|Tract||Title(+incipit and explicit)||MS||▼Hand||Editions|
inc.: Decretum est in sacris canonibus
x ...Sed ab inferiori ordine nullatenus debet iudicari de
[Hide][Show]Tract 1 examines the statement that "the pope ought to be judged by no one" (summus pontifex a nemine sit iudicandus). The line of argument taken in this tract differs from later treatments of this question. Most canonists focused on the gloss that stated the exception: if the pope was found to be deviating from the faith (nisi deprehendatur a fide devius). This precipitated discussion for the next few centuries of how to define a heretical pope and then how to depose him. See Brian Tierney, Foundations of Conciliar Theory: The Contribution of the Canonists from Gratian to the Great Schism, Enlarged New Edition. Studies in the History of Christian Thought (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 51-61. In contrast, the NA focuses on the moral disposition of the pope, that is, that he is subject to the same judgments of his behavior as any other Christian. He maintains the distinction between office and person (or more accurately between the different "personae" of a pope), so that in no way does he argue that a pope qua pope is subject to judgment. The first edition of this text is in Heinrich Böhmer, Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im XI. und. XII. Jahrhundert (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1899), pp. 436-437.
inc.: Auctoritate sanctorum patrum didicimus
x ...Nam ipsi Deo uult preferri, cum quo unus est spiritus.|
Tract 2 begins as a theological reflection on the unity of the church and how unity and diversity can be understood in terms of corpus-ecclesiology. The argument then shifts to the tract's real purpose: to refute the claims of primacy over Rouen by the archbishop of Lyon. In 1079, pope Gregory VII affirmed that Lyon was in fact the primate over the archbishoprics of Tours, Sens and Rouen: Gregory VII (Pope), Das Register Gregors VII, ed. Erich Casper, MGH, Epistolae (Berlin: Weidmann, 1920-1923), 6.34-35 (2.447-452). While the pope was confirming an ancient claim of Lyon, it was now under much more volatile circumstances. Indeed, he may have agreed to do so in order to strengthen Gebuin of Lyon's role as papal legate in France and Normandy: see Peter McKeon, "Gregory VII and the Primacy of Archbishop Gebuin of Lyons," Church History 38 (1969), 3-8. Lyon's primacy did not go unchallenged and it remained a point of contention for many decades. At the Council of Clermont (1095), Pope Urban II re-confirmed the privilege and threatened the archbishops of Sens and Rouen with interdict if they did not submit. William Bona Anima, archbishop of Rouen, appears to have been suspended because of his refusal (from 1101 to 1106). This tract may have come out of this conflict, and in fact may not be a treatise in the formal sense. It reads more like a briefing memo and contains arguments that someone could use to argue against Lyon's claims to primacy. It shares a common aim with the two letters of Yves of Chartres which he wrote on behalf of the archbishop of Sens (1097 and 1111), but there is no explicit textual relationship here: see Yves of Chartres, "Epistolae ad litem investiturarum spectantes," in Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum conscripti seculis XI. et XII., 3 vols., ed. E. Sackur, MGH, Sriptores (Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniani, 1891-1897), 2.640-657, at 650-657. A reference of the Council of Clermont (=Arumnensis) of 1095 provides a terminus a quo, and the terminus ad quem is probably no later than 1106 (see the headnote for tract 4). Tract 2 shares several characteristics with tracts 4, 12, and possibly 29a. The first edition of this tract is in Heinrich Böhmer, Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im XI. und. XII. Jahrhundert (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1899), pp. 437-449.
inc.:Cum de homine negat Petrus
x ...Sed utrum recte an perperam, sapientium iudicio
Pellens entitled Tract 3 as "Concerning the magnitude of sins, their quality, punishments and sufferings..." (De magnitudine peccatorum et de qualitate eorum et de penis et suppliciis...), a sentence that is found at the end of the tract itself. Such a title, however, does not accurately describe the tract's primary argument. The author's intention, so it would seem, is to mitigate the extreme reaction in the Anglo-Norman world to sodomy. The tract begins with a long quotation from Ambrose on Peter's thrice denial of Christ and how to classify this act as sinful. The function of this citation is to demonstrate that such a grave sin can still merit forgiveness. He then proceeds to classify sins based on the order of the biblical narrative, beginning with Adam but then stalls at the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. His argument is that sodomy is not the gravest sin in the Old Testament and indeed points to biblical texts that speak of Sodom's forgiveness and restoration to paradise. This is followed by extensive quotations from Origen's Homilies on Leviticus which discuss the relationship between grave sins and capital punishment. Origen concludes that the correlation between sin and such punishment may not be so easily obvious or discernible for Christian readers of the Jewish Scriptures. The NA concludes with his own summary of grave sins in the New Testament, arguing that all sins can be forgiven, except for the sin against the Holy Spirit. In the context of the twelfth century, the NA presents a very moderate account of sodomy. He clearly sees it as a sinful act (quod peccatum est, et turpe et est et execrandum.), but does not rage against it as Peter Damian had done (nor even the NA's contemporary Anselm of Canterbury would eventually do). He seems to be subtly arguing that sodomy does not merit severe punishment (certainly not death, but perhaps even the loss of property for the laity and the defrocking of clerics). The more serious sins are rather the rejection of the Christian faith and the general refusal to seek forgiveness for one's sins. Tract 3 was first published in George H. Williams, The Norman Anonymous of 1100 A.D., Harvard Theological Studies, 18 (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1951), pp. 208-222.
inc.:Interrogetur Romanus pontifex quibus de
causis reprehendit et condempnat Rothomagensem archiepiscopum
x ...ne meliorum vita deteriorum prelatorum corrumpatur
Tract 4 examines four charges leveled against the archbishop of Rouen: that he is unfaithful, disobedient, and that he has a total disregard for his pastoral duties (de contemptu ordinis). While the NA answers all three charges, he devotes almost 90 percent of this tract to the second one. While this tract shares some similarities with tract 2, their individual contexts differ. Tract 2 was a response to the claims to primacy by the archbishop of Lyon over Rouen and most likely was written in response to the Council of Clermont. Tract 4, however, can be dated to a later period. Kennerly M Woody, "Marginalia on the Norman Anonymous," Harvard Theological Review 66 (1973), 273-288, at 284-286, suggested that this tract could be dated to around 111/12, after the Council of Anse where the issue of Lyon's primacy was raised once again. By then, Geoffrey of Breton was archbishop, which makes such a dating doubtful. Rouen's relationship with the papacy improved dramatically after the death of William Bona Anima in 1110, and there would have been no circumstances that would have elicited a tract such as this one. It is thus more likely that this tract was connected to the events in 1106. The circumstances were this: sometime around 1102, archbishop William was suspended, for unknown reasons, from his office. William paid little attention to the papal sanction when performing his duties, but he seems to have actively worked to have it lifted. In 1105, he asked Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, to intercede on his behalf. Anselm did so with pope Paschal II and the pope promised to confirm any decision that Anselm might reach. The pope's only proviso was that William had to dismiss certain “evil counselors” (did Paschal II have the NA in mind?). In 1106, Anselm was still on the continent, having finally reconciled with Henry I. Before returning to England, he travelled to Rouen where he attended a synod . It is at this synod that Anselm lifted the suspension. Notice of the synod is recorded in Eadmer, Historia novorum, PL 159, 337-524, 460-461. In this context, tract 4 may have been composed as a brief for the archbishop as he prepared for the synod. It addresses specific charges, not as a topic of a scholastic exercise, but rather to develop rebuttal arguments. The mention of, and quotation from, a prepositum in the course of the arguments about the second charge suggests that the tract was a direct response to a diplomatic instrument of some sort (although we have been unable to identify this text). The use of the verb alloquamur also suggests that the tract seeks to supply useful arguments for a future presentation or debate. If this was a briefing memo for the Rouennais synod, it is doubtful that it was ever read into the record. Its inflammatory claims about the primacy of the church of Jerusalem would have no doubt hindered the archbishop's position rather than have helped. The tract was first published in Heinrich Böhmer, "Tractatus Eboracensis," in Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum conscripti seculis XI. et XII, MGH, Scriptores, 3 (Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniani, 1897), 642-687, pp. 656-662.
