¹ For introductions to the themes of reform during this period see Fliche, Augustin, La réforme grégorienne (3 vols.; Paris 1924–37); Haller, Johannes, Das Papststum: Idee und Wirklichkeit (5 vols.; Stuttgart 1950–53) vols. 2–3; Southern, R. W., The Making of the Middle Ages (New Haven 1953) 118–69; Tellenbach, Gerd, Church, State and Christian Society at the Time of the Investiture Contest (tr. R. Bennet; Oxford 1959); Kennan, Elizabeth, ‘The “De Consideratione” of St. Bernard of Clairvaux and the Papacy in the Mid-Twelfth Century: A Review of Scholarship,’ Traditio 23 (1967) 73–115. The idea of reform, and its ancient, patristic, and early medieval sources, is treated in great detail by Ladner, Gerhart, The Idea of Reform: Its Impact on Christian Thought and Action in the Age of the Fathers (rev. ed.; New York 1967). Professor Ladner has continued his study of reform, especially in its ecclesiological aspects, into the Gregorian period in several important articles: see especially ‘Die mittelalterliche Reform-Idee und ihre Verhältnis zur Idee der Renaissance,’ Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 60 (1952) 31–59, and ‘Two Gregorian Letters: On the Sources and Nature of Gregory VII's Reform Ideology,’ Studi gregoriani per la storia di Gregorio V II e della riforma (= Studi Gregoriani) 5 (1956) 221–42 (The seven volumes in this series provide a useful guide to recent scholarship in this field. The series, which ceased in 1960, is to be revived in a new series entitled Studi Gregoriani. Per la storia della ‘libertas ecclesiae.’ See the announcement in Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 21 [1967] 603–04). The idea of ‘Church reform,’ as well as reform of the individual, is characteristic of the Gregorian Reform: on this and its contrast to the idea of reform in the patristic period see Ladner, , Idea of Reform 211 n. 147. A general history of the idea of reform from the early Church to the Reformation may be found in Dolan, John, History of the Reformation: A Conciliatory Assessment of Opposite Views (New York 1965) 56–250. For a theological treatment of the nature of reform, see Yves, M.-J. Congar, O.P., Vrai et fausse réforme dans l'Église (Paris 1950). Also Vicaire, M. H., The Apostolic Life (Chicago 1966).Google Scholar

² On these terms see Barraclough, Geoffrey, Papal Provisions (Oxford 1935) 38–54 for a discussion of the extensive bibliography developed before 1935. For recent studies see Violante, Cinzio, ‘Prospettive e ipotesi di lavoro,’ La vita comune del clero nei secoli XIe XII (Atti della settimana di studio. Miscellanea del Centro di Studi Medioevali, III. 2 vols.; Milan 1962) I, 1–15, at 6–13. The terms are perhaps not fully adequate or accurate, though the various institutions they are meant to refer to are readily enough understood. Such basic elements of ‘Germanic Christianity’ as the proprietary church are of course not necessarily Germanic in origin: see the studies of John, Eric, Land Tenure in Early England (Leicester 1960) and Orbis Britanniae (Leicester 1966), which suggest a number of ways in which the received opinions on the early history of the proprietary church must be modified. A good bibliography on the modifications by later scholars of Ulrich Stutz's theory of the exclusively Germanic origin of the proprietary church is found in Catherine Boyd, E., Tithes and Parishes in Medieval Italy (Ithaca, New York 1952) Appendix One, 252–54. Miss Boyd makes use of this bibliography throughout her book.Google Scholar

³ Speech by Hildebrand delivered in 1059, preserved in the Decretum of Gratian (ca. 1140) De cons. D. 5 c. 15 (Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Emil Friedberg [2 vols.; Leipzig 1881] I, 1416. All materials, such as this speech of Hildebrand, which were eventually gathered by Gratian in his Decretum, have been quoted as they are found in the Friedberg edition of the Decretum unless there is a significant variation between the original text and the text as preserved in the canon law). This speech is translated and commented on by Southern, , Making of the Middle Ages (supra n. 1) 140. At the Roman Synod of 1059, Hildebrand also attributed the deviation of the regular canons from primitive ideals to interference by the secular power, mentioning by name Louis the Pious (814–40). See Werminghoff, Albert, ‘Die Beschlüsse des Aachener Concils im Jahre 816,’ Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 27 (1902) 607–75, at 673, and Charles Dereine, S.J., ‘Le problème de la vie commune chez les canonistes d'Anselme de Lucques à Gratien,’ Studi Gregoriani 3 (1948) 287–98, at 296–7. On the ancient law of the Church as the canon of right living within a Christian society see Ullmann, Walter, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages (2nd ed.; London 1962) 360.Google Scholar

⁴ Ladner, , Idea of Reform (supra n. 1) 137–38 and ‘Two Gregorian Letters …’ (supra n. 1) 221 ff. traces the history of this formula from Tertullian to Gratian, who included the formula in the Decretum D.8 c.6 (ed. Friedberg I 14–15): ‘Qui contempta ueritate presumit consuetudinem sequi, aut circa fratres inuidus est et malignus, quibus ueritas reuelatur, aut circa Deum ingratus est, inspiratione cuius ecclesia eius instruitur. Nam Dominus in euangelio: “Ego sum,” inquit, “ueritas”: non dixit: “ego sum consuetudo.” Itaque ueritate manifestata ueritati cedat consuetudo….’ The phrase is found in a letter of Gregory VII, of uncertain date, which was also included in later canonical collections and in the Decretum D.8 c.5 (ed. Friedberg I 14): ‘Si consuetudinem fortassis opponas, aduertendum est, quod Dominus dicit: “Ego sum ueritas.” Non dixit: “ego sum consuetudo, sed ueritas.” §.I. Et certe (ut B. Cipriani utamur sententia) quelibet consuetudo, quantumuis uetusta, quantumuis uulgata, ueritati est omnino postponenda, et usus, qui ueritati est contrarius, abolendus est.’ The phrase from John 14.6 is taken up by later canonists commenting on the Decretum D.8: see Paucapalea, , Die Summa des Paucapalea über das Decretum Gratiani (ed. von Schulte, Johannes Friedrich; Giessen, 1890) 14; and Rufinus of Bologna, Summa Decretorum (ed. Singer, Heinrich; Paderborn 1902) 21. A brief discussion of the significance of these last two passages, respectively from a.d. 1140–48 and 1157–59, is found in R. W. and Carlyle, A. J., A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West (6 vols.; Edinburgh and London 1903–36) II 106–07. See also Brys, J., De dispensatione in iure canonico (Bruges 1925) 80–3, 122–32, 198–201, 256–7. I hope to consider these texts in a separate study on natural law and reform in the twelfth century. For an interesting parallel to this concept of truth, see Richard of St. Victor's defense of his ‘modern’ attitude toward the letter of the Scripture in Smalley, Beryl, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Notre Dame, Indiana 1964) 108–9. For all problems of authorship and chronology concerning the canonists after Gratian, see Kuttner, Stephan, Repertorium der Kanonistik (Vatican City 1937).Google Scholar

