SOME TERMS IN DISPUTE.

It is inevitable that confusion of thought occurs in dealing with any department of knowledge, unless there is a general agreement as to the meaning to be assigned to the terms which are employed. With the possible exception of Economics, Education suffers more than any other science from the ambiguous use of terms. Consequently it is advisable, at this juncture, to indicate the sense in which some of the terms frequently used in this thesis are understood. This is particularly necessary because the terms we propose to consider are often used in a sense different from that in which, in our opinion, they were employed in medieval times. We have selected the following for consideration—School, Free, Grammar, Song, Writing, and Reading.

School.

When the term “school” is employed to-day, it is usually taken to mean the “school-house,” i.e. the building in which the work of the school is carried on. It must, however, be emphasised that in medieval times a school-house was an “accident.” Specific buildings for teaching purposes were a comparatively late development in the history of schools. The term “school” considered etymologically means “leisure,” and probably the modern idea of school developed from the fact that the leisure time to which s???? specially related was that which was given up to discussion. A second stage of development is reached when the term is restricted to organised school. The essential idea of a school at this stage is that of a master and his scholars. The master might be a man of over seventy years of age and his pupils men of middle age (as was probably the case in the school conducted by Archbishop Theodore), or the master might simply be a youth, and his pupils a few village children learning their letters, as would be the case in the schools taught by the youths preparing for the priesthood in the house of the parish priest; in each case the term “school” was equally applied and considered equally appropriate. The place where the school was held was a matter of indifference. It might be held in the open air, in the cloisters of a monastery, in some part of a collegiate church, or possibly in some more suitable place. Then, too, the school might be held at regular intervals or it might simply meet occasionally. Briefly we may say that the conception of “school” was in a state of flux, and merely implied that a master and pupils met together for purposes of instruction.

We may point out here that it would assist in clear thought if the use of the term “school” could be restricted to those cases in which the erection of a school-house constituted a definite and objective sign of the existence of a school, and to employ the term “class” for such gatherings of teacher and pupils as were held otherwise. If this suggestion could be adopted investigations into the origin of schools would become much more definite and valuable. To illustrate this statement, we may consider the statement in Bede, that Sigebert in 631 “instituit scolam, in qua pueri litteris erudirentur.”[166] What does this phrase precisely mean? If the statement had been that Sigebert founded a monastery or a church, then we should not be in any doubt on the matter. We have not been able to trace in any edition of the writings of Bede any interpretation of “scola,” as the various editors take it for granted that its meaning is not in dispute. Thus Bright in dealing with the passage in Bede we have quoted, assumes that a school existed at Canterbury in connection with the monastery of SS. Peter and Paul, and that the school which Bishop Felix established at the wish of King Sigebert was probably attached to the primitive East Anglian Cathedral which had been erected at Dunwich, then a town on the Suffolk coast, but now annihilated by the sea.[167] But neither at Canterbury nor at Dunwich would a specific building for the school be provided. Consequently the phrase from Bede, which is an important passage in the history of English educational history, simply means that certain priests, who had obtained some experience in the art of teaching, were specifically assigned the duty of teaching the Latin language in classes held in the church buildings, to those who might care to attend.

We have not found it possible in this thesis to distinguish carefully between a “class” and a “school.” We are obliged to content ourselves with indicating the danger that exists of reading into the medieval use of the term school the meaning commonly applied to the term at the present time.

Grammar.

The term “grammar” gradually superseded that of “letters” as the specified purpose for which schools were founded. So far as England is concerned, the first occasion on which the actual words “scola grammatice” occur, is in a document of the latter half of the eleventh century.[168] The term became more common in the thirteenth century owing to the necessity of distinguishing grammar schools from the “schools” of the higher faculties in the universities. “The first actual use of the term ‘grammar school’ in English appears to be in 1387 A.D. when John of Trevisa, translating from the Latin of Ralph Higden’s ‘Polychronicon,’ mentions a ‘gramer scole’ held at Alexandria.”[169] By the fourteenth century therefore the phrase “grammar school” had entered into ordinary colloquial speech.

