Talk:Studium generale

[Untitled]
Were there really any early Studia Generali in Scotland? There certainly aren't any really old Scottish universities on the List_of_oldest_universities_in_continuous_operation.

The information here, stating that the University of Oxford was among the studii generale, is inconsistent with the Oxbridge article, which states that Cambridge received papal approbation as a studium generale but Oxford never did.
 * Oxford was generally recognised as a studium generale before Cambridge was even founded. It is correct that Oxford didn't get official papal confirmation of its status until after Cambridge had received it.  (The Concise History of the University of Cambridge goes into more detail about this) Bluap 16:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely the pl. should be 'studia generalia'? I have changed it Oliverkroll 23:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Link to German Version
The German "version of the article" describes something entirely different. Yes, it does mention that the word "studium generale" has its origin in the medieval universities, but the bulk of the article is about an entirely different thing (which is nowadays called "Studium Generale" in German) -- which in turn is only mentioned in passing in the English article. That is rather confusing for readers. 85.179.255.139 (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is also the case for the Dutch language version --1Veertje (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Studium generale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711021202/http://www.forumonpublicpolicy.com/vol2.no1.rel.2006/georgedes.pdf to http://www.forumonpublicpolicy.com/vol2.no1.rel.2006/georgedes.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Makeover needed
This article is awfully written. These are the five references in the entire page;

1. Rashdall, p. 8. 2. Rashdall, p. 9. 3. Rashdall, p. 11-12. 4. Rashdall, p. 12. 5. Georgedes, Kimberly (2006), "Religion, Education and the Role of Government in Medieval Universities: Lessons Learned or Lost?" (PDF), Forum on Public Policy, 2 (1): 73&ndash, 96, archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-11"

The first 4, which make up 80% of all the citations, are totally incoherent -- who is this Rashdall and what work is even being cited? I tracked the work being cited down to this scholarly work ... written in the 19th century. This is old enough that it shouldn't be in the article to begin with, given the amount of scholarly work done on the subject since. The entire article needs to be rewritten.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "Who is Hastings Rashdall? The prime authority on Medieval universities, upon which all other writers since have based their works. Duh. If you know anything about this topic, then you'd know this is the prime source. Alas, there has been no great "amount of scholarly work on the subject since".  Even the slightest glance at their actual works, and they are all just referencing Rashdall too.
 * Your re-writing of this is rather poor and confused, and EXTREMELY misleading. You are evidently not familiar with the subject and are distorting one clusmily-worded passage in Verger to make claims he does not make (and Verger, if you care to notice, bases himself on Rashdall too).  You have totally messed up the article.  I strongly recommend you actually read Rashdall - or any other work - before taking a hammer and chisel to things you don't understand.   Walrasiad (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Very well, I was unaware of Rashdall's importance. On the other note, what misleading points do you think my changes made?Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

First, the definition of "Studium generale" as a "legal privilege". "Studium generale" is just a customary term for a type of school (in contrast to a "Studium particulare"). There are a variety of privileges, the prime one being called "jus ubique docendi" ("right to teach everywhere"). It is a customary privilege, which is enjoyed only by masters of a "Studium generale", and is not dependent on the pope or any other authority, but only a custom among schools, e.g. a graduate of an Oxford school (an SG), can teach at any other school in Europe without a preliminary examination, whereas a graduate of, say, a Canterbury school (not an SG) has to be examined first. It comes out of the fact that a small number of school (Salerno, Bologna, Paris, Oxford, Padua, etc.) were so highly respected that their graduates were automatically assumed competent as teachers. The Pope (& Emperor) only got involved later, when they sought to promote new schools of their own creation (e.g. Toulouse, Naples, etc.) to compete against the traditional SGs (Paris, Bologna, etc.). What they granted was the "privileges of SG", that means, "whatever privileges a Studium generale enjoys, you can enjoy too" - e.g. graduates of Toulouse can also teach everywhere without preliminary examination. So the SG is not the name of the privilege, it is the name of that type of school, which is referred to in a privilege. That was the first main problem I had.

