Imagens das páginas


An important and exceedingly interesting feature of the university after a time was the association with it-incidental at first, but permanent, if not indeed organic, at last-of a considerable number of duly established societies or communities. The first of these were known as “ hospicia.” But soon other organizations appeared, which came at length to be known as * colleges." These last were suggested to the minds of generous and sympathetic men and women anxious to be helpful in some way to worthy but indigent young men seeking for an honorable place in community, church, or state.

The hospicia were not very different in either constitution or management from the hospicia formed by law students of the University of Bologna. They (of Bologna) were voluntary associations of young students of law, leagued together, in simple quarters for both security and economy, choosing their own chief, and making their own regulations. Those of Paris were associations or clubs of younger persons, more commonly with religious inclinations, and the hope to become a * clerk ” or something higher. Having to agree upon the house they would like to occupy, as well as the rent they would be willing to pay, and how (i. e., by what system, rules, and regulations) they would be governed, they would of necessity choose a chief to preside over their deliberations and wisely manage their affairs. Such chief was at first commonly known as “principal.” He was not necessarily a university master, but he was bound to be of no less importance than a senior in the arts department, and was, in fact, very often a bachelor of arts; and finally it became the requirement that he should be either an A. B. or an A. M. Almost from the first organization of the university it became universal for students to live in houses of this sort, except with two classes, namely, the wealthy, who lived in their own homes or in elegant apartments elsewhere, and the very poorest, who, being unable to make the payments required of them by the hospicia, got on the best they could in some miserable garret or cheap tenement, in some wretchell quarter of the city.

Accepting the statements of Denifle and Rashdall, the college was nothing different from an endowed hospicium. It was less democratie, in that the master who governed as principal was placed at its head by the founder instead of his associates. But in both cases the members of the college had a share in its management.

It seems that the first of such foundations was exceedingly humble, being the consecration of a single room “ for poor clerks” in the “ Hospital of the Blessed Mary of Paris,” situated near the Cathedral of Notre Dame, and finally known as the Hotel Dieu. Thanks to a pilgrimage to Jerusalem by the large-hearted Josius, of London, and a subsequent visit to this hospital, the room thus consecrated was purchased and fitted up for “ eighteen scholar-clerks,” the proctors of the house further agreeing to pay them “ twelve numinia a month out of the alms collected in the hospital chest.” As for the scholars thus favored, their sole statutory obligation was to take turns'in bearing the cross and holy water at the funerals of those who died in the house, and nightly to repeat the seven penitential psalms and other customary prayers.”

Foundation after foundation, some of them very liberal indeed, followed each other right along through the years of the thirteenth century and of the succeeding two centuries to the number of over sixty colleges.

The first of the colleges of higher rank than that of a grammar school was named the College of Constantinople, in remembrance of its connection with the Latin conquest of that city of the East in 1204. It was to help in the great

undertaking of supplying the East with a host of ecclesiastics from the center of Christian theology and for the bringing a like or greater number of Greek, Turkish, Arabian, and Persian youths to Paris for conversion to the true faith.

In the College of St. Nicholas du Louvre, endowed as early as 1241 and favored with a royal charter in 1293, the university found the first institution of this class planned especially for students in the university faculty of arts.

The llouse of Sorbonne, though at first planned, as said before, for 16 students of theology, was soon enlarged by other benefactions so as to accommodate 36. Many contributions were made to its endowment. St. Louis gave a part of the site, near the palace of Julian, and collections were made for it in the churches by indulgence of bishops and Popes, so that after a little it was in a most prosperous state and could allow each fellow” to have a “poor clerk” as his personal attendant, sharing his chamber and other advantages. Its government and the supply of its burses" were made the duty of the archdean or chan('ellor of Paris, the doctors of theology, the deans of other superior faculties, and the rector and proctors of the university, the more immediate management being intrusted to a “provisor.” This was a college of theologians—those who, having taken the degree of M. A., were eager to enter upon the long and laborious task of preparing themselves for that of doctor of divinity. It took high ground at once and finally gave its title (the Sorbonne) to the whole faculty of theology, for popular use, by reason of its interest, activity, and influence in the discussions and informal judgments upon matters of faith so commonly rendered in its halls. Duvernet says of it:

The great care which was taken not to admit among the teachers any but men of the highest talents and attainments soon procured for the school a European fame, and in the fourteenth century the entire theological faculty of the university was merged into it. During the middle ages, the period of the Reformation, and even after that time, the Sorbonne was generally considered one of the highest authorities of the Christian church, and its decisions were appealed to not only in theological controversies, but also in the contests between the Popes and the secular powers. It was a stanch champion of the freedom of the Gallican church and strongly opposed to ultramontanism. It condemned Jansen and the Jansenists in matters of doctrine, but sided with them in their fight with the Jesuits. Its culmination was in the time of Cardinal Richelieu, who, himself a graduate of the school, provided it with a magnificent building and enlarged its library.

