Page images
PDF
EPUB

"Omnes tuæ potestati

Sumus ultro subjugati,

Non verentes alium :

Sed jam diu fatigati,

Non valemus ultra pati

Scholas et jejunium," &c. &c.

The conclusion is this:

"Ergo, cleri flos divine,
Respirare paulum sine,
Quos vexavit studium
Ne jam tuæ disciplinæ
Nobis fiant displicinæ

Vergantes in tædium.

Amen."

But it is far from clear that this has any thing to do with

the Universities.

Boys at a grammar school are probably the

speakers; unless indeed the whole was a joke.

NOTE (58) REFERRED TO IN PAGE 107.

On the position of the Faculties in the English Universities.

In support of what has been said upon this subject, I refer to the Cambridge Statutes of 1570, and to the Oxford Statutes of 1636. It appears as well from the very words of the Statutes themselves, as from the earlier accounts (which, however scattered and scanty they may be, vouch either positively or negatively for the previous existence of the same regulations and circumstances) that both were in all essential matters, merely confirmations of the earlier regulations. Of these accounts, it is necessary only to adduce a few of those which refer to the vain attempts at emancipation on the part of the Faculties, without entering into any of the subordinate points, such as the contentions between the Canonists and Civilians, and the struggle for precedency between the legal and medical Faculties.

The oldest Oxford document upon the point is of the

year 1251.

'The Masters and Bachelors" it says, "have decreed in the room and stead of the Chancellor and University of Oxford, that for the future, none shall commence in Theology until they have first gone through their acts in Arts, &c.; and if any one should obtain by importunity the prayers of great personages armed with authority, in behalf of any one who labors under this defect, let him be deprived of the privileges of the University." This decree was passed in consequence of the attempts of the Theologians of the Mendicant Orders to free themselves from the constraint of the Degree in Arts. It was not a new regulation, but only an enforcement of the old, as a defence against new pretensions. The same reason led upon other occasions (for instance in 1378) to a further confirmation or renewal of this Statute. The term Bachelors, must be understood of Bachelors in Divinity, and by no means of those in Arts. They were Theologians of the Secular Clergy, who held on to the Faculty of Arts, in opposition to the Monks. As far as regards Theology, however, this Statute remained in unchanged validity, up to the time of the already mentioned Statute or regulations respecting the ten years men. As for the Medical, and especially, the Legal Faculty, it appears from their repeated complaints, that they were originally in the same position as the Theologians. These complaints became more violent in the beginning of the fifteenth century; at which period, in the assemblies of the Church (for instance in the London Convocation of 1417) it was proposed to give a bounty on the Academic Degrees, by filling up Benefices according to a certain scale. Upon this occasion, the Masters considered themselves degraded, because they were placed upon an equal footing with the Bachelors of the other Faculties. 'The order of the Degrees is perverted," it was said. “The Philosophical Faculty, which is the foundation of the University as well as of Theology, is deprived of its due favor." (Wilkins's Concil. iii. 383.) And in order to spoil the joy of the higher Faculties, or to compel them to join them in one common cause, they embittered their very existence, by such measures as the Statutes above alluded to, which obliged them to pass through the Degrees in Arts, in order to arrive at the advantages offered them. So much

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

the more did the Jurists and Physicians struggle to free themselves from this constraint, and were occasionally joined by the Theologians, at least by the Monks. All these contests continued through a variety of decisions, some of which were of a very contradictory nature, till the year 1438; when the Masters yielded so far as to agree to be placed upon an equal footing in the stipends, not only with the Doctors, but also with the Bachelors of the higher Faculties; and students in Law were also allowed to omit the Degree in Arts, although under very heavy conditions. The whole contest proved, as we have previously stated (Vol. i. p. 360) merely one "de lana caprina," since neither "Artists" nor Jurists ever came to the enjoyment of the stipends. It is possible at the same time, that the "Artists" sought to take back their concessions: at least, so it would appear from certain indications. At all events they took the strictest pains to prevent the Jurists from making any misuse of the advantages granted, or extending them any further. Thus for instance, we find that at the same period, some very violent disturbances were occasioned by the Bachelors in Law, who endeavored to assume the title of Master, without having obtained it according to the regulations of the Statutes and against this, the University took the strongest meaDetailed documents respecting this contest about the stipends, may be found, more particularly, in Wilkins. (Concil. iii.) Another question was the following: Whether in the Academic Assemblies, at least in certain cases, the Votes were to be given according to the Faculties; or whether the Votes of the Masters were to be counted severally? A decision of this in favor of the Faculties, would have given them the advantage in all other points, by a corresponding modification of the Statutes. But such a decision does not appear to have been ever carried out; on the contrary, the original regulations appear only to have been confirmed. A decision of the year 1302, for instance, which we find in Wood, refers to this: "Whatever law," it says, "may have been consented to and ratified by the Magistri Regentes and the majority of the non Regentes, notwithstanding the dissent of the Faculties." -We find several decisions of the years 1369, 1375, which bear

