THE QUODLIBETA of the CANONS REGULAR and the MONKS Thomas Sullivan, OSB Teaching and Learning Played an Important Role in the Sp
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE QUODLIBETA OF THE CANONS REGULAR AND THE MONKS Thomas Sullivan, OSB Teaching and learning played an important role in the spiritual and intellectual lives of the medieval religious orders. In the thirteenth century, dissatis ed with the education offered in their internal schools, monks and canons turned to the universities for the intellectual forma- tion of their brightest students. After an initial canonical opposition between cloister and school, and with the cooperation of the University of Paris and the papacy, a way was found by the Dominican friars to reconcile the disciplina of the cloister with the doctrina of the University. The Dominicans arranged in 1221 for magister John of Barastre,1 royal chaplain and dean of Saint-Quentin, to provide them with instruc- tion in theology; this enabled them to receive the most advanced and sophisticated theological training of the day without having to leave their cloister, the future Couvent Saint-Jacques.2 Other religious quickly followed the Dominican example by found- ing houses of study in Paris: the Benedictines of Saint-Denis as early as 1229–30, the Friars Minor about 1238, the Cistercians in 1246, the Canons Regular of Prémontré in 1252,3 the Canons Regular of Val- des-Écoliers about 1250–54,4 and the Cluniac Benedictines in 1258–60. These studia joined the religious houses already established at Paris: the Canons Regular of Saint-Victor, the Canons Regular of Sainte- Geneviève, the Cluniac Benedictines of Saint-Martin-des-Champs, the Benedictines of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, and others. So rapid was the growth and signi cant the presence of the religious at the Univer- sity that tensions between them and the University were inevitable. A witness to these stresses was the circular letter drafted in 1254 by 1 R. Aubert, “Jean de Barastre,” Dictionnaire d’histoire et géographie ecclésiastique (herein- after DHGE) XXVI, col. 1221. 2 S.C. Ferruolo, The Origins of the University. The Schools of Paris and Their Critics, 1100–1215 (Stanford 1985), pp. 312–13. 3 B. Ardura, Prémontrés. Histoire et Spiritualité (Saint-Étienne 1995), pp. 186–90. 4 C. Guyon, Les Écoliers du Christ. L’ordre canonial du Val des Écoliers 1201–1539 (Saint- Étienne 1998), p. 226. 360 thomas sullivan, osb the University concerning its grievances against the religious orders; further witness is the questions asked quodlibetal masters concerning the status perfectior.5 During the period of the mendicant controversy (1250–70) and the sixty years beyond (1270–1330), seventeen monks and canons regular are known to have or thought to have produced quodlibeta, eight canons regular and nine monks. The canons include a master from the abbey of Saint-Victor in Paris, Gerard; three from the abbey of Mont-Saint- Éloi: Servais of Guez, Andrew of Orchies, and John of Maroueil;6 two from the abbey of Val-des-Écoliers: an anonymous master—Laurence of Poulangy?—and John du Val; one Premonstratensian canon from the abbey of Vicogne, John of Tongres; and one canon of an unknown monastery or congregation, James of Aaleus. The nine monastic quod- libetal masters count two Benedictine monks: Peter of Saint-Denis7 and Pierre Roger (the future Pope Clement VI); two Cluniac Benedictines: Albert and Guy of Cluny; and ve Cistercians: Guy of l’Aumône, John of Waarde, James of Thérines, Rainier Marquette of Clairmarais, and Nicholas of Vaux-Cernay. The quodlibeta assigned to fteen of these masters are found in different manuscripts and in different forms. The questions of ten of them appear in the brief extracts or summaries offered in the collections of Nicholas of Bar-le-Duc8 and Prosper of Reggio Emilia, OESA.9 Nicholas’s col- 5 CUP I, no. 230, p. 253. See also C.H. Lawrence, The Friars. The Impact of the Early Mendicant Movement on Western Europe (London-New York 1994), pp. 152–61; L. Duval- Arnould, “Mendicants and Seculars, Quarrel of,” in Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, ed. A. Vauchez (Chicago 2000), vol. II, p. 939. 6 While these three canons generally appear identi\ ed in discussions of quodlibetal questions under the name of their monastery or congregation, either Gervais or Servais of Mont-Saint-Éloi (Glorieux I, p. 133), André of Mont-Saint-Éloi (Glorieux II, p. 61), and John of Mont-Saint-Éloi (Glorieux II, p. 156), the names supplied in this paper for the quodlibetal authors from among canons regular of Mont-Saint-Éloi are provided in O. Barubé, L’Abbaye du Mont-Saint-Éloi des origines au XVIe siècle (Arras 1977), pp. 168–9. They are also found in idem, “La collégiale du Mont-Saint-Éloi, des origines à 1350,” Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France 61 (1975) (pp. 227–30), p. 230. 7 Glorieux, Répertoire I, p. 448, includes Peter of Saint-Denis among the secular masters. The reasons for Peter’s inclusion among the monastic quodlibetal masters will be discussed below. 8 Paris, BnF lat. 15850. The Parisian manuscript is described in detail in R. Macken, Bibliotheca Manuscripta Henrici de Gandavo, 2 vols. (Leuven-Leiden 1979), I, pp. 634–44. 9 BAV, Vat. lat. 1086. The manuscript is presented in signi cant detail in Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae Codices manu scripti recensiti. Codices Vaticani Latini, t. II, pars prior. Codices 679–1134, ed. A. Pelzer (Vatican City 1931), pp. 654–83. The collection is discussed in A. Pelzer, “Prosper of Reggio Emilia, des Ermites de Saint-Augustin, et le manuscrit latin 1086 de la Bibliothèque de Vaticane,” Revue Néo-Scolastique de Philosophie .