inc.:Pręcipit apostolus, immo per
apostolum Christus, ut omnis anima sullimioribus potestatibus subdita sit
x ...Grave igitur est, ut una ęcclesia huic pęne
In its first edition, Heinrich Böhmer, Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im XI. und. XII. Jahrhundert (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1899), p. 83, argued that this tract was connected to the conflict between the William Bona Anima, archbishop of Rouen, and Fécamp Abbey that began sometime between 1089 and 1091. The crux of that conflict was the Abbey'`s refusal to adhere to an interdict that the archbishop had placed upon his entire diocese. Pellens did not dispute Böhmer's argument and considered this tract to be a very general account about ecclesiastical power in contrast to the specific claims of tract 27. However, the issue at stake in tract 5 is not episcopal power generally, but rather the very specific issue of abbatial professions of obedience. This was a significant topic in the Norman church as it concerned how bishops were to make monasteries accountable without compromising their independence as a self-regulated community. The issue eventually elicited a detailed historical and legal analysis of monastic and abbatial profession at Bec in the 1130s. In sum, the anonymous author from Bec distinguished between the right (and indeed, obligation) of a bishop to scrutinise a newly elected abbot, but that such scrutiny was distinct from demanding a profession of obedience from the new abbot. One of the tracts, De liberate Beccense provides a detailed account of the ordination of William of Baumont (r. 1093-1194) by archbishop William Bona Anima in . There was a significant fear on the part of the monks that the archbishop would demand a profession of obedience. They secretly obtained a prohibtion from the Duke of Normandy to prevent such an oath and informed the archbishop of it halfway through the Mass! See Anon, Three Treatise from Bec on the Nature of the Monastic Life, ed. G. Constable. Trans. B.S. Smith (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008), pp. 109-114, 150-152; and Giles Constable, "Abbatial Profession in Normandy and England in the Eleventh and Twelfth Century with particular attention to Bec," in 'Ins Wasser geworfen und Ozeane durchquert' : Festschrift für Knut Wolfgang Nörr, ed. M. Ascheri (Koln: Böhlau, 2003), 105-120. Tract 5, therefore, appears to be a theological reflection on those events of 1093. For the NA, there could be no distinction between scrutiny and a profession of obedience, as that would be contrary to the divine order of authority. All Christians, including monks and abbots, had to be subject to a higher authority.
inc.:Oportet leges aliquando temperari propter
x ...ullo crimine reos teneri.|
Tract 6 begins a series of tracts on law and ecclesiastical authority (tracts 6-11). Wilfried Hartmann, "Beziehungen des Normannischen Anonymus zu frühscholastischen Bildungszentren," Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 31 (1975), 108-143, at 120-121 pointed out the affinity between this tract and the famous Prologue of Yves of Chartres. There is no evidence that the NA is citing Yves directly, but he does draw upon common sources and makes a similar argument about the tension between rigor and mercy in the application of canon law. Moreover, he broaches the same topics as Yves: the role of necessity in law; how one understands a vow (votum) within changing circumstances; the example of the Apostle Paul circumcising Timothy (while at the same time berating the Apostle Peter for practicing the Jewish Law); and, the problem of episcopal translations (since they were normally prohibited). The NA does not adopt Yve's motif of love as the "master of law", but he does talk about the "law of love" in tract 31.
inc.:Cvm aliquis in iudicio de crimine reus
x ...et mala dimittenda per misericordiam|
Tract 7 is a short reflection on how penitents convicted of serious crimes in an ecclesiastical court should be judged. There is some reverberation of the notion who may judge another that is found in tracts 1 and 4; the focus here, however, is on to what extent an ecclesiastical judge may render a sentence on a penitent. The last two paragraphs concern the circumstances of a sin, namely whether it is a single deed or part of a pattern of behavior. This would become a major point of discussion amongst the canonists as the Pentientials fell out of use and were replaced with a focus on the circumstances of the sinner.
inc.:Si mercennarius et qui non est
x ...huius ergo nec timenda nec tenenda est sententia|
Tract 8 is a short account of the "mercenary" pastor. In this instance, "pastor" is synonymous with bishop. This concept is further explored in tract 9.
inc.:Omne iudicium aut in ęcclesiasticis
situm est pastor
x ...qui potens est retribuere uobis Amen|
Tract 9 explores the pastor's role as judge, and as such appears to be a continution of the theme treated in tract 8. The NA has two major objectives in this tract: (1) to distinguish the application of justice in pastoral care from that of secular justice; and (2) to remind his readers that ecclesiastical justice must focus on forgiveness and reconciliation. In both objectives the task of condemning sin or crime is a means to the end of re-uniting the guilty to the Body of Christ. If pastoral judgment only renders condemnation, then the judge has failed to follow Christ. His definition of Christ's judgment is that he gave his own life for others (Christus pro nobis animam suam posuit). Such an account of ecclesial justice requires the NA to consider the role of canon law, and this leads to a detailed analysis of how universal, provincial and local decrees play a role in pastoral care. The dating of this tract is difficult to discern. The one reference to a major concept in Anselm of Canterbury's atonement theory (from Cur Deus homo) provides a terminus a quo of ca. 1098, but there is no evidence on which to base any terminus ad quem. There is some affinity with tracts 6 and 11, since they are also concerned with the nature of law. Moreover, the theme of love as the essential component of a Christian community is found in this tract as well as tract 31.
inc.:Duo sunt quibus hic mundus principaliter
x ...discipulus non magister, subditus non|
Tract 10 has been problematic for scholars to assess. Its primary argument (that the episcopal authority is superior to royal power) seems to run contrary to the assertions found in tract 24. Moreover, scholars have pointed out the arguments and sources this tract shares with Gregory VIII's letter to Bishop Hermann of Metz (1081): Gregory VII (Pope), Das Register Gregors VII, ed. Erich Casper, MGH, Epistolae (Berlin: Weidmann, 1920-1923), 8.21 (2.546-563). Three possible explanations have been suggested: (1) The letter is "inauthentic", that is, it was a stray leaf that found its way into the collection, but from another source, as argued by George H. Williams, The Norman Anonymous of 1100 A.D., Harvard Theological Studies, 18 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951), pp. 35-36; (2) it is simply a school-room exercise, where the NA attempted to re-create his opponent's position for its own sake -- so argues Pellens (p. 76, n2); (3) it is a briefing note, that became the point of departure for the theology of kingship that the NA will support in tract 24 -- the final position Williams came to: George H. Williams, "The Golden Priesthood and the Leaden State: A Note on the Influence of a Work sometimes ascribed to St. Ambrose, The Sermo de dignitate sacerdotali," Harvard Theological Review 50 (1957), 37-64, at 56-63. The first explanation lacks any paleographical evidence, and the second does not fully reflect the practices of medieval scholasticism. There third is certainly a possibility, but would be more convincing if tract 10 immediately preceeded tract 24 or was part of it. There is then a fourth possibility: tract 10 is commensurate with the general outlook of the entire collection. If tract 10 draws its main argument, as well as it sources and rhetorical imagery from Gregory VII's letter, then it is instructive to note what the NA does not replicate. Gregory's main argument is that the sacerdotal status of the papacy is the most compelling reason for his superiority over the Emperor. In a specific instance, Gregory cites from the Ps-Isidorian decretals about the saceredotal power of opening and closing heaven (which the NA also notes), and then asks pointedly: Cui ergo aperiendi claudendique cęli data potestas est, de terra iudicare licet? The NA makes no leap in logic, but rather argues that there is a greater privilege in ministry assigned to the priesthood, a point that appears to be more in line with the Gelasian text quoted at the beginning than with any Gregorian ideology. In this context, sacerdotal ministry is truly golden and royal power is leaden, but this does not necessarily diminish the sacramental nature of kingship that will be treated extensively in tract 24.