A second problem was suggesting it was somehow different from "university". What we normally call a "Medieval university" is one and the same thing as a "Studium generale". They are indistinguishable. But the term "universitas" itself is a more technical issue with a longer evolution. In Medieval language, a "universitas" (along with other terms like "facultas", "collegium", etc.) were just one of several Medieval terms for a trade or artisan guild. There were "universities" of leather-workers, "faculties" of weavers, etc. (cf. Guilds of Florence). Why we normally call an SG a "university" today is a historical accident, coming from the fact that foreign students, studying in Bologna formed a student union in Bologna, calling themselves a "universitas" to claim the privileges of a guild (being foreigners in the city, the students sought mutual protection against abuses of landlords, police & city authorities; initially the foreign students organized themselves into sworn associations by nations of origin - students from Tuscany formed their own union, or universitas, German students formed their universitas, etc. only later coalesced into a general universitas for all foreign students, headed by a "Rector"; students born in Bologna, were not members of any universitas, since they were citizens and had legal protections already.) Student unions in other towns began borrowing the Bologna term, and for a long time "universitas" mean no more than that - student union.

This is distinct from teachers - who had their own guilds. The term "faculty" comes from the name "facultas" (= facere), a common artisan guild term that happened to be adopted by the teachers' guilds of Paris. The guild structure was adopted among teachers in the city to ensure they would not compete against each other for students, and thus lower fees they charged. Membership of the guild also brought benefits of mutual "disputation" - Teacher A could bring in Teacher B into his class for a debate before his students, and Teacher A would reciprocate and debate Teacher B in front of his students. Faculty members would not participate in disputations with non-members. As only teachers of the same topic compete with each other, there were separate guilds for separate kinds of teachers. i.e. the "faculty of arts" was the guild of teachers of liberal arts in the city of Paris, "faculty of law" = guild of teachers of law in Paris, etc. There were four distinct Parisian Medieval teacher guilds - arts, law, medicine, theology - thus the custom of four faculties. Incidentally, the term "Master" (a generic guild title, common in any trade guild) just meant an accepted member of the teachers' guild ("faculty") of Paris.

[Side #1 - In Bologna, the teachers' guilds were known as "colleges", from "collegium", another customary guild term; members called themselves "doctors" (meaning "teacher", not a guild term); the teaching guilds in Bologna, the "collegium doctorum", had their own negotiations with the city authorities, separately from the student universitas. So there was no difference between "Master" and "Doctors" - both meant the same thing, they were just customary terms, one used in Paris, the other used in Bologna. Imitating SGs in other cities and countries just adopted the nomenclature of one or the other. Incidentally, a similar Paris-Bologna distinction appears among the guild of teachers of liberal arts - they were called teachers of "Arts" in Paris, and teachers of "Philosophy" in Bologna. So English SGs, which adopted the Paris nomenclature, produced "Masters of Arts" (from whence "M.A.") while German SGs, who adopted the Bologna nomenclature, produced "Doctors of Philosophy"(from whence "Ph.D."). So, up until the 20th Century, M.A. and Ph.D. were not degrees of different rank, but meant exactly the same thing - an accepted member of the teaching guild in liberal arts.]

Anyway, the transition of terms continues in a long story around the struggle inside Bologna between the student unions ("universities"), the teacher guilds ("colleges") and the city authorities for control of the Studium Generale in the city. The student unions had the most power - and, on the order of their leader, the Rector, they could "defect" en masse - that is, order all foreign students to abandon the city (and being a sworn association, the students must obey). As teachers could not survive without students, they followed them. This brought a lot of pain to city businesses (landlords, taverns, etc.) that were dependent on foreign student money, and so these defections were usually resolved eventually - with the city authorities granting the student unions more and more power every time. This happened multiple times in the Middle Ages. The increasing power of the student unions, their increasing control of teachers's salaries (and teaching content) and increasing recognition of their privileges by the city, eventually made the student union term - "universitas" - synonymous with the Studium Generale itself, and the term "University of Bologna" began to mean whole institution, not merely the students. [Side note #2 - wherever the "universitas" defected to, sometimes they gave root to another SG. For instance, following one quarrel with the city, the student union of Bologna moved en masse to nearby Padua (luring their teachers to come there too). Although the Bologna authorities came to terms, and the students moved back to Bologna, not all did. Enough students decided to remain in Padua, to give root to the Studium Generale of Padua. Oxford University was also founded by a similar defection of students from Paris - the union of "English nation" students in Paris relocated to Oxford temporarily, and many decided to stay and form the Oxford SG even after the quarrel with the city of Paris was resolved. And Cambridge University was similarly formed by a defection of Oxford students, after a quarrel between students and town authorities in Oxford.]

