THE EDUCATION OF THE SONS OF THE NOBILITY.
It is necessary to consider now the nature of the Education of those whose social position prevented them from sharing in the gratuitous Education, which was offered by the Church and freely accepted by the sons and daughters of “liberi tenentes,” or of villeins, cottars, or serfs. These educational facilities thus offered by the Church might possibly be utilised by the children of the manorial officials, the steward, or the bailiff; but they would never be shared by children of gentle birth.
In the Middle Ages, in England as on the continent, youths of noble parentage were not sent to schools for their education, but to the households of great nobles or great ecclesiastics. Thus, as we have seen, Odo, subsequently Archbishop of Canterbury, was taught as a boy in the household of the thane Athelhelm[352]; this custom was consequently already well established in the tenth century. Other instances that may be given are those of Stephen of Blois, who received his education at the court of his uncle, Henry I.; of Henry II., who lived at the house of Duke Robert of Gloucester; and of Henry VI., who was put under the care of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. To that noble were also entrusted the heirs of baronies in the Crown’s wardship, so that his court practically became “an academy for the young nobility.”
Fitzstephen, the biographer of Thomas à Becket, tellsus that “the nobles of England and of the neighbouring kingdoms used to send their sons to serve the Chancellor, whom he trained with honourable bringing-up and learning; and when they had received the knight’s belt, sent them back with honour to their fathers and kindred; some he used to keep. The king himself, his master, entrusted to him his son, the heir of the realm, to be brought up; whom he had with him, with many sons of nobles of the same age, and their proper retinue and masters and proper servants in the honour due.”[353]
The nature of the education which was given at the houses of the great nobles was determined by an ideal which grew out of the special circumstances of the time. Prominent among the contributory factors to the formation of this ideal were (1) the Feudal System, (2) the Crusades, (3) the Church.
(1) We have already dealt briefly with the origin and development of the Feudal System; hence it will be sufficient to point out here, that the Conquest had succeeded in establishing it more firmly in this country. Each fief now became in practice a separate court under its lord, whose eldest son could naturally look forward to succeeding to the position occupied by his father. It is in this connection that we find one need which the education of the young noble would be expected to meet. It was necessary that he should receive the training which would be of service to him in discharging effectively the position which in the ordinary course of things he would subsequently be called upon to fill.
(2) Without enquiring fully into the causes contributory to the Crusades, we may mention that they arose out of one of those outbursts of energy which in subsequent ages found expression in such movements as the Revival of Learning and the French Revolution. More definitely, the Crusades were the response made by the nobility to the appeal of the East for help against the infidel. This response was given the more readily because it was inharmony with the restless love of adventure and with the desire for glory and fame, which manifested themselves during this period.
(3) It is also important to notice that there existed at this time a widespread belief in the efficacy of penitence and ascetism, as a means of gaining religious virtue. This frequently took the form of a pilgrimage, and the Crusades furnished a “stupendous pilgrimage under specially favourable and meritorious conditions.” “The first Crusade was the marriage of War and Religion, the consecration by the Church of the military spirit, which was the first step in the creation of Chivalry.”[354]
These three factors contributed to the growth of those customs which prevailed among the noble classes in Western Europe during the greater part of the Middle Ages, and to which the term chivalry is usually applied. A certain ideal of the qualities which were essential to a “perfect knight” gradually evolved. Hence it was the business of the household to which the sons of the nobility were sent for training to endeavour, as far as possible, to equip their “pupils” with the knowledge, skill, habits, and qualities which custom had decreed should be possessed before admission to the grade of knighthood was obtained.
It is possible to trace four main elements in the chivalric ideal: (1) military prowess, (2) service and loyalty, (3) the “worship of woman,” (4) religion.
Taking each of these points in turn, we note first that the importance of military training at this period is a topic which scarcely calls for elaboration. The age was essentially warlike; the definite objective of the Crusades was one that could only be achieved through military skill. Hence, no slight amount of the training of the future knight was devoted to the acquisition of skill as a horseman and in the use of the weapons of war.
The second element to which we have referred—“service and loyalty”—may be described as the underlying principle of chivalry. The service, however, sprang from pride in the position occupied; no task was considered menial ifit arose out of the service due from the squire to his liege lord. Loyalty is inherent in the idea of chivalry; it is an inseparable part of the knightly ideal.
Only a passing reference is necessary to the third element—the “worship of women”—even though it played a most important part in the development of the character of the prospective knight by refining his manners, checking coarseness of expression, and tending generally to the growth of the idea of courtesy which is now conceived of as the distinctive mark of a chivalrous man. Here we may simply say that to do the pleasure of ladies was regarded both as the chief solace of the knight and the mainspring of his actions.
The remaining element in the chivalric ideal is that of religion. The Church looms large; the knight was brought up to use her sacraments, to obey her precepts, and to show reverence to her ministers. “The Crusader, the Hospitaller, and the Knights of Santiago were champions of the Church against the infidel. The knight’s consecration to chivalry was after the form of a sacrament, and to defend the Church was a part of his initiation. The least religious acknowledged the authority of religion and it was the imputation of impiety rather than of immorality which destroyed the Templar; for impiety was in those days a worse imputation than immorality.”[355]
To summarise the course of preparation for knighthood, it may be pointed out that for the first seven years of training, the aspirants were known as pages, varlets, or damoiseaux. Under their masters and mistresses they performed most humble domestic duties and practised at doing everything they saw done by the knights. After attaining the age of fourteen years, they were promoted to the rank of squire, a promotion that was celebrated by a religious ceremony. The training now became more severe and included ability in all matters relating to the art of warfare, together with duties in connection with the stables and horses, and skill in the art of heraldry.
