American Society of Church History

Concilium Generale and Studium Generale: The Transformation of Doctrinal Regulation in

the Middle Ages
Author(s): Peter R. McKeon
Source: Church History, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Mar., 1966), pp. 24-34
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Society of Church
History
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3162670
Accessed: 27-08-2016 08:00 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3162670?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Cambridge University Press, American Society of Church History are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Church History

This content downloaded from 204.187.23.196 on Sat, 27 Aug 2016 08:00:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CONCILIUM GENERALE AND STUDIUM GENERALE:
THE TRANSFORMATION OF DOCTRINAL
REGULATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES

PETER R. MCKEON, Assistant Professor of Hist

University of Illinois at Chicago Circle
The accretions and modifications of time often disgu
of familiar contemporary institutions. Furthermo
stitutions must frequently be studied in regard to th
rather than in terms of their function at any one t
paper will deal with certain aspects of development
tory and will examine the relation of this developm
history of the university.
In the councils of the early church the definition
naturally assumed a position of great importance, du
to any specific distinction as to the fact that fides re
mon rather than a regional problem.' In dogmatic
assemblies operated at least ostensibly as meetings of
fied to hear the content of a disputed doctrine and t
orthodoxy or upon its deviation from doctrine know
mate.2 In the east this treatment of theological iss
sume a somewhat stereotyped form, and the problem
inated the convocation of an extraordinary council.3
istrative backwardness of the Germanic countries had gi
council in the west a wholly different role. Often th
of governmental legitimacy, the council assumed con
far beyond the ecclesiastical problems of the ancient
words, problems formerly political had become the pr
the church council. Thus, the councils of the Visig
all government, while those of the Merovingians we
cerned with questions of doctrine.4
The activity of the popes in the years followin
long period during which synodal meetings had been inf
the early years of the so-called "papal reform" the pa
aim of a centralized ecclesiastical administration thro
medium of the councils, and the reestablishment of
trinal catholicity was a natural accompaniment to a
primacy.6 The decision of theological argument was
guarded by the various supporters of local autonomy
doctrine, as one item in the contest between central
ticularism, occupied the same ambiguous position
more properly political issues of this controversy.
of Normandy called to Brioude in 1050 a meeting wh
judged the arguments of Berengar of Tours, whil
appeal to King Henry I resulted in a council held a
24

This content downloaded from 204.187.23.196 on Sat, 27 Aug 2016 08:00:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 CONCILIUM GENERALE AND STUDIUM GENERALE 25

schedule taken from Berengar's writings was read and co

Similarly, motivated by desire to retain autonomy in wh
garded as a local situation, the French prelates meeting a
1054 opposed the removal of Berengar's case to Rome,8 wh
himself had denied the right of Leo IX to call him to
of Vercelli in 1050.9
Such protests were symptomatic of the reaction to papal asser-
tions, and must be viewed in the broader perspective of protests by
metropolitans against Roman interest in local matters.10 The an-
swer of the papal protagonists rested upon a differentiation of Ro-
man governmental function; they argued that the papal primacy, be-
ing based upon the Petrine commission, was wholly dissimilar from
the government of the bishops.11 According to the Roman view, since
all government bore a theological orientation, political questions no
less than dogmatic took on the trappings of questions of faith, with
respect to which Rome was the final arbiter.12
But such expansion of the scope of fides did not affect a more
basic distinction, between the enunciation and implementation of pol-
icy in matters basically political and in doctrinal issues properly so
called. This distinction became significant as the government of the
church assumed a more sophisticated character. The old conciliar ad-
ministration was not well-suited to centralized governmental regula-
tion, and, desiring to create an effective bureaucracy controlled by
Rome, the centralized government sought to dispense with the forms
as well as the reality of an administration based upon conciliar con-
sultation. Thus the Roman council, like the office of the papacy, be-
came differentiated from other governmental organs. In an extra-
ordinary occurrence in the mid-eleventh century, under the succes-
sors of Leo IX it became an annual event; while Gregory VII as-
serted that to the Roman pontiff alone belonged the right of conven-
ing a general council.13 Concurrently, it may be noted that the con-
vocation of such an assembly thus tended to attach to the person of
the caller rather than to the scope either of attendance or of busi-
ness and that the prerogative of calling a general council became as-
sociated with the pope's status as universal. Consequently, such con-
vocation became a right exercised by convenience rather than deter-
mined by duty, and the Roman council gradually lost its status as a
universal governmental body.14 In this process the development of
canon law played an essential role; the collection of decrees by curial
canonists emphasized the Roman primacy, and in addition such col-
lections, properly utilized, amounted in fact to readily controllable
universal judgment. Thus, the advances in canon law and the formu-
lation of a more complete and systematic canon of ecclesiastical reg-
ulation aided transformation in the character of ecclesiastical admin-
istration; the application of canonical norms frequently eliminated the

