Chapter 9

[Footnote E: To the same effect C. de long. tem, praescript 1. fin. XXV. quaest. I. ideo. Arc.]

[Footnote F: Summary. Under this caption Jerome set forth five cases. For he says that they are drunken with wine who misunderstand and pervert the sacred scriptures. Secondly, they are drunken with strong drink who make a wrong use of profane wisdom. Thirdly, he sets forth who should be called false prophets. Fourthly, who are divine. Fifthly, that he eats sour grapes who expounds the scriptures otherwise than according to the truth, even though it be not contrary to the faith.]

[Footnote G: Summary. In this section those priests are blamed by Jerome, who cause their sons and nephews to read comedies and the verses of the poets; because also to this purpose and to other base purposes they divert the money of the church. Wherefore he says that such priest should be punished as was Eli who fell prostrate from his seat and died because he did not correct his sons. The statements which follow are clear as far as paragraph "But on the other hand" (p. 64).]

[Footnote H: The ears of those who misunderstand should be torn off.]

[Footnote I: Tropology.]

[Footnote J: And _logos_, speech, whence, _tropologia_, i.e. the [moral] application of the language. Hugo. As to this see 76 dist. jejunium. in fin.]

[Footnote K: I King. II. C.]

[Footnote L: Another reading: in their disputations.]

[Footnote M: Another reading: "It pleased God to save his people for his Kingdom" &c.]

[Footnote N: Summary. From now on, Gratian shows that the clergy ought to be learned in profane knowledge. And this is shown from six considerations. The first is stated at the beginning. The second begins: "One reads also." The third begins: "In Leviticus." The fourth begins: "The Magi, too." The fifth begins: "Finally." The sixth begins: "Hence also Ambrose."]

[Footnote O: For as husks load the belly and fill it but do not satisfy, so also this wisdom does not free from spiritual hunger nor banish blindness. But it oppresses with the weight of sins and with the guilt of hell. Whoever therefore, for the removing of the blindness of ignorance seeks to learn other arts and knowledge desires to fill his belly, as it were, with husks. According to Hugo.]

[Footnote P: Dan. I. a. Exodi III. & XI.]

[Footnote Q: Summary. Certain men forbade Christians to read the books of the gentiles but Bede blames them, saying that they can well be read without sin because profit may be derived from them, as in the cases of Moses and Daniel, and also of Paul, who incorporated in his Epistles verses of the poets, e.g. "The Cretans &c. &c."]

[Footnote R: Summary. Gratian solves the contradiction by saying that one ought to learn profane knowledge in addition, not for pleasure but for instruction, in order that the useful things, found therein may be turned to the use of sacred learning. Hence Gregory blamed a certain bishop, not for acquiring profane knowledge but because, for his pleasure, he expounded grammar instead of the Gospel.]

[Footnote S: Another reading to the Unknown God, i.e. dative case.]

[Footnote T: Dionysius was converted by the preaching of Paul.]

[Footnote U: The Apostle used sentences from the poets.]

[Footnote V: Summary. This section is divided into two parts. In the first part it is set down that it is not blameworthy if one learns grammar and logic in order to distinguish the true and the false. In the second part which begins with "Geometry and Arithmetic" it is set down that the knowledges of the quadrivium have a truth of their own. But they are not the knowledges of piety, and are not to be so applied. But the Old and the New Testaments are knowledges of piety, and are to be applied. And grammar, if applied to good uses may be made profitable.]

[Footnote W: Summary. Two questions were propounded by Jerome. The first was whether it is a sin to learn the learning and knowledge of the pagans, and Jerome answers that it is not, and proves this by the example of four youths, Daniel, Ananias, Azarias, Misael, and by the example of Moses. For these, had they known it to be a sin would not have acquired the learning. For they did so in order to convince unbelievers. Otherwise they would have been exposed to ridicule if, when they were disputing with these unbelievers about their dogmas, they were found to know nothing about them. The second question was, whether it is a sin to cite secular laws in preaching or in discussion. And he replies that it is not, because it is necessary to prove that those things which the sacred writers have said are contained in the books of the heathen.]

[Footnote X: Dan. I.]

[Footnote Y: Summary. It was reported to Eugene at his Synod that in certain regions there were no teachers to instruct others in the liberal arts, and therefore he enjoined it upon all the bishops to establish teachers in suitable places to teach others daily in liberal doctrines.]

[Footnote Z: Daniel and his companions.]

[Footnote AA: These were called under other names, Balthasar, Sidrac, Misac, and Abednago. According to Hugo and Lau.]

[Footnote AB: as for example XX dist. ca. fina.]

[Footnote AC: Recourse is had at times from similars to similars.]

[Footnote AD: Virgil.]

[Footnote AE: Ovid.]

