and even the colleges, though their expenses were great, could not be called wealthy. The university possessed no building, and its meetings were held in the convents of friendly orders. By this their existence and power became spiritual, and secured a permanent independence of the worldly power, which would have been lost in the possession of great wealth.

The constitution of the university seems not to have been based on complete statutes. A complete code was never enacted, but only an occasional statute, as the condition of things demanded.

In the year 1215 the university received statutes from the pontifical legate, cardinal Robert de Courzon, but these decide only a few points and give no idea of the then existing condition of the university. A statute of the artiste of the year 1344 has been preserved, which exhorts the teachers to greater caution in their contradictions to the texts on which they based their lectures. There are remaining some minor statutes of the theologians, canonists, and artiste, partly of the year 1370, which determine the days for lecturing and disputation, holidays, church festivals, etc. More extended were the statutes of cardinal de Estouteville in 1452; but these also were directed only against certain abuses. Of similar import was the reformation of the artiste in the year 1534. Later statutes, indeed, which were published by the royal commissioners in 1598, and by De Thou in 1600, resemble the statutes of other universities: in fact, all are more or less limited to general good instructions, or are directed to doing away with existing abuses, and give no clue to the constitution of the university. Neither do they apply to the entire university, but are special statutes for the four different faculties.

From the constitution itself it is seen that the Paris university was, from the earliest time, a unit, and that no independent corporations were formed, as in Italy, by the distinction between the jurists and artiste, or by nations. But this peculiarity is less distinctive than the other, which vested all authority in the teachers, without giving any to the scholars. The general assembly of the university consisted at first of all who possessed the degree of doctor or magister, and these titles were, for a considerable time, given only to the actual teachers of the university. But when it had become a common occurrence to acquire the degree without entering the profession of teaching, a modification was made, first by custom, then by law. As a rule, only actual teachers and professors (magistri regentes) had a seat and vote in the assembly; in extraor dinary cases, however, other graduates could participate on special invitation, but no trace exists of any influence having ever been given to the scholars. Bulæus indeed considers that there was a larger general convention, including the scholars, but his reasons are not convincing. He can instance no one case where such a convention was held. (19)

This constitution was the main basis of the greater power and influence of this university, which the Italian schools never could acquire, having no other object than to increase the freedom and often to add to the license of the scholar, and to attract distinguished teachers. The Paris university obtained more special importance by its connection with learned, and especially theological disputes; and though the judgment did not always proceed from the whole university, but from one faculty, yet the connection of the whole with its parts was so close that the latter could give to these decisions the weight of the whole university, and not seldom such decisions and interpretations of a single faculty were considered as the action of the whole university.

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 artistæ) 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 plaintiffs 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 main. tain 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.

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; all 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, jurispru dence 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