Montfaucon's edition of St. John Chrysostom and Migne's Patrologia after him put among the dubia six sermons De fato et providentia (Πεϱὶ εἱμαϱμένης τε ϰαὶ πϱονοίας). In the Admonitio we read: ‘Et vero cum de fato Chrysostomus disserit, alio orationis utitur modo: unde forte nascatur quaedam νοθείας suspicio.’ Henry Savile, in his edition (1612), rejected the view of Fronton du Duc, who had written of these orations: ‘Videntur concionum a Chrysostomo habitarum ἀπανθίσματα potius et florilegia, seu morales digressiones, quam integrae homiliae: necdum tamen areolae et loca unde sunt decerptae, nobis occurrerunt.’ Savile's rejection reads: ‘Non assentior Frontoni Ducaeo has πεϱί πϱονοίας orationes ἀπανθίσματα esse: neque enim memini ea quae hic afferuntur alibi apud hunc nostrum legisse eodem modo dicta.’

The prominence of the public assembly is one of the most striking features of the reign of Louis the Pious. Both the chronicles and the imperial biographers refer again and again to the frequent public gatherings at which much of the business of the empire was transacted. This business varied in nature and importance, just as the assemblies varied in their location and duration. However, there seems to have been no major category of public business which was systematically kept from the purview of the public assembly.

An important source, available to the historian, which helps explain the nature of the society of South Central France in the late ninth and early tenth century is the Life of St. Gerald of Aurillac, written by Abbot Odo of Cluny. It is important for a number of reasons. In the first place, it was written during a period when French royal capitularies reflect a kingly authority restricted to an area north of the Loire and thus are unable to throw much light on conditions in the Midi. In the second place, when it was composed local narrative chronicles seem no longer to have been written south of the Loire, while those still being penned north of it, like Flodoard's Annals, seem to contain little information concerning this part of France. In short, the Life of St. Gerald of Aurillac fills an important gap in our information between the narrative found in the Annales Bertiniani, composed by Hincmar of Rheims, who seems well informed on events taking place in the Midi, and that found in the early eleventh-century chronicle of Ademar of Chabannes.

Sulcard, a monk of Westminster in the eleventh century, is the author of the first history of his monastery, the unprinted Prologus de construccione Westmonasterii. In this brief tract he describes the foundation of Westminster in the days, as he claims, of King Æthelberht of Kent, and the patronage and endowment extended by various benefactors, notably Archbishop Dunstan of Canterbury and King Edward the Confessor. Sulcard also records the marvellous dedication of Westminster by St. Peter, patron of the church, and two other miracles worked in Westminster by the prince of the apostles. Another chapter is devoted to King Æthelred II and Alfred the Ætheling. It has nothing to do with Westminster and was obviously inserted to bridge the gap in the history of the monastery between the reigns of Kings Edgar and Edward the Confessor. It does, however, contain some information on Æthelred's siege of Rochester in 986 and a brief reference bearing on the question whether Edward or Alfred was the elder of Æthelred's two sons by Emma. The purpose of this paper is to examine the content of Sulcard's Prologus and to print for the first time the entire text.

Western Europe in the first half of the twelfth century was witnessing a great intellectual and cultural revolution. One manifestation of this was the hordes of ambitious youths seeking instruction, not only in the traditional ‘seven liberal arts,’ but also in the more specialized fields of law, medicine, and theology. In consequence, old educational centers were being revitalized and new ones were appearing. For centuries, of course, most monasteries and some cathedrals had maintained schools. Previous to the twelfth century, however, the monastic schools had played a more conspicuous role in education than those of the cathedrals. The period with which we are concerned saw a notable reversal in this situation. Usually located in rural areas, monasteries were unprepared to supply the needs of large numbers of students. Nor was the presence of a transient and turbulent body of adolescents conducive to monastic discipline. Cathedrals, on the other hand, situated in the rapidly growing towns, could supply the students in their schools with the necessities of life, while providing elementary and often advanced instruction through a corps of teachers supervised by the cathedral scholasticus. Thus the early progress of the ‘Twelfth-Century Renaissance’ can frequently be best observed in a study of the history of this or that cathedral school. In the long run Paris, Laon, and Chartres were to exert the greatest influence. Yet there were many other schools in the period, 1100-1150, which could boast a famous master or two and which produced notable scholars. One of these was Reims, which under Master Alberic enjoyed for nearly twenty years a prestige in theological studies equalled by no contemporary school.

Two years ago we briefly announced the discovery of a new document of great interest for the history of the Fourth Lateran Council. Written in Spring 1216 as a letter from Rome, presumably by a German, it was copied by a thirteenth-century scribe into a manuscript now at the Universitäts-bibliothek of Giessen, where it follows directly after the constitutiones of the council. With its detailed and vivid description of the three plenary sessions and of many events that took place in between, the anonymous report adds considerably to the information we possess from other sources. But although other portions of the Giessen codex have been known and used by many scholars ever since the eighteenth century, this text has been overlooked to the present day. It is a happy coincidence that we are able to present this eyewitness account of the greatest of the ecumenical councils of the Middle Ages while the Second Vatican Council is in session.