[Footnote 31: _Decretum Gratiani, Distinctio_ XXXVII. ed. Lyons, 1580.]

[Footnote 32: Denifle, I, 46.]

[Footnote 33: _Compendium Studii Theologiae;_ translated by J.S. Brewer in R. Bacon, _Opera Inedita,_ p. lvi.]

[Footnote 34: One sentence of no importance is omitted from the translation. The rest of the document is given below, p. 90. For a slightly different version see D.C. Munro, "Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History," Vol. II, Pt. III, p. 2.]

[Footnote 35: Roger de Hoveden, _Chronica_, ed. Stubbs, IV, 120, 121.]

[Footnote 36: _Chart. Univ. Paris._, Vol. II, No. 657.]

[Footnote 37: Quoted from D.C. Munro, _Translations and Reprints_, Vol. II, Pt. III.]

[Footnote 38: _Chart. Univ. Paris._, II, No. 1044.]

[Footnote 39: Rashdall, I, p. 147.]

[Footnote 40: _Chart. Univ. Paris._, I, No. 142.]

[Footnote 41: _l.c._, II, No. 1044.]

[Footnote 42: Rashdall, I, p. 343.]

[Footnote 43: F. Zarncke, _Statutenbücher der Universität Leipzig,_ p. 4.]

[Footnote 44: Fournier, _Statuts et Priv. des Univ. franç._, III, No. 1673.]

[Footnote 45: _Chart. Univ. Paris._, Vol. I, p. 59. Quoted from D.C. Munro, _l.c._ p. 9.]

[Footnote 46: For the text of this charter in full, see D.C. Munro, _l.c._ p. 7.]

[Footnote 47: Matthew Paris, _Chronica Majora_, III, 166-169.]

[Footnote 48: _Chart. Univ. Paris._, I, p. 119.]

[Footnote 49: Kashdall, I, pp. 11, 12.]

[Footnote 50: _Chart. Univ. Paris._, II, No. 578.]

[Footnote 51: Documents printed by Denifle, _Die Universitäten, _etc., pp. 801-803.]

[Footnote 52: Document printed by Rashdall, II, Pt. II, p. 746.]

[Footnote 53: Charter of Harvard College, 1650.]

[Footnote 54: Charter of Brown University, 1764.]

[Footnote 55: See Compayré, "Abelard," pp. 41-45, and 35-41.]

[Footnote 56: Fournier, _Statuts_, etc., III, No. 1644.]

IV

UNIVERSITY EXERCISES

The ways and means of teaching in mediaeval universities were few and simple in comparison with those of our own times. The task of the student was merely to become acquainted with a few books and to acquire some facility in debate. The university exercises were shaped to secure this result. They consisted in the Lecture, the Disputation or Debate, the Repetition, the Conference, the Quiz, and the Examination.

Of these the first two and the last were by far the most important; they are described in detail below. The Repetition, given in the afternoon or evening, was either a detailed discussion of some point which could not be treated in full in the "ordinary" lecture, or a simple re-reading of the lecture, sometimes accompanied by catechism of the students upon its substance. The Conference was an informal discussion between professor and students at the close of a lecture, or a discussion of some portion of the day's work by students alone. The Quiz was often held in the afternoon at the student's hall or college, by the master in residence there, as described on page 132.

(a) _The Lecture_

Lectures were of two kinds,--"ordinary," and "extraordinary" or "cursory." The former were given in the morning, by professors; the latter in the afternoon, either by professors or by students about to take a bachelor's degree.

The purpose of the lecture was to read and explain the text of the book or books of the course. The character of the lecture was largely determined by the fact that all text-books, practically to the year 1500, were in manuscript, and by the further fact that many students seem to have been unable or unwilling to purchase or hire copies. A large part of the lecturer's time was thus consumed in the purely mechanical process of reading aloud the standard text and comments. To these he might add his own explanations; but the simple ability to "read the book" intelligently was sufficient to qualify a properly licensed Master, or a Bachelor preparing to take the Master's degree, to lecture on a given subject. This accounts for the fact that youths of seventeen or eighteen might be found giving occasional lectures, and that regular courses were given by those not much over twenty-one.

The books thus read consisted of two parts,--the text, and the "glosses" or comments. A glance at the selection on page 60 will reveal the nature of the latter: they were summaries, explanations, controversial notes, and cross-references, written by more or less learned scholars, in the margin of the text. In the course of generations the mass of glosses became so great as fairly to smother the original work. The selection just referred to is not especially prolific in glosses; cases may be found in which the text of a page occupies only three or four lines, the rest of the space being completely filled with comments, and with explanations of the comments. Instances of books explained to death are not unknown in our own class-rooms!

