duty as in Worcestershire.” And on page 418 we read that “the shire gave evidence that the church of Pershore ought to have church rent from 300 hides, that is, one load of corn from every hide in which a franklin is settled.”

It is not suggested that any stress should be laid on these extracts. They are interesting as indicating the possibility that a part of the remuneration of the parish priest was a payment for his services as a teacher.

In Domesday Book itself, three references to education have been traced:—

1. Wilton Church in Wiltshire was endowed for teaching.[106]

2. Lands in Oxfordshire were given by King Edward the Confessor to the Abbey of Westminster for the education and support of a novice.[107]

3. Aluuid, a young woman, held half a hide of the demesne lands at Oakley (Bucks) for teaching the daughter of Earl Godric.[108]

Taken alone, these instances do not amount to much, but when they are considered in relation to the decrees and custom of the Church and the canons promulgated in the reign of King Edgar, they tend to support the contention that provision for education was actually made in the various parishes of this country.

Turning next to the Collegiate Churches, whether of a cathedral dignity or not, we note that no evidence of their scholastic activities is available until after the Danish conquest. Then we learn that when Canute visited a famous monastery or borough, he sent there “at his own expense boys to be taught for the clerical or monastic order.”[109] This statement is made by a contemporary of the king and is consequently worthy of credence. It was repeated by Abbot Samson who wrote about a century later. Samson, however, exaggerates matters and states that Canute was “so great a lover of religion” that he established public schools[110] in the cities and boroughs “charging the expense on the public purse.”[111]

It is difficult to say what these statements mean. They may mean that Canute gave further endowments to particular churches on the understanding that an additional priest, who would be responsible for the teaching of the boys, would be maintained, or that endowments were given to monasteries with the implied understanding that they were given to meet the expenses incurred in the support of the boys intended for a monastic profession. Again, it is probable that by now the custom had grown up of requiring payments from the boys who attended the classes of the priests; in that case the statements would simply mean that Canute made certain grants to the particular church to free those whom he nominated from any further charges.

The account available of the foundation of Holy Cross Collegiate Church, Waltham, and its re-foundation by Earl Harold,[112] enables us to understand the organisation of the Collegiate Churches of the period and the nature of the provision made for education. Originally, there were only two clerks on this foundation; Earl Harold by additional endowments made it possible for eleven further clerks to be added. Just as the monasteries sent to Fleury and other monasteries of note for guidance in the conduct of their monasteries, so it appears that some of the Collegiate Churches sent abroad for guidance in the direction of their institutions. Thus we learn that, at Waltham a certain “Master Athelard” came from Utrecht that he might “establish at Waltham Church the laws, statutes, and customs both in ecclesiastical and in secular matters of the churches in which he had been educated.”[113] The church seems to have been organised on the model of a monastic community; a number of clerks lived together under specified rules; discipline was strictly enforced. A dean, described as “a religious man, illustrious for his character, well known for his literary learning,” was placed over the clerks. The schoolmaster was apparently a most important official; his authority seems to have equalled that of the dean; he taught reading, the composition of prose and verse, and singing.[114] A stringent discipline prevailed. We learn that the boys of the choir “walked, stood, read and chanted, like brethren in religion, and whatever had to be sung at the steps of the choir or in the choir itself they sang and chanted by heart, one or two or more together, without the help of a book. One boy never looked at another when they were in their places in choir, except sideways and that very seldom, and they never spoke a word to one another; they never walked about the choir.... And in walking in procession from school they go to choir, and on leaving the choir go to school.”[115]

Between thirty and forty churches of secular canons are registered in Domesday Book, the majority of which were founded during the reign of Edward the Confessor. Among these pre-Conquest Collegiate Churches were All Saints’ Church, Warwick, Beverley Minster, and St. Martins-le-Grand, London. At each of these churches one of the priests acted as schoolmaster, and so we assume that wherever a Collegiate Church was founded, there it was customary to delegate the task of giving instruction in Latin and Music respectively to definite persons. We know that at Warwick and Beverley there was a separate master for Song, and hence we may infer that, wherever possible, separate instructors were provided for these subjects.

It must, however, be admitted that the direct evidence of general education during the Anglo-Saxon period is slight and that we are consequently largely driven to conjecture. We are justified in definitely asserting that some of the monasteries were centres of intellectual activity, and that systematic education was given in connection with some of the collegiate churches. It is also extremely probable that it was a general custom for the parish priest to give instruction in Latin to those who wished for such instruction, but it is impossible, so far as our knowledge goes now, to assert anything more than probability in this connection.

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.”

Apart from the practical and tangible effects of the Feudal System, medieval theorising on politics brought forward arguments to support the contention that the Church was not only distinct from, but was in certain essential respects superior to, the State. The starting point in such theorising was the dogma of the two powers, the Spiritual and the Temporal, the power of the priesthood derived from the King of Kings, the power of the State derived from the ability to exercise force.

Ecclesiastics maintained that of these two powers the greater dignity pertained to the spiritual. This arose directly from the views of the early Church as to the relative importance of the earthly life and of the life to come. To save souls was more important than to regulate physical life; hence, those whose function it was to save souls were not only more worthy of honour than those who simply sought to control temporal activities, but they possessed an authority of a higher and more responsible character. The claim of the Church to a power of inspection and correction in reference to the behaviour and motives of secular rulers enhanced its authority still further. To the sacerdotal mind not only were princes laymen, but of all laymen they were the class most prone to sin and consequently were most in need of clerical censure. Among the duties of the kings which were imperatively insisted upon were “respect for and protection of the Church and her ministers.” Hincmar, Gregory VII., and Innocent III. are prominent among those who may be quoted as the protagonists of the claim to ecclesiastical pre-eminence.

A weapon of great value in the enforcement of ecclesiastical demands was that of excommunication and anathema. This was considered to correspond to the death penalty of the Mosaic law, the employment of the sword of the Spirit. If, however, the fear of excommunication was insufficient to gain from a reluctant monarch respect for the wishes of the Church, then the power of deposition was resorted to. The authority to do this was based on the power claimed by the Church of absolving their members from the oaths of allegiance they had taken. This power was of special significance in a feudal state of society, at a time when the tendency to renounce allegiance was continually present and opportunity and pretext alone lacking.

The Norman Conquest not only intensified the development of the Feudal System in this country, but it also contributed largely to the recognition of the separate power of the Church. The Conquest had resulted in the administration of the country passing under the control of men who were “better managers, keener, more unscrupulous, less drunken and quarrelsome, better trained, hardier, thriftier, more in sympathy with the general European movements, more adventurous, more temperate.... The result was inevitably better organisation, quicker progress, great exactions and oppressions in Church and State.”[118] Moreover, the invasion had claimed to possess a religious character and to have for its object the regaining of an heritage which had been “filched by a perjured usurper.” The existing archbishops, bishops, and abbots fled or were deprived of their positions, and their places were filled, generally but not always, by men of foreign race. These men were not merely ecclesiastics, but were feudal lords in addition, and the temporal possessions they held in virtue of their dignities were not only considerable in themselves but, owing to various causes, were continually increasing. The clergy were thus in possession of increasing powers and additional interests, separate from and independent of the rest of their countrymen. The tendency was more and more marked for the Church to become conscious of her temporal powers, to feel jealous of her privileges, and insistent upon her rights.