The intellectual part of the training of the squire involvedinstruction in “sondry languages” and the acquisition of ability “to pipe, sing, dance” and to play the harp.[356]In the oft-quoted passage from Chaucer it is stated that the squire:—
“wel cowde ryde,He cowde songes wel make and endite,Justne and eek daunce, and wel purtray and write.”
The actual school curriculum followed by the squire would therefore resemble that of children of lower social grades, to the extent that “song” and “writing” were included in both. Among the “sondry languages,” it is certain that Latin would be numbered; in addition he would learn French and (possibly) Italian.
Chivalry began to decline about the middle of the thirteenth century. “Froissart characterises and describes with picturesque detail this tendency to decay which, as time advanced, gradually resulted in a complete transformation, so that the chivalric ideal became lost and the independence of the soldier, once the slave only of his God and of his lady, gave way to the obsequiousness of the courtier, and finally became a selfish and pitiful servility.”[357]
What place does chivalric education occupy in the evolution of educational thought and practice? In the first place, it contributed to the elaboration of the educational ideal. Though, as we have indicated, chivalric education was based on utility, just as was the education of the schools of the cloister or of the church, yet it resulted in a wider connotation being given to the term “education.” Chivalric education aimed at fitting a man to live a life in society; whereas the education given by the monk or priest aimed only at fitting a man to lead a religious life. A change was also made in the estimation of educational values: the intellectual element of education (though not entirely ignored) was yet relegated to a subsidiary position, whilst the care of the body, notoriously absent from theecclesiastical education, was exalted to an important position. It is interesting also to note that the custom of sending boys of good family away from home directly contributed to the practice of sending boys to a residential school, which is characteristic of the present day, especially among parents of good financial means. In addition, we must note that some of the ideals of chivalry have tended to live on in our great public schools of to-day; further, they have influenced our secondary schools and, to a lesser extent, our elementary schools. Admiration for physical prowess, as exemplified on the playing fields, still occupies the highest place in the mind of the schoolboy; the ideal of service survives in the custom of “fagging”; loyalty, honour, courtesy, and deference to external ceremonial continue to be distinctive marks of the “schools of the nobility” of to-day.
There is a danger in assuming that all the ideals of chivalry were equally high, and that the contribution of chivalry to education was greater than it really was. “Chivalry,” writes Cornish, “taught the world the duty of noble service willingly rendered. It upheld courage and enterprise in obedience to rule, it consecrated military prowess to the service of the church, glorified the virtues of liberality, good faith, unselfishness, and courtesy, and, above all, courtesy to women. Against these may be set the vices of ostentation, love of bloodshed, contempt of inferiors, and loose manners. Chivalry was an imperfect discipline, but it was a discipline, and one fit for the times. It may have existed in the world too long; it did not come into existence too early; and with all its shortcomings, it exercised a great and wholesome influence in lifting the medieval world from barbarism to civilisation.”[358]
The practice of sending the sons of the nobility and gentry to the houses of other nobles continued even after “chivalry” itself as a mode of life had died out. Thus, Sir Thomas More was brought up at the house of Cardinal Morton;[359]Cardinal Wolsey had a number of young lordsresiding with him;[360]in the household of the Earl of Northumberland in 1571 were a number of young gentlemen.[361]
For the purpose of teaching these young nobles, it was customary that there should be a “Maistyr of Gramer” as a part of the establishment of the house, who was responsible for the instruction “which is necessary for song and the rules of grammatical construction.”[362]Various household books bear testimony to the presence of this tutor.[363]It is not suggested that the education given at the houses of nobles and other great men was very effective from an academic point of view. In fact, the opinion in which letters were generally held at the time was not sufficiently high to serve as an inducement for study to be taken up seriously by young members of the higher social classes.[364]The course of study followed included Latin, French, writing, fencing, accounts, and music,[365]but this enumeration of subjects does not imply that a high standard was attained. A further consideration of this subject will be necessary when the period subsequent to the Reformation is dealt with.
EDUCATION PASSING OUT OF CHURCH CONTROL.
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHANGES.
During the period we now proceed to consider, the idea gradually developed that education was not a matter which exclusively pertained to the Church. With the rise of the universities, the control of education tended to pass out of the power of the Church; with the social and economic progress of the country, there was a growth of the idea that civic and trade and craft organisations respectively owed a duty to the community, and that this duty included the provision of facilities for education.
This idea of civic or community responsibility for education which began to manifest itself in a tentative manner, was not the outcome of any opposition to the Church, or due to a feeling that the Church had not been sufficiently alive to its responsibilities. On the contrary, the provision for education which was made was, generally speaking, entrusted to the care of the Church, and the teachers of the schools continued to be the priests of the Church. In fact, we may go so far as to assert that the consciousnessof social responsibility which now developed was, to a great extent, the outgrowth of religious teaching.
At the same time that we emphasise this general statement, we must admit that there existed certain signs of a tendency to assert independence of the Church, and various symptoms began to manifest themselves which were indicative of the fact that school-keeping was ceasing to be regarded as exclusively a function of the priesthood. The tendency to independence of the Church showed itself, among other places, at Coventry, where the corporation sent a deputation to the Prior of Coventry “wyllyng hym to occupye a skole of Gramer, fyye he like to teche hys Brederon and Childerom of the aumbry, and that he wolnot gruche ne meve the contrai, but that euery mon off this Cite be at hys ffre chosse to sette hys chylde to skole to what techer off Gramer that he likyth, as reson askyth”[366]; and at Bridgenorth, where an ordinance was passed in 1503, that no priest should keep a school after a schoolmaster had come to town.[367]As illustrating the tendency to place schools under the control of organisations other than the Church may be mentioned the school founded at Farthinghoe in 1443 by John Abbot, a mercer of London, who placed the school under the control of the Mercers’ Company,[368]and the school founded by Sir Edmund Sha in 1487, which was put in mortmain “unto his felliship of the craft of goldsmythes.”[369]Two other instances are available. In 1502, Sir John Percyvale founded a “Fre Gramer Scole” at Macclesfield[370]for “gentil mennes sonnes and other good menses children in Maxfiled and the Countre thereabouts.” The government of the school was entrusted to seventeen local laymen who were to act as trustees. In 1505, Sir Bartholomew Read, who founded a school at Cromer, made the Goldsmith’s Company the governing body.[371]That school-keeping was ceasing to beregarded as the exclusive function of the priesthood is indicated by the will of the founder of Sevenoaks Grammar School in 1432, which specified that the schoolmaster was not to be a priest “in sacris ordinibus minime constitutus,”[372]and by the fact that the names of schoolmasters are to be found on the rolls of the Freemen of the city of York.[373]
The growing interest of the laity in education did not result in apathy on the part of the Church. On the contrary, the Church was stimulated to renewed activity. Not only did the great churchmen of the day,e.g.Wykeham, Chicheley, and Waynflete, found schools of enduring magnificence, but a large number of collegiate churches were established in various parts of the country, and there exists considerable evidence (which we shall consider in a subsequent chapter) to show that the majority of these collegiate churches provided special facilities for education.
