THE GRAMMAR-SCHOOLS OF THE MEDIEVAL UNIVERSITY
The study of Latin Grammar was of immense importance in the Middle Ages: he who aspired to enter
the Church or any other learned profession must begin
his education by mastering the language which would
give him access not only to classical learning but also to
the writings of medieval scholars. Grammar-schools
and grammar-masters were normally under the control
of the archdeacons of the diocese, and this was no doubt
the case in Oxford until the early years of the 13th
century. (fn. 1) But so great was the power of the community
of clerks there that control passed from the bishop to the
University. This complete cession of authority never
took place at Cambridge, where the Magister Glomerie
continued subject to the jurisdiction of the archdeacon,
and was not made at Oxford until after 1306 at the
earliest, when a statute concerning the teaching of
grammar, the first known, was passed in the presence
of archdeacon Gilbert de Segrave and Master Gilbert
de Mideltona, official of the Bishop of Lincoln. (fn. 2)
A regular faculty for the study of grammar had
evidently been long established by 1306. The statute
of that year confirms the appointment of two regent
masters to surpervise the grammar-schools and their
yearly election in accordance with custom. It decrees
that grammar-masters must dispute in grammar every
Friday, (fn. 3) and asserts that from ancient time masters in
accordance with their oath had been bound to devote
themselves particularly to the formal instruction (positivae informationi) of their scholars, but that now certain of them prompted by greed for money gave cursory
lectures to the great detriment of their pupils, especially
of the junior ones, wherefore the Chancellor had forbidden this practice to any master of a school, on pain
of deprivation of the right to teach and imprisonment
at the will of the Chancellor. The profession at this
time was so lucrative that regents in arts had to be
forbidden to hold a grammar-school for more than
three years. It was consequently one of the earliest
sources the University was able to tap for its common
fund.
Later statutes throw more light on the development
and organization of the faculty. The history of the two
supervisors and the arrangements made for paying
their salaries is a little involved, but it seems clear that
the imposition of a tax, amounting apparently to half
the profits of each master, salva sede (i.e. office) propria
vice-monitoris, (fn. 4) was a new plan in 1306. This exorbitant levy worked badly. It was ended by the benevolence of Master Nicholas de Thingewick, the much
esteemed physician of Edward I. He is known to have
had Tingewick Hall from 1302, (fn. 5) and in May 1321 he
obtained the royal licence to give it and Beef Hall to
the University to provide a salary of four marks for the
two supervisors, (fn. 6) on condition that he was allowed
to reside in Tingewick Hall until his death. The
University agreed to this, and on 23 June, 1322, abolished the offending statute of 1306 which had imposed
the tax. (fn. 7) In future the supervisors would receive 4
marks from Tingewick's house, and it was arranged
that if the rent of Beff Hall proved insufficient, Nicholas
de Tingewick should during his lifetime supplement it
from his Cat Street house, that is, from Tingewick Hall.
This decision was embodied in a statute (fn. 8) stating that
the result of depriving the grammar-masters of the
profits of their labour (by the 1306 tax) had been torpor
and idleness in the instruction of their boys, and in
order to procure more diligence in teaching, the regents
and non-regents had decreed that the two supervisors
should receive 2 marks from the grammar-masters,
whether there should be one or more, and 4 marks
from the rents of the University especially assigned for
that purpose. Provision was made that if the rents and
the masters' 2 marks were not sufficient to make up the
supervisors' salary of £4 then an additional collection
must be made from the grammar-masters. This method
of raising the £4. or 6 marks is referred to in a later
statute, (fn. 9) where it is further explained that in case the
regent masters should be obliged to exact peremptorily
their own fees, as a result of this sudden demand for
money, (fn. 10) and the dignity of their status be thereby
impaired, all the non-masters who teach grammar
publicly must pay a certain sum of money, fixed by the
Chancellor and proctors, to the regent master or
masters each term for each of their scholars, whether a
boarder or not. This money would be reserved by the
regents to supplement the rents, and if there was any
residue it was to be divided between them equally.
