History of Albertus of Saxonia

Introduction

Albert of Saxony studied the motions of the earth,
marine tides, and geology. He connected the views of Buridan and
Nicholas Oresme. He analyzed the problem in ontological terms
rather than in terms of nature. He accepted Buridan"s theory of
impetus. According to him impetus is proportional to the velocity
with which a body was set in motion, and proportional to the
quantity of matter that a body contains. He rejected as
impossible that the heavenly spheres were moved by a higher
intelligence. Like Buridan, he thought that the heavenly bodies
were subject to the same laws of motion as earthly bodies. He
distinguished between uniform motion in which all parts of a body
move with the same motion, and non-uniform motion, in which
different parts of a body move at different velocities, such as
in circular motion. In opposition to Buridan, Albert rejected the
idea that "quantity" was something real, and he treated it as a
composite of substance and quality. Albert"s hypotheses on the
center of gravity, which he described as the center of the world,
were significant in the development of modern mechanics. Albert
distinguished two centers in a heavy body: the center of
magnitude and the center of gravity. His thought had a great
influence on the research of Copernicus and Kepler.

Biographical
Information

Albert of Saxony"s name appears for the first time in
the records in 1351, when he obtained the degree of master of
arts at the University of Paris under master Albert of Bohemia.
This date implies that he must have been in Paris at the end of
1350. He was probably born in 1320 (not in 1316, as has been
traditionally assumed). It is very unlikely that Albert studied
at the University of Prague before moving to Paris. The
university in Prague was only founded in 1349, and the curricular
requirements at Prague and at Paris exclude such a transition.
Although there are no records, it is more likely that Albert
would have received his early training at schools in his diocese,
at Halberstadt or Magdeburg, and then moved to
the studium generale of Erfurt. Only one work,
if it is authentic, dates from the pre-Paris period,
the Philosophia pauperum, which has references to
Erfurt.

Once in Paris, Albert became involved in administrative
duties for the English-German nation to which he belonged, and
for the entire arts faculty. He was proctor, examiner, receptor,
and in 1353 rector. In 1352 and 1355, he was one of the members
of the committee who prepared the list of applications for papal
benefices for university masters (rotulus).

In addition to these administrative duties, Albert was
chiefly concerned with teaching and writing. The university
records show the names of approximately forty students who
obtained their master"s degree under Albert. His more than twenty
writings, which cover logic and natural philosophy, but also
ethics, are usually in the literary format of commentaries on
Aristotle, and all originated at Paris. In addition, he started
his study in theology as early as 1353 but he never finished, and
there are no writings in this discipline.

Probably in 1361 Albert left Paris. The period
1362– 1364 in Albert"s career is blank, but the two letters
that bind this period indicate that he was busy at Avignon for
Pope Urban V and in Vienna at the court of Duke Rudolph IV. He
was involved in the founding of the University of Vienna in 1365,
and became its first rector. Because of the death of Duke Rudolph
IV, and the ensuing rivalry between his two brothers, the
university did not flourish and had only a faculty of arts. The
university was reestablished in 1383–1384. Albert of Saxony
left Vienna within a year, to become bishop of Halberstadt in
1366. He remained bishop until his death on 8 July
1390.

Writings on Natural
Philosophy

Although several works by Albert of Saxony have been
edited since the original DSB article, it is
not possible yet to place his thought within its
fourteenth-century context. It seems clear, however, that the
assessment in the original DSB article that
Albert of Saxony depended heavily on the works by Buridan, and
lacked originality, needs to be revised. In the past, Albert of
Saxony, together with Oresme and a few other Parsian thinkers,
has been perceived as a proponent of the Buridan school, with all
the connotations that this label may have, such as that of
student-teacher relationships, and a unified homogeneous school
of thought. Closer examination of the doctrines and dating of
texts has replaced this picture of the Buridan school with that
of a small intellectual network of nearly contemporary masters of
arts, who were familiar with each others" work and at times
responded to one another.

