The activity of Albert of Lauingen as bishop in Regensburg was only a brief episode in the long life of the "Doctor universalis." Nonetheless, in contrast to other, possibly more fruitful, theological and philosophical periods that segment of Albert's biography is rather precisely documented, for the reality of being a bishop at that time was immediately linked to the production of documentary sources, and they are eminently suited to yield, even centuries later, information that can be precisely dated. [1]
We know that on January 5, 1260, Pope Alexander IV in Anagni approved the preparation of documents to be sent to Albert as well as to the Cathedral Chapter and to the secular administrators of diocesan institutions of the Regensburg church in which he made know to the Dominican professor at Cologne his elevation to the episcopal chair of St. Wolfgang and held his future flock to obligatory obedience toward their new shepherd. [2] Just a few weeks later, in March of 1260, Albert, appearing in a first document as being in Würzburg on the way to his new place of activity, is designated as "elected and confirmed for the church in Regensburg" and is already arranging some of the affairs of the parish church in Eger which belongs to that diocese. [3] In Regensburg, he, the chosen future bishop, on April 9 and May 10 sent documents to the Cistercians in Waldsassen and to the Benedictines in Prüfening [4] and sometime before July 16 he received episcopal consecration. From the day of consecration itself (the precise date is not stated) comes a decree for the Abbey of Niederaltaich, [5] and between the sixteenth and the thirty-first of July there is a series of three documents marked with the full title of bishop in Regensburg: they benefit the cathedral chapter, the hospital of St. Catherine, and the Teutonic Knights in the city. [6] Soon after, Bishop Albert seems to have traveled to the Alpine area, perhaps to inspect the property of the Regensburg diocese in the Tyrol; [7] at any rate in September (we do not have the date) he is in Sterzing south of the Brenner Pass along with Duke Ludwig II of Bavaria and the Duke's brother-in-law Count Meinhard II of Tyrol. [8] On September 25, he is on his return route, in Landau on the Isar river amid his episcopal brothers holding a synod presided over by Ulrich, Archbishop of Salzburg, [9] while on October 13th he consecrated the chapel of St. Kolomann near the church of St. Emmeram in Regensburg. [10] The subsequent months offer the most probable period for a journey to Vienna—the city was controlled at that time by the King of Bohemia, Ottokar II—where Albert had an important role in renewing imperial privileges for the German Order in Austria. [11] Three documents from February 22, 1261 [12]—one of them confirms the reform statutes for the Benedictines of Pope Gregory IX published in 1237 [13] —put him back in Regensburg.
Now, however, Albert's traces are less clear. A stone inscription makes it certain that he consecrated a church at Lerchenfeld not far east of Regensburg. [14] He is one of the senders of a common declaration by the suffragan bishops of Salzburg in favor of the Metropolitan Ulrich whom they support in his bitter conflict with his deposed predecessor Philip. [15] That undated text (sent not to the pope but to the cardinals of the Roman church) implies that it comes from a gathering that took place somewhere in Bavaria; the death of Pope Alexander IV on May 25, 1261 is mentioned but not the election of his successor Urban IV on August 29. [16] All the evidence implies that Bishop Albert himself brought those documents to the Curia in Viterbo, for a journey there occupied most of 1261. [17] In Regensburg on December 23, 1261, the Provost and the Dean of the Cathedral Chapter and their Vicar were expressly acting in place of the absent bishop, [18] and Albert in a document of February 25, 1262 is presumed to be still the bishop in office, [19] although he had long been busy at the Curia working to get his resignation accepted. When precisely his application to resign from the office of bishop of Regensburg was accepted we do not know, although four letters (similar in their text) of May 11, 1262 from Pope Urban to the cathedral chapter, the clergy, the people in the city and the diocese, as well as to the secular administrators of church institutions and the vassals of the Regensburg church confirm the resignation of Albert and give papal approval to the election of his successor, the previous dean of the cathedral chapter, Leo, an election by the chapter that had already taken place. [20]
This is the sequence of facts offered by dependable sources of the thirteenth century. For us today that narrative of an episcopate of barely two years seems astonishing and calls for some explanation. Why had the great theologian, little more than sixty years old [21] ascended to the pinnacle of hierarchy? And why did he give up its successful realization? Setting aside his office, however, as far as we know, took place largely without rumor or discussion. Nonetheless, it had been with some trouble that Albert was raised to the dignity of being bishop of Regensburg, and that process occupies us now.
The pope fashioned Albert's elevation: this act, however, is not as obvious as it might be to a modern observer. In the thirteenth century the Apostolic See was in its first period of influencing appointments to episcopal sees in Germany. [22] The ancient principle of a canonical election by clergy and people had, once the controversy over investiture resulted in blocking the previously dominant influence of secular rulers and normally excluding them, had the practical effect of giving an exclusive privilege to the canons of the cathedral to decide, as unanimously as possible, who was to be their new shepherd. [23] The capitulars of the cathedral, mainly coming from the leading families of the nobility in the region, would measure people by their own social status, and so their choice in the selection of bishops would be decidedly aristocratic. [24] That was reinforced by a sensitivity to the role of the bishop being a prince, albeit a spiritual one, in the empire. The princely aspect of episcopal office became increasingly important after the Concordat of Worms, and required a bishop to have a suitable origin and support in terms of social status. Someone like Albertus Magnus whose family was of lower noble lineage and did not reside in Bavaria [25] would have seemed for those reasons to the Regensburg canons not normally electable.