This content downloaded from 204.187.23.196 on Sat, 27 Aug 2016 08:00:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
26 CHURCH HISTORY

need for a meeting with the capacity to resolve a parti

Canon law manuals might thus serve not only as guides
tivity of a council but also as substitutes for the counc
In the area of doctrinal definition, like other govern
ters, the papacy asserted both a claim to primacy an
mentation of such a claim. In the implementation of th
primacy in doctrinal definition, the popes were aided by
of local authorities to deal adequately with contempora
for the educational shortcomings of the episcopacy ma
lates quite unable to cope with the doctrinal complexiti
companied the flowering of interest in dialectic. Beren
was not alone in complaining that he was misunderstoo
celin, Abelard, and Gilbert of la Poree, as well as their
likewise lamented the incapacity of soi-disant authoriti
adequacy of old methods of synodal investigation was ev
in 1098, when the Latin position on the Trinity found
defense only due to the chance attendance of Saint Anse
processione was the result of requests to the archbishop
down his arguments delivered at that council,l9 and th
reflects the failure of the council at Soissons in 1093 to define ad-
equately the anti-Roscellinist position.20 The papacy responded to t
need for learned counsel in defining questions of faith, while at t
same time taking advantage of the inability of the episcopacy
provide such aid from its own ranks; thus William of Champea
was summoned to the council of Troyes in 1107, while in 1148 Eu-
gene III called his synod in the north, so that he might utilize the
learning of the French scholars.21 In theology as in church gover
ment generally Rome was able by the mid-twelfth century to fun
tion as universal authority, and to oppose to the particularism
episcopal contentions the assertion that Rome alone might decide
doctrinal controversy.22
But in the matter of doctrine lay a hidden hindrance to the Ro
man primacy, for the intricacies of theological problems were in many
ways unique, and hardly similar to other governmental concerns; t
theologian could not be declared orthodox or heretical according t
pre-formulated standards so easily as could the erring prelate be judged
simoniac or the warring lord a violator of the treuga Dei. Thus in t
area of doctrinal decision alone it was necessary to retain the coun
cil, that is, a body meeting for mutual determination, or at least m
tual advice, with regard to the solution of a particular problem. A
a result, in the case of theology, the centralized Roman authority h
to maintain a direct relation with conciliar audition and legislatio
and the problem of doctrinal enunciation continued to be linked n
only with a council, but with a Roman, and hence a general cou
cil. Two important facts may then be noted. In the first place, du

This content downloaded from 204.187.23.196 on Sat, 27 Aug 2016 08:00:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 CONCILIUM GENERALE AND STUDIUM GENERALE 27

ing the twelfth century the association of doctrinal deci

general council was in fact a gratuitous occurrence, stem
the inability in this instance alone to substitute a fixed ca
for a conciliar decision, and from the consequent necessit
ing an advisory board. Fides then did not at this time
category of questions apart, nor did doctrinal concern
universal significance; rather, theological enunciation pers
twelfth century as the only category of questions releva
siastical supervision which still, and in fact increasing
consultation. This circumstance combined by chance with
ing conception of a general council as a papal council, wh
nonical formulations of the twelfth century rigidified t
this as of so many definitions. Secondly, the failure of t
to subsume this one class of problems to its sole aegis was
by the application of Roman law principles to ecclesias
istration, for such principles tended to reflect a concept
power and rule not monolithic but deriving essentially
sent;23 here again the inability to apply fixed canonical no
trinal issues impeded papal assertions, for canonical collec
applicable possessed the aura of regulations having at som
ceived universal approbation. Thus, by the inclusion and t
tion of Roman law principles, the chance identification
council and fides came to present a unique problem for t
since now the calling of a general council became not on
nience, but the sine qua non for doctrinal investigation and r
As a result of these developments, two problems face
man see. How might the papacy subject the activities of
council to the interests of a Rome-oriented church, and y
consultative capacity which had been shown to be necess
cessful doctrinal elucidation and regulation? How cou
requirement of a general council in a question of fides b
with the Rome-directed requirements of a centralized aut
The solution to both problems lay in the development
ing committee of experts, dependent directly upon the p
endowed with the legal status of a concilium generale.
source for such a group had long existed. Eugene III h
skills of the Parisian masters in the case of Gilbert of
and Alexander III had done similarly in the instance of P
bard.26 The Parisian schools had over many years acq
reknown as centers for arbitration,27 while on the other han
to discipline the content of doctrinal teaching at Paris h
even in the twelfth century.28 At this time no legal dif
existed between the schools of Paris and other ecclesiasti
but by the action of the third Lateran council in 1179 th
opened for a closer subjection of teaching in general by t