This analysis of the relationship of Church and State, as it developed subsequent to the Norman Conquest, is necessary to enable us to realise the part taken by the Church in regard to education. The Church was not conceived of as a spiritual organisation existing simply for the purpose of promoting a closer fellowship between God and man, but rather as the partner of the State, and as having under her control all those national activities which might be described as “spiritual” in the special sense in which the term was employed at that time. Hence the central authority of the State was merely the organisation which controlled the activities which were definitely temporal. Regarded from the point of view which was common from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries, education was essentially “spiritual,” and consequently was classed under the activities for which the Church alone was responsible.

We pass next to consider the social and economic condition of the country during that period in which the Feudal System was the prevailing system of government. This is necessary because experience has shown that a close connection exists between the social and economic condition of a country and its system of education, in fact, it is impossible properly to understand the educational organisation of a country apart from its social development.

The Manorial System may be regarded as the social counterpart of the feudal mode of government. When the Manorial System first emerges upon the stage of history it is recognised that two elements enter into its constitution, the seignorial and the communal; a lord and a group of dependents having rights in common. The origin of the manor is a problem which is still obscure. The question at issue is whether a servile population, working for a superior who was absolute owner of the land, existed “from time immemorial,” or whether, at a particular stage of the development of a free community, an overlord succeeded in gaining the ascendancy and in imposing his will upon it. Two theories have been advanced. The Mark theory[119] maintains that a certain district, marked off from districts of a similar character, was held in common ownership, and that the Manorial System arose when through some particular cause the authority of a lord became recognised. The other theory is that set out by Seebohm in his English Village Community, where a connection is traced between the early English village and the Roman vill, and the conclusion arrived at that the English villages were servile and manorial from the earliest days of the Anglo-Saxon period.

Without attempting to express an opinion as to these two hypotheses, we may take “Domesday Book” as our starting point. From that book, we learn that over the greater part of England, villeins, cottars or bordars, and slaves made up the whole of the population of the country apart from the governing classes. Subsequent to the Norman Conquest, we can trace a rapid increase in the number of free tenants, due to a variety of circumstances, of which the chief were (1) the commutation by villeins of their services for money payments, (2) the enclosure and letting out of portions of the waste land, (3) the renting of portions of the lord’s own demesne. The term “free tenants,” as Professor Ashley has shown, is elastic enough to cover men in very different positions, “from the military tenant who had obtained a considerable holding in return for service in the field, down to the tenant who had received at a money rent one or two acres of the demesne, or of new cleared ground.”[120] The larger number of those who were known as free tenants were clearly virgate-holding villeins or their descendants, who had commuted their more onerous labour services of two or three days a week for a fixed sum of money, and who had been freed from what were regarded as the more servile “incidents” of their position.

In practice the manorial system implied that freedom of movement and choice of occupation scarcely existed. Even before serfs could send their children to school, it was necessary that the consent of the lord should be obtained, and in many cases fines were exacted before this permission was granted. Thus, in the single manor of Woolrichston, in Warwickshire, we learn that in 1361, Walter Martin paid 5s. for the privilege of putting his son “ad scholas”; in 1371, William Potter paid 13s. 4d. that his eldest son might go “ad scholas,” and Stephen Prout paid 3s. 4d.; in 1335, William at Water paid for a licence for his younger son William “ad sacrum ordinem promovendum.”[121]

The point which we wish to emphasise here, is that the only real social distinction on a manor was that between a lord and his tenants. Between these two grades there was a great gulf fixed. Socially, they were as far asunder as the poles. Between the tenants themselves the social separation was slight. “The yardling and the cotter worked in the same way; their manner of life was the same.”[122] Even the priest in charge of the majority of the village churches belonged to the same social grade as his parishioners, and, in many cases, he was as poor as any of them, and glad enough to get a few acres and to add to his income by joining in the common agriculture.[123]

Passing from the villages to the towns, we may note that at the time of the Norman Conquest there were only about eighty towns in England, and that most of these towns were distinguishable from the villages only by the earthen mounds which surrounded them. Even a town of the first rank cannot have had more than 7,000 or 8,000 inhabitants. Until the second half of the twelfth century, the majority of the burgesses still occupied themselves principally in the cultivation of the common fields, and only a minority specialised in trade or handicraft.[124]

Meredith distinguishes four stages in the evolution of a town, but he also makes the important proviso that though the majority of the towns passed through these various stages, yet it cannot be said that any one type of organisation prevailed in any given half-century. Certain factors might combine to make a particular town of great importance and to facilitate its rapid progress; hence the stage of development reached by one town early in the twelfth century might not be attained by another town until a century or more later. The stages are:—

(1) The embryo municipality is but slightly differentiated from a manorial village.

(2) The inhabitants increase in number and in wealth and are able to purchase self-government. At this stage a gild merchant is formed.

(3) The gild merchant loses its importance; its legislative and judicial work is undertaken by the municipality, whilst the separate craft gilds look after the interests of the various trades.

(4) The clear demarcation between town and country breaks down. The capitalist and wage-earning classes emerge and the central government makes inroads into the legislative powers of the municipality and gradually dispenses with the executive work of the crafts.

Is it possible to trace a connection between a social and economic condition such as we have described as existing in the manors and towns, and education? It is obvious that there could be little or no demand for education, because, before education is demanded, its value must be perceived. During this period there could not exist any idea of the culture value of education, the value of education for its own sake. Those who held official positions as bailiffs or stewards in connection with manorial estates might find a certain amount of education of value, but neither the demands of commerce nor the amenities of social life were sufficiently insistent to create a wish for education.

The main demand for education at this time came from those who desired some position or other in connection with the Church. As will be shown in a subsequent chapter, the Church provided facilities for education for three reasons: as a partner of the State she was responsible for providing it; as holding the view that intellectual training was necessary for moral perfection it was, of necessity, her mission to supply it; and in order that a sufficient number of adequately equipped clerks should be forthcoming, it would be imperative that she should take the necessary action.

An important question now arises. To whom did the Church offer facilities for education? To the gentry and nobility? To the middle classes? Or to the labouring classes? This question must be considered, partly because it arises out of our analysis of the social structure, and partly because of the views expressed by various writers on English education.[125]

The nature of the education received by the children of the “nobility and gentry” will be considered in Chapter VI.; here it will be sufficient to state that the intellectual part of their education was given by a priest, but it was provided at the expense of the relatives of those who received it; hence, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, the Church did not “provide” facilities for the education of the children who were of “gentle” lineage.

