A University Built by the Invisible Hand
The history of the University of Bologna offers an example of how the spontaneous-order mechanisms underlying market anarchism — mechanisms like mutual-aid surety associations and competing legal jurisdictions — can operate in a university setting.
Many mediæval universities were run from the top down. The University of Paris, for example, was founded, organized, and funded by the government, and students were under the strict regulation and control of the faculty. But the University of Bologna was run from the bottom up — controlled by students and funded by students. As for its founding, nobody ever really started the University — it just sort of happened. The University of Bologna arose spontaneously, through the interactions of individuals who were trying to do something else.
In the 12th century, Bologna was a center of intellectual and cultural life. Students came to Bologna from all over Europe to study with prominent scholars. These individual professors were not originally organized into a university; each one operated freelance, offering courses on his own and charging whatever fees students were willing to pay. If a professor was a lousy teacher or charged too much, his students would switch to a different professor; professors had to compete for students, and would get paid only if students found their courses worth taking.
Bologna soon became crowded with foreign students. But being a foreigner in Bologna had its disadvantages; aliens were subject to various sorts of legal disabilities. For example, aliens were held responsible for the debts of their fellow countrymen; that is, if John, an English merchant, owed money to Giovanni, a Bolognese native, and John skipped town, then innocent bystander James, if James were an English citizen, could be required by Bolognese law to pay to Giovanni the money owed by John.
The foreign students therefore began to band together, for mutual insurance and protection, into associations called “nations,” according to their various nationalities; one “nation” would be composed of all English students, another of all French students, and so on. If any student needed assistance (e.g., in paying other people’s debts as demanded by the government), the other members of his “nation” would chip in to help. Each was willing to pledge a contribution to the group for this purpose, in exchange for the assurance that he would himself be able to draw on these pooled resources in time of need.
In time the different “nations” found it useful to spread the risk still more widely by combining together into a larger organization called a universitas. This was not yet a university in the modern sense; the closest English equivalent to the Latinuniversitas is “corporation.” The universitas was essentially a cooperative venture by students; the professors were not part of the universitas. The universitas was democratically governed; regular business was conducted by a representative council consisting of two members from each “nation,” while important matters were decided by the majority vote of an assembly consisting of the entire membership of the universitas. (The similarity to the ancient Athenian constitution is striking.) The universitas adjudicated internal disputes and provided welfare relief to its members.
Once the universitas had been formed, the students now had available to them a means of effective collective bargaining with the city government (rather like a modern trades-union). The students were able to exercise considerable leverage in their disputes with the city because if the students decided to go on “strike” by leaving the city, the professors would follow their paying clients and the city would lose an important source of revenue. So the city gave in, recognized the rights of foreign students, and granted the universitas civil and criminal jurisdiction over its own members. Although the universitas was a purely private organization, it acquired the status of an independent legal system existing within, but not strictly subordinate to, the framework of city government.
How did the universitas of Bologna become the University of Bologna? Well, after all, this new means of effective bargaining with the city could also be used as a means of effective collective bargaining with the professors. The students, organized into a universitas, could control professors by boycotting classes and withholding fees. This gave the universitas the power to determine the length and subject-matter of courses, and the fees of professors. Soon professors found themselves being hired and fired by the universitas as a whole, rather than by its individual members acting independently. At this point we can finally translate universitas as “University.”
As employees of the student-run University, professors could be fined if they didn’t begin and end lectures on time, or if they didn’t finish course material by the end of the course. A committee of students was assigned to keep an eye on the professors and to report any misbehavior; the members of this committee were officially called the Denouncers of Professors.
The professors were not completely powerless; they formed a collective-bargaining association of their own, the College of Teachers, and won the right to determine both examination fees and requirements for the degree. A balance of rights thus emerged through negotiation: the obligations of professors were determined by the students, while the obligations of students were determined by the professors. It was a power-sharing scheme; the students, however, continued to act as the dominant partner, since they were the paying clients and collectively carried more clout.
This quasi-anarchistic setup was eventually brought to an end when the city government took over and began paying professors directly from tax revenues, thus converting the University of Bologna into a publicly-funded institution. Whether we interpret this move as public-spirited altruism or as a cynical power grab, in either case the result was that professors became dependent on the city government rather than on the students, who lost their earlier leverage as power shifted from the student body to the Bolognese politicians.
Principal source: Harold J. Berman. Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1983.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Related posts:
Powered by YARPP.
Yes – Michael Oakeshott was fond of pointing out that before the 13th century formal “colleges” were rare. Students went to learn from specific scholars and paid them – directly. Even after formal colleges became the norm some universities still expected students to pay (or not pay) teachers directly. This was the norm in most Scots universities even in the 18th century – and Adam Smith considered it a better system than the system at Oxford, where a lecturer could be as boring and obscure as they liked (or even lecture to an empty hall) and still be paid exactly the same as the most interesting teacher.
