^{page 195 note 1} de Lagarde, G., La naissance de l'esprit laïque au déclin du moyen âge (6 vols.; Saint-Paul-Trois-Châteaux-Wien 1934-46); Meinecke, F., Die Idee der Staatsräson (Munich and Berlin 1925); Post, G., ‘The Theory of Public Law and the State in the Thirteenth Century,’ Seminar (An Annual Extraordinary Number of The Jurist) 6 (1948) 42-59; Strayer, J. R., ‘Laicization of French and English Society in the Thirteenth Century,’ Speculum 15 (1940) 76-86; Powicke, F. M., ‘Reflections on the Medieval State,’ Transactions of the Royal Historical Society ⁴ 19 (1936) 1-18.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 2} For a recent treatment of nationalism and secular patriotism in the thirteenth century, see Post, G., ‘Two Notes on Nationalism in the Middle Ages,’ Traditio 9 (1953) 281–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 195 note 3} Grabmann, M., ‘Studien über den Einfluss der aristotelischen Philosophie auf die mittelalterlichen Theorien über das Verhältnis von Kirche und Staat,’ Sb. Akad. Munich 1934 Heft 2 pp. 3–129. Grabmann and others, who have blamed nearly all the secularism of the later Middle Ages on the extreme Aristotelians and Averroism, overdrive this thesis as a result of paying little attention to the revival of Roman law and to the practical needs of society.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 4} See Denomy, A. J., The Heresy of Courtly Love (New York 1947); also Gorce, M. M., ‘Averroïsme,’ DHGE 5 (1931) 1032-92; also de Meun, Jean, Roman de la Rose, vv. 5763ff., 5815ff.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 5} Wieruszowski, Helene, ‘Arezzo as a Center of Learning and Letters in the Thirteenth Century,’ Traditio 9 (1953) 321–91, esp. 374-83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 196 note 6} Kristeller, Ρ. Ο., ‘The Scholastic Background of Marsilio Ficino,’ Traditio 2 (1944) 257–70; ‘The Philosophy of Man in the Renaissance,’ Italica 14 (1947) 93-112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 196 note 7} Emerton, Ephraim, Humanism and Tyranny (Cambridge, Mass. 1925) 70–116, esp. 71-3.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 8} Op. cit. 72.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 9} See Woodward, W. H., Vittorino da Feltre and Other Humanist Educators (Cambridge 1921) 19, 30. In the treatises on education by Vergerio, Guarino, and others, I find no statement about knowledge as a gift of God, nor any discussion of fees paid by students. The common practice, of course, was the payment of fees, often in addition to salaries provided by despots or communes.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 1} The canonists used the same passage on the ideal of administering the sacraments without charge, but argued, as in the case of teaching, that in certain circumstances stole fees might be accepted. For the words, ‘Scientia donum Dei est, etc.,’ below, n. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 2} ‘Masters’ Salaries and Student-Fees in the Mediaeval Universities,’ Speculum 7 (1932) 181–98. To the references to modern studies given there add Kurtscheid, B., ‘De utriusque iuris studio saec. XIII,’ Acta Congressus Iuridici Internationalis 2 (1935) 309-42, esp. 318-20.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 3} Speculum 7.185 n. 2; on Joh. de Deo see Schulte, J. F. v., Geschichte der Quellen u. Literatur des canonischen Rechts von Gratian bis auf die Gegenwart (Stuttgart 1875-80) 2.94–107.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 4} Published by Gillmann, Franz, ‘Johannes Galensis als Glossator,’ Archiv f. kathol. Kirchenrecht 105 (1925) 496; on Joh. Gal., also Kuttner, Stephan, Repertorium der Kanonistik (1140-1234) (Città del Vaticano 1937) 345f., 355-7.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 5} On Joh. Teuton. see Kuttner, , Repertorium 93f. and references.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 6} This is the reading in the Lyons 1553 edition of the Decretum and the Glos. ord. Below I discuss how Crates became ‘Socrates,’ to nn. 16-18. The passage from St. Jerome's Ep. ad Paulinum is in CSEL 54.529, no. 58; where he tells how the Theban philosopher threw away magnum auri pondus, since he did not think that one could possess virtue and wealth at the same time.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 7} The whole gloss, to Decretum, Dist. 37 c.12 De quibusdam locis, ad v. ut magistri, reads thus: ‘Quid iuris sit de magistris habes extra, de magistr. quia nonnullis [Decr. Greg. IX (= X) 5.5.4], et extra de magist. ca. j. [ibid. 5.5.1], quia a clericis ipsius ecclesiae et a pauperibus nihil petent, ut ibi dicitur. Sed nunquid magister iure licito potest facere collectam? Videtur quod non, quia scientia donum Dei est, unde vendi non potest, ut j. q. iij. non solum [C.1 q.3 c.11]; quia professores iuris etsi honeste accipiunt, tamen inhoneste petunt, ut ff. de var. et extraor. cog. 1. j. § est enim quidam [D.50.13.1.5]. Item quia potius debent proiicere pecuniam exemplo Cratis, xij. q. ij. gloria. § Crates [c. 68]. Item quia propter honorem adipiscendum legunt, non propter utilitatem aliorum: quare tanquam suorum negotiorum gestores nihil ab auditoribus petere debent, ut ff. de neg. gest. si pupilli § ij [D. 3.5.6.2].Google Scholar

Sed contra: qui pro tempore praestat obsequium, debet consequi beneficium, ut xij. q. ii. charitatem [c. 43]. Item quare non posset magister vendere doctrinam suam, sicut iurisperitus consilium, ut xiiij. q. v. non sane [c. 13]? Item nonne testis gratis testatur, et tamen recipit procurationem, id est pecuniam procurationis nomine…; et episcopus gratis consecrat ecclesiam, tamen recipere potest procurationem…; et officium magistri remunerandum est, ut ff. de do. Aquilius [D. 39.5.27]? Google Scholar

So(lutio): tunc petat magister collectam, cum ei sua plenissime non sufficiunt, ut x. q. iij. priscis [c. 2], et xij. q. i. episcopus ecclesiasticarum rerum [c. 23]. Ioan.’ Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 8} To C.1 q.3 c.11 Non solum, ad v. retributionis: ‘Cum enim sint literati … Nam dicit etiam lex, quod civilis iuris sapientia non sit pretio nummario dehonestanda, etc., ff. de var. et extraordin. cogni. 1. j. [D. 50.13.1]. Dicit tamen lex quod tutor pro facultate pupilli debet magistro dare, ff. de administra. tutorum, 1. cum plures. § si tutor [D. 26.7.12.4 = § 3 Cum tutor].’ The passage in the Decretum, from Bede, is against selling any gratia received from God. For comments of the legists on D. 50.13.1, see below, to nn. 27, 29, 32-4, 38.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 9} To C.12 q.2 c.68, ad v. divitias; on c.68 (St. Jerome's Ep. ad Paulinum) see above, n. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 10} To C.12 q.2 c.43 Charitatem, ad v. Stipendium: ‘Argu. quod ad quem onus spectat, et emolumentum, infra, e. quicunque [c. 63]. Item est hic arg. quod iudices licite possunt petere sumptus a partibus, ut dixi xi. q. iij. non licet [c. 69]. Et est simile quod dicitur alibi, quod labor non debet esse sine fructu: ut vi. q. j. ibi [C.7 q.1 c.59].’ To C.14 q.1 c.13, ad v. accipiunt, Johannes Faventinus gives the same opinion; Joh. Teut. perhaps borrowed from Faventinus.Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 11} I quote from the edition of Lyons 1604 of the Corpus Juris Civilis and the Glos. ord. of Accursius. Cf. C. 9.27.3 Omnes. Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 12} This long gloss in the Glos. ord. of Joh. Teut. is to C.11 q.3 c.69 Non licet. Since it has been repeatedly printed, I refrain from quoting it. See also C.14 q.6 c.13 (repeats St. Augustine as in C.11 q.2 c.69); ad v. Ille Joh. Teut. argues that one can demand back any money given to a judge for a just cause, in the spirit of preserving one's right, if one loses the suit because of an unjust sentence; but not if the money was given to influence or corrupt the judge; also to c. 64, Qui recte, where he admits that some doctors of law say that, no matter how one gives money to a judge, one cannot demand it back, since the intention is always to corrupt the judge.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 13} This gloss has been published frequently in early editions of the Corpus Juris Canonici, for it was incorporated by Bernard of Parma in his Glos. ord. to the Decretals of Gregory IX (I use the edition of Lyons 1558). The gloss is to X 5.5.4 ad v. pauperes. A briefer version is in Joh.'s Apparatus to Compilatio IV, in MS Vat. lat. 1377, fol. 309^v (Bernard of Parma seems to have added passages from other glosses of Joh. Teut.).Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 14} See above, n. 13; MS Vat. lat. 1377, fol. 309^v, to Comp. IV 5.3.1 de magistris, c. Quia nonnullis (X 5.5.4) ad v. pauperes. See above, n. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 15} To Dist. 37 c. 11 (ed. Lyons 1553): ‘Ego credo, quicquid dicat Ioan., quod magister potest facere collectam, de qua vivat et procuretur, etiam si abundet: quia episcopus cum consecrat ecclesiam, et cum visitat, recipit procurationem, etiam si abundet, ut in decre. de sim. cum sit Romana [X. 5.3.10], et extra de censi. cum apostolus, et eo. tit. sopite [X 3.39.6 and 14]. Nec vendit magister scientiam, quia aestimari non potest, sed pro labore suo promittitur ei premium. Nam praedicator non dicitur vendere praedicationem, et tamen petere potest sustentationem suam … Bart.' Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 16} Crates, I have shown, in St. Jerome's Ep. ad Paulinum, and in the ed. Lyons 1553 of the Decretum and the Glos. ord. of Johannes (above, nn. 6, 9). (Mr. Giocarinis points out to me that the story of Crates of Thebes is preserved also by Diogenes Laertius, 6. 85-93, 96-8; see also RE 11.2 [1922] 1625-31.) But the name is Socrates in a thirteenth-century MS of the Decretum (Paris, BN MS lat. 3903. fol. 40^rb: ‘exemplo socratis, ut xii. q. ii. socrates’); in Joh. Teut.'s Appar. to Comp. IV (1216-17) in MS Vat. lat. 1377, fol. 309^v; in a gloss by Laurentius Hispanus, 1210-15, to Dist. 37 c.11 De quibusdam, ad v. ubi beneficium: ‘Non debet esse cupidus; immo debet immitare socratem’ (in Paris, BN MS lat. 15393, fol. 39^rb; on these glosses see Kuttner, , Repertorium 76f.); and in the gloss, possibly by Laurentius, or by Silvester, to Comp. III 1.6.7 de electione. c. Dudum (X 1.6.22), ad v. faciebat: ‘… sed videtur postponendus exemplo socratis, qui non putavit cum divitiis virtutes posse possideri…’ (Paris, BN MS lat. 15398, fol. 115^rb; on this Appar. see Kuttner, , Repertorium 356; Post, G., ‘The So-called Laurentius Apparatus to the Decretals of Innocent III in Compilatio III,’ in The Jurist 2 [1942] 3-29).Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 17} Haskins, C. H., Renaissance of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, Mass. 1927) 344.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 18} To C.12 q.2 c.68 Gloria, ad v. Crates ille: ‘Socrates nomen est philosophi': Summa Parisiensis, ed. Terence P. McLaughlin (Toronto 1952) 163.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 19} Paris, BN MS nouv. acq. lat. 1576, fol. 65^rb to Dist. 37 c.11 De quibusdam locis, ad v. assidue doceant: ‘Et debet ei episcopus providere, ut extra, de magistris, quoniam. Sed nunquid illi magistri poterint aliquid petere a scolaribus? Dicunt quod non, si propter hoc habeant stipendia assignata…; aliter possunt…’ On this Appar. see Kuttner, , Repertorium 59–66.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 20} Paris, BN MS lat. 15393, fol. 39^rb, to Dist. 37 c.11, ad v. studia: ‘§ … Item queritur si doctor a scolaribus aliquid possit accipere. Utique pro labore suo. Ubi beneficium habet sibi canonice assignatum, ut gratis doceat, nichil debet accipere… Et si accipit, intelligo quod simoniam committit, quoniam secundum regulam generaliter tenendum est, quod quicumque pretium accipit, ut faciat quod ex officio sibi spiritualiter iniuncto gratis facere tenetur, simoniam committit. Si autem beneficium fuerit sibi assignatum, non tamen canonice ut gratis doceat, si aliquid accipit, turpiter facit, non tamen simoniam committit…’ On the Apparatus, see Kuttner, , Repertorium 67–74; also Kuttner, , ‘Bernardus Compostellanus Antiquus,’ Traditio 1 (1943) 289. Alanus expresses the same opinion in slightly different words, to Compilatio I 5.4.1 de magistris, c. Quoniam (X 5.5.1 — the decree of the Third Lat. Council, 1179), ad v. ad subsidium corporis: ‘§ … Si beneficium hoc duobus assi[g]natum non fuerit, gratis docere non tenetur… Sed pone quod assignatum sit beneficium ad hoc ut gratis doceat, si aliquis aliquid accipiat, committitne simoniam? Respondeo utique, si canonice habeat beneficium. Si autem non canonice, accipiendo delinquit, sed simoniam non committit,’ Paris, BN MS lat. 3932, fol. 58^rb; cf. Kuttner, , Repertorium 325, 337.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 21} Paris, BN MS lat. 15393, fol, 39^rb, to Dist. 37 c.11, ad v. studia, where Alanus says: 'Ubi beneficium habet sibi canonice assignatum, ut gratis doceat, nichil debet accipere'; Laurentius adds, after ‘accipere’: ‘ab aliis autem potest. la.’ Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 22} The reference is to D 26.7.12.3, which deals with the obligation of the guardian to take care of his wards.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 23} The gloss of Damasus is in MS Paris, BN lat. 3930, fol. 59^va, to Comp. I 5.4.1 ad v. gratis doceat: ‘§ Magistri ergo, ut gratis doceant, de communi percipiant [that is, masters provided with benefices to teach in cathedral schools]. Magistri autem nostri, cum se ingerant et ad suum commodum legant, dona a nobis exigere non debent. Immo et si non bene instruant, tene[n]tur actione negotiorum gestorum, non nos eis, ff. de neg. gest. si pupilli § iij [D. 3.5.6.3 = 3.5.5.5]. Accedunt enim ad negocia nostra utilitate sua. Ar[gumentum] tamen est contra ff. de aminis. tu., cum plures § cum tutor [D. 26.7.12.3], “pro facultate patrimonii et dignitate natalium.” Immo nec legiste aliquid peteret possunt, ff. de variis et exterior [sic] cognit. 1. i. § an [D. 50.13.1.4]; et philosophi, nam et mercenariam operam semper debent, ut ibi dicitur, xij. q. ii. aureum [C.12. q.2 c.67]. Sed nonne legitur, ff. de institut. et iur. et iur. [sic, for ff. de iustitia et iure], 1. i [D. 1.1.1] “veram, nisi fallor, philosophiam affectantes, non simulatam”? Ergo sunt philosophi legiste, et ita nichil pecunie debent exigere, C. de muneribus patrimo. professio. 1. i [C. 10.41.6]. Item contra, nam officium magistri, quod nos eloquentia et diligentia sua reddit meliores, mercede remunerandum est, ff. de donat, aquilius. iuvenis. 1. i [D. 39.5. 27], C. de neg. gest. § si paterno affectu [C. 2.19.15]; et Sabinus a suis auditoribus sustentatus est, ut ff. de origine iu. 1. ii. § ult. [D. 1.2.2.47]. d.” ‘ On Damasus see Kuttner, , Repertorium 328, 394.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 24} See the references in Speculum 7.184, 185, 189-91; and in general the glosses and comments to X 5.5 De magistris. Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 25} D. 50.5.8.4: ‘… Etenim vere philosophantes pecuniam contemnunt.' Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 26} The Emperors Diocletian and Maximian scolded a self-styled philosophus for refusing to accept his patrimonial obligations, since a philosopher should overcome avarice and greediness (C. 10.41.6). The Roman law exempted teachers of the liberal arts, philosophy, and law from many personal munera or onera (C. 10.41.3; D. 27.1.6; D. 50.5.8-9), but not from patrimonial duties and obligations.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 27} D. 50.13.1.5: ‘Est quidem res sanctissima civilis sapientia, sed quae precio nummario non sit aestimanda, nec dehonestanda… Quaedam enim tametsi honeste accipiantur, inhoneste tamen petuntur.' Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 28} To D. 1.3.2 Nam et: ‘… et quod ibi dicit donum Dei, ideo dicit quia nutu divino faciunt principes…, cum propter hoc fecerit Deus imperatores… Omnis enim sapientia a domino deo est.’ My references are to the Lyons 1604 edition of the Corpus juris civilis and the Glos. ord. of Accursius.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 29} To D. 1.1.1, ad v. sacerdotes (the glossator refers, of course, inter alia, to D. 1.1.10, Ulpian's famous definition of justice; see also the gloss to this definition, ad v. cuique); and to D. 50.13.1.5, ad v. ingressu sacramenti. Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 30} To D. 1.1.1, ad v. nisi fallor: ‘Nullo modo fallimur, nam civilis sapientia vera philosophia dicitur, id est amor sapientiae: a philos, quod est amor, et sophia, id est, sapientia…' Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 31} Glos. ord. to D. 27.1.6.7, ad v. manifesti: ‘Nam vere philosophantes pecunias contemnunt… ‘; of course this is from Papinian in D. 50.5.8.4.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 32} To D. 50.13.1.4-5, ad v. aestimanda: ‘Potest ergo scientia donari, non vendi…'; ad v. petitur: ‘scilicet, a scholari per doctorem.' Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 33} To D. 50.13.1.5, ad v. ingressu sacramenti: ‘… et secundum hoc in principio studii sunt offerenda dona… Sed an pro donis que hodie fiunt, possit agere doctor, cum ipse non loquitur cum promittitur? Resp. sic, qui consentit, quod sufficit…’ In his quaestiones, the glossator Hugolinus discusses the old, sophistic insolubile concerning the professor who has stipulated with his student a fee to be paid only if and when the latter wins his first case in court; the master then sues for his fee. If he wins, he has lost his right to a fee; if his action is denied, the student cannot be made to pay, see Le quaestiones di Ugolino glossatore , ed. Rivalta, V. (Bologna 1891) q.35, p.123f.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 34} The Casus to D.50.31.1.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 35} To D. 1.1.1.1, ad v. nisi fallor: ‘… nam civilis sapientia vera philosophia dicitur…; licet pecuniam non abiiciamus…’ Since the glossator refers to Papinian in D. 50.5.8.4 (‘Etenim vere philosophantes pecuniam contemnunt’), it would be better and kinder to translate ‘abiiciamus’ as ‘reject’ or ‘scorn.’ But why does the glossator refer to Papinian, and yet say that the jurists do not reject money? I think it is because he was hasty in his reference, and intended to give, instead of ‘ut infra, de vaca. et excu. mu. 1. in honoribus. § philosophis’ (D. 50.5.8.4), ‘ut infra. de extra. cognit. 1. praeses. § proinde,’ which is D. 50.13.1.4-5, where Ulpian says that while philosophers and professors of civil law should spurn money, nonetheless ‘tametsi honeste accipiantur, inhoneste tamen petuntur.’ In fact, the glossator had already referred to D. 50.13.1.5 in connection with his calling civilis sapientia a vera philosophia; above, n. 30.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 36} See above, to n. 23.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 37} To D. 50.13.1.5, ad v. honor: ‘id est salarium…; qui [sc. honor] debet dari pro facultate et dignitate donantis…, et etiam eius cui donatur.’ Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 38} To C. 10.22.1, ad v. inopes: ‘Et… nota, aequaliter pauperes et divites secundum quantitatem patrimonii pati collectas, non secundum munus personarum…’ This law has nothing to do with students and their fees, but is referred to in glosses on students and teachers.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 39} Quoted in Speculum 7.191.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 40} See the complaint of Boncompagno in his Rhetorica antiqua , Rockinger, L., Briefsteller und Formelbücher (Quellen u. Erörterungen 9.1 [1863] 154); also Barraclough, G., ‘Formulare für Suppliken aus der ersten Hälfte des 13. Jhts.,’ Archiv f. kathol. Kirchenrecht 105 (1935) 455. See also Rashdall, , The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages , ed. Powicke, and Emden, (Oxford 1936) 1.192, 208-9 (on Odofredo and others).Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 41} See Rashdall 1.210 f. n. 4; 240.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 42} For the opinions of Joh. Teutonicus on this and other passages in the Decretum see above, n. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 43} Commentario, in tres posteriores libros Codicis Iustiniani (Lyons 1597) 717–8, nos. 8-16, to C. 12.19.2. On Lucas see Ullmann, Walter, The Medieval Idea of Law as Represented by Lucas de Penna (London 1946) 15-9; here Ullmann shows how Lucas, like the glossators, believed that law is divine, a gift of God, no less sacred than theology; and that jurists are properly called sacerdotes. Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 44} Quoted by Paul Fournier, in Histoire littéraire de la France 37 (1938) 77 n. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 45} See Marcel, and Dickson, Christiane, ‘Le Cardinal Robert de Courson. Sa vie,’ Archives d'hist. doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 9 (1934) 72f. In his Summa Robert Curzon felt that fees could be paid to masters in the Faculty of Arts at Paris, but not to theologians and others in compensation for opera ‘que ad mores pertinent et ad fidem.’ On Pierre de la Palu, above, n. 44.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 46} See my ‘Masters’ Salaries, etc.,’ Speculum 7.197, and Rashdall, , Universities 1.471 n. 2. As for Paulsen's suggestion, referred to by Rashdall, that it was considered simoniacal to take fees for lectures on theology and canon law, it was simony only in the case of the teacher who had a benefice for teaching in the cathedral school; it was not simony in the case of masters in the Universities, even if they had benefices, for their benefices were not assigned to them as teachers — see above, n. 20. It was held by some canonists that it was simony if a chancellor or a magister scholarum sold the license to teach theology or canon law, but only crimen concussionis if he sold the license to teach other subjects (e.g., gloss to Dist. 37 c. De quibusdam, ad v. assidue doceant, in Paris MS n.a.l. 1576 fol. 65^rb; also Alanus, ad v. studia, in MS lat. 15393 fol. 39^rb; and a gloss to Comp. I 5.4.2 de magistris, c. Prohibeas, ad v. restitui, in MS lat. 15398 fol. 269^va).Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 47} See above, n. 20 and n. 46.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 48} Naturally custom sometimes made compulsory what started out as voluntary.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 49} To C.12 q.2 c.68 Gloria, and to Joh. Teutonicus's gloss ad v. divitias (‘Nam vere philosophantes contemnunt pecuniam…’), on the word contemnunt: ‘Id est non ponunt animum in divitiis; alias divites cum bonis operibus non abiicimus, xxx. dist. c. pe. [c. 16 Haec autem] Arc.’ (Arc. is for Guido de Baysio, the Archdeacon.) Joh. Teuton. to Dist. 30 c. 16 Haec autem, ad v. divites: ‘Non est contra illud, facilius est camelum per foramen acus transire: quia illud de talibus intelligitur, qui in diuitiis spem ponentes, gratius intuentur aurum quam solem…’ Cf. above to nn. 7-12. Google Scholar

In 1283-84, Master Jean de Maligny, proctor of the Faculty of Arts at Paris, defended the professors in that faculty from the chancellor's accusation that they lectured only for money. Jean declared that they lectured for the utility both of themselves and of their students, and that surely the chancellor would not want those who had insufficient bona patrimonialia to lecture for nothing — he should at least furnish them with their livelihood (victualia) if he wanted them to teach. For without victuals no man can possibly do any good. As Aristotle says in the Ethics, it is impossible for one who is indigent to do good works (a proposition condemned in 1277 at Paris), and human nature demands nourishment in food to prevent the continual loss of ‘internal humidity,’ as the Philosopher seems to hint in the De anima 2. ‘I say, moreover, that our masters receive no more for lectures, on any book whatever, than was received in past times.’¹ Thus instead of referring directly to the legal arguments in favor of accepting payment for teaching, Jean de Maligny turned to Aristotle. Let us, then, examine first the ancient Greek opinions, particularly those of Aristotle; then we can turn to the Aristotelians at Paris.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 1} See Chartularium Univ. Paris. 1 (Paris 1889) 609. The Aristotelian notion that a person destitute of external goods cannot act well in the moral sphere figures among the propositions condemned by Stephen Tempier in 1277; ibid. 543ff., no. 170.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 2} The term ‘philosophy’ is used here in its unrestricted sense to refer to the higher forms of πα δεíα. Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 3} Zeller, E., A History of Greek Philosophy from the Earliest Period to the Time of Socrates, trans. Aleyne, S. F. (London 1881) II 434–437. Jaeger, W., Paideia, trans. Highet, G. (New York 1943) II 111ff.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 4} Xenophon, , Memorabilia 1.6. 13: ὃστις δὲ ὃν ἂν γνῷ εὐφνᾶ ἂντα διδάσϰων ὃτι ἂν ἀγαθòν φίλον ποιεῖται, τοῦτον νομίζομεν ἃ τῷ ϰαλῷ ϰἀθαγῷ πολίτ πϱοσήϰει ταῦτα ποιεῖν. For the customary ideas of the Greeks see also Grant, A., The Ethics of Aristotle (London 1874) I 119-20 and G. Lodge's comment (p. 249) in his edition of Gorgias (Boston 1891).Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 5} Zeller, , Hist. Greek Philos. 2.435–6.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 6} Plato, , Hippias Major 283a.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 7} For the history of the term ‘sophist,’ see Aristides, , ‘Yπὲϱ τῶν τεττάϱωv 46.310–315 (ed. Dindorf, 2.405-14); Grote, G., History of Greece, reprinted from the London edition (N. Y. 1857) 8.350ff.; Sidgwick, H., ‘The Sophists,’ Journal of Philology 4 (1872) 288-307, 5 (1873) 66-80; Grant, , Ethics of Aristotle 1.140ff.; Zeller, , Hist. 2.430ff.; Untersteiner, M. (ed.), I sofisti: testimonianze e frammenti, I: Protagora e Seniade (Biblioteca di studi superiori; Filologia Greca 4; Florence 1949) xv-xxii, 2-13.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 8} Xenophon, , On Hunting 13.7–10; Plato, , The Sophist 218e-226a. ‘Mathematopoly’ is B. Jowett's transliteration of the Platonic term The Dialogues of Plato (4th ed. Oxford 1953) 3.370.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 9} Plato, , Apology 31b.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 10} Grant, , Ethics of Aristotle 1.120–1; Zeller, , History 2.439.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 11} Note for example the statement attributed to Protagoras in Plato, , Protagoras 328b; cf. 318d.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 12} Plato, , The Sophist 223d; Gorgias 520c; Isocrates, , Against the Sophists 5; cf. Grant, , Ethics of Aristotle 1.120, and Zeller, , History 2.430-1, 437.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 13} ‘The Sophists,’ Journal of Philology 4 (1872) 302–3.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 14} Institutio oratoria 12.7.9: ‘At si res familiaris amplius aliquid ad usus necessarios exiget, secundum omnium sapientium leges patietur sibi gratiam referri, cum et Socrati collatum sit ad victum, et Zeno, Cleanthes, Chrysippus mercedes a discipulis acceptaverint thus Quintilian would also have us believe that the Stoics formally abandoned the principle of free instruction. Continuing his defense of the proposition that a rhetor can with credit accept a recompense for the services he renders to others, he avows that he does not know of a better way to make an honest living than by the performance of the most noble of tasks and by accepting a return from those to whom one has rendered such noteworthy services and who, if they failed to offer a reward for what was done for them, would be showing themselves unworthy of having been defended. But moderation is to be observed and it makes a great difference from whom an orator receives payment, and how much and for how long. He should not attempt to gain more than is sufficient for his needs; and in accepting a reward he should accept it not as a wage, but as a token of gratitude, conscious of the fact that he has conferred much more than what he is receiving in return. Because benefits of this nature cannot be sold, it does not follow that they should be thrown away (‘Non enim, quia venire hoc beneficium non oportet, oportet perire’).Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 15} Plato, , Gorgias, 519c–520c; Aristotle, , Nicomachean Ethics 9.1, 1164a 27. Isocrates, , Against the Sophists 2-9. For Isocrates’ own estimate of himself, see his Antidosis 151-8, 195-242. In the Gorgias, Plato remarks humorously that if it were true, as the sophists claim it to be, that they imparted justice to their students (διϰαιοσύνη), then the presumption would be that they were the only class who could safely spare their services in advance of remuneration, while on the contrary, ‘if a man has been taught to run by a trainer, he might possibly defraud him of his pay, if the trainer left the matter to him, instead of settling a fee beforehand and getting the money at the same time as he was giving the speed.’ The sophists and the rhetors were also the only class who could not afford the luxury of complaining that they had been defrauded of their fees, without admitting by the same token that they had failed to teach their subject and that they therefore deserved no pay! Isocrates, too, points out the inconsistency in claiming to make men better while asking for an advance payment of fees. He also laments the setting of such an insignificant price as 3-4 minae (the fee of some of the sophists) on the whole stock of virtue and happiness which they (the sophists) claimed to impart.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 16} Plato, , Protagoras 349a.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 17} Diogenes Laertius 9.52. For the fees claimed by the sophists and their reputed gains see Zeller, , History Greek Philos. 2.409 n. 2; 410 n. 1; 415 n. 3; 418 n. 1; 420 n. 3; 441 n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 18} Plato, , Protagoras 328b.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 19} Aristotle, , Nic. Eth. 9.1, 1164a 24.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 20} Nic. Eth. 5.5, 1132b 31 - 1133a 2; 10.1, 1164a 1.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 21} Nic. Eth. 9.1, 1163b 32.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 22} Ibid. 1164b 3; cf. Eud. Eth. 7.10, 1243b 22.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 23} Implied in Nic. Eth. 8.13-4; 9.1.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 24} Nic. Eth. 8.13, 1162b 31; Eud. Eth. 7.10, 1242b 22ff.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 25} Nic. Eth. 4.1, 1164a 22; 1164b 6.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 26} Cf. Stewart, J. A., Notes on the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle (Oxford 1892) 2.339.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 27} Nic. Eth. 9.1, 1164a 24.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 28} Ibid. 1164a 27; cf. Stewart, , Notes 2.340-1. Reference is made to the line in Hesiod (Works and Days 368): ‘Let the promised reward of a friend be sure. And with a smile set a witness even on a brother. For faith and unfaith are alike the bane of men.’ The translation is by Mair, A. W., Hesiod: Poems and Fragments (Oxford 1908) 14.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 29} Nic. Eth. 9.1, 1164b 6; cf. 8.13, 1163a 16: ἡ τοῦ παθόντος ὠφέλεια μέτϱον ἐατίν. Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 30} Nic. Eth. 8.13, 1163a 22: μέτϱῳ δ’ ἒοιϰεν ἡ τοῦ δϱάσαντος πϱοαίϱεσις. Cf. 9.1, 1164b 1: τὴν ἀμοιβήν τε ποιητέον ϰατὰ τὴν πϱοαίϱεσιν. See Stewart's explanation of these passages (Stewart, Notes 2.335-6, 342); cf. Burnet, J., The Ethics of Aristotle (London 1900) 403, and Grant, , Ethics of Aristotle 2.283-4.