EDUCATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume VII, Issue 348, 19 December 1879, Page 7

EDUCATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES.

WE take the following from the Appendix to the sixth volume of Montalembert s " Monks of the West ;" Authorised Translation, p. _ Certain writers of the last century, and of the present one, have desired to make their readers believe (and their object may easily be guessed) that the medieval monks only instructed in their abbeys children destined to the religious life, and that the noble classes were proud of remaining without any literary culture. His Eminence Cardinal Pitra, in his Bisvory of St. Leger, has proved the falsity of tfiisview. He there makes it evident— l. That under the Prankish iiing Clotaire 11., St. Chlodulphe, who afterwards became Bishop of Metz, had been brought up with St. Leger at the school for the great vassals, and, "as belonged to his rank, and according to tlie custom of the sons of nobles, he is sent to school and instructed in liberal studies, tit par emt et vt nobilium filiis fieri solet, scholia traditvr et libekalibus litteris docendus exhibetur "— (Tit S Leodeg., c. 3, Act. SS. O.B.) 2. That St. Landebert, from his infancy' a, ft ma fere atate, had been under the care of learned men and historians ad tiros sapientes et storicos. (Vit. S. Land 6 c 2 ibid eCt S° v 3 i That - Bt - Wand «"e (Vit., c. 2, ibid), in the character of a noble, had received the noble education— that in which military history and ancient literature were taught, and which was imbrued with Christian principles, as well as with those of profane learning vnManbus gestis de antiquis discipline, qtjippe UT nobilissimhs nooihter edvcatvs, et crescentibvs sanctce vita morihus cvnctxsque owundaitarwin rerwin disciplinis imfaitus, Bfc. These facts, moreover, are proved by every page of medieval history ; and in our days the strongest evidences of them have been accumulated. But as the absurd formula, "Being a gentleman he aid not know how to sign his name," is often repeated, even in bistones meant for young people: we beg leave to do justice upon it here, first by pointing out the texts quoted by Mabillon, Ziegelbauer and their contemporaries, and then by appealing, as to the facts, to tne opinion of the most competent modern writers. A passage of Eckhard of St. Gall, brought to light by Dom Pitra snows that there were in the monasteries two kinds of schools— one for children intended for the cloister Coblati) ; the other where the sons of nobles and princes came to study, exteriorem in qua magnatvm nobilivmque Überi fingebantw. (Brouwer, Antiquit, guldens., p. 36.) Here is Eckhard's text, which shows very clearly the distinction that existed between the clerks sent by the bi«hops and tbe young nobles intended to return to the world : '• After a short time they are sent to the cloister school with the B. Notker, and tne other childien who follow the monastic rule traduntnr post breve tempus SCHOL2E CLAUBTM, cvvi B. JVotkero et cum cateri*, monaCHiCi habitus yueris. Exteriores tero, id est canonical, lsoni cum baioinone et ejvs comparibm." (Vit. S. Notkeri, c. 7.) The nutriti, among whom were the sons of dukes, counts, and seigneurs had a free choice between a knightly career in the world and the Me of a monk in the cloister. Men of the highest merit were to be found in both. Thus we have no reason to be astonished with M. Charles de Remusat that the historians of the twelfth century relate how the young nobles left their paternal castles in crowds, to go and live in huts built of branches on the banks of the Arjussou, whither Abelard had transported his school (see Corn son JJtst del tpeuples Bretons, vol. ii. p. 655.) No one will suppose, surely, that these young nobles gathered round a philosophic theologian were men without literary culture. Knowing, however how tenacious some historical falsehoods are in France, M. Leopold

Delisle, the learned director of the National Library, has thought ifc necessary to publish a dissertation to prove that it is absolutely false that the feudal nobility "ever systematically repelled the very elements of instrrction." The author commences by examining some important works, composed at this period, on the education of the nobles. What do these works say ? that " the children of nobles have need of acquiring extensive information, and that they should be familiarised with literature from their youth." (Vincent de Beauvaia.) That the sons of nobles ought to have three masters,— one to teach the mysteries of religion ; one " skilled in science, and especially in the science of grammar, that he may teach how to speak Latin, to read, to hear, and to understand, which is very expedient for the sons of kings and of great lords ;" the third, of noble race, and an experienced knight, " that he may teach them how to behave themselves and to converse among great and small, princes and prelates, knights, monks, and ordinary people." (Gilles de Romme.) Certainly this is a programme which might be accepted in our own days, by the most rigid pedagogue. But do facts agree with theories ? M. Delisle has no doubt of it. " The list would be very long," he says, "of the baroHS and nobles, who in the middle ages cultivated, with more or less brilliancy, history, jurisprudence, and poetry. The multitude of remarkable persons of those times — statesmen, warriors, ministers who were drawn from the ranks of the nobility, is by itself enough to settle the question. However, as large crosses take the place of signatures in deeds of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, it has been concluded that the nobles could not write. This is a great error, easily refuted by the following fact : The custom of placing a signature upon deeds, missives, &c, did not exist during most of the middle ages ; thus not one of St. Louis's numerous letters is signed, and yet it is quite certain that he knew how to write ! The good lord of Joinville, Seneschal of Champagne, wrote very well, as is proved by a curious document discovered by M. Chazuad ( keeper of the archives of the Department of the Allier. Bertrand dv Gue6clin, who has been represented as the most illiterate of knights ; Talbot, Lahire, Dunois, and may others, did not in any way deserve the reputation for ignorance which they have gained. The custom of signing deeds is comparatively modern. Sovereigns only began to practice it in the time of Charles V. ; and Philippe de Mezieres complains bitterly of it, saying that a sovereign " ought to address autograph letters only to bis relations, to the Pope, and to foreign potentates." It seems, then, that whatever may have been said or written, we must acknowledge the falsity of the famous formula, " He declared that he did not know how to write, as he was a gentleman." In the Fifteenth Century, in Bretagne, the notaires-passe, who, it would seem, must have known how to write, were all of gentle birth, and it was the same in Dauphine {La Roqw TraitS de la noblesse, c. cxlviii., edition of 1710). M. Delisle unhesitatingly concludes, as M. de la Borderie and M. A. de Courson had previously done, " that the nobles in the middle ages knew how to write, and that— the learned section of the clergy not included, they were not more ignorant than the members of other classes of society." (La Borderie, Melanges dldstoire et d arche'ologie, 2. 60.)