1. Cf. Eusebius, , Historia ecclesiae XGoogle Scholar, v on Constantine's motivation in summoning the first Nicene council.

2. This form of meeting is clearly apparent by the fifth century, and may be observed at Ephesus. See the Acta, ed. Percival, H. R., in Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, XIV (New York, 1900), 197–224Google Scholar. Where the whole body was too unwieldy, or where imperial manipulation of the decieion was desired, a smaller assembly might be used; this was probably Justinian's plan in the matter of the Three Chapters. Cf. Hefele, C. J. and Leclercq, H., Histoire des conciles, III ¹ (Paris, 1909), p. 66.Google Scholar

3. Perhaps the best example of this characteristic procedure may be found in the council called to Rome in 649 by Pope Martin on the Monothelete question. During the first three sessions the synod heard the Monothelete writings, then the definition of the five general councils and the writings of the Fathers; in the last session the prelates gave a judgment opposed to the Type on the basis of the evidence heard. See Mansi, J. D. ed., Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Venice, 1759–1798), X, 863 ffGoogle Scholar. Gratian's view of imperial attendance at ancient councils is not irrelevant: “[u]binam legistis, inperatores antecessores vestros sinodalibus eonventjbus interfuisse, nisi forsitan in quibus lie fide tractatum esit, que universalis est, que omnium communis eat, que non solum ad elericos, verarn etiam ad laicos et ad omnes pertinet Christianos?” (Decretum, ed. Friedberg, E., in Corpus iuris canonici, I [Leipzig, 1879], 338).Google Scholar

4. The council at Orleans in 549 opposed Monophysitism in its first Canon, (Mansi, IX, 129), but the tenor of Merovingian coneiliar activity is best epitomized by reference to canon one of the council held at Clermoat in 535, which held that no business might be taken up by a council until questions of morals had been dealt with (Mansi, VIII, 860).

5. Cf de Ghellinck, J., Le mouvement theologique du XIIe siecle (Bruges, 1948), pp. 50–51, 104 ff.Google Scholar

6. Deoduinus Leodiensis episeopus, Epistola (in Migne, J. ed., Patrologiae Latina [Paris, 1844–1864], CXLVI), 1439Google Scholar, a plea to king Henry I of France for a public confutntion of the Berengarian heretics, tempered with a fear lest such a meeting establish the precedent of condemning a bishop (in this case, Eusebins Bruno of Augers) without the authority of Rome.

7. On Brioude, Troarnensis, Durandus abbas, Liber de corpore et sanguine Christi contra Berengarium et ejus sectatores (PL, CXLIX), 1422Google Scholar, where the date is given as 1053; for the correction, see Sudendorff, H., Bereagarins Turonensis oder eine Sammlung ihn betreffender Briefe (Hamburg, 1850), pp. 11–17Google Scholar. For Paris, Aanales Elnonenses minores (in Monumenta Germaniac historica, Scriptores [Hanover, 1826 ff.], V, 20Google Scholar; Bereugar of Tours, Epistola, in Sudeudorff, op. cit., p. 211; Durandus Troarnensis, Liber de corpora, loc. cit.

8. Berengar, of Tours, , De sacra Coena adversus Lanfrancum, ed. A. F., and Vischer, F. T. (Berlin, 1834), pp. 49–53Google Scholar. Count Godfrey of Anjou did not approve of the action of the legate Hildebrand, who presided over the council. In a letter written some years later he compared the legate unfavorably with Pilate (Sudendorff, op. cit., p. 21).

9. Berengar argued “…pervenerat enim ad me, praecipisse Leouum illum, ut ego Vercellensi illi couventuri, in quo tam- en nullam papae debebam obedientiam. non deesem. 'Dissuaserat secundum ecclesiastica iurn, secundum quae nullus extra provinciam ad iudicium ire; cogendus est, personae eeelesiasticae, dissiuaserant amici …” (De sacra Coena, p 41).