Two social classes remain: the middle classes and the “gutter poor,” as Mr. Leach elegantly terms them.[126] Which of these two classes did the Church endeavour to educate?

The answer is obvious when we consider the social structure of the period. For practical purposes,[127] the middle class in England did not exist until about the close of the fourteenth century. The social distinctions between the various classes of tenants on a manor were so slight as to be negligible; one class tended to merge into the other, so that it was impossible to draw a clear line of demarcation between them. Consequently when the question is asked as to the social grade for whom the Church provided educational facilities, the answer is that such facilities were offered regardless of social standing, and were available for the poorest, even the “gutter poor” if the term is desired.

Indisputable evidence of the social grade of those who attended the schools of the Church in the tenth century is available. Not only were the various classes of persons who were employed on agricultural labour, such as shepherds, cowherds, swineherds, represented, but even members of the “unfree” class are described as being present in the school of which Abbot Aelfric gives us a picture.[128]

As we shall be obliged to return to this subject again, on account of the common misconception, we may now defer further consideration.

CHAPTER I.

EDUCATIONAL LABOURS OF THE MONASTERIES.

The place of the monasteries in connection with the educational life of the country will become evident from a consideration of the special circumstances of the time. Monasticism, as we have shown, originated mainly from a sense of inability to lead a Christian life in an atmosphere largely tinged with paganism, and in which the prevailing ideal of life had sunk to a very low standard. The remarkable success of monasticism led to a great increase in the number of those who desired to enrol themselves as members of an organised religious community. In course of time, not only had Christianity become the generally accepted religion of the western world, but the monks had come to be regarded as the élite among the clergy. As a class, the secular clergy of this country of the ninth and tenth centuries had not shown themselves inspired with the same zeal, self-sacrifice, and fervour, which had marked the early missionaries; apparently they had been attracted to the clerical profession by a variety of motives, and not invariably from a sense of vocation. Learning does not appear to have been highly esteemed among them, and it would be a difficult matter to name, in this country at this period, many secular priests of outstanding ability. Generally speaking, the term “secular clergy” had come to denote men of lower ideals, of less learning, of less spirituality, and of less efficiency, than the regular clergy.

The monastic mission of the eleventh and twelfth centuries consequently differed appreciably from that undertaken by the Benedictine and Celtic monks in the seventh century. Originally the aim of the monks was the introduction of Christianity; now the task of the monks is to make the Church more efficient and powerful. Efficiency and power can be acquired by the Church in various ways—by its temporal wealth, by its political power, by its spiritual zeal, by its intellectual activities. It is only with the last named aspect of the work of the Church that we are here concerned. Education and religion were generally regarded as identical at the period with which we are dealing; the progress of religion was held to involve the spread of education. “Zeal for letters and religion,” remarks William of Malmesbury, “had grown cold many years before the coming of the Normans.”[129]

Here, then, is indicated the task which awaited the leaders of the Church, the revival of zeal for religion and letters. How were they to approach and solve the problem? We may legitimately assume that those who lived at the time, and who were in a position to know the special circumstances of the period, would also be in a position to consider the best policy to adopt. The method actually adopted by them for promoting the cause of “religion and letters” was, in the first place, by the establishment of monasteries. We learn that between 1066 and 1135, three monastic cathedrals, thirteen important monasteries for women, eleven important monasteries for men, seventeen Cluniac priories and sixty cells for foreign houses were founded in this country.[130]

One of the main effects of the Norman Conquest upon England, from an ecclesiastical point of view, was the substitution of Norman for the existing English bishops and abbots. Of the twenty-one abbots who attended the Council of London in 1075, thirteen were English; of these, only three held office at the accession of William Rufus.[131] From among the Normans of learning who came to occupy positions of importance in England may be mentioned Lanfranc and Anselm, successively Archbishops of Canterbury, Gundulf, Bishop of Rochester, Paul, Abbot of St. Albans, Water, Abbot of Evesham, Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster, Ernulf, Prior of Christchurch, Canterbury, and Thurstan, Abbot of Glastonbury, all of whom had been connected with the school attached to the monastery of Bec. Instances might also be given of ecclesiastics who came to this country from the schools of Rouen, of Cluny, of Mont St. Michel, of Bayeux, and of Laôn.[132]

These appointments are all the more significant because the Church in Normandy at this time was in a very flourishing condition, and was conspicuous for its learning;[133] hence the Norman Conquest, among other things, meant that men of learning and ability were appointed to the chief ecclesiastical positions in England.

Reference should be made here to the reforms effected at Cluny—a Benedictine monastery—in the second half of the eleventh century. Confining ourselves to the reforms that were connected with the intellectual activities of the monastery, we note that manual labour, in its literal sense, became practically non-existent. In its stead additional time was given to study and to the copying of manuscripts.[134]

The importance of Cluny for the educational progress of England arises from the fact that Lanfranc, who was appointed by the Conqueror to the position of Archbishop of Canterbury, had apparently studied the customs prevailing in that monastery,[135] and had based upon them the reforms which he sought to effect in his own Cathedral monastery at Canterbury,[136] and also endeavoured to introduce into other monasteries in this country.[137]

The two men who successively occupied the position of Archbishop of Canterbury after the Conquest are of special importance both from an ecclesiastical and from an educational point of view. Lanfranc had acquired a reputation as a schoolmaster before he took up residence in this country. His first school was conducted at Avranches, where he attracted many scholars; subsequently he entered the monastery of Bec, where he opened a school in connection with the monastery, the fame of which spread widely. Scholars educated at this school subsequently occupied most important ecclesiastical positions both here and on the continent. Among them were Pope Alexander II., and Ivo who afterwards became famous in connection with the school at Chartres.

After Lanfranc became Archbishop of Canterbury he issued his “Constitutiones,” a series of regulations for the control of the monastery of Christ Church, Canterbury. For the most part, these regulations relate to the stringent discipline which Lanfranc wished to enforce; educationally, they show that he followed the course of study in the monastery which had been customary since the council of Aix-la-Chapelle in 817. The curriculum of the school included the psalms, writing, and reading and speaking Latin.

After the death of Lanfranc, the see of Canterbury was vacant till a dangerous illness frightened William Rufus into the necessity for taking action in the matter. He compelled Anselm, who had succeeded Lanfranc as Prior of Bec, to accept the position. Under Anselm the reputation of the school at Bec had been enhanced, so that it had become generally regarded as the principal centre of learning in Western Europe. Little direct evidence of the connection of Anselm with education in England is available, but it may fairly be assumed that a man, whose learning was so generally recognised and whose influence on European thought was so great, would of necessity react upon the condition of learning in this country and tend to bring education into greater repute.

