CHAPTER III. THE UNIVERSITY IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY— CHARACTERISTICS OF UNIVERSITY MEDIEVAL LIFE. Influence of Lollardism at both universities. THE fifteenth century, although, in connection with the new foundations, a period of considerable interest, was one of torpor and decline in the history of the university at large. Down to the close of the previous century the mental activity of both Oxford and Cambridge had been quickened by the doctrinal teaching of Wyclif and his followers. That teaching had reference not merely to questions of religious reform and popular rights, but also, to a much greater extent than has generally been supposed, to questions of philosophy, such as were then being hotly contested in the universities of Europe, and especially those between the Nominalists and Realists. Wyclif, who in his day was the most distinguished teacher and schoolman in Oxford, espoused the cause of the reactionary party in philosophy, and was known as a leader of the Realists. But after his death the Lollards preached and sought to put into practice doctrines marked by an extravagance and by revolutionising tendencies to which his sanction would never have been given. And just as, four Its suppres Prevalence of doctrines both Cambridge. centuries before, Innocent III. had repressed the heresy of the Albigenses, so the English Church, under the guidance of Archbishop Arundel, now put forth the strong arm for the repression of Lollardism. After this time we hear very little of Lollards at Oxford, and still less at Cambridge. Both universities, seeking to win the favour of the superstitious house of Lancaster, became ultramontane distinguished by their advocacy of ultraat Oxford and montane doctrines. Their deputies filled, indeed, no contemptible place at the great Councils at Pisa and Constance, but we have no evidence that their voice was ever lifted in favour of freedom or reform. A notable event in the history of the university during this period illustrates these tendencies very forcibly. It was the theory maintained by the university itself that, by virtue of certain ancient privileges, it had been set free from the jurisdiction of the bishops of the diocese. Those privileges, however, were derived from somewhat questionable sources, going back for their authentication to the dim days of Pope Honorius, Opposition be- and to supposed documents which it was doctrines and plausibly alleged had perished in past conthe bishops of flagrations. The bishops of Ely, in fact, altogether refused to believe in them, although they appear from time to time to have abstained from the exercise of those visitatorial rights which they maintained in theory. The high-spirited and noblyborn Arundel, who filled the see from 1374 to 1388, had adopted a bolder policy. He cited the chancellor of the university before him to take the canonical oath of obedience; and when the latter denied his jurisdic tween these the claims of Ely. tion, carried the question before the Court of Arches, where it was decided in his favour. But such claims were not in harmony with the policy of ultramontanism, which habitually aimed at curbing the authority of the bishop in order to assert its own immediate jurisdiction. When, accordingly, in 1430, the university appealed to Pope Martin V., and besought him to reconsider the whole question, he willingly responded to their petition. A commission was appointed to inquire into all the evidence. And on the appointed The Barnwell day, the prior of Barnwell, in the chapterProcess. house of the church attached to the priory, having heard the witnesses and weighed the arguments of the university, ultimately gave judgment in its favour, thus completely reversing the decision of the Court of Arches. Such was the celebrated Barnwell Process, whereby the claim of the chancellor of the university to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, exclusive of any archbishop, bishop, or their officials, was recognised and confirmed; and so, says Baker, the historian of St. John's College, 'there was an end of ordinary jurisdiction.' Influences un Of the disfavour with which all tendencies to speculation in matters of doctrine were now regarded, we have a notable instance in the case of favourable to Reginald Pecock, an Oxford scholar, who in philosophy. was bishop of Chichester from 1450 to 1459. Pecock sympathised with ultramontane theories of Church government, and was one of those who wrote against Wyclif, but, at the same time, he was an ardent advocate of popular education. His views and arguments would lead us, indeed, to conclude that he would have been a vigorous supporter of the university extension movement of the present day. Such opinions would not in themselves have sufficed to expose him to the censure of the Church, for the influence of Italian scholars and the new learning was already beginning to make itself felt in England. But, unfortunately, in giving expression to his views, Pecock exhibited an originality and independence of thought which led to his being arraigned for heresy. He was deprived of his bishopric and placed in confinement for the rest of his life. The warning was not lost upon the freethinkers whom England possessed in those days; and, after Pecock's time, nothing that savoured of new doctrine was heard of either at Oxford or Cambridge, until, in the sixteenth century, the minds of their ablest scholars were roused to new activity by the powerful influences of the Renais sance. This inactivity of thought was rather fostered than dispelled by the prosperity which, until the commencement of the Civil War, the country at large enjoyed, and especially by its commercial prosperity, which directed attention more to trade and agriculture. This advance in material wealth, however, was not without its good effects on the universities themselves. The Church shared in the general gain; and not a few bishops, like Balsham and Bateman in the preceding centuries, devoted some of their wealth to founding colleges where youth might be trained in strictly orthodox doctrines. It marks a further development in the whole conception of education, when we find the charitable and wealthy turning away in despair alike from the monastery and the friary, and transferring their sympathies to those two academic centres where, amid much that was narrow, mechanical, and false, a certain amount of genuine and far from useless mental activity was undoubtedly going on. Such were the feelings, such were the sympathies, which had already actuated William of Wykeham when, in 1380, he founded New College, Oxford,—a foundation which, in its organisation and prescribed discipline, resembled a monastery more than any preceding college, but which was itself endowed with lands which the founder had purchased from various monastic societies. Foundation and King's College. The foundation of Eton College and King's College, Cambridge, marks another stage in this notable change in public feeling; for both societies were of Eton College endowed with the estates of the alien priories, certain 'cells,' that is to say, of different religious orders in England which represented dependencies of foreign monasteries. Henry V. had already appropriated their revenues in the time of war; and his son, Henry VI., next proceeded to confiscate them permanently as an endowment for Eton and King's College. The amply endowed society, the buildings of which now rose on the original site, to the north of the chapel and to the west of the Schools, was superior in wealth and prestige to any preceding Cambridge foundation. Its code was in most respects a simple adaptation of that of New College. Theology, the arts, and philosophy were to form the ordinary course of study. It is, however, a significant fact that the commissioners who originally received the royal command to prepare the |