This content downloaded from 204.187.23.196 on Sat, 27 Aug 2016 08:00:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
28 CHURCH HISTORY

while already in 1177 some papal supervision of theological cu

was being given.30 From this position of negative surveillan
of positive utilization was a small step, especially facilitated
by the recognition given to the Parisian scholars by Philip Au
The function of the University of Paris in papal eyes was th
education of the ecclesia,32 but this was a broad goal which
attained in several ways. The university must clearly trans
function common to all episcopal schools, that of a training
for future pastors.33 Thus, soon after the foundation of
versity of Paris the usefulness of such an institution in the
gation of orthodox doctrine was clear. By 1207 Innocen
limited the number of theology masters to eight,34 by 1219
III had forbidden the study of civil law at Paris.35 The lega
ert of Cour~on, in his publication of university statutes in 1
reference to the special position which Paris occupied in th
the pope.36 The pope knew well what he was about. Inno
himself studied at Paris;37 in 1205 it was to Paris that h
when seeking for proponents of reformation in the Greek e
did Honorius III, looking for similar aid for Toulouse in
But the University of Paris served a further function,
in which this institution was not only preeminent but unique, n
the very definition of doctrine. In earlier cases where Paris
ters attended conciliar meetings, they had served only as co
to the assembly; even in 1206, in the condemnation of Am
Bene, while the pope made use of Parisian learning in bring
tence,40 the later condemnation of the Amalricians reverted
form of action, taking place at a provincial council (at w
deed, the presence and activity of the Parisian masters
worthy) ;41 and the teachings of Amalric were finally conde
a general council, that of the Lateran in 1215,42 which was
cerned with giving universal authority to several other the
definitions.43 But even at this time the status of the theolog
at Paris was changing, as the possibilities of a studium gener
realized and utilized by the papacy. The years following 1
marked at the university by a gradual severance of the ties
had bound educational institutions so closely to local author
concurrently by a closer connection with the papacy. It
been noted that this development was in large measure d
desire of masters and scholars to break away from the tute
the bishop of Paris.44 But it must be emphasized that this
was also externally influenced. The legislation of Innoce
characterized generally by attendance to the necessity for at
consent, and the innovations in church government which
tificate witnessed are permeated by this quality.45 In like m
under Innocent III, the papal need for a standing, universal

This content downloaded from 204.187.23.196 on Sat, 27 Aug 2016 08:00:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 CONCILIUM GENERALE AND STUDIUM GENERALE 29

readily controllable council competent to deal with problems of

trinal regulation found solution in an adaptation of the theology
ty of the University of Paris.
In the establishment of a legal equivalent for the concilium g
erale the papacy effected several modifications. The criterion o
thority was met, thanks to the use of Roman law principles, by
use of a studium generale which, in drawing attendance from a
ternational rather than a local area, functioned similarly to a gen
council. The faculty of theology, in turn, exhibited this generali
two ways: first, it was to be drawn from those scholars who had
ceived the baccalaureate; secondly, in accordance with the eleven
constitution of the fourth Lateran council, such an international sch
would include representatives from each province.46 The doctor
theology, a smaller group still drawn from the same sources
then a dual authority and function as teachers: individually,
instructed pupils; collectively, they embodied the authority of a
mittee of experts empowered, as representative of the church thr
the university, to give pronouncements upon doctrinal issues.
But the problem of subordination still faced the papacy. Ed
tion in the church had always been under the influence of the bisho
and the struggle of the bishop of Paris to retain his hold over
schools of his city reflects local reaction to the intention of the
to bring the university directly under Roman control.47 Again
aim of the papacy was two-fold, both to better supervise and reg
the education of clerics, and to free the authority and decision
this universal institution from any legal subjection to local pre
But the constitution of a studium generale was not in itself suff
to avoid the possibility of local interference, for allegiance would
be retained to the bishop and chapter which had provided the pre
An organization was needed which, by being drawn from a univ
sal sphere, would retain the character of a body representin
whole ecclesia, but which in its composition would be organized
groups expressing both inclusion in the studium and divorce fr
local associations.
The nations were adopted to fill this need.48 In origin they
served no practical purpose (an explanation which perhaps accounts
for the paucity of early records concerning them), standing rather as
legal entities to supersede the local ties of scholars and thus circum-
vent the possibility that the basis of the university might be viewed
as provincial. To fulfill papal needs, the constitution of the univer-
sity could not be construed as resting upon provincial or diocesan
foundations; the studium might not be under the control of the bishop
of Paris (since the university must function as a general body), nor
could connection be retained with the local cathedrals which had sent
scholars to Paris (since an aim of the University of Paris was to

