« AnteriorContinuar »
his writings as text-books in the university faculty of arts, followed by direct translations of Aristotle from the Greek, by acts for the suppression of heresy by fine, etc.
Meanwhile the Dominicans, made strong by the teachings and writings of those two greatest men of the age, Albertus Magnus and his pupil Thomas Aquinas, steadily gained ground. The first won the world to Aristotle by making his philosophy Christian, while Aquinas devoted himself to a reconciliation of the new truths and highest thought with the profoundest of religious convictions based on the truths of the Gospel.
At first the studies of the friars were made in the secular theological schools then available, but later they were pleased to present themselves at the university for admission to the faculty of theology. They were cordially received and continued to avail themselves of its facilities until the great dispersion of the university masters and doctors because of the suspension of university work in 12:29, already mentioned. But during the suspension the friars were pleased to form a school of their own; nay two schools, the newly converted theologian, John of St. Giles, of England, having been constrained by his admirers to open a second.
At about the same time the Franciscans opened a school under the leadership of another Englishman, Alexander Hales, as also did still other religious orders, so that the university, when it had settled itself down again to regular work, found a whole cluster of theological schools doing the work which the faculty of theology had hitherto supposed itself fully and alone competent to do. The mendicant orders had taken the field and a conflict was inevitable. A bull from the Pope requiring the chancellor at Paris to confer the licentia docendi upon as many members of the religious orders as upon examination he should find qualified opened the rupture quite unexpectedly in 1250. The defense was promptly taken up, first by the great university association in the form of an insistence upon its right to refuse to approve the inception of doctors whom the chancellor had licensed without its consent; and, secondly, by the faculty of theology in a formal statute against the Dominicans, Franciscans, and all other of the mendicant orders to the extent of ordering serious limitations upon the privileges of their members. Riots and other troubles resulted, and these were followed by a university decree of cessatio (cessation of lectures), by the refusal of obedience thereto by three friars, two of them Dominican and one Franciscan, by an ineffectual appeal to Rome, by a university requirement that all masters should swear to insist on justice, and by final expulsion of the friars.
The persistency of the university in this case had been due to the discovery that the friars were bent on enjoying the benefits of the association of masters, whether obeying its requirements or not, as they might prefer. The masters were firm in their determination that the regulations of the society should be sacredly observed. It was absolutely necessary to the maintenance of the university itself. The offending friars were expelled. Then followed an appeal to the Iloly See, an annulment of the order of expulsion, a positive requirement for the reinstatement of the offenders, and the defiance of the Pope in the form of official notice to the thousands likely to attend the instruction and sermons of the friars that their schools would not be recognized by the university. After Innocent IV, who favored the seculars and condemned the usurpations of the friars, bis successor, Alexander IV, took the other side very emphatically, and even offensively: Bull succeeded bull, and yet the masters resisted, finally adopting the expedient of dissolving their society as a means of cutting off the mendicants from association with them, as hitherto.
Under these circumstances it was inevitable that the seculars should decline in power and influence. But in 1261 Alexander IV died and the university
found a new friend in his successor, U'rban IV, who had been a Parisian canonist and who took a different view of matters. As a result, bulls of privilege took the place of bans of condemnation, and among them certain restrictions upon the privileges which had been acquired by the mendicants, to the effect that, although members of the faculty of theology, the faculty of canon law, or the university as such, the mendicants and the students with them could, nevertheless, be refused admission to the faculty of arts or the societas magistrorum et scholarium at its pleasure; that no religious college would be allowed to have more than two doctors acting as regents and sitting at the same time in the general congregation of the university, and that secular students should thereafter incept under secular doctors only. Naturally, under existing circumstances, these rights of refusal accorded to the faculty of arts and the university congregation were duly exercised. Seculars were not debarred the privilege of attending lectures given by friar doctors, yet their inability to incept under them, together with the oath to “stand with the secular masters to whatever state he should come,” regularly administered to every master of arts at his inception, would, in most cases, prevent such attendance.
Thus, while failing of entire success in recovering its ground, the university had nevertheless won a substantial victory after a long and bitter contest, so that in 1318 it was able once more to impose upon the friars the oath of obedience to its statutes. Furthermore, by reason of the conflict, the university and its faculties became better organized. The corporate body could act for one of its faculties as a whole, and the acts of the faculties were to be treated as acts of the university. A system of finance had been developed, and the university had quired a consciousness of its ability to hold its own high ground in defiance, if need be, of decisions of the Holy See.