⁵ Besides the works referred to in n. 1 supra, see the following on the relation between the restoration of ancient discipline and Church reform: on the regular canons the following studies by Dereine, Charles S.J., ‘Chanoines,’ DHGE XII 353–405, ‘La spiritualité “apostolique” des premiers fondateurs d'Affligem (1083–1100),’ Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique (= RHE) 54 (1959) 41–65, ‘Vie commune, règle de Saint Augustin et chanoines réguliers au xi^e siècle,’ ibid. 41 (1946) 365–406, and also Fonseca, Cosimo, ‘Le canoniche regolari riformate dell'Italia nord-occidentale; ricerche e problemi,’ Monasteri in Alta Italia dopo le Invasioni Saracene e Magiare (sec. X-XII), Relazioni e Comunicazioni Presentate al XXXII Congresso Storico Subalpino (Turin 1966) 335–82, and Dickinson, John, The Origins of the Austin Canons and their Introduction into England (London 1950); on monasticism, among the many works of Dom Jean Leclercq see The Love of Learning and the Desire for God (tr. Catharine Misrahi; New York 1961) esp. 94–115, The Life of Perfection (tr. Leonard Doyle; Collegeville, Minnesota 1961), and ‘La crise du monachisme aux xi^e et xii^e siècles,’ Bullettino dell'Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo e Archivio Muratoriano (= Bull. dell'Ist. St. It. per il Medio Evo) 70 (1958) 19–41, and also Ladner, , The Idea of Reform (supra n. 1) 378–424 and Chenu, M.-D. O.P., Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century (tr. Jerome Taylor and Lester Little; Chicago 1968) 202–69 and (covering almost all aspects of reform) these two studies of Grundmann, Herbert, Religiöse Bewegungen im Mittelalter: Untersuchungen über die geschichtlichen Zusammenhängen zwischen der Ketzerei, den Bettelorden und der religiösen Frauenbewegung im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert und über die geschichtlichen Grundlagen der deutschen Mystik (Historische Studien, vol. 267; Berlin 1935), ‘Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte der religiösen Bewegungen im Mittelalter,’ Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 37 1955) 129–82, as well as Pierre Mandonnet, O.P., St. Dominic and His Work (ed. Vicaire, M. H. and Ladner, R., tr. Larkin, Mary O.P.; St. Louis 1944); on popular and lay religion see (Russell, Jeffrey, Dissent and Reform in the Early Middle Ages (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1965), McDonnell, Ernest, The Beguines and Beghards in Medieval Culture: With Special Emphasis on the Belgian Scene (New Brunswick, N.J. 1954), Delaruelle, Etienne, ‘La vie commune des clercs et la spiritualité populaire au xi^e siècle,’ La vita comune (supra n. 2) I 142–73 and discussion 174–85, Miccoli, Giovanni, ‘Per la Storia della Pataria Milanese,’ Bull. dell'Ist. St. It. per il Medio Evo 70 (1958) 43–123, Manselli, Raoul, Studi sulle eresie del secolo XII (Rome 1953) and ‘Per la storia dell'eresia nel secolo xii: Studi minori,’ Bull. dell'Ist. St. It. per il Medio Evo 67 (1955) 189–264, and Morghen, Raffaello, Medio Evo cristiano (Bari 1951) 212–86 and ‘Movimenti religiosi popolari nel periodo della riforma della chiesa,’ Relazioni del X Congresso Internazionale di Scienze Storiche, III (Florence 1955) 333–56.Google Scholar

⁶ Several studies have noted the use of the idea of the primitive Church in the period from 1050–1140: Chenu, , Nature, Man, and Society (supra n. 5) 203–221, 239–241; White, Hayden V., ‘The Gregorian Ideal and St. Bernard of Clairvaux,’ Journal of the History of Ideas 21 (1960) 321–348, at 327 (but see the criticisms of this article by Kennan, , ‘The “De Consideratione” …,’ [supra n. 1] 90 ff.); Dereine, Charles S.J. ‘La prétendue règle de Grégoire VII pour chanoines réguliers,’ Revue Bénédictine 71 (1961) 108–18 at 114–6, ‘L’élaboration du statut canonique des chanoines réguliers spécialement sous Urbain II,’ RHE 46 (1951) 546–55, ‘Le problème …’ (supra n. 3) 287–98, ‘Vie commune …’ (supra n. 5) 373, 392, ‘Chanoines’ (supra n. 5) passim; Dickinson, , Austin Canons (supra n. 5) 7, 27, 30, 53, 56, 60, 76, 172; Fonseca, , ‘Le canoniche …’ (supra n. 5) 341, 348; Grundmann, , ‘Neue Beiträge …’ (supra n. 5) 148–54; Mandonet, , St. Dominic (supra n. 5) 241–81 (285–87 list sources for the period after that studied in this paper which discuss the primitive Church); McDonnell, Ernest, ‘The Vita Apostolica: Diversity or Dissent?’ Church History 24 (1955) 15–31 at 15–18 (this article contains some rather eccentric historical perspectives, such as the comment [p. 18] that ‘Within the fold fragmentation of the Benedictine monolith was called diversity: outside the pale it was heresy.’ and [p. 20] ‘Currency of the Rule of St. Augustine for orders, congregations, and hospitals was an important symptom of the fracturing of Benedictine unity.’), Beguines and Beghards (supra n. 5) passim (this work contains some material on the twelfth century, but concentrates on the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, thus showing the later history of such ideas as the ‘primitive Church,’ the ‘common life,’ ‘apostolic poverty,’ and the ‘apostolic life.’ Professor McDonnell shows how these themes influenced many of the women's orders, lay brotherhoods, and new religious orders of the thirteenth century. See especially his index under ‘primitive church’ and ‘vita apostolica.’ In sum, the ideas treated in the present paper were carried directly into the thirteenth century and widely influenced a great variety of orthodox and heterodox movements); and above all Miccoli, Giovanni, ‘Ecclesiae primitivae forma,’ Studi medievali s. 3 I (1960) 470–98, ‘Pier Damiani e la Vita Comune del Clero’, La vita comune (supra n. 2) I 186–211. These last two studies have been included, the former in substantially expanded form, along with the article by Miccoli cited supra n. 5, in Miccoli, Giovanni, Chiesa Gregoriana (Florence 1966), which I received when this article was in page proofs.Google Scholar

