Lesley Smith SlippersinHeaven William of Auvergne Preaching to the Brethren Abstract: When he somewhat unexpectedlyfound himself installedasBishop of Paris in 1228,the philosopher-theologian William of Auvergne had to adjust his wayoflife. Auniversity master who had never taken priest’sorders,William found himself having to organize and take the leading role in the pastoral ministry of his diocese. Areformer,William welcomed the arrival of the Mendicant Ordersin Paris, and theirpartinits spiritual life. Indeed, when the University went on strike in 1229,not onlydid William not side with his formercolleagues, he supported the Men- dicants to the extent of giving them their first universitychair.Inaddition, he took his own individual responsibility as bishop seriously,becoming known as asingular preacher.This paper will look at William’ssermons to the Paris Mendicants, and his ideas of what the Mendicant life should be. This essaydoes not directlyconcern Alexander or the Summa. Instead, it focuses on one of Alexander’salmostexactcontemporaries in Paris, William of Auvergne. Wil- liam wasboth asecular teachingmasterinthe cathedral school at Notre Dame and bishop of the city from 1228.His career,and especiallythe 21 years of his episcopate, encompassed the comingofthe mendicant Orders to Paris and their establishment in its university—the foremost centrefor theological research in Europe. William’srela- tionships with the mendicants and the universitydemonstrate his importance for their acceptance into the Paris schools system; and his extant sermons—some of which werepreached to the Paris friars—illustrate the affinity he shared with the brethren, both in preachingstyle and in pastoral and theological emphasis. William was akey playerinthe story of the mendicants in the city;indeed, without William, the Franciscan and Dominican trajectory in the universitywould have been very dif- ferent. William was BishopofParis from 1228 until his death in 1249. Before 1228,dates are somewhat hard to come by,but we know that by 1223 he was ateachingmaster and acanon of Notre Dame.¹ From his name, and some asidesinhis writings, we The standardbiography of William remains Noël Valois, Guillaume d’Auvergne, évêque de Paris (1228–1249): Sa vie et ses ouvrages (Paris:Picard, 1880). Autour de Guillaume d’Auvergne (†1249), ed. Franco Morenzoni and Jean-Yves Tilliette (Turnhout: Brepols,2005), has agood bibliography and recent research.Roland Teske’smanytranslations,with notes, of William’sphilosophical works arealwaysuseful; for abrief overview of William’slife and works see his ‘William of Au- vergne,’ in ACompanion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages,ed. Jorge J.A. Garcia and TimothyB. Noone (Malden,MA: Blackwell, 2002), 680 –7. OpenAccess. ©2020 Lydia Schumacher,published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110685022-019 286 Lesley Smith believethat he was born and grew up in the Auvergne. He is said to have been born around 1180,but the date is reallyonlyreachedbycountingback abiblical 70 years from the date of his death. So like manyimportant medieval people, we know virtu- allynothing of more than half his life, and especiallyabout the formative period of his upbringing.² He became bishop unexpectedly.Onthe death of the previous incumbent,Bar- tholomew,in1227, the canons of Notre Dame (of whom William was one) elected Nicholas the Chanterashis successor.But the electionwas not unanimous, and Wil- liam wasunhappy with the process, which he said had violated the rules laid down in the decrees of LateranIV. Nicholas stood aside,claiming that he had never wished to be bishop,and asecond electionwas held. This gave the posttothe Dean of the Cathedral, Philip. Again, William argued that the process had been uncanonical. At this point,Gregory IX intervened and instituted alocal enquiry,which upheld Wil- liam’sobjections. William was so exercised by the matter that he travelled to Rome to speak to the pope; and here, using Canon 24 of Lateran IV as his authority, Gregory decided to take the election into his own hands, and made William himself bishop. ‘Aman of eminent learning,without astain on his character’,was his judge- ment—one that Gregory was soon to regret and retract,when William did not act as he ordered.³ WasWilliam made bishop by mistake, as it were, or had he gone to Rome with this precise intention?Perhaps he himself did not know.Certainly, he was still onlya deacon whenhewas appointed by Gregory,who had to ordain William priest before he could consecrate him bishop.⁴ In order to teachtheologyinParis, it was necessary to be aclerk in holyorders;being adeacon was sufficient,and William seems to have shown no sign of wantingtogofurther.But of course, beingapriest and being abishop—being in charge—are two very different things. We might even spec- ulate that it was onlywhen he sawthe other possibilities on offer—when he sawthe other possible candidates—that he decided he would have to try to do it himself.