The divisions of the Paris school are not so easily understood as those of other universities. From the earliest period only four nations existed, and this number continued the same. These nations were the French, the English or Germans, the Picards, and the Normans, each having subordinate provinces. In the first nation there was, among others, a province of Bourges, which included also Spain, Italy, and the Orient. The second embraced, besides England and Germany, also Hungary, Poland, and the Northern kingdoms; it was first called English nation, but changed to German in 1430. The third nation included the Netherlands. To these nations belonged professors and scholars, according to their native country, without distinction of studies. About the middle of the 13th century, the university became involved in a long and severe dispute with the new mendicant friars, who, supported by the popes, demanded positions at the university, but were not admitted. This quarrel caused all the doctors of theology to separate from the university and form a special college; their example was followed by the canonists and doctors of medicine. Henceforth the university consisted of seven unequal parts, the three above-named faculties, and four nations. The faculties were conducted and represented by their deacons, the nations by their procurators. The four nations were in truth the old university, and went by that name. They remained in exclusive possession of the rectorate and jurisdiction; and the bachelors and scholars of theology, of canon law and medicine, remained with them, as the faculties consisted only of the doctors in these studies. In the course of time a complete change took place. The four nations together were considered as a fourth faculty (of artiste) and gradually deprived of their former position, but even then they retained the rectorate. Every faculty had its own lecture-rooms, for the exclusive use of its teachers; also a church in common. So, for example, the canonists had the church of S. Jean de Lateran, where they not only attended divine service together, but held their meetings, and gave degrees.

The colleges demand special notice, as they were more numerous and more influential than those of Italy. Originally intended only for the support of poor scholars, who lived in them under special supervision, the number of teachers in them increased, and the colleges soon became not only foundations for the poor scholars, but pensionates for the wealthy, so that almost the entire body of students belonged to the colleges, and as early as the 15th century, those outside of the colleges were as exceptions, characterized by a special name (martinets.) The oldest and most reputed of these colleges, the Sorbonne, founded in 1250, has often been confounded with the faculty of theology, from which it was essentially distinct, though afterwards the same persons were members of both corporations.

The rector was always the head of the university, and this dignity, even after the new organization of the university, remained the exclusive possession of the four nations or the faculty of philosophy. The doctors of the three faculties could not become rectors, nor participate in their election; both privileges were reserved to the magisters and artista. Even if the rector, during his term of office, wanted to take the degree of doctor, he was required to resign the rectorate. At first he was elected by the procurators of the nations, but after 1280 by four electors appointed for this purpose. The electors must be thirty years of age, but for the rector this limitation was not prescribed. An election was held every four or six weeks in early times; but, after 1279, only once in

three months. The rector could not be a married man; but he was not required to belong to the clergy.

Besides the rector, two conservators were chosen as superior officers of the university. The provost of Paris was conservator of royal privileges and stood in close relation to the university. The last oath of this officer occurred in 1592; after which time the office declined and afforded no longer any protection to the university. On the contrary, the dignity of a conservator of pontifical privileges was rather an honorary, and rarely considered an actual office. In earlier years this dignity was arbitrarily and temporarily conferred on theologians; afterwards, however, it was limited to the three bishops of Meaux, Beauvais, and Senlis, one of whom was nominated by the university. After the close of the 16th century, this office also was abolished.

The jurisdiction over the university of Paris and its members seems very intricate, and the statements of eminent historians are unsatisfactory. As a whole the university was formerly under jurisdiction of the king in person; after the middle of the 15th century, under that of the parliament of Paris. The criminal jurisdiction over members was, by privilege about the year 1200, vested in the spiritual court (i. e. the Officialat) of Paris; but as early as the 15th century the university sought to free itself from it, and the increasing power of parliament soon absorbed this power. In regard to the ordinary civil jurisdiction, there is more doubt. Though the privilegium of Frederic I was given only for the university of Bologna, in the kingdom of Lombardy, it would not be surprising to find some application of it in Paris, since it appears that it was thought that, from internal reasons, the decisions therein were universally applicable. Distinct traces of a jurisdiction of teachers over their own scholars are found, though this may not have been exercised frequently nor continued very long. The principle, however, is expressed in a decree of pope Alexander III, not for the Paris university, but in reference to the cathedral school at Rheims, and is found more clearly expressed in the statutes of Paris of the year 1215. The bishop's court also had in all probability civil jurisdiction, and seems to have exercised it ordinarily; as is seen in the resemblance of the civil to the criminal jurisdiction of this court; also from a decree of pope Celestine III, of the year 1194, which indeed does not speak expressly of the Paris university, but is very probably to be referred to that. Some cases and trials are mentioned, in which the clerical court exercised such jurisdiction. But in 1340, civil jurisdiction was committed to the provost of Paris. At that time the king gave important privileges to the university, namely, that its members could appeal to the laws in Paris, as plaintiff's or defendants, without regard to the courts of their native country. Here at first only the local jurisdiction was meant, and the new extended right might also have been intrusted to the Paris Officialat, but since the king assigned to the provost the carrying out of the whole order, the whole civil jurisdiction passed over to him at the same time. This is the court of the Chatelet, which maintained itself after the provost no longer presided over it, and which yet continues.

