The university of the artista (i. e.

for instance, of Bartolus and Baldus. those not students of jurisprudence) had its statutes, which in many points are similar to those of the jurists, but indicate by their language a much later origin.

According to a very old tradition the university of Bologna is said to have been founded by king Theodosius II, in the year 433. In the archives of the city are two completely different charters, which have been frequently copied; but a more awkward forgery can hardly be imagined, both in point of matter and manner. For in the one the name of the country appears as Lombardia; in the other the ambassadors of King Louis of France and King Philip of England are mentioned as present: under both are signatures taken from a Pacitum of Charlemagne. In addition to this it is not probable that Theodosius, who was Emperor of the East, should have made such a foundation in Italy: not to mention that a well-known constitution of Justinian directly contradicts the earlier existence of a school of jurisprudence (Const. Omnem, § 7.) Against such strong evidences of falsity any further inquiry appears superfluous, and no thoughtful historians have ever entertained a doubt on this subject. Notwithstanding these facts, Bologna has ascribed great value to such evidences of its antiquity as these, and has even based on them its claims in disputes with neighboring cities about its frontier; nor have there been wanting patriotic defenders of their genuineness. But the time and occasion for invention can be pretty clearly determined. Azo claims for Bologna the right to a school of jurisprudence because that city, as well as Constantinople, was founded by an emperor, namely by Theodosius. Similar is the expression of Accursius and Odofredus; though they, in addition, mention St. Ambrose on this occasion, by which the whole affair is referred to Theodosius I. All these authors, then, up to the middle of the 13th century, knew nothing of a charter or the foundation of a university; they only refer to the foundation of the city by the emperor, and deduce therefrom its right to have a university. Even Bartolus knows nothing of these documents, but deduces the establishment of the university partly also from the foundation of the city by Theodosius, and partly because it was customary, or from a pretended foundation by king Lothar, which, however, he does not put forth as veritable. But, soon after the middle of the 13th century, we find the first traces of those documents, which must have been drawn up from those passages of the glossators, with an alteration of their true intent. Ambrose indeed is again connected herewith, (3) and that the year 433 is still assigned and that so the younger Theodosius is designated as the founder, (though in his reign Ambrose was no longer living,) are to be imputed to the ignorance of the writer.

In fact, the date of the commencement of the university can not now be definitely fixed, because it did not originate in a voluntary foundation. For when, by the reputation of a teacher, and the thirst after knowledge on the part of the students, a school of jurisprudence was formed here, it was a long time before an incorporation and a particular constitution were thought of. A privilegium of the emperor gave power of jurisdiction to the teachers, and when the number of students increased more and more, the latter commenced to form a university, the constitution of which, as it appears, developed rapidly and was soon recognized.

The first historical fact we meet is the privilegium granted by Frederic I, in November, 1158, at the Diet of Roncaglia. Though Bologna is not named in

the edict, there can be no doubt that it refers especially to this city; for a priv ilegium is granted to those who undertake journeys in the interests of learning, and the professors of jurisprudence are favorably mentioned therein. If, then, it is considered that it was granted, not by the emperor, but by the king of Lombardy, it will be seen that there is no city but Bologna to which it could apply, though undoubtedly it was for the benefit of all future schools of jurisprudence in Lombardy. Moreover, outside of the kingdom of Lombardy there was no city to which it could be applied. The school at Paris attracted many strangers by its reputation; but it was not a school of jurisprudence, and besides, Frederic, neither as emperor nor as king of Lombardy, could grant a privilegium to Paris. In Germany there existed no school of any repute at that time, and finally the great favor in which the celebrated professors of Bologna were held by the emperor, leaves no doubt that the privilegium was intended expressly for them. (*)

The contents were of a two-fold character: First, it gave especial protection to foreign students, who had to overcome so many difficulties to satisfy their desire for learning; they were to be permitted to travel every where undisturbed; any molestation of them was forbidden on pain of severe punishment, and in particular no one was to be held responsible for the crimes or debts of his countrymen. Secondly, students, when indicted, were to have special judicial privileges. The words are these: "Hujus rei optione data scholaribus, cos coram domino vel magistro suo, vel ipsius civitatis episcopo, quibus hanc jurisdictionem dedimus, conveniat." The meaning of these words can not be misunderstood, and all later doubts have arisen from the mistaken endeavor to find the condition resulting from the changes of subsequent times in this decree. The accused had the choice of being judged by his teacher (5) or by the bishop. Dominus was the peculiar designation given to teachers of the new school of jurisprudence, distinguishing them from the teachers of liberal arts every where to be found; and only to explain this new expression by one more generally known, was added vel magistro suo. (*) It is not difficult to see what gave cause to this provision. Justinian had prescribed for the school of jurisprudence at Berytus, that the supervision over the copyists and a certain disciplinary superintendence over the scholars were to be exercised by the president of the province, the bishop, and the professors of jurisprudence. To this was added the decree of Frederic I, which changed a limited supervision into a general jurisdiction, and passed by in silence the presidium of Bologna, for the magistrates of this city are not named; it was directly against them that the privilege was directed, and if in some cases the students did not desire to avail themselves of this privilege, it followed of course that they could obtain their right before an ordinary judge. Nor did the edict mention the rector of the university either because there was at that time no university and no rector, or because such an essential right of jurisdiction had not yet been conferred upon him.