This statute may have been promted by levies on the
regents on account of the subtraction of part of the
rent of Beef Hall. It had been repaired at great
expense by the University in 1352, which in order to
reimburse itself had arranged that it should take half
the rent for as long as necessary. (fn. 11) By the mid-15th
century, if not before, the system had again been altered.
The grammar-masters are found paying the whole 6
marks instead of their original contribution of 2, though
the salary of the supervisors had been reduced to 1
marks, (fn. 12) doubtless owing to a reduction of their work
resulting from a decrease in the teaching of grammar.
The money exacted was by statute (fn. 13) distributed annually
among the poor regents in arts, an arrangement which
seems to be later than 1427, since a statute (fn. 14) of that
date refers to the money received from the grammarmasters as distinct from the fund for distribution to
regents and feeding poor scholars. By 1464 a mark
was being deducted for the supervisors, and after 1477
when the last payment was made by the grammarmasters the sum for distribution was still further diminished, the total being no more than £318s. 8d. instead
of the earlier £7 18s. 8d. (fn. 15)
The two supervisors in return for their 2 marks a
term had to visit the grammar-schools each week, presumably only those kept by regent masters and not
those of non-graduate teachers. They had once been
bound to give ordinary lectures on the De constructionibus of Priscian, (fn. 16) but they were absolved from this by
the statute which superseded that of 1306. (fn. 17) They
were still expected to give cursory lectures, at least for
two terms in the year. Immediately subject to them
were the regent masters. By statute (fn. 18) these had to be
obedient to the two supervisors, and must instruct their
scholars according to their advice. They also had to be
licensed by the Chancellor before lecturing in grammar, after an examination in composing verse and prose
and on their knowledge of Latin authors. (fn. 19) When
licensed they took an oath that they would diligently
instruct their scholars both in morals and grammar;
that they would duly punish them and not permit
anyone, even for a bribe, to go outside the schools at
pleasure, or frolic inordinately in school. (fn. 20) Another
regulation (fn. 21) adds that in punishment rigour must be
tempered with a proper leniency. Masters were also
bound to see that their scholars understood the statutes
and observed them, punishing all breaches. Other
regulations ordered the names of all grammar-scholars
to be inscribed on the roll of a regent grammar-master,
which was to be kept in his school and read publicly
three times a term, so that those who were continuous
and true scholars should be apparent, and false brethren
excluded. (fn. 22) Anyone who was not enrolled could not
enjoy any privilege of the University, and masters were
especially warned not to protect persons who were not
scholars of some licensed master.
The next grade in the hierarchy was the nongraduate teachers, for the faculty of grammar had only
the one degree of Master instead of the normal two. (fn. 23)
The non-magistri (as they were called) were doubtless
responsible for the greater part of the elementary teaching given in grammar in Oxford. They were rigorously
subjected to the supervision of the regent masters. We
have seen already that by the statute of 1344 they were
taxed to pay for the supervisors' salaries. (fn. 24) They could
not teach publicly unless first found suitable and admitted before the Chancellor and proctors through the
testimony of a regent master in grammar or of two
honest men, if no such regent existed. After admission
they must take an oath to instruct their pupils diligently
and not to demand more than 8d. a term as fee unless some
special arrangement was made beforehand. (fn. 25) They had
to obey the supervisors and the regent masters in everything: (fn. 26) the names of their pupils had to be inscribed on
the roll of a regent master. (fn. 27) According to the statute
of 1306 they might give cursory lectures if they wished,
provided they were considered suitable by the masters
of schools and that they gave them at a distance from
the schools. (fn. 28) All informatores of grammar ought three
or four times a term to expound to their scholars the
mandates of the Chancellor. (fn. 29) This control can hardly
have been very popular among the lower ranks of
teachers, and we have some evidence of friction between
them and the authorities. The Chancellor's Register
records the 15th-century case of John Martyn alias
Clerke, the pedagogue of the parish of St. Michael
Northgate, who seditiously assembled a crowd of
scholars in St. Michael's church-yard at the time of
high mass. His purpose was to seize the mandate of the
ordinary suspending or excommunicating him, which
was about to be promulgated by Master William
Street, the vicar of the church, or his deputy. John
Martyn was also accused of attempting to depose the
