ORGANISATION OF EDUCATION BY THE SECULAR CLERGY.

In a previous chapter we have pointed out the nature of the work of the monasteries in connection with the educational development of this country. Important as this work was, yet it did not influence the country as a whole to any appreciable extent, as each monastery concerned itself only with those matters which affected its own interests or the interests of the order to which it belonged. The secular clergy were more in touch with the ordinary life of the people, and it is through their work that we trace the beginnings of an organised system of education.

Though the Norman Conquest effected a distinction between Church and State, yet it did not involve any change in the existing ecclesiastical system, and as education at this period was inseparable from religion, neither was any radical change effected in educational development. The Norman contribution to religion was threefold: it brought the Church in this country into closer connection with the Church in the continental countries; it stimulated the activities of the Church; and it appointed to the chief administrative posts men who were foreigners but who were also, in many cases, men of ability and energy. The effect of this upon the educational development was, that there gradually emerged a definite and systematic educational organisation, and it is in this fact that we find the distinctive Norman contribution to educational progress.This organisation consisted of:—

(a) The establishment of Schools of Theology in connection with Cathedral Churches.

(b) The recognition of the Chancellor of the Cathedral as the head of the “Education Department” of the diocese.

(c) The establishment of Grammar Schools and Song Schools in connection with Collegiate and Parochial Churches.

Except for the recognition of the Chancellor as the responsible head of the educational aspect of the work of the Church, the post-Conquest educational arrangements did not essentially differ from the pre-Conquest arrangements. There was a real continuity of educational effort from the days of the introduction of Christianity. The main difference is that, after the Conquest, the educational arrangements seem to be more definite and more effectively organised.

We now proceed to consider, in turn, the various parts of the educational organisation which we have enumerated.

(a) Schools of Theology.

As we have already shown, it had been the custom of the Church from the earliest date to establish schools of theology in connection with the more important centres in which the work of the Church was carried on. With the progress of time this custom crystallised into law. We must emphasise that these schools of theology existed before canon law definitely refers to them. Canon law enactments on education simply mark the transition from a voluntary to a compulsory condition. The first definite ecclesiastical enactment relating to schools of theology dates from 1179.[197] This was repeated in 1216 when Innocent III., in general council, decreed that in every metropolitical church a theologian should be appointed “to teach the priests and others in the sacred page and to inform them especially which are recognised as pertaining to the cure of souls.”[198]The custom of establishing schools of theology in connection with cathedral churches was common to all those countries in which the Church had made progress. The Church of France had gained special fame in this respect, and the reputation of its schools had extended throughout the civilised world. Among the celebrated continental schools of this period may be mentioned Tourney, under Odo, Chartres, under Fulbert and Bernard Sylvester, Paris, under William of Champeaux, and Bec, which became famous under the mastership of Lanfranc and enhanced its reputation under Anselm. The fame of these schools became so great that they attracted scholars to them both from this country and from other parts of the continent of Europe. John of Salisbury, who was one of the scholars who went from England to France for the purpose of obtaining the best education available at the time, has left us in his writings a valuable account of the mode by which such an education was gained. He tells us that he went over to France whilst he was still a youth,[199] and studied first at Paris, under Adelard and Alberic, then at Chartres, under Richard the Bishop and William of Conches. Subsequently he returned to Paris to continue his studies under Robert Pullus and Simon of Poissy successively. Among other Englishmen, of whom records remain that they went to France for their education, may be mentioned Adam du Petit Pont, who afterwards became Bishop of St. Asaph, Alexander Neckham, the famous Latinist, and Samson, the celebrated Abbot of St. Albans.