Albert of Saxony"s most important work in logic is
his Perutilis logica (Very useful logic),
written around 1356. It is a handbook in logic, organized into
six treatises. It covers all the basics of medieval logic, such
as propositions, properties of terms, consequences, fallacies,
insolubles, and obligations. Although the influence of William of
Ockham is discernible, it is an independent treatise with its own
original twists. Albert distances himself in many respects from
Buridan"s logic. Another logical work from about the same period
is theQuaestiones circa logicam(Questions on Logic).
This is a set of disputed questions about the signification of
terms, reference, and truth. The Sophismata, a set
of propositions whose interpretation raises semantic problems
because of the presence of certain logical terms, shows the
influence of William of Heytesbury. Albert"s solutions to the
semantic difficulties rely on Heytesbury"s theory
of sensus
divisus and compositus, that is, the
position and scope of modal operators in propositions.

One of Albert"s most important works in natural
philosophy is his Quaestiones super libros
Physicorum, a question-commentary on
Aristotle"s Physics. It raises many of the problems
that are also raised in Buridan"s question-commentary. The
relation between the two works, however, is more complex than was
initially thought. It is clear in the early 2000s that Albert of
Saxony had access to a previous version of Buridan"s
question-commentary on the Physics, the
so-called tertia lectura. In his final version of
the question-commentary on the Physics, Buridan
responded to Albert of Saxony. In other words,
Albert"s Quaestiones on
the Physics are chronologically located
between Buridan"s tertia lectura and
his ultima lectura. Albert of
Saxony"s Quaestiones super libros
Physicorum are usually dated shortly after 1351. This
date is suggested by one of its copies, whose introductory
remarks tie the text to Albert"s opening lecture
(principium) on Aristotle"s Physics, which
was held in 1351. This does not imply, however, that the entire
commentary was finished by that time. The most plausible
conclusion is that the work must have been finished sometime
between 1352 and 1357, before Buridan"s ultimate
question-commentary.

Buridan and Albert of Saxony held opposing views about
the ontological status of spatial extension. In general, medieval
thinkers believed that spatial extension belonged in the category
of quantity, and that some substances, such as bodies, have
extension as their most important feature. However, not only the
substance of body, but also many of its qualities were considered
to be extended. The dimensions of Socrates"s whiteness, for
instance, were believed to coincide with Socrates himself, that
is, with substance. But is it really accurate to equate quantity
with substance and quality, respectively, or should quantity be
considered a separate entity? Buridan held the latter view. One
of the many arguments in support of this position hinges on the
phenomenon of condensation and rarefaction. Experience teaches
that the extension or quantity of a given substance can vary,
whereas the amount; of substance and its quality remain constant:
no new parts of substance are added, nor any destroyed (in
contrast to the phenomena of growth and diminution). Albert of
Saxony defended the position that extension or quantity coincides
with substance. He attributes condensation and rarefaction to the
local motion of the parts, which supposedly have some kind of
elasticity.

On the question of the ontological status of motion,
Albert follows the view of Ockham that motion is not something
different from the moving body. However, on the basis of an
argument involving God"s supernatural interference, he concludes
that motion is an inherent flux in a moving body. In other words,
motion is a distinct property of a body, a position Buridan also
defended.

In his discussion of projectile motion, Albert qualifies
Buridan"s view as the truest view (quam pro nunc reputo
veriorem). It attributes the projectile"s motion to a
certain motive force, a virtus
motiva or virtus impressa, an impressed
power. Albert does not use the term impetus.
Buridan introduced this new term only in his last version of his
question-commentary on the Physics, which Albert
did not know. Albert interprets Aristotle"s views with respect to
motion and velocity, in Physics book 7, in
accordance with Bradwardine"s rules. In an effort to solve the
apparent contradictions between Bradwardine"s approach and
Aristotle"s text, Albert states that Aristotle"s text has
probably been mistranslated.

Albert"s discussion of the void shows striking
similarities to that by Oresme. He must have known Oresme"s
Physics. Albert"s well-organized question-commentary on
Aristotle"s De caelo provides further evidence
of his thoughtful and independent approach to contemporary issues
in natural philosophy. Albert includes many questions that had
been raised by both Oresme and Buridan, but approximately
one-third of Albert"s fifty-six questions do not appear in
the De caelo questions of Oresme and Buridan.
Also noteworthy is that, unlike almost all other scholastic
natural philosophers, Albert grouped related questions together
under three major themes. This broke with the traditional way of
organizing questions by simply following Aristotle"s
text.

What emerges from these varied examples is that Albert
of Saxony was not a plagiarizer, but rather that he was well
versed in the works of some of his contemporaries and used them
in his own philosophical endeavors.

