A Pearl of Powerful Learning : the University of Cracow in the Fifteenth Century [1 ed.] 9789004326019, 9789004312395

Citation preview

“A Pearl of Powerful Learning”

Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance Editors William J. Courtenay (Madison) Jürgen Miethke (Heidelberg) Frank Rexroth (Göttingen) Jacques Verger (Paris) Advisory Board Jeremy Catto (Oxford) Daniel Hobbins (Notre Dame) Roberto Lambertini (Macerata)

VOLUME 52

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/esmr

“A Pearl of Powerful Learning” The University of Cracow in the Fifteenth Century By

Paul W. Knoll

LEIDEN | BOSTON

The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2016026411

Want or need Open Access? Brill Open offers you the choice to make your research freely accessible online in exchange for a publication charge. Review your various options on brill.com/brillopen. Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 0926-6070 isbn 978-90-04-31239-5 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-32601-9 (e-book) Copyright 2016 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

MENTORIBUS: S. Harrison Thomson (1895–1975) Richard C. Dales (1926–2001)

∵

Contents Preface ix Abbreviations xiii Lists of Maps and Illustrations xv

Introduction: The Medieval University Tradition 1

1

Instauracio Studii: The Foundation of a Pearl of Powerful Learning 10

2

Cracow and Its University 42

3

Institutional History and Development 79

4

The Personnel of the University: A Statistical, Social, and Academic Profile 149

5

The University in the National Life of Poland 220

6

The Arts Faculty, I 287

7

The Arts Faculty, II 346

8

Medicine and Law 403

9 Theology 467 10 Humanism 540 11

Libraries and the Library 595

Conclusion 637

viii

CONTENTS

Appendices A B C D

The Rectors of the University 1400–1508 645 The Deans of the Arts Faculty 1400–1510 652 Matriculation at the University of Cracow 1400–1509 660 Copernicus and the University of Cracow 674

Bibliography 680 Index 765

Preface During the European Middle Ages, multiple sources of institutional leadership and authority in society were recognized. The political and ecclesiastical powers—regnum and sacerdotium—were, in the course of the high medieval centuries, complemented by the emergence of a third element, the university—studium. While Paris and Bologna may have been the earliest versions of this institution, they were eventually—especially in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries—supplemented by other universities. One of these was the University of Cracow, to which this study is devoted. I was led to examine the medieval history of this school first by a suggestion made by my Doktorvater in graduate school and later by my own research into the political and diplomatic history of fourteenth century Polish rulers. One of them, Casimir III the Great, sought to establish a university in the kingdom he ruled, and that institution has proudly celebrated multiple anniversaries of its founding. Anyone who engages seriously in pursuit of an understanding of the late medieval history of east central Europe, especially of Poland, as I have done in my academic career, becomes very aware of the pride which Poles take in the Jagiellonian University, as it has now become known. Encouraged by this affection and the influences noted above, I have in my research and writing addressed various aspects of this institution’s history. I have done so, as it were, as an outsider—neither Polish nor Polish-American and not an alumnus of the school. In this study I have tried to create a fully rounded presentation of the university’s fifteenth century history, looking not only at its institutional development, but also at its role within society and its intellectual contributions. The resultant book represents the first such individual effort since the 500th Anniversary celebratory publications of 1900. It draws upon a very broad base of specialized scholarship, including my own, that has been devoted to the history of the university and that has greatly enriched and deepened our understanding of its medieval period. In writing this book this I have, as the medieval topos has it and as I have remarked elsewhere before, literally “stood on the shoulders of giants.” I have willingly and gratefully relied upon them. Some of what they have provided is, of course, their published scholarship. But I have been fortunate also to have benefitted from personal contact and extended conversation with a number of them, all of which I treasure. It is not possible to name all of these, but several in particular should be mentioned. These include individuals no longer with us, especially Ignacy Zarębski, Karol Estreicher, Aleksander Gieysztor, and Mieczysław Markowski, each of whom generously shared with me their