This content downloaded from 204.187.23.196 on Sat, 27 Aug 2016 08:00:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
30 CHURCH HISTORY

avoid the interference of local interests). As underlying

ties, the nations were the constitutional basis of the univ
its context of a representative institution; the studium gen
in this aspect in the position of a substitute for a gene
called from the whole church. Graduation from the facu
was originally a prerequisite for attendance in the faculty of
and the papal intention in making the University of Pari
national school may be seen, in large measure, as a desire
the material for a small body of doctores theologiae closely
upon the papacy, permanently established, and able to sp
whole church in the determination of doctrinal issues.49
Although this aspect of university was of short endu
course may be traced in the documents relating to the activit
studium. By 1225 the masters were notably present at a p
council under the archbishop of Sens, which condemned work
the Scot; the existence of a letter of Honorius III to th
Paris, announcing the decisions of this council, is interesti
of the scholastic autonomy gained from that bishop, an a
evidently here based upon the use of learned advice in th
decision of a larger assembly.50 In 1241 the faculty of the
demned the errors of Friar Stephen,51 a decree later aff
by a general chapter of his own Dominican order.52 In 12
basis of a Parisian investigation, Innocent IV condemn
mud,53 and chancellor Odo of Tusculum wrote, two y
"[f]acta vero predicta examinatione, omnium magistrorum
et juris canonici et aliorum multorum habito consilio, juxt
apostolicum omnes predicti libri, qui tunc haberi potuerun
fuerunt tunc cremati."54 The promulgation of papal de
those given in a concilium generale, involved the notifica
other universal bodies, the studia generalia, at which the
were to be used ". . tam in judiciis quam in scolis ... ," an
ing indication of the dual function of the university, an
determining and teaching which it had in common with t
of earlier days.55 The importance of the university to the wh
is the argument put forth in the encyclical issued by the s
prelates of the church in 1254, an importance not merely
in the narrow sense, but as guardian of the faith and par
tiarum.56 Indeed, when the university closed in 1255, in prot
the pro-mendicant decrees of Pope Alexander IV, it is sig
note that the four nations were considered by their mem
main in existence, the skeleton of the studium generale, p
that the basis of universality, and hence of universal arbit
fundamentally in membership in the nations.57
But with the quarrels of the 1250's ended what remai
university's official status as arbiter fidei. The first part o

This content downloaded from 204.187.23.196 on Sat, 27 Aug 2016 08:00:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 CONCILIUM GENERALE AND STUDIUM GENERALE 31

teenth century had made apparent with what haste such

tion could assume the position of a champion of particul
the mendicant orders the popes had found both an instr
readily handled than the University of Paris and a sourc
counsel.59 Again, the changing position of the curia perm
college of cardinals to function increasingly as an advisor
authoritative committee,60 while the Decretalists had formu
justification for papal omnipotence, even in matters of f
problem of direct control over doctrine was apparently solve
even as the bureauracy came to function at its best the
the Decretists were being applied over an ever-widenin
The investigation of procedures of doctrinal superv
the evolving relations between these procedures and the form
tion of the general council, sheds light upon the origin
ment of the studium generale, and indicates that the gre
of the University of Paris in ecclesiastical regulation both
and (in later years) administrative is not properly viewe
mutation of its educational function; on the contrary, t
ception and original purpose of this novel institution
bears witness to a broadness in the early thirteenth centu
tion of what functions an education institution properly
This latitude was derived from the didactic aspect of con
and was lost only as ecclesiastical bureaucracy and nation
imposed limitations upon the definition, place and purpos
tion." Such limiting transmuted the intention of the stud
and resulted in the proliferation of restricted studia and
quence in the attribution of these later limitations to th
university history.