But what does this term “grammar” exactly denote? On the plinths of the right bay of the great west doors of Chartres Cathedral are to be found statues of the Seven Liberal Arts. With reference to these statues, Dr. Clerval in his work on “Chartres, sa CathÉdrale et ses Monuments,” writes:—

“Les autres cordons reprÉsentent les sept Arts libÉraux qui ornaient l’esprit de la Vierge symbolisÉs chacun par une femme portant les attributs de chaque science, et par un homme, le corypliÉe de cette science, assis devant un pupÎtre, avec plume, canif, encre, Éponges, rÈgles. Ainsi au bas du premier cordon de droite, c’est la Musique frappant trois cloches avec un marteau, et dessous Pythagore. Au second cordon À gauche en bas, c’est la Dialectique, portant un lizard subtil et un sceptre, et dessous Aristotle; puis la RhÉtorique, discourant, et dessous Ciceron; la GÉomÉtrie avec un compas, et dessous Euclide; l’Arithmetique (en redescendant) avec un livre, et dessous BoÈce ou Pythagore; l’Astronomie regardant le Ciel et portant un boisseau, et dessous PlotonÉe, portant une lunette; enfin la Grammaire, assise, menaÇant de verges deux jeunes Écoliers lisant À ses pieds, et au-dessous Priscien ou Donat. Ces reprÉsentations des Arts trÈs curieuses sont les plus anciennes avec celles de LaÔn. Elles s’expliquent À Chartres par les ÉcolÂtres de cette Eglise, spÉcialement Thiery, auteur de l’Heptabuclion, vers 1140.”[170]

This passage may assist us in determining the meaning assigned to Grammar as one of the Seven Liberal Arts. It suggests that everything which was not music, eloquence, logic, mathematics, astronomy, geometry, was grammar, i.e. nearly the whole of the humanities; or, in other words, the study of grammar was synonymous with the study of “letters” so far as the term was then understood.

In actual practice, however, grammar did not possess this connotation. This was due to the fact that a study of letters was not possible until a mastery of Latin had been acquired, and consequently it resulted that the term “grammar school” was applied to denote a place in which instruction was given in “Donat” or “Priscian.” Donat was a Roman rhetorician who wrote Ars Grammatica about the middle of the fourth century. His grammar was the most generally used elementary text-book on the subject. In its abbreviated form, which was the one in common use, it only consisted of eight or nine pages. Priscian was a grammarian who flourished in the early part of the sixth century, and who published, about 526, his Institutiones Grammaticae, a most elaborate and systematic treatise on Latin grammar. For over a thousand years Priscian’s work was regarded as the leading and authoritative text-book on the subject.

We may also note here that classical Latin literature was rarely used for school purposes. This was the result of the attitude of the early Christian Fathers towards these writings. We have previously pointed out that this classical literature was closely associated with pagan beliefs and practices, and consequently was not regarded as suitable for introduction into classes taught by Christian priests. Even as late as 1518, the statutes of Dean Colet prescribed that the books to be studied in his school were to be the works of such “auctours Christian as lactantius prudentius and proba and sedulius and Juvencus and Baptisa Mantuanus.”

This analysis will help us to realise that when the term “grammar school” is used with reference to the schools of Medieval England, what is generally meant is a class in which elementary instruction was given in “Donat,” and in the power of speaking Latin. If advanced work was attempted, then Priscian would be studied and the works of “Christian authors” read.

Free.

We next pass to consider the term “free”—an epithet which usually accompanies the expression “grammar school” and which has given rise to a certain amount of controversy. A special meaning was given to this term in 1862 by Dr. Kennedy, headmaster of Shrewsbury School, in a paper which he submitted to the Public Schools’ Commission and which was published by them. This special meaning was that the term “free” denoted a “school free from the control of a superior body, e.g. a chapter, a college, a monastery.” He advances the following arguments in support of his contention.