It may also be interesting to note here, as indicative of the social grade from which the majority of the students of the time came, that they found it necessary whilst they were in France to find some means of self-support. Thus, both John of Salisbury and Adam du Petit Pont maintained themselves by teaching private pupils, whilst Samson was supported by the sale of holy water, a method which seems to have been at the time a favourite one for providing an exhibition fund for poor scholars.[200]So far we have shown that the immemorial custom of the Church as well as the express decree of Canon Law required that the various metropolitical churches at least should provide schools of theology. We have also seen that this custom was widely prevalent in France. We still have to consider whether the practice prevailed in this country. It is necessary for us to point out here, that the evidence must necessarily be indirect and that the fact that evidence is lacking must not be regarded as establishing that schools of theology did not exist in cathedral cities. It is only when some dispute arises or some special incident occurs that we find references, e.g. that a well-known churchman was educated at a particular school, or that a particular official was in charge of the school at a specified time, which assist us in drawing the conclusion that theological schools existed. If these incidents had not occurred then we should not possess any knowledge of the existence of the school. Again, we know that large numbers of clergy were ordained at the appointed seasons, by the bishops of the Church. Thus in the first year of the episcopate of Bishop Stapledon of Exeter,[201] 539 were ordained to the first tonsure, 438 acolytes, 104 sub-deacons, 177 deacons, 169 priests; in the diocese of York in 1344/5, there were ordained 1,222 persons, of whom 421 were acolytes, 204 sub-deacons, 326 deacons, and 271 priests.[202] Now these clergy must have received systematic education, and it is a legitimate inference that most of them received their education in this country.

We may next proceed to consider the evidence which is available of the existence of the schools of theology. We know there was a school of theology at York because Thomas, who became Archbishop of York in 1108, and who had previously held the position of Provost of the Collegiate Church, in Beverley, was educated there.[203] We also know, incidentally, that there existed a school of theology in connection with St. Paul’s Cathedral because it is referred to in a deed which is dated about 1125.[204] Similarly, we know that a school of theology existed in Lincoln because the vicar of a Lincolnshire parish was directed to attend the school there to learn theology for a period of two years.[205]

This evidence, which is all incidental and merely the outcome of special circumstances considered in conjunction with the general custom of the Church and the requirement of Canon Law leads us to maintain that schools of theology existed at most, even if not all, of the Cathedral Churches of the period.

(b) The Educational Function of the Chancellor.

We have previously shown that the bishop of a diocese was originally personally responsible for the preparation of those candidates whom he subsequently ordained. With the progress of time and the increase in the duties of the episcopate, it was impossible for the bishop to undertake the personal responsibility for this work, and consequently a tendency arose for it to be entrusted to a member of the collegiate body associated with him. In the case of a secular bishop, a member of the Cathedral body was appointed. This officer was definitely known as the “Scholasticus,” and it was his recognised duty to read theology with approved students.

We are able to trace the existence of a “scholasticus” in connection with the English cathedrals from an early date. Thus we learn that when Thurstan, Archbishop of York, visited the Pope at Blois in 1120, he was accompanied by “duo archidiaconi ecclesiae nostrae et scholasticus.”[206] We also know that a “scholasticus” existed in connection with St. Paul’s, London, because the expression “magister scolarum” occurs in a deed whose date is assigned to c. 1110.[207]

In course of time the term “chancellor” was substituted for that of “scholasticus,” probably because the schoolmaster was the most highly educated member of the cathedral staff and was therefore the most suitable person to entrust with the care of the cathedral seal and with the dispatch of the official letters of the cathedral body. This statement is definitely established by the statutes of the Church of York, which date from 1307 but which are regarded by their editor as existing from 1090 at least. On page 6 of these statutes it is stated that “Cancellarius, qui antiquitus magister scolarum dicebatur, magister in theologia esse debet, et juxta ecclesiam actualiter legere.” The same change of term can be traced at St. Paul’s, London. One of the witnesses to a deed dated about 1205 who describes himself as Chancellor is the same person who, when acting in a similar capacity at an earlier date, described himself as “magister scolarum.”[208]