Precisely the extraordinary aspect of this situation—a Dominican friar who is also a scholar receives this high position thanks to the papacy—is particularly suited for illustrating by means of this particular case the general conditions of the age that required the ever expanding influence of the Curia Romana. The cathedral chapter with its right of election retained the autonomy of its decision only as long as its members remained relatively in accord with each other; in the case of disagreement a mechanism for unity fell into place, one recognized by all sides involved: an appeal to a higher instance. After the discrediting of royal power, the higher instance could only be the authority of the papacy. In Regensburg, to remain with this particular case, a similar situation had appeared in 1226/27 when after a contentious episcopal election a group of canons went to Rome and presented to Gregory IX their grievances. They urged the pope to remove the decision just made in Regensburg and to mandate a new election in which only the members of the chapter who had come to the pope could participate. [26] When bishop Siegfried (he had been elected) died, a unanimous election still appeared impossible, and the papal legate, who was traveling around Bavaria to counter the political party supporting the imperial Staufer family, appeared on the scene and was able to make a final decision for the new bishop, Albert I. [27] That earlier Albert's various disputes and massive acts of violence [28] reached a point where the cathedral chapter in 1258 initiated a process at the Curia Romana against him. The result was that the guilty bishop had to resign in the following year. The cathedral chapter chose the Propst Heinrich von Lerchenfeld as his successor, but he declined the election, and thus no other way was seen but to hand over the selection to the pope. [29] The elevation of Albertus Magnus (Albert II), someone outside of all the parties involved, by Alexander IV at the beginning of 1260 is clearly explained by an unease over a longer vacancy. [30] This is, nonetheless, the first direct selection of a bishop of Regensburg by a pope. How this unusual procedure affected and formed the mentality of those witnessing it can be seen from the events following the resignation of this second Albert in 1262: Pope Urban IV set aside his own determination of a successor (something possible for him to do) and demanded that the Regensburg chapter proceed to a new election which, as mentioned, chose the Dean Leo. But now Leo believed that he should not assume this office until the Pope had given his confirmation which quickly arrived. [31]
What reasons led the pope at the beginning of the year 1260 to expect that Albert could master the manifestly difficult situation in Regensburg? They can be found with some clarity in the letter of appointment which in its basic statement went in similar forms to Cologne and to Regensburg. [32] To the future bishop are ascribed the virtues of "probitas" and "prudentia" but also the concrete goal of a "reformatio" of that disturbed church is stated. [33] In the Regensburg version the future bishop is announced as one who will bring "sententia...in rebelles" ("a judgment against the rebellious"). [34] The following central sentence (from the version sent to Regensburg) presents a link between the personality of Albert and his new assignment: "Since the same friar has drunk so deeply of the streams of salvific teaching ("salutifere fluenta doctrine") coming from the source of divine law ("de legis divine fonte"), and since the fullness of this knowledge is active in his breast ("eiusdem doctrine in suo pectore vigeat plenitudo") and in those things which are of God the judgment of reason is at his command ("sibique presto sit in his que Dei sunt iudicium rationis"), the unshakable hope is nourished that in the aforementioned church which in both spiritual and temporal orders is deformed in many ways ("in spiritualibus et temporalibus...multipliciter deformata") he can heal the wounds and remove the damage through the zeal of his circumspection ("per sue diligentie studium")."[35]
Here without doubt, carefully chosen words beyond the usual routine language of the chancery refer to the reputation of high learning attributed to Albert: not, however, in the sense that the church in Regensburg merits a leading theological thinker and teacher as such but more that he as an established authority will be able, more than others, to overcome the divisions through a "iudicium rationis". The pope's confidence in Albert arose from personal contact occurring three years earlier during Albert's time at the Curia in Anagni and Rome. [36] Certainly he knew too that Albert had the experience of three years in office as the leader of the Dominican province, Teutonia, [37] and he could have heard that Albert had lived for a while in Regensburg. [38] Above all it must be recalled that already in 1260 Albert had emerged as a judge and mediator of peace. [39] Through the agreement of 1258 in Cologne (the "Grosser Schied") he had brought about a modus vivendi between the archbishop and the citizenry [40] whose legal consequences were dependent on Alexander's Curia in Anagni and which also occasioned a confirmation from the Pope on October 18, 1259, an act presuming precise information about those recent events in Cologne. [41]
If this was the cause of Albert's nomination, it fits the picture that one has in general of the basic conditions of episcopal existence in the high and late Middle Ages. [42] To do justice to the daily demands of leading a diocese and its territory, the man needed administrative perdurance, diplomatic ingenuity, and political (and if necessary) military toughness. In short, a robust and smart intelligence with some experience of life counted for more than an intense spirituality, scholarly education, or caritative generosity, gifts which in that time were more likely to be met at other levels of the church. Pope Alexander IV seems to have meant in the case of Albert that the theological reputation he had attained would increase his authority, and he referred this to recent information about events in Cologne.Attempts in scholarly research up to the present time to find the great theologian and his writings present in the activities of his episcopal office in Regensburg have not led very far. Mainly one document from April 9, 1260 to the Cistercians of Waldsassen is cited. [43] There previously granted indulgences are confirmed and new ones are granted, but there is a sharp command against putting that document in the hands of wandering preachers who collected money ("questiarii"). [44] That abuse Albert had condemned years earlier in general terms in his commentary on Peter Lombard's Sentences. [45] If one can find here and there some heightened resonance between his personal theological positions and his determinations as bishop, still it must have been clear to Albert from the beginning that Regensburg did not need an intellectual teacher and researcher. Neither from the papal letter of nomination nor from any other statement in this connection can one extract a sense that bishops as such had an exceptional share in the teaching authority of the church; similarly, it is also difficult to support the view that Albert's elevation is to be understood as an attitude of approval towards his mode of theological thinking or that it was understood by him in this way. [46] In fact, leading and productive theologians were at that time no longer bishops—this had been different in the era of the fathers of the church or in the Carolingian period leading to a figure like Anselm of Canterbury [47]—because the professionalization of the academic enterprise in the twelfth century and the development of the bishop as a ruler led to two forms of existence quite distinct from each other. Albert's path to Regensburg was for that time totally untypical, a crossing of boundaries—and it lasted only briefly.
A second, no less important crossing of boundaries resulted from the fact that Albertus Magnus at the time when he assumed the episcopal see of Regensburg had belonged for more than three decades [48] to the Order of Preachers of St. Dominic. [49] At that time it was already a community counting thousands, a community like that of the friars minor of St. Francis who followed Christ in conscious renunciation of every material security and thereby stood apart from the great mass of the laity but also from the clergy and older monastic orders with their support from land and endowments. [50] The Dominican Order, to succeed in the tasks it had chosen, tasks like religious education and combatting heresy pursued by means of scientific study, developed its own hierarchy and its own territorial structures existing alongside the ordinary constitutional structure of the church. The Order of Preachers found its legal support in the privileges granted it by the central authority of the papacy. [51] The tensions, and even open conflict, that arose from those parallel forms of hierarchy and friars cannot be presented here nor can the ambivalent attitude of contemporary men and women whose attitude toward the ascetic and pastoral presence of the Dominicans ranged from enthusiastic admiration to spiteful criticism.
