learned academics, Kay of Oxford, and Caius of Cambridge, on the point of precedency, with respect to time, in behalf of their own Alma Mater. But the blowing of bladders is a sad waste of time, and often terminates in severe mortification. A simple statement of facts (and little more enters into my present design) runs no danger, and may, perhaps, furnish a few materials for useful reflection. To begin, then, with the antiquity of the University of Cambridge.

1. It does not fall within the limits of this sketch, to give an account of what has been done by others on this subject; for though to know what lies in MSS. and ancient records might be agreeable to antiquaries, and becomes absolutely necessary to those who write the history of a place, it is less requisite for general readers, and would demand more minuteness of detail than will be expected here; and as to what has been published concerning this university, it does not appear, notwithstanding materials so ample in manuscripts, and notwithstanding Anthony Wood's "Athenæ❞ and "Historia et Antiquitates," in behalf of Oxford, might naturally have provoked the Cantabrigians to emulation, it does not appear that thing had been attempted worthy of this celebrated place, little, indeed, beyond mere historiettes, and what might have been crowded into Vade Mecums.

any

With respect to the antiquity of Cambridge, some have asserted that it was founded A. M. 4321; others refer its foundation to 3588, that is, 375 years before Christ; others, fearful not to place it high enough, to A. M. 1829; but such assertions, as well as that other, that Cambridge was formed into a school of literature by one Cantaber a Spaniard, and was denominated from him Cantebrigia, like many other claims for the antiquity of places, do not rest on the authority of any history that can be substantiated, but on mere fictions and fables. Charters of the town may be produced a few years before any authentic ones can be produced for the University, viz. under Henry I. and King John; as for those of Arthur Cadwallador, and the Bulls of Honorius and Sergius, which relate to the university, they appear to be mere

fabrications. It may be perhaps prudent then, on the present oocasion, not to commit ourselves too hastily by asserting too much, nor to settle controversies which have so long divided very learned men. However, as it is usually considered honourable to have at least a royal founder, and as the University of Paris boasts its Charlemagne, and Oxford its Alfred, so we must claim for Cambridge its Sigebert. And though, in each case, with respect to some points asserted or insinuated, it may be thought, perhaps, that filial attachment and zeal for an Alma Mater may have hurried writers beyond the limits of simple facts, yet on a rugged long road it is always convenient to meet with a restingplace. So we, perhaps, shall do well to take up with our King Sigebert, for hereby we shall not be over-extravagant in our claims; and we shall have the benefit of Leland's authority.

Olim Granta fuit, titulis urbs inclyta mul

Sigebert was King of the East Angles, A. C. 630. The first public instrument relating to the University is of the date 1229, the 13th of Henry III.

Without settling at present the ancient etymological meaning of this enchanted, enchanting word, university, I cannot forbear noticing an opinion entertained by some persons, which is, that a Pope's Bull was essential to its character, which I the rather mention to you, as being connected with a famous dispute between King's College and Marischal College, Aberdeen, in which it was asserted, that King's College was a university, because it could show a Pope's bull, whereas Marischal College, it was urged, not being in possession of such an instrument, could only be a college. But, whatever powers Popes may have assumed, (and they were sufficiently extensive,)— whatever privileges and exemptions they may have occasionally granted,

(and they were pretty liberal,)-however they may have bent literary institutions to the purpose of their own superstition and authority, (which, undoubtedly, they did to a tolerable extent,) and whatever opinions may have been formed in later periods on these considerations,-it does not appear, that they were properly the founders of universities. The fact seems to be, that Kings and Popes commonly combined in the same work; and that, though Popes might give the confirmation, confer privileges and exemptions, yet that for grants, right of mortmain, charters, and all that was more essential to them as corporations, they were indebted to the civil power. From Henry the III. downwards, to that of Elizabeth inclusive, their essential and fundamental privileges were derived from the Crown; and if the Popes' bulls interfered with the prerogative, these were set aside, as was the case in the memorable Order of Edw. III. commanding the orders of Mendicant Friars to renounce and suspend the execution of all papal bulls.