The work of the monasteries for education during the eleventh and twelfth centuries may be considered under three heads: (1) the part they played in connection with a revival of learning, (2) their connection with schools, and (3) their contribution to the production of books.

I.—The Revival of Learning.

To bring about an increased interest in learning was generally regarded as the first of monastic reforms.[138] This opinion was so common that it almost became proverbial: Claustrum sine armario castrum sine armamentario.[139] How was this interest in letters to be secured? Obviously by requiring the monks to spend a greater amount of time in study, and by causing them to copy a greater number of books, which would afterwards be available for the use of the monastery. The first of these was, as we have seen, an essential reform at Cluny, the model for the English monastic reformers. A considerable amount of evidence is available to show that the new abbots of the monasteries regarded it as important that their libraries should be well stocked with books. At St. Albans the Abbot Paul built a scriptorium in which hired writers copied the MSS. lent him by Lanfranc, and he provided an endowment to secure the continuance of the work.[140] A subsequent abbot, Simon de Gorham, initiated the custom that the abbot should always maintain one writer in the scriptorium at his own expense.[141] At Malmesbury the Abbot Godfrey paid special attention to the formation of a library and to the education of the monks. Under his rule the monks, who had previously been considered as ignorant, equalled, even if they did not surpass, those of any other monastery in the country.[142] Other instances which may be quoted are those of Bath,[143] Thorney,[144] and Abingdon.[145]

II.—The Provision of Schools.

The question of the provision of schools by monasteries is a matter of considerable controversy. Turning first to the continental custom, we note, on the one hand, that the decree of the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle of 817 provided that “schola in monasterio non habeatur nisi eorum qui oblati sunt”[146]; and, on the other hand, that there is the incontrovertible case of the school in connection with the monastery of Bec, conducted first by Lanfranc and later by Anselm.[147] In addition, reference might also be made to the hostel maintained at Cluny, at the expense of the monastery, for clerks of noble birth who attended the schools in the town.[148] It is not suggested that any general conclusion as to the existence of external monastic schools can be drawn from these instances, but it does establish the point that the decree of the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle alone cannot be considered as sufficient evidence that, after the ninth century, the monasteries ceased to interest themselves in the provision and maintenance of schools.

Turning next to this country, we find that schools for the inmates of the monasteries and for their prospective members were instituted as a matter of course. This point is so generally admitted as not to call for specific evidence in its support.[149] The question at issue is: did the monasteries in England make any provision for the education of external pupils? We are not concerned here with the further question why they should interest themselves in the subject; our only task is to enquire whether or not they actually did so. To summarise the main evidence to support the statement that some of the monasteries took an interest in the provision of schools, we may note that there existed a secular school in connection with the Abbey at St. Albans, and that among the famous headmasters of this school were Geoffrey of Maine[150] and Neckham[151]; a cell in connection with the monastery of St. Albans was in charge of a monk who kept school[152]; the Abbot Samson of Bury St. Edmunds gave an endowment towards the payment of a master of a secular school at Bury,[153] and provided a hostel in connection with the school[154]; schools existed on two of the manors belonging to St. Edmund’s Abbey to which the Abbots appointed the masters.[155] Schools were also supported by monasteries at Evesham, Bruton, and other places.[156] In those cases in which monastic orders took the place of secular canons, they continued the work of their predecessors, e.g. at Waltham,[157] at Huntingdon,[158] at Canterbury,[159] and at Christ Church, Twinham.[160]

The conclusion seems to be that monasteries directly provided schools for their own members only within the walls of the monasteries, and that, when opportunity occurred and necessity demanded, they also undertook the responsibility of providing schools in their neighbourhood for all who might care to attend. As is shown by the appointments at Bury St. Edmunds, in those cases in which the monasteries were in charge of schools, the masters appointed to these schools were men of high intellectual attainments. This is what would naturally be expected when the mental calibre of some of these Norman abbots is considered; thus, Warin[161] was a master of the University of Salerno,[162] John de Cella, his successor,[163] was a master of Paris, and is described as “in Greek, esteemed a Priscian, in verse an Ovid, in Physic, a Galen”[164]; and the Abbot Samson, the hero of Carlyle’s Past and Present, was at one time the “magister scolarum” at Bury St. Edmunds.[165]

III.—The Writing of Books.

Though a full consideration of this topic would serve to illustrate the intellectual activities of the monasteries, yet such a discussion lies outside the scope of our investigation. For our purpose a brief reference only is necessary, merely to illustrate the point that interest in educational matters was continued in the monasteries, and to mention that we owe to the monkish scribes most of the material that is available at the present time for the reconstruction of the historical development of this country. As representative writers of the eleventh and twelfth centuries may be mentioned William of Malmesbury, Orderic Vitalis, Henry of Huntingdon, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Florence of Worcester, Simeon of Durham, Roger Wendover, Matthew of Westminster, and Eadmer of Canterbury.

CHAPTER II.

SOME TERMS IN DISPUTE.

It is inevitable that confusion of thought occurs in dealing with any department of knowledge, unless there is a general agreement as to the meaning to be assigned to the terms which are employed. With the possible exception of Economics, Education suffers more than any other science from the ambiguous use of terms. Consequently it is advisable, at this juncture, to indicate the sense in which some of the terms frequently used in this thesis are understood. This is particularly necessary because the terms we propose to consider are often used in a sense different from that in which, in our opinion, they were employed in medieval times. We have selected the following for consideration—School, Free, Grammar, Song, Writing, and Reading.

School.

When the term “school” is employed to-day, it is usually taken to mean the “school-house,” i.e. the building in which the work of the school is carried on. It must, however, be emphasised that in medieval times a school-house was an “accident.” Specific buildings for teaching purposes were a comparatively late development in the history of schools. The term “school” considered etymologically means “leisure,” and probably the modern idea of school developed from the fact that the leisure time to which σχολὴ specially related was that which was given up to discussion. A second stage of development is reached when the term is restricted to organised school. The essential idea of a school at this stage is that of a master and his scholars. The master might be a man of over seventy years of age and his pupils men of middle age (as was probably the case in the school conducted by Archbishop Theodore), or the master might simply be a youth, and his pupils a few village children learning their letters, as would be the case in the schools taught by the youths preparing for the priesthood in the house of the parish priest; in each case the term “school” was equally applied and considered equally appropriate. The place where the school was held was a matter of indifference. It might be held in the open air, in the cloisters of a monastery, in some part of a collegiate church, or possibly in some more suitable place. Then, too, the school might be held at regular intervals or it might simply meet occasionally. Briefly we may say that the conception of “school” was in a state of flux, and merely implied that a master and pupils met together for purposes of instruction.