*Jean Buridan (in Latin, Joannes
Buridanus) (1300 – 1358) or John
Buridan was a French philosopher,
a nominalist, who wrote extensively
on logic and natural philosophy. Although he was
one of the most famous and influential logicians,
philosophers and theologians of the later Middle Ages, he is
today among the least well known. Many of his works are still
available only in Latin.

His
legacy

All the works which we possess under the name
of Albert of Saxony belong to
Albert of Helmstädt. Some were devoted
to logic, others to physics. The study of these books
is admirably calculated to inform us on the views current at the
University of Paris in the middle of the fourteenth century.
The treatises on logic written by Albert of Saxony are
devoted to the detailed and subtledialectic which at the end
of the thirteenth century Petrus Hispanus had
introduced into the teaching of
the Parisian Scholasticism, but they present neither
the disorder nor the multitude of empty quibbles which about the
same time were introduced into the instruction at
the University of Oxford and which became predominant
there under the influence
of William Heytesbury. Albert of Saxony's
treatises on physics consist of a
"Tractatus proportionum" and questions
on Aristotle's "Physics", "De Coelo", and "De
generatione et corruptione". These contain, in a clear, precise,
and concise form, an explanation of
numerous ideas which exercised great influence on the
development of modern science, which ideas, however,
were not wholly personal
to Albert of Helmstädt, many of the most
important of them being derived from his master, Jean
Buridan. He abandoned the old Peripateticdynamics
which ascribed the movement of projectiles to disturbed air. With
Buridan he placed the cause of this movement in an
impetus put into the projectile by the person who threw
it; the part he assigned to this impetus is very like that which
we now attribute to living force. With Buridan he
considered that the heavens were not moved by intelligences, but,
like projectiles, by the impetus which God gave them
when He created them. With Buridan he saw in the
increase of impetus the reason of the acceleration in
the fall of a heavy body. He further taught that the velocity of
a falling weight increased in proportion either to
the space traversed from the beginning of the fall or
to the time elapsed, but he did not decide between
these two.

The equilibrium of the earth and seas is the subject of
a favourite theory ofAlbert's. The entire terrestrial element is
in equilibrium when its centre of gravity coincides with the
centre of the world. Moreover, the terrestrial mass has not
everywhere the same density, so that its centre of gravity does
not coincide with the centre of its figure. Thus the lightest
part of the earth is more distant from the centre of gravity of
the earth than the heaviest part. The erosion produced by rivers
constantly draws terrestrial particles from the continents to
the bosom of the sea. This erosion, which, by scooping
out the valleys, has shaped the mountains, constantly displaces
the centre of gravity of the terrestrial mass, and this mass is
in motion to bring back the centre of gravity of the earth to the
centre of its figure. Through this motion the submerged portions
of the earth constantly push upwards the emerged parts, which are
incessantly being eaten away and afterwards replaced by the
submerged parts. At the beginning of the sixteenth century this
theory ofAlbert's strongly attracted the attention
of Leonardo da Vinci, and it was toconfirm it that he
devoted himself to numerous observations of fossils. Albert
of Saxony, moreover, ascribed the precession of the equinoxes to
the similar very slow movement of the terrestrial
element.

His "Tractatus proportionum" went through eleven
editions; one bears no dateor indication of its origin;
three were issued at Padua in 1482, 1484, and 1487;
four were printed at Venice in 1487, 1494, and twice in
1496; two were printed at Venice in 1502 and 1506;
finally, an edition without date or printer's name was
issued at Paris. The "Subtilisimæ quæstiones
super octo libros Physicorum" were printed at Padua in
1493, at Venice in 1504 and 1516. The "Quæstiones
in Aristotelis libros de Coelo et Mundo" were published
at Pavia in 1481, at Venice in 1492 and 1497.
The "Quæstiones in libros de generatione et corruptione",
with the commentaries and questions
which Gilles of Rome andMarsilius of Inghen had
compiled on the same subject, were printed at Venicein 1504,
1505, and 1518. Albert's "Quæstiones" on
the Physics, the "De Coelo", and the "De generatione",
followed by the questions of Thémon and of Buridanon
the "De anima", were printed in Paris in 1516 and 1518.
The "Quæstiones super libros posteriorum Aristotelis" were
printed at Venice in 1497; the "Sophismata"
at Paris in 1489; the "Tractatus obligationum"
at Lyons in 1498; the two last-named works, joined with
the "Insolubilia", were published at Parisin 1490, 1495, and
at an unknown date. In 1496 was printed
at Bologna the "Expositio aurea et admodum utilis super
artem veterem, edita per venerabilem inceptorem fratrem Gulielmum
de Ocham cum questionibus Alberti parvi de Saxonia". Finally, the
"Logica Albertucii" was edited at Venice in
1522.