The change in the attitude of the nation towards education is the direct outcome of its social and economic conditions, and if we are properly to understand the educational developments, it is necessary that we should consider briefly the changes in the economic conditions of England, and the resultant social changes, which manifested themselves in the closing centuries of the Middle Ages.
The date of the pestilence termed the Black Death will form a convenient starting point from which we may consider these changes. The factors contributory to the results, which we propose to describe, may be traced to an earlier date, but as we are concerned in this chapter with general tendencies rather than with minute economic investigations, the year 1349 will admirably serve our purpose.
The economic effects of the Black Death were particularly evident in the rural districts. The decay of the manorial system was accelerated; the system of manorial farming was thrown into confusion and new methods ofland tenure became imperative; the existing system of customary regulation was no longer possible. In the towns the influence of the pestilence was not so marked. Though individual towns might suffer, yet the relative importance of towns in the life of the nation was increased, and the way was prepared for that industrial and commercial supremacy of towns which began to manifest itself in the early years of the fifteenth century.[374]
In addition to the economic effects, the Black Death had important educational effects. The mortality among the clergy was considerable, and consequently the number of men who were qualified to act as schoolmasters was appreciably diminished. The reduction in the number of priests, as a result of the Black Death, is indicated by a letter which Pope Clement V. wrote in 1349 to the Archbishop of York, and in which it is stated that “in consequence of the Plague, there are not enough priests to administer the sacraments.”[375]A statute of 1362 also refers to the fact that “the priests be become so very scant after the pestilence to the great grievance and oppression of the people.”[376]
This diminution in the number of schoolmasters, for some reason or other, seems to have continued into the following century. William Byngham, in the petition which he submitted to the king in 1439 for the purpose of obtaining permission to found a college at Cambridge for the training of teachers for grammar schools throughout the country, stated that, “on the East of the way between Hampton and Coventry and no further north than Ripon, no less than seventy grammar schools had fallen into desuetude because of the scarcity of teachers.”[377]
It is also extremely probable that the Black Death contributed considerably to the almost total disappearance of the French language from the schools. One effect of the Norman Conquest had been the gradual growth of French as the spoken language; after the pestilence period, theuse of the native tongue of the English nation again became common. This is directly evidenced by statements contained in John de Trevisa’s translation of Higden’sPolychronicon. After showing that French was at one time very prevalent in this country because it was the language in common use at schools and that the children of “gentil men” were taught that language from the time they were “i-rokked in here cradel,” Trevisa states that after the Black Death the knowledge of French had disappeared to so great an extent that “now children of gramer scole conneth na more Frensche than can hir lift heele.”[378]
The fifteenth century witnessed important changes in the economic condition of England. The most important of these changes was connected with the development of manufactures. At the close of the fourteenth century, we learn that wool was “la Sovereigne Marchandise and Jewel ... d’Angleterre”[379]; a century later, it is said that “the makeyng of cloth” was “the grettest occupacion and lyving of the poor people of the land.”[380]
Various enactments of the period testify to the growth of the woollen industry, and to the efforts which were made by the government to foster and develop it. But though the manufacture of cloth was the most important industry, yet it was not the only form of industrial occupation. Before the close of the fifteenth century, the manufacture of silk had been established in London, coal mining was carried on to a considerable extent, the manufacture of beer had been instituted, the making of bricks had been renewed, guns were being made, and ship-building was making progress.[381]
The development of manufactures naturally brought about changes in the organisation of industry. Owing to the operation of the principle of division of labour, new crafts came into existence, and these, in their turn, were also sub-divided into other new crafts. Gradually, all the various classes of the industrial world—the artisan, themanufacturer, the middleman, and the merchant—began to emerge. As a result, the “rude beginnings of a factory system” manifested themselves,[382]and there are even traces of a movement which resembles a modern strike.[383]
These changes in the industrial system necessarily exerted a powerful influence upon the agricultural industry, which previously had been the principal occupation of the people. The Black Death had been responsible for a great diminution in the number of agricultural labourers, and as a result, it was scarcely possible to find sufficient labour for the cultivation of the soil. This scarcity of labour was intensified by the fact that employment in the manufacturing industries proved to many a more attractive form of occupation than service on the land. The Central Government took steps with the object of compelling people to work on the land, and an attempt was even made, as we shall see in a subsequent chapter, to prevent agricultural labourers from sending their children to school. Thus in the reign of Richard II., it was enacted that any person who was engaged on agricultural labour up to twelve years of age, was to be compelled to remain at that occupation during the remainder of his life.[384]Other Acts of Parliament, with a similar object, were passed in 1406 and 1444.[385]This repressive legislation failed to secure its purpose, as the steady flow of labour from agriculture to manufacture continued.