⁷ The relation between the idea of the primitive Church and the search for the complete or perfect form of the Christian life is considered in many of the studies listed in note 6 supra. In addition, on the theme of Christian perfection see Capitani, Ovidio, ‘Motivi di spiritualità Cluniacense e Realismo Eucaristico in Odone di Cluny,’ Bull. dell'Ist. St. It. per il Medio Evo 71 (1959) 1–18 at 14–18; Constable, Giles, Monastic Tithes from their Origins to the Twelfth Century (Cambridge 1964) 149–97, 232–3, 268–9; Leclercq, , Love of Learning (supra n. 5) 62–3, 197–8, 217–8, and The Life of Perfection (supra n. 5) passim. The search for Christian perfection was of course rooted in the idea of reform, an idea which, especially in the history of the Latin West, included both the perfection of the individual and the reform of the Church and society. See the studies by Ladner cited supra n. 1.Google Scholar

⁸ On the meaning of the Augustinian reformatio in melius see Ladner, , Idea of Reform (supra n. 1) index under ‘Reform to the better.’ On the idea of renewal see Chenu, , Man, Nature, and Society (supra n. 5) 1–3 and passim, and Schramm, Percy Ernst, Kaiser, Rom und Renovatio: Studien und Texte zur Geschichte der römischen Erneuerungsgedanken vom Ende des karolingischen Reiches bis zum Investiturstreit (2 vols.; Leipzig and Berlin 1929) I 238–50. Peter Damian was convinced that the Roman See, which had been the fundamentum nascentis salutis, would have to be the principium renovandae. In his Ep. 2, 19 (PL 144. 288) of 1045 he wrote: ‘Nisi enim ad rectitudinis statum sedes romana redeat, certum est, quia totus mundus in suo lapsus errore perdurat. Et necesse est jam ut eadem sit renovandae principium, quae nascentis humanae salutis exstiterat fundamentum.’ On this see Joseph Ryan, J., Saint Peter Damiani and his Canonical Sources: A Preliminary Study in the Antecedents of the Gregorian Reform (Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Studies and Texts 2; Toronto 1956) 23–24.Google Scholar

⁹ In dealing with the history of the common life and of the regular canons, I have followed the terminology adopted by Dickinson, , Austin Canons (supra n. 5). Thus any degree of communal living, worship, or sharing of property short of the prohibition of all private property has been called the ‘common life.’ When it is definitely known that the prohibition of private property has been adopted by a community, the term ‘full common life’ is used. The ideal of Peter Damian, Gregory VII and the reformers of the eleventh century was of course the practice of the full common life by all monks and regular canons.Google Scholar

¹⁰ On the equation of the terms vita apostolca and vita communis see Dereine, , ‘Chanoines’ (supra n. 5) passim, ‘Le problème de la vie commune…’ (supra n. 3) 287–96, ‘La prétendue règle…’ (supra n. 6) 116, ‘Vie commune…’ (supra n. 5) 385–95; Grundmann, , ‘Neue Beiträge…’ (supra n. 5) 148–57; Chenu, , Nature, Man, and Society (supra n. 5) 206–14; Ladner, , Idea of Reform (supra n. 1) 400–02; Constable, , Monastic Tithes (supra n. 7) 142; Mouraux, A., ‘La “Vie Apostolique” à propos de Rupert de Deutz,’ Revue liturgique et monastique 21 (1935–6) 71–8; and Miccoli, , ‘Ecclesiae primitivae forma’ (supra n. 6) 470–98.Google Scholar

¹¹ See above all Dereine, , ‘Chanoines’ (supra n. 5) 353 ff., but also Leclercq, , Life of Perfection (supra n. 5) 63–80.Google Scholar

¹² On the early history of the practice of the common life see Ladner, , Idea of Reform (supra n. 1) 248, 282–3, 319–424; Dereine, , ‘Chanoines’ (supra n. 5) 353 ff.; Dickinson, , Austin Canons (supra n. 5) 7–25; Lesne, Émile, Histoire de la propriété ecclésiastique en France (Mémoires et travaux … des Facultés catholiques de Lille, VI, XIX, XXX, XXXIV, XLIV, XLVI, L, and LIII, 6 vols. in 8; Lille 1910–43) vols. 1–3 and 6 passim; Mandonnet, , St. Dominic (supra n. 5) 195–257; Hertling, Ludwig S.J., ‘Kanoniker, Augustinusregel und Augustinerorden,’ Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 54 (1930) 334–59; Ferrari, Guy O.S.B., Early Roman Monasteries: Notes for the History of the Monasteries and Convents at Rome from the Vth through the Xth Century (Vatican City 1957) passim; Feine, Hans, Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte: die katholische Kirche (4th ed.; Cologne, and Graz, 1964) 172–9, 196–200, 209–11, 256–63; John, , Orbis Britanniae (supra n. 2) 154–264.Google Scholar

¹³ No comprehensive study of the idea of the primitive Church exists for the period before the eleventh century, but see now Miccoli, , Chiesa Gregoriana (supra n. 6) 225–44. The following examples, some of which are discussed by Miccoli, are taken from a study which I am preparing on ‘The Origins of the Reform Idea of the ecclesia primitiva.’ I will reserve full analysis of these early materials, and a full bibliography, for this forthcoming study.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The best introduction to Cassian is Chadwick, Owen, John Cassian (2nd ed.; Cambridge 1968). See also Dom E. Pichery's introduction to his edition: Cassien, Jean, Conférences (Sources Chrétiennes 42, 54, 64; Paris 1955–59) I, 7–72.Google Scholar

¹⁵ This is the terminology of Dom Adalbert de Vogüé, ‘Monachisme et Église dans la pensée de Cassien,’ Théologie de la vie monastique (Paris 1961) 213–40 (English trans. ‘Monasticism and the Church in the Writings of Cassian,’ Monastic Studies 3 [1965] 19–51). On Cassian's use of the works of earlier writers on monasticism see his own comments in the Preface, 5 to the Institutions (Cassien, Jean, Institutions Cénobitiques [ed. Guy, Jean-Claude S.J., Sources Chrétiennes 109; Paris 1965]27); and Jean Gribomont, O.S.B., Histoire du texte des ascétiques de s. Basile (Louvain 1953) 262–3; Weber, Hans-Oskar, Die Stellung des Johannes Cassianus zur ausserpachomianischen Mönchstradition (Münster 1960); Chadwick, , John Cassian (supra n. 14) passim; and Cassien, , Conférences (supra n. 14) 58–63. Ladner, , Idea of Reform (supra n. 1) 341 ff. traces the origin of the idea of the derivation of cenobitical monasticism from the Apostolic community at Jerusalem to St. Basil.Google Scholar

¹⁶ There follow the most important passages from the Institutions (ed. Guy, , 64–66): 'Nam cum in primordiis fidei pauci quidem sed probatissimi monachorum nomine censerentur, qui sicut a beatae memoriae euangelista Marco, qui primus alexandrinae urbi pontifex praefuit, normam suscepere uiuendi, non solum illa magnifica retinebant, quae primitus ecclesiam uel credentium turbas in Actibus apostolorum legimus celebrasse — Multitudinis scilicet credentium erat cor et anima una, nec quisquam eorum quae possidebat aliquid suum esse dicebat, sed erant illis omnia communia. Quotquot enim possessores agrorum aut domorum erant, uendentes adferebant pretia eorum quae uendebant et ponebant ante pedes apostolorum: diuidebatur autem singulis prout cuique opus erat —, uerum etiam his multo sublimiora cumulauerant. ’Etenim secedentes in secretiora suburbiorum loca agebant uitam tanto abstinentiae rigore districtam, ut etiam his, qui erant religionis externi, stupori esset tam ardua conuersationis eorum professio. Eo enim feruore diuinarum scripturarum lectionibus orationique et operi manuum diebus ac noctibus incubabant, ut ne escarum quidem adpetitus uel memoria…. ‘Ea igitur temptestate, cum ecclesiae illius primitivae perfectio penes successores suos adhuc recenti memoria inuiolata duraret feruensque paucorum fides necdum in multitudinem dispersa tepuisset, uenerabiles patres peruigili cura posteris consulentes, quinam modus cotidiano cultui per uniuersum fraternitatis corpus decerni deberet, tractaturi conueniunt, ut hereditatem pietatis ac pacis etiam successoribus suis absolutam ab omni dissensionis lite transmitterent….’ Since the phrase ecclesia primitiva does not occur in the ‘Jerusalem version,’ I give only the introduction to the citation of Acts 4.32 from the Conférences, 5 (ed. Pichery, , Vol. 3, 14): ‘Itaque coenobiotarum disciplina a tempore praedicationis apostolicae sumpsit exordium. Nam talis extitit in Hierosolymis omnis illa credentium multitudo, quae in Actibus apostolorum ita describitur:….’ Google Scholar

¹⁷ Dereine, , ‘Chanoines’ (supra n. 5) 361.Google Scholar

¹⁸ AS, January, vol. 2 (Paris 1863) 99. This is referred to by Dereine, , ‘Chanoines’ (supra n. 5) 361, where the citation is incorrect.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Bede, , Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation, Book 1, ch. 26 and 27; Book 4, ch. 23. See also Book 4, ch. 27, and the Epistle to Bishop Egbert, §§. 16–7 (Opera Historica, 2 vols., ed. Loeb, ; Cambridge, Mass. and London 1930) I, 112, 116–8; II, 128–30, 170–2, 480–2, 486.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ibid., Book 1, ch. 27 (ed. Loeb, I 116–8). On the problem of the form of life practiced at Canterbury in the time of Gregory I, and on the authenticity of the answers given by Gregory, see Knowles, Dom David, The Monastic Order in England (2nd ed.; Cambridge 1963) 619–20, 758; Dickinson, , Austin Canons (supra n. 5) 15; Ladner, , Idea of Reform (supra n. 1) 399–400, 497; Meyvaert, Paul, ‘Les “Responsiones” de S. Grégoire le Grand à S. Augustin de Cantorbéry,’ RHE 54 (1959) 879–94; and Deanesly, Margaret, ‘The Capitular Text of the Responsiones of Pope Gregory I to St. Augustine,’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History 12 (1961) 231–34. For the influence of this passage in the eleventh century see Claxton, James H., ‘On the Name of Urban II,’ Traditio 23 (1967) 489–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹ Vita Gregorii abbatis Trajectensis auctore Liudgero (MGH, SS 15 part 1. 63–79 at 69).Google Scholar

²² Knowledge of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals is being completely revised by the work of Professor Schafer Williams. For bibliography on this subject, see his article ‘Pseudo-Isidore from the Manuscripts,’ The Catholic Historical Review 53 (1967) 58–66. None of the existing editions are adequate, but at present PL 130. 243–49 is closest to the medieval manuscript tradition. The letter on the primitive Church itself, ascribed to Pope Melchiades, may also be found in Mansi 2.600, where it is incorrectly identified. The text of this letter is considered more fully below in the form in which it entered the Decretum of Gratian (note 58).Google Scholar

²³ Burchardi Wormatiensis Collectarium sive Decretum 3. 2, 4–5 in PL 140. 673–5. For a summary of the conflicting opinions on the spread and influence of the Decretum of Burchard in the eleventh century see Ryan, , Peter Damiani (supra n. 8) 10–13, 21.Google Scholar

²⁴ Miccoli, , ‘Pier Damiani…’ (supra n. 6) I 186–211 and ‘Ecclesiae primitivae forma’ (supra n. 6) 470–98.Google Scholar

²⁵ I hope to devote an additional study to the relationship between the ideal of the common life, Christian perfection, and the idea of the ecclesia primitiva in the writings of the canonists.Google Scholar

²⁶ On this and the later history of this idea see note 59 infra. Google Scholar

²⁷ See for instance the materials in notes 37 and 52, or for Stephen of Tournai the materials in notes 33 and 34 infra. The lack of ‘classicism’ in describing the ancient Church corresponds to the lack of ‘classicism’ which has been ascribed to twelfth-century humanism: see Curtius, Ernst, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages (tr. Trask, Willard; New York and Evanston 1953) 53 n. 54; and Leclercq, , Love of Learning (supra n. 5) 94–151. Those living before the revival of learning, or outside the influence of the cathedral schools and universities, or in the first movements of the pre-Gregorian period of reform, seem to have been more prone to take a literal approach to the forms and ideals of the early Church. See, for instance, the descriptions of Peter Damian and the hermit Rainaud in Miccoli, , ‘Ecclesiae primitivae forma’ (supra n. 6) 472–77, 484–7.Google Scholar

²⁸ See D.32 cc.1–16 (ed. Friedberg I 116–21) and the canonists' comments on this distinction.Google Scholar

²⁹ This decision from the Council of Benevento in 1091 is the only chapter in the Decretum which includes the term ecclesia primitiva within its text (as opposed to within its rubric or the dicta Gratiani): D.60 c.4 (ed. Friedberg I 227). For a discussion of this chapter and the materials in the preceding note see Benson, Robert L., The Bishop-elect: A Study in Medieval Ecclesiastical Office (Princeton 1968) 64–5, 71, 91. This chapter (D.60 c.4) was also included in a letter of Innocent III in the Third Compilation composed early in the thirteenth century, and in the Decretales of Gregory IX (1234), and the history of the idea of the primitive Church could be continued into the thirteenth century by referring to the comments of the later canonists on these chapters: 3 Comp. 1. 9. 6 in Quinque Compilationes Antiquae (ed. Emil Friedberg; Leipzig 1882) 108; X 1. 14. 9 (ed. Friedberg II 128). Innocent also repeated the teaching of this letter, and the use of the term ecclesia primitiva, in X 1. 18. 7 (ed. Friedberg II 143).Google Scholar

³⁰ See as an example, even to the retention of the term primitiva ecclesia, The Summa Parisiensis on the Decretum Gratiani (ed. Terence McLaughlin; Toronto 1952) 32 on D.32 c. 10 v. Eos. This anonymous Summa dates from about 1160: see McLaughlin, , ‘introduction.’ Google Scholar

³¹ Summa (ed. Singer, 75) on D.32 c.11 v. Erubescant etc. See also Singer, , p. lxi, and Rufinus' comments on D.31 c.10 v. sive lector and on D.35 c.1 v. Episcopus aut presbiter etc. (ed. Singer, 72, 83).Google Scholar

³² Die Summa des Stephanus Tornacensis über das Decretum Gratiani (ed. von Schulte, J. F.; Giessen 1891) 41 on D.27 before c.1 v. Quod a. Google Scholar

³³ Ibid. The chapter Stephen was referring to was D.28 c.8.Google Scholar

³⁴ See the dictum Gratiani after D.28 c.13 (ed. Friedberg I 105). The canonists frequently explained differences from contemporary usage in this manner used by Gratian. Of course at D.29 Gratian had dedicated a full Distinction to materials showing that the canon law and the Scriptures must always be understood according to place, time, person, and case. The medieval canon law is indeed full of materials pertaining to what later ages would call ‘casuistry,’ ‘the development of doctrine,’ and ‘progressive revelation.’ It would be most profitable to study the canonists’ ‘exegesis’ of the Scriptures, which seems to have placed primary emphasis on the literal or historical meaning, rather than on the allegorical or tropological. This same shift in emphasis was occurring in the twelfth century at such centers of Biblical studies as St. Victor: Smalley, The Study of the Bible ( supra n. 4) 83–195. There follow some examples on the present point, the reference to the primitive Church in order to explain a variation from present practice found in early materials contained in the canon law. Bandinelli, Roland, Die Summa Magistri Rolandi nachmals Papstes Alexander III. nebst einem Anhange Incerti Auctoris Quaestiones (ed. Thaner, Friedrich; Innsbruck 1874) 124, 144–5, 155, 209–10 on C.27 q.1 c.40 v. Ut lex continentiae etc.; C.30 q.1; C.31 q.1 c.8 v. De his etc.; and C.35 qq.2 and 3 c.3 v. De propinquis etc. Rufinus, , Summa (ed. Singer, 542) on Tertia pars D.1 c.4 v. De locorum vero. Summa Parisiensis (ed. McLaughlin 65, 147, 175, 238, 257) on D.81 c.12 v. Presbyter.; C.11 q.1 c.3 v. Clericum etc.; C.15 q.3 before c.1 v. Mulieres autem etc.; C.31 q.1 c.8 v. De his qui frequenter; and C.35 q.1 before c.1 v. Quod consanguineas nostras. Stephen of Tournai, Summa (ed. Schulte 26, 30, 37, 43–4, 45, 46, 47, 53, 118, 232, 248, 263, 276) on D.17 before c.1 v. Gen. conc.; D.21 c.1 v. nec crismate.; D.25 c.1 v. epistolas ep.; D.28 c. 10 v. conductor etc.; D.28 c.14 v. Si quis doc.; D.31 before c.1 v. Tempus.; D. 31 dict. Gr. after c.7 v. de coniugio.; D.35 c.1 v. subdiaconus etc.; D.98 before c.1; C.27 before q.1; C.35 q.1 before c.1 v. Quod cons.; Pars III D.1 c.4 v. de locorum etc.; and Pars III D.3 c.21 v. Nosse cet. Google Scholar

³⁵ Thus an anonymous gloss in Bibl. Angelica (Rome) 1270, 136^v, to be dated about 1200, on C.13 q.1 c.1 v. singulas: ‘ecce de primeva institutione ecclesie statutum est, ut singuli prelati singulas haberent ecclesias.’ Google Scholar

³⁶ Roland, , Summa (ed. Thaner, 209) on C.35 qq.2 and 3 c.3 v. De propinquis etc.; and Summa Parisiensis (ed. McLaughlin, 257–8) on C.35 q.1 before c.1 v. Quod consanguineas nostras. Google Scholar

³⁷ Roland, , Summa (ed. Thaner, 36–7) on C.16 before q.1 v. Quidam abbas etc.; and Summa Parisiensis (ed. McLaughlin, 177) on C.16 q.1 before c.1 v. Quod monachi etc.Google Scholar

³⁸ See Rufinus, , Summa (ed. Singer, CLXXXII); and Stephen, , Summa (ed. Schulte 86, 98) on D.61 c.18 v. vel monachus and D.74 c.6 v. ex monacho. Google Scholar

³⁹ Rufinus, , Summa (ed. Singer, 250) on C.2 q.5 c.1 v. Sacramentum hactenus; Summa Parisiensis (ed. McLaughlin, 201) on C.21 q.1 c.7 v. Et jurabunt.; and Stephen, , Summa (ed. Schulte, 169) on C.2 q.5 c.1 v. exigi. Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Rufinus, , Summa (ed. Singer, 389) on C.22 before q.1 v. Quidam episcopus etc. Google Scholar

⁴¹ Stephen, , Summa (ed. Schulte, 102) on D.77 c.3 v. ante pubert. Google Scholar

⁴² Ibid. 115 on D.93 c.24 vv. Legimus and eosdem esse episcopos. Less important uses of the term ecclesia primitiva as an historical label may be found in: Summa Parisiensis (ed. McLaughlin, 82) on C.1 q.1 c.13 v. Cum, et post, ante omnes.; Stephen of Tournai, Summa (ed. Schulte, 94, 160) on D.68 c.3 v. Inter ep. and on C.2 q.1 c.9 v. adeo ut Google Scholar

