The main learning at medieval universities in the high Middle Ages consisted of the trivium and quadrivium:

Trivium = grammar, logic, rhetoric Quadrivium = arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, musical theory

Theology was considered the main purpose overall, and these other subjects were considered to be in support of the broader aim of understanding God.

From the twelfth century there was a translation movement called by some ‘the twelfth-century Renaissance. The gist is that medieval Europeans were translating Ancient Greek texts from Arabic to Latin in Spain, and to a lesser extent from Greek. Latin was the intellectual language of Europe. The main impact of this on university teaching was an infusion of Aristotle’s ideas, some of which were quite controversial to Catholic doctrines.

Here’s a list of controversial Aristotelian teachings:

1. He argued there were five elements (not in the bible, particularly ether, the fifth element).
2. He divides causes into four types (different to the medieval concept of causes taught in the twelfth century cathedral schools and universities).
3. He favours chance as a cause of some things (though medieval causal theory does to some extent too).
4. He inferred long-scale geological change, which goes against the hexameron (the six days of creation).
5. He emphasised observation over doctrine.
6. He did a lot of work on animals that contradicts the Christian tradition of the time of allegorising animals as proof of Christian teachings (e.g. in bestiaries).
7. He argues that dreams are not prognostications (again, debated in the universities to an extent).
8. He says the world is eternal (i.e. no rapture).
9. He says there was no first man. (But he falls short of a theory of evolution).
10. Animals do have souls, but they’re a different kind of souls to the ones humans have.
11. Probably the most important one, his idea of the ‘unmoved prime mover’ at the beginning of the cosmos goes against the Christian idea of a loving, active God.

Aristotle’s ideas were hugely controversial, particularly from the 13C onwards. His works were banned at the University of Paris in 1210 and again in 1270 and 1277. But they’d never heard of the Barbara Streisand effect...

Among other things, the condemnation banned ‘double truth’, the idea that the Bible could be used for morality and Aristotle for science. Siger of Brabant was supposedly a proponent of this view.

Speaking of science, we should unpack this term. Many medieval Christian scholars were ‘natural philosophers’ who studied basically everything they could. Roger Bacon, Albert the Great, or Robert Grosseteste all wrote complex works that covered multiple areas of study that we would now consider separate subjects, but they tended to consider under the heading of ‘natural philosophy’. Specialisation increased over time.

How did medieval people study? A lot of it is to do with disputation or dialectic: scholars and students would debate a particular viewpoint (on an item of scripture, a feature of the natural world, or something similar). They were also trained to be systematic enquirers, glossing and interpreting the famous texts of old (particularly the biblical commentaries of church fathers, of whom Augustine was probably the most influential).

What are universities, by the way? Education was in the early Middle Ages generally the domain of monasteries, and then it shifted to cathedral schools in the 11th century (these taught canon law and the sacraments) and then universities came to dominate in the twelfth century. The word ‘university’ derived from ‘universitatis magistrorum et scholarium’ (‘guild of masters and scholars’). Initially, universities didn’t have campuses, but were based on space rented in town centres. Each was unique too. Bologna had a legal specialisation, and was student-paid; Oxford was crown-paid; and Paris had a theological specialism, and was Church-paid. Universities were also centres of satire, drinking, gambling, and prostitution. There were other institutions with subject specialisms too, such as the medical school at Salerno.

There were no trades taught at universities per se, except for perhaps clerks, which is an administrator attached to a royal, aristocratic, or church court. Beyond that, notaries and legal experts were trained at universities. Essentially, the training there is anything relating to writing.

As to the Renaissance, I’m not an expert in the late Middle Ages, but my understanding is that it’s more of an artistic movement that emphasises the personal ‘I’ in a shift toward individualism. High medieval scholars were constantly grappling with classical material, so to say that that was the purpose of the Renaissance seems like a silly idea to me. Certainly there were more and more classical texts becoming available in the later Middle Ages (with important discoveries by Petrarch, for example), but in my view (and that of some others) its better to think of Renaissance humanism as an evolution of high medieval scholarship, not a major shift away from it.

