studied by Logan who were given study leave were specifically allowed to study theology or canon law, even though they did not have the MA.31
We can get some notion of how such short-term concentrations operated from William Lyndwood, writing in the 1420s,32 who himself received such a license and dispensation when he was a deacon (in his case to complete his doctorate in both laws).33 Commenting on Archbishop John Peckham’s 1281 constitution requiring those practicing as advocates in court to have studied canon and civil law for at least three years (“nisi prius ad minus per triennium audiverit jus canonicum et civile cum debita diligentia”), Lyndwood says that the stipulated time in Roman civil law for advocates is five years. He suggests that Peckham lessened the requirement only for those working in the smaller church courts, where three years of experience in cases and in studying practice and theory seems sufficient (“in talibus namque sufficere videtur quod aliquis sit exercitatus in causis et habeat practicam cum speculativo per triennium”). The would-be advocate must study as the disciple of a master or doctor (“ut discipulus sub magistro sive doctore”); the constitution seemingly allows the study to take place not only in a university (“studium generale”) but elsewhere as well; Lyndwood, however, thinks otherwise: one should audit the laws under a doctor in a place where such laws are publicly taught (“quod debeat jura audire sub doctore in loco ubi jura hujusmodi publice docentur”). Afterward, the student can prove that he has fulfilled the forensic requirement by the testimony of the doctor under whom he studied (“per testimonium doctoris sub quo studuit”), or by a testimonial letter from the chancellor of the university where he studied (“litera testimonialis cancelarii universitatis in qua studuit”).34
As for the curriculum to be followed by these three-year students, Lyndwood recommends that, even though the statute specifies both canon and civil law, they limit themselves to canon law, learning only such provisions of civil law as are cited in glosses to the canons; otherwise, they will be able to learn neither subject well.35
I take it that most of the rectors who went to Oxford to study theology spent their specified years of leave in a similar way, being able to set up their own individual programs of study.
We saw in Chapter 2 that Simple Creature condemned a supposedly new proposal that would put an end to the immediate access to Bible study that curates now enjoyed and force them to spend nine or ten years in the arts beforehand. It is important to look at his words on this point, because they have been mistakenly interpreted as a knowledgeable reference to a curricular squabble that occurred in Oxford in 1388, hence providing a sound date for his time of writing. He says:
But alas! alas! alas! The most [greatest] abomination that ever was heard among Christian clerks is now purposed in England, by worldly clerks and feigned religious, and in the chief university of our realm, as many true men tell with great wailing. This horrible and Devil’s cursedness is purposed of Christ’s enemies and traitors of all Christian people, that no man shall learn divinity, neither Holy Writ, no but he that hath done his form in art, that is, that hath commenced in art, and hath been regent twain year after; this would be nine year either ten before that he learn Holy Writ.36
After proceeding to talk about the general degeneracy of morals at Oxford, and especially sodomy and simony, he returns to the subject of impeding the learning of Scripture:
Yet on these three abominations God would graciously convert clerks, if they would do very [true] penance, and give them wholly to virtues; but on the fourth most abomination37 purposed now to let [prevent] Christian men, yea, priests and curates, to learn freely God’s Law, till they have spent nine year either ten at art (that comprehendeth many strong errors of heathen men against Christian belief), it seemeth well that God will not cease of vengeance till it and other be punished sore; for it seemeth that worldly clerks and feigned religious do this, that simple men of wit and of finding know not God’s Law, to preach it generally against sins in the realm. But wit ye, worldly clerks and feigned religious, that God both can and may, if it liketh [pleases] Him, speed simple men out[side] of the university as much to ken Holy Writ as masters in the university; and therefore no great charge though never man of good will be poisoned with heathen men’s errors nine year either ten, but ever live well and study Holy Writ by old doctors and new, and preach truly and freely against open sins, [un]to his death.38
We learn two things here: first, that Simple Creature is well aware that students at Oxford, specifically priests with the care of souls, at the present time can study the Bible without having to go through the arts curriculum; and second, that he believes there is an effort underway to put an end to this easy access to Scripture instruction. He could hardly be wrong about the first point. Wyclif himself, writing in 1378, speaks of the practice of parish priests going on leave to universities to study the Bible. “It is permissible,” he says, “for a rector to be away from his parish, for a time, to gather the seed of faith in theological schools, so that he may sow it ‘in due season.’”39 It is confirmed in a Wycliffite tract, Why Poor Priests Have No Benefice: “If such curates be stirred to go learn God’s Law and teach their parishens the Gospel, commonly they shall get no leave of bishops but for gold; and when they shall most profit in their learning, then shall they be clept home at the prelate’s will.”40
But Simple Creature is clearly wrong about the second point, and it demonstrates that he and his immediate associates were not familiar with procedures at Oxford.
Simple Creature’s remarks were seen by John Lewis41 and others as being a reference to the proposal in 1387 or early 1388 to enforce the statute of 1253 stipulating that no one can incept in theology (qualify for theological regency, that is, teaching theology) without first finishing regency in arts.42 According to Lewis, the proposal was “that hereafter no one should be an inceptor in divinity unless he had first completed his act in the liberal sciences, had read a book of the Canon and preached publicly in the university, which the Author [of the Prologue] represents as if it was purposed that ‘no man should learn divinity nor Holy Writ till he had done his form, or commenced in art, and been regent two year after.’”43 Lewis quite clearly tells us that the General Prologue author misrepresented the proposal by interpreting it to refer to the very beginning of theology study rather than to its completion. He could also have told us that the GP author was mistaken in assuming that the policy was directed against all students at Oxford, whereas it was aimed only against friars, by the secular clergy. It had been customary to dispense friars from the requirement of inception (and formal study) in the faculty of arts, and now it was proposed to refuse to grant any such dispensations—which, however, were characterized as dispensations from the requirement of regency after incepting as masters of arts.
Simple Creature’s garbled reference to the proposed Oxford reform has been taken as a sure date for the GP: it must have been written after the measure was proposed in 1387, and before it was inhibited by Richard II on March 17, 1387/8, and again on August 1, 1388 (the assumption being that Simple Creature could not have made his statement after the initiative was spiked and the crisis averted).44 But Simple Creature has only heard the alarming news about the curricular proposal from “many true men,” informants who would not necessarily have known about the king’s actions against it; and doubtless the shock of the deadly proposal (as they understood it) was still reverberating in the land. Even if it was not, and Simple Creature was writing years later, he may have decided to present it as an ongoing threat, since it involved the enforcement of an existing requirement (he thinks). He need not have been writing as late as 1395 or 1396, since, as we saw in Chapter 2, Lewis’s argument for associating the sodomy-at-Oxford complaint with the Lollard Twelve Conclusions has been called into question.
Simple Creature’s Unrealistic/Inaccurate Ideas About the Production of the MEB
Before