The increasing scarcity of labour led naturally to the gradual substitution of sheep farming for the cultivation of wheat, a development to which the growth of the cloth industry necessarily contributed. The demand for wool by the English manufacturers of cloth increased to so great an extent that sheep-farming gradually became more profitable than the cultivation of the soil and, as a result, the enclosure movement, which began to set in during the closing years of the fourteenth century, made such progress that, during the fifteenth century, there occurred“the greatest of those agricultural changes which have in successive ages swept over this country—the transition from arable to pasture farming.”[386]
Even more important than the industrial changes were the commercial changes, which occurred during the fifteenth century. These arose out of the development of English foreign trade with its natural effect upon the growth of a shipping industry. The records of the time show that English merchants visited all the civilised maritime countries of Europe, notably Holland, Zealand, Flanders, and the shores of the Baltic. Trade was also carried on with Iceland, Spain, Portugal, the countries of Southern Europe, and, in spite of the Hundred Years’ War, with France.
These developments in manufactures, in agriculture, and in commerce naturally necessitated changes in financial matters. In the earlier part of the Middle Ages a system of barter had been common. Such a system could not continue under the new order of things. Not only did the use of money for facilitating international exchange become common, but money began to be employed for capitalistic purposes instead of being hoarded or used for unproductive military purposes.
These various changes could not occur in the economic life without producing important effects in the social life of the community. One of the most important of these resulted from an appreciation of the power of wealth. Formerly, rank and birth had been the main mark of distinction between one man and another. Apart from high birth, the Church had previously been the only avenue by which a man of ability could attain to a position of importance. Under the new condition of things, the possession of wealth proved to be a passport to social recognition, and the old ideas of status and class began rapidly to disappear.
The social standing thus gained by men of wealth naturally hastened the decline of the Feudal System; the failure of the Feudal System involved the decay ofchivalry, which was closely associated with it. Outwardly chivalry continued to flourish, but the tournaments which now took place were held for political purposes on occasions of pomp and show, and not with the object of effecting a training to war.
The closing century of the Middle Ages not only witnessed the rise of the capitalist class, but it also saw the rise of the middle class, which has been described as the “most noteworthy feature in the history of social life in England in the late fourteenth and the early fifteenth century.”[387]The various changes in the economic conditions had made it possible to acquire wealth through successful trade, and abundant evidence exists that the merchant class was both numerous and was held in high esteem. Socially, these men seem to have ranked with squires and in consequence “Merchaundes and Franklonz, worship fulle and honourable, they may be set semely at a squyers table.”[388]
The educational development of a country is closely connected with its social and economic progress, and it is necessary clearly to bear in mind the economic changes of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries if we are properly to understand the educational adjustments which resulted.
THE RISE OF THE UNIVERSITIES.[389]
It is possible to trace a rapid advance in the intellectual life of England after the eleventh century. Among the contributory factors may be mentioned the restoration of social and political order, resulting in the greater security essential for intellectual life, and the influence of the Crusades. The Crusades were not only a sign of the reawakened energy of Europe but were also a cause of increased intellectual activity and change. Those who took part in the Crusades were brought in contact with new people and new ideas; new interests were created, and a more human conception of the world developed. Moreover, the deeds of the Crusades supplied new material for historical literature, and stimulated the romantic element in life and thought. The intellectual effect of the Crusades was manifested in every department of literary activity; the number of books written was greatly increased; studies of law, medicine, and theology received greater attention; scholastic philosophy manifested itself, and the universities came into being. Of these effects, the development of scholasticism and the rise of the universities are closely connected, and are of special importance for our present purpose.
The development of that system of thought known as scholasticism may be traced from the subjects taught in the medieval schools. These subjects were the Trivium,[390]and the more advanced Quadrivium.[391]The ordinary text-books of the age (of which the chief were founded on the works of five authors—Orosius, Martianus, Boethius, Cassiodorus, and Isidorus) enable us to estimate what was known of these subjects of instruction. Music included little more than the rules of plain song; arithmetic was discussed chiefly with reference to the mystical interpretation of numbers; geometry consisted of a few propositions from Euclid without demonstrations; astronomy, together with arithmetic, found its way into the curriculum chiefly because these subjects supplied the means of finding Easter.
The Trivium was the real basis of the secular education of the period. Grammar included both the rules formulated by Donatus and Priscian and the study of a few of the classical writers of ancient Rome. “Under the head of rhetoric, the treatises of Cicero, such as the ‘De Oratore’ and the pseudo-Ciceronian ‘Ad Herennium’ were largely read. The elements of Roman Law were often added, and all schoolboys were exercised in writing prose or what passed for prose.”[392]The most prominent and important of the subjects of secular instruction was Dialectic or Logic. The student of this subject had at his disposal richer material than in most other branches of secular knowledge. Rashdall instances the translations by Boethius of the “De Interpretatione” and the “Categoriae,” as well as the “Isagoge” of Porphyry.[393]It was this concentration on Dialectic by minds whose chief interest was theology that paved the way to that philosophic system known as scholasticism. From its nature, it is scarcely possible to define scholasticism, but its meaning may be understood by considering the ground on which theological statements were based. For some centuries, such statementswere required to be accepted merely on the authority of the Church. By the eleventh century, heretical views had crept in which could scarcely be dealt with so summarily. The stimulation of intellectual interests, due to the Crusades, made it necessary that theological beliefs should be carefully formulated and defended by intellectual weapons.
The history of scholasticism falls into two fairly distinct periods. Among the great names associated with the first period are Anselm, “the last of the great monastic teachers,” Roscellinus, William of Champeaux, and Abelard, “the true founder of the Scholastic Theology.”[394]The second period which extended from the beginning of the thirteenth century to the Renaissance was the period of the culmination of scholastic thought and its consolidation into a system. The “great schoolmen” include Albertus Magnus, a Dominican who has been described as “the great organising intellect of the Middle Ages,” Thomas Aquinas, famous as the scholar who brought scholasticism to its highest development by harmonising Aristotelianism with the doctrines of the Church, and two Englishmen, both of whom were Franciscan friars, Duns Scotus, and William of Occam.