Related
notes

Logic

Logic is the science and art which so directs
the mind in the process ofreasoning and subsidiary
processes as to enable it to attain clearness, consistency, and
validity in those processes. The aim of logic is to secure
clearness in the definition and arrangement of
our ideas and other mental images, consistency in our
judgments, and validity in our processes of inference.

The Greek word logos, meaning "reason", is
the origin of the term logic–logike(techen,
pragmateia, or episteme, understood), as
the name of a science or art, first occurs in the
writings of the Stoics. Aristotle, the founder of
thescience, designates it as "analytic", and
the Epicureans use the term canonic. From
the time of Cicero, however, the word logic is
used almost without exception to designate this science. The
names dialectic and analytic are
also used.

University of Paris

Three schools were especially famous
at Paris, the palatine or palace school,
the school of Notre-Dame, and that
of Sainte-Geneviève. The decline of royalty
inevitably brought about the decline of the first. The other two,
which were very old, like those of the cathedrals and
the abbeys, are only faintly outlined during the early
centuries of their existence. The glory of the
palatineschool doubtless eclipsed theirs, until in the
course of time it completely gave way to them. These
two centres were much frequented and many of their masters were
esteemed for their learning. It is not until the tenth century,
however, that we meet with a professor of renown in
the school of Ste-Geneviève. This
was Hubold, who, not content with the courses
at Liège, came to continue his studies at Paris,
entered or allied himself with
thechapter of Ste-Geneviève, and by his teaching
attracted many pupils. Recalled by
his bishop to Belgium, he soon profited by a
second journey to Paris to give lessons with no less
success. As to the school of Notre-Dame, while
many of its masters are mentioned simply as having been
professors at Paris, in its later history we meet
with a number of distinguished names: in the eleventh
century, Lambert, disciple of Filbert
of Chartres; Drogo of Paris; Manegold of
Germany; Anselm of Laon. These two schools, attracting
scholars from every country, produced many illustrious men, among
whom were: St.
Stanislaus,Bishop of Cracow; Gebbard, Archbishop of Salzburg; St.
Stephen, third Abbotof Cîteaux; Robert
d'Arbrissel, founder of the Abbey of Fontevrault etc.
Thehonour of having formed similar pupils is
indiscriminately ascribed to Notre-Dame and
to Ste-Geneviève, as du Molinet
has justly remarked
(Bibl. Sainte-Geneviève, manuscript H. fr. 21,
in fol., p. 576). Humanistic instruction comprised
grammar, rhetoric, dialectics, arithmetic, geometry, music,
andastronomy (trivium and quadrivium).
To the higher instruction belongeddogmatic and moral
theology, whose source was the Scriptures and
theFathers, and which was completed by the study of canon
law. Three menwere to add a new splendour to
the schools of Notre-Dame and Ste-Geneviève,
namely William of Champeaux, Abelard, and Peter
Lombard. A newschool arose which rivalled those
of Notre-Dame and Ste-Geneviève. It owed
its foundation to the same William of Champeaux when he
withdrew to theAbbey of St-Victor and it took the
name of that abbey. Two men shed special radiance
on this school, Hugh and Richard, who added to
their own names that of the abbey at which they
were religious and professors.

The plan of studies expanded in
the schools of Paris as it did elsewhere. The
great work of a monk of Bologna, known as the
"Decretum Gratiani", brought about a division of
the science of theology. Hitherto
the discipline of the Church had not been separate
from theology properly so-called; they were studied
together under the same professor. But this vast
collectionnecessitated a special course, which
was naturally undertaken first atBologna,
where Roman law was taught. In France,
first Orléans and then Pariserected chairs
of canon law, which except at Paris were usually
also chairs ofcivil law. The capital of
the kingdom might thus boast of this new professorate,
that of the "Decretum Gratiani", to which before the end of the
twelfth century were added the Decretals of Gerard (or
Girard) La Pucelle,Mathieu d'Angers,
and Anselm (or Anselle) of Paris,
but civil law was not included. In the course of the
twelfth century also medicine began to be publicly
taught at Paris. A professor of medicine is
mentioned in this city at this time, namely Hugo,
"physicus excellens qui quadrivium docuit", and it is
to be assumed that this science was included in his
teaching.