We may point out here that it would assist in clear thought if the use of the term “school” could be restricted to those cases in which the erection of a school-house constituted a definite and objective sign of the existence of a school, and to employ the term “class” for such gatherings of teacher and pupils as were held otherwise. If this suggestion could be adopted investigations into the origin of schools would become much more definite and valuable. To illustrate this statement, we may consider the statement in Bede, that Sigebert in 631 “instituit scolam, in qua pueri litteris erudirentur.”[166] What does this phrase precisely mean? If the statement had been that Sigebert founded a monastery or a church, then we should not be in any doubt on the matter. We have not been able to trace in any edition of the writings of Bede any interpretation of “scola,” as the various editors take it for granted that its meaning is not in dispute. Thus Bright in dealing with the passage in Bede we have quoted, assumes that a school existed at Canterbury in connection with the monastery of SS. Peter and Paul, and that the school which Bishop Felix established at the wish of King Sigebert was probably attached to the primitive East Anglian Cathedral which had been erected at Dunwich, then a town on the Suffolk coast, but now annihilated by the sea.[167] But neither at Canterbury nor at Dunwich would a specific building for the school be provided. Consequently the phrase from Bede, which is an important passage in the history of English educational history, simply means that certain priests, who had obtained some experience in the art of teaching, were specifically assigned the duty of teaching the Latin language in classes held in the church buildings, to those who might care to attend.

We have not found it possible in this thesis to distinguish carefully between a “class” and a “school.” We are obliged to content ourselves with indicating the danger that exists of reading into the medieval use of the term school the meaning commonly applied to the term at the present time.

Grammar.

The term “grammar” gradually superseded that of “letters” as the specified purpose for which schools were founded. So far as England is concerned, the first occasion on which the actual words “scola grammatice” occur, is in a document of the latter half of the eleventh century.[168] The term became more common in the thirteenth century owing to the necessity of distinguishing grammar schools from the “schools” of the higher faculties in the universities. “The first actual use of the term ‘grammar school’ in English appears to be in 1387 A.D. when John of Trevisa, translating from the Latin of Ralph Higden’s ‘Polychronicon,’ mentions a ‘gramer scole’ held at Alexandria.”[169] By the fourteenth century therefore the phrase “grammar school” had entered into ordinary colloquial speech.

But what does this term “grammar” exactly denote? On the plinths of the right bay of the great west doors of Chartres Cathedral are to be found statues of the Seven Liberal Arts. With reference to these statues, Dr. Clerval in his work on “Chartres, sa Cathédrale et ses Monuments,” writes:—

“Les autres cordons représentent les sept Arts libéraux qui ornaient l’esprit de la Vierge symbolisés chacun par une femme portant les attributs de chaque science, et par un homme, le corypliée de cette science, assis devant un pupître, avec plume, canif, encre, éponges, règles. Ainsi au bas du premier cordon de droite, c’est la Musique frappant trois cloches avec un marteau, et dessous Pythagore. Au second cordon à gauche en bas, c’est la Dialectique, portant un lizard subtil et un sceptre, et dessous Aristotle; puis la Rhétorique, discourant, et dessous Ciceron; la Géométrie avec un compas, et dessous Euclide; l’Arithmetique (en redescendant) avec un livre, et dessous Boèce ou Pythagore; l’Astronomie regardant le Ciel et portant un boisseau, et dessous Plotonée, portant une lunette; enfin la Grammaire, assise, menaçant de verges deux jeunes écoliers lisant à ses pieds, et au-dessous Priscien ou Donat. Ces représentations des Arts très curieuses sont les plus anciennes avec celles de Laôn. Elles s’expliquent à Chartres par les écolâtres de cette Eglise, spécialement Thiery, auteur de l’Heptabuclion, vers 1140.”[170]

This passage may assist us in determining the meaning assigned to Grammar as one of the Seven Liberal Arts. It suggests that everything which was not music, eloquence, logic, mathematics, astronomy, geometry, was grammar, i.e. nearly the whole of the humanities; or, in other words, the study of grammar was synonymous with the study of “letters” so far as the term was then understood.

In actual practice, however, grammar did not possess this connotation. This was due to the fact that a study of letters was not possible until a mastery of Latin had been acquired, and consequently it resulted that the term “grammar school” was applied to denote a place in which instruction was given in “Donat” or “Priscian.” Donat was a Roman rhetorician who wrote Ars Grammatica about the middle of the fourth century. His grammar was the most generally used elementary text-book on the subject. In its abbreviated form, which was the one in common use, it only consisted of eight or nine pages. Priscian was a grammarian who flourished in the early part of the sixth century, and who published, about 526, his Institutiones Grammaticae, a most elaborate and systematic treatise on Latin grammar. For over a thousand years Priscian’s work was regarded as the leading and authoritative text-book on the subject.

We may also note here that classical Latin literature was rarely used for school purposes. This was the result of the attitude of the early Christian Fathers towards these writings. We have previously pointed out that this classical literature was closely associated with pagan beliefs and practices, and consequently was not regarded as suitable for introduction into classes taught by Christian priests. Even as late as 1518, the statutes of Dean Colet prescribed that the books to be studied in his school were to be the works of such “auctours Christian as lactantius prudentius and proba and sedulius and Juvencus and Baptisa Mantuanus.”

This analysis will help us to realise that when the term “grammar school” is used with reference to the schools of Medieval England, what is generally meant is a class in which elementary instruction was given in “Donat,” and in the power of speaking Latin. If advanced work was attempted, then Priscian would be studied and the works of “Christian authors” read.

Free.

We next pass to consider the term “free”—an epithet which usually accompanies the expression “grammar school” and which has given rise to a certain amount of controversy. A special meaning was given to this term in 1862 by Dr. Kennedy, headmaster of Shrewsbury School, in a paper which he submitted to the Public Schools’ Commission and which was published by them. This special meaning was that the term “free” denoted a “school free from the control of a superior body, e.g. a chapter, a college, a monastery.” He advances the following arguments in support of his contention.

(1) “Most of the schools being then gratuitous, such a fact would hardly have been chosen to give the distinctive title of these schools.”

(2) “That free school is in Latin ‘schola libera’ and that ‘liber’ appears never at any period to be used by itself to mean gratuitous.”[171]

(3) “That whatever franchise or immunity was denoted by the word, it would, according to ordinary usage, be an immunity for the school or its governors, not for the scholars.”

(4) “That the nearest analogies are ‘free town,’ ‘free chapel,’ and that these mean free from the jurisdiction of the sheriff and of the bishop respectively.”

(5) “That the imposition of some charge (e.g. admission and quarterages) was not at all compatible with the title of free school.”[172]

On the other hand, Mr. Leach maintains that the average school of the period did charge fees and that the schools which were described as “free” grammar schools were those in which no tuition charges were made.[173] He quotes the case of the Newland Grammar School which was founded under licence in mortmain of 1445-6 for “an honeste and discrete preste beinge sufficiently lerned in the arte of gramer to kepe and teche a grammer scole ther half-free for ever; that is to saie to take of scolers lernynge grammer 8d. the quarter and of other lernynge lettres and to rede, 4d. the quarter, within a house there called the chauntrie house or scoole house.”

