LAW-LECTURES IN THE EARLY UNIVERSITIES. THE GLOSSATORS AS TEACHERS. In giving the history of the universities, attention was paid to the lectures only from their general and formal side. At present we must set forth the far more important relation in which they stood towards law. The inquiry must be directed to two objects; firstly towards the division of the subject among different lecturers, and the relation of single teachers and students thereto; secondly, towards the conduct of the courses by the teachers, and the habits of the students in regard to them. Great difficulties lie in the way of the whole investigation, owing to our imperfect information. Panzirolus' account is completely unreliable, since in it partly opinions prevalent in his time, partly isolated incidents taken from earlier writers, are woven into a whole, no regard being paid to the fact that different regulations prevailed at different times and places. Very useful in this investigation are those oldest descriptions of the systems adopted, which remain, partly in the shape of monographs written for the purpose, partly in preface to other writings or lectures. I will cite these to serve as a guide to future investigations in my path. In the first class comes the very small and too general notice of Martinus de Fano. Also the Modus studendi in utroque jure of J. Baptista Caccialupus Leverinas, and on the same subject, a book by J. J. Camis, published as early as 1476, and often since then. In the second class, note especially the introduction to a Summary by Hergolinus, upon the Pandects, and the never-published introduction of Odofredus to his lectures upon the Digestum vetus. In these books, litera denotes the text, lectura an oral interpretation; legere refers to the mode of interpretation. The lectures themselves, at Bologna, and undoubtedly in other places, were restricted to the five parts of the Corpus Juris, so that, as a rule, five principal Tectures were given, among which two might be "ordinary," the three others always "extraordinary." That all these lectures were really delivered can be at once shown in most cases, since lectures of Odofredus upon the three Digests, and upon the nine books of the Codex, yet remain, and are in print. Similar lectures upon the Volumen as such no longer exist, but their existence can be conjectured from the gloss upon all its parts upon the summary of Johannes to the Authenticum, and from the printed lectures of Odofredus upon the three last books of the Codex. It becomes certain, however, from the fact that such lectures appear in the statutes of the university at Bologna in yet later times, when such an inconvenient junction of dissimilar subjects into one course would have been dispensed with, instead of being newly adopted. Along with this regular arrangement we find, however, many very early deviations from it. For example, in the 13th century occur separate lectures upon the Institutes, although they were also contained in the Volumen, and were by the statutes expressly connected with the common lectures upon the Volumen. At first each of these main courses of lectures lasted a complete term, which was one year in duration, while the disparity in the extent of subjects was obviated by beginning earlier and ending later, or by giving more lectures in a week. In earlier times, a course occupied only one hour a day, and it is doubtful if, even in later times, a different arrangement was made. No teacher, however, limited himself to one subject, but took them up in order, which explains how students were able to connect themselves with single teachers, during their whole period of study. Nor was it unusual for one teacher to deliver several courses at once, during the same season. Complete information in regard to later changes in this arrangement is wanting. I will bring together here what I have ascertained upon the subject. At Bologna the statutes contain the following provisions: Each of the three Digests and the Codex were read by two doctors at the same time. One read the first half, the other the second, and each occupied with his part that whole year's course, which had been originally assigned to the whole for one lecturer. Whence it follows that the time for the lectures was doubled, and, notwithstanding, in this system arrangements were made so that every scholar could hear the whole Digestum vetus in a year. The Volumen was, as in former days, to be explained by one person alone, and if possible, entirely. If any part of it remained, the teacher was to go over this part at the beginning of the next course. Similar provisions were made for the sources of the canon law. However, this whole arrangement can not have an earlier date than the second half of the fourteenth century, since it was necessary that salaried teachers should be provided for these places; the majority of salaries, however, begin to be paid at this time. Besides, it is evident that the exclusive relationship of students to a particular teacher was already completely abandoned. The teacherships appointed for the students have no connection with this investigation, since they evidently were intended more for the profit and drilling of these students than as a material addition to the corps of instructors. A similar arrangement, for similar