For the right to teach, two things
were necessary, knowledge and
appointment. Knowledge was proved by examination,
the appointment came from the examiner himself, who was
the head of the school, and was known asscholasticus,
capiscol, and eventually as "chancellor". This was called
the licence or faculty to teach. Without this authorization there
was danger of the chairs being occupied
by ignorant persons, whom John of
Salisbury depicts as "children yesterday, masters today;
yesterday receiving strokes of the ferrule, today teaching in a
long gown" (Metalogicus, I, xxv in init.). The
licence had to be granted gratuitously. Without it no one could
teach; on the other hand, it could not be refused when the
applicant deserved it.

The school of St-Victor, which shared
the obligations as well as the immunitiesof
the abbey, conferred the licence in its own right;
the school of Notre-Damedepended on
the diocese, that of Ste-Geneviève on
the abbey or chapter. It was
the diocese and
the abbey or chapter which through their
chancellor gave professorial investiture in their
respective territories, i.e. the diocese in the
city intra pontes and other places subject to
the ordinary, the abbey orchapter on the left bank
of the river as far as its jurisdiction reached.
Consequently, as du Molinet explains, it was incumbent on the
chancellor
ofNotre-Dame and Ste-Geneviève to examine
"those who applied to teach in theschools", to "license after
study those who sought to be masters and regents" (op. cit.,
585). Besides these three centres of learning there were
severalschools on the "Island" and on the "Mount".
"Whoever", says Crevier "had theright to teach
might open a school where he pleased, provided it was
not in the vicinity of a principal school". Thus
a certain Adam, who was of Englishorigin, kept his
"near the Petit Pont";
another Adam, Parisian by birth, "taught at the
Grand Pont which is called the Pont-au-Change" (Hist.
de l'Univers. de Paris, I, 272).

The number of students in the school of the
capital grew constantly, so that eventually the lodgings were
insufficient. Among the French students there were
princes of the blood, sons of the nobility, and the most
distinguished youths of the kingdom. The courses
at Paris were considered so necessary as a
completion of studies that many foreigners flocked to
them. Popes Celestine II and Adrian IV had
studied at Paris, Alexander III sent his nephews
there, and, under the name of Lothaire, a scion of the
noble family of Seigny, who was later to rule
the Church as Innocent III, belonged to the
student body.Otto of
Freisingen, Cardinal Conrad, Archbishop of Mainz, St.
Thomas of Canterbury, and John of Salisbury were among
the most illustrious sons ofGermany and England in
the schools of Paris;
while Ste-Geneviève became practically
the seminary for Denmark. The chroniclers of the
time call Paris the city of letters par
excellence, placing it
above Athens, Alexandria, Rome, and other cities:
"At that time", we read in the "Chroniques de St-Denis", "there
flourished at Paris philosophy and all branches of
learning, and there the seven arts were studied and held in such
esteem as they never were at Athens,Egypt, Rome, or
elsewhere in the world" ("Les gestes de Philippe-Auguste"). Poets
said the same thing in their verses, and they compared it to all
that was greatest, noblest, and most valuable in the
world.

To maintain order among the students
and define the relations of the professors,
organization was necessary. It had its beginnings, and it
developed as circumstances permitted or required. Three features
in this organization may be noted: first, the professors formed
an association, for according toMatthew Paris, John of
Celles, twenty-first Abbot of St.
Albans, England, was admitted as a member of the teaching
corps of Paris after he had followed the courses (Vita
Joannis I, XXI, abbat. S. Alban). Again, the masters as well
as the students were divided according to provinces, for as the
same historian states, Henry II, King of England, in
his difficulties with St. Thomas of Canterbury, wished to
submit his cause to a tribunal composed of professors
of Paris, chosen from various provinces (Hist.
major, Henry II, to end of 1169). This was probably the germ
of that division according to "nations" which was later to play
an important part in the university. Lastly, mention must be
made of the privileges then enjoyed by the professors
and students. In virtue of a decision of Celestine III, they
were amenable only to the ecclesiastical courts. Other
decisions dispensed them from residence in case they
possessedbenefices and permitted them to receive
their revenues.