One of the problems there is that people use ‘humanism’ to mean two quite different things:

1. Study of the humanities (particularly Ancient Greek and Latin material); and
2. Emphasis on human explanations for things, rather than divine ones.

Renaissance humanists were certainly not calling for a movement away from Christian explanations in broad terms. Also, the Renaissance ideal of ‘studia humanitiatis’ is an evolution of the medieval trivium and quadrivium.

No time to put a bibliography at present, but let me know if you want one and I’ll get back here soon. Leave any follow-up questions, but for now I’ve got to dash to class. 🙂

In Medieval Europe the University was one of only few places where a person could rise up the social ladder: you could join the clergy, the military but you could also become a scholar. Even Chaucer included a scholar in his Canterbury Tales, providing a good cross-section of his contemporary society. The scholar is depicted as: "A Clerk there was of Oxenforde also /That un-to logik hadde longe y-go"

and

"Of studio took he most cure and most hede./Noght o word spake he more than was nede,/And that was seyd in forme and reverence,/And short and quik, and full of hy sentence./Souninge in moral vertu was his speche,/And gladly wolde he lerne, and gladly teche."

So we get a student of Oxford, how's into logic, doesn't speak unnecessarily, but when he speaks he speaks properly and politely, and would gladly both learn and teach.

The first places of learning were the monasteries, so Latin was one of the first subjects, along with arrythmetics which were essential for running daily life where money was involved, as well as medicine but also philosophy and theology, and law.

But in order to become a uni student, you'd need to already have some knowledge of reading, writing and at least an understanding of Latin since it would be the language in which lectures were delivered. You'd probably already been to a monastic school or if you were rich, your might have been tutored by the family chaplain . Some schools taught logic, which may not do much in daily life but if you didn't intend to follow on into university, you probably wouldn't bother with school either.

In the early times the University didn't differ much from the monastic school: there would be a lecture hall, possibly in a hired apartment somewhere in town, or a house, or even at a church or cathedral. The University was more of a collection of masters and students rather than buildings. The name itself comes from "unversitas vestra" (the whole of you), ie. "a number of people". Until the 15th century it wasn't specifically a word for "a place of learning" but rather similar to "corporation" or "association" and usually used as "universitas scolarium", "universitas magistroroum et scolarium" or "universitas studii", indicating some sort of self-government and independence, the right to own property or sue. It was no different than a craft guild. In 1233 Gregory IX addressed a letter to the chancellor and "universitas scolarium" of Cambridge.

Another customary word was "studium generale", designating a place where students from all around are received. The studium would be a place of studies above grammar school, ie. higher education. When papal or imperial charters were issued to found these studia, they included requirements such as that subjects be taught by a considerable number of masters. In order to be a studium, the establishment needed to have several higher faculties. The first such document, by Emperor Frederick II, found the university of Naples in 1224. Cambridge was formally conferred the status of "studium generale" by Pope John XXII in 1383, although it had started way back in 1209, when, according to Roger of Wendover's "Flores Historarium" a disturbance at Oxford university led to a group of scholars leaving for Cambridge.

A studium generale welcomed students from the whole Latin Christendom and differed from the "studium particulare" which had only local significance. The presence of foreign students in Cambridge is mentioned in a 1231 writ of Henry III: there were three Scotsmen, two Frenchmen and a Spaniard. There was also "studium generale respectu regni" or a studium attracting students from within its own kingdom only (such were some Spanish universities founded by royal authority).

The international and universal standing of the studium comes from the fact that it was granted by powers posessing universal authority - the pope and the emperor. And the graduates also received "licentia" or "ius ubique docendi", the right to teach at any university without the need of an exam, altough that right may be ascribed to the prestige of the earliest universities such as Bologna and Paris. Some later universities sought that right from the pope, with the first to be granted in 1233 by Gregory IX to the graduates of Toulouse.

Students began to also acquire privileges. Rectors and vicars used to get the ecclesiastical office, property and income only if they resided there but in 1219 Honorius III allowed them to keep their office and benefits even if they became Uni teachers or students. In 1365 Cambridge specifically petitioned for one of those.