10. These become frequent under Gregory VII, and especially intense during the interchange with archbishop Sigfried of Mayence, who objected futilely to a case being removed to Rome prior to its hearing in provincial council (Babenbergensis, Udalricus, Codex, ed. Jaffe, P. [in Monumenta Bambergensia (Berlin, 1869; Bibliotheca rerum Germanicarum, VII)]Google Scholar, no. 40; Gregory, VII, Registrum, ed. Caspar, E. [MGH Epistolae selectae, II (Hanover, 1920–1923)]Google Scholar, lib. I, no. 60), and the quarrel with archbishop Liemar of Bremen, who refused to let Roman legates hold a council in his province (Gregory, VII, Registrum, lib. II, no. 28Google Scholar; Sudendorff, H., Registrum, für die deutsche Geschichte [Iena, 1849], I, no 5).Google Scholar

11. Cf. Ullmann, W., The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages (London, 1955), espec. ch. 9.Google Scholar

12. By 1112 the question of lay investiture was commonly considered in terms of heresy, either long-standing (cf. Godfrey, of Veudome, Libellus IGoogle Scholar, in MGH Libellus de tite, II [Hanover, 1891], 680–683Google Scholar) or by recent but proper decision (thus, Placidius of Nonantulana, Liber de honore ecclcsiae, ibid., p. 590). For an opposing view, cf. Ivo of Chartres, Epistola, ibid., p. 649. Cf. the widening of the definition of faith in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries described in McNeill, J. L., “The Emergence of Conciliarism,” Medieval and Historiographical Essays in Honor of James West fall Thompson, edd. Cate, J. L. and Anderson, E. N. (Chicago, 1938).Google Scholar

13. Dictatus papae, no. 16; Registrum, lib. II, no. 55a.Google Scholar

14. Dictatus papae, no. 25. cf. Gratian, Decretum, Dist. XIX, pars i: “[d]ecretales itaque epistolae canonibus concillorum pan iure exequantur…” (p. 65).

15. Cf. the great interest in conciliar procedures in the pre-Gregorian collections with the lack of such sections in the collections stimulated by Gregory and his successors.

16. Sudendorff, , Berengarius Turonensis, pp. 211–212.Google Scholar

17. Roscelinus, , Epistola, in Epistolae Abailardae (PL, CLXXVIII), no. 15Google Scholar; Abelard, Epistolae, no. 13; “… quod nescient damnant, quod ignorant accusant …” Cf. Scholastieus, Berengarius, Epistola ad episcopum Mimatensem (PL, CLXXVIII), 1859Google Scholar: “… [s]ic judicant verba caeci, sic virum sobrium damnant ebri…” Haring, N. M., “The Case of Gilbert de la Porée, Bishop of Poitiers (1142–1154),” Mediaeval Studies, XIII (1961), 1–40.Google Scholar

18. Eadmer, , Historia novorum in Anglia (ed. Rule, M. [London, 1884]), pp. 104–110Google Scholar; Vitalis, Ordericus, Historia ecclesiastica (ed. le Prevost, A. [Paris, 1838–1855]), IV, 5Google Scholar; Florence, of Worcester, Chronicon (ed. Thorpe, B., II [London, 1849]), 43Google Scholar; William, of Malmesbury, De gestis regum Anglorum (ed. Stubbs, W., II [London, 1880]), 99–100.Google Scholar

19. Hildebert of Lavardin wrote to Anselm in about 1100, requesting that the archbishop commit to writing the arguments given at Bari; Epistolae (PL, CLXXI), part II, no. 9Google Scholar. Cf. Gemeticensis, Willelmus, Historia Normanaorum (PL, CXLIX), 843–844Google Scholar; Anselm, of Canterbury, De processi one Sancti Spiritus contra Graccos (PL CLVIII), 293.Google Scholar

20. Anselm, of Canterbury, De fide Trinitatis et de incarnatione Verbi (PL, CLVIII), 262 ff.Google Scholar

21. Feret, P., La facuité de theologie de Paris et ses docteurs les plus célébres en moyen age, I (Paris, 1894), 1.Google Scholar