inc.:Si omnia precepta canonum paria
x ...Hos per omnia immitari nos opportet|
Tract 11 picks up on a problem broached tract 9, namely how to consider the force of the various kinds of canons. In the earlier tract, the NA framed the difference based on a law's source, namely whether it originated from a universal, provincial or local council. In this tract, however, the NA begins to broach what seems to be an inchoate theory of law. The issue is framed in terms of parity: does each and every mandate have the same force in ecclesial life? He formulates his discussion around two practical principles. First, there is hardly uniformity in punishment for breaking a law in the church (a point that leads to an excursus on what it means to sin either knowlingly or out of ignorance (scienter peccare et nescienter). Second, there is the stark reality that ecclesiastical practices vary from church to church, and many of those practices come out of specific canonical mandates. While some of the examples the NA broaches will become standard tropes in later medieval theories of law (baptism, for example), others do reveal his original perspective and his pastoral heart. In fact his concluding example, which concerns when clerical ordination can take place in the liturgical calendar, appears to be incongruous with the others. However, the NA's point is that canon law ought not to prohibit good acts, and if the clergy are indeed essential to the salvation of people, their ordination should never be inhibited. He finishes this argument by pointing out that the apostles themselves were ordained on a day that is not permitted in canon law. The tract contains no indicators of a specific date of composition, and so we apply the general span of compositional date for the whole collection, ca 1096-1110.
inc.:Videamus de Romana et Hierosolimitana
x ...diuina loquuntur testimonia|
Tract 12 shares some content with Tract 4, but their rhetoric differs. In Tract 4, the NA compares Jerusalem and Rome in order to undermine the claims of authority made by Rome. In doing so, he focuses more on the hierarchical features of Jerusalem, in that it was the locus, for example, of Christ initiating Holy Orders. The basic claim of that tract Jerusalem is omnium ecclesiarum mater. In Tract 12, the NA makes a broader claim about Jerusalem's dignity and asserts that she is the mater omnium sanctorum. Indeed, one can see faint traces of the liturgy for the Feast of All Saints in the manner in which the NA names the citizens of Jerusalem. Another way to understand the distinction is to see Rome and Jerusalem as ecclesiastical entitites in Tract 4, whereas in Tract 12 they are primarily geographical entities. In making the point that this apparent contest is really about the preference of one place over another, the NA makes an interesting claim: "If all the Romans were either dead or destroyed and the Irish (Scoti) or the British came to worship in their place, they would be called the Roman Church and they would be preferred over Jerusalem. On the other hand, if the city were to be destroyed and sink into an abyss, and all the Romans came to live in either Ireland or Britain, they would not be called the Roman Church, and they would be preferred over Jerusalem (!)". The end result for either rhetorical strategy, however, is the same: Rome has no legitimate claim for spiritual superiority since all its spiritual dignity ultimately derives from Jerusalem. This tract was first published in Heinrich Böhmer, Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im XI. und. XII. Jahrhundert (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1899), pp. 457-462.
inc.:Pontifex aut Dei tantum electione debet
x ...Recte ne id an perperam uiderint qui inuenerunt|
Tract 13 focuses on two issues related to episcopal ordination: how a candidate is selected and then how he is to be ordained. The common theme between these two issues appears to be the early church, although this is never explicitly stated. For the first issue, the NA raises the question as to who can rightfully select a bishop. The argument here is highly theoretical and lacks any practical precision. The distinction that the NA makes is not between clergy and laity, but rather between divine and human election. If both are required, he argues, then the latter is simply one of consent to God's chosen candidate. There is no indication as to how one acknowledges whom God had chosen (is he objecting to the mechanics of election here?), but it is clear that the NA perceives the bishop's pastoral ministry to be over and above any political concerns. The argument, moroever, does not grant any specific role for the king, despite claims in tracts of the preeminence of royal authority in the Church. The process, however, is almost beside the point, as the main argument here is that new bishops are sometimes unwanted by their flock—and the NA argues that this is just like how the Apostles were appointed to the Gentiles. The bishop's role is to be pastoral as much as juridical and that means he cannot be compromised by the sinful desires of those in his diocese. The second issue concerns the rite of ordination and in typical scholastic fashion the NA queries whether ordinations done prior to the writing of the current pontifical liturgies can be considered valid. If not, then even the Apostles themselves were not legitimately ordained. The argument ends with an interesting historical argument that argues strongly against any successionist view of Christian practice. The emergence of the current pontifical which the NA knows cannot be considered a more perfect form of liturgical practice and to argue that would imply that the Apostles were in need of correction and the pontificals themselves could be viewed as an insult (suggiliationem). The tract was first printed in Heinrich Böhmer, Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im XI. und. XII. Jahrhundert (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1899), pp. 462-463.
inc.:Si queritur quid melius sit atque
x ...quales ab eterno non sunt scripti uel electi uel
Tract 14 reads more like a scholastic question than any other tractate. The question of which sacrament is of greater excellence, Baptism or the priesthood, is examined using arguments from their effect--a method that would become standard in later scholastic thought. The effect of Baptism is salvation of humanity and the NA spends most of his time describing this act. In contrast, the priesthood makes the celebration of all the sacraments (ad conficienda sacramenta) possible, but he is quick to point out one does not need to be a priest to baptize, where one must be baptized in order to be ordained. The greater dignity of Baptism is then reinforced by comparing it to Confirmation. While the latter appears to be of greater dignity because it strengthens the grace received in Baptism, the NA argues that the change that takes place in the person who receives each sacrament is much greater in Baptism than in Confirmation. This leads the NA to make a rather controversial claim, namely that the priesthood adds nothing to the Christian which makes him or her Christian. While this may appear to be an anticlerical position, in light of treatment of the sacred orders in tracts 16 and 18 this is not the case. Instead, the NA is making a strong distinction between the work of justification in Baptism and Confirmation and the work of sanctification in the other sacraments. Where his argument fails is in the fact that Confirmation can only be performed by a bishop (which he does state), but that would mean that what Confirmation does add to the Christian is in part the result of the priesthood. This text was first published by Heinrich Böhmer, Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im XI. und. XII. Jahrhundert (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1899), 464-469. Roger E. Reynolds, "The Unidentified Sources of the Norman Anonymous: C.C.C.C. MS. 415," Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 5 (1969-71), 122-31, at 125, suggested that the NA was using the works of Ambrose in this tract but this proved difficult to verify. The use of the word zabulum for diabolum led the editors to search for an early medieval litrurgical source, but that did not prove successful.