The College of Navarre was not very different from the Sorbonne in either purpose or administration. It was founded in 1304 by Joanna, Queen of Navarre, and consort of Philip the Fair, and was munificently endowed and handsomely administered. At first the government and patronage were with the faculty of theology, afterwards with the Bishop of Melun, the Chancellor of Paris, the dean of the theological faculty, and the grand master, and last of all, after many more changes, with the King's confessor, by his own arbitrary appointment.

The more noticeable feature of these last two, which were the most liberally endowed as well as the most distinguished of the colleges at Paris, was the increase of college teaching which they especially represented. They became the pioneers in bringing about important changes in this regard. The theological masters connected with them had lectured in their halls from the very first, and their lectures were so ordered, prepared, and delivered, in harmony with the courses established by the faculty of theology, that they were accounted as of the university in determining the claims of students therein. Other colleges followed suit as they were able, adopting the new educational methods and opening their living accommodations as well as halls of instruction to outsiders until, in 1445, the university authorities are said to have been found declaring to the King, Almost the whole university resides in the colleges."

[ocr errors]

Independent of the advantages accruing to the university from the college system which have been already noted, there was another of much importancethe better discipline among the students than would otherwise have been possible. As already remarked, the university was at first a voluntary association of masters acting in their individual capacity; not a single, compact institution, with its corps of universally accepted officers. It determined the courses of study to be completed in order to reach certain honors and prerogatives, but had nothing to do with the discipline of its students. It was the university of masters and scholars, with the masters in command, and it might properly enough have been expected of them that they would assert and maintain their authority over the students in matters of conduct as well as of study. But they did not. Discipline in the outer world was left to the police and to the ecclesiastical tribunals established by university request; that of the hospicium or hall or pedagogium and college to their several principals, pedagogues, and masters. It was not before 1287 that the university provided for the registering of the students' names in the matricula and an inventory of their property. It was wholly at sea, therefore, when a student was under arrest and proof was demanded of his connection with the institution. And it was not until the fitteenth century that the faculty of arts, as being that one of the faculties that embraced the greater number of students, including nearly all of those under age and likely to require supervision and discipline, rallied its forces, established disciplinary regulations, and sought to put an end to the fearsul outbreaks, fierce conflicts between bands of armed students, and between student mobs and citizens, which were of such frequent occurrence as to make the city almost willing, at times, to allow the university authorities to execute their threats to locate the institution somewhere else.

But even the colleges found it difficult sometimes to duly supplement the university in the field of conduct. The spirit of independence, quite regardless of the demands of moral order or of common decency, was now and then so rampant that there was a general looking about for some sort of a remedy. It was in this spirit of barbarism that scholars in the same boarding house into which some of the hospices and weaker colleges had been half transformed got into the habit of migrating from one to another when they could not quite have their own way, and, in case of hindrance to their plans, visiting the most brutal judgments upon the establishments so interfering.

It was well, therefore, that the university (or its constituent faculties and nations) maintained and so enlarged its influence and control over the colleges that when aroused it was able to provide and enforce regulations even for their internal management; that it was able, when necessary, to remove their officers, even their founders, when the circumstances demanded. Doubtless it was not an authority always enjoyed or even acquiesced in by the colleges, but it was none the less for the general good that it existed and the right of visitation was maintained. Moreover, the migration referred to was prohibited, and the character and availability of the colleges were so far improved that by 1463 residence within the "pedagogy” or college, with certain exceptions, was made obligatory, and the mastership therein was treated as a university office, and they were not only allowed but encouraged to attract lecturers of established reputation and thus conduct the work of education to an important extent-to such an extent, indeed, that in some departments almost the entire instruction requisite to a degree was conducted in them. This was especially the case in the department of theology, the lecturing in which came to be practically confined to the great colleges of the Sorbonne and Navarre (both secular), with a little help from the regulars."

The advantage to the university was that the college system largely relieved

the university of the responsibility of renting buildings and balls, of raising money for the masters and doctors who conducted the instruction, and devolved it upon many lesser institutions, which, while practically submivisions of it and enjoying the benefits of its guidance and influence with state and church, at the same time had the benefit of that spirit of honorable rivalry which makes itself so immensely helpful in every great field of activity.


There is another side of this picture, however. It was not all sunshine with the university. There were serious hindrances, as well as many helps toward its development.