What is important in connection with Albert is that the episcopacy to some extent seemed to run against the inner logic of the mendicant orders (and so the position of the Dominicans), although a few friars had accepted that office in the regular hierarchy of the church. [52] Of course, there was the old monastic reserve toward any ecclesiastical ambition; it had kept Benedict of Nursia, Benedict of Aniane, the great abbots of Cluny, and even Bernard of Clairvaux from accepting episcopal consecration. For the mendicants in the thirteenth century there was also the conviction that the existential condition of being a bishop led to the exact opposite of a life of voluntary poverty—and not just in Germany where normally the episcopacy was linked to noble rank. [53] Thomas of Celano, the biographer of St. Francis, reports (or constructs) the anecdote of a conversation of Cardinal Hugolin with Francis and Dominic. There the future pope describes the early church where the spiritual shepherds were poor and were men full of the love of neighbor, and not desirous of money and position ("pauperes erant et homines caritate, non cupiditate ferventes"). So now the brothers of the new orders should be made bishops to give others a visible example ("qui documento et exemplo caeteris praevalent"). Dominic immediately rejects this with the words: "Rightly understood my brothers are already raised to high rank, and I, to the extent that I have anything to say about it, will not allow them to accept any further kind of dignity" ("nec pro meo posse permittam, ut aliud assequantur specimen dignitatis"). [54]
But that was not to be the last word on this topic. The general chapters of the Dominicans stated many times between 1234 and 1255 their decision that no friar could become a bishop without the previous permission of the master of the Order or the provincial, [55] although this reservation took into account the actual development, namely, that the first Dominican bishops had been appointed already from the second half of the 1220s. The earliest documented cases of Dominican bishops [56] are to be found in Marocco, the Balkans, and Finland and can be said to be in harmony with the discipline of the Order because they result directly from missionary work in countries without a fixed hierarchy. [57] So from the 1230s to the 1250s bishops who are Dominicans come from boarder areas of Latin Christianity where the office is hardly a prize for the ambitious and where it does not bring the disrepute of abandoning an ideal of personal poverty. Nonetheless, there are also a few Dominicans at that time among bishops in northern and central Italy, and in southern France and Spain; [58] that is, in the areas where the Order was most numerous. In 1260, as Albert was given this office, there was already a Dominican cardinal, Hugh of Saint-Cher, created a cardinal in 1244. [59] There had already been two friars in Germany who wore the miter. Heinrich I of Chiemsee [60] was bishop after 1252 but because of the odd legal position of this diocese he was not an imperial prince and was given his position by the Archbishop of Salzburg. A second case was Henry III of Chur. [61] He had been previously a Dominican papal penitentiary, but as a member of the noble house of Montfort dominating the region he was in 1252 canonically chosen by the cathedral chapter to be bishop. Struggling against the nobility of that diocese, he avoided for seventeen years episcopal consecration until 1268. [62]
Against this background one understands better that the raising of the Dominican Albert to the see of Regensburg was for the German situation no utterly unheard of act. Still, because of the importance of the diocese and the prominence of the man elevated, it found considerable attention in and outside the Order, so that deeply rooted reservations against this kind of promotion again became vocal. To express them fell, because of his office, to the Master of the Order, Humbert of Romans. [63] He was the fourth successor to St. Dominic as the leader of the Friars Preachers and was personally well acquainted with Albert. In an emotional letter, [64] whose retention and subsequent transmission is in more than one aspect remarkable, [65] he, as soon as he heard the first rumors circulating in the Curia concerning the possible elevation of Albert, put pressure on the friar and "lector Coloniensis" to refuse. His letter asks: Does he, at the end of his life, want to stain (Humbert refers to the office of bishop as "maculam huiusmodi") his reputation and that of the Order? Every layperson ("secularis") who hears about this will be shocked at Albert and at all the others in the religious state; they will think that we—the mendicants—do not love poverty but only put up with it until we can get beyond it. His superior warns Albert directly about making a decision based on his annoyance at certain difficulties in the Order ("alique molestie ordinis") encountered by him, or about simply yielding to papal directives, for experience shows that if you resist them decisively enough ("aliquem volentem efficaciter resistere") compliance will not be forced. Even more, Albert should keep before his eyes what has happened to those who let themselves be drawn into something like the office of bishop (apparently nothing good!), what difficulties would lie ahead of him precisely in Germany ("in regimine ecclesiarum in Teutonia"), and what risks to the health of the soul lie amid secular business and other dangers of sin. Humbert's letter ends with the emotional call: "I would rather hear that my beloved son lies in his coffin then that he sits on the bishop's chair."
A direct answer from Albert to this serious challenge has not come down to us. His de facto response was that he accepted the higher position -- beyond the reservations of the superior of the Order and in line with the papal decree. He did not agonize over his decision very long, for the letter of appointment by Pope Alexander from Anagni issued on January 5, 1260 reached him in Cologne where documents place him on January 23d and March 1st, [66] and in the course of March he is in Würzburg on the way to Regensburg. [67] Whether informal contacts with the Curia or a prior questionnaire gave Albert an earlier opportunity to think about his own stance is completely uncertain [68] as is the time when the opposing view of the Master of the Order reached him, a text in which Regensburg is not expressly stated but mention is made only of general plans for making Albert a bishop. Humbert of Romans himself, however, was true to his views, for two years later he refused the offer of Pope Urban IV to become Patriarch of Jerusalem and after stepping down from leading the Order went back to Lyons as a simple Dominican. [69] In the opposite direction, Albert lived long enough to experience in 1276 a Dominican friar accepting even election to the papacy, although the pontificate of Innocent V lasted only five months. [70] To what extent Albert, after accepting the episcopal office, sought to live in a Dominican way is unknown. It is worth noting that during his Regensburg period in almost all documents he as a member of his Order placed "frater" before his name, [71] although not one of those documents brings any special benefit to the local priory of the Dominicans at the church of St. Blase. [72]
In contrast to Albert's elevation to the episcopacy his resignation after two years is only slightly documented. The fact is clear from the circular letter (already mentioned) of Urban IV from May 11, 1262, confirming his successor Leo; in only a few formalistic phrases it mentions the resignation of Albert which the Pope accepted after consulting those around him. [73] Reasons for the resignation are not mentioned; nor, as far as I can see, did Albert ever mention them in later years. We have no documented criticism of him either from Regensburg or from anywhere else. There is no doubt about continuing contacts between Albert and Urban IV, for the Pope after a further period spent by Albert at the Curia named him on February 13, 1263, preacher for the crusade in Germany, Bohemia, and other German-speaking areas. [74] Many documents in the following years introduce him as "frater Albertus" and at the same time "episcopus quondam Ratisponensis," [75] and similarly documents of his Dominican brothers when they speak of him mention his episcopal rank. [76]
Albert by laying down the shepherd's crosier of Regensburg did not lose the sacramentally grounded dignity of being bishop, nor did he simply become again a Dominican like the other friars. This is particularly clear from his will and testament of January, 1279. [77] He listed the priory of friars preachers in Cologne as the beneficiary of his books, his vestments, and his objects made of gold, silver, and pearls; he commissioned representatives to see that financial contributions reach the Dominican nuns in Würzburg, Augsburg and (Schwäbisch) Gmünd. He expressly asked that with his money ("de pecunia mea") the choir section of the Order's church in Cologne dedicated to the Holy Cross be brought to completion, and this his confreres thanks to his will were able to do. To dispose of goods, to have had income was for the author of the testament introducing himself at the beginning of the document as "frater Albertus episcopus quondam Ratisponensis ordinis fratrum Praedicatorum" not completely without difficulty, and so in a kind of preamble he emphasized his right to personal property as something exceptional in the Order and given to him by the pope ("ratione exemptionis ab ordine a summo pontifice mihi facte"). [78] Without doubt this particular status was linked to being a bishop; the "exemptio ab ordine" certainly meant not only private ownership but an extensive liberation from the discipline ("obedientia") of the Order, a mode of religious life quite difficult to harmonize with the exercise of the episcopal office. Since the ensemble of these aspects of his life emerged more or less already in 1260 with Albert's call to Regensburg, one should conclude that the "exemptio ab ordine" as a papal privilege mentioned by Albert in his will refers to arrangements made at the time of his resignation in 1262. It gave him, no longer a bishop of a diocese, a special position in and amid the Order of Preachers and included the right to private income. Moreover, after 1262 he assumed no more positions of leadership in the Order, unlike the situation before 1260.
This throws some light on the tension between Albert and Humbert, the Master of the Order, at the beginning of the year 1260. Both would have been aware that the step which the Pope planned would be irreversible and would have consequences for the entire Order. What Humbert sought to block Albert seems precisely to have sought: a special position legitimated by the papacy, a position vis-à-vis certain enmities within the Dominicans, namely the "alique molestie ordinis" who sought to reduce the influence of such a prominent personality. That kind of position would give to the great theologian through the episcopacy more freedom than would normally be possible. If the peaceful resolution of the situation in Regensburg was the explicit motivating reason for the pope who named him, nonetheless, Albert might have seen that enterprise as a beginning: quite soon he sized up being a mediator as a temporarily limited role but also saw it at the same time as a benefit which over time would bring him a special effect, "exemptio ab ordine." When two years later a harmonious election to bishop was again possible in Regensburg, he turned at once to other enterprises and left further developments on the Danube to men from that city and region.
We could at this point bring this essay to a conclusion except that some sources hand on further information, clarifying or illuminating data, which experts in studies on Albert the Great would have missed in the previous presentation. These details, not mentioned up to this point in this essay, are found in narrative sources from the time after Albert's death, in various drafts of the so-called Albert-Legend which in its fully developed form exists only from the end of the fourteenth century but naturally had various prior stages. [79] What those stories offer for a portrait of Albert's life stands at times in clear opposition to the facts that can be drawn from documents and letters of the thirteenth century, and to that extent they deserve no trust. To a very large extent they are reports that elude close examination and consequently have experienced only slight scientific evaluation. Mentioning them at the end of this essay on material treating Albert's time as bishop of Regensburg does not aim at debating the value of each of these sources but rather at noting that those later descriptions of Albert, mainly from Dominican writers and always intent upon an edifying portrait, were fashioned according to the pattern of a stylized hero in terms of the ideal of the Order as pictured for the time of Albert. So indirectly they do illumine the discrepancies appearing at the center of this essay.
Their repeated insistence that Albert accepted the bishop's crosier only through force and against all kinds of objections on his part is certainly no coincidence, [80] and his presence at the Curia at the time of his nomination is asserted in order to give him the possibility of immediately presenting his objections. [81] Since, in fact, contemporary documents offer nothing that points to any hesitation on the part of the Cologne professor toward the plan of Alexander IV, in later legends there is a decline in the power for imagining Albert's motives and the remaining motive is the traditional monastic reserve toward high church offices, something overcome by the Dominican's pride in the papal preference given to his Order. Similarly one edifying narrative treats the problem of how to reconcile mendicancy with episcopal dignity by narrating how Albert modestly avoided a solemn entry into Regensburg and spent the evening of his arrival with the Dominicans at St. Blase who led him the next day to visit his cathedral for the first time. [82] With some probability, the introduction of the feast of Dominic in the calendar of saints in the Regensburg church can be ascribed to him, [83] while one should view more skeptically the frequent mention of his simple sandals leaving behind among people a memory of his poverty. [84] In terms of important events in his episcopal activity later reports fashion different ideal images: for instance, he used all the time he could find to withdraw to the episcopal residence at Burg Donaustauf to compose there, within a year, his commentary on the Gospel according to Luke,[85] or through clever economics he applied four hundred and eighty six pounds of silver to diocesan debts, rectifying the finances of the diocese. [86] And the reason for the resignation—writers like to link it to an earlier forced acceptance of the office—falls usually into the framework that he wanted to return home to the poverty of his Order! [87] Sources in the following two centuries find three other possible motivations for that step: humility before a pastoral assignment of such breadth, rapid exhaustion after first attempts to master the amount of work, [88] or disappointment in finding himself dealing with a diocese where people were stubborn and intractable. [89] Or too, he had a deep dislike of the usual military aspects of being a prince of the empire, even a prince in the spiritual realm.[90] Finally there is his lasting preference for scholarly work. [91] All of these—and many others imagined by modern biographers to support their explanations—cannot be sustained (even less can they be contradicted) by Albert's own statements. In the last analysis, these are simply attempts to answer the kinds of questions that the events themselves raise for observers, then as today, events that do not explain themselves.
At the end of this discussion it is worthwhile asking why a closer look at this episode in Albert's life is important. Certainly not for a better understanding of his theological and philosophical works which in their totality hold almost no autobiographical references and mirror an intellectual development largely detached from any connection to particular places. Rather it is important for every interpretation to grasp that Albert presents himself to us (in contrast to Thomas Aquinas) as a writer who did not go through life exclusively as a scholar, but who in the Order, in the society around him, and in the church took on offices and positions with practical dimensions among which the exercise for a while of the episcopacy at Regensburg is only the most prominent. In his contact with that bishopric there is a remarkable measure of self-consciousness and preparedness for conflict in light of the norms of the Order, the wishes of the papacy, and the needs of the diocese entrusted to him. That we are able to deepen our view of the tensions connected with that episcopacy depends on a tradition of information sustained and furthered by the importance given to the great theologian. That information permits us to study in this individual case, one well presented in documentary sources, the visible tensions between professional theology, elite religious groups, and hierarchical order which have formed the being of the church, at that time in the thirteenth century—but not only then.
A translation of Albertus Magnus. Mendikantentum und Theologie im Widerstreit mit dem Bischofsamt which was originally published in the series Lectio Albertina as # 3 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1999). Rudolf Schieffer is President of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica and Professor of Medieval History at the University of Munich. Among his books are studies on the investiture controversy, cathedral chapters in Germany, and the Carolingian era. Thomas O’Meara is Warren Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame and author of Thomas Aquinas, Theologian.
The article explores Albert’s acceptance of and resignation from being bishop of Regensburg, a time of less than two years, but a period, in contrast to other periods of theological and philosophical productivity, that is precisely documented from dependable sources of the thirteenth century. Why had the great theologian, little more than sixty years old, suddenly become a bishop? Why did he give it up so quickly? The choice of Albert as well as his work as bishop were linked controversy in the diocese of Regensburg and to his earlier success as an administrator in Cologne. Once he saw that the local church could peacefully select a successor for him, he resigned to return to his work as teacher and writer, remaining, of course a bishop. Documentary study of his time as bishop questions legends about Albert existing only from the end of the fourteenth century, stories standing in opposition to the sources of the thirteenth century and aiming at an edifying portrait of ideals of the Dominicans. Albert’s episcopacy both touches on the spirituality and and practice of the Dominicans as well as on the early involvement of the papacy in the selection of German bishops.
[1] Basic works for Albert's biography and for its written sources are: P. de Loë, De vita et scriptis B. Alberti Magni, Analecta Bollandiana 19 (1900) 257-284; 20 (1901) 273-316; 21 (1902) 361-371; H. C. Scheeben, Albert der Grosse. Zur Chronologie seines Lebens (Vechta, 1931); for the period in Regensburg see J. Staber, "Albertus Magnus als Bischof von Regensburg," Verhandlungen des Historischen Vereins von Oberpfalz und Regensburg 106 (1966) 175-193; P. Mai, "Albertus Magnus als Bischof von Regensburg," G. Schwaiger, P. Mai, eds., Beiträge zur Geschichte des Bistums Regensburg 14 (Regensburg, 1980) 23-39; G. Schwaiger, "Der heilige Albertus Magnus. Kirchenlehrer, Bischof von Regensburg (1260-1262)," G. Schwaiger, ed., Lebensbilder aus der Geschichte des Bistums Regensburg (Regensburg, 1989) 156-167; J. Gruber, "Albertus Magnus—ein Dominikaner auf dem Regensburger Bischofsstuhl (um 1200-1280)," K. Dietz, G. H. Waldherr, eds., Berühmte Regensburger. Lebensbilder aus zwei Jahrtausenden (Regensburg, 1997) 70-78.
[2] For documents In print see P. Mai, "Urkunden Bischof Alberts II. von Regensburg (1260-1262)," in Verhandlungen des Historischen Vereins für Oberpfalz und Regensburg 107 (1967) 7-45, particularly 11f. Nr. 1; 12f. Nr 2; here according to the Passau textual tradition, but also textually supported by the papal registers (Les registres d'Alexandre IV t. 3, A. Coulon, ed. (Paris, 1953) 99, Nrs. 3058, 3059). The letter to Regensburg is reprinted in Monumenta Germaniae Historica [MGH]. Epistolae saeculi XIII selectae, C. Rodenberg, ed., 3 (Berolini [Berlin], 1894) 465f., Nr. 504 (more complete than in Mai); see A. Potthast ed., Regesta Pontificum Romanorum inde ab a. post Christum natum MCXCVIII ad a. MCCCIV (Berolini [Berlin], 1875) Nr. 17737, 17738.
[3] Mai, Urkunden 13f. Nr 3; no date given.
[4] Ibid. 14f., Nr. 4; Ibid. 15f. Nr. 5.
[5] Ibid. 16, Nr. 6.
[6] Ibid 16f., Nr. 7; Ibid. 18, Nr. 8; Ibid. 19f., Nr. 9.
[7] Thus Mai, Albertus 34; differing from this opinion is my view that the journey would have taken place between August 19 (Mai, Urkunden 20f. Nr. 10) and September 25 when the Landau synod took place (see note 9 below).
[8] See Mai, Urkunden 22f., Nr. 113.
[9] Ibid. 21f., Nr. 11, 12.
[10] Ibid. 23, Nr. 14.
[11] Ibid. 24ff., Nr. 16.
[12] Ibid. 27ff., Nr. 17-19.
[13] Les registres de Grégoire IX, t. 2. (Paris, 1907) 317ff., Nr. 3045bis; on their wide distribution see F. J. Felten, "Die Ordensreformen Benedikts XII. unter institutionengeschtlichem Aspekt," G. Melville ed., Institutionen und Geschichte. Theoretische Aspekte und mittelalterliche Befunde (Cologne, 1992) 369-435; particularly 374.
[14] See Mai, Albertus, 36.
[15] For the background of this see H. Dopsch, "Premsyl Ottokar II. und das Erzstift Salzburg," in Ottokar-Forschungen, Jahrbuch für Landeskunde von Niederösterreich NF 44/45 (Vienna, 1979) 470-508, particularly 484ff.; H. Wagner, "Von Interregnum bis Pilgrim von Puchheim," Geschichte Salzburgs 1/1 H. Dopsch, ed., (Salzburg, 1983) 437-486; particularly 439ff.
[16] Mai, Urkunden 40f., Nr. 20 (not accurate in establishing the dating).
[17] Annales S. Rudberti Salisburgenses ad a. 1261, MGH SS 9, 796.
[18] Mai, Urkunden 42, Nr. 22.
[19] Ibid. 43, Nr. 23.
[20] T. Ried, Codex chronologico-diplomaticus episcopatus Ratisbonensis 1 (Ratisbonae, 1816) 464ff., Nr. 489 using the original; see Potthast, Regesta (note 2) Nr. 18309 but which is not found in the papal registers. On his successor see P. Mai, "Bischof Leo Tundorfer. Ein Regensburger Patriziersohn auf der Kathedra des hl. Wolfgang (1262 -1277)," in G. Schwaiger, ed., Der Regensburger Dom. Beiträge zu seiner Geschichte (Regensburg, 1976) 69-95.
[21] On Albert's age see Scheeben, Albert 4f.
[22] See P. Landau, "Der Papst und die Besetzung der Bischofsstühle," Zeitschrift für evangelisches Kirchenrecht 37 (1992) 241-254; particularly 248f.
[23] See K. Ganzer, "Zur Beschränkung der Bischofswahl auf die Domkapitel in Theorie und Praxis des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts," Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 57 (1971) 22- 82; 58 (1972) 166-197; H. Müller, Der Anteil der Laien an der Bischofswahl. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Kanonistik von Gratian bis Gregor IX. (Amsterdam, 1977).
[24] See M. Borgolte, Die mittelalterliche Kirche (Munich, 1992) 43ff., 102ff.
[25] See A. Layer, "Albert von Lauingen und sein Geschlecht," Jahrbuch des Historischen Vereins Dillingen an der Donau 81 (1979) 31-40.
[26] See A. Diegel, Der päpstliche Einfluss auf die Bischofswahlen in Deutschland während des 13. Jahrhunderts (Berlin, dissertation, 1932) 59; K. Ganzer, Papsttum und Bistumsbesetzungen in der Zeit von Gregor IX. bis Bonifaz VIII. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der päpstlichen Reservationen (Cologne/Graz, 1968) 125; K. Hausberger, Geschichte des Bistums Regensburg 1 (Regensburg, 1989) 121.
[27] See Diegel, Einfluss 60; Ganzer, Papsttum 138; Hausberger, Geschichte 123f.
[28] Hausberger, Geschichte 124ff.; D. Hagen, "Die politische Behauptung des Hochstifts Regensburg zwischen Reich, Bayern und Bürgertum im 13. Jahrhundert," P. Mai, K. Hausberger, eds., Beiträge zur Geschichte des Bistums Regensburg 31 (Regensburg, 1997) 7-54, particularly 41f..
[29] See Hausberger, Geschichte 127f.
[30] For sources see note 2 in this article; on the legal problematic see Diegel, Einfluss 77f.; Ganzer, Papsttum 246; Hausberger, Geschichte 128.
[31] See note 20 of this article and Diegel, Einfluss 71; Ganzer, Papsttum 260; Hausberger, Geschichte 130.
[32] See note 2 above.
[33] Mai, Urkunden 12.
[34] MGH, Epp. saec. XIII 3, 466.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Scheeben, Albert 43ff.
[37] See Ibid., 36ff.
[38] See Ibid., 18ff. for the uncertain chronology.
[39] See H. Stehkämper, "Pro bono pacis. Albertus Magnus als Friedensmittler und Schiedsrichter," Archiv für Diplomatik 23 (1977) 297- 382.
[40] See M. Groten, Köln im 13. Jahrhundert. Gesellschaftlicher Wandel und Verfassungsentwicklung (Cologne, 1995): for the "Kleiner Schied" from 1252, 121ff.; for the "Grosser Schied" from 1258, 184ff.
[41] MGH Epp. saec XIII 3, 461f., Nr. 500; see Groten, Köln 198. Another example of mediation is the Dominican cardinal Hugh of St. Cher who was active with Albert in drafting an agreement (the "Kleiner Schied") in Cologne in 1252 and who on February 20, 1252, as a legate from Anagni, met with the Archbishop of Cologne, Konrad (L. Ennen and G. Eckertz eds., Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Köln 2 [Cologne, 1863] 423f., Nr. 406; see Scheeben, Albert 54.
[42] See H. Hürten, "Die Verbindung von geistlicher und weltlicher Gewalt als Problem in der Amtsführung des mittelalterlichen deutschen Bischofs," Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 82 (1971) 16-28; H. Stehkämper, "Der Reichsbishof und Territorialfürst (12. und 13. Jahrhundert)," P. Berglar and O. Engels, eds., Der Bischof in seiner Zeit. Festgabe für Joseph Kardinal Höffner (Cologne, 1986) 95-184; W. Janssen, "Der Bischof, Reichsfürst und Landesherr (14. und 15. Jahrhundert)," Bischof in seiner Zeit 185-244.
[43] In the view of Staber, Albertus 190f.; Mai, Albertus 31.
[44] See Mai, Urkunden 15: "...firmiter inhibentes, ne dicte littere per questiarios deportentur et, si secus actum fuerit, decernimus ipsas litteras extunc minime valituras."
[45] "Limitatio rationabilis est propter nimium abusum indulgentiarum, quae modo fiunt." Super IV Sententiarum, d. 20, a. 21 from the later 1240s; in the Borgnet edition, vol. 29 (Paris: Vivès, 1894) 858a. A clearer critique of "quaestuarii" is found in the Liber de muliere forti seu In cap. XI Proverbiorum 15, 1; vol. 18 (Paris: Vivès, 1893) 111b. But there is a question whether this text, if it is even authentic, does not come from 1264/67, that is after the Regensburg episcopacy; see H. Lauer, Die Moraltheologie Alberts des Grossen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung ihrer Beziehungen zur Lehre des hl. Thomas (Freiburg, 1911) 332f.