1. Cf. Eusebius, Historia ecclesiae X, general councils and the writings of

v on Constantine's motivation in sum- the Fathers; in the last session the
moning the first Nicene council. prelates gave a judgment opposed to
2. This form of meeting is clearly appar- the Type on the basis of the evidence
ent by the fifth century, and may be heard. See J. D. Mansi ed., Sacrorum
observed at Ephesus. See the Acta, ed. conciliorum nova et amplissima collec-
H. R. Percival, in Select Library of tio (Venice, 1759-1798), X, 863 ff.
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, XIV Gratian's view of imperial attendance
(New York, 1900), 197-224. Where the at ancient councils is not irrelevant:
whole body was too unwieldy, or where "[u]binam legistis, inperatores ante-
imperial manipulation of the decision cessores vestros sinodalibus conventibus
was desired, a smaller assembly might interfuisse, nisi forsitan in quibus de
be used; this was probably Justinian's fide tractatum est, que universalis est,
plan in the matter of the Three Chap- que omnium communis est, que non
ters. Cf. C. J. Hefele and H. Leclercq, solum ad clericos, veram etiam ad
Histoire des conciles, III1 (Paris, laicos et ad omnes pertinet Christi-
1909), p. 66. anost" (Decretumn, ed. E. Friedberg,
3. Perhaps the best example of this char- in Corpus iuris canonici, I [Leipzig,
acteristic procedure may be found 1879], 338).
in the council called to Rome in 649 4. The council at Orleans in 549 opposed
by Pope Martin on the Monothelete Monophysitism in its first canon,
question. During the first three sessions (Mansi, IX, 129), but the tenor of Mer-
the synod heard the Monothelete writ- ovingian conciliar activity is best
ings, then the definition of the five epitomized by reference to canon one

This content downloaded from 204.187.23.196 on Sat, 27 Aug 2016 08:00:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
32 CHURCH HISTORY