The evolution of Paris was slightly different than Bologna, in that the teachers guilds ("faculties") took the leadership role, and the student union("universitas") was a more secondary player, following the teachers' lead. The primary antagonist was the Bishop of Paris, rather than the Paris civic authorities. The Bishop tried to assert control over the teachers in Paris, but the teachers guilds defied him, claiming self-government as guilds, and similarly used the tool of "defection" to assert their corporate rights (ergo giving birth the universities of Oxford, Angers, Orleans, etc. during defection periods from Paris).

[side note #3 - The Parisian "Faculty of Theology" was problematic during defections - as many of its members were mendicant friars, who owed their first obedience to their orders' heads, rather than the faculty leaders; there were some defections from Paris, where all teachers & students left except the "Theology" faculty, which, because of contrary instructions from their orders, stayed behind in Paris; this led to repeated calls by many SG leaders (esp. Faculty of Arts) to expel the Faculty of Theology from the SG of Paris as it was not showing sufficiently solidarity with the rest of the university. It was very contentious matter for some time. In spite of this touch-and-go in its early years, the Faculty of Theology eventually became arguably the jewel of the University of Paris.]

[Side note #4 - One of the tools deployed by the Bishop of Paris against the teachers guilds was to use his Carolingian privileges (re. cathedral schools, from the ancient 787-90 decree of Charlemagne) to dilute the faculties' power in the city by handing out "licenses to teach" to non-guild members. The faculties refused to recognize or collaborate with the Bishop-created teachers. And a distinction promptly emerged between the "Licensees" (Bishop-licensed teachers) and the "Masters" (accepted members of the teaching guilds) - from whence emerges the modern French distinction between the degrees of B.A. and M.A. Unlike in Bologna, the "universitas" of foreign students in Paris followed the lead of the "faculties" of teachers, rather then the other way around. The most famous result of the struggle between the Bishop and the faculties, was that the faculties defected en masse to the left bank of the Seine River, outside the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Paris, and clustered around the Abbey of Sainte-Genevieve. The same Carolingian decree which gave Bishop of Paris power to regulate teachers inside Paris, gave the Abbott of St. Genevieve power to regulate teachers on the left bank the Seine. The surprised Abbott had no interest in these Parisian teachers flocking around his abbey, and granted the faculty guilds whatever privileges they wanted, so long as they didn't bother his monastery and monks. And so what became the "University of Paris" rooted itself there, on the left bank, in the vicinity of the Abbey of St Genevieve, where it remains to this day. Its official name gives precedence to the faculties of teachers, eventually in joint guild with universitas of students - so it is "Universitas magistorum et scholasticum". A reconciliation with the Bishop of Paris was eventually resolved, but the faculties decided nonetheless to remain firmly on the left bank. As a compromise, the Bishop of Paris's chancellor was allowed by the guilds to officially sign the "licenses", although who they are to be granted to is determined solely by the faculties and not the Episocal chancellery (which is why most Paris-model universities, down to this day, are nominally headed by someone called a "Chancellor", and his signature must be on the degree).