The intellectual activity of the schoolmen was connected mainly with questions of interpretation. Original investigation was scarcely attempted. The form adopted was that of commenting upon Aristotle or the Church Fathers, and the method employed was that of discussion and dispute, conducted according to recognised logical methods. At an early date, a question which was considered of primary and fundamental significance began to be discussed—the nature of universals. Stated briefly, the problem is: have the universals a substantial existence of their own, as the realists claimed, or, are they merely conceptions in the mind, as the nominalists maintained? This philosophical problem was bound up with such questions as the reality of the Church, of the State, of the Trinity, of the Sacraments. Was the Church a “reality,” or was it merely thename of certain individuals who professed a certain allegiance? Was the State a “reality,” or simply a name? Such questions as these serve to illustrate the passionate interest taken in the matter by the medieval world of learning.
It was under the stimulus of this interest in dialectic that certain schools connected with cathedrals or monasteries became famous in the later eleventh century and the beginning of the twelfth. Prominent among these was Paris, as the reputation of its master, William of Champeaux, attracted scholars to it from many parts. Abelard was one of the students who had been drawn to Paris by the fame of its school, but before long he openly combatted the teachings of its masters and determined to open school for himself. On account of the principle of the licensing of schools and of teachers, this was a matter difficult of accomplishment, but the difficulties were temporarily overcome, and Abelard is later found as the deputy master of the Cathedral School. Fresh difficulties arising, Abelard resumed his studies, this time under Anselm at Laon. Later he returned to Paris, and lectured as a duly authorised master in the schools of Notre-Dame. His reputation spread rapidly, and Abelard became supreme in the intellectual capital of Europe. In 1118 occurred his rapid and terrible downfall occasioned by his liaison with Heloise. In every attempt which he made after this to regain his position, he was met by fierce and relentless opposition especially from Bernard of Clairvaux. Twice he was condemned for heresy, in 1121 and 1141; his persecution being due, not so much to definite heretical opinions as to the general spirit and method of his teaching. Abelard may be regarded as the best exponent of his time of that method which applies the test of reason to all established beliefs and opinions. Though he was defeated personally at the Council of Sens, yet the movement which had been associated with his name continued.
Forces that tended to make Paris one of the most important cities of transalpine Europe were in operation at this time; hence the stream of pilgrim students to Paris, which set in in the days of Abelard, continued for at leastone and a half centuries.[395]At this time, too, the tendency for those who had interests in common to associate in some form of “gild,” was everywhere prevalent. It was, therefore, only natural that wherever a concourse of masters or students was found, the necessity soon arose for some form of organisation, which would serve to protect their common interests. Though these organisations came into existence without any express authorisations, yet from such beginnings the universities of the Middle Ages originated. The circumstances, which contributed to the formation of a medieval university were therefore twofold: (1) the existence of a cathedral school, or monastic school, which had attained eminence, and (2) the formation of a gild, either of masters, or of students, or of both. Special circumstances led to the selection of the original university centres. One of these circumstances was the specialisation of the learning of the time. A mass of learning and tradition on subjects of interest to man and essential to his welfare, had grown up in a particular locality. Students who desired to possess themselves of this knowledge were attracted to the place. Thus, the schools at Bologna developed into specialised law schools about 1100 to 1130; Salerno became famous for the study of medicine; Paris became celebrated as the main centre of scholastic philosophy.
It must be noted, however, that the term “universitas” was not the common appellation for one of the higher schools; the earliest specialised name was “studium” or “studium generale”—a term that Denifle has traced back as far as 1233. At the outset, no restriction upon the establishment anywhere of a “studium generale” existed, but by the latter half of the thirteenth century this unrestricted liberty came to an end. The idea gradually grew that the erection of new “studia generalia” was a papal or imperial prerogative; hence in 1224 the Emperor Frederick II. founded a “studium generale” at Naples; in 1229 Gregory IX. established one at Toulouse, whilst in 1244 or 1245 Innocent III. founded a “studiumgenerale” in the Pontifical Court itself.[396]In 1292 even the old universities—Bologna and Paris—received formal recognition of their existence by Bulls of Nicholas IV. “From this time, the notion gradually gained ground that the ‘jus ubique docendi’ was of the essence of a ‘studium generale,’ and that no school which did not possess this privilege could obtain it without a Bull from Emperor or Pope.”[397]
Turning to the question of the origin of the University of Oxford, it may be noted that though many mythical origins trace the existence of the university to a very early time in the history of the country, yet, in fact, Oxford did not become known as a centre of learning until the twelfth century. The earliest definite reference, which has been traced so far to the existence of any school at Oxford, dates to some time in the decade 1110-1120, when Theobald of Etampes is described as a “Master of Arts at Oxford.”[398]Apparently, Thurstan, Archbishop of Canterbury, had referred to Theobald the question whether monks could legally impropriate churches and tithe. His reply was in the negative on the ground that the monk was one who had retired from the world, and “by choosing the monastic habit and putting the world aside had judged himself unworthy of the dignity of an ecclesiastic.”[399]This provoked an anonymous reply which incidentally contains the statements that Theobald held a scholastic post of some importance. “You, yourself, a nobody, are you not said to have taught as a master sixty or one hundred clerks, more or less?”[400]This statement supports an hypothesis that the schools at Oxford must have been flourishing at the time.