inc.:Si Christiana nubit Iudeo uel ethnico,
non est legitimum coniugium
x ...quantum in ipsis est, christianitatis nomen|
Scherrinsky:148 Tract 15 is incomplete in the manuscript. Two thirds of the folio (pp. 109-110) have been cut out of the codex, but the reason for this is unclear. The tract begins by defining the sacrament of marriage as between two Christians, and two faithful Christians at that. This tract is witness to the fact that the treatment of marriage as a sacrament had begun in earnest in the late eleventh century. The discussion here focuses on the foundational elements of a marriage (and why this must preclude any interreligious marriage) and does not broach the more intricate details of marital legitimacy and divorce that would occupy theologians, canonists and prelates for the next century. Marriage between Jews and Christians appears to have occurred (much to the horror of both Jewish and Christian communities alike), although marriage between a Christian and a "pagan" (ethnica/us) may have been rarer in Normandy (but not impossible). For a good account of the social and legal issues surrounding medieval interreligious marriage, see James A. Brundage, "Intermarriage between Christian Jews in Medieval Canon Law," Jewish History 3 (1988), 25-40. The NA also examines marrriage in tract 22 and tract 25, but with different purposes in mind.
inc.:Sacerdotem ab ordine deponie
x ...sed uult omnes homines saluos fieri|
Tract 16 is the first of five tracts that focus on the priesthood (tracts 16-19 and 22). This short text starts with the jarring proposition that to despose a priest ab ordine (by which he probably means by those who are also ordained) is to take away that same order. The real claim here, however, is that ordinaton is an inviolate gift and blessing of God. To defrock a priest, he argues, is to take a good thing granted by God. He argues that there can be no legitimate authority that could take away a gift of God that effects the priest's own salvation, and the salvation of others. Even if he is a sinful and bad priest, the NA argues, is still not reason enough to depose him. In doing so, that which makes him good is deprived and so he will only be completely bad after that. In light of how he will defend married priests and ordained sons of priests in tract 22, this line of argument may be about celibacy.
inc.:Diuina benedictio ciuius uirtus esse
x ...quoniam nullo plano uerbo potest eandem uirtutem illis
In tract 17, the NA discusses once again the theological issues related to deposing a priest--although his argument extends to bishops as well. In sum, he sees it as impossible because humans don't have the authority or power to do so. God would not even do it, for it would be a case of Him pitting his powers against themelves (as he would use one power to destroy another). As noted in the previous tract, the NA's argument lacks the construct of indelible character; here, he lacks a distinction that would emerge in the thirteenth century, namely between having been ordained and having the permission (and jurisdiction) to perform sacerdotal duties. This distinction, quite naturally, did not occur to the NA who apparently considered priesthood to have no jusrisdictional restrictions on their sacerdotal duties.
inc.:Si uerba quibus consecratur corpus
x ...et si non mutatv et efficit meliorem non est consecratio|
The early modern annotator of this manuscript entitled this tract "Concerning the Consecration of the Body of Christ" (De consecratione corporis Christi). Pellens altered this with his own title: "Concerning the Consecration of a Priest" (De consecratione sacerdotis). Both are inaccurate. Tract 18 is a terse scholastic quaestio concerning the nature of consecration, and ultimately the NA focuses on episcopal consecration. The tract's structure reveals an interest in exploring a theological problem in terms of cause and effect (as he did in tract 14). He raises the question of what gives the words of consecration their efficacy, noting that if those words contain the power themselves to confect the Eucharist, then even a layperson could celebrate. The NA knows that this is an untenable position, and he posits that a priest must bring power to those words; but by what power does he do this? It is sacerdotal consecration. Finally, this leads the NA to explore the cause of sacerdotal consecration, that is, episcopal consecration. This then leads to a discussion of the very first bishop to be consecrated and by what power could that have happened. The NA's arguments reveal an awareness that the liturgy of ordination in use in Rouen could not be traced back to the Apostles. He never solves the problem he raises about the liturgy, as his ultimate aim is to determine a definition of consecration. Ultimately, he concludes, consecration must transform the recipient in terms of justification and sanctification. If there is no change for the better (i.e. sanctity and justice) by the act of consecration, he concludes, then that person has not been consecrated. The tract was first printed in Heinrich Böhmer, Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im XI. und. XII. Jahrhundert (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1899), pp. 470-473. Pellens's edition failed to capture the logical argument and in part this was because of some significant slips by the scribe. This edition has altered the sentence structure considerably.
inc.:Christus factus est sacerdos
x ...Quod postea quam omnium|
Tract 19 is a type of theological literature known as the "Ordinals of Christ." These short (and often overlooked) texts describe how Christ performed or honored the clerical orders by certain actions. There were two basic types of Ordinals in the Middle Ages: the Chronological Order described sacred orders in sequence according to the basic chronology of Christ's earthly ministry; and the Hierarchical Order listed the clerical grades from doorkeeper to bishop. It would appear that the NA attempted to do both, and the scribe failed to copy out the text completely: after a short discussion of whether Christ performed these grades at once or at different times, the NA provides a chronological account of the Ordinals. This is immediately followed by the beginning of a hierarchical sequence, which gets no further than the doorkeeper (hostarius) before ending in mid-sentence. Another unique feature of tract 19 is the exclusion of the bishop as a grade Christ exemplified. This may not be an exclusion per se, as by the early twelfth century it was becoming common to talk about the priest and the bishop as the same sacred order, differing only in jurisdiction. It has been difficult to identify a specific source for the list ennumerated here. Roger E. Reynolds, "Liturgical Scholarship at the Time of the Investiture Controversy," Harvard Theological Review 71 (1978), 109-124, at 119-124, examines a number of possible sources and suggests that the NA has borrowed from all of them. The Rouen Pontifical is the more common of these sources, but given that this pontifical post-dates this tract it is difficult to identify a source contemporary with the NA. Cf. Roger E. Reynolds, The Ordinals of Christ from their Origins to the Twelfth Century, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Quellenkunde des Mittelalters, 7 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1978), pp. 107-112. See also tract 11, where similar comments are made about the three major orders. Tract 19 was first printed in Heinrich Böhmer, Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im XI. und. XII. Jahrhundert (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1899), pp. 473-474.
inc.:In passione Domini duo fuisse gladii
x ...quę in sanctorum commentariis quęri debent|
Tract 20 is a short note about the appropriateness (conveniens) of interpreting the two swords from Luke 22 as signifying two coercive powers. The NA's objection is that it seems completely inappropriate for the church to be granted a power that ends up killing someone. This does not mean that the NA rejects any allegorical reading of this text, but that this reading is difficult to support. He ends with a slightly barbed suggestion that perhaps a closer reading of the Fathers is in order concerning this matter. In tract 24a (and tract 24b), the NA accepts an allegorical reading of the two swords but is silent on the function of the "material" sword, save that is exists in uirtute spiritus. This tract was first printed in Heinrich Böhmer, Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im XI. und. XII. Jahrhundert (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1899), pp. 474-475.
inc.:Si Deus omnia regit et moderatur
x ...et idem est adipisci bonum esse quod esse|
Tract 21 explores the implications of God's sovereignty: if God rules and governs all things (including humanity), then why must some people be ruled by others? This question is not answered, but rather it is the context for a deeper theological question: if such rulers do evil, what is the relationship between God's sovereignty and evil acts? The NA takes the Augustinian path here by arguing that evil must be understood as nothing, that is, it has no essence or substance. There is no real argument presented in this tract, but rather two long citations that are strung together: first, from Anselm of Canterbury and then from Augustine himself. The former does not necessarily indicate that the NA studied under Anselm, since the source in question, De conceptu viriginali, was composed in 1099 while Anselm was archbishop of Canterbury, but it is clear that he was aware of Anselm's theological writings.