x

PREFACE

interpretations and encouraged me. Among current scholars I have particularly appreciated the wisdom and insights shared in person by Krzysztof Oźóg and Thomas Wünsch. My colleagues at the University of Southern California also provided welcome intellectual stimulation and criticism. Piotr Górecki of the University of California, Riverside, has long been a welcome supporter of my scholarship, a learned and discerning critic of my research, and a collegial presence whom I deeply appreciate and value. These individuals and the impressive historiographical foundations they have provided are the basis for the merits this book possesses. Its weaknesses derive from me. In the course of the research and writing of this book I have greatly benefitted from the financial support provided at crucial stages by The American Council of Learned Societies, the Fulbright Foundation and IREX Program, and the Faculty Research Fund of my university, eventually and fittingly named in honor of past president James H. Zumberge. I greatly appreciate their willingness to support research which still, in the eyes of many, lies outside the chronological and geographical mainline. I have also been fortunate to be able to rely upon the services of numerous libraries and library staff. In Poland the holdings of the Jagiellonian Library in Cracow seem nearly limitless. The resourceful personnel of the library at the Instytut Historyczny of the University of Warsaw, where I spent a memorable Fulbright-IREX year, were particularly successful in my obtaining older publications. In the United States I benefitted greatly from the resources of my own university library while at the same time drawing heavily upon the superb collection of the cross-town library of the University of California, Los Angeles. The process of completing this manuscript would have been immeasurably more difficult without the wonderful Inter-Library loan services, both electronic and hard copy, of my own university library and, after retirement, that of the Multnomah County Library in Portland, Oregon, now, once again after more than fifty years, my home. I am also deeply grateful for the support of the outstanding group of editors and staff at Brill, not least Marcella Mulder, for their broad support and patience. Some parts of the text that follows have appeared, sometimes in slightly different form or phrasing, in several of my previously published articles. I am pleased to acknowledge here permissions by the following copyright holders of these items to use these revised materials in this book: Margaret Kittelson and Pamela Transue, now copyright holders of my “The University of Cracow and the Conciliar Movement,” in the volume edited by James M. Kittelson and Pamela Transue, Rebirth, Reform and Resilience. Universities in Transition 1300– 1700 (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1984), 190–212; Bariša Krekić,

PREFACE

xi

now copyright holder of my “The Urban Development of Medieval Poland, With Particular Reference to Kraków,” editor of The Urban Society of Eastern Europe in Premodern Times (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1987), 63–136; the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences of America, Bożena Leven, Executive Director, for my article “The University Context of the Kochanowski Era: Humanism and the Academic Culture of the Early Renaissance in Poland,” in Samuel Fiszman, ed., The Polish Renaissance in its European Context (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1988). 189– 212; Brepols Publishers for my article “Literary Production at the University of Cracow in the Fifteenth Century,” in Anna Adamska and Marco Mostert, eds., The Development of Literate Mentalities in East Central Europe (Turnhout, 2004), 217–246; and Brill Press for my article “Nationes and Other Bonding Groups in Late Medieval Central European Universities,” in Nancy van Deusen and Leonard Michael Koff, eds., MOBS An Interdisciplinary Inquiry (Leiden and Boston, 2012), 95–115. I also acknowledge, with great thanks, the institutions who own the originals of the illustrations included in this book for their permission to utilize these items; they are identified on each illustration. Dr. Krzysztof Boroda of Białystok University has graciously allowed me to use data about student matriculations which he originally included in his book noted in the bibliography. My son, David, skillfully prepared the two maps included in this book. This book is dedicated to two individuals, both distinguished medievalists and Fellows of the Medieval Academy, who shaped my academic and scholarly life and who were, in addition, rare colleagues. S. Harrison Thomson taught at the University of Colorado for three decades beginning in the 1930s; he first led me into the history of medieval east central Europe and inspired my work in that field. Richard C. Dales (“Dick” to those who knew him) was the undergraduate teacher who showed me what the discipline of history was all about and who encouraged me to study with his own mentor, Thomson. I subsequently became Dick’s colleague at the University of Southern California, and our decades together there enriched my academic, professional, and personal life. It probably is the case that one may never live up to the expectations and standards of one’s mentors, but I hope this present work honors them appropriately. When writing a university’s history during the course of more than a century, it is impossible to cover everything and treat all who were a part of its life in this period. I am only too aware that some individuals—many I am sure important—have been left out. Sometimes in late night-time reveries I can almost hear the voices of these faculty members and students calling out from

xii

PREFACE

across the centuries, pleading to be remembered and included. To those omitted by design or inadvertence and to those whose contribution remains yet to be discovered or appreciated, I offer at least a recognition that the history of the institution of which they were a part is worthy of study and of being placed in a context that contributes to a better understanding of late medieval universities, whose full history remains yet to be written.