These three
 schools of Notre-Dame, Ste-Geneviève,
and St-Victor may be regarded as the triple cradle of
the Universitas scholarium, which included masters
and students; hence the name University. Such is the common
and more probable opinion. Denifle and some others hold
that this honour must be reserved to
the school of Notre-Dame (Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis),
but the reasons do not seem convincing. He
excludes St-Victor because, at the request of
the abbot and
the religious of St-Victor, Gregory
IX in 1237 authorized them to resume the interrupted
teaching of theology. But theuniversity was in large
part founded about 1208, as is shown by
a Bull ofInnocent III. Consequently
the schools of St-Victor might well have
furnished their contingent towards its formation.
Secondly, Denifle excludes
the schoolsof Ste-Geneviève because there
had been no interruption in the teaching of the liberal
arts. Now this is far from proved, and moreover, it seems
incontestable that theology also had never ceased to be
taught, which is sufficient for our point. Besides, the
rôle of the chancellor of Ste-Geneviève in
the university cannot be explained by the new opinion;
he continued to give degrees in arts, a function which would have
ceased for him when theuniversity was organized if
his abbey had no share in its organization. And while
the name Universitas scholarium is quite
intelligible on the basis of the common opinion, it is
incompatible with the recent (Denifle's) view, according to which
there would have been schools outside
the university.

As completing the work of organization the diploma
of Philip Augustus and the statutes of Robert de
Courçon are worthy of note. The king's diploma was given
"for the security of the scholars of Paris", and in virtue
of it from the year 1200 the students were subject only
to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Hence
the provost and other officers were forbidden to arrest
a student for anyoffence, and if in exceptional cases this was
done it was only to hand over the culprit
to ecclesiastical authority, for in the event of grave
crime royaljustice was limited to taking cognizance of the
procedure and the verdict. In no case could the king's
officers lay hands on the head of
the schools or even on a simple regent, this being
allowed only in virtue of a mandate proceeding
from ecclesiastical authority.
The statutes of the Apostolic legate are
later by some years, bearing the date 1215. They had
for their object the moral orintellectual part of
the instruction. They dealt with three principal points,
theconditions of the professorate, the matter to
be treated, and the granting of the licence. To teach the arts it
was necessary to have reached the age of twenty-one,
after having studied these arts at least six years, and to take
an engagement as professor for at least two years. For a chair
in theology the candidate had to be thirty years of age
with eight years of theological studies, of which the
last three years were at the same time devoted to special courses
of lectures in preparation for the mastership. These studies had
to be made in the local schools and under the direction
of a master, for at Paris one was not regarded as a
scholar unless he had a particular master. Lastly, purity
of morals was not less requisite than learning.
Priscian's "Grammar", Aristotle's "Dialectics",
mathematics, astronomy, music, certain books of
rhetoric andphilosophy were the subjects taught in the arts
course; to these might be added the Ethics of
the Stagyrite and the fourth book of the Topics.
But it was forbidden to read the books
of Aristotle on Metaphysics and Physics,
orabbreviations of them. The licence was granted, according
to custom, gratuitously,
without oath or condition. Masters and
students were permitted to unite, even by oath, in defence
of their rights, when they could not otherwise
obtain justice in serious matters. No mention is made
either of lawor of medicine, probably because
these sciences were less prominent.

A denial of justice by the queen brought about
in 1229 a suspension of the
courses. Appeal was taken to the pope who
intervened in the same year by aBull which began with a
eulogy of the university. "Paris", said Gregory IX,
"mother of the sciences, is another Cariath-Sepher, city
of letters". He compared it to a laboratory in which wisdom
tested the metals which she found there, gold and silver to adorn
the Spouse of Jesus Christ, iron to fashion
the spiritual sword which should smite the inimical
powers. He commissioned the Bishops of Le
Mans and Senlis and
the Archdeacon ofChâlons to negotiate with
the French Court for the restoration of
theuniversity. The year 1230 came to an end without any result,
and Gregory IXtook the matter directly in hand by
a Bull of 1231 addressed to the masters and scholars
of Paris. Not content with settling the dispute and giving
guarantees for the future, he sanctioned and developed
the concessions of Robert de Cour on by empowering
the university to frame statutes concerning
the discipline of the schools, the method of
instruction, the defence of theses, the costume of the
professors, and the obsequies of masters and students. What was
chiefly important was that the pope recognized in
the university or granted it the right, in
case justice were denied it, to suspend its
courses until it should receive full satisfaction. It must be
borne in mind that in the schoolsof Paris not only
was the granting of licence gratuitous but instruction also was
free. This was the general rule; however, it was
often necessary to depart from it. Thus Pierre Le
Mangeur was authorized by the pope to levy a moderate
fee for the conferring of the licence. Similar fees were exacted
for the first degree in arts and letters, and the scholars were
taxed two sousweekly, to be deposited in the common
fund.