A new era in the development of Oxford may be traced from C. 1135 when Robert Pullen, a theologian, lectured there.[401]Then, at a date between 1145 and 1150, the jurist Vacarius, “a Lombard by birth, an upright man and a lawyer,” was teaching Roman Law somewhere in England.[402]At some time or other he also taught at Oxford and is stated to have been the first to teach Roman Law in that city.[403]The university must be regarded as being fully in existence by 1189, as Giraldus Cambrensis lectured there about that date on “Ireland” to “all the doctors of the different faculties and such of their pupils as were of greater fame or note” on one day, and to the “rest of the scholars” on another.[404]After this date, the references are numerous and conclusive.
Two main theories have been advanced to account for the rise of a “studium generale” at Oxford. One group of writers[405]connects its origin with some one or other of the conventual schools at Oxford. By analogy with the origin of the European universities which are considered “primary,” they suggest that the Church was the foster-mother of the university, and that the earliest schools were those in connection with St. Frideswide and the abbeys of Oseney and Eynesham. The other theory (advanced by Rashdall) connects the rise of a university at Oxford with a migration from Paris, which is supposed to have occurred in or about the year 1167. In support of this hypothesis it is pointed out that about that date Henry II. (who was then engaged in a conflict with his Archbishop, Thomas Becket) required “that all scholars be compelled to return to their country or be deprived of their benefices.”[406]Rashdall also points out that from this time onwards we hear of sermons being preached expressly for “clerkes from various parts of England.”[407]
Both of these theories are open to objections. The evidence in favour of a migration is based upon a series of assumptions; if a migration of this character really occurred it is difficult to account for the silence of all the English chroniclers on an event which must have appealed to the imagination; no record is available of any clerkwho left Paris on account of the edict, or of any clerk going from Paris to Oxford. On the other hand, it must be admitted that the theory of gradual development is also open to objection. It is vague and indefinite as to details of the growth of the “studium generale”; no authoritative explanation is given for the independent position of the early Oxford masters, and for their freedom from all immediate ecclesiastical control.
The question of the relationship of the university to the Church needs careful consideration. A great deal depends upon the account of the origin of the university which is accepted. If it is maintained, that from the time of its origin, it was under ecclesiastical supervision, then it is difficult to account for the spirit of independence which was manifested during the period that immediately preceded the Legatine Ordinance of 1214. However, by that ordinance ecclesiastical control was definitely asserted; the scholars were made subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, and the position of chancellor was established—probably to mark the subjection of the masters to episcopal control.[408]
The chancellor of the university was, at first, merely the representative of the bishop possessing only such powers as were delegated to him. As long as Robert Grosseteste was Bishop of Lincoln, the relationship between the university and the bishop was most harmonious. Soon after his death, however, disputes began to arise between the two authorities.[409]The details of the conflict may be omitted here; the fact that needs to be noticed is, that in connection with the dispute, the chancellor (though in theory a representative of the bishop) becomes identified with the interests of the university. Four years later we find the chancellor exercising the power of excommunication on his own responsibility, a power which was subsequently confirmed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.[410]The Archbishop also took the part of the chancellor in adispute with reference to the exercise of certain privileges, which arose between the university and the bishop in 1280; the bishop was practically compelled to yield on all the points in dispute. From that time onwards, the chancellor was in practice independent of the bishop.[411]The last phase of the struggle between the bishop and the university is concerned with questions arising out of the confirmation of the election of the chancellor. The dispute first arose in 1288 and recurred with successive elections. The question was finally settled in 1368 when the Pope decreed that the confirmation of the chancellorship by the Bishop of Lincoln might be dispensed with.[412]Ever since that date, the university of Oxford has enjoyed the power of electing and confirming its highest honour without reference to any ecclesiastical authority.
An important event in the history of the university occurred in 1209. The murder of a woman by a scholar led to two or three of the scholars being hanged by the townsmen with the tacit consent of the king. “On this nearly 3,000 clerks, masters, and scholars alike, left Oxford, not a single one of the whole university remaining. Some of them went to study the liberal arts at Cambridge, some to Reading, but the town of Oxford was left empty.”[413]Oxford remained practically destitute of scholars till 1213 when the townsmen humbled themselves, an event contributed to by King John’s submission to the pope. Rashdall states that the ordinances issued by the papal legate in 1214 constituted the first official recognition of the university which has come down to us.[414]
By this time Oxford had become a recognised centre of learning and had attained to such importance that its opinion on disputed matters was highly esteemed. Thus, in 1252, Henry III. submitted to the university the question in dispute between Raleigh, Bishop of Norwich, and himself; Archbishop Boniface of Canterbury went to Oxfordin 1252 in order to make known to the university the conduct of the Bishop of Winchester, so that through the influence of the university the news might be spread throughout the world of learning.
Passing next to the university of Cambridge, we find that its origin also is a matter of doubt. Here, again, two theories have been advanced—one which upholds the idea of gradual development, the other which bases the origin of the university on a migration from Oxford.
The earliest extant reference to a university at Cambridge dates from 1231. In that year Henry III. sent a communication to the sheriff of Cambridge, authorising him to take action in the case of “divers disorderly and incorrigible clerks” ... and also “divers criminals in the guise of clerks pretending to be what they are not.”[415]Evidence also exists to show, that in 1276, the Bishop of Ely defined the jurisdiction of the Chancellor of Cambridge University, the Archdeacon of Ely, and the Grammar Schoolmaster.[416]
The early history of the university of Cambridge, like that of its sister university, is largely a history of disputes, of feuds between the townsmen and the burgesses, of quarrels between the opposing “nations,” of disputes arising out of disorders on the part of the students, and of the struggles for independence of ecclesiastical control. The last of these is the only one which concerns us here, but as the matter is so fully dealt with elsewhere[417]it will suffice to point out here that the growth of freedom from episcopal supervision was slower at Cambridge than at Oxford. It was not until the close of the fourteenth century that the power of the Bishop of Ely to decide internal disputes between the chancellor and the masters, and between the various faculties and to hear appeals from the chancellor, was dispensed with, and it was not until 1432 that the university was entirely independent of the direct control of the Church.