The work of the medieval canonists has always formed a significant chapter in the histories of medieval political thought. The law of the Church and its attendant juristic science forms the proper source material for the examination of the system of ideas which lay behind the functioning of papal government. Ecclesiastical jurisprudence was the practical branch of sapientia Christiana. It was concerned with a constitution and the exercise of power within its terms; with an organization and the methods by which it was to be run. It had of necessity to be articulate about the nature of the papacy, the constitutional and organizational linchpin. In consequence the canonists were the acknowledged theorists of papal primacy. To them rather than to the theologians belonged that segment of ecclesiology which treated of the nature of the Church as a visible corporate society under a single ruler. In that period of nearly a century which lay between the accession of Alexander III and the death of Innocent IV, canonists were required to register the increasingly numerous and more diverse applications of papal rulership to the problems of Christian society. The concept of papal monarchy came to be reexamined in academic literature because of the accelerating tempo of papal action. Under the stimulus of an active papacy, the canonists were led to examine many of the assumptions on which the popes based their actions and claims. The world of affairs conditioned the evolution of a political-theory, which in turn helped to shape the course of events.

Cardinal Comes of Casate, one of six cardinals who died in the papal vacancy-following the death of Honorius IV in 1287, added a codicil to his will in Rome as the summer pestilence was raging. This document, edited below, adds another example to an isolated first cluster of such cardinals' wills, codicils, and death inventories. The inventory of the estate of Cardinal Geoffrey of Alatri, deacon of S. Giorgio in Velabro (died before 31 May 1287), and the wills or codicils of Cardinals Comes, priest of SS. Marcellino e Pietro (died after 19 July 1287), Hugh of Evesham, priest of S. Lorenzo in Lucina (died before 18 August 1287), Bentivenga dei Bentivenghi, bishop of Albano (died after 25 March 1289), Peter Peregrosso of Milan, successor to the cardinal title of Geoffrey of Alatri (died between 15 and 28 July 1295), and Thomas of Ocra, priest of S. Cecilia (died between 23 May and 4 June 1300), are a remarkable group, not only because they cover a span of only fourteen years, but because they either contain an impressive list of books or refer to a substantial, uninventoried private library.

The Gregorian reform of the eleventh century mounted a massive attack on lay control over churches and church appointments, yet the degree to which this attack succeeded in attaining its objectives varied from country to country. Local conditions and personalities were important in determining the outcome of the struggle over investiture and other related questions, but neither side achieved a complete victory, because the final agreements between clerical and lay leaders were a compromise which produced the usual mixture of satisfaction and disappointment. The church gained the most substantial victory, for the smothering stranglehold of the laity over the church and churchmen was broken, nevermore to be restored in the Middle Ages. Increased spiritual freedom for the church in subsequent centuries resulted from the struggle of the mid-eleventh century. Nevertheless, the church had not broken completely from its close ties with the world of feudalism. If bishoprics, abbeys, and parish churches were not feudal possessions of kings and nobles, laymen still retained many rights reminiscent of the earlier days when laymen claimed a proprietary right over the churches in their areas. The purpose of this paper is to consider one of these remnants of earlier days: the right of regalia I will examine the right of regalia, temporal and spiritual, together with some related institutions during the reigns of St. Louis and Philip III of France.

If a definitive history of the controversy during the final decades of the thirteenth century regarding the real distinction between essence and existence still remains to be written, an exposition of the views expressed by Godfrey of Fontaines on this point may provide one more step in this direction. It seems probable that Godfrey had studied in Paris during Thomas' final years there (1269-1272) and that he may have studied under Henry of Ghent as well as under Siger of Brabant. He lectured as Master of theology at Paris for some thirteen years (1285-1297), and again around 1303-1304, when he composed his fifteenth Quodlibetal Question. Giles of Rome had also studied at Paris under Thomas (1269-1272) and served there as Bachelor in theology (1276-1277), and later as Master in theology (1285-1291). Henry of Ghent had taught at Paris around 1271 (apparently on the faculty of Arts) and later, beginning in 1276, on the faculty of Theology. Between 1276 and 1292 he delivered the courses which resulted in his Summa and in his Quaestiones Quodlibetales. Because Godfrey was familiar with the work of Thomas Aquinas (in Q[uodlibet] 2 q.3 one finds an almost verbatim reproduction of a section of Thomas' De aeternitate mundi), because he witnessed the famed debate on the real distinction between Henry of Ghent and Giles of Rome, and because his work was well known to Duns Scotus, clarification of his own position should be of historical interest. In addition, it is to be hoped that such a study will show that his views are distinctive enough to merit investigation for their own sake.