In replying to the suggestions of Dr. Kennedy we would point out that the nature of the control exercised by bishops, monasteries or colleges over schools is so slight as to be practically non-existent. Consequently, to make the fact of such freedom the distinctive epithet of such schools seems scarcely to be warranted. Moreover, these “free” schools were founded as a general rule either by bishops personally or by ecclesiastical persons or by persons in the closest sympathy with the existing ecclesiastical system. It is highly improbable that they would deliberately found an institution which was to be “free” from association with the Church.

A similar criticism applies to the contention advanced by Mr. Leach. As Dr. Kennedy points out, the official schools of the Church were gratuitous from the time of their origin. Then, as we shall show in a subsequent chapter, the schools in which fees were charged were as a general rule those which may be classed as “private adventure” schools. Payment of fees in Church schools is probably due to the custom which would naturally arise that boys would make offerings to their teachers at certain times,[174] and that in course of time this custom would become an unwritten law. The point we wish to emphasise here is that the official schools of the Church were always “free schools” in the sense of being free from payment. This was such a generally well-known and recognised fact that no need existed to apply the term “free” as the distinctive epithet for the purpose of distinguishing between one grammar school and another. In other words, our contention is that all the Church schools were “gratuitous” whether or not they were described as free schools.

It is therefore necessary for us to advance another hypothesis to account for the use of the term, and we suggest that the term “free” means “open to all comers,” i.e. that admission to the school was not restricted to any particular social grade or to those who were preparing for any particular profession or to those who were living in any particular locality. A free school, in fact, denotes a public school. The following reasons in support of this suggestion may be advanced.

(1) Certain schools of the period were necessarily restricted. Thus, only those who were destined for the monastic life were allowed to attend the monastery schools; the almonry schools were confined to those who gained admission to them, and were not open to all who wished to attend; some of the cathedral schools also were open only to specified classes of persons.[175]

(2) As the general idea of the period was that each parish was self-sufficing and concerned with its own parishioners only a free school would mean one available for the public generally. Each town regarded every non-burgess of that town as a “foreigner,” and freedom of trade was only allowed to townsmen. Each parish had a responsibility for its own poor; the claim to burial in the churchyard was limited to actual parishioners. This same idea passed on to educational matters. Thus, an entry in the York Episcopal Registers of June 1289 states that the schools of Kinoulton were to be open to parishioners only, “all other clerks and strangers whatsoever being kept out and by no means admitted to the school.”[176]

(3) The term “public” school gradually becomes a substitute for “free” school. Thus, in the “Acte for the due Execution of the Statutes against Jesuits, Seminaries, Preists, Recusants, etc.,” there is a specific reference to “publike or free Grammer Schools.”[177]

(4) The warrant granted in 1446 to Eton College not only provided that it should have a monopoly of teaching grammar within a radius of ten miles, but specifically stated that the school should be open “to all others whatsoever, whencesoever and from whatever parts coming to the said college to learn the same science, in the rudiments of grammar, freely.”[178] This extract clearly shows a different attitude from that specified in (2) above. We may consequently regard the institution of “free” grammar schools as marking a stage in the policy of breaking down the barriers which separated parish from parish and township from township.

We now proceed to consider a special case to test these various suggestions. A school founded by the citizens at Exeter in the sixteenth century was expressly described in the statutes of the school as a “Free Grammar School.” But the same statutes proceed to decree that

“one month after Michaelmas yerely ... everyone that is admitted ... shall pay unto the schoolemaister of the said schoole for the tyme beinge as followeth, viz every childe of any ffreeman of the said city sixe pence, every childe of any inhabitant of the said city that is not ffree of the said City Twelve pence, and every Childe of any strangers Two shillinges respectively.”[179]

We consequently plainly see that a school might be a “free” school and yet charge fees. On the other hand, our contention that “free” denotes “public,” i.e. open to all comers is supported by this extract which also shows incidentally that the idea that the school was one for citizens only was but slowly disappearing.

Song.

A discussion of the term “song” has become necessary, because of a tendency to regard a song school as the elementary school of the Middle Ages. This position has been strongly taken up by Mr. Leach and has been adopted by all writers who rely upon him. Apparently the only evidence for this opinion is an incident arising out of a misunderstanding between the master of grammar and the master of song with which Mr. Leach has dealt fully in his History of Warwick School.[180] As a result of this dispute, the dean and chapter of the Collegiate Church decided upon a specific enumeration of the duties of the two masters. The master of grammar was to have the “Donatists” and “scholars in grammar or the art of dialectic, if he shall be expert in that art,” whilst the master of song was to be allowed to “keep and teach those learning their first letters and the psalter.”[181]

The “Donatists,” as we have shown, were those who were receiving the most elementary lessons in Latin. To “learn a Donat” had passed into colloquial speech as the equivalent of acquiring the elements of knowledge of any subject. If the decision at Warwick had been that the master of grammar was to have taught the scholars “Priscian,” and the master of song to have taught them “Donat,” then the inference might legitimately have been drawn that the master of song was the elementary schoolmaster. Since, however, Latin was the only subject of instruction at a Grammar School, and as the elements of Latin Grammar were to be taught by the master of grammar, it would seem as if Mr. Leach was in error in regarding the song school as the elementary school of the period.

The two subjects, which were taught in the various schools held at this time, were Latin and Music, and, wherever possible, separate masters for these subjects were appointed. To attempt to estimate the relative importance of these subjects from a social point of view, is to expose one’s self to the charge of snobbishness. Latin and Music alike were taught because of the fact that they were of outstanding importance in connection with the worship of the Church. Thus one of the events recorded by Bede, as obviously an event of great importance, was the visit paid by the Abbot of St. Martin’s, Rome, for the purpose of teaching song to the monks at the Northumbrian monasteries[182] and to all others who cared to resort there for instruction. Bede also tells us that when Bishop Putta was temporarily without an episcopal charge he devoted his time to the teaching of music.[183]

We wish, therefore, to emphasise that the song schoolmaster was not the elementary schoolmaster of the middle ages. The duty of the master of song, as set out in the Statutes of Rotherham College, was to teach the art of music and “presertim in plano et fractu cantu secundum omnes modos et formas ejusdem artis.”[184] Song occupied a prominent place in the curriculum of the schools of the middle ages and it probably exercised a greater refining influence upon the nation than is commonly realised. The abolition of the schools of song was not the least disastrous of the effects of the Reformation in this country, and it is of considerable significance that the recent Royal Commission into University Education in Wales recommends that steps should be taken for the greater encouragement of the study of music, not only within the university itself but also in the schools of the Principality.