The university was organized as follows: at
the head of the teaching body was a rector. The office was
elective and of short duration. At first it was limited to four
or six weeks. Simon de Brion, legate of
the Holy See in France,
rightly judging that such frequent
changes caused serious inconvenience, decided that
the rectorate should last three months, and this rule
was observed for three years. Then the term was lengthened to
one, two, and sometimes three years.
The right of election belonged to
the procurators of the four nations. The "Nations"
appeared in the second half of the twelfth century; they were
mentioned in the Bull of Honorius III in 1222
and in another of Gregory IX in 1231; later they formed
a distinct body. In 1249 the four nations existed with
their procurators, their rights (more or less
well-defined), and their keen rivalries; and in 1254, in the heat
of the controversy between the university and
the mendicant orders, a letter was addressed to
the popebearing the seals of the four nations.
These were the French, English,Normans,
and Picards. After the Hundred Years' War
the English nation was replaced by the Germanic
or German. The four nations constituted the faculty of
arts or letters. The expression faculty, though of ancient usage,
did not have in the beginning its present meaning; it then
indicated a branch of instruction. it is especially in
a Bull of Gregory IX that it is used to
designate the professional body, and it may have had the same
meaning in a universityAct of 1221 (cf. "Hist.
Universitatis Parisiensis", III, 106).

If the natural division of
the schools of Paris into nations arose from
the native countries of the students, the classification
of knowledge must quite asnaturally have
introduced the division into faculties. Professors of the
samescience were brought into closer contact; community
of rights and interestscemented the union and made
of them distinct groups, which at the same time remained integral
parts of the teaching body. Thus
the faculties gradually arose and consequently no
precise account of their origin can be given. The faculty
of medicine would seem to be the last in point
of time. But the fourfaculties were already formally
designated in a letter addressed in Feb., 1254, by
the university to
the prelates of Christendom, wherein mention is
made of "theology, jurisprudence, medicine,
and rational, natural, and moralphilosophy". In
the celebrated Bull "Quasi Lignum" (April,
1255), Alexander IVspeaks of
"the faculties of theology" of other "faculties",
namely those ofcanonists, physicians, and artists. If the
masters in theology set the example in this special
organization, those
in decretals and medicine hastened to follow
it. This is proved by the seals which the
last-named adopted some years later, as the masters in
arts had already done.

The faculties of theology, or canon
law, and medicine, were called "superiorfaculties". The
title of "dean" as designating the head of a faculty, was not in
use until the second half of the thirteenth century. In
this matter the facultiesof decretals and medicine seem
to have taken the lead, which the faculty
oftheology followed, for in authentic acts of
1268 we read of
the deans ofdecretals and medicine, while
the dean of theology is not mentioned until
1296. It would seem that at first the deans were the
oldest masters. Thefaculty of arts continued to have
four procurators of its four nations and its head was
the rector. As the faculties became more fully
organized, the division into four nations partially disappeared
for theology, decretals andmedicine, while it
continued in arts. Eventually the
superior faculties were to include only doctors,
leaving the bachelors to the nations. At this period,
therefore, the university had two principal degrees,
the baccalaureate and thedoctorate. It was not until
much later that the licentiate, while retaining its
early character, became an intermediate degree: Besides,
the universitynumbered among its members beadles and
messengers, who also performed
the duties of clerks.