Un certain nombre de scholars Américains ont songé à aborder une nouvelle édition de S. Jean Chrysostome. Il nous semble donc intéressant de publier ces notes sommaires sur les papiers de Montfaucon conservés à la Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris, dans le fonds du Supplément grec. Ces papiers avaient naguère été mis à profit par le P. Wenger (Introduction à son édition de Huit catéchèses baptismales inédites [Sources Chrétiennes 50; Paris 1957] 17, par exemple) et lui avaient permis d'éclairer M. Richard sur quelques questions de la tradition manuscrite d'Astérius le Sophiste (voir Commentariorum in Psalmos quae supersunt edidit M. Richard [Symbolae Osloenses, Suppl. 16 [1956], Introduction).

Nous étudierons ici la tradition manuscrite, en grec, du texte Οἶδα μὲν ὅτι τοῖς παχνχέϱοις que les catalogues désignent sous la rubrique Quod nemo laeditur.

The appearance of Hans Urs von Balthasar's corpus of Maximian studies in a new and reworked edition, after the lapse of more than twenty years, deserves more than usual attention. I must confess that I am a little embarrassed in undertaking the task. For, having myself written on Maximus after he had published his work, I had it constantly before me and more than once have criticized some of his positions, without fully grasping all that he wished to convey or the breadth of the background against which he was operating, even though, as he himself suggests (KL 14), we are in basic agreement in our understanding of Maximus and of the Maximian synthesis. Nonetheless, our approaches to Maximus do differ. A clear understanding of that difference will facilitate, I think, a surer appreciation of von Balthasar's own work and will also lead to a better grasp of the significance of Maximus and of the problems that confront the student of the Confessor. May their number increase!

The Carolingians regarded much of Italy as a military frontier following their overthrow of the Lombard kingdom in 776. Although there was little national Lombard resistance to Frankish rule, other factors — which will be noted later — forced the Franks to keep up their military establishment in Italy. In some ways this military establishment followed the pattern of Carolingian arrangements in other conquered territories, in other ways the Italian situation was quite unique. Since the Carolingian failure to solve the problem of Italian unity was in at least a degree due to the Carolingian failure to meet the challenge of the Italian military frontier, the study of this problem throws some interesting light on the turbulent conditions in northern and central Italy before and after its incorporation in the German Holy Roman Empire.

In a century of steady expansion of medieval studies, interest in the Donation of Constantine (more correctly Constitutum Constantini) has waxed and waned. At this point, scholarly judgment has settled on a number of positions which may be said to be canonized or have passed into an opinio communis of medievalists. This body of received data has been sifted most recently by Wolfgang Gericke, who, after judicious summary of the important preceeding literature, has invited us to consider a new thesis to explain the genesis and development of this most contentious document.

The symbolic, or perhaps more accurately, non-numerical significance of numbers has long been an accepted factor in the religion and superstition of the western world; in particular, medieval man in his search for the divine order underlying all manifestations of the external world possessed a natural propensity for numerological interpretation. It is, therefore, no surprise to find in the literature of the Middle Ages constant reference to, and interpretation of, numbers — numbers which in many cases even today have about them a sinister, friendly, or sanctified aura. The meaning of numbers and their manner of employment vary, however, greatly in different forms of writing and it is thus important to bear in mind the advice of Hopper, that although symbolic numbers are profusely scattered through the pages of nearly all medieval writings, it is necessary to distinguish, especially in secular and unscientific literature, between the philosophical or scientific use of number, the symbolic, the imitative, and the merely naïve preference for certain commonly used numbers.’ Hopper was concerned in his work with the general meaning of numbers as they appeared in medieval writings of all kinds and not with literature per se, where, at least in Germany, a further distinction must be made on the basis of recent scholarship. For considerable interest has been evinced in recent years in the structure of medieval German literature and in particular in the arithmetically symmetrical plans which seem to have been drawn up by poets as a framework for their composition. Whilst, therefore, the use of numbers in religious and edifying works may justifiably be viewed as deriving from Christian symbolism and is therefore to be distinguished on the one hand from the scientific use of number and on the other from the ‘naïve preference for certain commonly used numbers,’ a further category must be established in that the planned arithmetical form of medieval secular literature may have in fact no symbolic meaning. To take only a few simple examples: the Goldene Schmiede of Konrad von Würzburg consists of 1,000 couplets or the perfect number 10 raised to the power of the Trinity. Gottfried's Tristan on the other hand was possibly calculated to cover 25,000 lines, by which, presumably, nothing is symbolised. The fact that Otfried writes: ‘Wangta zuein thero jaro fiarzug ni was' and ‘Thria stunton finfzug ouh thri,’ for 38 and 153 respectively, is due to the innate significance of these numbers and not to the exigencies of versification. There is no significance, however, in the Nibelungenlied's ‘Sehs unt ahzec türne,’ ‘sehs unt ahzec wip,’ and ‘Sehs unt ahzec vrouwen’ (404.1, 525.1, 572.1). Similarly, the use of the seven-line stanza may be conditioned by the symbolic significance of the number seven, but the same is presumably not the case with Wolfram's groups of thirty lines. More important perhaps than these examples: the numerical structure of the Annolied has a specific meaning in relation to the religious content of the work, but there is no meaning inherent in the symmetrical line and stanza groups in the works of Gottfried, Wolfram, and Hartmann.