reader of the document from the pulpit, and he and
certain scholars were convicted before the Chancellor's
commissary, and Martyn was imprisoned. Passions had
been roused to such an extent that the scholars tried to
break the prison at night. As Martyn is described as
informator parvulorum, it is more probable that these
were University students to whom he had appealed for
support rather than his own scholars. Three years
later John Martyn was still rebellious. He was then
convicted with two priests of breaking into the house of
William Hawdene, beating him and otherwise breaking the peace of the King and the University. In
1465/6 he and his wife were again involved in a quarrel
with the higher ranks of the University. This time it
was the Prior of St. Mary's College who was the object
of attack. Whatever their differences they coule not
have been very serious as they were settled by the
arbitration of Thomas Chandeler, who decreed that
both parties should share a refection at St. Mary's College
at their own expense. (fn. 30)
There is some information about the instruction given
to the grammarians. A late 14th-century statute (fn. 31)
tells us that the master had to give his pupils verses to
compose and letters to write, taking care about choice
of words, length of clauses, and so on. These exercises
they had to write out on parchment on a holiday, and
repeat them by heart on the following day. Precaution
was to be taken that nothing should be read which
might corrupt the morals of the young. Portions of
Ovid, Pamphilus, (fn. 33) and other works which were of an
immoral nature were forbidden. (fn. 34) Particular attention
in the case of the junior boys was to be paid to parsing
in Latin. At one period it was decreed that the boys
should be taught to construe in French, as well as in
English, lest the French language should be forgotten. (fn. 35)
In the 15th century the faculty of grammar declined
with the rest of the University. The impoverishment
of the nation by war and scarcity—the reason given by
the University for the emptiness of halls and inns (fn. 36) —was
no doubt the root cause, but in the case of the study of
grammar there were contributory causes. Contemporary complaints about the decay are emphatic. The
Bishop of Lincoln, we learn from a letter of 1466, was
greatly grieved at it, and had long exercised himself
about a remedy. (fn. 37) More concrete evidence that the
profession was no longer so flourishing as in times past
comes from the effort made by the grammar-masters to
avoid the payment of the 6 marks to the masters of arts.
About 1442 it appears that they had appealed to the
king, endeavouring, as their opponents put it, 'to prejudice your mind against the faculty of arts', with the
result that the payment was temporarily stopped by the
king's order. The artists wrote in 1442 protesting
that the grammar-masters were bound by oath to pay,
and sent Master William Say to give full information. (fn. 38)
Their right to extract payment seems to have been
vindicated, for in 1447 we find three grammar-masters
being threatened with excommunication if they did
not pay immediately the customary 6 marks. (fn. 39) The
shortsightedness of this policy can be seen in the rapid
decline which took place in the latter-half of the century. According to Rous's (fn. 40) list there were five grammar halls in about 1440, Ing Hall, White Hall,
Cuthbert Hall, Lyon Hall, and Tackley's Inn, but by
1462 only two survived, and in 1466 the University
complained to the Bishop of Lincoln that 'grammar,
the base of all education, had gone into exile and
deserted this realm'. (fn. 41) It was still insisting in 1478 on
the payment of the 6 marks, though any master teaching in a free grammar-school, should such be founded,
was now to be exempt. (fn. 42) This legislation, of course,
was prompted by the contemplated foundation of
Magdalen free grammar-school in 1480, (fn. 43) an event
which proved disastrous to the surviving grammar halls
which depended on fee-paying pupils. St. Hugh Hall,
for instance, which had been flourishing in 1478 under
Principal Broke, was in ruins in 1487. (fn. 44) But the position of the Oxford halls had been already made precarious by the movement for the foundation of free
grammar-schools, particularly in connexion with chantries, which was sweeping England at this time and
rendering the teaching of grammar less necessary at the
University. Their final disappearance is strikingly
testified to by the decree of 1492 (fn. 45) that the salaries
hitherto paid by the University to the supervisors of
the grammar-schools should in future be paid to the
magistri scolarum at the Augustines, since the supervisors had no work to do while the latter worked hard
and received no pay. (fn. 46) In future the Augustine
officers were to act as grammar-masters as well. The
Proctors' accounts of 1494–5, 1496–7, record the
change. The salary once paid to the masters supervising
the grammar-schools is now entered as going to the
masters supervising the schools at the Augustines.