The effect of this accumulation of comments was to draw the attention of both teachers and students more and more away from the text. There is evidence that in some instances the text was almost wholly neglected in the attempt to master the glosses. University reforms at the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century sometimes involved the exclusion of this mass of "frivolous and obscure" comment from the lectures, and a return to the study of the text itself. See the introduction to the plan of studies for Leipzig, p. 48.

The selection from the Canon Law (p. 59 ff.) gives a good idea of the substance of a dictated mediaeval lecture. Concerning the "original" and more or less off-hand lecture we have the amusing account of Giraldus Cambrensis (_c._ 1146-1220), in his "most flattering of all autobiographies." After recounting--in the third person--his studies at Paris in Civil and Canon Law, and Theology, he says:

He obtained so much favor in decretal cases, which were wont to be handled Sundays, that, on the day on which it had become known throughout the city that he would talk, there resulted such a concourse of almost all the doctors with their scholars, to hear his pleasing voice, that scarcely could the amplest house have held the auditors.

And with reason, for he so supported with rhetorical persuasiveness his original, wide-awake treatment of the Laws and Canons, and so embellished his points both with figures and flowers of speech and with pithy ideas, and so applied the sayings of philosophers and authors, which he inserted in fitting places with marvellous cleverness, that the more learned and erudite the congregation, the more eagerly and attentively did they apply ears and minds to listening and memorizing. Of a truth they were led on and besmeared with words so sweet that, hanging, as it were, in suspense on the lips of the speaker,--though the address was long and involved, of a sort that is wont to be tedious to many,--they found it impossible to be fatigued, or even sated, with hearing the man.

And so the scholars strove to take down all his talks, word for word, as they emanated from his lips, and to adopt them with great eagerness. Moreover, on a certain day when the concourse from all parts to hear him was great, when the lecture was over and was followed by a murmur of favorable applause from all the throng, a certain distinguished Doctor who both had lectured on the Arts at Paris and long studied on the laws at Bologna, whose name was Master Roger the Norman, ... broke out openly in expressions of this sort: "There is not such knowledge under the sun, and if it were by chance reported at Paris, it would, beyond a doubt, carry incomparable weight there, far more so than anywhere else." Now the opening--as it were, the proem--of that talk I have not considered it inappropriate to introduce here; so this is the way it began:

"I had proposed to hear before being heard, to learn before speaking, to hesitate before debating. For to cultured ears and to men of the highest eloquence my speech will appear to have little marrow in its views, and its poverty of words will seem jejune. For idle is it, and utterly superfluous, to offer that which is arid to the eloquent, and that which is stale to men of knowledge and wisdom. Whence our Moral Seneca, and, quoting from him, Sidonius, says:

"'Until Nature has drunk in knowledge, it is not greater glory to speak what you know than to be silent about what you do not know.'

"And yet, since, on the testimony of Augustine, 'Every part out of harmony with its whole is base,' that I may not seem the sole anomaly among you, or, where others speak, be found by my silence a disciple of Pythagoras surpassing the rest, I have chosen to be found ridiculous for my speaking, rather than out of harmony for my silence.

"What note then shall the noisy goose emit in the presence of the clear-songed swans? Shall he offer new things, or things well known? Things often considered and trite generate disgust; new things lack authority. For, as Pliny says: 'It is an arduous task to give novelty to old things, authority to new things, brightness to things obsolete, charm to things disdained, light to obscure things, credence to doubtful things, and to all things naturalness!'

"The question which we have before us is old, but not inveterate,--a question often argued, but whose decision is still pending: Should a Judge decide according to the evidence, or according to his conviction?"

Now he supported the second, but far less justifiable view, by arguments taken from the Laws and the Canons, so forcible that, while all were amazed, all were uncertain whether greater praise should be given to the ornateness of the words or to the efficacy of the arguments.[57]

The mode of lecturing on Roman Law at Bologna is thus described by Odofredus (_c._ 1200-1265), a distinguished teacher:

First, I shall give you summaries of each title [i.e., each chapter into which the books are divided] before I proceed to the text; second, I shall give you as clear and explicit a statement as I can of the purport of each Law (included in the title); thirdly, I shall read the text with a view to correcting it; fourthly, I shall briefly repeat the contents of the Law; fifthly, I shall solve apparent contradictions, adding any general principles of Law (to be extracted from the passage), commonly called "Brocardica," and any distinctions or subtle and useful problems (_quaestiones_) arising out of the Law, with their solutions, as far as the Divine Providence shall enable me. And if any Law shall seem deserving, by reason of its celebrity or difficulty, of a Repetition, I shall reserve it for an evening Repetition.[58]

The varied statement and restatement of the passage, implied in the foregoing description, was doubtless necessary to make it intelligible to the not-too-keen minds of the auditors. As Rashdall points out, it "makes no mention of a very important feature of all mediaeval lectures,--the reading of the 'glosses.'" This is mentioned in the Bologna statutes now to be cited.