purposes, was entered into at Montpellier by the statutes of 1339. Here also was each Digest, and also the Codes, to be intrusted to two teachers at once in the same year. Here, however, it was not considered sufficient, as at Bologna, to simply divide each original work into a first and second volume, but a somewhat more elaborate mode of division was adopted, and the Codex was so divided into the Ordinarium and Extraordinarium that each of the two had particular books and even parts of books assigned to him. This elaborate arrangement, prevailing at Montpellier, appears to have been then adopted by other schools. In regard to the arrangements at Padua in the second half of the 15th century, Caius gives the following information. The complete course of instruction in Roman law lasted four years; one year for the Institutes, two years for the Digestum vetus and Infortiatum, two years for the Codex and Digestum Novum. The Digestum vetus was, for the whole two years, read in the morning, the Infortiatum in the afternoon, and the same regulation was observed for the Codex and the Digestum Novum. But the Volumen was no longer in use. In the statutes of Padua, and yet more in detail in the Fasti of Facciolati, are mentioned a great number of nominal professors, and it is not clear what lectures were really delivered and were considered as essential parts of a complete course of instruction in Roman law. Among others, appears a particular professorship for the Authenticum, one for Tres Libri Codicis, one for the book of feudal law. In the year 1544, besides the courses already existing, were also instituted especial courses upon Text, Gloss, and Bartolus, for which five professorships were established, two in the morning, two in the evening, and one Tertia. The most important professorship, however, was that established in the year 1422, for the Codex Gregorianus, Hermogenianus et Theodosianus, which position is said to have never been filled after 1687. So much zeal for studies upon legal history is nowhere again encountered, even in later times, and is all the more remarkable as happening at that period. It is, however, not improbable that the whole story rests upon an erroneous basis. It is instructive to see to what fatal excesses this extension of material led at last. Alciat complains that, in his day, only a few passages were explained every year, so that the greatest part of the study upon the sources was left to private diligence. In yet stronger terms does Panzirolus describe the abuses of his time; the lecturers had continually departed more and more from the text, and busied themselves with the glosses, and the trouble had gone so far that in the principal lectures only five parts of the Corpus Juris were treated of in the entire year, and even these no longer, since very important parts of the law were considered only as subjects for extraordinary lectures. In Pisa, as early as the beginning of the 16th century, a curriculum was by law established, which was certainly based upon previous practice. By this, only a few titles from each part of the Digests were to be explained in a year. It is almost incredible that at Pisa and Sienna the same arrangement prevails. to-day. As to the particular courses attended by particular students, our information is, as might be expected, even more imperfect. As essential, were regarded only the lectures upon the regular books. Doubtless these books were studied by all without exception, the other books by many who made arbitrary selection among them; only those who were particularly earnest and zealous, hearing all. Petrarch, for instance, heard the whole Corpus Juris. Connected with this is the time which a student was to devote to these studies. Rules were laid down only for such students as desired degrees, or at least wished to give lectures, and it was natural that for these cases a longer time than the usual period of study should be demanded. At the time of Odofredus, the course appears to have been longer than five years. However, the statutes of Verona, in a manuscript of 1228, demand only three years of law study from those who were to become the magistrates of that city. Petrarch studied seven. In the 15th century, the full course of Roman law at Padua was already limited to four years. A regular succession in the lectures heard does not appear to have been thought necessary; they were rather so arranged as to be at once useful to beginners and advanced students. One cause of this was the constant connection between a student, during his whole course of study, and a single teacher, making it necessary for the latter to adapt his lectures to all classes of hearers. As to the age at which the students commenced their studies, it can only be said that, in general, a riper age than in our times was expected, from which circumstance alone the then existing constitution of the universities is to be explained. This riper age was, moreover, demanded in the case of foreigners by the long and often dangerous journeys necessary to reach the universities; but the case may have been otherwise with natives. But even among the for eigners were, at an early period, some remarkable exceptions. Petrarch began at his fifteenth year, and in a strange city. As a rule, the student limited himself to the lectures upon