Cambridge (England) -- Pictorial works; University of Cambridge -- Pictorial works
[59] It has been pointed out that our knowledge of Oxford’s
intellectual activity during the xii c. is confined to the visits
of three or four celebrated teachers who lectured to its changing
population and in its schools, among which the priory school of S.
Frideswide was the most important. We must not of course confuse
the activities of monastic and episcopal schools with those of a
university.
[60] Matthew Paris, _in anno 1209: Ita quod nec unus ex omni
universitate remansit_.
[61] p. 47.
[62] _Satis constat vobis quod apud villam nostrum Cantebr’ studendi
causa e diversis partibus tam cismarinis quam transmarinis confluit
multitudo, quod valde gratum habemus et acceptamus, cum exemplum
toti regno nostro commodum non modicum, et honor nobis accrescat,
et vos specialiter inter quos fideliter conversantur studentes non
mediocriter gaudere debetis et laetari._
[63] _Clerk_ and _scholar_ were used interchangeably in the xiii c.
as they are in these two rescripts, _clericus_ being employed in the
rescript of 1218 and in that addressed to the sheriff (_vicecomes_)
of the county cited above: _Quoniam ut audivimus plures nominantur_
clerici _apud Cantabr. qui sub nullius magistri scholarum sunt
disciplina et tuitione, sed potius mentiuntur se esse_ scholares
_cum non sint_.... In a further rescript of the king’s the meaning
is no less clear: _Ita tamen quod ad suspensionem vel mutilationem
clericorum non procedatis, sed eos alio modo per consilium
universitatis Cantabr. castigetis_. (Referring to “insults recently
offered to certain northern scholars of the university of Cambridge,”
1261.) In the Hundred Rolls, at the same period, we have _clerici de
Merton_ and _scholares de Merton_; and _clerici in scholis degentes_
is W. de Merton’s own description of his scholars.
[64] The charter of Oxford university belongs to the same reign.
[65] _Rot. Hund._ 7th Edw. I.
[66] The Pope no doubt refers to the forged bulls (p. 28) but his
reference to previous royal rescripts is likely to be more correct,
and to have been supplied by Edward himself.
[67] See _studium generale_ pp. 30 _n._, 31.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account