II. The HISTORY of Cambridge as a university, it appears, lies in a source somewhat dubious, and, where the stream becomes visible and clear, it takes for a long time a precarious or perturbed direction. Our ancient universities were "not of immediate origin; they were the result of gradual advance and successive improvements;" and the current of Cambridge history does not run regular or clear till about the time above mentioned, viz. the reign of Henry III. Prior to this period, the great devastations made by the Saxons and Danes, the confusion introduced by the Conquest, and after the Conquest the internal civil contentions between King John and his barons, and of Henry the Third himself, with Hastings Earl of Huntingdou, had much distracted the quiet of the place; add to these the disputes between the scholars and the clerics, as well as between the scholars and the hospitallers, of whom they hired their lodgings, and of whom it was said, till they were brought under some restraint by the regulations of the university, they

Parl. 40, Edw. III. 9, 10, 11.

were apt to be exorbitant in their charges.

And here it is obvious to observe, that, in the more carly times of the university, the students did not live in colleges as now, but in private houses, as they still do in Germany and Italy, and, I am told, in Scotland. These were at first most of them hired of the townsmen. At length it was found expedient, that the rent should not be left to the discretion of these hospitallers, but be fixed by censors or arbitrators, called taxors, taxatores, two of whom were scholars, and two of the town. These houses were called halls, hostles, or inns, hospitia studiosorum: principals were the persons presiding in them; the magistri were the tutors, the rest were scholares, scholars, or students. The chancellor, who was only pro tempore, and a residing member of the university, was called rec

tor.

It is worthy of observation, that the period at which the universities of Paris, of Oxford, and Cambridge, rise distinctly into much notice, are not greatly different; that the names of their officers, and the nature of their employment, were much the saine; they had similar disputes and contentions about the same time; and, in general, their customs, habits, and manners, had a striking resemblance.

Many years passed in settling disputes, in confirming privileges, or granting new ones, which terminated in greatly exalting the university, and proportionally depressing the town; the pretence, however, for which was, to give the greater ease and encouragement to literature, and, at the same time, to preserve the public peace. The most memorable instrument given with this view, viz. to settle the disputes between the scholars and burgesses, was the famous Composition, given in the 54th year of Henry the Third's reign, which was confirmed by his royal authority; and it was still further confirmed, with the addition of new privileges, by Edw. I. Edw. II. Edw. III. and Rich. II. The charter given by the latter is introduced with greater formality than any of the preceding; it recapitulates the privileges granted by each prince before, and was given in full parliament.

Between the reigns of Henry III.

and of Queen Elizabeth most of our present colleges were founded; the oldest, Peter House, of the date 1257. It was formed partly out of a house of RELIGIOUS, and partly of SECULARS, and thus partook of a more laical character than the monastic houses, and it retains the character to the present times, a proportionate number of the fellows being allowed by the statutes to be laymen.

The economy, discipline, and jurisdiction of the university and colleges being somewhat settled, they enjoyed, though not an uninterrupted, yet a comparatively long, period of repose. Towards the close of his long reign, Henry III. honoured it with a visit. Anno 1401, the Archbishop, by the royal direction, made a visitation of the university, and of all the colleges; and, though the Pope did not honour them with his presence, yet Pope Boniface the IX. in the same year favoured them with bulls. Other popes gave them bulls and rescripts; by these the vice-chancellor was relieved from the necessity of being confirmed in his office by the Bishop of Ely, and the university, from his juridical authority, as they had been before, by the various royal instruments mentioned above, made independent of the King's courts, and pre-eminent over municipal authorities.

I have hinted above, that the repose of the university was not quite uninterrupted; for we may still read of complaints and petitions from the townsmen, and of replies from the university; and the issue was pretty generally favourable to the latter. We also read of violent contentions raised from another quarter, which the university, in their petition, call " Impia flagitia Hibernorum, Scotorum, et Wallorum, tam in villa, quam in comitatu Cantab. quam alibi perpetrata." Against these was directed the 1st Henry VI. entitled, "Statutum regni de Hibernis, ob impia scelera sua ex Anglia ejiciendis, et quod scholaribus Hibernicis in utraque universitate adhuc morari licet sub certis conditionibus." But these contentions were temporary; they died away by the interposition of the legislature, and the regulations of the university.