In this chapter we have given the various hypotheseswhich have been advanced, to account for the origin of the English universities. Whichever hypothesis we accept, the important fact is that a class of teachers gradually grew up in this country, and that these teachers, influenced by the gild spirit which was particularly strong in the twelfth century, ultimately formed themselves into a gild which became strong enough to gain recognition. It is impossible to point to any definite charter or document by which this was effected; it is not until the university was in actual being and admitting to its degrees those teachers whom it considered qualified for admission, that we have any real evidence of its existence.
The development of the universities had three important effects, so far as the special subject of this investigation is concerned.
(1) The licensing of teachers passed out of the hands of the Church and was undertaken by the universities. With the general recognition of the universities, the licence to teach which was considered valuable was the licence granted by the university and not that of bishop or cathedral chancellor. It is interesting to note that the power of conferring degrees now possessed by the Archbishop of Canterbury is a relic of the power which he formerly exercised of granting recognition to teachers in the diocese of Canterbury.
(2) The theological schools of the chancellor gradually ceased to exist, as the theological teaching at the universities began to develop. Since specialised teaching centred itself at the universities, and as the demands upon the time of the chancellor became more insistent with the increasing work of the cathedral and diocese, together with the fact that the teaching function of the chancellor was gradually being lost sight of, so it came about that the theological schools of the chancellor became of less and less note until at last it is impossible to trace any real signs of their existence.
(3) The universities, and not the Church, became recognised as the centre of the intellectual activity of the country. As we have shown, the Church was originally regarded as the custodian of all interests which might beconceived of as intellectual. “Religion and letters” were considered to be identical; gradually the principle of division of labour manifested itself, and the Church was left to concern itself with its spiritual functions, leaving to others the care of those matters which may be considered as exclusively relating to the development of the intellectual well-being of man.
GILDS AND VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS.
At an early stage in the development of the English nation there became manifest a tendency for persons who possessed certain interests in common, to organise themselves into a species of club or association. To such associations the term “gild” has been applied. Mr. Toulmin Smith maintains that the early English gilds came into existence for the purpose of joining all classes together, for assisting the needy and promoting objects of common welfare. These gilds were inspired by religious motives, and were closely associated with the Church.[418]The first three English gilds of which records are now available, are those of Abbotsbury,[419]Exeter, and Cambridge. The earliest available statement of the purposes of gilds appears to date from 858, when the Archbishop of Rheims, in giving particulars of the gilds of that date in France states that they “unite for offerings, for mutual assistance, for funeral services for the dead, for alms, and for other deeds of piety.”[420]The number of these associations rapidly increased. Brentano states that at one time during the Middle Ages, there were twelve gilds in Norwich and Lynn respectively. Gallienus counts 80 gilds in Cologne, Melle about 70 at Lübeck, and Staphorst over 100 at Hamburg.[421]Gilds were so very numerous and so marked a characteristic of the social life of the period that it is not to bewondered at if exaggerated statements were made as to their number. “In Norfolk, the most densely populated county of England, Taylor is said to have counted no less than 909 gilds, and in Lyme Regis alone 75.”[422]
It is important to remember that the most prominent characteristic of gilds was the religious element. As a matter of fact it is impossible to conceive of any social organisation which was entirely divorced from religion, existing at this time. Hartshorn states “No matter what the specificraison d’êtrewas of any gild, it necessarily had a religious aspect. Each had its patron, in whose honour candles were burnt. Some had as their object the aid of poor scholars, the maintenance of schools or the payment of schoolmasters, the presentation of religious plays, as even to-day that of Oberammergau in South Bavaria, or the repair of roads and bridges. The Frith Gilds had rules for helping the gild-brothers in every need. The statutes of the English gilds frequently mention loans made to needy brothers with but one condition, that it be repaid when there was no more need of it.”[423]
Before proceeding to consider the educational significance of the gilds, we may refer here, for the sake of convenience, to two subsequent developments of the gild movement—the gild-merchant and the craft gild.
In the years which immediately followed the Conquest the more important towns of England suffered greatly, partly on account of the chances of war and partly on account of the policy of castle-building associated with the English kings of the Norman period. However, as soon as the Norman rule was firmly established, an internal peace, such as had not been previously enjoyed, was secured for this country; the towns, consequently, made rapid progress, and in one commercial centre after another a gild-merchant was set up.[424]
A gild-merchant came into existence for reasons similar to those which brought into being the religious and socialgilds. There was a consciousness of a community of interest, and a common object which could be secured more effectively through co-operation. It is foreign to our purpose to attempt to examine critically the origin of gilds-merchant, and so it must suffice for us simply to state that their history has been traced back to corporations of merchants and artisans, which existed in Rome under Numa Pompilius, and which were termed “collegia” or “corpora opificum et artificium.”[425]In France, the first gild-merchant was formed in 1070, and came into existence for the purpose of protecting the free townsmen against the oppression of the nobility. Gradually their number increased, and with the growth in their number their purposes became more clearly defined, and the custom developed that the gild should receive formal recognition from recognised authority. Thus the traders of Paris formed the “Hanse des marchandes de L’eau” and the privileges they claimed were confirmed by Louis VII. in 1170.