Abbreviations (full citations in Bibliography) Acta Rectoralia Album Studiosorum CDUC Cod. epist. Conclusiones Długosz, Annales Długosz, Historia Fijałek, Mistrz Jakób Fijałek, Studya FwP Karbowiak, Dzieje wychowania Karbowiak, “Studia statystyczne” Księga promocji Lepszy, ed. Dzieje UJ Liber diligentiarum LTCP / SPTK. Materiały

Metryka

Acta rectoralia almae Universitatis Studii Cracoviensis Album studiosorum Universitatis Cracoviensis Codex diplomaticus Universitatis Studii Generalis Cracoviensis Codex epistolaris saeculi decimi quinti. Conclusiones Universitatis Cracoviensis ab anno 1441 ad annum 1589 Ioannis Dlugossii Annales seu Cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae Johannes Długosz, Historia Polonica, in Opera Omnia Jan Fijałek, Mistrz Jakób z Paradyża i Uniwersytet Krakowski w okresie soboru bazylejskiego Jan Fijałek, Studya do dziejów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego i jego Wydziału Teologicznego w XV wieku Filozofia w Polsce. Słownik pisarzy Antoni Karbowiak, Dzieje wychowania i szkół w Polsce Antoni Karbowiak, “Studia statystyczne z dziejów Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 1433/1434–1509/10” Księga promocji Wydziału Sztuk Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego z XV wieku Kazimierz Lepszy, ed., Dzieje Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w latach 1364–1764 Liber diligentiarum Facultatis Artisticae Universitatis Cracoviensis Lexicon Theologorum Catholicorum Poloniae / Słownik Polskich Teologów Katolickich Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce; after vol. 11 continued as Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce, with new volume numeration and volume number from old series in parentheses, thus 1 (12) etc. Metryka Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego z lat 1400–1508

xiv Morawski, Historya MPP Najstarsza księga promocji Nowy Korbut PSB Statuta . . . Lib. Prom. St. Med.

ABBREVIATIONS

Kazimierz Morawski, Historya Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Średnie wieki i Odrodzenie Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum Najstarsza księga promocji Wydziału Sztuk Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego z lat 1402–1541 Bibliografia literatury Polskiej Nowy Korbut Polski Słownik biograficzne Statuta nec non liber promotionum Studia Mediewistyczne

Lists of Maps and Illustrations Maps 1 2

The City of Cracow and University Locations xvi Poland in its Region, showing cities from which more than fifty ­individuals matriculated at Cracow 1400–1509 xvii

Illustrations 1 2a 2b 2c 3a 3b 3c 4a 4b 4c 4d 4e 5 6 7 8 9 10

Depiction of Cracow in Hartmann Schedel’s Liber Chronicarum (1493) 44 Reconstruction of the Collegium Maius as of the end of the fifteenth century 76 Current view of the exterior of the Collegium Maius, looking southwest 76 Interior courtyard of the Collegium Maius (current condition) 77 Rectoral scepter, traditionally called “The Jadwiga Scepter;” and detail 92 Rectoral scepter, donated by Zbigniew Cardinal Oleśnicki; and detail 93 Rectoral scepter, from the estate of Frydryk Cardinal Jagiellon; and detail 94 The great seal of the University of Cracow, beginning of the fifteenth century 96 The minor (or rector’s) seal of the university, mid-fifteenth century 96 Seal of the royal college (Collegium maius), prior to 1434 97 Seal of the arts faculty 97 Heraldic arms of the university, ca. 1500 98 Sketch of the Collegium minus (no longer extant); nineteenth century 119 View of [sketch of] the Collegium Iuridicum; current status 121 Sketch of the Bursa pauperum (no longer extant), ca. 1835 124 Foundation tablet for Oleśnicki’s Jerusalem bursa (1453?) 125 Sketch of Jerusalem bursa, prior to fire of 1841 125 Sketch of Długosz bursa prior to fire of 1841 128

Map 1

The City of Cracow and University Locations.

Map 2

Poland in its Region, showing cities from which more than fifty individuals matriculated at Cracow 1400–1509.