Since our last report in these pages we have witnessed another successful International Patristic Conference at Oxford in September, 1963; the publication of the papers is earnestly awaited at this writing. Also, since the last bibliographical survey, we have observed two sessions of Vatican Council II, which boasts the largest attendance in the history of ecumenical councils, and perhaps the longest list of schemata or agenda. Here, among the innumerable questions which touched on the aggiornamento of the Church, so dear to the heart of the late Pope John XXIII, who first broached the subject of a council as early as 1959, there have been long discussions about the modernization and adaptation of the liturgy, and the clarification of the relationship between the various sources of Christian belief, that is, the Fathers, Scripture, and tradition, with a special eye to the modern communication of the Church's message. Both of these schemata should be of unparalleled interest to all scholars who concern themselves with the problems of the Christian tradition, and the completion of both of these doctrinal sections is eagerly awaited. Other problems of importance will of course be the relation of the Catholic to the non-Catholic groups, the role of the laity in the Church, the power of the bishops vis-à-vis the Roman Curia, the function of religious orders and congregations, and many more. The present Vatican Council is the twenty-first in a series which began with a small group of bishops who met for a few months in the year 325 under the emperor Constantine at the tiny Asiatic town of Nicaea. Of these twenty councils, however, some non-Catholic groups recognize merely the first four, Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon; whereas the Separated Eastern churches accept the first seven, that is, down to the second Council which met at Nicaea in 787. Actually, in the present administration of the Church, ecumenical councils are not strictly necessary; but a council, once invoked, becomes a testimony of faith and unity, and from this point of view, the determination of doctrine and discipline is sometimes secondary. Yet it is true to say that from the doctrinal point of view, the two most controversial councils were the two most recent ones, the nineteenth, the Council of Trent (1545-63), and the twentieth, Vatican Council I (1869-70). Without entering into controversy, I think it may be said that these two Councils set patristic scholars of different beliefs farther apart. In any case, the period between Trent and Vatican saw the rise of different schools of patristic scholarship, each attempting to find textual evidence for their own point of view. But, curiously enough, with the rise of the great schools of research in England, France, Germany, Holland and Belgium, the Scandinavian countries, and America, and with the insistence on well-grounded textual studies, the gap between the patristic scholars of different schools of thought has noticeably narrowed. This has been demonstrated not only by the publication of common research projects, but also by the success of such conferences as the International Patristic Conference at Oxford occurring every four years, with the results appearing in Texte und Untersuchungen. It is also shown, I think, in the vast bibliographical project Bibliographia Patristica (Berlin: de Gruyter) under the editorship of W Schneemelcher with the collaboration of an international group of scholars, and now in its fifth volume (publications for 1960-1962). This has been no small achievement. It is therefore all the more profoundly to be hoped that the original pastoral theme enunciated for the Vatican Council by Pope John XXIII in 1959 will remain dominant to the end, promoting a familial atmosphere among all men of good will, and (with special regard for our interests) encouraging a universality among all patristic scholars without prejudice to the quality of their own individual research.

Nous avons édité ici même, l'an dernier, les thèmes de 76 questions contenues ans deux MSS parallèles (Zwettl, Stiftsbibl. 162, fol. 123-144v [Zw] et Wien Ãionalbibl. 2163, fol. 75-85ra et 91ra-95vb [Wi]) et dont un bon nombre se trouvaient dans d'autres MSS. Nous voudrions aujourd'hui donner un premier complément à ce travail en achevant le dépouillement de deux de ces SS: Bamberg, Staatsbibl. can. 45, fol. 41-56v [Bb] et Klosterneuburg, Stiftsbibl. 656, fol. 19-33v [Kb], en notant le parallélisme avec Fulda, Landesbibl.

In 1262 Henry of Susa, archbishop of Embrun, became cardinal-bishop of Ostia, the see with which he became synonymous to later generations who knew him simply as Hostiensis. And yet the statutes of Henry, archbishop of Embrun, published in a provincial council at Seyne-les-Alpes in the diocese of Embrun, appear in the conciliar collections under the year 1267, the date given in their preface.