⁵ The moreIhave worked on William, the moreIhavecometothink that he was older than the stan- dardbiographies suggest,and Iaminclined to put his birth datecloser to 1170 than 1180;but so far this remains an unsubstantiatedopinion. Valois, Guillaumed’Auvergne,8–16.Gregory’slettertothe chapter at Paris (10 April 1228) reads: ‘Ceterum ne dicta ecclesia pro defectu pastoris dispendium pateretur, nos praenominatum magistrum Wilhelmum, virum eminentis scientiae, vitae ac conversationishonestae,acopinionis praeclarae, zelum Dei et animarum habentem,exofficio nostro, de consilio fratrum nostrorum, in antistitem vobis providimus et ecclesiae supra dictae, quem tandem in presbyterem ordinatum et in episcopum consecratum anobis cum plenitudine gratiae nostrae duximus remittendum,’ in M.B. Hauréau, ‘Quel- ques Lettres de Grégoire IX,’ in Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la bibliothèqueimpériale,vol. 21/2 (Paris:Imprimerie Impériale,1865), 208. See previous note. Foracomparison of the election after William, see Pascal Montaubin, ‘Leschanoines de Notre- Dame de Paris àlamort de l’évêque Guillaume d’Auvergne (1249),’ in Notre-Dame de Paris 1163– SlippersinHeaven 287 What is clear is that William took to being bishop likeaduck to water.Rather like Hildebrand becomingGregory VII, Ithink he had an agenda before he started; and his consecration as bishop gave him the chance to carry it out.After all, by this time he was probablyatleast 48 years old, observing the workings of the Church for decades.Although he does not appear to have had personal ambition—if the op- portunity at Paris had not arisen, Idonot think he would have pursued ecclesiastical preferment elsewhere—he did have strongand serious ideas about what the Church should be; and suddenly, he had the means to bring them about.William was acon- fident man—confident enough,infact,that he can talk about doubt; confident enough to go his ownway.But though full of original and striking ideas, his faith in God wasinits waysimple and very deep. Let us move, then, to the mendicants. Dominic sent the first group of seven friars to Paris in 1217.⁶ Their task—to study, to preach, and to found apriory.Dominic him- self wasinParis for the first General Chapter of the Order in 1220.Asalreadynoted, William was amaster of theologyand canon of Notre Dame by 1223,and so must surelyhavebeen studying in Paris at this time. In all the discussions of Dominic as an organizational genius, it is often forgotten that he was alsoaperson of great charisma,and Ithink it very likelythat William heardhim speak. From Notre Dame, William would have watched as the Dominicans, followed by the Franciscans, worked to establish their houses of study in the city.For both orders, the decade from 1220 to 1230 must have been filled both with enormous exhilaration and enormous trepidation, as they fought for aplace within the Church. In addition, each had to weather the death of amagnetic founder,whose loss might easilyhavespelled the end of the experiment—certainlyfor the Franciscans,and perhaps even for the Dom- inicans, whose numbers had intentionallygrown more slowly, with potential broth- ers often picked out by Dominic himself. It wascrucial to the success of both that they be accepted within individual dioceses—Francis makesitplain, for instance, that his brothers should not attempt to preach except with the agreement of the local authorities. Since bothOrderswerequick to establish themselvesinParis, the attitude of the city’sbishop was amake or break issue. Paris was the city of seri- ous theologyand biblical studies, but it was also the city of serious students and teachers;bothOrderswereaskeen to poach as they weretolearn. It was not obvious thatthe mendicants would be welcomed either into the dio- cese or the university;bothhad much to lose. Aletter of August 1231 from Gregory to William details the bad treatment the friars werereceiving in France.⁷ The brethren 2013: Actes du colloque scientifique tenu au Collège des Bernardins,àParis, du 12 au 15 décembre2012, ed. Cédric Giraud (Turnhout: Brepols,2013), 195–216. William A. Hinnebusch, TheHistoryofthe Dominican Order,2vols (New York: Alba House, 1966–73); M. Michèle Mulchahey, ‘Firstthe Bow is BentinStudy…’:Dominican education before 1350 (Toronto:Pontifical InstituteofMediaeval Studies,1998). Valois, Guillaume d’Auvergne,102– 3and nn. Gregory’stext can be accessedthrough the Brepols Ut per litteras apostolicas (LITPA) database. 288 Lesley Smith werenot permitted to have the sacrament in their chapels; they could not celebrate mass every day; they could not have achurch or bell tower; they could not have a sanctified cemetery within the convent walls; they had to attend parish processions, saytheir first mass thereinthe parish church, and be buried there. Their candles, lamps and ornaments wereall taxed by the secular clergy, who demanded tithes of their kitchen garden produce and levied duty on the construction of their con- vents. The bishop obliged the brothers to come to synod, and made their ministers and guardians take an oath of fidelity,when he had not appointed them himself. Those who refused weredrivenout.