One other point may also be mentioned here. It was a very frequent occurrence for the same master to be responsible for the instruction both in grammar and in song. Thus, in 1385, the same master was appointed “ad informandos pueros tam in cantu quam in gramatica,”[185] in 1440, a master was appointed “ad informandos pueros in lectura, cantu et gramatica,”[186] and in 1426, there is a record of an appointment of a master for “scola lectuali et cantuli.”[187]

Reading.

It is not easy to arrive at a decision as to the meaning of the term “reading school.” The books which were read were probably the service books of the Church, and these, of course, were written in Latin. Is it possible that a reading school would be a class in which boys were taught to read Latin only, whilst in a grammar school they would not only be taught to read Latin but also to speak it? Sometimes the references to be found to schools seem to lead to the conclusion that “reading schools” and “grammar schools” were but different terms for one and the same school. Thus, the entries in various Chapter Act Books contain references to appointments to schools of grammar, side by side with references to schools of reading as if the meaning in each case was the same, e.g. at Howden in 1394, a master was appointed “ad informandum pueros in lectu et cantu,” and again in 1401, “in lectura et cantu.”[188] Sometimes the nature of the reference leads to the conclusion that the term “reading” denoted a lower grade of instruction in Latin than did the term “grammar,” e.g. at Northallerton a master was appointed, in 1456, for the purpose “ad informandos pueros in lectura et gramatica.”[189] The record of a previous appointment in 1440 was, that the master was responsible “ad informandos pueros in lectura, cantu et gramatica.” As the evidence is so scanty, it scarcely seems possible to arrive at a definite conclusion, though the probability appears to be that the use of the term “reading” implies that the work of the school was not carried on to so advanced an extent as it was when “grammar” was used as the descriptive term.

Since the topic of elementary education has been mentioned and as it is obvious that elementary instruction must of necessity have been arranged for, we may here consider briefly how this would be effected. We suggest that, as a general rule, there would be found some clerk or other in minor orders attached to every church who would be prepared to give this instruction. In course of time express provision for elementary instruction seems to have been made. Thus at Brecon, the A B C was taught to young children by the chaplain of the college[190]; at the collegiate church of Glasney the founder, Bishop Goode of Exeter, provided that the bellringer was to receive “40s. yerely as well for teachynge of pore mens children there A B C as for ryngynge the belles”[191]; at Launceston, a benefaction existed for the purpose of paying “an aged man chosen by the mayor to teche chylderne the A B C.”[192]

Writing.

Three distinct stages in the meaning to be attached to this term can be traced. Originally it was a specialist craft, as only the skilled man would be able to write out the charters which were required and to copy the manuscripts which were so highly esteemed. In Saxon days there were two distinct styles of writing in this country, the Canterbury style and the Lindisfarne style. The Roman mission introduced the Canterbury style of writing. The characteristics of this style were that the Roman uncials were adopted but with the addition of some local peculiarities. The Canterbury psalter,[193] which is now in the British Museum, is an example of the work of this mode. The Lindisfarne style had a greater influence upon our national handwriting, as, with certain modifications of its half-uncial characteristics, it was the recognised English style until a new fashion of writing was introduced from Gaul about the end of the tenth century.[194] The next stage in the evolution of writing is connected with its practical value as a means of communication and for business purposes. Now it is known as the “scrivener’s art.” We can trace the appointment of masters to teach writing for this purpose in this country from the fifteenth century. Thus, of the three masters appointed to the college of Acaster in 1483, one was to teach grammar, the second, song, “and the third to teche to Write and all suche thing as belonged to Scrivener craft.”[195] The third stage in the evolution of writing is reached when ability to write is considered to be one of the earliest of the school tasks to be undertaken, and when writing is considered indispensable for all intellectual progress. This stage was reached about the time of the Renaissance. We stop at this point because a further consideration would carry us outside the limit of our task.[196] Our only purpose has been to show that the establishment of a writing school in any place in the Middle Ages did not mean the establishment of an elementary school as the term is understood to-day. As a matter of fact, the first elementary schools, in the modern sense, cannot be traced further back in England than to the establishment of the charity schools of the seventeenth century. Preparatory schools, of course, are much older, but not elementary schools.

CHAPTER III.

ORGANISATION OF EDUCATION BY THE SECULAR CLERGY.

In a previous chapter we have pointed out the nature of the work of the monasteries in connection with the educational development of this country. Important as this work was, yet it did not influence the country as a whole to any appreciable extent, as each monastery concerned itself only with those matters which affected its own interests or the interests of the order to which it belonged. The secular clergy were more in touch with the ordinary life of the people, and it is through their work that we trace the beginnings of an organised system of education.

Though the Norman Conquest effected a distinction between Church and State, yet it did not involve any change in the existing ecclesiastical system, and as education at this period was inseparable from religion, neither was any radical change effected in educational development. The Norman contribution to religion was threefold: it brought the Church in this country into closer connection with the Church in the continental countries; it stimulated the activities of the Church; and it appointed to the chief administrative posts men who were foreigners but who were also, in many cases, men of ability and energy. The effect of this upon the educational development was, that there gradually emerged a definite and systematic educational organisation, and it is in this fact that we find the distinctive Norman contribution to educational progress.

This organisation consisted of:—

(a) The establishment of Schools of Theology in connection with Cathedral Churches.

(b) The recognition of the Chancellor of the Cathedral as the head of the “Education Department” of the diocese.

(c) The establishment of Grammar Schools and Song Schools in connection with Collegiate and Parochial Churches.

Except for the recognition of the Chancellor as the responsible head of the educational aspect of the work of the Church, the post-Conquest educational arrangements did not essentially differ from the pre-Conquest arrangements. There was a real continuity of educational effort from the days of the introduction of Christianity. The main difference is that, after the Conquest, the educational arrangements seem to be more definite and more effectively organised.

We now proceed to consider, in turn, the various parts of the educational organisation which we have enumerated.

(a) Schools of Theology.

As we have already shown, it had been the custom of the Church from the earliest date to establish schools of theology in connection with the more important centres in which the work of the Church was carried on. With the progress of time this custom crystallised into law. We must emphasise that these schools of theology existed before canon law definitely refers to them. Canon law enactments on education simply mark the transition from a voluntary to a compulsory condition. The first definite ecclesiastical enactment relating to schools of theology dates from 1179.[197] This was repeated in 1216 when Innocent III., in general council, decreed that in every metropolitical church a theologian should be appointed “to teach the priests and others in the sacred page and to inform them especially which are recognised as pertaining to the cure of souls.”[198]

The custom of establishing schools of theology in connection with cathedral churches was common to all those countries in which the Church had made progress. The Church of France had gained special fame in this respect, and the reputation of its schools had extended throughout the civilised world. Among the celebrated continental schools of this period may be mentioned Tourney, under Odo, Chartres, under Fulbert and Bernard Sylvester, Paris, under William of Champeaux, and Bec, which became famous under the mastership of Lanfranc and enhanced its reputation under Anselm. The fame of these schools became so great that they attracted scholars to them both from this country and from other parts of the continent of Europe. John of Salisbury, who was one of the scholars who went from England to France for the purpose of obtaining the best education available at the time, has left us in his writings a valuable account of the mode by which such an education was gained. He tells us that he went over to France whilst he was still a youth,[199] and studied first at Paris, under Adelard and Alberic, then at Chartres, under Richard the Bishop and William of Conches. Subsequently he returned to Paris to continue his studies under Robert Pullus and Simon of Poissy successively. Among other Englishmen, of whom records remain that they went to France for their education, may be mentioned Adam du Petit Pont, who afterwards became Bishop of St. Asaph, Alexander Neckham, the famous Latinist, and Samson, the celebrated Abbot of St. Albans.