There are numerous statutes on the mode of lecturing. At Bologna, and doubtless elsewhere, professors seem to have experienced the difficulty, not unknown to modern teachers, of getting through the entire course within the prescribed time. The students, who regulated the conduct of their teachers, made stringent rules to prevent this, and punished violations of them by fines large enough to make professors take due caution:

We have decreed also that all Doctors actually lecturing must read the glosses immediately after reading the chapter or the law, unless the continuity of the chapters or of the laws requires otherwise, taking the burden in this matter on their own consciences in accordance with the oath they have taken. Nor, with regard to those things that are not to be read, must they yield to the clamor of the scholars. Furthermore we decree that Doctors, lecturing ordinarily or extraordinarily, must come to the sections assigned _de novo_, according to the regulations below. And we decree, as to the close observance by them of the passages, that any Doctor, in his ordinary lecturing in Canon or Civil Law, must deposit, fifteen days before the Feast of Saint Michael, twenty-five Bologna pounds with one of the treasurers whom the rectors have appointed; which treasurer shall promise to give said money to the rectors, or the general beadle in their name, all at once or in separate amounts, as he shall be required by them or by him.

The form, moreover, to be observed by the Doctors as to the sections is this: Let the division of the book into sections (_puncta_) be determined, and then let him be notified. [And if any Doctor fails to reach any section on the specified date he shall be fined three Bologna pounds, while for a second offense he shall be fined five pounds, and for a third and each succeeding violation of the rule, ten pounds.] And if the twenty-five pounds are exhausted, he must deposit in said place a second twenty-five pounds; and the second deposit must be made within eight days from the time when the first was exhausted....

We decree also that no Doctor shall hereafter exceed one section in one lecture. And if the contrary be done by any one he shall be charged with perjury and punished to the extent of three pounds, to be taken from the money deposited for the purpose; and as often as the violation occurs, so often shall the penalty be inflicted, so long as the statute is in force; and the Rector also must exact it.

We add that at the end of a section the Doctors must announce to the scholars at what section they are to begin afterwards, and they shall be obliged to follow that section which they have begun, even to the end of the section. But if by chance, after due weight is given to the glosses or text, it seems useful to transfer a part of the lecture to another section, he shall be obliged in his preceding lecture to announce that to the scholars, so that those who wish may make provision beforehand; under penalty of five Bologna shillings for each occasion for the Doctor who does to the contrary.

We order this statute to be published in each school at the beginning of the term....

Since topics not read by the Doctors are completely neglected and consequently are not known to the scholars, we have decreed that no Doctor shall omit from his sections any chapter, decretal, law, or paragraph. If he does this he shall be obliged to read it within the following section. We have also decreed that no decretal or decree or law or difficult paragraph shall be reserved to be read at the end of the lecture if, through such reservation, promptness of exit at the sound of the appointed bell is likely to be prevented.[59]

A lecture might be either dictated or delivered rapidly, "to the minds rather than to the pens," of the auditors. For pedagogic and possibly other reasons, the latter method seems to have been preferred by the authorities; but lecturers, and students who desire to get full notes, seem to have insisted upon dictation. A statute of the Masters of Arts at Paris, 1355, is one of several unsuccessful attempts to enforce rapid delivery:

Two methods of reading the books of the Liberal Arts have been tried: By the first, the Masters of Philosophy from their chairs rapidly set forth their own words, so that the mind of the listener can take them in, but his hand is not able to write them down; by the second, they pronounce them slowly so that the listeners are able to write them down in their presence with the pen. By diligent examination and mutual comparison of these ways the first method is found to be the better, because the conceptual power of the ordinary mind warns us to imitate it in our lectures. Therefore, we, one and all, Masters of Arts, both lecturing and not lecturing, being especially convoked for this purpose ... have made a statute to this effect: All lecturers, Masters as well as Scholars, of the same Faculty, whenever and wherever they happen to be reading any book in regular order or course in the same Faculty, or to be discussing a question according to this or any other method of exposition, shall follow the former method of reading to the best of their ability, to wit: presenting it as though no one were writing it in their presence. It is in accordance with this method that discourses and recommendations are made in the University, and it is followed by Lecturers in the rest of the Faculties.

Transgressors of this Statute, whether Masters or Scholars, we deprive thenceforth of their positions as lecturers, of honors, offices, and the rest of their means of support under our Faculty, for one year. But if any one repeats the offense, we double the penalty for the first repetition; for the second, we quadruple it, and so on. And auditors who interfere with the execution of this our Statute by shouting or whistling or raising a din, or by throwing stones, either personally or through their attendants or accomplices, or in any other way, we deprive of and cut off from our company for one year, and for each repetition we increase the penalty to twice and four times the length as above.[60]

(b) _The Disputation._