sures.

upon this point, and more especially one of 1433, which decided a violent contest, respecting the election of the Beadles, in favor of the "Artists" and Proctors, in opposition to all the other Faculties and the Chancellor, and in which the decree of 1302 was expressly confirmed, on the principle “Universitas revera fundata in Artibus.” (Rob. de Avesb. ed. Hearne, appendix p. 324.) Farther proof is superfluous.

NOTE (59) REFerred to in PAGE 121.

On the Mendicant Orders of Monks.

This account is principally derived from various scattered notices in Wood. Separate documents bearing upon the subject may be found in Dyer, Rymer, Wilkins and in the Parliamentary Rolls. Wood fixes the commencement of the quarrel, in 1230, and refers to the contemporary disputes at Paris, without detailing the causes. Whether in Oxford likewise the dispute referred principally to the Divinity chairs, and whether the Papal restriction relative to the number twelve ever affected the English Universities also, is not clear from the accounts before us. The real points of dispute at Oxford and Cambridge, may be best understood by the statement of grievances, laid before the Court of Rome in 1311, by the Dominicans; which were as follows:

[ocr errors]

(1): The Statute, enacted sixty years before, "that no one should commence in Divinity, unless first a Regent in Arts, and that he should not be admitted to this Regency, without the consent of the Chancellor and Masters, any one Master being competent to refuse the favor." "This," they complained, was a great injury to them, as by the rules of their Order, it was unlawful to commence in Arts." It may be seen from this, how very much the Candidates, even when they went through all the præstanda, were in the hands of the Artists. To what extent the Mendicant Monks were prevented by their regulations from commencing in Arts, is not very clear to me. The obstacle cannot have been insurmountable, since, in spite of that Statute, Mendicant Monks

continually did commence, and were admitted to the Regency.(2): The Statute by which Incipients in Divinity were obliged to hold their Vesper Disputations, and Bachelors their Probation Sermons, in the University Church, (St. Mary's,) while, before, the Dominicans had been left at liberty to hold them in their own Church, or their own School. The latter may have been the case at an earlier period, and may have been winked at by the University: it would probably have been difficult to prove a right in the case. (3): The Statutes whereby only Bachelors of Divinity might read the Bible Biblice. They said, "This was a preposterous mode of studying, to neglect the elements of Theology (which, after all, ought to be gathered from the Holy Scriptures) and prepare first for that very difficult task, the explaining of the "Sentences." For it was notoriously less difficult to lecture from the Holy Scriptures than from the Sentences. It was absurd, consequently, to restrict the number of those who explain the Scriptures, and augment that of those who interpreted the Sentences." What they desired by this, was, clearly, to emancipate the Theologians of their own Order from the constraint of the study in Arts: and in excuse, they brought forward perhaps a real fault in the prevailing system. (4): The Statute, by which the majority of the Masters decided upon all matters, without taking into consideration the opposition of the Doctors of the higher Faculties, as such. We have already seen, how in Oxford the Mendicants sought to mix up their affairs with that of the Faculties.-(5): The Statute of 1257, by which no one was admitted to his Degree, without binding himself by oath to observe the Statutes and customs of the University. They themselves, (they complained,) were much injured in many respects, and placed in many ways in great embarrassment by means of this unconditional obligation, whilst many scholars were alienated from them, through fear of violating in some manner, those obligations, by having intercourse with them. -Upon this we have only to remark here, that, fully authorized as the University may have been to demand a guarantee of this kind, yet such an oath imposed so many vague, contradictory, and varying duties, that very many conscientious men, particularly in

« PreviousContinue »