Very different from this was the jurisdiction belonging to the university itself. This covered no criminal trials nor ordinary civil cases, but only matters relating to the school; e. g. the office of teacher, whether it caused disputes between teachers, or between teacher and scholars; offenses against the rector on the part of members of the university; the discipline of scholars: finally

disputes on questions of house-rent, books, writing materials, in which a member of the university appeared as prosecutor or defendant. This court had power to exclude teachers from the university. In regard to the discipline of scholars there was a great contrast between Paris and the Italian schools; for flagellation with a rod was a very common punishment, inflicted on the bare back of the culprit, in presence of the rector and the procurators. This punishment was taken for granted in the year 1200, and was still very common in the 15th century; it was applied to bachalarien as well as to scholars. In older times the university exercised this jurisdiction by special deputies, i. e. commissioners selected for each case; but as the disposition and management of all current affairs came to the rector and the procurators in 1275, it included also this jurisdiction; and as in all affairs the three deacons belonged to this commission, they likewise formed part of the court. In this form the jurisdiction is recognized by the statutes of the year 1600, and has so continued up to the latest times. Appeal could be taken from the rector to the university, from the university to the parliament, when the former had in vain attempted to maintain its dignity. The conservator of pontifical privileges had also a kind of jurisdiction, in criminal and civil cases, but only those in which clerical privileges had been impaired, and in such cases he was regarded as a permanent commissary of the pope, who otherwise would himself have rendered decisions. Degrees were given in all cases with the approbation of the cathedral chancellor, or, in the philosophical department, of the chancellor of St. Genevieve, so that in this faculty the applicant could choose between the two. In older times this held good for all faculties. It has already been mentioned that in the 12th century the pope forbade the chancellor receiving fees for promotion, and permitted it again by personal dispensation, after which this point was always a subject of dispute. In regard to the fees and expenses of promotion, no complete information can be found. Formerly they cost 4 bursen, and a burse generally amounted to the necessary expenses of a week, which varied very much, according to rank or wealth. In the statutes of 1452 this tax was continued, with this limitation, that a bachelor should not pay more than 7, a licentiate not above 12 gold écus d'or.

all

In regard to the learning required for promotion, the statute of the canonists contains the following provisions, from the year 1370: Those who had already obtained the degree of licentiate of Roman law were examined no further; others, after having heard lectures on canon law for forty-eight months in the space of six years, and read lectures during forty months within five years, could become licentiates. If they had studied both systems of law, it was enough to lecture sixteen months within two years. The scholar was required to obtain a quarterly certificate from his teacher in regard to his attendance at the lectures, and the bachelor from the doctor under whom he read, or from the dean of the faculty. In early days, celibacy was required, not only of all theologians, who of course were of the clergy, but of all professors also, as the whole university was considered a clerical institution. In 1452, physicians were exempted from this rule; and afterward by the statutes of the year 1600, the canonists also; but for the artistæ it continued even to the most recent times. The faculty of the canonists consisted of six professors. Vacancies were filled by a general election among the remaining, after having examined all the candidates. In the year 1541, the jurists, three hundred in number, de

manded the same privilege in filling professorships as the constitution granted to other universities, and they petitioned parliament, but without success.

With reference to the principal work of the university, the lectures, the subject of Roman law first presents itself. It should be recollected that in the early medieval period the Roman clergy showed a great veneration for the Roman law and were governed by it, and knowledge of it was preserved and diffused chiefly by the clergy, but in the 12th century this study was no longer considered suited to their profession. Not that the Roman law itself was disapproved, or its pagan origin thought offensive; the cause lay in the entirely new direction taken in religious studies. Theology on the one hand, jurisprudence on the other, were enthusiastically cultivated; and many distinguished men devoted all their energies to one or the other science, gain in one being considered a loss in the other. Theology naturally appertained to the clergy, and if any of its members, from the universal taste of the age or temporary advantages, devoted themselves entirely to Roman law, they were loudly censured. Thus St. Bernhard, about the middle of the 12th century, complained that in the pontifical palace the law of Justinian was heard, but not the law of the Lord, and hence proceeded all that legislation, now to be described. This explains also how the canon law, as a beneficent medium between the conflicting interests, found a welcome reception.

