near Cambridge, and afterwards in a barn at Cambridge itself. The great press of students rapidly raised up schools; and, though we have no direct proof of their continuing to exist for any time, these may probably have been the germ of the University. Any-how it is certain,† that (A. D. 1209) riots in Oxford induced three hundred scholars and masters to migrate, many of whom settled at Cambridge. In 1231 we find that the new University had attained all the essential peculiarities of Oxford: but it is reasonable to believe that even at the earlier period (1209) the Cambridge schools had already some important attractions to Oxford scholars, although they may not have attained the eminence of a University, until elevated by the fortunate immigration. No decided differences appear to have existed between the two Universities until after the Reformation. We may therefore direct our *The authority for this story, is Peter of Blois, in his "Continuation of Ingulf's History of England" (Saville), and we find no objections fatal to his testimony. It is true, he names Averroes, as studied with Aristotle, Cicero, and other scholastic text-books; which clearly cannot agree with the date of the transaction itself (1109 — 1124): [For Averroes was not even born till A. D. 1149: Translator.] But Peter of Blois, as a contemporary witness of the fame of the Arabian philosopher, may - very innocently have mixed him up with the other authors, as a matter of course: nor is there even need of supposing a later interpolation. Whether there be one or not, even Lappenberg, (who seems to fancy that there is,) does not hesitate to look upon the account as true in the main, and to make use of it as such. It would then be unbecoming in me to reject it. The date [1109 -1124] is fixed from "Ordericus Vitalis" where Evisfred is named as Ingulf's successor. + See Note (13) at the end. attention to Oxford principally; and this is the more needful, as the scanty materials to be found with respect to Cambridge are in fact only just sufficient to justify us in this course. All that appears, is in strict analogy with the Oxford institutions. We may then infer, that Cambridge was under the superintendence and patronage of the Ordinary, the Prince Bishop of Ely, whose extensive prerogative could never have been resisted by any Abbot of Croyland. Even at the present day, the Bishop possesses, in theory, rights over Cambridge, from which Oxford was expressly emancipated in the fourteenth century. The more recent institution could not resist the spiritual power so advantageously. Yet we may assume, that the influence and example of Oxford would draw over the Cambridge Chancellor into the body of academicians. CHAPTER III. GENERAL REMARKS CONCERNING THE ENGLISH UNIVERSITIES IN THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH CENTURIES. § 32. Middle Age of the English Universities. For the future we have to deal not with uncertain inferences, but with positive history of the Universities. Our task is now simpler and better defined; yet the difficulty of selecting what is instructive is greater and the reader must allow me to pursue my own course as to the arrangement of my materials. I find it here especially needful to discriminate the internal from the external history. The latter is apt not only to be eminently uninteresting, but to take for granted the very thing which we most desire to know. The Annalist writes for men who have a familiarity, which we have not, with the internal history; the condition, organization, importance, efficiency, and general position of the University we must use external facts principally as clues to guide us toward this more valuable information. To mark off the Middle Age from the Modern Period of the University is certainly very difficult. Indeed the earlier times do not form a homogeneous whole, but appear perpetually shifting and preparing for a new state. The main transition however was undoubtedly about the middle of the fourteenth century; and the Reformation, a remarkable crisis, did but confirm what had been in progress for more than a century and a half: so that the Middle Age of the University contained the thirteenth century, and barely the former half of the fourteenth. The changes are not so much the bloom and decay of the same institution, as radical revolutions into new states, which must be measured by wholly new standards. Many things which at the beginning of the fifteenth century were supposed to be causes or symptoms of decay, proved after another century to be conditions essential to prosperity in their altered circumstances. Yet there is no question, that during this Middle Age the English Universities were distinguished far more than ever afterwards by energy and variety of intellect. Later times cannot produce a concentration of men* eminent in all the learning and * Names such as Grosseteste, Bacon, Middleton, Hales, Burley, Kilwarby, Bradwardine, Holcot, Duns Scotus, Occam, and others. -See Note (14) at the end. F science of the age, such as Oxford and Cambridge then poured forth, mightily influencing the intellectual developement of all Western Christendom. Their names indeed may warn us against an undiscriminating disparagement of the Monasteries, as "hotbeds of ignorance and stupidity;" when so many of those worthies were monks of the Benedictine, Franciscan, Dominican, Carmelite, or reformed Augustinian order. But in consequence of this surpassing celebrity, Oxford became the focus of a prodigious congregation of students, to which nothing afterwards bore comparison. The same was probably true of Cambridge in relative proportion. 33. On the NUMBER of the Academicians. Difficult it is alike to be at rest without computing their numbers, or to be convinced of the truth of any computation. A tolerably well authenticated account, attacked of late by undue scepticism, fixes those of Oxford at thirty thousand, in the middle of the thirteenth century. The want indeed of contemporary evidence must make us cautious of yielding absolute belief to this: in fact we have no document on this matter even as old as the Reformation. But we do not know that the author of the statement had no documentary proof, and we have no reason to suspect him of intentional |