The first purposive mention of a gild-merchant in England dates from C. 1093.[426]The general line of development seems to have been that such associations gradually came into existence at various centres; they defined their purposes, their claims, and the exclusive privileges they desired. When a favourable opportunity presented itself, they secured from the king or other lords the grant of a charter which was necessary for legal recognition. Henry I. seems to have been the first king who systematically granted these charters; during the reign of Henry II., charters were obtained by many of the principal towns of the country, notably Bristol, Durham, Lincoln, Carlisle, Oxford, Salisbury, and Southampton; in each of these charters the recognition of a gild-merchant was an important feature.[427]Ashley writes: “In spite of the paucity of evidence, the existence of a merchant gild can be definitely proved in 92 towns out of the 160 represented at one time or other in the parliaments of Edward I. No considerablename—with two exceptions, namely London and the Cinque Ports—is wanting from the list. It is impossible not to conclude that every town, down to those that were not much more than villages, had its merchant gild. This fact of itself is enough to prove the great part it must have played in the town life of the time.”[428]
A third type of gild—the craft gild—begins to appear early in the twelfth century. These gilds become more numerous as the century advances. In the thirteenth century they are a common feature of industrial life. The circumstances which gave rise to the origin of gilds of this character are still in dispute. The popular view is that the gilds-merchant came into existence, first of all, in order to secure protection against the feudal lords. Gradually they became exclusive and so rendered necessary the formation of craft gilds for the protection of the common interest of those who were engaged in crafts in opposition to the interests of those who were concerned in the sale of the commodities produced.
Ashley points out the difficulties involved in this theory,[429]and suggests an alternative hypothesis. He states that originally membership of the town assembly was bound up with the possession of land within the town boundaries, and that membership of the gild-merchant was practically identical with citizenship. In course of time, there came into existence a class of landless inhabitants of the town, who consequently could not be regarded as burgesses, and therefore could not be admitted into the gild-merchant without the payment of fees. Some of these people would turn to handicrafts. The same spirit of community of interest which produced the religious gilds and the gilds-merchant respectively would also operate to induce the craftsmen to form a guild of their own.[430]
The first craft gilds which come into notice, were those of the weavers; the weavers of London date their charter from the reign of Henry I. There were also gilds of weavers in London, Lincoln, and Oxford in existence before 1130.[431]
Just as the gild-merchants obtained a legal recognition of their existence, so the craft gilds also in course of time received recognition from the king, whilst those gilds which were not authorised were amerced as “adulterine.” No attempt, however, seems to have been made forcibly to dissolve the adulterine gilds.
The only definite provision contained in these charters of recognition was, that no one within the specified area should follow the craft unless he were a member of the gild. This provision, however, involved the imposition of conditions of membership, and a general power of supervision over the members of the craft.
We are concerned in this thesis only with the educational significance of the gilds; hence we need not discuss further their economic aspects. It is, however, interesting to note that the social value of these gilds survived their economic functions. Judged from an economic standpoint, they began to degenerate during the fourteenth century. They had come into existence in response to the impulse arising out of a vague sense of the value of association of membership in a corporate body; against this spirit, the sense of individualism, which particularly manifested itself at the time of the Reformation, asserted itself and ultimately triumphed.
The gild system was of considerable importance from the point of view of education. We may note that the gild spirit manifested itself among teachers. They organised themselves into a form of association. Gradually, they laid down the conditions of membership of their body. In course of time, legal recognition was received from pope or emperor or king, and the embryo university gradually obtains general recognition. “The rise of the universities,” says Rashdall, “was merely a wave of that great movement towards association which began to sweep over the cities of Europe in the course of the eleventh century.”
We may next note that the gilds we have described proved to be the means by which the growing social consciousness of the nation evinced an interest in education. The term “social consciousness” is vague, and is capableof being variously defined. The origin of the phenomenon may be traced to the gregarious instinct, when the resulting consciousness is merely the “consciousness of kind,” to use Professor Giddings’ phrase. A higher stage of development is reached when an individual member of a group recognises the relationship in which he stands to the other members of the group, together with a realisation of the duties which such relationship involves. A still higher degree of development of the social consciousness results when the group as a whole recognises that it possesses social duties and responsibilities.
We may trace roughly four stages in the growth of a national social consciousness. First, there is the stage at which the individual cares only for himself, a second stage is attained when family claims are recognised, a still higher stage when a duty to a social group is perceived, a fourth stage is reached when social organisations are formed for discharging more effectively social duties.
The earliest of these social organisations in point of time—and the most important from the standpoint of education—were the social gilds. These gilds, as we have shown, were essentially religious. They were a manifestation of what may be described as a “democratic religious impulse.” The term is admittedly clumsy, but it denotes a desire proceeding from the people to carry out religious duties apart from the official requirements of the Church. On a large scale we can see this force at work in the movements initiated by St. Francis of Assisi and St. Dominic respectively, or, to take a more recent example, in the Methodist revival in the Church of England. To return to our period, we find that men and women, impelled by a spirit of association, formed themselves into a gild in order to carry out more effectively their religious and social responsibilities. We particularly wish to note that, in some cases, these responsibilities included the making of provision for the education of the young.
It is not possible yet to indicate the full extent to which these social gilds made such provision, but it is probable that they did much more for education than is commonlyconceived. Our chief means of discovering what was accomplished, is by an examination of the returns which were made when the gilds were being dissolved. From an examination of these records, we are led to the conclusion that, after an association or gild had been formed for specified purposes the general method of procedure was, that the members of the gild made certain payments to secure the services of one or more priests, who were to devote themselves to carrying out such objects as the gild had in view. These aims frequently included the keeping of a school.
We can find this illustrated by a consideration of the information available[432]with regard to the Gild of Kalendars, Bristol. In 1318 the Bishop of Gloucester issued an inquisition as to the rights and privileges of this gild. The report of the commissioners states that “the beginning of the fraternity exceeds the memory of man,” and it was established that it existed before the Conquest. The gild was formerly called the “Gild or Brotherhood of the Community of the clergy and people of Bristol” and received a licence from the Cardinal-legate Gualo in 1216. Among other works carried out by this association is mentioned the maintenance of “a school for Jewes and other strangers, to be brought up and instructed in christianitie under the said fraternitie.”[433]Here then is established the fact that gilds, as apart from churches, conceived themselves as responsible for education at least as early as the thirteenth century.