VII.-CONCLUÐING WORDS. I have thus presented, with such fullness as the prescribed limit would allow, a systematic and orderly detail of the several steps by which the University of Paris advanced from its small beginning to final greatness. Totally wanting in the grand cluster of palatial halls, laboratories, museums, observatories, and other establishments suggested by the munificent endowments and ambitious plans of the Stanfords, Rockefellers, and Carnegies of modern times, the early University of Paris is nevertheless more deeply interesting than all of these because of the simple and rude conditions-material, social, political, and religious--of its origin, the intellectual awakening among the people of many lands which fostered it, and the unparalleled enlistment of kingly and papal powers which finally established it.
As already remarked, the notable achievements of the University of Paris were not alone in the field of learning, where indeed they were unsurpassed, but also and especially, as already suggested, in affairs national, international, and ecclesiastical. Its place in the world was exceedingly fortunate on many accounts. Unlike Bologna and other Italian universities in relation to the cities where they were located, it made itself a part of Paris and Paris a part of it, with resulting greater numbers of both masters and students, with increasing interest on the part of the religious, municipal, and national authorities through a most natural pride and sympathy, and with such relationships as eventually gained for it an unprecedented and otherwise impossible influence and power.
After its safe passage through the perils at first believed to attach to the pagan philosophies of Greece, Arabia, and Persia, and the reenforcement of its
faculty of theology by the very ablest philosophers and theologians of the age, the university easily came to the honors and responsibilities of what was in fact a supreme council of the church-rectifier of minor errors, whether of prelates or others, and the invincible defender of the faith where assailed from without. It created a scholastic theology, and it was thus, as Rashdall has well said, that it triumphed over the skeptical as well as over the mystical reactionaries, and became “ the first school of the church and theological arbiter of Europe; ” for, “ however much the theological dictatorship assumed by the university may have blasted the fair prospects of the twelfth century “illumination,' it was by means of this dictatorship that Paris conferred on France, and indeed on all northern Europe, one of the most memorable services which she ever rendered to the cause of enlightenment, of civilization, and of humanity."
The reference here is, of course, to the influence exerted by the University of Paris in saring France and other portions of northern and northwestern Europe to so large an extent from the fearful ravages of the great inquisition.
Another signal service was that of resisting, and in some measure thwarting, as we have seen, the adverse schemes of the mendicant orders. It was, indeed, the most powerful champion of the secular clergy in their many conflicts, while in the remarkable schism which for time divided the papal power the university also managed with great wisdom and was at last the main instrument in bringing about a return to unity. It had come to first honors, so that it even sent ambassadors to foreign courts on missions most important, and thus gained a still larger influence in the affairs of the world at large.
I have dealt first with the ecclesiastical side of this interesting subject of the university's influence because it was, first of all, by intent of its founders and in actual service, a theological institution par excellence. But the situation of the university at Europe's most brilliant and most influential center was no less fortunate from a political than from a theological point of view. Because of this simple fact it gained a supreme advantage, as already noted, and well it utilized it. First of all, it won the favor of the King, so that in a large sense he made it his special protégé, protecting its students from abroad when at war with their native lands and thus making them practically citizens of the world; tenderly entitling it "eldest daughter of the King," and opening the way for it to become a real force and influence in national and international affairs.
In many cases the university became the chief pacificator, outranking in recognized dignity and importance all other mediators, civil or ecclesiastical, It had become a European power.”
Historians dealing with the middle ages have with one accord made Germany first in imperial power and martial glory; Italy first in jurisprudence, in art, and in ecclesiastical authority, as seat of the papal power; but to France no less fitiy belongs the honor of having produced that most brilliant and influential of the world's universities, through wlose agency her queenly capital was made first in the realm of letters, first in science, first in medieval philosophy, and first in scholastic theology, as well as foremost in the vast and diversified realm of those practical, esthetic, and social arts which are essential to the world's progress in civilization.
THE WORK AND INFLUENCE OF HAMPTON.
PROCEEDINGS OF A MEETING HELD IN NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 12, 1904, UNDER
THE DIRECTION OF THE ARMSTRONG ASSOCIATION, WITH THE ADDRESSES OF MR. ANDREW CARNEGIE (CHAIRMAN), PRESIDENT CHARLES W. ELIOT, DR. H. B. FRISSELL,
AND DR. BOOKER T. WASHINGTON.
The meeting was opened by Mr. William Jay Schieffelin, president of the Armstrong Association, who read the following letter from ex-President Cieveland:
PRINCETON, February 8, 1904. MY DEAR SIR: I am sorry I must forego the gratification of attending the meeting to be held on the 12th instant for the promotion of the purposes of Southern educational work.
I am so completely convinced of the importance of this cause, as it is related to the solution of a problem which no patriotic citizen should neglect, that I look upon every attempt to stimulate popular interest and activity in its behalt as a duty of citizenship.