All subsequent history shows that this decree was carried out, and it is quite incorrect to doubt this, as many do, because the authority of the emperor over the Lombardic cities was afterwards so much diminished; for the subject of this edict formed no part of the great dispute between the emperor and the cities, and the four professors, for whose benefit the privilege had been given, enjoyed no less authority and favor in Bologna than with the emperor.

About the end of the 12th century (the time of Azo) the students committed great acts of violence, and the professors were not powerful enough to exercise the criminal jurisdiction which king Frederic had given them. Such was the condition of things at the time of Accursius; but soon after, about the middle of the 13th century, they resumed their previous criminal jurisdiction. After this time the right of professors and of the bishops is spoken of in the commentaries to the Auth. Habita, but seems not to have been longer in exercise. This may be ascribed to the continually increasing number of the professors and the diminished personal authority of some among them, and also to the fact that the power of the university and its rector became more firmly established.

Rectors are first mentioned at the time of John Bassianus, about the end of the 12th century; who, with his scholar Azo, disputed the right of students to elect rectors; the same opinion is found in Accursius, but only as taken from Azo. But Odofredus, who also maintains this opinion, mentions expressly the contrary constitution of Bologna. Very definite historical data agree with this. As early as 1214, the city of Bologna sought to make the rectorate more dependent, or to abolish it altogether; this resulted in great disturbances, which threatened the breaking up of the entire school. The pope took the part of the students, and after a few years all was quiet again, without the rectorship having been abolished. From this it appears clear that the university at that time had the settled right to elect its own rectors, with power of jurisdiction; which appears still more from a writing of the pope of the year 1224. Honorius III reproaches the city for not suffering the rectorate and for having banished the rector-elect; even the professors had given their advice in favor of this measure, having forgotten their obligation of submission to the decisions of the rector. This language could not have been used unless the jurisdiction of rectors, even over the professors, had long before been decided by custom and tradition.

From this time the students had four judges: the magistracy of the city, the rector, the bishop, and the professors. The two latter were based on the privilege of the emperor; the two first were, by jurists, derived from the common law; the rector from a passage in the code which enjoins upon those following a trade or vocation, under no pretext to withdraw from the judge set over such profession. Consequently of these four judicial powers only the first was to be looked upon as legal, deriving his authority out of the general constitution ; the second was special, founded on the peculiar relation of corporation; the two latter were privileged. The relation of these various judges will appear from what follows.

The Bologna school of jurisprudence was several times threatened with total extinction. In the repeated difficulties with the city the students would march out of the town, bound by a solemn oath not to return; and if a compromise was to be effected, a papal dispensation from that oath must first be obtained. Generally on such occasions, the privileges of the university were reaffirmed and often enlarged. In other cases, a quarrel between the pope and the city, and the ban placed over the latter, obliged the students to leave; and then the city often planned and furthered the removal of the university. King Frederic II, in 1226, during the war against Bologna, dissolved the school of jurispru dence, which seems to have been not at all affected thereby, and he formally recalled that ordinance in the following year.

Originally the only school in Bologna was the school of jurisprudence, and in

As

connection with it alone a university could be formed. However, it did not assume the form of one university, but several were formed, differing according to the nationality of the students, and as far as direct information can be obtained, there were two, the Cismontane and the Ultramontane. (7) Subsequently eminent teachers of medicine and the liberal arts appeared, and their pupils, too, sought to form a university and to choose their own rector. late as 1295 this innovation was disputed by the jurists and interdicted by the city, so that they had to connect themselves with the university of jurisprudence. But a few years later we find them already in possession again of a few rectors, and in 1316 their right was formally recognized in a compromise between the university of jurisprudence and the city. The students called themselves philosophi et medici or physici; also by the common name of artista.