Information about the personal history of the
grammar-masters is fragmentary. The earliest names
to be recorded are those of John of London, and John of
Garland who had attended his lectures by 1213. (fn. 47)
Later in the century come the names of Richard de
Hambury and Adam de Schidyard. The former taught
grammar in the time of Edward I at Hambury Hall,
which was once on the site of Exeter chapel. He was
alive in 1293, but probably died in that year or the
next. (fn. 48) His hall was still called a grammar-school in
1339, (fn. 49) but by 1380 the site is described as void ground,
and it was given to the rector of Stapeldon Hall. (fn. 50)
About Adam de Schidyard we have a few personal
details. He was married to Lucy, and he owned Vine
Hall, half of which he granted to John de Ketering in
1307; (fn. 51) he was entitled to call himself grammaticus,
and we know that Merton boys were lodged with him
between 1289 and 1291; (fn. 52) he may be equated with
Adam de Nydthard, the author of Neutrale; (fn. 53) by
1323 he was dead. The most famous 14th-century
masters were John of Cornwall and Richard Pencrich.
Higden, the translator of the Polychronicon, says they
were 'reputed to have brought about the change by
which in alle the gramere scoles of Engelond children
leveth Frensche and construeth and lerneth on Englishe'. (fn. 54) So successful were their efforts to substitute
the use of English for French in construing Latin that
the University had to enforce the teaching of French
by statute lest the Gallic tongue should be entirely
forgotten. John of Cornwall's school was Cat Hall on
the east side of Cat Street. (fn. 55) Like Schidyard he was
a married man, (fn. 56) but there is tantalizingly little else
recorded of him. His name suggests a Cornish origin,
and it should be remembered that Master I. de Cornubia, the Principal of St. Edmund Hall in 1317, was
from the Cornish Egloshale. (fn. 57) Our Cornwall, in any
case, witnessed a deed in 1341, (fn. 58) received a Merton
boy at his school in 1347, (fn. 59) and made an instrument disposing of his property in 1349. (fn. 60) He was
almost certainly the author of a speculum gramaticale,
written by a Mr. Johannes Brian dictus de Cornubia,
and dated 1346. (fn. 61) Still less is known of Pencrich. Pencrich Hall, which was most probably his school, was on
the north side of Merton Street between Logic Lane
and East Gate Street and was destroyed according to
Rous before his time. It was in existence in 1380, for
its manciple contributed to the poll tax of that year, and
in 1367 it was inhabited by a man called Pencrich, who
may have been Pencrich the grammar-master. (fn. 62) He
had various other properties in the city between 1360
and 1380. (fn. 63) Higden tells us that he had learnt Cornwall's method from him and carried it on, and taught
others to do so too. A third name that has survived is
John of Aylesbury's. He should not be confused with
his namesake and contemporary who was fellow of
Merton, Principal of Little Lion Hall in 1317, (fn. 64) and
of Aristotle Hall in 1330. (fn. 65) A fourth master, Walter of
Cat Street, is little more than a name. He took Merton
boys in 1353–4, and we hear of him again in 1358–9
when the Long Rolls of Queen's College record that
Magister W. Katstrette was paid 10d. pro disciplina
Tristran, one of its Poor Boys. A more outstanding
figure, belonging to the end of the century and to the
early 15th century, was John Leland, senior, who
taught in the reigns of Henry V and Henry VI at what
was later to be called Peckwater Inn, and won a lasting
reputation as a grammarian. William of Worcester
describes him as flos grammaticorum et poetarum. He
wrote Distinctiones Rhetoricae and other works, (fn. 66) and
kept a school large enough to employ assistants. Master
Robert Lane, later master at Bristol grammar-school,
was once his principalis grammaticus. (fn. 67) Two of his
pupils, the young Eglesfields from Queen's, are known. (fn. 68)
Finally we hear of his wife Margaret in 1421, (fn. 69) and
their famous son John needs no introduction. It has
been suggested with some probability that they also had
a daughter who married Master John Cobbow, another
grammarian, for the latter about 1460 held land at
Cowley, given him by Leland. (fn. 70) Both men are buried
in St. Frideswide's in the Lady chapel, Leland dying
in 1428, (fn. 71) Cobbow in 1472. (fn. 72) Hearne, moreover, has
noted the close connexion between the two men, and
observes that Cobbow followed the method of John
Leland. (fn. 73)
Cobbow appears to have been a successful man.