There was another dispute, which was not of so transient a nature. This arose from the opinions of the Wickliffites, or Lollards. These opi

nions began to gain ground at Cambridge in the latter end of the fourteenth century, and we find an archiepiscopal constitution or regulation made relative to them, A. D. 1408. But these doctrines took deep root; and, though comparatively, at first, with little inconvenience or disturbance, they continued to make silent progress, they gave birth to the "newe larninge," which found so much exercise for theologians in several following reigns, and the effects of which may be said to have reached and to reside with the present times.

To us, the most interesting periods of university history must, of necessity, be, the reigns of the Tudors and Stuarts, not merely from their being nearer our own time, but as being more various and complex, more distinguished by changes and reformations, divisions and separations, by introducing something new in its politics, theology, literature, and philosophy, and by obtaining those charters on which its privileges principally at present rest, and those statutes by which it is now more generally governed; for though it derived something of its peculiar character from James I. and the two Charleses, more particularly from James 1. yet it was by Queen Elizabeth's famous charter of incorporation of the two universities, (13th Elizabeth,) and her body of statutes, that it may be said to have derived its more general character; and, therefore, as I write within very prescribed limits, I shall here close our head of history.

III. Let us consider the literature of Cambridge. In speaking to this point, I shall keep my eye fixed, with but little variation, on the history of the universities and colleges before mentioned. It is not, then, till after the Conquest that we can speak very clearly of the literature of Cambridge. According to Ingulphus, Jeffred de Herberto, a man famous for his learning, abbot of Croyland, anno 1109, brought over with him some monks who had been educated at Orleans in France, and from them must begin the account of our schools.

Jeffred took up his residence at Cottenham, a few miles from Cambridge, whence his monks used to come regularly to that town to give lectures. Their scholars were divided into clas

ses, and their first lecture-room was a barn. One named Odo instructed the younger classes in grammar in the morning, after Priscian, and Remigius, his commentator. Terricus taught logic on the plan of Aristotle, and then, in succession, one William instructed in rhetoric, according to Cicero and Quintilian. This process was called Trivialia, or the three sciences, which, when four were afterwards added, were called the seven or primitive sciences. One named Gislibert preached a lecture on the Scriptures, on Sundays, at some church in the town. The schools, we are informed, were much attended.

In process of time, the canon and civil law was much studied, and what is called the scholastic learning, and theology, which consisted of portions of Scripture, and extracts from the Latin fathers, combined with comments and disquisitions made by the learned doctors of those times, with something of Aristotle's, translated into Latin, and but ill-understood. Their mathematics was but small, and was made to embrace arithmetic and music; their chemistry was more properly alchemy; and their astronomy included astrology. The other branches of science were, in like manner, adulterate and debased. Their classical literature was but small; their acquaintance with a few Greek writers was through the medium of Latin translations, and their poetry was much in the Latin tongue, as, indeed, it had been, even in the time of the Saxons. As to logic, syllogism was the great instrument by which every thing was stirred and settled.

All this by syllogism too,
By mood and figure they could do.”
Hudibras.

The age of Wickliffe may be considered as that of the progress of literature, which soon became much assisted by the invention of printing in the middle of the fifteenth century. The doctrines of the one, and the discovery of the other, weakened the reign of superstition and the authority of the Pope, and prepared the way for the revival of literature. This may be dated about the time of Erasmus.

Erasmus took the degree of Bachelor of Divinity, at Cambridge, in 1506, and was made Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity in 1510. He wrote

In

on all subjects, and on all well, and always in Latin. He was contemporary with, or soon followed by, other learned men, eminent for their acquaintance with Greek and Latin literature, Crooke, Smith, Cheke, Ascham, Winterton, and others. restoring classical literature, in exemplifying the wise and critical use of ancient MSS. in liberalizing our universities, and in breaking the shackles of superstition in this university more particularly, nothing contributed more than the writings of Erasmus. His works consist of ten volumes in folio; and though, as I have just said, he wrote on all subjects, his principal forte was classical literature and scripture criticism. His edition of the Greek Testament obtained the admiration of the most learned and enlightened men in Europe, not excepting many, even of the Catholic party, but more particularly of such as favoured the Reformation.