Finally a school of theology, founded by pope Innocent VI, was added in the second half of the 14th century; it was placed under the bishop, and organized in imitation of the school at Paris, so that it was a universitas magistrorum, not scholarium. As, however, by this arrangement the students of theology in the theological university had no civil privileges of their own, they were considered individually as belonging to the artistæ.

From this time Bologna had four universities, two of jurisprudence, the one of medicine and philosophy, and the theological, the first two having no connection with the others, forming a unit, and therefore frequently designated as one university.

The constitution of these universities was principally based on their statutes. Amendments and additions could be made only every twenty years, for which purpose eight statuarii were elected from the scholars, and the approval of the entire university was not required. Meanwhile, strict forms were prescribed for all changes. (*) As early as 1253 the pope approved the then existing statutes; in 1544 a similar confirmation was made, and this new approval of the pope, who was then also the temporary ruler of the state, resulted in making these laws, originally intended for the members of the university only, obligatory upon all. Pope Pius IV also gave a new confirmation, and similar renewals may have occurred frequently afterwards.

In describing the condition of the law-school at the time of complete development, it should be regarded from two points: as corporation and as school. In regard to the first should be considered its members, how they were classified, what officers administered the affairs of the corporation, and what were their outward relations. The members of the university were of various classes, some having full citizenship, others more limited privileges, and still others were looked upon merely as protected. Only the foreign scholars (advenæ, forenses,) (*) possessed full citizenship, among whom civil and canonical members were never distinguished, except in a few rare cases. They were admitted by being matriculated, for which they paid 12 soldi. They were annually required to make an oath of obedience to the rector and the statutes. Their assembly, convened by the rector, was the university proper, in which votes were taken by black and white beans, and every member was bound to appear at least three times in the year, in order to retain his citizenship.

Scholars from Bologna had no vote in the assembly and were not eligible to the offices. This distinction arose from the early privilegium of Frederic I, which thus favored foreign scholars, because they stood in need of such pro

tection. A yet stronger reason was the condition of dependence in which natives necessarily stood to their own city, and in this manner their relation to the university remained long in doubt. For the latter looked upon them as dependents, who ought to take the oath of obedience, belong to both universities, and be under the jurisdiction of both rectors. This the city refused, and threatened those who should take that obligation with fine and banishment. By the papal confirmation of the university statutes, this dispute seems to have been decided in favor of the law-school,

The teachers or professors stood likewise in the relations of individual subordination. They also were required to swear obedience to the rector and to the statutes at their promotion, as well as annually thereafter. They were within the jurisdiction of the rector, and could not only be fined, but could even be excluded, in which case they were no longer allowed to teach, unless they were reinstalled. For a journey they had to request the rector's permission, and if their absence was to extend beyond a week, the consent of the university. In the assembly of the university, they, as a rule, had no vote, except those who had before occupied the position of rector. So too no doctor could fill an office in the university, for instance that of a consiliarius, even though he did not wear the costume of a doctor, and lived in other respects as a student. In all other respects they had the same rights and duties as the scholars. All this, though distinctly affirmed in the statutes, might have been considered a claim of the university never actually insisted upon, did not the writers of the 14th century expressly testify to the actual dependence of the professors upon the university and its rectors. It seems that the city also recognized this claim against the professors and doctores legentes, for the statutes of the city sought to free from the authority of the university the doctores non legentes only, to which the university however did not yield. During solemn processions frequent disputes on rank took place between the consiliarii, as representatives of the university, and the doctors. A decree of the legate of 1570, and a resolution of the university from the year 1584, give precedence to the consiliarii, even when the doctors appear as collegium and in their robes of office. As merely living under patronage (suppositi universitati) belonged to the university, if they had taken the oath of allegiance, the mechanics who worked especially for the school, as the copyists and book-binders; also the servants of students: all owed obedience to the rector and the statutes. Moreover some merchants of the city were annually elected, who had the privilege of pawnbroking for the scholars, and they, as well as the book-loaners, swore allegiance to the rector. The scholars, as above stated, forming the two universities, were called Citramontani and Ultramontani. The first consisted of seventeen "nations," the other of eighteen, though their number and names were frequently changed. according as more or less scholars arrived from a country. The distinction was based upon the birthplace of the student himself, not upon the place of residence or birthplace of his father, or his temporary home. Those of the German nation had greater privileges than the others; for instance, they took the oath of loyalty to their own procurators instead of the rectors of the university. Bologna did not constitute a nation of its own nor did it belong to any other, but belonged to both universities in common. Beside these little corporations, there were colleges, i. e. associations of poor scholars, who were maintained by foundations and who lived together under superintendence; but these colleges,