History of Albertus of Saxonia

Introduction

Albert of Saxony studied the motions of the earth, marine tides, and geology. He connected the views of Buridan and Nicholas Oresme. He analyzed the problem in ontological terms rather than in terms of nature. He accepted Buridan"s theory of impetus. According to him impetus is proportional to the velocity with which a body was set in motion, and proportional to the quantity of matter that a body contains. He rejected as impossible that the heavenly spheres were moved by a higher intelligence. Like Buridan, he thought that the heavenly bodies were subject to the same laws of motion as earthly bodies. He distinguished between uniform motion in which all parts of a body move with the same motion, and non-uniform motion, in which different parts of a body move at different velocities, such as in circular motion. In opposition to Buridan, Albert rejected the idea that "quantity" was something real, and he treated it as a composite of substance and quality. Albert"s hypotheses on the center of gravity, which he described as the center of the world, were significant in the development of modern mechanics. Albert distinguished two centers in a heavy body: the center of magnitude and the center of gravity. His thought had a great influence on the research of Copernicus and Kepler.

Biographical Information

Albert of Saxony"s name appears for the first time in the records in 1351, when he obtained the degree of master of arts at the University of Paris under master Albert of Bohemia. This date implies that he must have been in Paris at the end of 1350. He was probably born in 1320 (not in 1316, as has been traditionally assumed). It is very unlikely that Albert studied at the University of Prague before moving to Paris. The university in Prague was only founded in 1349, and the curricular requirements at Prague and at Paris exclude such a transition. Although there are no records, it is more likely that Albert would have received his early training at schools in his diocese, at Halberstadt or Magdeburg, and then moved to the studium generale of Erfurt. Only one work, if it is authentic, dates from the pre-Paris period, the Philosophia pauperum, which has references to Erfurt.

Once in Paris, Albert became involved in administrative duties for the English-German nation to which he belonged, and for the entire arts faculty. He was proctor, examiner, receptor, and in 1353 rector. In 1352 and 1355, he was one of the members of the committee who prepared the list of applications for papal benefices for university masters (rotulus).

In addition to these administrative duties, Albert was chiefly concerned with teaching and writing. The university records show the names of approximately forty students who obtained their master"s degree under Albert. His more than twenty writings, which cover logic and natural philosophy, but also ethics, are usually in the literary format of commentaries on Aristotle, and all originated at Paris. In addition, he started his study in theology as early as 1353 but he never finished, and there are no writings in this discipline.

Probably in 1361 Albert left Paris. The period 1362– 1364 in Albert"s career is blank, but the two letters that bind this period indicate that he was busy at Avignon for Pope Urban V and in Vienna at the court of Duke Rudolph IV. He was involved in the founding of the University of Vienna in 1365, and became its first rector. Because of the death of Duke Rudolph IV, and the ensuing rivalry between his two brothers, the university did not flourish and had only a faculty of arts. The university was reestablished in 1383–1384. Albert of Saxony left Vienna within a year, to become bishop of Halberstadt in 1366. He remained bishop until his death on 8 July 1390.

Writings on Natural Philosophy

Although several works by Albert of Saxony have been edited since the original DSB article, it is not possible yet to place his thought within its fourteenth-century context. It seems clear, however, that the assessment in the original DSB article that Albert of Saxony depended heavily on the works by Buridan, and lacked originality, needs to be revised. In the past, Albert of Saxony, together with Oresme and a few other Parsian thinkers, has been perceived as a proponent of the Buridan school, with all the connotations that this label may have, such as that of student-teacher relationships, and a unified homogeneous school of thought. Closer examination of the doctrines and dating of texts has replaced this picture of the Buridan school with that of a small intellectual network of nearly contemporary masters of arts, who were familiar with each others" work and at times responded to one another.