Lion Hall was leased to him by Oseney in 1435 at a
rent of 50s. a year for life, provided that he instructed
a scholar nominated by the abbot gratis, unless he
should be a boarder, in which case he might take 12d.
each quarter. (fn. 74) In 1462/3 he disputed for his convenite, (fn. 75)
and we know that he remained master of his hall until
1464 at least. The Proctors' accounts for 1464–5
show that for that year he was the only magister and
was accordingly mulcted of the large sum of £2, but
half the due payment. In 1466 the hall was vacant so
he had presumably retired. (fn. 76) Cobbow Hall, as it
was then called, was occupied by William Perkyn in
1467/8, (fn. 77) who may be another grammar-master as
there was a tendency for halls to be used continuously
by the same faculty. We only know of one other
reference to Cobbow. It was presented at a View of
Frankpledge that 'there is tymberwode of John Cobbow scolemayster lygginge in the Newemarket abrode
this two yere passyd', and that it was a nuisance. (fn. 78)
Another master in this century was John Russel, (fn. 79) who
was teaching grammar in 1447 when he was summoned
before the commissary for not paying the grammarmasters' tax of 6 marks. (fn. 80) He was then principal of Ing
Hall, to which he seems to have succeeded in about
1446. His predecessor there from at least 1442 to
1446 was Master Richard or John Sparkeford, also
a grammar-master. (fn. 81) He became rector of Rotherfield
Peppard in 1444; later as rector of St. Matthew's,
Friday Street, London, and grammar-master, he obtained a papal dispensation on 23 November 1456.
He died in 1472. (fn. 82)
Another was Master Hugh Fotte, principal in 1457
and 1458 of St. Hugh Hall in St. Peter's in the East. (fn. 83)
Master Richard Bulkley taught grammar at Tackley's
Inn in the middle of the century. (fn. 84) In 1458 and 1461 it
is grouped in the caution list with Plumer Hall and St.
Lawrence Hall in one case, and with Bekes Inn and
St. Lawrence Hall in the other. (fn. 85) Both Bekes Inn and
Tackley's Inn were occupied by tenants, and it has been
suggested that Tackley's Inn was a grammar-school
annexed to a hall for undergraduates as St. Hugh and
White Hall were annexed to St. Edmund Hall. Of
Bulkley himself we only know that with Russel and
Cobbow he attempted to evade the payment of 6 marks
to the University in 1447, and that in 1451 he
supplicated that he might be dispensed from convenite
as long as he remained in the University. He paid the
large sum of £40 for acquiring this privilege. (fn. 86)
Most famous of all the 15th-century masters was
Master John Anwykyll, who was made the first head
of Magdalen free grammar-school, (fn. 87) and introduced
a system of teaching grammar which revolutionized the
study of Latin in England. The college arranged to
pay him £10 a year and provide a house rent-free for
him and his family, for Anwykyll like most of these
grammar-masters was a married man. He was chosen
for the excellence of his learning and other merits,
particularly for the new method of grammatical instruction evolved by him, and he undertook to teach poems,
elegancies and other humane arts. He also agreed to
try and qualify some apt pupils to become eventually
teachers of his method. He died in 1487 and was succeeded by his equally famous pupil John Stanbridge,
usher of the school since 1488 or earlier, and a scholar
and writer of distinction. But both these men were
children of the Renaissance and belong to the modern
rather than to the medieval period. To them grammar
was but a step to the appreciation of classical literature,
and the rod and the birch, the symbol of the medieval
grammar-master's profession, if not banished from their
school, were at least used sparingly.