[46] Scheeben, Albert 56; Staber, Albertus 189.
[47] For this period there is no study analogous to R. Weigand, "Frühe Kanonisten und ihre Karriere in der Kirche," Zeitschrift der Savigny- Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 76 (1990) 135-155 from which we learn that it was relatively easier for important canonists of the twelfth and thirteenth century to become bishops.
[48] On the uncertain dating of his entry into the Order see Scheeben, Albert 8ff.
[49] See A. Vauchez, "Die Bettelorden und ihr Wirken in der städtischen Gesellschaft," A. Vauchez, ed., Machtfülle des Papsttums (1054-1274) (Freiburg, 1994) 837ff; L. Canetti, "Intorno all' "idolo delle origini": la storia dei primi frati Predicatori," I frati Predicatori nel Duecento (Verona, 1996) 9-51.
[50] See M.-H. Vicaire, "Les origines de la pauvreté mendiante des prêcheurs," M. H. Vicaire, ed., Dominique et ses prêcheurs (Fribourg, 1977) 222-265; M. Mollat, Die Armen im Mittelalter (Munich, 1984) 108ff.
[51] See Y. M-J. Congar, "Aspects ecclésiologiques de la querelle entre mendiants et séculiers dans la seconde moitié du XIIIe siècle et le début du XIVe," Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge, 36 (1961) 35-51; J. Miethke, "Politische Theorie und die 'Mentalität' der Bettelorden," F. Graus, ed., Mentalitäten im Mittelalter. Methodische und inhaltliche Probleme (Sigmaringen, 1987) 157-176.
[52] See P. R. Oliger, Les évêques réguliers. Recherche sur leur condition juridique depuis les origines du monachisme jusqu' à la fin du moyen-âge (Paris, 1958) 127ff.; W. R. Thomson, Friars in the Cathedral. The First Franciscan Bishops 1226-1261 (Toronto, 1975) 9ff.
[53] Stephanus de Salaniaco et Bernardus Guidonis, De quatuor in quibus deus Praedicatorum Ordinem insignivit III 5, 259, T. Kaeppeli ed. (Rome, 1949) 118; see M. H. Vicaire, Geschichte des heiligen Dominikus 1 (Freiburg, 1962) 196f.; Staber, Albertus 179.
[54] Thomas of Celano, Vita secunda S. Francisci ch. 109 (148) in Legendae S. Francisci Assisiensis saeculis XIII et XIV conscriptae I (Quaracchi- Firenze, 1926-1941) 215f.; see B. Altaner, "Die Beziehungen des hl. Dominikus zum hl. Franziskus von Assisi," Franziskanische Studien 9 (1922): 1-28, particularly 22; Oliger, Les évêques 134f.; K. Elm, "Franziskus und Dominikus. Wirkungen und Antriebskräfte zweier Ordensstifter," Saeculum 23 (1972) 127-147; Elm's article is reprinted in D. Berg, ed., Vitasfratrum. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Eremiten- und Mendikantenorden des zwölften und dreizehnten Jahrhunderts (Werl, 1994) 121-141.
[55] B. M. Reichert, Acta capitulorum generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum 1 (Rome - Stuttgart, 1898): 4 (1233); 61 (1252); 67 (1254); 72 (1255); see Scheeben, Albert 55; Oliger, Les évêques 153.
[56] Literature in this area depends on G. Gumbley, "Series praesulum assumptorum ex Ord. Praed.," Analecta sacri Ordinis fratrum Praedicatorum 17 (1925) 577-586, 649f., 767-778 (up until 1319) which in particulars is quite undependable. The two earliest references for 1221 and 1224 are at any rate to be set aside; see R. Schieffer, "Die frühesten Bischöfe aus dem Dominikanerorden," Franz J. Felten, Nikolas Jaspert, Stephanie Haarländer, eds., Vita Religiosa im Mittelalter (Berlin, 1999) 405-419.
[57]See. B. Altaner, Die Dominikanermissionen des 13. Jahrhunderts. Forschungen zur Geschichte der kirchlichen Unionen und der Mohammedaner- und Heidenmission des Mittelalters (Habelschwerdt, 1924).
[58] A particular case is Guala de Roniis, prior of the Dominican priory in Brescia, raised to the episcopacy of that city by Gregory IX in 1229/30; see C. Violante, "La chiesa bresciana nel medioevo," Storia di Brescia 1 (Brescia, 1963) 1001-1124, particularly 1077f.
[59] See J. H. H. Sassen, Hugo von St. Cher. Seine Tätigkeit als Kardinal 1244-1263 (Bonn, 1908).
[60]See E. Wallner, Das Bistum Chiemsee im Mittelalter (1215-1508) (Rosenheim, 1967) 92ff.
[61] See O. P. Clavadetscher, W. Kundert, "Das Bistum Chur," A. Bruckner ed., Helvetia Sacra I/I (Bern, 1972) 480.
[62] See B. Bilgeri, Geschichte Vorarlbergs 1: Vom freien Rätien zum Staat der Montforter (Vienna, 1971) 170ff.
[63] See D.-A. Mortier, Histoire des maîtres généraux de l'Ordre des frères prêcheurs 1 (Paris, 1903) 445-664; F. Heintke, Humbert von Romans, der fünfte Ordensmeister der Dominikaner (Berlin, 1933).
[64] Printed in Scheeben, Albert 154ff. Nr. 25; see Mortier, Histoire 646ff.; Oliger, Évêques 188f.; Staber, Albertus 178ff.
[65] The textual tradition used by Scheeben's Albert is in accord with the brief biography by Ludwig of Valladolid from around 1414; see also H. C. Scheeben, "Die Tabulae Ludwigs von Valladolid im Chor der Predigerbrüder von St. Jakob in Paris," Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 1 (1931) 223-263, particularly 229.
[66] See Stehkämper, Pro bono pacis 308ff., Nr. 5-7.
[67] See note 3 in this article.
[68] Scheeben rightly has doubts about this (Albert 54).
[69] See Heintke 78f. Certainly the offer cannot first have been made in 1263; see Stephanus de Salaniaco et Bernardus Guidonis, De quatuor..., 118, line 22.