of the council held at Clermont in 535, dorff, Registrum, fur die deutsche
which held that no business might be Geschichte [Iena, 1849], I, no 5).
taken up by a council until questions 11. Cf. W. Ullmann, The Growth of Papal
of morals had been dealt with (Mansi, Government in the Middle Ages (Lon-
VIII, 860). don, 1955), espec. ch. 9.
5. Cf J. de Ghellinck, Le mouveme.nt 12. By 1112 the question of lay investiture
theologique du XIIe siecle (Bruges, was commonly considered in terms of
1948), pp. 50-51, 104 ff. heresy, either long-standing (cf. God-
6. Deoduinus Leodiensis episcopus, Epis- frey of Vendome, Libellus I, in MGH
tola (in J. Migne ed., Patrologiae Libelli de lite, II [Hanover, 1891],
Latina [Paris, 1844-1864], CXLVI), 680-683) or by recent but proper deci-
1439, a plea to king Henry I sion (thus, Placidius of Nonantulana,
of France for a public confutation of Liber de honore ecclesiae, ibid., p. 590).
the Berengarian heretics, tempered For an opposing view, cf. Ivo of Chart-
with a fear lest such a meeting estab- res, Epistola, ibid., p. 649. Cf. the wid-
lish the precedent of condemning a ening of the definition of faith in the
bishop (in this case, Eusebius Bruno twelfth and thirteenth centuries de-
of Angers) without the authority of scribed in J. T. McNeill, "The Emer-
Rome. gence of Conciliarism," Medieval and
7. On Brioude, Durandus abbas Troar- Historiographical Essays in Honor of
nensis, Liber de corpore et sanguine James Westfall Thompson, edd. J. L.
Christi contra Berengarium et ejus Cate and E. N. Anderson (Chicago,
sectatores (PL, CXLIX), 1422, where 1938).
the date is given as 1053; for the cor- 13. Dictatus papae, no. 16; Begistrum, lib.
rection, see H. Sudendorff, Berengar- II, no. 55a.
ius Turonensis oder eine Sammlung ihn 14. Dictatus papae, no. 25. Of. Gratian,
betreffender Briefe (Hamburg, 1850), Decretum, Dist. XIX, pars i: " [d]ecret-
pp. 11-17. For Paris, Annales Elno- ales itaque epistolae canonibus con-
nenses minores (in Monumenta Ger- ciliorum pari iure exequantur . . "
naniae historica, Scriptores [Hanover, (p. 65).
1826 ff.], V, 20; Berengar of Tours, 15. Cf. the great interest in conciliar
Epistola, in Sudendorff, op. cit., p. procedures in the pre-Gregorian col-
211; Durandus Troarnensis, Liber de lections with the lack of such sections
corpore, loc. cit. in the collections stimulated by Greg-
8. Berengar of Tours, De sacra Coena ory and his successors.
adversus Lanfrancum, ed. A. F. and 16. Sudendorff, Berengarius Turonensis,
F. T. Vischer (Berlin, 1834), pp. 49- pp. 211-212.
53. Count Godfrey of Anjou did not 17. Roscelinus, Epistola, in Epistolae Ab-
approve of the action of the legate ailardae (PL, CLXXVIII), no. 15;
Hildebrand, who presided over the Abelard, Epistolae, no. 13; ".. . quod
council. In a letter written some years
nescient damnant, quod ignorant ac-
later he compared the legate unfavor- cusant . . ." Cf. Berengarius Scholasti-
ably with Pilate (Sudendorff, op. cit., cus, Epistola ad episcopum Mimatensem
p. 21). (PL, CLXXVIII), 1859: ". . .
9. Berengar argued ". . .pervenerat enim [s]ic judicant verba caeci, sic viru
ad me, praecipisse Leonum illum, ut ego sobrium damnant ebri. . . N. M.
Vercellensi illi conventuri, in quo tam-
Haring, "The Case of Gilbert de la
en nullam papae debebam obedientiam, Poree, Bishop of Poitiers (1142-1154),"
non deesem. 'Dissuaserat secundum ec- Mediaeval Studies, XIII (1951), 1-40.
clesiastica iura, secundum quae nullus
extra provinciam ad iudicium ire; 18. Eadmer, Historia novorum in Anglia
cogendus est, personae ecclesiasticae, (ed. M. Rule [London, 1884]), pp. 104-
dissuaserant amici . . . (De sacra 110; Ordericus Vitalis, Historia ec-
clesiastica (ed. A. le Prevost [Paris,
Coena, p 41).
1838-1855]), IV, 5; Florence of Wor-
10. These become frequent under Gregory cester, Chronicon (ed. B. Thorpe, II
VII, and especially intense during the [London, 1849]), 43; William of Mal-
interchange with archbishop Sigfried mesbury, De gestis regum Anglorum
of Mayence, who objected futilely to (ed. W. Stubbs, II [London, 1880]),
a case being removed to Rome prior to 99-100.
its hearing in provincial council (Udal- 19. Hildebert of Lavardin wrote to Anselm
ricus Babenbergensis, Codex, ed. P.
Jaffe [in Monumenta Bambergensia in about 1100, requesting that the arch-
(Berlin, 1869; Bibliotheca rerum Ger- bishop commit to writing the argu-
manicarum, Vr)], no. 40; Gregory ments given at Bari; Epistolae (PL,
VII, Registrum, ed. E. Caspar [MGH CLXXI), part II, no. 9. Cf. Willelmus
Epistolae selectae, II (Hanover, 1920- Gemeticensis, Historia Normannorum
1923)], lib. I, no. 60), and the quarrel (PL, CXLIX), 843-844; Anselm of
with archbishop Liemar of Bremen, Canterbury, De processione Sancti
who refused to let Roman legates hold Spiritus contra Graecos (PL CLVIII),
293.
a council in his province (Gregory VII,
Begistrum, lib. II, no. 28; H. Suden- 20. Anselm of Canterbury, De fide Trini-