(1) “Most of the schools being then gratuitous, such a fact would hardly have been chosen to give the distinctive title of these schools.”(2) “That free school is in Latin ‘schola libera’ and that ‘liber’ appears never at any period to be used by itself to mean gratuitous.”[171]

(3) “That whatever franchise or immunity was denoted by the word, it would, according to ordinary usage, be an immunity for the school or its governors, not for the scholars.”

(4) “That the nearest analogies are ‘free town,’ ‘free chapel,’ and that these mean free from the jurisdiction of the sheriff and of the bishop respectively.”

(5) “That the imposition of some charge (e.g. admission and quarterages) was not at all compatible with the title of free school.”[172]

On the other hand, Mr. Leach maintains that the average school of the period did charge fees and that the schools which were described as “free” grammar schools were those in which no tuition charges were made.[173] He quotes the case of the Newland Grammar School which was founded under licence in mortmain of 1445-6 for “an honeste and discrete preste beinge sufficiently lerned in the arte of gramer to kepe and teche a grammer scole ther half-free for ever; that is to saie to take of scolers lernynge grammer 8d. the quarter and of other lernynge lettres and to rede, 4d. the quarter, within a house there called the chauntrie house or scoole house.”

In replying to the suggestions of Dr. Kennedy we would point out that the nature of the control exercised by bishops, monasteries or colleges over schools is so slight as to be practically non-existent. Consequently, to make the fact of such freedom the distinctive epithet of such schools seems scarcely to be warranted. Moreover, these “free” schools were founded as a general rule either by bishops personally or by ecclesiastical persons or by persons in the closest sympathy with the existing ecclesiastical system. It is highly improbable that they would deliberately found an institution which was to be “free” from association with the Church.

A similar criticism applies to the contention advanced by Mr. Leach. As Dr. Kennedy points out, the official schools of the Church were gratuitous from the time of their origin. Then, as we shall show in a subsequent chapter, the schools in which fees were charged were as a general rule those which may be classed as “private adventure” schools. Payment of fees in Church schools is probably due to the custom which would naturally arise that boys would make offerings to their teachers at certain times,[174] and that in course of time this custom would become an unwritten law. The point we wish to emphasise here is that the official schools of the Church were always “free schools” in the sense of being free from payment. This was such a generally well-known and recognised fact that no need existed to apply the term “free” as the distinctive epithet for the purpose of distinguishing between one grammar school and another. In other words, our contention is that all the Church schools were “gratuitous” whether or not they were described as free schools.

It is therefore necessary for us to advance another hypothesis to account for the use of the term, and we suggest that the term “free” means “open to all comers,” i.e. that admission to the school was not restricted to any particular social grade or to those who were preparing for any particular profession or to those who were living in any particular locality. A free school, in fact, denotes a public school. The following reasons in support of this suggestion may be advanced.

(1) Certain schools of the period were necessarily restricted. Thus, only those who were destined for the monastic life were allowed to attend the monastery schools; the almonry schools were confined to those who gained admission to them, and were not open to all who wished to attend; some of the cathedral schools also were open only to specified classes of persons.[175](2) As the general idea of the period was that each parish was self-sufficing and concerned with its own parishioners only a free school would mean one available for the public generally. Each town regarded every non-burgess of that town as a “foreigner,” and freedom of trade was only allowed to townsmen. Each parish had a responsibility for its own poor; the claim to burial in the churchyard was limited to actual parishioners. This same idea passed on to educational matters. Thus, an entry in the York Episcopal Registers of June 1289 states that the schools of Kinoulton were to be open to parishioners only, “all other clerks and strangers whatsoever being kept out and by no means admitted to the school.”[176]

(3) The term “public” school gradually becomes a substitute for “free” school. Thus, in the “Acte for the due Execution of the Statutes against Jesuits, Seminaries, Preists, Recusants, etc.,” there is a specific reference to “publike or free Grammer Schools.”[177]

(4) The warrant granted in 1446 to Eton College not only provided that it should have a monopoly of teaching grammar within a radius of ten miles, but specifically stated that the school should be open “to all others whatsoever, whencesoever and from whatever parts coming to the said college to learn the same science, in the rudiments of grammar, freely.”[178] This extract clearly shows a different attitude from that specified in (2) above. We may consequently regard the institution of “free” grammar schools as marking a stage in the policy of breaking down the barriers which separated parish from parish and township from township.