Albert of Saxony"s most important work in logic is his Perutilis logica (Very useful logic), written around 1356. It is a handbook in logic, organized into six treatises. It covers all the basics of medieval logic, such as propositions, properties of terms, consequences, fallacies, insolubles, and obligations. Although the influence of William of Ockham is discernible, it is an independent treatise with its own original twists. Albert distances himself in many respects from Buridan"s logic. Another logical work from about the same period is theQuaestiones circa logicam(Questions on Logic). This is a set of disputed questions about the signification of terms, reference, and truth. The Sophismata, a set of propositions whose interpretation raises semantic problems because of the presence of certain logical terms, shows the influence of William of Heytesbury. Albert"s solutions to the semantic difficulties rely on Heytesbury"s theory of sensus divisus and compositus, that is, the position and scope of modal operators in propositions.

One of Albert"s most important works in natural philosophy is his Quaestiones super libros Physicorum, a question-commentary on Aristotle"s Physics. It raises many of the problems that are also raised in Buridan"s question-commentary. The relation between the two works, however, is more complex than was initially thought. It is clear in the early 2000s that Albert of Saxony had access to a previous version of Buridan"s question-commentary on the Physics, the so-called tertia lectura. In his final version of the question-commentary on the Physics, Buridan responded to Albert of Saxony. In other words, Albert"s Quaestiones on the Physics are chronologically located between Buridan"s tertia lectura and his ultima lectura. Albert of Saxony"s Quaestiones super libros Physicorum are usually dated shortly after 1351. This date is suggested by one of its copies, whose introductory remarks tie the text to Albert"s opening lecture (principium) on Aristotle"s Physics, which was held in 1351. This does not imply, however, that the entire commentary was finished by that time. The most plausible conclusion is that the work must have been finished sometime between 1352 and 1357, before Buridan"s ultimate question-commentary.

Buridan and Albert of Saxony held opposing views about the ontological status of spatial extension. In general, medieval thinkers believed that spatial extension belonged in the category of quantity, and that some substances, such as bodies, have extension as their most important feature. However, not only the substance of body, but also many of its qualities were considered to be extended. The dimensions of Socrates"s whiteness, for instance, were believed to coincide with Socrates himself, that is, with substance. But is it really accurate to equate quantity with substance and quality, respectively, or should quantity be considered a separate entity? Buridan held the latter view. One of the many arguments in support of this position hinges on the phenomenon of condensation and rarefaction. Experience teaches that the extension or quantity of a given substance can vary, whereas the amount; of substance and its quality remain constant: no new parts of substance are added, nor any destroyed (in contrast to the phenomena of growth and diminution). Albert of Saxony defended the position that extension or quantity coincides with substance. He attributes condensation and rarefaction to the local motion of the parts, which supposedly have some kind of elasticity.

On the question of the ontological status of motion, Albert follows the view of Ockham that motion is not something different from the moving body. However, on the basis of an argument involving God"s supernatural interference, he concludes that motion is an inherent flux in a moving body. In other words, motion is a distinct property of a body, a position Buridan also defended.

In his discussion of projectile motion, Albert qualifies Buridan"s view as the truest view (quam pro nunc reputo veriorem). It attributes the projectile"s motion to a certain motive force, a virtus motiva or virtus impressa, an impressed power. Albert does not use the term impetus. Buridan introduced this new term only in his last version of his question-commentary on the Physics, which Albert did not know. Albert interprets Aristotle"s views with respect to motion and velocity, in Physics book 7, in accordance with Bradwardine"s rules. In an effort to solve the apparent contradictions between Bradwardine"s approach and Aristotle"s text, Albert states that Aristotle"s text has probably been mistranslated.

Albert"s discussion of the void shows striking similarities to that by Oresme. He must have known Oresme"s Physics. Albert"s well-organized question-commentary on Aristotle"s De caelo provides further evidence of his thoughtful and independent approach to contemporary issues in natural philosophy. Albert includes many questions that had been raised by both Oresme and Buridan, but approximately one-third of Albert"s fifty-six questions do not appear in the De caelo questions of Oresme and Buridan. Also noteworthy is that, unlike almost all other scholastic natural philosophers, Albert grouped related questions together under three major themes. This broke with the traditional way of organizing questions by simply following Aristotle"s text.

What emerges from these varied examples is that Albert of Saxony was not a plagiarizer, but rather that he was well versed in the works of some of his contemporaries and used them in his own philosophical endeavors.

*Jean Buridan (in Latin, Joannes Buridanus) (1300 – 1358) or John Buridan was a French philosopher, a nominalist, who wrote extensively on logic and natural philosophy. Although he was one of the most famous and influential logicians, philosophers and theologians of the later Middle Ages, he is today among the least well known. Many of his works are still available only in Latin.

His legacy

All the works which we possess under the name of Albert of Saxony belong to Albert of Helmstädt. Some were devoted to logic, others to physics. The study of these books is admirably calculated to inform us on the views current at the University of Paris in the middle of the fourteenth century. The treatises on logic written by Albert of Saxony are devoted to the detailed and subtledialectic which at the end of the thirteenth century Petrus Hispanus had introduced into the teaching of the Parisian Scholasticism, but they present neither the disorder nor the multitude of empty quibbles which about the same time were introduced into the instruction at the University of Oxford and which became predominant there under the influence of William Heytesbury. Albert of Saxony's treatises on physics consist of a "Tractatus proportionum" and questions on Aristotle's "Physics", "De Coelo", and "De generatione et corruptione". These contain, in a clear, precise, and concise form, an explanation of numerous ideas which exercised great influence on the development of modern science, which ideas, however, were not wholly personal to Albert of Helmstädt, many of the most important of them being derived from his master, Jean Buridan. He abandoned the old Peripateticdynamics which ascribed the movement of projectiles to disturbed air. With Buridan he placed the cause of this movement in an impetus put into the projectile by the person who threw it; the part he assigned to this impetus is very like that which we now attribute to living force. With Buridan he considered that the heavens were not moved by intelligences, but, like projectiles, by the impetus which God gave them when He created them. With Buridan he saw in the increase of impetus the reason of the acceleration in the fall of a heavy body. He further taught that the velocity of a falling weight increased in proportion either to the space traversed from the beginning of the fall or to the time elapsed, but he did not decide between these two.

The equilibrium of the earth and seas is the subject of a favourite theory ofAlbert's. The entire terrestrial element is in equilibrium when its centre of gravity coincides with the centre of the world. Moreover, the terrestrial mass has not everywhere the same density, so that its centre of gravity does not coincide with the centre of its figure. Thus the lightest part of the earth is more distant from the centre of gravity of the earth than the heaviest part. The erosion produced by rivers constantly draws terrestrial particles from the continents to the bosom of the sea. This erosion, which, by scooping out the valleys, has shaped the mountains, constantly displaces the centre of gravity of the terrestrial mass, and this mass is in motion to bring back the centre of gravity of the earth to the centre of its figure. Through this motion the submerged portions of the earth constantly push upwards the emerged parts, which are incessantly being eaten away and afterwards replaced by the submerged parts. At the beginning of the sixteenth century this theory ofAlbert's strongly attracted the attention of Leonardo da Vinci, and it was toconfirm it that he devoted himself to numerous observations of fossils. Albert of Saxony, moreover, ascribed the precession of the equinoxes to the similar very slow movement of the terrestrial element.

His "Tractatus proportionum" went through eleven editions; one bears no dateor indication of its origin; three were issued at Padua in 1482, 1484, and 1487; four were printed at Venice in 1487, 1494, and twice in 1496; two were printed at Venice in 1502 and 1506; finally, an edition without date or printer's name was issued at Paris. The "Subtilisimæ quæstiones super octo libros Physicorum" were printed at Padua in 1493, at Venice in 1504 and 1516. The "Quæstiones in Aristotelis libros de Coelo et Mundo" were published at Pavia in 1481, at Venice in 1492 and 1497. The "Quæstiones in libros de generatione et corruptione", with the commentaries and questions which Gilles of Rome andMarsilius of Inghen had compiled on the same subject, were printed at Venicein 1504, 1505, and 1518. Albert's "Quæstiones" on the Physics, the "De Coelo", and the "De generatione", followed by the questions of Thémon and of Buridanon the "De anima", were printed in Paris in 1516 and 1518. The "Quæstiones super libros posteriorum Aristotelis" were printed at Venice in 1497; the "Sophismata" at Paris in 1489; the "Tractatus obligationum" at Lyons in 1498; the two last-named works, joined with the "Insolubilia", were published at Parisin 1490, 1495, and at an unknown date. In 1496 was printed at Bologna the "Expositio aurea et admodum utilis super artem veterem, edita per venerabilem inceptorem fratrem Gulielmum de Ocham cum questionibus Alberti parvi de Saxonia". Finally, the "Logica Albertucii" was edited at Venice in 1522.

Related notes

Logic

Logic is the science and art which so directs the mind in the process ofreasoning and subsidiary processes as to enable it to attain clearness, consistency, and validity in those processes. The aim of logic is to secure clearness in the definition and arrangement of our ideas and other mental images, consistency in our judgments, and validity in our processes of inference.

The Greek word logos, meaning "reason", is the origin of the term logic–logike(techen, pragmateia, or episteme, understood), as the name of a science or art, first occurs in the writings of the Stoics. Aristotle, the founder of thescience, designates it as "analytic", and the Epicureans use the term canonic. From the time of Cicero, however, the word logic is used almost without exception to designate this science. The names dialectic and analytic are also used.

University of Paris

Three schools were especially famous at Paris, the palatine or palace school, the school of Notre-Dame, and that of Sainte-Geneviève. The decline of royalty inevitably brought about the decline of the first. The other two, which were very old, like those of the cathedrals and the abbeys, are only faintly outlined during the early centuries of their existence. The glory of the palatineschool doubtless eclipsed theirs, until in the course of time it completely gave way to them. These two centres were much frequented and many of their masters were esteemed for their learning. It is not until the tenth century, however, that we meet with a professor of renown in the school of Ste-Geneviève. This was Hubold, who, not content with the courses at Liège, came to continue his studies at Paris, entered or allied himself with thechapter of Ste-Geneviève, and by his teaching attracted many pupils. Recalled by his bishop to Belgium, he soon profited by a second journey to Paris to give lessons with no less success. As to the school of Notre-Dame, while many of its masters are mentioned simply as having been professors at Paris, in its later history we meet with a number of distinguished names: in the eleventh century, Lambert, disciple of Filbert of Chartres; Drogo of Paris; Manegold of Germany; Anselm of Laon. These two schools, attracting scholars from every country, produced many illustrious men, among whom were: St. Stanislaus,Bishop of Cracow; Gebbard, Archbishop of Salzburg; St. Stephen, third Abbotof Cîteaux; Robert d'Arbrissel, founder of the Abbey of Fontevrault etc. Thehonour of having formed similar pupils is indiscriminately ascribed to Notre-Dame and to Ste-Geneviève, as du Molinet has justly remarked (Bibl. Sainte-Geneviève, manuscript H. fr. 21, in fol., p. 576). Humanistic instruction comprised grammar, rhetoric, dialectics, arithmetic, geometry, music, andastronomy (trivium and quadrivium). To the higher instruction belongeddogmatic and moral theology, whose source was the Scriptures and theFathers, and which was completed by the study of canon law. Three menwere to add a new splendour to the schools of Notre-Dame and Ste-Geneviève, namely William of Champeaux, Abelard, and Peter Lombard. A newschool arose which rivalled those of Notre-Dame and Ste-Geneviève. It owed its foundation to the same William of Champeaux when he withdrew to theAbbey of St-Victor and it took the name of that abbey. Two men shed special radiance on this school, Hugh and Richard, who added to their own names that of the abbey at which they were religious and professors.

The plan of studies expanded in the schools of Paris as it did elsewhere. The great work of a monk of Bologna, known as the "Decretum Gratiani", brought about a division of the science of theology. Hitherto the discipline of the Church had not been separate from theology properly so-called; they were studied together under the same professor. But this vast collectionnecessitated a special course, which was naturally undertaken first atBologna, where Roman law was taught. In France, first Orléans and then Pariserected chairs of canon law, which except at Paris were usually also chairs ofcivil law. The capital of the kingdom might thus boast of this new professorate, that of the "Decretum Gratiani", to which before the end of the twelfth century were added the Decretals of Gerard (or Girard) La Pucelle,Mathieu d'Angers, and Anselm (or Anselle) of Paris, but civil law was not included. In the course of the twelfth century also medicine began to be publicly taught at Paris. A professor of medicine is mentioned in this city at this time, namely Hugo, "physicus excellens qui quadrivium docuit", and it is to be assumed that this science was included in his teaching.

For the right to teach, two things were necessary, knowledge and appointment. Knowledge was proved by examination, the appointment came from the examiner himself, who was the head of the school, and was known asscholasticus, capiscol, and eventually as "chancellor". This was called the licence or faculty to teach. Without this authorization there was danger of the chairs being occupied by ignorant persons, whom John of Salisbury depicts as "children yesterday, masters today; yesterday receiving strokes of the ferrule, today teaching in a long gown" (Metalogicus, I, xxv in init.). The licence had to be granted gratuitously. Without it no one could teach; on the other hand, it could not be refused when the applicant deserved it.

The school of St-Victor, which shared the obligations as well as the immunitiesof the abbey, conferred the licence in its own right; the school of Notre-Damedepended on the diocese, that of Ste-Geneviève on the abbey or chapter. It was the diocese and the abbey or chapter which through their chancellor gave professorial investiture in their respective territories, i.e. the diocese in the city intra pontes and other places subject to the ordinary, the abbey orchapter on the left bank of the river as far as its jurisdiction reached. Consequently, as du Molinet explains, it was incumbent on the chancellor ofNotre-Dame and Ste-Geneviève to examine "those who applied to teach in theschools", to "license after study those who sought to be masters and regents" (op. cit., 585). Besides these three centres of learning there were severalschools on the "Island" and on the "Mount". "Whoever", says Crevier "had theright to teach might open a school where he pleased, provided it was not in the vicinity of a principal school". Thus a certain Adam, who was of Englishorigin, kept his "near the Petit Pont"; another Adam, Parisian by birth, "taught at the Grand Pont which is called the Pont-au-Change" (Hist. de l'Univers. de Paris, I, 272).

The number of students in the school of the capital grew constantly, so that eventually the lodgings were insufficient. Among the French students there were princes of the blood, sons of the nobility, and the most distinguished youths of the kingdom. The courses at Paris were considered so necessary as a completion of studies that many foreigners flocked to them. Popes Celestine II and Adrian IV had studied at Paris, Alexander III sent his nephews there, and, under the name of Lothaire, a scion of the noble family of Seigny, who was later to rule the Church as Innocent III, belonged to the student body.Otto of Freisingen, Cardinal Conrad, Archbishop of Mainz, St. Thomas of Canterbury, and John of Salisbury were among the most illustrious sons ofGermany and England in the schools of Paris; while Ste-Geneviève became practically the seminary for Denmark. The chroniclers of the time call Paris the city of letters par excellence, placing it above Athens, Alexandria, Rome, and other cities: "At that time", we read in the "Chroniques de St-Denis", "there flourished at Paris philosophy and all branches of learning, and there the seven arts were studied and held in such esteem as they never were at Athens,Egypt, Rome, or elsewhere in the world" ("Les gestes de Philippe-Auguste"). Poets said the same thing in their verses, and they compared it to all that was greatest, noblest, and most valuable in the world.

To maintain order among the students and define the relations of the professors, organization was necessary. It had its beginnings, and it developed as circumstances permitted or required. Three features in this organization may be noted: first, the professors formed an association, for according toMatthew Paris, John of Celles, twenty-first Abbot of St. Albans, England, was admitted as a member of the teaching corps of Paris after he had followed the courses (Vita Joannis I, XXI, abbat. S. Alban). Again, the masters as well as the students were divided according to provinces, for as the same historian states, Henry II, King of England, in his difficulties with St. Thomas of Canterbury, wished to submit his cause to a tribunal composed of professors of Paris, chosen from various provinces (Hist. major, Henry II, to end of 1169). This was probably the germ of that division according to "nations" which was later to play an important part in the university. Lastly, mention must be made of the privileges then enjoyed by the professors and students. In virtue of a decision of Celestine III, they were amenable only to the ecclesiastical courts. Other decisions dispensed them from residence in case they possessedbenefices and permitted them to receive their revenues.

These three  schools of Notre-Dame, Ste-Geneviève, and St-Victor may be regarded as the triple cradle of the Universitas scholarium, which included masters and students; hence the name University. Such is the common and more probable opinion. Denifle and some others hold that this honour must be reserved to the school of Notre-Dame (Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis), but the reasons do not seem convincing. He excludes St-Victor because, at the request of the abbot and the religious of St-Victor, Gregory IX in 1237 authorized them to resume the interrupted teaching of theology. But theuniversity was in large part founded about 1208, as is shown by a Bull ofInnocent III. Consequently the schools of St-Victor might well have furnished their contingent towards its formation. Secondly, Denifle excludes the schoolsof Ste-Geneviève because there had been no interruption in the teaching of the liberal arts. Now this is far from proved, and moreover, it seems incontestable that theology also had never ceased to be taught, which is sufficient for our point. Besides, the rôle of the chancellor of Ste-Geneviève in the university cannot be explained by the new opinion; he continued to give degrees in arts, a function which would have ceased for him when theuniversity was organized if his abbey had no share in its organization. And while the name Universitas scholarium is quite intelligible on the basis of the common opinion, it is incompatible with the recent (Denifle's) view, according to which there would have been schools outside the university.

As completing the work of organization the diploma of Philip Augustus and the statutes of Robert de Courçon are worthy of note. The king's diploma was given "for the security of the scholars of Paris", and in virtue of it from the year 1200 the students were subject only to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Hence the provost and other officers were forbidden to arrest a student for anyoffence, and if in exceptional cases this was done it was only to hand over the culprit to ecclesiastical authority, for in the event of grave crime royaljustice was limited to taking cognizance of the procedure and the verdict. In no case could the king's officers lay hands on the head of the schools or even on a simple regent, this being allowed only in virtue of a mandate proceeding from ecclesiastical authority. The statutes of the Apostolic legate are later by some years, bearing the date 1215. They had for their object the moral orintellectual part of the instruction. They dealt with three principal points, theconditions of the professorate, the matter to be treated, and the granting of the licence. To teach the arts it was necessary to have reached the age of twenty-one, after having studied these arts at least six years, and to take an engagement as professor for at least two years. For a chair in theology the candidate had to be thirty years of age with eight years of theological studies, of which the last three years were at the same time devoted to special courses of lectures in preparation for the mastership. These studies had to be made in the local schools and under the direction of a master, for at Paris one was not regarded as a scholar unless he had a particular master. Lastly, purity of morals was not less requisite than learning. Priscian's "Grammar", Aristotle's "Dialectics", mathematics, astronomy, music, certain books of rhetoric andphilosophy were the subjects taught in the arts course; to these might be added the Ethics of the Stagyrite and the fourth book of the Topics. But it was forbidden to read the books of Aristotle on Metaphysics and Physics, orabbreviations of them. The licence was granted, according to custom, gratuitously, without oath or condition. Masters and students were permitted to unite, even by oath, in defence of their rights, when they could not otherwise obtain justice in serious matters. No mention is made either of lawor of medicine, probably because these sciences were less prominent.

A denial of justice by the queen brought about in 1229 a suspension of the courses. Appeal was taken to the pope who intervened in the same year by aBull which began with a eulogy of the university. "Paris", said Gregory IX, "mother of the sciences, is another Cariath-Sepher, city of letters". He compared it to a laboratory in which wisdom tested the metals which she found there, gold and silver to adorn the Spouse of Jesus Christ, iron to fashion the spiritual sword which should smite the inimical powers. He commissioned the Bishops of Le Mans and Senlis and the Archdeacon ofChâlons to negotiate with the French Court for the restoration of theuniversity. The year 1230 came to an end without any result, and Gregory IXtook the matter directly in hand by a Bull of 1231 addressed to the masters and scholars of Paris. Not content with settling the dispute and giving guarantees for the future, he sanctioned and developed the concessions of Robert de Cour on by empowering the university to frame statutes concerning the discipline of the schools, the method of instruction, the defence of theses, the costume of the professors, and the obsequies of masters and students. What was chiefly important was that the pope recognized in the university or granted it the right, in case justice were denied it, to suspend its courses until it should receive full satisfaction. It must be borne in mind that in the schoolsof Paris not only was the granting of licence gratuitous but instruction also was free. This was the general rule; however, it was often necessary to depart from it. Thus Pierre Le Mangeur was authorized by the pope to levy a moderate fee for the conferring of the licence. Similar fees were exacted for the first degree in arts and letters, and the scholars were taxed two sousweekly, to be deposited in the common fund.

The university was organized as follows: at the head of the teaching body was a rector. The office was elective and of short duration. At first it was limited to four or six weeks. Simon de Brion, legate of the Holy See in France, rightly judging that such frequent changes caused serious inconvenience, decided that the rectorate should last three months, and this rule was observed for three years. Then the term was lengthened to one, two, and sometimes three years. The right of election belonged to the procurators of the four nations. The "Nations" appeared in the second half of the twelfth century; they were mentioned in the Bull of Honorius III in 1222 and in another of Gregory IX in 1231; later they formed a distinct body. In 1249 the four nations existed with their procurators, their rights (more or less well-defined), and their keen rivalries; and in 1254, in the heat of the controversy between the university and the mendicant orders, a letter was addressed to the popebearing the seals of the four nations. These were the French, English,Normans, and Picards. After the Hundred Years' War the English nation was replaced by the Germanic or German. The four nations constituted the faculty of arts or letters. The expression faculty, though of ancient usage, did not have in the beginning its present meaning; it then indicated a branch of instruction. it is especially in a Bull of Gregory IX that it is used to designate the professional body, and it may have had the same meaning in a universityAct of 1221 (cf. "Hist. Universitatis Parisiensis", III, 106).

If the natural division of the schools of Paris into nations arose from the native countries of the students, the classification of knowledge must quite asnaturally have introduced the division into faculties. Professors of the samescience were brought into closer contact; community of rights and interestscemented the union and made of them distinct groups, which at the same time remained integral parts of the teaching body. Thus the faculties gradually arose and consequently no precise account of their origin can be given. The faculty of medicine would seem to be the last in point of time. But the fourfaculties were already formally designated in a letter addressed in Feb., 1254, by the university to the prelates of Christendom, wherein mention is made of "theology, jurisprudence, medicine, and rational, natural, and moralphilosophy". In the celebrated Bull "Quasi Lignum" (April, 1255), Alexander IVspeaks of "the faculties of theology" of other "faculties", namely those ofcanonists, physicians, and artists. If the masters in theology set the example in this special organization, those in decretals and medicine hastened to follow it. This is proved by the seals which the last-named adopted some years later, as the masters in arts had already done.

The faculties of theology, or canon law, and medicine, were called "superiorfaculties". The title of "dean" as designating the head of a faculty, was not in use until the second half of the thirteenth century. In this matter the facultiesof decretals and medicine seem to have taken the lead, which the faculty oftheology followed, for in authentic acts of 1268 we read of the deans ofdecretals and medicine, while the dean of theology is not mentioned until 1296. It would seem that at first the deans were the oldest masters. Thefaculty of arts continued to have four procurators of its four nations and its head was the rector. As the faculties became more fully organized, the division into four nations partially disappeared for theology, decretals andmedicine, while it continued in arts. Eventually the superior faculties were to include only doctors, leaving the bachelors to the nations. At this period, therefore, the university had two principal degrees, the baccalaureate and thedoctorate. It was not until much later that the licentiate, while retaining its early character, became an intermediate degree: Besides, the universitynumbered among its members beadles and messengers, who also performed the duties of clerks.