inc.:Apologia pro filiis sacerdotum et
x ...Sin autem correctionem libenter excipimus|
Since tract 22 is an earlier copy of tract 26, see the headnote to tract 26 for details about content and date of composition.
inc.:Diuina institutione nullus inter
apostolos maior fuit
x ...ut inter uicarios eorum talis etiam regular seruaretur|
This tract examines a topic raised briefly in tract 4, namely whether the Apostle Peter enjoyed preeminence amongst the rest of the apostles. The NA presents three arguments against "Petrine primacy" or the Petrine privilege. First, for every apostolic charge or mandate given only to Peter in the Gospels, the NA finds an equivalent one directed at all of the apostles. Then, he raises the question as to whether the privilege that Peter did receive was ever transferred to any of his successors. The argument is somewhat muddled here, as there is no clear evidence to support the NA's conclusion. He wants to distinguish between transferring the privilege from Peter to a person, and transferring from Peter to a person and a place (which would seem to be a clumsy attempt to distinguish between person and office). The implication is that the NA is attempting to undermine the claims of Rome as a special place amongst bishops. His two test cases for this argument is the fact there is no explicit claim that Clement I, one of Peter's successors, ever received the privilegium Petri from Peter himself, and there is never any indication that Clement ever passed it on to his successors. The NA saves his strongest argument for last: the exact nature of the petrine privilege. The NA ties this privilege to the Apostle Paul's account of his conflict with Peter in Galatians 2.7-9. There Paul speaks of Peter having the apostolate of the circumcised, whereas Paul has the apostolate of the gentiles. If anything St Paul ought to have preeminence amongst the apostles , which explains why in depictions of Peter and Paul, the latter is presented on the right hand of Christ. On this last point, there some affinity between the NA's brief comments and the discussion of the same iconographic problematic in Peter Damain's De picturis principum apostolorum, and the NA may have read this text: see Kennerly M Woody, "Marginalia on the Norman Anonymous," Harvard Theological Review 66 (1973), 273-288, at 286-287. This tract was first printed in Heinrich Böhmer, Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im XI. und. XII. Jahrhundert (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1899), pp. 475-477.
inc.:Agnus Dei qui cotidie immolatur in altari
x ...Neque enim pro diabolo et menbris offertur corpus Christi|
This tract would appear to be a short dictum concerning the salvific efficacy of the Eucharist. Here, the NA states a rather common claim in medieval theology: that the immolation of Lamb of God on the eucharistic altar cleanses sinners, and the cleansed Christian remains in that state unless he should choose to sin again. The NA then qualifies the Eucharist's efficacy by noting it has no effect on non-Christians (membra Christi). The tract first was published in Heinrich Böhmer, Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im XI. und. XII. Jahrhundert (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1899), pp. 477-478
inc.:Duę in ueteri testamento
personę, pontificis scilicet et regis, olei sancti unctione consecratę
x ...et ut Danielem liberauit de lacu leonum, et ut Mardocheum de angustia
Tract 24 is, in many ways, the centerpiece of this collection: by far the longest of the tracts of the Norman Anonymous, it is also the piece which has attracted most attention in the secondary literature. The tract is often cited as an example of extreme royalist theology, and thereafter situated within the paradigm of the NA's passionate opposition to the Gregorian reform. However, while conflict and controversy between popes and kings undoubtedly informs the text, it is perhaps more accurate to approach this tract as more than just a polemical defense of the rights of kings, for it presents, in its entirety, a sustained investigation of the Christian sacrament of kingship. The NA certainly regards kingship as sacramental; indeed, this sacramental character is foundational to his entire argument - it is no accident that he begins with a consideration of the anointing of kings in the Old Testament and concludes with a detailed analysis of the liturgical consecration of a king. His argument is grounded in the conviction that such anointing transforms the individual into another man (1 Sm 10.6): "the Lord’s Anointed" (christus Domini: 1 Sm 24.7). Through this sacramental anointing, the king becomes another christ, and, through grace, takes on the character of Christ himself. Of course, such unique sacramental participation in Christ is not limited solely to the king, but applies equally to the bishop, who is also anointed sacramentally during the liturgy of his consecration. In fact, the NA asserts directly that "kings and priests hold this grace in common" (reges et sacerdotes hanc habent gratiam commune: p. 175; cf. pp. 156, 167). However, the NA holds, the anointing, sanctification and power of the king is ultimately greater than that of the priest (maior regis quam sacerdotis et unctio et sanctificatio et potestas: p. 168), not necessarily because the priest's consecration is intrinsically inferior (although, on occasion, the NA suggests it may be), but because of the different manner in which the two participate in Christ. The initial parallel which the NA draws is unremarkable: kings are sacramentally united with Christ the King, whereas bishops are united with Christ the Priest. However, the NA then goes on to link Christ's Kingship with his divine nature (through which he created and governs all things), whereas Christ's Priesthood is linked with his human nature (though which he mediates, and breaks down the barrier, between God and humanity). Therefore, the NA contends, as Christ's divinity is self-evidently superior to his humanity, the anointed king holds a superior position to the anointed priest within the Christian community. The NA supports this argument through his discussion of royal anointing in the Old Testament (our §I = Pellens' §I), analysis of key New Testament passages on rulers, such as Rm 13 and Mt 22.21/Mc 12.17 (our §II = Pellens' §§II-III), and a detailed comparison of the prayers used in the liturgies of consecration of bishops and kings (our §§III-IV = Pellens' §§IV-V), into which the NA inserts an aside examining the king's often pivotal role in the councils of the church (our §III = Pellens' §IV). Finally, some of the NA's source material has been appended to the tract (either by the NA himself or by the scribes/compiler(s) of the manuscript): this consists of copies of the liturgies of episcopal and royal consecration and a florilegium on Christian kingship (our §V = Pellens' §VI). Tract 24a was first published in a partial edition by Heinrich Böhmer, "Tractatus Eboracensis," in Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum conscripti seculis XI. et XII, MGH, Scriptores, 3 (Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniani, 1897), 642-687 at pp. 664-679; thereafter, George H. Williams, The Norman Anonymous of 1100 A.D., Harvard Theological Studies, 18 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951), pp. 225-228 published much of the material omitted by Böhmer, accompanied (pp. 229-233) by an analysis of the material appended in §V. Pellens provided the first complete edition of the entirety of the tract. Note that the gatherings containing this tract are now bound incorrectly in the codex. The correct sequence of the text of tract 24a runs as follows: MS pp. 143-158, 173-188, 159-172, 189-204.
