LAWS OF THEODULF OF ORLEANS.

9

he was formerly retained1." This short enactment is full of significance. It shows that at that date education was in the hands of the clergy and seems to suggest that education was paid for by the laity. It may of course be that this enactment was merely intended to secure continuity of education and of spiritual control, but the passage viewed in the light of early medieval law cases, to which we shall have occasion to refer, certainly seems to suggest payment, even at this early date, by parents for education. On the other hand a passage from certain "Ecclesiastical Institutes" (clause 20) which are set out in Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, may be quoted in support of the view that priests were expected by their ecclesiastical superiors to give education freely to the people. The passage runs: "Mass-priests ought always to have at their houses a school of disciples, and if any good man desires to commit his little ones to them for instruction, they ought very gladly to receive them, and kindly teach them."

It appears that these laws are a translation from Bishop Theodulf of Orleans who flourished A.D. 7973, and Johnson states that they were translated by Elfric, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 994 or 995 A.D. He suggests that these laws of Theodulf constituted a subsequent form for use both in France and England. It is certainly an interesting fact that as early as the end of the eighth century there should be such injunctions on the subject of education. They were probably one of the results that sprang from the educational movement that failed, as we have seen, in England, but which Alcuin transferred at the end of the eighth century to France with far-reaching results. It would be wrong to

1 Johnson's Laws and Canons, vol. 1. p. 414.

2 Published by the Record Office in 1840.

3 Haddon and Stubbs, vol. 1. p. xiii. It may be of interest to recall the fact that his successor in the see of Orleans nearly eleven hundred years later was Bishop Dupanloup, whose name is so well known in connexion with the religious instruction of children.

4 Johnson's Laws and Canons, vol. 1. p. 450.

10

PAYMENT FOR EDUCATION.

dogmatise from evidence such as the laws of Theodulf on a question which has been discussed with some asperity, but the evidence itself is interesting in view of the fact that education was undoubtedly paid for by parents before the thirteenth century, and that there is no à priori reason why it should not have been paid for in the tenth or eleventh century.

The danger of reading meanings that do not exist into ancient documents is so great, that it is with hesitation that the suggestion is made of a further meaning, possibly contained in the above passage. Is it not possible that the section contains a covert reference to non-ecclesiastical or even heretical schools and expresses the desire of a Church, not yet in a position to command, to secure to herself the education of the children of her flock? Whether this be so or not we can see a steady and regular increase of clerical influence on education from the time when the practice set in of sending Anglo-Saxon youths to Rome for education and when King Offa established 'St Peter's Penny' for the education of the clergy, up to the twelfth century, when ecclesiastical control became for a time complete and undisputed.

Norman Educational Laws and Canons.

The coming of the Norman enabled the Church as a national institution to secure its position of educational control, The Crown within a few years of the battle of Senlac appears to have asserted its authority over the various educational centres by making Anglo-Norman the medium of all scholastic instruction. This threw national education into the hands of Norman ecclesiastics or their nominees with the inevitable result that education became the monopoly of the Church. It is interesting to watch the maintenance of this monopoly in days when the Church had assumed national characteristics and was served by English priests.

The peremptory tone of the Bishops in the twelfth century on educational matters could not be better exhibited than by a bare recital of one of the rare early canons dealing with

CANONS OF 1138 AND 1200.

11

education. Canon XVII. of the canons promulgated at Westminster in 1138 A.D. by Alberic, Bishop of Ostia, Legate from Pope Innocent II., and eighteen Bishops and about thirty Abbots, at a national synod held in a vacancy of the see of Canterbury, runs: "We ordain, that if schoolmasters hire out their schools to be governed (or read?) by others, they be liable to ecclesiastical punishment'." It is a curious fact, and one that shows the continuity of the essential difficulties of any social institution, that this canon deals with the identical difficulty that was at the root of the inefficiency of grammar schools in the eighteenth century and which caused trouble in Lancashire elementary schools in the decade previous to 1870. In each case it seems likely that the man who received the fees delegated his work for a less sum to others. There appears to be no other explanation of the canon, and it would seem to prove conclusively that fees were charged at the beginning of the twelfth century. Assuming on this evidence the existence of the fee system at this period it was evidently not regarded by the State or by the Church as prejudicial to the spread of education.