This content downloaded from 204.187.23.196 on Sat, 27 Aug 2016 08:00:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 CONCILIUM GENERALE AND STUDIUM GENERALE
tatis et de inarnatione Verbi (PL,
CLVIII), 262 ff.
21. P. Feret, La facult6 de th,ologie de
Paris et ses docteurs les plus celabres
en moyen age, I (Paris, 1894), 1.
22. An excellent illustration is the case of
Gilbert of la Poree. In 1141 Innocent
II had permitted the decision made
against Abelard by the French prelates
at Sens to stand (see Bernard of
Clairvaux, Epistolae (PL, CLXXXII),
nos. 194 (of Innocent II) and 337.
But seven years later the cardinals
vigorously opposed Bernard's influence
in the affair of Gilbert, stating that
"ipsa [Rome] sola de fide catholica
discutere habens a nullo, etiam absens,
in hoe singulari honore preiudicium
pati potest. . ." (Ottonus et Rahewinus,
Gesta Frederici I Imperatoris [MGH
Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in
usum scholarium (Hanover, 1912)],
pp. 85 ff.)
23. Cf. J. B. Moyle ed., Imperatoris Iustin-
iani Institutionum (Oxford, 1923), lib.
I, tit. 2; pp. 102-103.
24. Thus, already, Placidius of Nonantu-
lana, Liber de honore ecclesiae,
p. 629: "[i]n causa fidei sacerdotum
debet ease collatio. . ." Cf. B. Tierney,
Foundations of the Conciliar Theory
(Cambridge, England, 1955), p. 53.
25. See note 21, above.
26. Annales Beicherspergenses (MGH, SS,
XVII), 471.
27. Thus, in 1169, Thomas Becket offered
to submit his quarrel with Henry II
". . .judicio curie domini sui regis
Francorum vel judicio eclesie Galli-
cane, aut scolarium Parisiensium. . ."
Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis,
edd. H. Denifle and A. Chatelain, I
(Paris, 1889), part i, no. 21; cf. ibid.,
i, no. 29.
28. CUP, I, part i, no. 3. Cf. P. Jaffe,
Begesta pontificum Bomanorum ab
condita ecclesia ad annwm post Christ-
n natumn 1198 (Leipzig, 1888), no.
11809. Tiie various ordinances against
indiscriminate theological disputation
were not strictly followed. See the let-
ter of complaint sent to the pope be-
tween 1192 and 1203 by Stephen of
Tournai (CUP, I, part i, p. 48).
29. G. Post, "Alexander III, the Licentia
docendi and the Rise of the Universi-
ties," Anniversary Essays in Medieval
History by Students of Charles Homer
Haskins, edd. C. H. Taylor and J. L.
La Monte (Boston, 1929), pp. 255-277.
30. CUP, I, part i, no. 9.
31. CUP, I, no. 1.
32. Thus, the "parens scientiarum" of
Gregory IX, in 1231 (CUP, I, no. 79).
33. Lateran III, canon 18 (Conciliorum 46. Conciliorum Oecumenicorum decreta, p.
Oecumenicorum decreta [Rome, 1962],
p. 196). Lateran IV, constitution 11 47. Many interpretations have been made
(ibid., p. 210).
34. CUP, I, no. 5.
35. CUP, I, no. 32.
36. ". . .Noverint universi quod cum dom-
This content downloaded from 204.187.23.196 on Sat, 27 Aug 2016 08:00:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
33
ini paper speciale habuissemus manda-
tum, ut statui Parisiensium scolarium
in melius reformando impenderemus
operam officiam. . ." (CUP, I, no. 20;
p. 78).
37. H. Rashdall, The Universities of
Europe in the Middle Ages. edd. F. M.
Powicke and A. B. Emden, I (Oxford,
1936), 300.
38. CUP, I, no. 3.
39. CUP, I, no. 25.
40. Thus, Rigord, speaking of Amalric's
teachings, says " . . .[c]um igitur in
hoc ei ab omnibus catholicis universal-
iter contradiceretur, de necessitate ac-
cesit ad summum pontificem, qui,
audita ejus propositione et universita-
tis scholarium contradictione, senten-
tiavit contra ipsum. . . (Gesta Phil-
lippi Augusti, ed. H. F. Delaborde
[Paris, 1882], I, 230).
41. Chronologia Roberti Altissiodorensis, in
Beceuil des historiens des Gaules et de
la France, ed. M. Bouquet et al. (Paris,
1736-1876), XVIII, 279 . . ..Congre-
gate igitur episcoporum concilio, as-
sidentibus magistris Parisiensibus, pro-
palantur eorum ineptiae. . ." (CUP,
I, no. 11). G. C. Capelle, Autour de
decret de 1210: III. Amaury de Bene;
etude sur son pantheisme formel (Paris,
1932).
42. Constitution 2, in Conciliorun Oecu-
menicorum decreta, pp. 207-209.
43. Cf. Constitutions 1 and 2, ibid., pp.
206-209.
44. H. Rashdall, op. cit., pp. 304 ff.
45. Innocent III, Epistolae (PL, CCXV),
no. 140. Writing to Thomas, patriarch
of Constantinople, in 1206, Innocent
says ". . .[l]icet igitur. . .qua post-
ulasti a nobis ut donationes ecclesiarum
... a dilecto filio, P., ... apostolicae
sedis legato, factas, te praesente, ac
penitus inconsulte, cum nimiam multi-
tudinem ecclesiarum contulerit, easque
jure perpetuo, absque tuo consensu et
capituli maioris Ecclesiae tradiderit
possidendas, dignaremur auctoritate
apostolica irritare. . ." (col. 960).
Calling the clergy of Vienne to the
fourth Lateran council, Innocent notes
". .. ut quia haec universorum fidel-
ium communem statum respiciunt,
generale concilium juxta priscam sanc-
torum patrum consuetudinum convoce-
mus. .. "(Mansi, XXII, 960). On this
characteristic of Lateran IV, cf.
B. Tierney, op. cit., p. 47. On the
general legislative tendency under
Innocent III, W. Ullmann, Medieval
Papalism: the Political Theories of
the Medieval Canonists (London, 1949),
pp. 21-22, note. 4.
215.
of papal aims in establishing control
over the University of Paris. On the in-
tent from the start to make a universal
theological center, A. Luchaire, L 'Uni-
34 CHURCH HISTORY

