Could 'Medieval' Universities have developed in an enduring Roman Empire?

Right, that's not quite what i meant-I meant in terms of the relationship between "there is an academic campus where lectures are held" and "there is a campus that houses such-and-such formal organization(s)", which could well be privately or state run.

Formal in what sense? I suppose the Auditoria on Kom el-Dikka have to be formal in some sense, because it's very much a centrally planned building project rather than a bunch of different buildings converging into one. There's also the attempt by Cassiodorus to build a Christian university in Rome.
 

Toraach

Banned
Ok, I will answer the question which started this topic.

No, the "medieval universities" could have not developed in the surviving Western Roman Empire, because there would have not been any "medievial period". There be a continuation of the ancient roman civilization. Later Romans from IV and V centuries despite beings Christians still were Romans, and still they were bearers of the ancient classical civilization which emerged in Hellas during archaic/classical period. They still lived in cities, still their education was "paideia" based on the same texts which were in 500 years earlier. Of course there is a matter how the roman civilization might have changed later, just like the eastern roman civlization after calamities of VII/VIII centuries changed into something new, let's call it "byzantine civilization", when as we know in the Western Empire all collapsed during V and VI centuries, and contrary to the Eastern Empire, there was a need to built everything new on ruins, which to be honest, leads to great achievements of the new period of glory of the High Middle Ages.
 
Ok. Now that I am a bit more composed/less tired: what I meant is this. Obviously based on the building and references you have institutional/formal framework for higher education with chairs, professors, lectures, etc. My question is the relationship between that and the "University" as we define it, especially:

1) The qualification/grouping of teachers-how were these institution's staffs defined and was there a formal structure for accrediting, choosing, and compensating teachers, and for determining responsiblities? What non-academic staff existed and how did they relate to the academic staff etc.

2) Students-what defined people as students? Did these institutions have defined bodies of students and a set list of procedures for matriculation and graduation, a register or set of students? What defined one as a student.

I know for example the University of Constantinople or School of Nisibis existed, but I don't know how the organizations worked, if there was a set curriculum, if students simply showed up to lectures or had to register as students, how teachers or staff were chosen, or what lessons or lectures existed. Interestingly enough, Wikipedia (admittedly not a reliable source) suggests that Persia's Jundishapur had something closer to a modern higher education model, with students being instructed under the scrutiny of the hospital's staff as a whole and expected to pass exams to qualify to practice or teach.
 
Ok. Now that I am a bit more composed/less tired: what I meant is this. Obviously based on the building and references you have institutional/formal framework for higher education with chairs, professors, lectures, etc. My question is the relationship between that and the "University" as we define it, especially:

1) The qualification/grouping of teachers-how were these institution's staffs defined and was there a formal structure for accrediting, choosing, and compensating teachers, and for determining responsiblities? What non-academic staff existed and how did they relate to the academic staff etc.

The school at Nisibis seem to have a formal structure and hierarchy. They have ranks like mhaggyānā (Elementary Instructor), maqryānā (Reader: Intermediate Studies) , bādoqā (Instructor: no clear what's the exact role of this rank), mphashshqānā (Exegete: Dean of the school) and rabbaytā (Stewart/Bursar).

2) Students-what defined people as students? Did these institutions have defined bodies of students and a set list of procedures for matriculation and graduation, a register or set of students? What defined one as a student.

Not sure about Nisibis, but the Theodosian Code give us laws regulating who is allowed to be matriculated as a student in Rome or Constantinople:

All persons who come to the city because of their desire for learning shall first of all upon arrival present to the master of tax assessment the requisite written documents from their several provincial judges, by whom the right to come to the city must be given. These documents shall contain the name of the municipality from which each student comes, together with his birth certificate and letters of recommendation certifying to his high attainments... Theodosian Code 14.9.1

I know for example the University of Constantinople or School of Nisibis existed, but I don't know how the organizations worked, if there was a set curriculum, if students simply showed up to lectures or had to register as students, how teachers or staff were chosen, or what lessons or lectures existed. Interestingly enough, Wikipedia (admittedly not a reliable source) suggests that Persia's Jundishapur had something closer to a modern higher education model, with students being instructed under the scrutiny of the hospital's staff as a whole and expected to pass exams to qualify to practice or teach.

There seem to be a set curriculum at Nisibis (I haven't checked the sources about this), there certainly was some curriculum regarding philosophy teaching in Alexandria (mainly because teaching certain Philosophers is seen as a big no-no to Christians). As to certifying someone to teach? That would basically be letters of recommendations from their former teachers/professors.
 
This. In a surviving Empire, the Church is hardly going to have he power over secular politics it had IRL, nor the monopoly on the persuit/preservation of knowledge that allowed for a very literal, dogmatic interpretation of scripture to be laid over the scholarly field. Even if they somehow got the will to attempt to do so, they can't enforce it and will find the Imperial government... strongly frowning at the attempted power-grab. Saying you'd see a crackdown on the Hellinic philosophies due to their "pagan" origins is putting the cart before the horse somewhat.


Sounds a lot like Byzantium (or later Russia) where the Church was much more under the thumb of the state. Did intellectual enquiry fare all that much better as a result?
 
Top