Roman law, or added lectures upon canon law only; to connect other studies with these was, at first, very unusual. Only the lectures upon the art of a notary may, exceptionally, have been attended by jurists also. The notaries formed, in all important cities, their own guilds, choosing their own officers, and being especially careful that new members should be qualified. Such a guild of notaries may have already existed at Bologna at a very early period. But here it happened, through imitation of the famous law-school in the same place, that they also took the form of such a school, had their own lectures, and gave the degree of doctor. As now their business stood in close connection with the jurists proper, their school may very readily have been looked upon as a part of the law-school; they even read the Institutes often, and it is probable that in the same manner, many jurists attended their lectures, which may have been regarded as a practical branch. Let us now inquire into the mode of conducting a single lecture. The teacher was accustomed to give, at first, a summary of the whole chapter; in each passage he first read the text, according to his opinion of the correct form of it; to a complete exposition of the text belonged first its casus; then the explanation of apparent contradictions in other places; the general law principles therein involved; finally, real or fictitious cases to which it applied, which last, if they were to occupy too much time, were referred to the "repetitions." This was the general plan, which, however, was not strictly carried out in individual cases, as the printed lectures of Azo and Odofredus show, but was modified according to the demands of each particular case. Odofredus boasts of himself that he explained the whole, without omission, and the glosses, as well as the text. As to the delivery of the lectures, general rules can be given for those times no more than for ours. With many lectures, however, it is evident at a glance that they must have been delivered with perfect freedom; e. g. the lec tures of Odofredus, in which the vivacity and familiarity, and at the same time the carelessness of oral delivery are not to be overlooked. Carefully polished lectures are common enough, but such polish was, as will be readily seen, not given to the whole course, but to the exposition of particular passages. As to the students' occupation in the lecture-rooms, it appears that taking notes was just as general as at present, of which we have evidence in the fre quent printing of the same. In this respect differing from the German customs, the students could interrupt and ask questions during the lectures, but this was not usual, though sometimes practiced in the morning, i. e. during the regular lectures. But at the present day, in Italy, a student will sometimes ask the lecturer if he has rightly understood some word. PUBLIC INSTRUCTION IN FRANCE. INTRODUCTION. THE Empire of France, [exclusive of the colonies,] on an area of 206,676 English square miles in 1866, had a population of 38,067,094. In 1856, there were, among a total population of 36,012,669: 19,064,071 employed in agriculture, 10,469,961 in mechanical arts, and 1,632,331 in commercial pursuits. The total expenditure in 1867 amounted to 1,902,111,370 francs, of which sum 28,344,121 francs were expended for public instruction under the following ministries, and with the following statistics: FIRST.-UNDER THE MINISTRY OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION: 1. Primary Instruction. 53,957 Public Schools, in 37,548 Communes, with 2,461,492 pupils. 3,669 Infant Schools, with 432,141 pupils. 32,383 Adult Courses, with 829,555 scholars. Total, 106,723 Schools, with 4,701,446 scholars. 2. Secondary Instruction. 83 Lyceums, with 36,306 students. 253 Communal Colleges, with 32,453 students-making a total of 386 934 Non-governmental Secondary Schools, with 77,906 students. 3. Superior Instruction. 8 Faculties or Schools of Theology, with 46 professors. 11 Faculties of Law, with 100 professors and 4,895 students. 16 Faculties of Science, with 119 professors. 16 Faculties of Literature, with 102 professors. 22 Preparatory Schools of Medicine and Pharmacy, with 190 professors. 3 Higher Schools of Medicine, with 66 professors and 1,780 students. Total, 76 Institutions of the highest instruction, with 603 professors. 4. Special Schools. 1 Normal School for Teachers in Infant Asylums at Paris. 1 Superior Normal School for Professors in Lyceums and the Faculties of Letters and Science at Paris, with 110 pupils and 23 professors. 1 Normal School for Secondary Special Instruction at Cluny, 84 Primary Normal Schools for male teachers, with 449 professors. 12 Primary Normal Schools for female teachers. 1 Primary Normal Course for male teachers, with 12 professors. 49 Primary Normal Courses for female teachers. 3 Schools of Living Oriental Tongues, with 9 professors. 1 Course of Archæology in connection with Cabinet of Medals. 1 French School of Archæology and Greek Literature at Athens. 1 Imperial School of Records (ecole des chartes) at Paris, to prepare pupils for librarians and keepers of public archives. 1 Museum of Natural History at Paris, with 16 professors. 1 School of Sacred Music at Paris. 1 Imperial College of France, with 31 professors. |