Williams: 225-228, 230
|I. Duę in ueteri testamento personę|
In this section the NA considers the significance of the Old Testament, and in particular its references to anointing, for understanding the relationship between the priest and the king.
|II. Nunc ueniamus ad nouum testamentum|
The NA turns to a consideration of the king in the New Testament, or, more precisely, in the New Dispensation inaugurated by Christ. He outlines in detail his sacramental theology of kingship and its superlative character, and presents his ideal of the king's role and function in the church.
|III. Habent tamen et sacerdotes quandam regiminis communionem|
This section examines the legitimacy of the king's power and authority in ruling the church, discussing the liturgical basis for this authority and considering kings and emperors who convened and presided over the councils of the church.
|IV. Nunc autem inseramus benedictionem et consecrationem sacerdotis et regis|
The NA compares the prayers of the episcopal and royal consecrations, and argues on this basis for the exalted status of the king.
|V. Nunc inseramus consecrationem sacerdotis|
An appendix containing texts of the episcopal and royal consecrations, and an Insular florilegium of materials relating to Christian kingship.
inc.:Laicus et Christianus hęc duo nomina
aut equalia sunt in dignitate aut alterum altero est dignius
x ...alterum ignominię id est laicus|
In this short tract, the Norman Anonymous argues that baptism is holier and more outstanding (sanctius et prestantius) than any other sacrament, including priesthood. Indeed, baptism contains all the other sacraments within itself for they all derive from it (ut cętera omnia in se contineat sacramenta et ex eo cuncta dependeant). The NA sets this argument within the context of a discussion of the names Christianus (Christian) and laicus (layperson). Noting that the term "lay" derives from the Greek for "people," and thus makes no distinction between baptized and unbaptized, he asserts that it is inappropriate and unjust to refer to any baptized Christian as a "layperson" for, through the great sanctity of baptism, they have become coheirs of Christ and children and heirs of God (cf. Rm 8.17). Indeed, invoking the priesthood of all believers (and echoing Isidore of Seville), he contends that all those who have been chosen by God in baptism may legitimately be referred to as clerics of the Lord (clericus Domini). This brief treatment of baptism may be compared with the NA's more expansive argument for the primacy of that sacrament in tract 14. Tract 24c was first published in George H. Williams, The Norman Anonymous of 1100 A.D., Harvard Theological Studies, 18 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951), pp. 233-234.
inc.:Dominus noster Iesus Christus si Petro
soli contulit claues regni cęlorum
x ...sed humano intuitu et preconio intruduntur|
In this brief piece the NA returns to two themes which have found expression with some regularity in other tracts: the question of whether the power of binding and loosing (symbolized by the keys of the kingdom of heaven) was conferred solely on Peter or on all the apostles (see tract 2 and tract 23a); and his insistence that the true pastor is the one who enters through Christ, the gate of the sheepfold, for all others are thieves and mercenaries (cf. Io 10.1-10, and see tract 8, tract 13 and tract 24a / 24b). Adopting a position which stresses episcopal collegiality, the NA asserts that the keys were conferred on all the apostles, considers how the apostles may have passed on this power, and warns that the power should be used with great caution lest any true member of Christ be mistaken for a member of the devil. This tract may be compared with the similar discussion of episcopal ordination in tract 13. The text was first published in George H. Williams, The Norman Anonymous of 1100 A.D., Harvard Theological Studies, 18 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951), pp. 234-236.
inc.:Scire uelim quis primus instituit
x ...ipsi facere nuptiarum fructum appetunt|
Tract 25 concerns the controversial topic of clerical marriage. Since 1059, papal reformers had engaged in a heated campaign to prohibit clergy (at least those in major orders) from marrying. Despite the fact that this was a revolutionary move, and that the reformers were pitted against centuries of cultural practice, clerical marriage was soon seen as out of step with effective ecclesial ministry and leadership. It took longer in some parts of medieval Europe to eliminate married clergy, and the Anglo-Norman world appears to have been one of the places that resisted this change. The defenders of clerical marriage deployed two major types of arguments in their writings: (1) that there was little scriptural mandates or canon law supporting clerical celibacy, and what there was should be treated as the exception rather than the rule; and (2) that the enforcement of celibacy would lead to immoral acts ranging from fornication to homosexuality. The NA adopts neither of these positions, but rather offers a unique argument for clerical marriage. The tract opens by asking the source for this ban of clerical marriage and argues that is must be of humanity and not God. He then presents the case for a generally positive account of marriage, drawing specifically from Augustine's view that marriage has a three-fold good: faith, children and sacrament. If marriage is a good, then it should be a good for the clergy as well. However, this is the minor argument of the tract. To prohibit priests who are not necessarily endowed with the gift of continence from marriage disturbs the natural order of things, and thus is counter to the will of God. Most importantly, such a position threatens the reason humanity was created in the first place, namely to help to build up the Heavenly City and take the place of the fallen angels. In other words, universal clerical celibacy threatens the natural order of creation. At the opening portion of this argument, the NA states that “if they believe [this position], they would never institute such a mandate” of clerical celibacy (Si enim crederent, nunquam tale mandatum instituerent...). This statement suggests that the NA has directed this tract against Anselm of Canterbury. The theological argument that the NA makes about humanity preparing the Heavenly City and replacing the fallen angels comes directly from Anselm's Cur Deus homo which was completed by 1098. Moreover, the ensuing argument that humanity ought to do things that are in full alignment with God's will (such as allowing clergy to marry and have children) echoes Anselm's doctrine of rectitude that underlies his teaching on free will and justice. If this is the case, then this would suggest a new dating. Previous scholarship has suggested a date of ca. 1096 as a direct response to the canons concerning clerical marriages at the Council of Clermont (1095): see Erwin Frauenknecht, Die Verteidigung der Priesterehe in der Reformzeit, MGH, Studien und Texte, 16 (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1997), pp. 134-137. Moreover, Ann Barstow argues that tract 25 must have been written in the late eleventh-century since it still attempts to treat clerical marriage in terms that lose currency in the twelfth century: Anne L. Barstow, Married Priests and the Reforming Papacy: The Eleventh-Century Debates, Texts and Studies in Religion, 12 (New York: Edwin Mellon Press, 1982), pp. 157-161. However, if this tract is directed against Anselm himself, it would have been the Council of Westminster (1102) that would have been the source of the NA's confusion and consternation. In his view, Anselm was undermining his own theological account of humanity's creation by imposing universal celibacy. This suggests a dating of after 1102 and before 1110. This tract was first published in Heinrich Böhmer, "Tractatus Eboracensis," in Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum conscripti seculis XI. et XII, MGH, Scriptores, 3 (Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniani, 1897), 642-687, at 645-648. These pages of the MS are difficult to read, as it appears some of the ink either has been inadvertantly scraped off or has faded.
inc.:Apologia pro filiis sacerdotum et
x ...sin autem correctionem libenter accipiamus|
This tract is an apology for the ordination of sons of priests. Given the language employed, it seems fairly certain that this tract was written in response to two canons (cc. 9 and 23) from the Council of Clermont in 1095. In light of the fact that the archbishop of Rouen held a synod the following year to confirm Clermont, but did not include these two canons; this tract may have been written to convince the synod not to affirm them. Scholars have argued that William Bona Anima would have been disposed to the NA's position since he was the son of the former bishop of Sées; however, since William had been a monastic before becoming archbishop, he was therefore canonically ordained and so the canons of Clermont did not threaten his episcopal status. Hence, the real efficacy of this tract is its strong theological argument. The NA first argues that it is completely irrelevant whether a candidate for ordination comes from a legitimate or an illegitimate union. Children born either in or out of wedlock all have the same status: they are tainted with original sin and are responsible for their own sins and not their parents. The NA reminds his reader the ultimately God is the maker of children, and parents are but agents (ministri) in the task. Hence, the moral status of the parents cannot have any bearing upon the validity of a man's ordination. This must hold true for both children of priests and children of concubines (which for many opponents of clerical marriage were the same thing). The second set of arguments focus on the role of individual Christians within the Body of Christ. For example, the NA notes that even illegitimate children are included in the mystical body, and thus can receive the body and blood of Christ at the Eucharist and they receive the same Holy Spirit as do legitimate children. If it is more salubrious and blessed to receive the eucharistic elements than to pronounce the words of institution ( multo salubrius sit atque beatius manducare et bibere, si tamen digne fiat, quam uerba illa pronuntiare), then it does not denigrate the priesthood to permit sons of priests to be ordained. Of all the tractates composed in defense of clerical and marriage and the legitimacy of ordaining sons of priest, the NA has composed the most theological. While other writers had focused primarily on canon law, this only gains a comment in passing at the end of tract 26, and it is a half-hearted one at that. That comment is but one of eight paragraphs that are not found in tract 22. Tract 22 ends with a request for comment, and it would appear that the NA gained some. He adds four paragraphs at the beginningwhich attempt to dispel any idea that he is trying to legitimate fornication or concubinage (ut nec fornicationi feramus patrocinium, ne peccatis hominum faueamus). The four paragraphs added at the end extend the argument of why ecclesiologically it is valid for sons of priests to be ordained. There are slight differences between the two tracts elsewhere, from minor word changes to the alteration of the sequence of sentences. Tract 22 and 26 have been collated in the edition of tract 26, and for convenience tract 22 is signified by "C" and tract 26 by "D". In most instances, the reading of D has been adopted, but there are some instances in which C provides a better reading. Tract 26 was first printed in Heinrich Böhmer, "Tractatus Eboracensis," in Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum conscripti seculis XI. et XII, MGH, Scriptores, 3 (Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniani, 1897), 642-687, at pp. 649-655.