Long story short: what we now call a "Medieval university" is what was then called a "Studium generale". The term "universitas" was originally a term referring only to student unions. The SG eventually began being called "university" because of the expansion of student control of the SG (in Bologna; in Paris it was teacher-led control, but student unions collaborated, and eventually consolidated under a single name). But the institution itself - the whole amalgam of faculties, universities, etc. in the city - was the "Studium Generale". Formally - and in documents - it is the term "Studium Generale" that matters in identifying a Medieval university as what we now call a university.

Point being: the Studium Generale did not eventually "become" a university later. It was always what we now call a university. It is merely the name that changed in popular usage, so that the name of a subsection (student union) began to be used to refer to the whole. But "Studium Generale" is the original and official term, and the one we use to mean "Medieval university". They are one and the same thing.

A third problem (related to the first) is the suggestion of the necessity of papal or imperial charter. This was not necessary - at least not before the mid-14th C. SGs were SGs by custom. Early SGs emerged spontaneously and evolved organically in cities (Salerno, Bologna, Paris, Montpellier, etc.) or were created by "defection" from other SGs (Padua, Angers, Oxford, Cambridge, etc.), without any charter or grant. And when the pope started handing out charters, most of it fell flat - outside a couple of successes (e.g. Toulouse) these were often granted to cities who aspired to form SGs, but many lacked a single school - not even a Studium Particulare - in place, but who hoped to use the SG charter to attract "defectors" to move there. Most did not, and their SG charters yielded nothing. Even those that had some promising starts eventually failed when the defectors returned, or for a variety of other reasons.

[Side note #5 - most often reason for failure: city rents are too damn high for students to afford - thus Florence had loads of SG charters and lots of goodwill, but never managed to erect an SG. Students wouldn't come - Renaissance Florence was just a very expensive city. The universities of Rome and Naples had severe birthing problems for the same reason. Thus the importance of "halls" - affordable housing residences for poor students, like La Sapienza in Rome, the Sorbonne in Paris, the Spanish College in Bologna or the plethora of colleges in Oxford, erected by rich private benefactors - was essential to keeping many SGs in expensive cities afloat.]

The scatter-shot of papal grants is insinuated in the Verger passage, but glossed over in your surrounding text. The splurge of papal charters achieved very little at first - SGs were SGs because they were SGs on their own account, formed by students and teachers, and renowned as SGs by their reputation, not because the pope said so. But papal charters did come with one specifically desirable privilege that SG status alone could not give - the exemption from clerical residence. That is, special permission by the Pope to be appointed to clerical benefices without having to actually live there (becoming parish priests and collecting salaries from the parish, without having to actually spend time living and ministering in the parish). For many teachers and students this was very desirable - a way to earn an extra salary outside of teaching, without giving up teaching. And so many prestigious SGs, who otherwise regarded the papal charter as a cheap certificate associated with poor degree mills, did "stoop" to eventually asking the pope for a charter. By the mid-14th C., almost everyone had gotten one. As a result, it became inconceivable to even hope to launch an SG without that clerical non-residence privilege - you would be unable to attract teachers and students away from places which did. So papal charters became a "necessity" for new SGs after that time - not because of any legal reason, but simply because it was practical. Charters also did help school design and governance - being granted the "Privileges of Paris" or the "Privileges of Bologna" by charter helped new SGs imitate structures successful elsewhere, rather than having to fight it out with their city authorities or bishops from scratch. But to be clear, charters helped, but did not define, the SGs.

I could go on. But I have chatted on long enough. Medieval universities - Studium generale - have a rich and subtle history. This should really be integrated with Medieval universities. Unfortunately, Wiki's article on Medieval universities is a wholesale mess, full of erroneous conjectures and claims, and promises to be a shrieking fight to even try to introduce proper history there. At least let us have one proper historical article on this important subject, based on the careful authoritative work of Rashdall & other scholars of this topic. Certainly the article can be made clearer than it currently is. But the changes you introduced were going in the wrong direction. Walrasiad (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Dang, you know a lot about this. I think I'll try to restrict my edits on this page to formatting and whatnot to make the page more readable, and I won't try to make any factual changes without a clear further reading into the sources itself. I appreciate the lengthy explanation.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)