We now proceed to consider a special case to test these various suggestions. A school founded by the citizens at Exeter in the sixteenth century was expressly described in the statutes of the school as a “Free Grammar School.” But the same statutes proceed to decree that

“one month after Michaelmas yerely ... everyone that is admitted ... shall pay unto the schoolemaister of the said schoole for the tyme beinge as followeth, viz every childe of any ffreeman of the said city sixe pence, every childe of any inhabitant of the said city that is not ffree of the said City Twelve pence, and every Childe of any strangers Two shillinges respectively.”[179]

We consequently plainly see that a school might be a “free” school and yet charge fees. On the other hand, our contention that “free” denotes “public,” i.e. open to all comers is supported by this extract which also shows incidentally that the idea that the school was one for citizens only was but slowly disappearing.

Song.

A discussion of the term “song” has become necessary, because of a tendency to regard a song school as the elementary school of the Middle Ages. This position has been strongly taken up by Mr. Leach and has been adopted by all writers who rely upon him. Apparently the only evidence for this opinion is an incident arising out of a misunderstanding between the master of grammar and the master of song with which Mr. Leach has dealt fully in his History of Warwick School.[180] As a result of this dispute, the dean and chapter of the Collegiate Church decided upon a specific enumeration of the duties of the two masters. The master of grammar was to have the “Donatists” and “scholars in grammar or the art of dialectic, if he shall be expert in that art,” whilst the master of song was to be allowed to “keep and teach those learning their first letters and the psalter.”[181]

The “Donatists,” as we have shown, were those who were receiving the most elementary lessons in Latin. To “learn a Donat” had passed into colloquial speech as the equivalent of acquiring the elements of knowledge of any subject. If the decision at Warwick had been that the master of grammar was to have taught the scholars “Priscian,” and the master of song to have taught them “Donat,” then the inference might legitimately have been drawn that the master of song was the elementary schoolmaster. Since, however, Latin was the only subject of instruction at a Grammar School, and as the elements of Latin Grammar were to be taught by the master of grammar, it would seem as if Mr. Leach was in error in regarding the song school as the elementary school of the period.

The two subjects, which were taught in the various schools held at this time, were Latin and Music, and, wherever possible, separate masters for these subjects were appointed. To attempt to estimate the relative importance of these subjects from a social point of view, is to expose one’s self to the charge of snobbishness. Latin and Music alike were taught because of the fact that they were of outstanding importance in connection with the worship of the Church. Thus one of the events recorded by Bede, as obviously an event of great importance, was the visit paid by the Abbot of St. Martin’s, Rome, for the purpose of teaching song to the monks at the Northumbrian monasteries[182] and to all others who cared to resort there for instruction. Bede also tells us that when Bishop Putta was temporarily without an episcopal charge he devoted his time to the teaching of music.[183]

We wish, therefore, to emphasise that the song schoolmaster was not the elementary schoolmaster of the middle ages. The duty of the master of song, as set out in the Statutes of Rotherham College, was to teach the art of music and “presertim in plano et fractu cantu secundum omnes modos et formas ejusdem artis.”[184] Song occupied a prominent place in the curriculum of the schools of the middle ages and it probably exercised a greater refining influence upon the nation than is commonly realised. The abolition of the schools of song was not the least disastrous of the effects of the Reformation in this country, and it is of considerable significance that the recent Royal Commission into University Education in Wales recommends that steps should be taken for the greater encouragement of the study of music, not only within the university itself but also in the schools of the Principality.