|247||D ,C3||ENAP: 265-282|
inc.:Sanctorum patrum auctoritas
x ...Non est potestas nisi a Deo|
A short piece in which the Norman Anonymous critiques the Benedictine monastery of Fécamp for its attempts to establish its liberty from the Archbishop of Rouen. The Anonymous asserts that Fécamp first received the Christian faith from Rouen and that, by turning its back on its "mother" church and attempting to make itself the equal of Rouen, the monastery is rending the body of Christ. There are a number of incidents which could have provoked the NA's critique. It may be related to the bull issued by Pope Paschal II in 1103, confirming the liberties of Fécamp (this same bull may also be mentioned in tract 28). This Papal confirmation, however, was only the culmination of a long campaign by Fécamp to establish its independence from the Archbishop of Rouen. One of the most notable flashpoints in this campaign occurred between 1090 and 1094, when the monks of Fécamp refused to implement the interdict which archbishop William Bona Anima had imposed on the whole of Normandy: the abbey's appeal to the Pope in this regard led to the archbishop being deprived of his pallium by papal legates. About this time Fécamp produced a range of literature in defense (and promotion) of its liberties, including the Libellus de revelatione, a history of the foundation and development of the monastery which, incidentally, makes little to no mention of Rouen when describing the origins of Fécamp: see Anon, Libellus de revelatione, aedificatione et auctoritate Fiscannensis monasterii, PL 151, 699-724; Mathieu Arnoux, "La fortune du Libellus de revelatione, edificatione et auctoritate Fiscannensis monasterii," Revue d’histoire des textes 21 (1991), 135-158. As Lemarignier suggests, the NA's tract 27 may have been written in response to this literature emanating from Fécamp. In particular, the NA's insistence that Fécamp first received its faith from Rouen appears to challenge works such as the Libellus de revelatione which present Fécamp's origins as all but devoid of Rouennais influence: see Jean-François Lemarignier, Étude sur les privilèges d'exemption et de juridiction ecclésiastique des abbayes normandes depuis les origines jusqu'en 1140, Archives de la France monastique, 44 (Paris: Archives de la France monastique, 1937), 192-201. Nonetheless, whatever occasion may have inspired the NA to compose this short tract, his ecclesiology is clear: every church and monastery within the diocese is part of a single community, under the authority of the bishop, and whosoever attempts to escape from that authority is dividing the body of Christ. Tract 27's consideration of of the bishop’s authority over the monasteries in his diocese may be compared to similar discussions found in tract 5 and tract 28. This tract was first published by Harald Scherrinsky, Untersuchungen zum sogenannten Anonymus von York. (Würzburg: Konrad Triltsch, 1940), pp. 150-151.
inc.:Romanus pontifex ideo apostolicus
x ...ut etiam sacerdotalis auctoritas subruatur|
In this tract the NA objects to various papal policies which he condemns as abuses on the part of the pope. These abuses fall into four primary categories: (1) the onerous requirement that archbishops travel to Rome for ad limina visits to the papacy; (2) the granting of papal privileges to monasteries which infringe upon the bishop's rightful authority within his diocese; (3) the pope's unjust excommunication of bishops; (4) papal attacks on the king's divinely-ordained role within the church. In all cases, the NA accuses the pope of abandoning the mandates handed down by Christ and the apostles and/or of infringing against the law of love which should govern his relations with his brothers in Christ. Tract 28 is significant as it contains many echoes and, on occasion, direct word-for-word repetition of themes and subjects which are also explored in the NA's other tracts. For example, the discussion of papal privileges granted to monasteries echoes the theme of tract 5, and (probably) of tract 27, and many individual elements (such as the use of Rm 13 and Mt 15.4 and the image of the church as mother) reoccur in tract 5. Similarly, the NA's condemnation of the excommunication of bishops draws on his conception of the bishop as the Lord's Anointed, which is also explored in tract 24a/24b. Even more notable are the direct verbal echoes between his complaints of the dangers of a journey to Rome and the similar expressions of annoyance in tract 4. Most significantly, the discussion of kingship in this tract contains distinct echoes of the praefatio of tract 24b, makes use of a series of quotations from the Epistles of Gregory the Great which are quoted in a more extensive form in tract 24a/24b, and includes quotations from Augustine's Epistle 185, with inserted commentary of the NA's own composition, which are repeated almost word-for-word in tract 24a/24b. This demonstrates the importance of these themes within the NA's thought, but also that he was willing and able to re-use elements of his earlier tracts in his new compositions. However, because the exact chronological relationship of the tracts is difficult to establish, we cannot say definitively which tract drew upon which. Tract 28 itself is probably to be dated to 1102-1107, when all four issues which the NA discusses would have been of lively concern in Normandy, given archbishop William Bona Anima's suspension from office (see the headnote to tract 4), the on-going English Investiture Controversy, and the Pope Paschal II's bull of December 1103 confirming the privileges of the monastery of Fécamp (see p. 288). Most of these grievances, however, would presumably have been resolved during Anselm's stay in Normandy in 1106, when he brought the Investuture Controversy with Henry I to a close and lifted archbishop Bona Anima's suspension. Furthermore, good relations between the archbishop of Rouen and the monastery of Fécamp appear to have been restored by December 1107, when Bona Anima ordained and blessed Roger of Bayeux, the new abbot of the monastery: see Oderic Vitalis, Historia ecclesiastica libri XIII., ed. M. Chibnall (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969-1980), XI.30 (vol. 6, pp. 140-143). It thus seems likely that the specific grievances of which the NA complains in tract 28 all relate to ecclesiastical troubles current in Normandy during the period 1102 to 1107. Tract 28 was first published by Heinrich Böhmer, "Tractatus Eboracensis," in Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum conscripti seculis XI. et XII, MGH, Scriptores, 3 (Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniani, 1897), 642-687 at pp. 679-686.