Most of the legislation above referred to the clergy as a whole, or to some branches of the clerical service. The council at Rheims, in 1131, prohibited the friars from studying Roman law or medicine. Besides the reasons before stated, another was added, namely that they were obliged to leave their convents for a long period in order to pursue these studies. This prohibition was repeatedly renewed; in 1139, at the second council of the Lateran; in 1163, at Tours, and in 1180, in the decrees of pope Alexander III. It was further extended in 1219 by a decree of Honorius III, which we possess in three parts; the part with which we are concerned included all priests also in this prohibition. Another part of the same decretal assigns the above grounds, and commands that the number of theological professorships be increased. However, the law in this form could not be strictly enforced, and the parish priests were soon again exempted from its operation. Yet more important were the very frequent dispensations granted by the pope to certain schools, and by the decree of pope Innocent IV, the scholars of the Roman law-school might retain their foreign benefices. When, later, Bindus de Senis taught Roman law in Rome in 1285, Honorius IV permitted all the clergy to hear him, excepting only bishops, abbots and friars. A similar dispensation, and as it seems without any reserve, was granted to the school of Bologna in 1310, and reënacted in 1321 and 1419. So to the university of Pisa, in 1344. The dispensations generally passed beyond the prohibition, since they not only permitted the study, but allowed the clergy to draw their prebendary income while absent.

This law of Paris was based on similar considerations. The third article of the decree of pope Honorius III, in 1220, prohibited, for Paris and its vicinity, all lectures on Roman law, because it was never employed in the courts. The general character of this law shows that it was not limited to the clergy. Its cause is not doubtful. The university of Paris was mainly a theological school, and therefore it was logical to apply the same prohibition which had already, in another part of the document, been given to consecrated priests, and to those

scholars who were destined for the ministry. It is possible that two parties may have contributed to this result, who at any rate were much interested in its success, viz., the Parisian theologians and artiste, to whom the students of Roman law could do a great deal of injury, and secondly, the other law-schools, especially that of Bologna, the influence of which in Rome was very considerable. In favor of this view is the circumstance that the execution of this law was carefully watched by both sides. Thus in the 16th century the Paris canonists desired to teach Roman law also, when the other faculties prevented it by resolutions, or through parliament. In 1572 the Paris canonists were tried before parliament, at the instance of several French law-schools, because they taught and gave degrees in Roman law, and parliament decided against the canonists. Neither can this law be considered an arrogant action on the part of the pope, for the Paris school was known as the chief controler of all instruction in theology, was therefore considered a clerical institution, and had been placed under the special care of the pope; and if the latter could, through his legate, in the 13th and 15th centuries, proclaim new statutes for the university without contradiction from the king, and with the express sanction of the university, no doubt could be raised against the legality of that provision. Not long after enacting this prohibition, Innocent IV sought to extend it over France, England, Scotland, Spain, and Hungary, with the approbation of their princes. The reasons for this new prohibition are not known; for in some of those countries it was unnecessary, and others, especially France and Spain, seem not to have been affected by it.

The real fate of the Roman law in the Paris university is not yet fully known. Theology and philosophy had always been the main studies, but in the 12th century the Roman law also was zealously cultivated. Giraldus Cambrensis, who studied in Paris about 1180, after which he became teacher, heard lectures on Roman law. Still more distinctly are lectures on the Pandects mentioned by another Englishman, Daniel Merlacus. A historian about the year 1200 gives a glowing picture of the condition of the school, in the description of which he expressly speaks of the Roman law. So that the prohibition of Honorius III was very important, because it not only prevented the future formation of a school of Roman law, but suppressed the existing one, and continued in force through several centuries; for though the canonists often endeavored to draw the Roman law into their sphere of studies, and though it was actually taught in some few cases, this instruction was not based upon a complete law-school, and no learned degrees could be conferred. In the year 1433 the university vainly opposed the establishment of the university of Caen, and offered to adopt the Roman law; which proves that the said prohibition was still observed. The vain attempts to introduce the Roman law in the 16th century have been referred to before. As, however, civil disturbances rendered traveling to other universities dangerous, parliament in 1568 permitted Roman law to be temporarily taught in Paris. In the year 1576 it gave this liberty to Cujacius, through personal esteem, and allowed him also to confer the degree of doctor of Roman law. Three years afterwards, the diet of Blois renewed the prohibition. Also in the statutes of 1600 it is clearly premised that the recognized subjects of study included no other law than canon law. Finally the old law was abolished by an edict in 1679, and the university obtained equal rights with any other in this respect.

What is incomprehensible in this exclusion of Roman law is that there con