Licences for Schoolmasters.

Throughout the twelfth century Church control of education was maintained, and the following canon promulgated in the interests of education-a canon of surpassing importance in the history of schools-certainly shows that the English Church was ready to intervene in any matter that hindered the progress of learning. Canon VIII. of the canons promulgated by the General Council held at Westminster in the year 1200 A.D. ordained: “Let nothing be exacted for licences to priests to perform divine offices, or for licences to schoolmasters. If it have been paid, let it be restored." This canon established two points of vast importance. The first is the encouragement offered to education: the second is the implied statement

1 Johnson's Laws and Canons, vol. 11. p. 45.

2 Ibid. p. 89.

12

THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH.

that no man could keep school without the licence of the Church. It does not imply that every schoolmaster was necessarily a priest a little later there is direct evidence against that position-in fact the implication is the reverse, but it does assert the all-controlling power of the Church over education. That control, with brief periods of revolt, the Church effectively claimed at least as late as the year 1701: as late as the year 1802 it was tacitly assumed to exist by the Legislature, and, as far as the appointment of schoolmasters goes, it exists with regard to nearly all secondary education of the grammar school type of to-day. In the fact of such almost immemorial power is to be found the explanation of much that appears irrational and anachronistic in the attitude of a considerable body of the clergy in relation to education up to a comparatively recent date.

5. The first period of revolt against the supremacy of the Church in questions of education was the Lollard movement. Till that date all schools were either Church schools or schools licensed

The Beverley School Law-suits.

by the Church'.

Before making any reference to the effects of Lollardy on education it will be convenient to refer to a small group of ecclesiastical law-suits in connexion with the Beverley Grammar School which throws a strong light on the relationship of the Church and education at the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century before Lollardy

1 To what extent girls' schools existed must be sought for in local records. That there were many such schools there is no reason to doubt. Alfred appears to have attempted something in the way of schools for girls. The phrase schoolmistress was in use quite early. In Dan Michel's Ayenbite of Inwyt, written in the Kentish dialect in 1340 A. D., Avarice is referred to as "The maystresse thet heth zuo greate scole thet alle guoth thrin uor to lyerni" (see Dr R. Morris's edition published for the Early English Text Society in 1866-reprinted 1888-p. 34). Probably schools for girls were conducted by nuns and were thus under the control of the Church. The Statute of Artificers (7 Hen. IV. c. 17), 1406, in set terms affirms the parental right of sending girls to school.

THE SIN OF UNLICENSED TEACHING.

13

had become an influence in the land. The information is drawn from Mr A. F. Leach's Memorials of Beverley Minster, published for the Surtees Society in 1898'. The story of these law-suits is not in itself without interest, but the moral is, for the present purpose, the important part. The keen competition between various persons for the right to teach school in Beverley exhibits a healthy state of things in matters of education. It proves that the occupation of a schoolmaster was a remunerative one, and the results of the suits were a striking proof of the supremacy of the Church in educational affairs.

It appears that Thomas of Brompton, the Master or Rector of Beverley Grammar School, on the 27th of October, 1304, instituted process against one Robert of Dalton, a Clerk who "unmindful of his salvation" taught school in Beverley "to the prejudice of the liberty of our Church." Robert of Dalton was warned to give up in nine days the work of a schoolmaster under pain of excommunication. He appears to have yielded for the time to the orders of the Chapter and the judgment of the Spiritual Court. So much for the first suit. We may judge by it that to teach school in the Manor of Beverley was not unprofitable. This opinion is confirmed when we find that in January 1305 another Clerk, Stephen of Garton, was similarly proceeded against and received a similar warning for keeping an unlicensed school in Kelk. The next stage in this moving history of the long-suffering Master Thomas of Brompton is a brilliant attempt on the part of another schoolmaster, or would be schoolmaster, Geoffrey of Sancton, also a Clerk, to use the arm of the law for the purpose of attacking Master Thomas. There is here a most aggravating omission in the Chapter Roll. All it tells us is that Geoffrey of Sancton brought actions relating to the Beverley Grammar Schools against Thomas of Brompton in the Provost's Court

Sancton v. Brompton.

1 See pp. lix. lxv. and pp. 42, 48, 58, 102, 114, 169, 293.