This revival, so favourable to classical literature, left its great effects through succeeding years, and we might extend our list of distinguished names, so as to embrace those of Gataker and Stanley, Bentley and Barnes, Markland and Dawes, Davis and Tay lor, with other names of celebrity down to the present time.

Though Cambridge has not been pre-eminent in Hebrew and Rabbinical-Eastern literature, yet it can boast, in this department, a few names of the greatest note; snch were Hugh Broughton in Elizabeth's reign, Bishop Walton, the editor of the Polyglot Bible in 1630, Robert Ainsworth, the puritan, Dr Spencer, master of Bene't College, John Smith of Queen's, and Joseph Mede of Christ's College.

From the beginning of the Reformation, to the time of James I. the theological literature of this university was much characterized by what is called absolute predestination; from the time of James I. and Archbishop Laud, the doctrine of free will became more popular; and the quinquarticular controversy, as it has been called, which had been hitherto settled by nearly all parties at Cambridge, of the reformed at least, much after the system of Calvin, henceforth took its name and character more from Arminius.

We must now speak of science; for the period from Erasmus to Lord

Bacon, may be called the age of literature; that from Bacon to Newton, and downward, of science and philosophy; and Cambridge feels a pride in ranking both Bacon and Newton among her sons.

"Bacon's aim was to point the readiest way to universal science; to shew how what the ancients had done might be rendered more perfect, and the human mind directed to greater discoveries. With this view he published, in 1605, his two books on the Advancement of Learning, which he dedicated to James I.; and in 1609, his Instauratio Magna, called Novum Organon, a title taken from his great predecessor, Aristotle, to the materials of whose writings he was greatly indebted, though he formed them into a new foundation, as Locke was much indebted to Hobbes's foundation, though he shaped his materials into a new form." Bacon, in a letter to the King, speaks of his Novum Organon thus: "I hear my former book, of the Advancement of Learning, is well treated in our universities here, and the universities abroad, and this is the same argument, and deeper." All the writings of this great man have a similar tendency; and he aimed to embody his ideas of experimental philosophy in his famous little philosophical romance, called Novus Atlas.

Though there were certainly men at this celebrated seat of learning who possessed much mathematical knowledge before this period, yet perhaps the mathematical age may be properly said not to commence till about the time of Dr Barrow. He had been Greek professor,-became also mathematical professor, and was made mas ter of Trinity College by Charles. His Prælectiones Mathematica was

very

the book, which preceded in the proper and legitimate method of mathematical investigation.

But the great work, which soon engrossed the attention of the learned at Cambridge, and indeed of all Europe, was Sir Isaac Newton's Naturalis Philosophiæ Principia Mathematica. This celebrated man was also of Trinity College. His work first appeared in 1687.

As I am uncertain whether the Newtonian Philosophy has penetrated to Scotland, I may mention that, prior to this period, the mode of philosophizing consisted in assigning to each species of things its specific and occult qualities, from which all the operations of bodies, by some unknown mysterious order, proceeded. This was the philosophy of the Peripatetics, and, having been implicitly followed by the schoolmen, has been called the scholastic philosophy. They affirmed, that each effect of bodies flowed from an individual nature, but whence the several natures proceeded they did not show. They were defective in observation and experiment, dwelling rather on the names of things than the things themselves. According, therefore, to the Newtonians, whose words here are nearly borrowed, they had invented a philosophical language, but could not be said to have taught philosophy.

Others, again, conceived certain unknown figures and magnitudes, positions and motions of parts, together with certain occult fluids, which, by entering the pores of the bodies, agitated them with great subtlety and force. Here, too, it was insisted they had no authority from experiment or observation, their theory being all founded in conjecture; and the Newtonians, in advancing these objections, had in view the doctrine of atoms and vortices of Descartes and his followers, which doctrine greatly possessed the schools at this time.

Thus was Newton led on to that third way of philosophizing, called experimental. He proceeded by a twofold method, called analytic and synthetic; he deduced the more simple powers and laws of forces from certain select phenomena; this he called analysis; and then proceeding from those single phenomena to more ge neral and comprehensive forms, he established synthesis.