On the general point of “corporations” (of which universities are an example) – this was partly a matter of private Law Merchant, and partly that of Canon (Church) law – Church law often being used in commercial disputes (as Royal Law tended to be “Ug-hit-with-big-stick-Ug” – not wildly useful for commercial matters, Lord Mansfield did not incorporate Law Merchant into Common Law till the late 18th century, and some things were not done till the 19th century).
As long as it is voluntary, known in advance, there is nothing unlibertarian about such things as “limited liability” (“you can have all the money we have put into the Trading Pot of our trading company – but not the shirts off our backs”), on the contrary it was a way of expanding choice (reducing prices and increasing diversity) – however, the words “as long as it is voluntary”, “known in advance” must be kept in mind.
There is nothing unlibertarian with, for example, Lloyds “Names” (individuals in syndicates) selling insurance – at high prices (after all they are risking their homes and so on), but nor is there anything unlibertarian about an insurance company selling insurance at lower prices (because the share owners of the insurance company are only risking the money they have put into the company – not their homes and so on), AS LONG AS people know they are dealing with a limited liability company in advance.
As for the take over of Bologna university by the state – I think it was no accident that other universities tended to be created (not far away) after this happened. Clearly some people were not happy with how Bologna developed over time – although it did continue to be THE place to study certain subjects (for example Roman Law), or though they could do better…..
Of course for most subjects in the Middle Ages the stamp of the Roman Catholic Church was important – not because the Church was generally anti learning, but (on the contrary) because it was very much pro learning (Thomas Woods is good on this) a university without the stamp of the CHURCH was not considered a real university at all. Although there was a rivalry between Roman Law and Canon Law in commercial law – and Canon Law was not always right, for example some Canon Lawyers had a statist interpretation of what a “just price” or a “fair wage” was, Murray Rothbard tended to stress those Canon Lawyers who got it right, and downplay the MAJORITY who got it wrong – by the way Common Law (whatever its Germanic, or Norse, or Norman ancestry may be) tended to hold the same position as classical Roman Law (not Roman legislation) on this matter – i.e. that a price was “just” if both parties voluntarily agreed to it, and a wage was “just” if both parties (individual employer and individual employee) agreed to it.
As for “collective bargaining” – again there is nothing wrong it AS LONG AS joining a guild (or whatever) is voluntary (and as long as one can leave at any time). Although mostly fees before the 13th century were mostly a matter of individual students and teachers.
By the way…. this (generally) pro compulsory guild and pro state regulation position of the Roman Catholic Church (again Rothbard stressed those Catholic thinkers who got these matters right – and downplay the very many who got it wrong) had practical consequences.
The attempted Spanish invasion of England in 1588 exposed an interesting technological and social gap that was already emerging between Protestant and Catholic Europe.
The Spanish ships could only fire their cannons once – because cannons could not be practically reloaded during a battle (the Spanish victory over the Ottoman Empire at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571 is still very much a matter of ramming and storming aboard and so on – very much like the Classical world, think man beating time on a drum and people pulling oars) the English ship cannons of 1588 could be reloaded (in battle) and fired again and again.
Also many of the English ships were privately owned – errr “merchant” ships.
Nor is this an isolated case – for example at the Battle of Breitenfeld in 1631 the Swedish cannons fired three times vaster than the Imperial (Catholic) Cannons – and this is not just a matter of better training, they were technologically different.
Sweden was a different society from serf bound and guild bound Austria in 1631.
The Scots and other mercenaries in the Swedish army (it was mainly a mercenary army) were different from the men who fought in the Imperial army (even when they were mercenaries also) – they were more open to new ideas and more “scientific” in their outlook. They just fought differently – more flexibly.
Certainly King Gustavus Adolphus was a genius – but Tilly, the Imperial commander, was no fool (far from it – he was a highly intelligent man with a great record of success).
It is more than the one commander being better than the other commander – the horribly one sided nature of the battle (the Imperial side, which had outnumbered the Swedes and allies, being virtually wiped out – and the Swedes suffering minor losses) reflects a technological and cultural difference, one that is still present at (for example) the Battle of Konnigratz as late as 1866 – with the Prussian soldiers firing three times faster than the Austrian soldiers (their rifles were physically different) and their tactics were different.
The Catholic world, with the exception of Belgium, just entered the industrial age a bit slower than the Protestant world (generally speaking) and some of the “social teachings” of the Church (contra Murray Rothbard and contra Thomas Woods) do seem to be to be partly to blame for this.
Arguably Bologna is most likely the oldest university in the world, as we understand the term. It was certainly functioning before the “official” founding of Oxford, 1167 – although teaching had been going more or less informally and sort of “like it just happened” in Oxford since at least 1096 (before Paris) and likely rather earlier than that.
Was it only Bologna with this system or perhaps others had similar systems? I’m just wondering. I also wonder how much the marvelous food traditions of Bologna made everyone smart enough to come up with this mutually beneficial system.
I think that now that so many universities have been taken over by cultural Marxists, feminists, thought-police, etc., the original University of Bologna deserves a new start. Moreover, this also represents a good model for community/home-schooling, with the parents rather than the students calling the shots.
This article also reminds me of the fraternal societies which managed collective-bargaining health care: http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html