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 31} Nic. Eth. 9.1, 1164b 2. Grant interprets Aristotle to mean that as in the case of the ϰατ’ ἀϱετὴν φιλία, the standard in accordance with which a return should be made for philosophical instruction is ή τοῦ δϱάσαντος πϱοαίϱεσις : Grant, , Ethics 2.283–4. This assumption is unwarranted. Aristotle considers the two cases comparable but not identical: just as in the case of friendship based on virtue, repayment should not be made for results because it is the moral purpose, the will, or intention of the giver which is essential, so in the case of philosophical instruction repayment should not be made for results. This time, however, not because it is the intention of the benefactor which is essential, but because the value and philosophical instruction cannot be balanced against any other goods. See Burnet, , Ethics 403.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 32} Note Michael of Ephesus’ comment: ἀλλά δεῖ ϰαὶ ἐνταῦθα πϱος τοὺς ϰαθηγεμόνας τιμὴν ἒχειν ϰἂν τοῦ δέωνται ἐπαϱϰεῖν τοὺς μεμαθηϰότας εἰ δύνανται ὡς τάχιστα, ed. G. Heylbut, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 20 (Berlin 1892) 467.25-7.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 33} Post, G., ‘Master's Salaries and Student-Fees in Mediaeval Universities,’ Speculum 7.181–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 217 note 34} Grote, , History of Greece 8.354.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 35} Proverbs 3.15: ‘She (wisdom) is more precious than all riches, and all things that are desired are not compared with her.’ See also Proverbs 23.23; above, Part I, to n. 42.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 36} See, for example, above Pt. I, notes 8, 16, 33; cf. below notes 42, 46.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 37} See above, Pt. I, notes 11, 14, 16, 21, 43, 49; cf. below, notes 42, 46.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 38} Nic. Eth. 10.8, 1177b 24 - 1179a 33; see also 1.9, 1099b 9 and 10.9, 1179b 20; cf. Plato, , Meno 100b.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 39} The Erfurt and Erlangen commentaries are among those to which the late M. Grabmann called attention in his study, Der lateinische Averroismus des 13. Jahrhunderts und seine Stellung zur christlichen Weltanschauung (Sb. Akad. Munich 1931, Heft 2). For the dating of these commentaries see Lottin, O., ‘A propos de la date de certains commentaires sur l’Éthique,’ Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 17 (1950) 127–33. The commentary contained in MSS Vat. lat. 832 and 2172 does not cover books VIII and IX of the Ethics; and unfortunately I had no access to the commentaries contained in MSS Vat. lat. 2173 and Paris BN lat. 15106, nor to that of Giles of Orleans, which are complete. See Gauthier, R. A., ‘Trois commentaires “averroistes” sur l’Éthique à Nicomaque,’ Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 22-3 (1947-48) 189-224.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 40} Albert the Great, In Eth. 9.1.2: ‘Et ad talem modum amicitiae videntur referri illi qui in philosophia communicant. Philosophia enim essentialis est felicitati contemplativae. Et philosophari sicut in theorematibus actus est talis felicitatis. Propter quod comphilosophantes dignitatem operum suorum ad pecunias non referunt. Pecuniis enim non potest mensurari quod accipiens ministrat: sed forte quod sufficiens est secundum propriam facultatem, ideo acceptum fit, quod plus non potest: quemadmodum non sufficiens, sed quod possumus quod contingens est nobis secundum propriam facultatem, reministramus ad Deum et ad parentes…’ ed. Borgnet 7.562.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 41} Thomas, , In Eth. 9.1.1768: ‘Et sicut hoc observatur in amicitia que consistit in communicatione virtutis, sic etiam observandum est in communicatione philosophiae, puta inter magistrum et discipulum. Non enim dignitas philosophiae, quam quis addiscit, potest mensurari secundum pecuniam nec potest discipulus aequale pretium magistro reddere: sed forte reddendum est illud quod sufficit, sicut Deo et parentibus’ ed. Pirotta 568.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 42} Thomas, , Sum. Theol. 2.2.100.3.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 43} Cf. above, Pt. I, notes 8, 12, 14.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 44} Post, , ‘Master's Salaries,’ Speculum 7,181–2, 188; cf. above, pt. I, notes 20, 21, 22, 24, 47.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 45} Cf. above, Pt. I notes 11, 14, 16, 21, 43, 49.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 46} Thomas, , In IV Sent. 25.3.2.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 47} Thomas, influenced by the legists, does not discuss the problem of remuneration for philosophical instruction in Aristotelian terms or in an Aristotelian context. In his Ethics commentary he concluded with Aristotle that repayment for philosophical instruction should be proportionate to one's abilities. Can such repayment assume a form other than that of honor and reverence? In its general form this question is answered in Sum. Theol. 2.2.106.3: a man owes his benefactor, as such, honor and reverence; accidentally, however, he owes him also assistance and support, if he needs it. Nicolas of Oresme specifically applied this principle to the master-disciple relationship. Commenting on Aristotle's remark that the scholar ought to make a return according to his ability, he writes: Vest à savoir, honeur, service et aide selon sa possibilité, se ilz en ont mestier,’ Menut, A.D., ed., Maistre Nicole Oresme: Le Livre de Ethiques d'Aristote (New York 1940) 454.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 48} Fol. 114^ra, line 3: ‘Queritur utrum aliquis debet facere retributionem pro dono philosophie. Videtur quod non’ etc.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 49} Fol. 114^ra, line 8: ‘Pro illo quod gratis datur, non debet fieri retributio, sed gratis etiam dari debet; sed bonum philosophie datur gratis, quod apparet in .x°. huius per philosophum, ubi vult, quod felices et philosophi beneficiati sunt maxime ab ipso deo, et quod inter alia bona istud bonum, quod est bonum philosophie, venit a deo gratis. Ergo,’ etc. Cf. Matthew 10.8; see above, Part I.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 50} Fol. 114^ra, line 13.