The scattered condition of the scholars
in Paris often made the question of lodging difficult.
Recourse was had to the townsfolk, who exacted high rates while
the students demanded lower. Hence arose friction and quarrels,
which, as the scholars were very numerous, would have developed
into a sort of civilwar if a remedy had not been found. The
remedy sought was taxation. Thisright of taxation, included
in the regulation of Robert de Courçon, had passed on to
the university. It was upheld in
the Bull of Gregory IX of 1231, but with an
important modification, for its exercise was to be shared with
the citizens. These circumstances had long shown the need of new
arrangements. The aim was to offer the students a
shelter where they would fear neither annoyance from
the owners nor the dangers of the world. The result was the
foundation of the colleges (colligere, to
assemble). This measure also furthered the progress of studies by
a better employment of time, under the guidance sometimes of
resident masters and out of the way of dissipation.
Thesecolleges were not usually centres of instruction, but
simple boarding-houses for the students, who went from them to
the schools. Each had a special object, being established
for students of the same nationality or the samescience.
Four colleges appear in the twelfth century; they
became more numerous in the thirteenth, and among them may be
mentioned Harcourt and the Sorbonne. Thus
the University of Paris, which in general was
the type of the other universities, had
already assumed the form which it afterwards
retained. It was composed of seven groups, the four nations of
the faculty of arts, and the three
superior faculties of theology, law,
and medicine.Ecclesiastical dignities, even abroad,
seemed reserved for the masters and students of Paris. This
preference became a general rule, and eventually aright, that of
eligibility to benefices. Such was the origin and early
organization of the University of Paris which might even
then, in virtue of their protection, call itself the daughter of
kings, but which was in reality the daughter of the
Church. St. Louis, in the diploma which he granted to
the Carthusians for their establishment
near Paris, speaks of this city, where "flow the most
abundant waters of wholesome doctrine, so that they become a
great river which after refreshing the city
itself irrigates the Universal Church". Clement
IV uses a no less charming comparison: "the noble and
renowned city, the city which is the source of learning and sheds
over the world a light which seems an image of the celestial
splendour; those who are taught there shine brilliantly, and
those who teach there will shine with the stars for
all eternity" (cf. du Boulay, "Hist.Univers. Paris",
III, 360-71).

Abuses crept in; to correct these and to introduce
various needed modifications in the work of
the university was the purpose of the reform carried
out in the fifteenth century
by Cardinal d'Estouteville, Apostolic
legatein France. As a whole it was less an innovation than a
recall to the better observance of the ancient statutes. The
reform of 1600, undertaken by the royal government, was of the
same character with regard to the three
superior faculties. As to the faculty of arts, the
study of Greek was added to that of Latin, only
the best classical authors were recommended; the Frenchpoets
and orators were used along with Hesiod, Plato, Demosthenes,
Cicero, Virgil, and Sallust. The prohibition to teach civil
law was never well observed at Paris. But in
1679 Louis XIV authorized the teaching of civil
law in the faculty of decretals. As
a logical consequence the name "faculty of law"
replaced that of "faculty of decretals".
The colleges meantime had multiplied; those
of Cardinal Le-Moine and Navarre were founded
in the fourteenth century. The Hundred Years' War was fatal to
these establishments, but theuniversity set about remedying
the injury.

Remarkable for its teaching, the University of
Paris played an important part: in the Church, during
the Great Schism; in the councils, in dealing
withheresies and deplorable divisions; in the State, during
national crises; and if under the domination
of England it dishonoured itself in the trial
of Joan of Arc, it rehabilitated itself by rehabilitating
the heroine herself. Proud of
its rightsand privileges, it fought energetically to
maintain them. Hence the long struggle against the mendicant
orders on academic as well as on religiousgrounds.
Hence also the conflict, shorter but also memorable, against
theJesuits, who claimed by word and action a share in
its teaching. It made liberaluse of its right to
decide administratively according to occasion and necessity.
In some instances it openly endorsed the censures of
the faculty of theologyand in its own name pronounced
condemnation, as in the case of theFlagellants.

Its patriotism was especially manifested on
two occasions. During thecaptivity of King John,
when Paris was given over to factions,
the universitysought energetically to restore peace; and
under Louis XIV, when theSpaniards had crossed the
Somme and threatened the capital, it placed two
hundred men at the king's disposal
and offered the Master of Arts degree
gratuitously to scholars who should present certificates of
service in the army (Jourdain, "Hist. de l'Univers. de Paris au
XVIIe et XVIIIe siècle", 132-34; "Archiv. du
ministère de l'instruction publique").