We must remember that this change of designation did not involve any essential change in his duties or in the functions he discharged. The qualification required of the Chancellor as previously of the Schoolmaster was, that he was to be a “master in theology.”[209] His duty was that he was to teach theology either by himself or by a suitable substitute[210] to all students who cared to present themselves. If the Chancellor became lazy (as there is a general tendency to become when men lose their ideals and no pecuniary inducement to energy exists) then, apparently, in some places, a custom arose for other persons to keep schools of theology for prospective priests in return for payment, whereas the Chancellor was expected to admit students to his classes without the imposition of any fee. The Church resolutely set itself against this custom of charging fees for instruction, and by a synod held at Westminster in 1138 decreed that “si magistri scholarum aliis scholas pro pretio regendas locaverint, ecclesiasticae vindictae subjaceant.”[211]

In order to benefit by the school of theology conducted by the Chancellor, it would be necessary that the pupil should have received a sufficient knowledge of Latin. It is highly probable that many of the clerks who were attracted to a school of theology for the purpose of continuing their studies would not have studied Latin to the extent necessary to profit by the course given. In consequence, a demand would arise for teachers of Latin. Now it is an accepted rule of Economics that whenever a demand for a particular commodity exists, then an attempt to meet the demand is forthcoming. Since scholars were to be found in a cathedral city who wished for instruction in Latin, and since other clerks were to be found there who considered themselves capable of giving such instruction and who were desirous of taking private pupils, it is only natural to conclude that the holding of Latin schools in order to meet the demand became common.

But the danger of such a practice soon became evident. It is highly probable that many who would attempt to earn an income by professing to teach pupils Latin, were incapable of doing so. To meet this contingency, the custom arose that the Chancellor should grant a licence to those whom he considered capable of acting as teachers.

This is an event of the very first importance in the history of Education, because it is the first separate recognition of the teaching profession in England. In addition, the custom led indirectly to the rise of the university system. The custom continues, even to the present day, because the degrees in Arts and Theology in our oldest universities are in reality merely licences issued by the Chancellor of the University to teach those subjects.

We may also note that the necessity for the recognition of qualified teachers was imperative not only in the interests of the scholars, but also in the interests of the Church itself, as it had become customary to require that priests who were in charge of parishes, and who were discovered at episcopal or archidiaconal visitations not to be sufficiently learned, should return to their cathedral city in order to pursue a further course of study.[212] Such priests would certainly require more individual attention than they would secure at the ordinary school of theology.

In course of time, apparently, some chancellors saw in this granting of licences to teach to approved teachers an opportunity of exacting fees. The Church opposed this practice. In 1160 Canon Law prescribed that “For licence to teach nothing shall be exacted or promised; and anything exacted shall be restored and the promise released.”[213] Pope Alexander III.[214] wrote to the Bishop of Winchester requiring him “strictly to prohibit for the future any exaction or promise of anything from anyone in your diocese.”[215] This was again repeated in 1170 by the Canon Law of that year.

The duty of the Chancellor in the granting of licences was defined more rigidly by the Fourth Lateran Council of 1179. At that Council it was enacted that the Chancellor should grant, without fee of any kind, a licence to teach to every and any person who was qualified to act as a teacher. The decree laid down that “the seller of a licence to teach or preventer of a fit person from teaching is to be deprived of his benefice.”[216]

The Chancellor is consequently the head of the educational work of the diocese. He is required to prepare all clerks who desire to offer themselves for ordination, to supervise the studies of all incumbents whose education has been found to be defective, and he has also the responsibility of passing judgment upon the abilities of these who are desirous of acting as teachers and of granting certificates to teach to those of whom he approves.

(c) The Grammar Schools.