⁴³ See, for the reign of Gregory VII, Grundmann, , ‘Neue Beiträge…,’ (supra n. 5) 149. Texts from this period which show the equation of the Roman with the Apostolic Church and derive the powers of all other offices and churches from the papacy, in the manner of the Quaestiones Stuttgardinenses given in the following note, may be found in Miccoli, , ‘Ecclesiae primitivae forma,’ (supra n. 6) 476 ff. This development was of course facilitated by the enthusiasm of the reforming party for the imitation of the ancient Church. Possessing documents dating back to the pontificate of Clement I, the successor of St. Peter, which consistently asserted the authority of the Roman See — some of the most important of which were in fact eighth- and ninth-century forgeries, it seemed obvious to the reformers that since the first days of the Church all powers within the Church had been derived from Rome: Southern, Making of the Middle Ages (supra n. 1) 141–2. For the background of this development see Congar, Yves, ‘S. Nicolas I^er († 867): ses positions ecclésiologiques,’ Revista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 21 (1967) 393–410; Benson, Robert L., ‘Plenitudo Potestatis: Evolution of a Formula from Gregory IV to Gratian,’ Studia Gratiana 14 (1967) 193–218; and Ullmann, Walter, Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages (London 1961) 29–114, and Growth of Papal Government (supra n. 3) passim. Much of the relevant material is gathered in Dr. Ullmann's books, although I find his interpretations frequently implausible and insensitive to the obvious intentions and nuances of his sources. Dr. Ullmann frequently glosses over the context and chronology of the development of ideas in favor of illustrating certain basic themes which he assumes are always present in the theory of papal government. A good criticism of his interpretation of the period of interest in this paper may be found in Kennan, , ‘The “De Consideratione”…’ (supra n. 1) 80 ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Quaestiones Stuttgardienses in Die Summa Magistri Rolandi (ed. Thaner, 237–303) as an appendix titled Incerti Auctoris Quaestiones : see Kuttner, , Repertorium (supra n. 4) 245. The most important section from Q. 30 of these Quaestiones (ed. Thaner, 284–5) is the following: ‘Ad hoc Rolandus, quod in primitiva ecclesia omne ius et omnem auctoritatem ligandi et solvendi solus summus pontifex habebat, unde habemus in tractatu consecrationis, quod nulli liceat aedificare ecclesiam inconsulto Romano pontifice, dist. I. cap.: Praecepta (c.5); habemus etiam in prima parte decretorum, ut nulli liceat convocare synodum eo inconsulto vel absque legato Romanae curiae. Sed processu temporis instituit Romanus pontifex primates, quibus vices suas impertivit in partem sollicitudinis, non in plenitudinem potestatis. Sub primatibus instituti sunt episcopi, episcopi vero instituunt sibi praelatos, quorum unusquisque pro modo dignitatis suae tenetur amministrare ecclesiastica.’ I have not found these doctrines associated with the primitive Church in the Summa of Roland. On the idea of the pope as the ‘Universal Ordinary’ present in this text, see Tellenbach, , Christian Society (supra n. 1) 137–47. On the phrase ‘in partem sollicitudinis …’ see Tierney, Brian, Foundations of the Conciliar Theory (Cambridge 1955) 29–36, 88–90, and Benson, , ‘Plenitudo Potestatis…’ (supra n. 43) 200–18. The idea that the pope actually preceded the primates and bishops in time probably was based on the long standing tradition that the West had been evangelized from Rome. On this see Batiffol, Pierre, Cathedra Petri (Unam Sanctam IV; Paris 1938) 47; Ryan, , Peter Damiani (supra n. 8) 23–4, 65; and Benson, , The Bishop-elect (supra n. 29) 73.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Summa (ed. Schulte, 202) on C.5 qq. 3 and 4 c.1 v. nisi in leg. Google Scholar

⁴⁶ On the idea of the primitive Church in the writings of the Norman Anonymous see Tellenbach, , Christian Society (supra n. 1) 146; Ullmann, , Growth of Papal Government (supra n. 3) 396–7; Böhmer, Heinrich, Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im XI. und XII. Jahrhundert (Leipzig 1899) 252–4; and Williams, George H., The Norman Anonymous of ca. 1000 A.D.: Toward the Identification and the Evaluation of the So-called Anonymous of York (Harvard Theological Studies 18; Cambridge, Mass. 1951) 137–43.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ This passage was first edited in Tractatus Eboracenses 3 in MGH, Lib. de lite 3. 660. It is now found in the complete edition of the Norman Anonymous by Pellens, Karl, Die Texte des Normannischen Anonymus (Wiesbaden 1966) J4, p. 42. Another reference to the idea of the ecclesia primitiva is found in a passage edited by Böhmer, , Kirche und Siaat (supra n. 46) 457–62 (#12) and commented on by Williams, , The Norman Anonymous (supra n. 46) 142, and now in Pellens, , Die Texte J12, pp. 84–90, at 89.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Summa (ed. Singer, 23) on D.9 c.6 v. Ut veter. etc. Google Scholar

⁴⁹ On the definition of natural law during this period see Carlyle, and Carlyle, , Political Theory II (supra n. 4) 28–33, 96–113, 160–97; and Brys, , De dispensatione (supra n. 4) 80–3, 122–32, 198–201, 256–7.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Bernardi Papiensis Summa Decretalium (ed. Ern. Ad. Theod. Laspeyres; Regensburg 1860) 68 on 1 Comp. 3. 3.Google Scholar

⁵¹ I am preparing a study on the legal definition of the ecclesiastical benefice during the twelfth century, which will consider the problem of who might hold a benefice. This problem was closely related both to the ecclesiastical reforms of the twelfth century, and to the definition of public law within the Church in the twelfth century. For now see my study ‘The Definition of the Ecclesiastical Benefice in the Twelfth Century: the Canonists' Discussion of spiritualia,’ Studia Gratiana 11 (Collectanea Stephan Kuttner I; 1967) 431–46.Google Scholar

⁵² Summa (ed. Thaner, 139–40) on C.28 q.1.Google Scholar

⁵³ The Correspondence of Pope Gregory VII: Selected Letters (tr. Emerton, Ephraim; New York 1932) 148. This letter of January 2, 1080 from the Register of Gregory Book 7, 11 (Das Register Gregors VII. [ed. Caspar, Erich; Berlin 1920] 473–75), is discussed, along with other examples of this attitude, by Miccoli, , ‘Ecclesiae primitivae forma’ (supra n. 6) 479–81. This single example does not do justice to Gregory's notion of the historical development of the Church, and the role of God's providence in producing variety in the Church. See Register 6, 17 (ed. Caspar 423–4) for a letter to Hugo of Cluny in which Gregory traces the various orders in the Church to Providence, and on this see Miccoli, , ‘Per la Storia…’ (supra n. 5) 76 ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ On Anselm see infra n. 56 and Schreiber, Georg, ‘Studien über Anselm von Havelberg. Zur Geistesgeschichte des Hochmittelalters,’ Analecta Praemonstratensia 18 (1942) 5–90; Chenu, , Nature, Man, and Society (supra n. 5) 28, 174–5, 183–4, 191, 217–8, 316; François Petit, O.P., La spiritualité des Prémontrés aux XII ^e et XIII ^e siècles (Paris 1947) 56–64; and Van Lee, M., ‘Les idées d'Anselme de Havelberg sur le développement des dogmes,’ Analecta Praemonstratensia 14 (1938) 5–35. Without using the phrase ecclesia primitiva, Gerhoh of Reichersberg expressed ideas similar to Anselm's: Liber de aedificio Dei 43 (PL 194. 1302). On this see Miccoli, , ‘Per la Storia…’ (supra n. 5) 78–9.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ed. Friedberg I 1262–3. There follows the most important section of this long dictum, which I have summarized in the text: § 1. Est etiam alia causa, quare coniunctiones consanguineorum in populo Dei permissae primum, vel potius inperatae fuerint. Deus sic ab inicio salutem humani generis dispensauit, ut primitiuam ecclesiam in populo illo institueret, qui sibi carnis consanguinitate erat propinquus. Unde de plebe Iudaica primum Apostolos elegit, quos quasi fundamentum ecclesiae instituit, quorum predicatione de eadem plebe multi ad Deum conuersi, in se ipsis originem ecclesiae prestiterent. Deinde in cecitate suae perfidiae Judaica plebe relicta ad gentes, que tam fide quam cognatione carnis a Christo erant alienae, predicatio euangelica translata est, et quasi consanguineae copulam Christus aspernatus, de aliena cognatione sibi uxorem elegit, … In huius ergo rei sacramentum consanguineorum coniunctiones primum in populo permissae sunt, nunc autem prohibitae. Et quia non in una tantum familia, sed in omni multitudine gentium fidelium populus inuenitur, non de propria cognatione, sed de qualibet alia cuique uxorem ducere conceditur. § 2. Illud autem quod precepta legis seruanda dicuntur, que nec euangelicis, nec apostolicis institutis euacuata probantur, uerum quidem est; sed cum omnia figuralia Apostolus probet ad tempus esse data, atque ideo ueniente ueritate affirmet illa non ultra esse seruanda, hoc autem, ut supra monstratum est, causa sacramenti a Deo institutum esse probetur: et hoc cum ceteris figuralibus euacuatum certissime constat: quamquam, sicut Apostolus quedam consulendo addidit, que euangelicis preceptis non inueniebantur diffinita, nec ideo tamen tamquam temeraria, uel superflua ab aliis Apostolis sunt repudiata; sic et ecclesia post apostolica instituta quedam consilio perfectionis addidit, utpote de continentia ministrorum, de confectione misteriorum, de celebratione offitiorum, que nullatenus sunt repudianda, sed diligenti ueneratione suscipienda. Consanguineorum ergo coniunctiones, quamuis euangelicis et apostolicis preceptis non inueniantur prohibitae, sunt tamen fugiendae, quia ecclesiasticis institutionibus inueniuntur terminatae.' For references to the comments of the canonists on this passage see note 34 supra. Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See for the text with commentary Miccoli, , ‘Ecclesiae primitivae forma’ (supra n. 6) 491–3.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Summa (ed. Schulte, 71) on D.50 c.27.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ C.12 q.1 cc.15–6 (ed. Friedberg I 682–3). See supra n. 22. The letters from the Collectio Isidori Mercatoris had an extensive influence in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The opening section of ‘De primitiva ecclesia et synodo nicaena’ from the Collectio (PL 130.243) is given for purposes of comparison: ‘Nemo qui Scripturas divinas legit ignorat quod, in principio nascentis Ecclesiae, discipulis in unum congregatis, cum multitudine credentium, in quibus erat cor unum et anima una, quique vendentes praedia et possessiones suas afferebant, et dividebatur singulis, prout cuique opus erat [Act. IV, 32 et seq.]. Futuram namque Ecclesiam in gentibus apostoli praevidebant, maximeque quia Dominus illis praedixerat: Euntes in mundum universum, praedicantes evangelium [Marc. XVI, 15], vel quia expellendi erant a Judaea, noverant se in gentibus dispergendos, Ecclesiamque congregandum ex rudi populo. Idcirco praedia in Judaeam minime sunt adepti, sed pretia tantummodo ad fovendos egentes. At vero cum inter turbines et adversa mundi succresceret Ecclesia, eo usque pervenit ut non solum gentes, sed etiam Romani principes (qui pene totius orbis monarchiam tenebant) ad fidem Christi et baptismi sacramenta concurrerent. Et quibus vir religiossimus, Constantinus primus, fidem veritatis patenter adeptus, licentiam dedit per universum orbem suo degentes imperio non solum fieri Christianos, sed etiam fabricandas ecclesias, et praedia tribuenda constituit. Denique idem praefatus princeps donaria immensa, et fabricam templi primae sedis beati principis apostolorum instituit, adeo ut sedem imperialem, quam Romani principes possederant, relinqueret, et beato Petro suisque praesulibus profuturam concederet.’ See ed. Friedberg I 682 n. 218 for a list of the eleventh-and twelfth-century canonical collections that contained variations of this passage. It also seems to have influenced the Liber de vita Christiana (ed. Perels, E.; Berlin 1930) of Bonizo of Sutri (ca. 1045–1096), although Bonizo showed a better historical understanding of how the Church came to hold property. On his reference to Pope Urban I, see Claxton, , ‘On the Name of Urban II’ (supra n. 20) 489–95. The following passage, from 5, 17 (ed. Perels 203) is quoted and discussed by Miccoli, , ‘Ecclesiae primitivae forma’ (supra n. 6) 483: 'Omnibus, qui scripturas sacras legunt, credo notissimum, quod post Domini ascensionem et post adventum Spiritus sancti paracliti apostolis necdum in orbe terrarum dispersis multitudinis credentium in Iudea erat cor unum et anima una etc. Futuram enim ecclesiam degentibus apostoli previdebant et se expellendos esse a Iudea sciebant et ideo in Iudea predia non sunt adepti, set tantum pecuniam ad fovendos egentes, maxime cum Dominus eis precepissent dicens: “Ite in mundum universum, predicate evangelium omni creaturae.” Romae vero temporibus Urbani pontificis tunc primum cepit ecclesia predia possidere. Nam antea ad instar primitivae ecclesiae Romana ecclesia predia non suscipiebat, sed tantum pecuniam ad sustentandos egentes … Postquam vero Romani imperatores christianae religioni se submisere, tunc cepit ecclesia non solum predia et villas, set etiam civitates et provincias et pene totum orbem possidere.’ The version of the passage from the Collectio Isidori Mercatoris included in the Decretum of Gratian was abridged by Gratian to about one half the length of the original Collectio passage, and omits the first sentence from the Collectio text, thus emphasizing the association of the ecclesia primitiva with the whole pre-Constantinian period, as opposed to only the period described in Acts 4:32 ff. (ed Friedberg I 682): ‘Futuram ecclesiam in gentibus apostoli preuidebant; idcirco predia in Iudea minime sunt adepti, sed precia tantummodo ad fovendos egentes …’ (from this point Gratian omits some unnecessary words, but the rest of the section is almost the same as that of the Collectio Isidori Mercatoris).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Bernard of Clairvaux, ‘Sermons on the Song of Songs,’ Sermon 33, § 14 ff., Life and Works of St. Bernard (4 vols., ed. Mabillon, J., tr. Eales, S. J.; London 1896) IV 223–4. An almost identical development of this idea of the primitive Church is found in several of the ‘Sermons on the Song of Songs’ in the continuation of the work of St. Bernard by Gillebertus de Hoilandia: see Sermon 10 § 4; Sermon 13 § 2; Sermon 34 § 1; Sermon 38 § 4; Sermon 41 § 1; Sermon 45 § 7 in PL 184. 58, 64, 177–78, 204, 214, 240. In the De consideratione there occurs the only reference in Bernard's works to the Donation of Constantine. Jordan, Edouard, ‘Dante et saint Bernard,’ Bulletin du Jubilé (ed. Comité Français Catholique pour la célébration du sixième centenaire de la mort de Dante Alighieri; Paris 1921) 267–330 at 299, has argued that this passage, in book four, is permanently enigmatic: see Bernard, , De consideratione 4. 3 (PL 182. 776; Leclercq, J. and Rochais, H. M., edd., S. Bernardi Opera: Tractatus et opuscula [Rome 1963] 3. 453). De Vooght, P., ‘Du De consideratione de saint Bernard au De potestate papae de Wyclif,’ Irenikon 25 (1953) 114–32 at 120, on the other hand, has argued that the passage, with its depreciation of Constantine, traces the worldliness of Bernard's own times to the new, non-Scriptural principles introduced into the Church by the Donation. The scholarship on this problem has been admirably summarized by Kennan, , ‘The “De Consideratione…” (supra n. 1) 87 ff. Bernard's use of the idea of the primitive Church not so much as a model of the perfect life as a polemical tool to attack practices of the present Church becomes very common in the twelfth century: see Miccoli, , ‘Ecclesiae primitivae forma’ (supra n. 6) 489–91. The contrast of an austere primitive Church with a later Church, growing in wealth and declining in virtue, is quite common: see Cambrensis, Giraldus, De rebus a se gestis 2, 5 (ed. Brewer, J., Rolls Series vol. 21 part 1, 51–2; London 1867). The contrast between the austere pre-Constantinian Church and the post-Constantinian Church declining in virtue goes back to patristic times: see St. Jerome, , Vita Malchi (PL 23. 55), ‘… postquam ad Christianos principes venerit, potentia quidem et divitiis maior, sed virtutibus minor facta sit.’ On the importance of this passage see Curtius, , European Literature (supra n. 27) 410 n. 8; Ladner, , Idea of Reform (supra n. 1) 252 n. 57; and Seeberg, E., Gottfried Arnold: die Wissenschaft und die Mystik seiner Zeit (Meerane 1923) 257 ff., 275 ff. Although not using the phrase ecclesia primitiva, in the later-twelfth century a Florentine heretic, Diotesalvi, took a position corollary to this view of the early Church when he declared that all the popes from the time of Sylvester I, the bishop of Rome in the time of Constantine, were in hell. On this and the influence of Diotesalvi in such towns of the Papal Patrimony as Orvieto and Viterbo see AS, May 21, vol. 5, 86–99 and Mann, Horace, Innocent III (The Lives of the Popes in the Middle Ages, vol. 11, 2nd ed.; London 1925) 104. Otto of Freising, also not using the phrase ecclesia primitiva, contrasted the poverty and humility of the Church before Constantine with its temporal power thereafter: The Two Cities (tr. Charles Mierow; New York 1928) Prologue of the Fourth Book, 271–4. In the thirteenth century, the Waldensians and Joachites made this same contrast between the austere primitive Church and the later more lax Christianity: see Gui, Bernard, Manuel de l'inquisiteur (2 vols., ed. Mollat, G.; Paris 1927) II 76–84, and also 88 for the use of the phrase ecclesia primitiva in another context. Smalley, , Study of the Bible (supra n. 4) 290–91 describes the division of history into four ages by an anonymous Dominican writing about 1270. In this case the primitive Church of the apostles and martyrs extended to Constantine, but was not considered morally superior to the succeeding ages. Kaminsky, Howard, A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1967) index under ‘Primitive Church’ has found that in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the idea of the primitive Church was used to refer to the pre-Constantinian Church. Indeed an examination of the Hussite use of the idea of the primitive Church shows that almost every sense of the idea developed in the eleventh and twelfth centuries existed in the fifteenth century. See also Howard Kaminsky, Dean Loy ***Bilderback, Imre Boba, and Patricia Rosenberg, edd., Master Nicholas of Dresden: The Old Color and the New. Selected Works Contrasting the Primitive Church and the Roman Church (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, vol. 55, part 1; Philadelphia 1965) 3–93. For the various ideas of the early Church in the Reformation, see in addition to Seeberg, Headley, John, Luther's view of Church History (New Haven and London 1963) esp. 106–94. This work contains much information on the idea of the early Church in the fourteenth through sixteenth centuries, but unfortunately is often not aware of the sources of these ideas. See also Littell, Franklin, The Anabaptist View of the Church (Boston 1958). esp. 46–78.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ On the still very common misunderstandings of the history of the Church during the twelfth and following centuries, due to the reliance by modern historians upon the writings of such moralists as Bernard, see Barraclough, , Papal Provisions ( supra n. 2) 10–23; Yunck, John, ‘Economic Conservatism, Papal Finance, and the Medieval Satires on Rome,’ Mediaeval Studies 23 (1961) 334–51; and Vaughn, Richard, Matthew Paris (Cambridge 1958) 125–58. For some hesitations as to Barraclough's general views, however, see the introduction to my doctoral thesis, which is being revised for publication, The Legal Definition of the Ecclesiastical Benefice during the Period of the Appearance of Papal Provisioning (1140–1230) (Memorial Library, University of Wisconsin, Madison 1965) 22–28. Much of the accepted interpretation of the economic history of the medieval papacy seems to me in need of extensive revision, because of excessive reliance by earlier generations of historians on the testimony of medieval moralists, satirists, and writers committed to the cause of nationalism. Yunck, Besides, op. cit., see my article ‘Italian Merchants and the Performance of Papal Banking Functions in the Early Thirteenth Century,’ to be published in a volume of Memorial Essays for Robert L. Reynolds, edited by Robert Lopez, Vsevolod Slessarev, and David Herlihy. Although this last article is devoted to another topic, it gives some notion of the materials which must be explored in order to obtain an idea of what I believe will be found to be the relative poverty of the central government of the Church, at least at the end of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth centuries.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Summa (ed. Schulte, 1–2 ‘Introductio’). See also the comments on this passage by Carlyle, and Carlyle, , Political Theory (cit. supra n. 4) II 181.Google Scholar