[70] See M.-H. Laurent, Le bienheureux Innocent V (Pierre de Tarantaise) et son temps (Città del Vaticano, 1947), particularly 107ff.
[71] See Mai, Urkunden 10.
[72] See M. Popp, "Die Dominikaner im Bistum Regensburg," G. Schwaiger, P. Mai, eds., Klöster und Orden im Bistum Regensburg. Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte (Regensburg, 1978) 227-257, particularly 232.
[73] Ried, Codex 465: "...per cessionem venerabilis fratris nostri Alberti episcopi quondam Ratisponensis ab eo petitam instanter et tandem de consilio fratrum nostrorum a nobis admissam..."
[74] The respective documents are published in J. Guiraud, Les registres d'Urbain IV (1261-1264) 1 (Paris, 1901) 86, Nr. 311; see Potthast, Regesta, Nr. 18491; V. Cramer, Albert der Grosse als Kreuzzugs-Legat für Deutschland 1263/64 und die Kreuzzugs-Bestrebungen Urbans IV (Cologne, 1933).
[75] See Scheeben, Albert 138ff., Nr. 3-14, 17, 21, 24 (for the years from 1263 to 1276).
[76] Examples can be found in H. Finke, Ungedruckte Dominikanerbriefe des 13. Jahrhunderts (Paderborn, 1891) 84f., Nrs. 53 and 55.
[77] Published in J. A. Schmeller, "Über einige minder bekannte kleinere Textstücke aus den Handschriften der k. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek," Gelehrte Anzeigen 30 (1850) 34-47, particularly 45ff.; see G.M. Löhr, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Kölner Dominikanerklosters im Mittelalter II (Leipzig, 1922) 32f., Nr. 58; see Scheeben, Albert 123 on the dating.
[78] See particularly Scheeben, Albert 123ff.; Oliger, Évêques 194.
[79] See de Loë, De Vita 19, 257ff.; F. Pelster, Kritische Studien zum Leben und zu den Schriften Alberts des Grossen (Freiburg, 1920), 1 ff.; Scheeben, Albert 1ff.; W. P. Eckert, "Albert-Legenden," A. Zimmerman ed., Albert der Grosse. seine Zeit, sein Werk, seine Wirkung (Berlin, 1981) 1-23. For the state of research on sources up to 1500, see Schieffer, "Übersicht der biographischen Quellen über Albert (sog. Albert-Legende) bis 1500," published as an "Anhang" to this article (Lectio Albertina 3, 21- 25).
[80] Stephanus de Salaniaco et Bernardus Guidonis, De quatuor... III 5, 167 and 77: "Episcopatum Ratisponensem coactus accepit"; in de Loë, "Legenda Coloniensis" ch. 11 in De Vita 19, 275; "ipsum plurimum renitentem." For supporting documents see texts in Scheeben, Albert 54f.
[81] De Loë, "Legenda Coloniensis," ch. 11 in De Vita 19, 275.
[82] Ibid.; Scheeben, Albert 58f.
[83] Petrus von Preussen, Legenda Alberti Magni ch. 36 (a text printed in Cologne in 1483 (see W.A. Copinger, Supplement to Hain's Repertorium Bibliographicum. Or, Collections towards a new editions of that work (London 1895-1902), 1 Nr. 4443. fol. 70'); see Scheeben, Albert 62f.
[84] Andreas von Regensburg, Chronica pontificum et imperatorum Romanorum ad a. 1260 edited by G. Leidinger (Munich, 1903) 66; Scheeben, Albert 62.
[85] De Loë, "Legenda Coloniensis," ch. 13 in De Vita 19, 276; with the designation of a "castrum super Danubium situm" (Rudolphus de Novimagio, Legenda litteralis Alberti Magni book 2, c. 3 (text printed in Cologne in 1490, in Ludovicus Hain, Repertorium bibliographicum: in quo libri omnes ab arte typographica inventa usque ad annum MD. typis expressi, ordine alphabetico vel simpliciter enumerantur vel adcuratius recensentur (Lutetiae Parisiorum [Paris],1826-1838) [reprint Staten Island: Maurizio Matino, 1996].11915, fol 19, with the identification of that place as (Donau-) Stauf; this is the view too of Laurentius Hochwart, Catalogus episcoporum Ratisponensium, bk. 3, ch. 9 in the edition of A. F. Oefele, Rerum Boicarum Scriptores 1 (Augustae Vindelicorum [Augsburg] 1763) 207; see Scheeben, Albert 62. These may be linked to Albert himself who in his De animalibus 7, tr. 2, c. 6 (in the edition of H. Stadler [Münster, 1916] 523) writes of observing nature "in villa mea super Danubium." Moreover the Dominican priory in Regensburg according to the catalogue of their library in 1347 had a copy of the commentary on Luke; see C. E. Ineichen- Eder, Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands und der Schweiz IV/I: Bistümer Passau und Regensburg (Munich, 1977) 456, 41.
[86] Documents supporting this idea are cited in the sixteenth century; Hochwart, Catalogus 207; Scheeben, Albert 59; Mai, Albertus 31.
[87] Stephanus de Salaniaco et Bernardus Guidonis, De quatuor... III 5, 167. "quem paulo post tanquam carbonem ardentem manum adurentem obtenta cessione reiecit...et ad ordinis rediit paupertatem." 97.
[88] Hermann von Niederaltaich, Annales ad a. 1261 in MGH SS 17, 402; Heinrich von Herford, Liber de rebus memorabilibus sive Chronicon ad a. 1266 A. Potthast, ed. (Göttingen, 1859) 201; see Scheeben, Albert 63f.
[89] Andreas von Regensburg, Chronica pontificum et imperatorum Romanorum ad a. 1260 66; Hochwart, Catalogus 208; Scheeben, Albert 63f.
[90] Tholomaeus von Lucca, Historia ecclesiastica bk. 22, ch. 19 cited in L. A. Muratori, ed. Rerum Italicarum scriptores 11 (Mediolani [Milan], 1727), column 1151; Scheeben, Albert 64.
[91] Petrus von Preussen, Legenda Alberti Magni ch. 37 (folio 70 verso); see Staber, Albertus 192 and note 105. [The original text of the article here translated has an "Anhang" giving bibliographical information concerning twelve basic texts on Albert's life.]