The first of them was the antagonism, in one form and another, of the powerful chancellor of the cathedral, whose personal ambition was unbounded, and who, foreseeing the probability of a loss of power in university matters unless great vigilance and skillful management should be exercised on his part, was persistent in his opposition to all forward tendencies. The association of masters of arts, ready for any service as teachers in the arts department of the coming university, which had been formed almost spontaneously and without very definite aims around the cloister school of the cathedral, finally came to a realizing sense of the looseness of its organization, and began to think seriously of a formal and legal incorporation of the several schools or faculties growing up and to be developed as one great institution, with statutes of its own, and with the requisite facilities and powers.

It seems that hitherto the chancellor could not only grant or refuse licenses to teach at his own pleasure, but could take away a license already enjoyed, or deprive a student of his privileges as such, and by his own arbitrary command also rob either master or student of the ecclesiastical privileges appertaining to his connection with the schools. He was in fact clothed with, or at least exercised, the most absolute tyranny, and did not omit to indulge himself in the exercise of his authority. Ile enforced his decisions by excommunication, and lad control of a prison for the confinement of the refractory. The only offset the society of masters had lay in the fact that, while all-powerful in the granting of the licenses, he could not compel the association to admit as a member anyone so licensed. On the other hand, they could require erery new master to make oath to obey the regulations of the association, and could impose various penalties and disabilities upon anyone who, through falsities or other misconduct, had rendered himself obnoxious. Moreover, no licentiate of the chancellor was accounted fully empowered until he had been received into the association of masters by a public inception.

It is manifest that two forces thus so empowered, respectively, and in the pature of the case, antagonistie, would have almost unceasing conflicts. And so it was with the chancellor and the masters.

Many interesting accounts of clashes, prosecutions, and suits are recorded. It was the chancellor versus the university, or vice versa, all the while, until the powers at Rome became weary and intervened by decreeing: (1) That the oaths of obedience to the chancellor hitherto taken by masters should be relaxed; (2) that there should be no exaction of such oaths in the future; (3) that the chancellor's licenses should hereafter be gratuitous; (+) that it should be the duty of the chancellor to grant licenses to all candidates recommended by

a majority of the masters in the several superior faculties, or by six selected masters in the faculty of arts, three to be named by the chancellor and three by the faculty ; (5) that there should not be imprisonment of scholars during trial in case of but slight offenses, and that in any event a scholar imprisoned should be discharged upon the furnishing of sufficient bail, and, finally, (6) that the . chancellor should under no circumstances whatsoever impose a money penalty on a convicted student, though there might be an award of damages to the party injured.

Two years later (in 1215) these provisions were embodied in permanent statutes imposed by Cardinal Courçon, together with the right of the university, within certain limits, to make statutes for its own gorernment and to require oaths of obedience thereto.

Nevertheless the conflict went on, becoming more and more bitter on the part of the chancellor, who, with the cooperation of the bishop, even went so far as to revive an old and defunct proclamation against conspiracies, and to excommunicate the university as a whole, on the ground of disobedience thereto. The very existence of the university was a conspiracy from the chancellor's and bishop's point of view and they were bent on destroying it. IIappily the Holy See took a very different view, and in 1219 and 1292 bulls were issued by Popes Honorius III and Gregory IX which turned the scale and gave to the university a larger freedom.


A more subtle and still more troublesome hindrance was found in the mendicant orders, Dominican and Franciscan, both of them powerful and persistent.

Ere the coming of the twelfth century the higher educational work was quite exclusively done in the convents, some of which had forgotten the old-time simplicity and become both wealthy and vainly ambitious. The schools known as “external," which followed the efforts of Charlemagne, had so far occupied this field and interfered with the plans of the monastics that the cloisters had practically ceased to furnish educational facilities for the seculars, who by the twelfth century had become the active workers. The monasteries were gradually ceasing to be intellectual forces, and there must come a new order of things unless they were to lose their hold upon the more progressive elements of society, and above all upon the educational agencies already in the lead at the great centers of intellectual effort-eren the universities themselves.

The disciples of St. Dominic were first to gain the conception and first to more with energy. Already established at Bologna, Paris, and Oxford, in each of which places they had schools of collegiate rank, with this ambitious end in view they soon aroused the less intellectually ambitious Franciscans, who were not willing to be left behind, and they, too, established a convent at Paris. The two orders were different in spirit and purpose in that the Dominicans were zealous for conservative orthodoxy, while the Franciscans seemed constitutionally inclined to encourage new theories and new social movements, and were, of course an easy prey for new heresies. But both were in harmony on the vital necessity for overcoming the rationalistic tendencies of the time. Aristotelianism, in spite of the early narrowness of the Churchi, had not only come to be thought safe, but its dialectic element was now reinforced, philosophically speaking, from the East; through Saracenic channels, and had brought with it new and disturbing elements in the teachings of Aricenna and Averroes. As a consequence, skepticism had established itself at Paris with very serious results for a considerable time, and there were measures against the reading of Aristotle's newer works. After which, lorever, came the adoption out and out of

« AnteriorContinuar »