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 51} Fol. 114^ra line 23: ‘Tercio est intelligendum, quod quamquam doctores pro dono philosophie non debent petere retributionem, tamen discipuli semper tenentur ipsis ad retributionem faciendam; cuius ratio est, quia ipsi discipuli beneficiati sunt a doctoribus, et ergo teneantur ipsis sicut beneficiatus beneficiatori; et ideo semper debent ipsis retribuere reverentiam et honorem, quia non condignum possunt discipuli retribuere doctoribus, sicut nec filli parentibus. Quia ex quo dono philosophie nihil potest equiparari, non potest ipsi fieri digna recompensatio, et ergo semper tenentur discipuli doctoribus.’ Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 52} Fol. 114^ra, line 32: ‘Tamen si aliqui faciant retributionem secundum potentiam suam, tales laudandi sunt, sicut filii, licet non possint condignum retribuere parentibus, si tamen faciant quod possunt et quod in ipsis est, laudandi sunt.' Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 53} Fol. 114^ra, line 39: ‘Consequenter queritur utrum pro dono philosophie retributio facienda sit secundum estimationem recipientis vel doctoris. ‘ Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 54} Ibid. line 50.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 55} Ibid. line 60.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 56} See above, n. 29. Nic. Eth. 1164a 33 - 1164b 2 ought to be rendered in the manner of Thomas: ‘In amicitia autem honesti debet in recompensatione haberi respectus ad electionem, sive ad affectum dantis, quia hoc praecipue requiritur ad virtutem,’ etc. Sum. Theol. 2.2.106.5; cf. Thomas, , In Eth. 9.1.1767. It is the beneficiary who always fixes the return, but in this case in responding he considers the moral state from which the act proceeded (affectus) rather than the thing given or the result (effectus). Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 57} Fol. 76^va: ‘Deinde queritur circa nonum. Et primo queritur utrum pro dono philosophie debeat benefactor petere retributionem. Et arguitur quod non, quia cui nulla res est equiparabalis, pro illius dono non debet peti retributio,’ etc.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 58} Fol. 76^va: ‘sicut filii parentibus et causis esse et vivere tenentur retribuere maximum quod potest homo, scilicet, honorem et reverentiam, ita et doctoribus discipuli; et tanto magis quanto quod doctores dant nobilior perfectio est quam quod dant parentes; et sicut filii parentibus quantumque reddant ad hoc debitores remanent, ita et discipuli doctoribus.' Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 59} Fol. 76^va. The rule that one must make a return proportionate to the benefit received does not apply when the gift consists in philosophical instruction: ‘Recompensatio maxime debet respicere affectum dantis quam effectum. Modo si consideramus esse et vivere receptum a parentibus et etiam intelligere et scientiam receptam a doctoribus, non potest fieri recompensatio… Si tamen ad affectum benefacientis [?] recompensantis respiciatur, bene potest fieri recompensatio. Potest enim filius affectum plene reddendi et esse et vivere parentibus si esset ordo nature, et similiter discipulus doctori.’ Cf. Thomas, , Sum. Theol. 2.2.106.6.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 60} Erfurt, MS Amplon. F. 13, fol. 89^rb: ‘Queritur utrum felicitas hominis sit a causa divina sive a deo immissa.’ Cf. Erlangen, MS Univ. 213 (485) fol. 52^rb: ‘Queritur utrum felicitas sit a deo immissa.’ In both commentaries the question is answered negatively. See Grabmann, , Der lateinische Averroismus des 13. Jahrhunderts 37–46, 51-5.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 61} Above, to n. 49. But this may not be the author's opinion.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 1} All glosses to be studied here are found in Migne, , Patrologia latina (= PL), and will best be identified individually. The frequent inadequacy of Migne's text is notorious, but for this survey of limited scope where lengthy documentation is out of the question, the consistent use of a widely available text seems advisable. Only for directly quoted or cogent passages will the Latin text be given.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 2} Vulgate citations are from the edn. of Wordsworth, J. and White, H. J., Nouum Testamentam latine secundum editionem sancti Hieronymi (Editio minor, Oxford 1920). Scriptural passages quoted in the sources have not been made to conform with this edition, but citations have uniformly been made from it. English translations are primarily drawn from The New Testament … translated from the Latin Vulgate (the Reims N.T. of 1582; my copy is dated New York 1924), but occasionally I have used either the King James or my own version.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 3} Matthew's account is paralleled by Mk. 6.7-13, Lk. 9.1-6, and Lk. 10.1-20, which last is Christ's expedition of the seventy-two, containing this significant variant: ‘In eadem autem domo manete, edentes et bibentes quae apud illos sunt: dignus enim est operarius mercede sua’ (v. 7).Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 4} St. Jerome, , Commentarium in Evangelium Matthaei (PL 26.62-5), gll. ad vv. Gratis accepistis … cibo suo. Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 5} The following summary is of the gl. ad vv. Dignus … cibo suo. The ideal expounded previously is not, however, untempered with common sense. Glossing neque duas tunicas, Jerome says: ‘In duabus tunicis videtur mihi duplex ostendere vestimentum. Non quo in locis Scythiae et glaciali nive rigentibus una quis tunica debeat esse contentus: sed quo in tunica vestimentum intelligamus: ne alio vestiti, aliud nobis futurorum timore servemus.’ Plato is cited as teaching that head and feet should not be covered — a reference to Socrates’ ascetic habit, familiar even in our time, for Maxwell Anderson entitled his recent dramatic characterization of him, ‘Barefoot in Athens.' Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 6} St. Augustine of Hippo, De consensu Evangelistarum 2.30 (PL 34.1112-14), especially col. 1113: ‘Unde satis ostendit cur eos haec possidere ac ferre noluerit: non quod necessaria non sint sustentationi hujus vitae; sed quia sic eos mittebat, ut eis haec deberi demonstraret ab illis ipsis quibus Evangelium credentibus annuntiarent, tanquam stipendia militantibus, tanquam fructum vineae plantatoribus, tanquam lac gregis pastoribus.' Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 7} Maurus, Rabanus, Commentarium in Matthaeum (PL 107.892-5). The principal points of Jerome's exposition analyzed above are quoted (892-3) following his sigilla, Rabanus apparently adding the passage ‘Considerandum nobis … laetificans,’ 893. The condensation of Augustine's discussion follows, 894. The two comments which I have here attributed to Rabanus occur, one (noted above) between the extracts from Jerome, and the other directly following the interpretation of Augustine. I cannot find the text ‘Tanta ergo praedicatori … nuitrisque’ (894-5) in the De cons. Evang. and therefore have attributed it to Rabanus.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 8} Christiani Druthmari Corbeiensis monachi Expositio in Matthaeum (PL 106.1346-7), where an interesting comment is made ad vv. neque pecuniam in zonis vestris: ‘Quod duobus modis intelligi debet, ut neque pro ornamento aurum et gemmas in zonis suis ponerent, neque sacellos cum denariis ad zonas alligarent. Pecunia, denarios de aere dicit, unde tunc negotiabatur. Unde cum Joanne dixit ad cl[a]udum: “Argentum et aurum on est mecum”‘ (Acts 3.6).Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 9} Radbertus, Paschasius, Expositio in Matthaeum (PL 120.412-7).Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 10} ‘Sed quaeritur quomodo gratis dare debeant, quod gratis acceperunt, si dignus est operarius mercede sua, et ex hac mercede sumptus vitae necessarios licet accipere a suis auditoribus. Quod ita solvitur. Aliud est enim pro mercede lucri, verbi mysteria impendere, commoda praesentis vitae hinc requirere: aliud victum vix necessarium, et illud non ut vivamus tantum, sed ut libere praedicare possimus, accipere. Quae licet jam de mercede sint operis, tamen Evangelii sunt lucra. Et ideo justum est ab eis accipere stipendia sumptus, quibus offerimus coelestis vitae praemia: quoniam haec interdum evangelizandi gratia nobis sunt necessaria. Unde sint ista necessitate praedicatoribus concessa non lucri causa quaesita; et vitae sacramenta fidelibus, gratis quidem, sed non pro mercede, impensa. Quae nimirum merces ita de laboribus hic inchoatur fidelium, ut illic de veritatis visione compleatur jure credentibus’ (PL 120.416). This quaestio I reprint both for its concise analysis and as a methodological parallel to the continuity of tradition in exegesis; see Smalley, B., The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (2nd ed. New York 1952) 72: ‘The patristic tradition of “questioning” and discussing problems, which had been continued by ninth-century scholars [e.g. Paschasius], never seems to have lapsed altogether.’ Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 11} St. Bruno of Asti, Commentarium in Matthaeum (PL 165.158-9).Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 12} The disputatio in m niature which follows the first quotation, conducted between Bruno and a simoniac, dramatizes the Church's answer to corruption: ‘Sed dicit simoniacus: ego gratis non accepi, gratis dare non possum. Si gratis non accepisti, a Domino non accepisti; Dominus enim nulli dat nisi gratis. Noli igitur dare neque gratis, neque non gratis: non enim tibi ista dicuntur: “Nolite possidere aurum … mercede sua”: his enim verbis omnis cupiditatis et avaritiae occasio tollitur, omne superfluum amputatur, et sola necessaria conceduntur. His denique expeditur via, fugit timor, crescit securitas: unde non immerito quidam ait: “Cantabit vacuus coram latrone viator”.’ The second precept reads: ‘Quod autem ait: “Dignus est operarius mercede sua,” tale est ac si diceret: Nihil nisi Evangelium feratis, in eo laborate, de ipso vivite, dignus est enim operarius mercede sua’; and Bruno cites in support of this 1 Cor. 9.11: ‘Si nos vobis spiritualia seminavimus, [non] magnum est, si carnalia vestra metamus,’ and 2 Tim. 5.18 (which in turn cites Deut. 35.4; cf. 1 Cor. 9.9): ‘Non infrenabis [alligabis] os bovi trituranti.' Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 13} R. D. D. Ruperti abbatis monasterii S. Heriberti Tuitiensis Commentaria in Malthaeum (PL 168.1489-91).Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 14} ‘Nam haec est ipsius sententia Verbi ministros suos in suum opus emittentis’ (PL 168.1491).Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 15} Anselm of Laon, Enarrationes in Matthaeum (PL 162.1340-2).Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 16} ‘In pera vero solent poni casei, panes, piper, candela, vel consimilia necessaria, et ideo per eam accipitur omne necessarium in via’ (PL 162.1341).Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 17} The source of this tradition is unknown to me; it seemingly contradicts the statements of John 12.6, of Paschasius (PL 120.412), and of the Glossa ordinaria that Judas, not Christ, held the common purse. If the Lord carried the common purse, His request for a penny (‘Adferte mihi denarium ut videam’: Mk. 12.15) is puzzling unless at the time His loculus was either empty or contained no Roman coin, although on the other hand, knowing the propedeutic value of audience participation, He may have employed it accordingly.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 18} This relationship between Anselm of Laon and the Glossa ord. is studied by B. Smalley in her articles in Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale , ‘Gilbertus Universalis, Bishop of London (1128-34), and the Problem of the Glossa Ordinaria,’ 7 (1935) 235–52 and 8 (1936) 24-60, and ‘La Glossa ordinaria: quelques prédécesseurs d'Anselme de Laon,’ 9 (1937) 365-400. In the first article she concludes that Anselm and his brother Ralph were responsible for the sections in the Gloss on the Psalter and St. Paul's letters, and probably also the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John. Walafrid Strabo's alleged authorship of the Gloss is completely discredited by de Blic, J., ‘L'œuvre exégétique de Walafrid Strabo et la Glossa ordinaria,’ Rech. théol. anc. méd. 16 (1949) 5-28. For a more general discussion of these questions, see Smalley, , Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages 49-66. — My text of the Glossa ord. is, unfortunately, that of Migne (PL 114.118): ‘Ne Judas, qui loculos habebat, de praedicta potestate pecuniam congregare vellet, nequitiam ejus supprimit Dominus, dicens: “Gratis accepi tis,” etc. Damnat etiam hic perfidiam simoniacae haereseos. Dona spiritualia pretio vilescunt.’ Ad vv. dignus … c bo suo: ‘Unde ergo necessaria? Tantum accipite, quantum ad necessitatem sufficit, ut inde securi aeternis mellus vacetis.’ Google Scholar