22. An excellent illustration is the case of Gilbert of la Porée. In 1141 Innocent II had permitted the decision made against Abelard by the French prelates at Sons to stand (see Bernard, of Clairvaux, Epistolae (PL, CLXXXII), nos. 194Google Scholar (of Innocent II) and 337. But seven years later the cardinals vigorously opposed Bernarda's influence in the affair of Gilbert, stating that “ipsa [Rome] sola do fide eatholica discutere habens a nub, etiam absens, in hoc singulari honore preiudicium pati potest…” (et Rahewinus, Ottonus, Gesta Frederici I Imperatoris [MGH Scriptores rerurn Gerrnanicarum in usum scholarium (Hanover, 1912)], pp. 85 ff.)Google Scholar

23. Cf. Moyle, J. B. ed., Imperatoris Iustiniani Institutionum (Oxford, 1923), lib. I, tit. 2; pp. 102–103.Google Scholar

24. Thus, already, Placidius, of Nonantulana, Liber de honore ecclesiae, p. 629Google Scholar: “[i]n causa fidei sacerdoturn debet ease collatio…” Cf. Tierney, B., Foundations of the Conciliar Theory (Cambridge, England, 1955), p. 53.Google Scholar

25. See note 21, above.

26. Annales Reicherspergenses (MGH, SS, XVII), 471.Google Scholar

27. Thus, in 1169, Thomas Becket offered to submit his quarrel with Henry, II “…judicio curie domini sui regis Francorum vel judieio ecclesie Gallicane, aut scolariurn Parisiensium…” Chartutariurn Univervitatis Parisiensis, edd. Denifle, H. and Chatelain, A., I (Paris, 1889)Google Scholar, part i, no. 21; cf. Ibid., i, no. 29.

28. CUP, I, part i, no. 3. Cf. Jaffe, P., Regesta pontificum Rornanorurn ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum 1198 (Leipzig, 1888), no. 11809Google Scholar. The various ordinances against indiscriminate theological disputation were not strictly followed. See the letter of complaint sent to the pope between 1192 and 1203 by Stephen of Tournal (CUP, I, part i, p. 48).

29. Post, G., “Alexander III, the Licentia docendi and the Rise of the Universities,” Anniversary Essays in Medieval History by Students of Charles Homer Haskins, edd. Taylor, C. H. and La Monte, J. L. (Boston, 1929), pp. 255–277.Google Scholar

30. CUP, I, part i, no. 9.

31. CUP, I, no. 1.

32. Thus, the “parens seientiarum” of Gregory IX, in 1231 (CUP, I, no. 79).

33. Lateran, III, canon 18 (Conciliorum Oecurnenicorum decreta [Rome, 1962], p. 196)Google Scholar. Lateran IV, constitution 11 (Ibid., p. 210).

34. CUP, I, no. 5.

35. CUP, I, no. 32.

36. “…Noverint universi quad corn domini paper speciale habuissemus mandatum, ut statui Parisiensium scolarium in melius reformando impenderemus operam officiam…” (CUP, I, no. 20; p. 78).

37. Rashdall, H., The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages. edd. Powicke, F. M. and Emden, A. B., I (Oxford, 1936), 300.Google Scholar

38. CUP, I, no. 3.

39. CUP, I, no. 25.

40. Thus, Rigord, speaking of Amairic's teachings, says “…[c]um igitur in hoc ci ab omnibus catholicis universaliter contradiceretur, do necessitate accesit ad summum pontificem, qui, audita ems propositione et universitatis scholariurn coutradietione, sententiavit contra ipsum…” (Gesta Phillippi Augusti, ed. H. F. Delaborde [Paris, 1882], I, 230).Google Scholar