It may also be interesting to note here, as indicative of the social grade from which the majority of the students of the time came, that they found it necessary whilst they were in France to find some means of self-support. Thus, both John of Salisbury and Adam du Petit Pont maintained themselves by teaching private pupils, whilst Samson was supported by the sale of holy water, a method which seems to have been at the time a favourite one for providing an exhibition fund for poor scholars.[200]

So far we have shown that the immemorial custom of the Church as well as the express decree of Canon Law required that the various metropolitical churches at least should provide schools of theology. We have also seen that this custom was widely prevalent in France. We still have to consider whether the practice prevailed in this country. It is necessary for us to point out here, that the evidence must necessarily be indirect and that the fact that evidence is lacking must not be regarded as establishing that schools of theology did not exist in cathedral cities. It is only when some dispute arises or some special incident occurs that we find references, e.g. that a well-known churchman was educated at a particular school, or that a particular official was in charge of the school at a specified time, which assist us in drawing the conclusion that theological schools existed. If these incidents had not occurred then we should not possess any knowledge of the existence of the school. Again, we know that large numbers of clergy were ordained at the appointed seasons, by the bishops of the Church. Thus in the first year of the episcopate of Bishop Stapledon of Exeter,[201] 539 were ordained to the first tonsure, 438 acolytes, 104 sub-deacons, 177 deacons, 169 priests; in the diocese of York in 1344/5, there were ordained 1,222 persons, of whom 421 were acolytes, 204 sub-deacons, 326 deacons, and 271 priests.[202] Now these clergy must have received systematic education, and it is a legitimate inference that most of them received their education in this country.

We may next proceed to consider the evidence which is available of the existence of the schools of theology. We know there was a school of theology at York because Thomas, who became Archbishop of York in 1108, and who had previously held the position of Provost of the Collegiate Church, in Beverley, was educated there.[203] We also know, incidentally, that there existed a school of theology in connection with St. Paul’s Cathedral because it is referred to in a deed which is dated about 1125.[204] Similarly, we know that a school of theology existed in Lincoln because the vicar of a Lincolnshire parish was directed to attend the school there to learn theology for a period of two years.[205]

This evidence, which is all incidental and merely the outcome of special circumstances considered in conjunction with the general custom of the Church and the requirement of Canon Law leads us to maintain that schools of theology existed at most, even if not all, of the Cathedral Churches of the period.

(b) The Educational Function of the Chancellor.

We have previously shown that the bishop of a diocese was originally personally responsible for the preparation of those candidates whom he subsequently ordained. With the progress of time and the increase in the duties of the episcopate, it was impossible for the bishop to undertake the personal responsibility for this work, and consequently a tendency arose for it to be entrusted to a member of the collegiate body associated with him. In the case of a secular bishop, a member of the Cathedral body was appointed. This officer was definitely known as the “Scholasticus,” and it was his recognised duty to read theology with approved students.

We are able to trace the existence of a “scholasticus” in connection with the English cathedrals from an early date. Thus we learn that when Thurstan, Archbishop of York, visited the Pope at Blois in 1120, he was accompanied by “duo archidiaconi ecclesiae nostrae et scholasticus.”[206] We also know that a “scholasticus” existed in connection with St. Paul’s, London, because the expression “magister scolarum” occurs in a deed whose date is assigned to c. 1110.[207]

In course of time the term “chancellor” was substituted for that of “scholasticus,” probably because the schoolmaster was the most highly educated member of the cathedral staff and was therefore the most suitable person to entrust with the care of the cathedral seal and with the dispatch of the official letters of the cathedral body. This statement is definitely established by the statutes of the Church of York, which date from 1307 but which are regarded by their editor as existing from 1090 at least. On page 6 of these statutes it is stated that “Cancellarius, qui antiquitus magister scolarum dicebatur, magister in theologia esse debet, et juxta ecclesiam actualiter legere.” The same change of term can be traced at St. Paul’s, London. One of the witnesses to a deed dated about 1205 who describes himself as Chancellor is the same person who, when acting in a similar capacity at an earlier date, described himself as “magister scolarum.”[208]

We must remember that this change of designation did not involve any essential change in his duties or in the functions he discharged. The qualification required of the Chancellor as previously of the Schoolmaster was, that he was to be a “master in theology.”[209] His duty was that he was to teach theology either by himself or by a suitable substitute[210] to all students who cared to present themselves. If the Chancellor became lazy (as there is a general tendency to become when men lose their ideals and no pecuniary inducement to energy exists) then, apparently, in some places, a custom arose for other persons to keep schools of theology for prospective priests in return for payment, whereas the Chancellor was expected to admit students to his classes without the imposition of any fee. The Church resolutely set itself against this custom of charging fees for instruction, and by a synod held at Westminster in 1138 decreed that “si magistri scholarum aliis scholas pro pretio regendas locaverint, ecclesiasticae vindictae subjaceant.”[211]

In order to benefit by the school of theology conducted by the Chancellor, it would be necessary that the pupil should have received a sufficient knowledge of Latin. It is highly probable that many of the clerks who were attracted to a school of theology for the purpose of continuing their studies would not have studied Latin to the extent necessary to profit by the course given. In consequence, a demand would arise for teachers of Latin. Now it is an accepted rule of Economics that whenever a demand for a particular commodity exists, then an attempt to meet the demand is forthcoming. Since scholars were to be found in a cathedral city who wished for instruction in Latin, and since other clerks were to be found there who considered themselves capable of giving such instruction and who were desirous of taking private pupils, it is only natural to conclude that the holding of Latin schools in order to meet the demand became common.

But the danger of such a practice soon became evident. It is highly probable that many who would attempt to earn an income by professing to teach pupils Latin, were incapable of doing so. To meet this contingency, the custom arose that the Chancellor should grant a licence to those whom he considered capable of acting as teachers.

This is an event of the very first importance in the history of Education, because it is the first separate recognition of the teaching profession in England. In addition, the custom led indirectly to the rise of the university system. The custom continues, even to the present day, because the degrees in Arts and Theology in our oldest universities are in reality merely licences issued by the Chancellor of the University to teach those subjects.