All our people and every section of our country are deeply concerned in the better equipment of our negro population for self-support and usefulness. There should be a general agreement as to the necessity of their improvement in this direction; and all good men should contribute, in the manner best suited to their several circumstances, to the accomplishment of this beneficent result.
Different sections of our country are affected in differing degrees and with greater or less directness; but it seems to me all must concede that no agencies can possibly do better service in the cause of negro amelioration than the institutions in which they are taught how to be self-supporting and self-respecting.
Such institutions as these, which have demonstrated their efficiency, and which prove their merit by an exhibit of successful effort, should be constantly and generously encouraged and assisted. The extent to which this is done may well be accepted as a test of our sincerity in the cause of negro improvement. Yours, very truly,
GROVER CLEVELAND. Mr. Schieffelin then presented, as the chairman of the meeting, Mr. Andrew Carnegie, who spoke as follows:
ADDRESS OF MR. CARNEGIE.
Ladies and gentlemen, we meet upon the birthday of the great emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, he who knocked the shackles from 4,000,000 slaves and made them physically free under the law. But in the higher sense he only is a freeman whom education makes free. Lincoln did his part, but he only began the task. It remains for us, the followers of that leader of men, to continue and complete it. This brings us here to-night.
There is one class of men which experience is said to teach—the fools—but I suspect these are beyond teaching. Let us rather say that experience teaches the ignorant. I suggest this change because by experience I have been taught the Southern problem, and hesitate to class myself with the former. Every man and woman in the North who has not lived in the South, or visited it often
for extended periods, must be ignorant of the South and the serious problems which confront our fellow-citizens there, white and black. We have nothing like it in the North ; neither has Britain nor any English-speaking community under free institutions similar conditions with which to deal, because it is not only a question of less or more education, but of race. Before I had a vote I was an ardent Free Soiler, and a contributor in my 'teens to the New York Tribune, then our great antislavery organ. After the war my brother and his family made their winter home in the South, and during my numerous visits there I was brought face to face with the Southern problem, and became deeply impressed with its gravity, as any Northern man is who is brought face to face with it. It was an entirely new problem, which I had never thought of and never could have correctly imagined. Preconceived ideas of liberty and equality, ending in the sublime privilege of the suffrage, were rudely shaken, and I was forced to see that it was not enough to say that “a slave can not live in the Republic; he breathes our air; his shackles fall.” That necessary act performed, the task does not end; it only begins. We have destroyed one bad system, but constructive work is needed. The shackles may be off, but the slave of yesterday can not rise to the height of full citizenship next day. The prisoner from the dungeon, long confined in darkness, is blinded for a time by the light when released. Resolutions and party platforms, eloquent harangues upon liberty, equality, and fraternity, promote no healthy growth, produce no good fruit. Even legislation can not reach the seat of the malady. The men who stand face to face with the Southern problem are soon convinced that the needed help, the uplifting element, the indispensable instructor, is to be sought in an entirely different direction. The cure is not political, but social. Now, ladies and gentlemen, here is a remarkable fact-for fact it is as far as my knowledge extends—which I ask you to note. There never was, so far as I know, an intelligent, worthy, kindly Northern man who settled in the South and became conversant with its conditions whose experience has not been mine as I have recounted it to you. Without exception, they change their views and deeply sympathize with their sorely tried white brethren of the South and see that only through cordial cooperation with them is the needed work of raising the negro to be successfully accomplished. We should ponder upon this, especially those of us in the North who have not known life in the South. I am persuaded that the educational conference presided over by Mr. Ogden, represented here by him and others; Tuskegee, represented by that remarkable leader of his people, Mr. Washington; Hampton, represented by the president, and others are on the right path, and theirs the means through which the colored man is to be made capable of finally exercising the powers and performing the duties of a citizen of a free State with safety to the State. Many of you have read the wise paper of our distinguished fellow-citizen of New York, Hon. Carl Schurz, present with us to-night, an essay full of wise counsel. He points out that our aim should be first to lift the colored man and make him worthy of citizenship, nerer denying him, howerer, that ideal which he should strive to attain finally-complete political equality.
Perhaps I can give you a just conception of the difference in the situation with us in the North and our white friends in the South. We safely extend the suffrage in this home of free schools and universal education, and trust to education to make sober-minded, intelligent citizens as the sure effect of knowleuge. The number of new citizens given the suffrage who are not sufficiently informed is relatively small. Even if they vote unwisely they do not drown the voice of the intelligent. These are still in the majority and their views prevail. Good and safe government is not endangered.
In the South the ignorant are the immense majority. To give suffrage with