We have seen in a previous chapter that it had been the custom of the Church from the earliest times to establish schools in connection with the various churches. Just as in course of time schools of theology which had previously been customary, were made the subject of express ecclesiastical enactment, so, too, the holding of Grammar Schools was also definitely prescribed. Thus in 1215, Innocent III. decreed that in connection with “every cathedral or other church of sufficient means” masters were to be appointed who were to be able to teach theology and Latin respectively.[217] These masters were to be remunerated out of the common fund of the cathedral church. If, however, the revenues of the Church did not permit of this, then provision was to be made for the remuneration of the grammarian out of the funds of some other church of the city or diocese.[218] At the risk of exposing ourselves to the charge of repetition, we must reiterate that this enactment did not indicate a new departure on the part of the Church or constitute a decree for the establishment of schools. The provision of facilities for education in any locality practically dates from the foundation of a church in that locality. The value of this enactment is twofold: it indicates the considered mind of the Church towards education, illustrating still further, that the Church realised the importance of education and recognised it as her duty to make provision for it; and in the second place it would act as a stimulant to those dioceses or centres in which the ecclesiastical authorities had not been sufficiently alert to their responsibilities and duties. The Lateran Council of 1179 had not only decreed that “in every cathedral church a competent benefice shall be bestowed upon a master who shall teach the clerks of the same church and poor scholars freely,” but it had also enacted that it was the duty of the Church to provide free education “in order that the poor, who cannot be assisted by their parents’ means, may not be deprived of the opportunity of reading and proficiency.”[219]

Since then the immemorial custom of the Church and Canon Law alike required that schools should be established in connection with the various churches, we have next to consider a narrower problem, to what extent was this requisite complied with in this country.

In this connection we must first of all note the difficulty of finding the necessary evidence. The schools were not a separate foundation but an integral part of the work of the Church. All that can possibly be done is to collect references which will justify us in the inference that schools were carried on in connection with the different churches. Complete evidence for the whole of the educational work of the Church will never be forthcoming. We can only hope to obtain representative evidence and then to submit that this was typical of the general work of the Church, and consequently to maintain that wherever a church, or at any rate a collegiate church, was found, there a master of grammar would also be found.

There is abundant evidence that schools existed in the cathedral cities of England practically from the date of the foundation of these cathedrals.[220] Turning next to collegiate and parochial churches we note that prior to the close of the thirteenth century, schools have also been traced in connection with the church at Bury St. Edmunds,[221] Waltham,[222] Warwick,[223] Pontefract,[224] Hastings,[225] Christ Church, Hants,[226] Beverley,[227] St. Albans,[228] Thetford,[229] Huntingdon,[230] Dunstable,[231] Reading,[232] Bristol,[233] Derby,[234] Bedford,[235] Northampton,[236] Marlborough,[237] Newark,[238] Southwell,[239] Kinoulton.[240] In addition to these instances, we learn quite by accident, as it were, of six schools in the diocese of Lincoln, viz. Barton, Partney, Grimsby, Horncastle, Boston, and Grantham.[241]

The cumulative effect of all this evidence, we venture to think, is that it establishes the suggestion that the Church of England was not negligent of the custom of the Catholic Church and made the requisite provision for the establishment of schools in connection with her churches.

It is also important to remember that a school of song was also established in connection with the various churches, as well as a school of grammar. There does not appear to be any express decree to this effect, but there is abundant evidence of the common existence of such schools, e.g. at London,[242] York,[243] Lincoln,[244] Beverley,[245] and Warwick.[246] The master of song was not licensed by the Chancellor, but by the Precentor, the official of the Cathedral body who was in charge of the musical part of the services.[247]

Up to this point we have considered mainly the provision for education made by the collegiate churches where it would be possible for a definite person to take charge of the teaching of grammar. But schools were not limited to these churches. On the contrary, the priest in charge of practically every parish church would be expected to keep school. This was a part of the traditional custom of the Church, a custom that was enforced, as we have seen by the Council of Vaison,[248] the canons of Theodulf,[249] and the so-called canons of King Edgar.[250]

Passing to the period with which we are more immediately concerned in this chapter, we find the requirement that parish priests should keep school reiterated by Canon Law “ut quisque Presbyter, qui plebem regit, clericum habeat, qui secum cantet, et epistolam et lectionem legat, et qui possit scholas tenere, et admonere suos parachianos, ut filios suos ad fidem discendam mittant ad Ecclesiam: quos ipse cum omni castitate erudiat.”[251] The Council of Westminster, held in 1200, also decreed that:—

“Priests shall keep schools in their towns and teach little boys freely.”

“Priests ought always to have a school of schoolmasters in their houses and if any devout person wishes to entrust little ones to him for instruction, they ought to receive them willingly and teach them kindly.”[252]