versitO de Paris sous Philippe-August able to act as a sort of standing com-

(Paris 1899), p. 57. Cf. Noel Valois,
Guillaume d'Auvergne (Paris, 1880), p.
57, on episcopal antipathy. On all as-
pects of the development of privileges,
G. Post, "Parisian Masters as a Corp-
oration," Speculum, IX (1934), 421-
445.
48. On all aspects of the history of the
nations, P. Kibre, The Nations in the
Medieval Universities (Cambridge,
Mass., 1948). The early history of the
nations in the University of Paris has
always been unclear; cf the remarks
of Kibre, op. cit., pp. 3 ff. Their be-
ginnings may be placed in the second
decade of the thirteenth century. There
has been a tendency to see in the in-
ception of these units an administrative
role of some sort; thus H. Denifle,
Die Entstehung der Universititen des
Mittelalter bis 1400, I (Berlin, 1885),
104, saw them as organs of discipline,
while Rashdall, op. cit., pp. 318-319,
note 3, believed they were primarily
fund-raising organizations also work-
ing "ad iniurias ulciscendas." Virtu-
ally all substantial information on the
nations begins at a time some 40 years
after their origin, and the character
which they had assumed in the course
of this turbulent period of university
history colors historical interpretation.
Perhaps in consequence, in each of
the above cases the interpretation as-
sumes that the nations were in essence
internally oriented, that is, university 58. H. Rashdall, op. cit., pp. 344 ff.
organs per se; yet, while they increas-
ingly took on such functions, particu-A. Potthast (Berlin, 1874), no. 10990.
larly after the mid-thirteenth century,Burchard of Ursberg called the Fran-
there is no evidence to indicate that
this was their original purpose.
49. One may compare the great though
unofficial status of the univerity in
the church throughout its early history.
Cf. H. Rashdall, op. cit., pp. 547 ff.,
who states that "when no council was
sitting, the University of Paris was
mittee of the French, or even of the
Universal, Church." Rashdall, however,
saw this status as an unofficial result
of the triumph of scholastic theology
in the thirteenth century. It seems
more plausible, as set forth above, that
the high quasi-official status of the
University of Paris following the mid-
thirteenth century was in fact a rem-
nant of an earlier period when the uni-
versity had been constituted to serve
precisely the conciliar function.
50. CUP, I, no. 50. Cf. loc cit., note 1
(p. 107) on the likelihood of a prior
condemnation by the Parisian masters.
51. CUP, I, no. 128. "Isti sunt articuli
reprobati contra theologicam veritatem
et reprobati a eoncellario Parisiensi
Odone et magistris theologie Parisius
.. ." But cf. V. Doucet, "La date
des condemnations parisiennes dites de
1241. Faut-il corriger le Cartulaire de
1'Universite?, " (Universite de Lou-
vain, Beceuil de travaux d'histoire et
de philogie, third ser., 26th fasc.
[Louvain, 1947]), pp. 183-193.
52. CUP, I, no. 130.
53. CUP, I, no. 131.
54. CUP, I, no. 173.
55. CUP, I, no. 153.
56. CUP, I, no. 230. The fate of the whole
church, say the masters, depends upon
the survival of the university, its foun-
dation.
57. CUP, I, no. 256.
59. Begesta pontificum Romnanorum, ed.
ciscans "apostolicae sedis in omnibus
obedientes" (Chronicon [MGH SS,
XXi l], 376).
60. Cf. S. Kuttner, "Cardinalis: the His-
tory of a Canonical Concept," Traditio,
III (1945), p. 177.
61. See B. Tierney, op. cit., pp. 87 ff.
62. Ibid., pp. 157 ff.

This content downloaded from 204.187.23.196 on Sat, 27 Aug 2016 08:00:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms