OXFORD. 
144 
terwards James II. in whofe reign many fcenes of turbu¬ 
lence happened here, in confequence of his illegal inter¬ 
ference with the civil rights both of the city and univer- 
fity. Since that time, the annals of Oxford afford no very 
remarkable hiftorical particulars. 
THE UNIVERSITY. 
The origin of the univerfity is no lefs involved in doubt 
and obfcurity than the early annals of the town. Some 
of the more eager difputants for the remote antiquity of 
Oxford contend that it was a feminary of learning imme¬ 
diately after the deftru&ion of Troy. “ The Itudies of 
literature,” obferves Middendorp, “ flourifhed here ever 
fince thofe excellent philofophers, with the Trojans, 
coming out of Greece, under the command of Brute, 
entered and fettled in Britain.” Other writers, lefs fan- 
taftical, wi(h to fhow that the univerfity was founded by 
Arviragus, a Britifh king who lived in the time of Do- 
mitian, about feventy years fubfequent to the Chriftian 
era. A third clafs, with greater appearance of candour, 
decline to affix any precife date to its foundation, but 
uphold the opinion that it took place during the govern¬ 
ment of the Romans. All thefe notions, however, we are 
to treat as chimerical, and unworthy attention. We 
ihall therefore pafs them over without further remark, 
and defcend at once to a period later by about a thoufand 
years. 
Among the many national improvements attributed to 
the great Alfred, the foundation, or, as fome will have 
it, the relforation, of the univerfity of Oxford, is one of 
the moft eminent. John Rous, the hiftorian already men¬ 
tioned, affirms, that he eftabliffied within this city, at his 
own expenfe, three teachers of grammar, arts, and divi¬ 
nity, in three different places. One of the fragments of 
Leland fays, “ Alfred founded the univerfity of Oxford, 
at the infligation of his brother St. Neot ;” and in the 
edition of After, the contemporary of the monarch, which 
was publilhed by Camden in 1603, there are feveral paf- 
fages corroborative of this affertion. The critical inqui¬ 
ries of fucceeding writers, however, have clearly proved 
thefe paffages to be interpolations, and to have formed 
no part of the genuine work of Affer. Many conclufive 
arguments have likewife been adduced, to Ihow that Al¬ 
fred never founded any fchool-eftabliffiment except that 
of Winchefter. Add to this the faft that no mention 
is made of Alfred in the early ftatutes, or other records, of 
the univerfity ; and it is not poffible to refill the convic¬ 
tion that Alfred had no concern either in its original foun¬ 
dation, or its revival at any fubfequent period. 
At what time then, it will perhaps be alked, was the 
univerfity really founded ? To this queftion our anfwer 
is, that its progrefs to that rank was gradual, andthat, in 
all probability, no regular fyftem of education, or corpo¬ 
rate body for the purpofes of learning, exilted at Oxford 
till about the twelfth or thirteenth century. It is admit¬ 
ted, however, that there were numerous fchools for the 
acquifition of knowledge eftablilhed here at a much ear¬ 
lier date j but thefe were either of a private nature, or 
attached to fome of the religious houfes with which the 
town abounded. The clergy, before the conqueft, mo¬ 
nopolized the fmall portion of learning'which, in thofe 
early days, was permitted to enliven the otherwife dark 
and cloudy atmofphere of European ignorance. They 
were aimoft the only teachers to whom the people could 
apply for inftruftion. Every monaftery, therefore, was 
in faft a fchool ; and, whenever there chanced to be a 
number of them at one place, it might not improperly be 
called a feat of learning. It could not, however, be re¬ 
garded in the light of an univerfity ; as that term, in its 
modern fignification at lead, implies a corporate ella- 
blifnment, with the privileges of holding property and 
conferring degrees. In Domefday-book no mention of 
fuch a corporation occurs at Oxford. 
Under this view of the fubjeft, it feems reafonable to 
conclude, that, when the Conqueror mounted the throne, 
Oxford enjoyed no greater pre-eminence in learning than 
what naturally refulted from the number of its monaftic 
eftablifhments, and from the circumltance of its having 
been, during the preceding century, a favourite refidence 
of the Engliffi monarchs. This, indeed, was a certain 
degree of diftin£tion ; and would affift in paving the way 
to the future celebrity of the town. Its fchools might 
for thefe reafons be more numerous, and better attended, 
than in other towns, and might poffibly poffefs fome few 
trifling privileges, which would be gradually augmented, 
till the plan of a modern univerfity was completed. 
Henry I. having been educated here, feems to have 
paid great attention to Oxford as a feminary for learning, 
and is faid to have granted to the teachers and the fcho- 
lars fome important privileges in their individual capacity. 
In the reign of Stephen, learning funk to a very low ebb, 
and continued in the fame degraded Hate during that of 
his fuccefl'or Henry II. Richard I. however, llimulated 
its revival in every part of his dominions ; but efpecially 
gave encouragement to Oxford, becaufe of its having 
been the place of his birth. Many new halls or fchools 
were eftablilhed under his royal patronage, and with mo¬ 
ney iffuedby his command from his own exchequer. To 
fo flourilhing a condition, indeed, did he raife Oxford, 
that the number of fcholars at its feveral halls, in the 
early part of the fucceeding reign, is Hated to have been 
not lefs than three thoufand. In the reign of Henry III. 
anno 12Z9, a ferious difpute having arilen between the 
ftudents and citizens of Paris, the king feized the oppor¬ 
tunity to advance the interefts of Oxford, by inviting the 
Parifian mailers and fcholars to fettle there. Accor¬ 
dingly, no fewer than a thoufand of themreforted hither; 
but thefe foreigners introduced fuch a dangerous levity 
of manners, that tumults were continually breaking out, 
and caufed great alarm and difquiet in the town. They 
had fometimes even the audacity to interfere in political 
matters; and thus it may reafonably be fuppofed, that, 
though the number of fcholars was great, yet the real vo¬ 
taries of learning were few. But dill amongft thefe 
few fome names have attained confiderable diftindtion 
from their eminence in the falhionable literature of the 
age, which was deeply corrupted with the fubtleties of the 
Ariftotelian philofophy, and the myfteries of theological 
belief. The reign of Henry III. however, will be always 
memorable in the annals of the univerfity, on account of 
an important acquifition of private patronage which pre¬ 
vailed towards its conclufion. Previous to that period 
the teachers and fcholars lodged and ftudied in manfions, 
or halls, rented from the townfmen ; and this was one 
great fource of the numerous quarrels which were cor,- 
llantly taking place between them. To remedy this evil, 
as well as to encourage learning, by conferring upon its 
profeffors more complete independence than had hitherto 
been enjoyed, feveral public-fpirited individuals pur- 
chafed, or built, large houfes for'their reception, and fet 
the example of appropriating funds for the fupport of 
thofe who might not poffefs the competent means of pur- 
fuing their Itudies to advantage. By fuch progreffive 
Heps, a tallefor ere£ling and endowing colleges was intro¬ 
duced. 
The reign of Edward I. is marked with no very inte- 
refting features in the annals of literature. That prince, 
continually occupied in war, and in fchemes of political 
aggrandizement, had little leifure to attend to the ad¬ 
vancement of learning. Some privileges, however, were 
conferred on the univerfity in his time ; and, towards the 
conclufion of his reign-, a violent difpute arofe between 
the univerfity, for fuch the fchool-eftablilhments here had 
now really become, and the biftiop of Lincoln, in whofe 
diocefe Oxford was then included. This difpute related 
to the limits of the bilhop’s jurifdiftion in univerfity - 
matters ; and ultimately led to the total emancipation of 
the learned body from ecclefiallical authority, under the 
famflioty 