41. Chronologia Roberti Altissiodorensis, in Receuil des historiens des Gaules et de is France, ed. M. Bouquet et al. (Paris, 1736–1876), XVIII, 279Google Scholar. “…Congregato igitur episeoporum coneilio, assidontibus magistris Parisiensibus, propalantur eorum ineptiae…” (CUP, I, no. 11). Capelle, G. C., Autour de decret de 1210: III. Amaury de Bene; étude sur son pantheisme formel (Paris, 1932).Google Scholar

42. Constitution 2, in Conciliorum Oecumenicorum 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 postulasti a nobis at donationes ecelestiarum … a dilecto fib, P.,… apostolieae sedis legato, factas, te praesente, ac penitus inconsulte, cum nimiam multitudinem ecelesiarum contulerit, easque jure perpotuo, absque tuo consensu et capituli maloris Ecclesiae tradiderit possidendas, dignaremur auctoritate apostolica irritare…” (col. 960). Calling the clergy of Vienne to the fourth Lateran council, Innocent notes ut quia haee universorum fidelium communem statum respiciunt, generale eoncilium juxta priseam sanetorum patruni consuetudinum convocemus…” (Mansi, XXII, 960). On this characteristic of Lateran IV, cf. B. Tierney, op. cit., p. 47. On the general legislative tendency under Innocent III, Ullmann, W., Medieval Papalism: the Political Theories of the Medieval Canonists (London, 1949), pp. 21–22, note. 4.Google Scholar

46. Concitiorum Oecumenicorum decreta, p. 215.

47. Many interpretations have been made of papal aims in establishing control over the University of de Paris. On the intent from the start to marke a universal theological center, Luchaire, A., L'Université de Paris sous Philippe-August (Paris 1899), P. 57Google Scholar. Cf. Valois, Noel, Guillaume d'Auvergne (Paris, 1880), p. 57Google Scholar, on episcopal antipathy. On all aspects of the development of privileges, Post, G., “Parisian Masters as a Corporation,” Speculum, IX (1934), 421–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48. On all aspects of the history of the nations, Kibre, P., The Nations in the Medieval Universities (Cambridge, Mass., 1948)Google Scholar. 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 beginnings may be placed in the second decade of the thirteenth century. There has been a tendency to see in the inception of these units an administrative role of some sort; thus Denifle, H., Die Entstehung der Universitdten des Mittelalter his 1400, I (Berlin, 1885), 104Google Scholar, saw them as organs of discipline, while Rashdall, op. cit., pp. 318–319, note 3, believed they were primarily fnnd-raising organizations also working “ad iniurias ulciscendas.” Virtually 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 assunies that the nations were in essence internally oriented, that is, university organs per se; yet, while they increasingly took on such functions particularly after the mid-thirteenth century, there is no evidence to indicate that this was their original purpose.

49. One may compare the great though unofficial statns 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 able to act as a sort of standing committee of the French, or even of the Universal, Church.” Rashdall, however, saw this statns 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 remnant of an earlier period when the university 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 stint articuli reprobati contra theologicam veritatem et reprobati a coneeliario Parisiensi Odone et magistris theologie Parisius …”But cf. Doucet, V., “La date des condemnations parisiennes dites de 1241. Faut-il corriger le Cartulaire de l'Universite?,” (Universite de Louvain, Receuib de travaux d'histoire et de philogie, third ser., 26th fasc. [Louvain, 1947]), pp. 183–193.Google Scholar

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 foundation.

57. CUP, I, no. 256.

58. H. Raahdall, op. cit., pp. 344 ff.

59. Regesta pontificum Romanaorum, ed. A. Potthast (Berlin, 1874), no. 10990Google Scholar. Burchard of Ursberg called the Franciscans “apostolicae sedis in omnibus obedientcs” (Chronicon [MGH SS, XXIII], 376).Google Scholar

60. Cf. Kuttner, S., “Cardinalis: the History of a Canonical Concept,” Traditio, III (1945), p. 177.Google Scholar

61. See B. Terney, op. cit., pp. 87 ff.

62. Ibid., pp. 157 ff.