The scattered condition of the scholars in Paris often made the question of lodging difficult. Recourse was had to the townsfolk, who exacted high rates while the students demanded lower. Hence arose friction and quarrels, which, as the scholars were very numerous, would have developed into a sort of civilwar if a remedy had not been found. The remedy sought was taxation. Thisright of taxation, included in the regulation of Robert de Courçon, had passed on to the university. It was upheld in the Bull of Gregory IX of 1231, but with an important modification, for its exercise was to be shared with the citizens. These circumstances had long shown the need of new arrangements. The aim was to offer the students a shelter where they would fear neither annoyance from the owners nor the dangers of the world. The result was the foundation of the colleges (colligere, to assemble). This measure also furthered the progress of studies by a better employment of time, under the guidance sometimes of resident masters and out of the way of dissipation. Thesecolleges were not usually centres of instruction, but simple boarding-houses for the students, who went from them to the schools. Each had a special object, being established for students of the same nationality or the samescience. Four colleges appear in the twelfth century; they became more numerous in the thirteenth, and among them may be mentioned Harcourt and the Sorbonne. Thus the University of Paris, which in general was the type of the other universities, had already assumed the form which it afterwards retained. It was composed of seven groups, the four nations of the faculty of arts, and the three superior faculties of theology, law, and medicine.Ecclesiastical dignities, even abroad, seemed reserved for the masters and students of Paris. This preference became a general rule, and eventually aright, that of eligibility to benefices. Such was the origin and early organization of the University of Paris which might even then, in virtue of their protection, call itself the daughter of kings, but which was in reality the daughter of the Church. St. Louis, in the diploma which he granted to the Carthusians for their establishment near Paris, speaks of this city, where "flow the most abundant waters of wholesome doctrine, so that they become a great river which after refreshing the city itself irrigates the Universal Church". Clement IV uses a no less charming comparison: "the noble and renowned city, the city which is the source of learning and sheds over the world a light which seems an image of the celestial splendour; those who are taught there shine brilliantly, and those who teach there will shine with the stars for all eternity" (cf. du Boulay, "Hist.Univers. Paris", III, 360-71).

Abuses crept in; to correct these and to introduce various needed modifications in the work of the university was the purpose of the reform carried out in the fifteenth century by Cardinal d'Estouteville, Apostolic legatein France. As a whole it was less an innovation than a recall to the better observance of the ancient statutes. The reform of 1600, undertaken by the royal government, was of the same character with regard to the three superior faculties. As to the faculty of arts, the study of Greek was added to that of Latin, only the best classical authors were recommended; the Frenchpoets and orators were used along with Hesiod, Plato, Demosthenes, Cicero, Virgil, and Sallust. The prohibition to teach civil law was never well observed at Paris. But in 1679 Louis XIV authorized the teaching of civil law in the faculty of decretals. As a logical consequence the name "faculty of law" replaced that of "faculty of decretals". The colleges meantime had multiplied; those of Cardinal Le-Moine and Navarre were founded in the fourteenth century. The Hundred Years' War was fatal to these establishments, but theuniversity set about remedying the injury.

Remarkable for its teaching, the University of Paris played an important part: in the Church, during the Great Schism; in the councils, in dealing withheresies and deplorable divisions; in the State, during national crises; and if under the domination of England it dishonoured itself in the trial of Joan of Arc, it rehabilitated itself by rehabilitating the heroine herself. Proud of its rightsand privileges, it fought energetically to maintain them. Hence the long struggle against the mendicant orders on academic as well as on religiousgrounds. Hence also the conflict, shorter but also memorable, against theJesuits, who claimed by word and action a share in its teaching. It made liberaluse of its right to decide administratively according to occasion and necessity. In some instances it openly endorsed the censures of the faculty of theologyand in its own name pronounced condemnation, as in the case of theFlagellants.

Its patriotism was especially manifested on two occasions. During thecaptivity of King John, when Paris was given over to factions, the universitysought energetically to restore peace; and under Louis XIV, when theSpaniards had crossed the Somme and threatened the capital, it placed two hundred men at the king's disposal and offered the Master of Arts degree gratuitously to scholars who should present certificates of service in the army (Jourdain, "Hist. de l'Univers. de Paris au XVIIe et XVIIIe siècle", 132-34; "Archiv. du ministère de l'instruction publique").