|265||E ,C1||ENAP: 285-298|
inc.: Cum multę sint ecclesię in
x ...et si non recedere a uestigiis Petri et apostolorum
Tract 29 was once considered to be the primary way to identify the compositional location for the NA, since it addresses the controversy over York's submission to Canterbury. See George H. Williams, The Norman Anonymous of 1100 A.D., Harvard Theological Studies, 18 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951), pp. 62-65. While the York connection has been summarily rejected by current scholarship, there remains an additional textual issue to be addressed. It is our contention that what was once called tract J29, is really two separate tracts now designated as tracts 29a and 29b. The reasons for dividing this text are presented in the headnote for tract 29b below. What remains in tract 29a focuses once again on papal authority. The opening paragraph walks through a logical argument as to why the head of the church of St John's Lateran is owed obedience above all the other churches in Rome. However, the real issue here for the NA is the nature of apostolic authority. He connects apostolic authority (and in particular Petrine authority) to mission: it was the mandate given to Peter and the other apostles to go into the world and preach the gospel. If that were the case, then that task has become unnecessary in Normandy where the Scriptures are extant and knowledge of God's commandments is better understoond and more frequently honored than in Rome (horum scientia plenius est apud nos quam apud illum, et perfectior habetur et celebrius colitur). The NA therefore concludes: "Thus, let him [the pope] go to people who do not yet have the faith of Christ and knowledge of his commandments. . .Let him do this, I say, if he wishes his mission to be salvific and useful, and if he does not wish to retreat from the example of Peter and the magisterium of the apostles." This is a slightly different argument than what the NA has presented in tract 23a. There he suggests that Peter's apostolic mandate had been limited to caring for Jewish Christians; whereas here he expands that mandate to all people, but only in terms of evangelization. Both arguments accomplish the same thing, namely to curtail severely any positive role for the papacy in ecclesial leadership outside of Rome. The tract was first printed in Heinrich Böhmer, "Tractatus Eboracensis," in Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum conscripti seculis XI. et XII, MGH, Scriptores, 3 (Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniani, 1897), 642-687, at pp. 686-687,
inc.:Si Deus precipit et uult ut Eboracensis
ęcclesia subiecta sit Cantuariensi
x ...que potius iure debed ecclesię Londoniensi|
Tract 29b (although treated by most scholars in tandem with tract 29a) is perhaps the second most famous part of the NA. Until the mid-twentieth century, this tract was used to situate the entire collection in York since its topic was the archbishop of York's right to resist any written profession of obedience to Canterbury. However, George H. Williams, The Norman Anonymous of 1100 A.D., Harvard Theological Studies, 18 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951), pp. 62-65, made a compelling case as to why this tract did not necessarily mean that the NA was composed in York. Most of Williams' arguments remain in tact, although his claim that the word metropolitanus is rare in early twelfth-century Latin texts written in England (p. 64) cannot be sustained. Nonetheless, the assessment of this tract as a non-polemical analysis of the profession conflict is certainly correct. Typical of the NA's method, the tract raises questions as a means to make his arguments and draw his conclusions. The tract makes three general arguments: (1) There is no documentary evidence that God wills York to be subject to Canterbury and indeed he does not: "otherwise he wishes that <York> be of inferior glory and honor in his presence and consequently of lesser sanctity and merit and not quite a participant in his divinity." This is contrary to the law of love: since God loves both churches equally, they ought to be treated as equals. (2) Even if there is a claim of greater dignity by Canterbury, it cannot overcome the parity between the two metropolitans which is based on the fact they are raised up by the same sacraments (including that they both receive the pallium). Moreover, canon law prohibits, the NA argues without any supporting reference, a primate from extracting an oath from a metropolitan. (3) Finally, the NA presents the historical argument, namely that this claim did not originate with the foundation of the English church at the time of Augustine of Canterbury: Canterbury cannot claim primacy and any oaths of obedience because that ultimately belongs to the bishop of London. All three arguments appear to indicate a theologian reflecting on a conflict that had some echoes of his own concerns about the function of primates in the Latin church in general. The NA understands the problem, but cares little for the politics underlying the problem. He is more interested in the theological elements that this conflict can highlight. These three arguments also point to a date of composition of 1101 or later. At that time, the York-Canterbury conflict had not yet become too heated and a pallium for the archbishop of York was also expected prior to any kind of profession. This issue may have come to the NA's attention as Gerard of York travelled from England to Rome in 1101, no doubt stopping somewhere in the archdiocese of Rouen (if not Rouen itself) along the way (after all, he had been precantor of Rouen). Past interpretations of this tract have stumbled over the fact that tract 29 as a whole is disjointed. It is unclear why Pellens decided to follow M.R. James in printing 29a and 29b as a single textual unit, when Heinrich Böhmer, Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im XI. und. XII. Jahrhundert (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1899), pp. 478-480, had first printed 29b on its own. Our edition separates the tract into two sections for two reasons. First, there is a clear and abrupt change in subject matter, where the reader is taken from Rome to England without any warning. Second, this change in topic is mirrored in a change in hand. Tract 29b is copied out by Hand F, who makes its only appearance. The fourth hand in the "C" group picks up at the start of tract 30. This hand change is the strongest paleographical evidence for dividing the portion of text that M.R. James called tract 29 into two separate tractates.
inc.:Considerandum est de Romana ęcclesia
x ...non propter seculi factum Amen|
This short track picks up on the theme of tract 29a, namely what does it mean to talk about the "Roman church?" The tract begins by asking what is the more noble aspect of the Roman church, that it is Roman or that it is a church? The NA naturally argues for the latter and this leads him to once again make a distinction between the church of Christ and the Church of the devil. What is so striking here is the conciliatory tone with which the NA concludes the tract: even if the true members of the Body of Christ that inhabit Rome are few and far between, they are still owed some reverence. This implies that some respect is due to the Roman church despite the fact that the devil's members often overshadow the faithful in Rome. The tract was first printed in Heinrich Böhmer, "Tractatus Eboracensis," in Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum conscripti seculis XI. et XII, MGH, Scriptores, 3 (Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniani, 1897), 642-687, at p. 687.
inc.:Dignitas peculiaris et propria est
x ...et hic pro malitia magis transferri debuit|
Tract 31 shares a common topic with tracts 7, 8 and 9, namely the characteristics of ecclesiastical judges. This tract begins by describing who can be a legitimate judge, namely those are called by Christ to share in his task of judgment (and given the apostolic description, the NA means bishops). Those who attempt to judge without being called by God do violence to the office, and those who listen and receive them are in fact receiving the Devil. This account of juridical usurpation may be a reference to Robert II Curthose, Duke of Normandy, when he attempted to install his own choice for the bishopric of Lisieux. That case landed in the court of the Archbishop of Rouen around 1105. These types of judges, however, are not the major concern of the tract; the NA's real target is the proper behavior of legitimate judges. The distinguishing characteristics of a good judge are a desire to serve (rather than be served) and to live and act with humility. The basis for these characteristics is the example of Christ and how he loves. Here, the NA expresses his main thesis, that "love is the fullness of the law" (plentiudo enim legis est karitas), but that love must be understood ecclesiologically. For the remainder of the tract, the NA explores three questions about this love that binds Christians together: (1) are Christians to love everyone equally, regardless of familial or social relations? (2) Are Christians mandated to love the Devil and his members, if they are commanded to love their enemies? and (3) how does the love of money threaten ecclesial love? The last question ends with a careful exposition of Matthew 6.25-33, followed by supporting citations from Augustine and Jerome. The tract appears to be deficient at its end. If the opening paragraphs of tract 31 are indeed a response to the machinations of Duke Robert, then this tract was probably composed after 1105, when the situation was presented at the archbishop of Rouen's court. There are no other features of this tract to aid in dating. The tract was first published in Heinrich Böhmer, Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im XI. und. XII. Jahrhundert (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1899), pp. 481-497.