The wide variety of studies also helped attract people to the Uni: usually there would be a faculty of arts, cannon and civil law, theology and medicine. In "Decretalium Libros" Italian scholar Hostiensis mentions arts, theology and sacred cannons : "[studium] dicitur generale quando trivium et quadrivium, theologia et sacri canones ibidem leguntur". The Cambridge statutes of 1250 mention cannon law and theology. Its first recorded chancellor, Richard de Leycestria held the office around 1222 and was a cannonist. Not every University had a theology faculty but it was popular in Cambridge due to the Franciscan and Dominican monasteries there.

Since Bologna was first, it had started a pattern of learning which later spread. When the Oxford students ran away to start Cambridge Uni, they had courses in arts, grammar, logic and rhetoric, with arithmetic, music, geometry and astronomy coming up a bit later, all ending up with two levels of degrees - bachelor or master. The teacher would read and explain texts and at the exam there will be a disputation between the student and opponents (senior students and the master), with questions asked, theses and arguments brought up. If a master went through a further course and examination they could be licenced by the collective body of their colleagues to teach. After that they could still study further with the ones who had already done this and become doctors. The doctors would then join their own faculty.

The choice of what should be studied was pretty much influenced by the choice of what was important in medieval life, and by the work of prominent local scholars. St Augustine's "Civitas Dei" was quite influential in the Christian society and stated that a citizen needs to know what God intends for man. So part of medieval education was to find what that plan is. You needed to have arguments and discussions, so in order to be able to reason the theological texts you needed knowledge of grammar, rhetoric and dialectic. Then there was another "package", the quadrivium, consisting of arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy, which helped with getting to the depths of philosophy and theology and explain the universal principles behind existence.

In Bologna law became a major subject due to Irnerius' work on Roman law which was revived as a legal science and common to northern Italy. Irnerius' lectures boosted Bologna to international fame as he would go behind the letter of the law to find fundamental principles. And that helped establish thephilosophy of the law rather than just reading the Roman law as a literary exercise.

In Paris philosophy became big due to the work of many eminent scholars such as John of Salisbury who helped with the Aristotelian revival and the transformation of the old-fashioned art of disputation into a science of thought.

Salerno became famous for medicine with its Scuola Medica Salernitana. They benefited from a treasury of old sources such as older medical texts, some Arabic originals, some translations of Greek physicians like Hippocratus and Galen. The school had in its library the translations and adaptations of "Al-malaki" of Ali ibn Abbas, the study of ophthalmology of Hunayn bin Ishaq and the "Viaticus" of Ibn al Jazzar.

Further reading: L. Thorndike "University records and life in the Middle Ages", H.Rashdall "Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages"

As the trivium and quadrivium have already been pretty well-covered (that's what I get for not looking at my computer regularly), I'm going to focus on the issue of humanism and the universities, which I happen to have been working on recently. Before I do, however, I would echo /u/bobbleheader in recommending you read Thorndyke's University Records and Life in the Middle Ages (New York: Columbia, 1944), as there are instances of syllabi, among other fantastically interesting documents.

It's generally agreed that the humanists and the universities did not hold compatible points of view. In Tuscany, the epicenter of the Renaissance and secular humanism, the universities were so peripheral that they don't show up in the vast majority of modern histories. The stories of the Universities of Florence and Pisa (a university at Arezzo did not survive long enough to be absorbed into Tuscany) are of periods of sickly, under-attended activity followed by prolonged closures. Humanists were often appointed to the few chairs, but they never stayed for more than a few years. The only real contribution these universities made (and this was only briefly true of Tuscan universities) to humanism was the novel re-introduction of Greek into western academia. But, in this too, they were soon outpaced by the grander universities.

The best source for these is the phenomenal first volume of the Storia dell'Università di Pisa (Pisa: Pacini, 2000), but, if you can't read Italian, I'm afraid you're not going to find much other than what Rashdall includes in his survey.