One other point may also be mentioned here. It was a very frequent occurrence for the same master to be responsible for the instruction both in grammar and in song. Thus, in 1385, the same master was appointed “ad informandos pueros tam in cantu quam in gramatica,”[185] in 1440, a master was appointed “ad informandos pueros in lectura, cantu et gramatica,”[186] and in 1426, there is a record of an appointment of a master for “scola lectuali et cantuli.”[187]

Reading.

It is not easy to arrive at a decision as to the meaning of the term “reading school.” The books which were read were probably the service books of the Church, and these, of course, were written in Latin. Is it possible that a reading school would be a class in which boys were taught to read Latin only, whilst in a grammar school they would not only be taught to read Latin but also to speak it? Sometimes the references to be found to schools seem to lead to the conclusion that “reading schools” and “grammar schools” were but different terms for one and the same school. Thus, the entries in various Chapter Act Books contain references to appointments to schools of grammar, side by side with references to schools of reading as if the meaning in each case was the same, e.g. at Howden in 1394, a master was appointed “ad informandum pueros in lectu et cantu,” and again in 1401, “in lectura et cantu.”[188] Sometimes the nature of the reference leads to the conclusion that the term “reading” denoted a lower grade of instruction in Latin than did the term “grammar,” e.g. at Northallerton a master was appointed, in 1456, for the purpose “ad informandos pueros in lectura et gramatica.”[189] The record of a previous appointment in 1440 was, that the master was responsible “ad informandos pueros in lectura, cantu et gramatica.” As the evidence is so scanty, it scarcely seems possible to arrive at a definite conclusion, though the probability appears to be that the use of the term “reading” implies that the work of the school was not carried on to so advanced an extent as it was when “grammar” was used as the descriptive term.

Since the topic of elementary education has been mentioned and as it is obvious that elementary instruction must of necessity have been arranged for, we may here consider briefly how this would be effected. We suggest that, as a general rule, there would be found some clerk or other in minor orders attached to every church who would be prepared to give this instruction. In course of time express provision for elementary instruction seems to have been made. Thus at Brecon, the A B C was taught to young children by the chaplain of the college[190]; at the collegiate church of Glasney the founder, Bishop Goode of Exeter, provided that the bellringer was to receive “40s. yerely as well for teachynge of pore mens children there A B C as for ryngynge the belles”[191]; at Launceston, a benefaction existed for the purpose of paying “an aged man chosen by the mayor to teche chylderne the A B C.”[192]

Writing.

Three distinct stages in the meaning to be attached to this term can be traced. Originally it was a specialist craft, as only the skilled man would be able to write out the charters which were required and to copy the manuscripts which were so highly esteemed. In Saxon days there were two distinct styles of writing in this country, the Canterbury style and the Lindisfarne style. The Roman mission introduced the Canterbury style of writing. The characteristics of this style were that the Roman uncials were adopted but with the addition of some local peculiarities. The Canterbury psalter,[193] which is now in the British Museum, is an example of the work of this mode. The Lindisfarne style had a greater influence upon our national handwriting, as, with certain modifications of its half-uncial characteristics, it was the recognised English style until a new fashion of writing was introduced from Gaul about the end of the tenth century.[194] The next stage in the evolution of writing is connected with its practical value as a means of communication and for business purposes. Now it is known as the “scrivener’s art.” We can trace the appointment of masters to teach writing for this purpose in this country from the fifteenth century. Thus, of the three masters appointed to the college of Acaster in 1483, one was to teach grammar, the second, song, “and the third to teche to Write and all suche thing as belonged to Scrivener craft.”[195] The third stage in the evolution of writing is reached when ability to write is considered to be one of the earliest of the school tasks to be undertaken, and when writing is considered indispensable for all intellectual progress. This stage was reached about the time of the Renaissance. We stop at this point because a further consideration would carry us outside the limit of our task.[196] Our only purpose has been to show that the establishment of a writing school in any place in the Middle Ages did not mean the establishment of an elementary school as the term is understood to-day. As a matter of fact, the first elementary schools, in the modern sense, cannot be traced further back in England than to the establishment of the charity schools of the seventeenth century. Preparatory schools, of course, are much older, but not elementary schools.