Introduction: The Medieval University Tradition The university is a distinctively medieval creation.1 Though there had been higher education in other times and places, this institution can not trace its origins to classical Athens or Rome; the law school of Beirut founded in the third century was not its parent; it is not derived from Emperor Theodosius II’s imperial studium in Constantinople; and it has no roots in Islamic institutions of learning.2 Moreover, despite medieval fictions that, for example, Paris had been founded by Charlemagne or Oxford by Alfred the Great, the early middle ages did not see the birth of the university. Rather the university evolved slowly, and sometimes with pain and great struggle, out of the needs and aspirations of the high middle ages, particularly during the twelfth century. In a time that was increasingly ordered in the political sphere, prosperous and diversified in its economy, dynamic in its demography and society, and ever more creative in the institutional, spiritual, and intellectual life of its religion, it is not surprising that education should also show signs of elaboration and change. The older schools of the monasteries and cathedrals proved unable to fulfill effectively an academic trinity of the careerist needs of aspiring clerks, the subtle elaborations of theological discourse, and the pressing legal concerns of both the church and lay society, In such archetypal institutions as Bologna and Paris, solutions to these needs were sought which found eventual expression in prescribed curricula, sequential instruction, disputations, formal degrees, and structured faculties and student bodies.3 Eventually also the question of 1  For elaborations on this theme see A.B. Cobban, The Medieval Universities: their development and organization (London: Methuen, 1975), 21–23 and Walter Rüegg, “Themes,” in Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, vol. 1 of Walter Rüegg, General Editor, A History of the University in Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 7–8, both with citations to appropriate older literature. 2  The possibility, however, that the colleges of some medieval studia may have been influenced by Islamic models has been long argued, with some success, by George Makdisi. See his The Rise of Colleges: Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981), especially 287–289, and “The Model of Islamic Scholastic Culture and its Later Parallel in the Christian West,” in Olga Weijers, ed., Vocabulaire des colleges universitaires: (XIIIe–XVIe siècles): actes du colloque Leuven 9–11 avril 1992 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1993 [CIVICIMA Études sur le vocabulaire intellectual du Moyen Âge, 6], 158–174. 3  With respect to the distinctly medieval phenomenon of scholastic disputation, see now the revealing analysis and evaluation by Alex J. Novikoff, “Toward a Cultural History of Scholastic Disputation,” American Historical Review 117 (2012): 331–364, especially 346–355; his work has now been more fully developed in his The Medieval Culture of Disputation: Pedagogy,

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004326019_002

2

Introduction

c­ ontrol and regulation of this educational enterprise was decided in such a way as to provide, in most instances, for a high degree of institutional autonomy and intellectual freedom. Despite the work of many scholars, the process by which this took place in the early generations of the university movement is still not fully known. Only fragments of the original events were recorded; and even of this, much has either perished or escaped the relentless searches of modern descendants of these early academicians. By the thirteenth century, however, university evolution had proceeded so far that we are able to speak today, with reasonable confidence, about studia generalia, the ius ubique docendi, scholarly privileges, organization, curriculum, and the contributions of these institutions to the educational, philosophical, theological, legal, governmental, and medical achievements of the middle ages.4 Practice, and Performance (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013). The general picture of disputatio in medieval universities is treated by Olga Wiejers, La ‘disputatio’ dans les Facultés des arts au moyen âge (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002 [Studia Artistarum. Etudes sur la Faculté des arts dans les Universités médiévales 10]); she discusses universities in central Europe in her Part V (277–315). Some of this material is included in her more recent In Search of the Truth. A History of Disputation Techniques from Antiquity to Early Modern Times (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), 119–147. 4  Several fundamental older accounts of the rise of medieval universities are still important. They include, in particular, Heinrich Denifle, Die Entstehung der Universitäten des Mittelalters bis 1400 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1885); Hastings Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, 2nd ed., F.M. Powicke and A.B. Emden, eds., 3 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936); Georg Kaufmann, Geschichte der deutschen Universitäten, 2 vols. (Stuttgart: J.G. Cotta, 1888–1896), especially vol. 1; Stephen d’Irsay, Histoire des universités françaises et étrangès des origins à nos jours, 2 vols. (Paris: A. Picard, 1933–1935), especially vol. 1. To these should now be added, among many other possibilities, two books by Pearl Kibre, The Nations in the Mediaeval Universities (Cambridge, MA: Medieval Academy of America, 1948), and Scholarly Privileges in the Middle Ages. The Rights, Privileges, and Immunities of Scholars and Universities at Bologna, Padua, Paris, and Oxford (Cambridge, MA: Medieval Academy of America, 1961); Jacques Verger, Les universités au moyen âge (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1973); Cobban, The Medieval Universities; Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages; and Olaf Pedersen, The First Universities. Studium Generale and the Origins of University Education in Europe, trans. Richard North (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Among the best shorter treatments, the following are particularly good: Charles Homer Haskins, The Rise of Universities (New York: H. Holt, 1923); and Richard C. Dales, The Intellectual Life of Western Europe in the Middle Ages (Leiden, New York, Cologne: Brill, 1992), 210–234; and the splendid overview by Verger, “Schools and Universities,” in Christopher Allmand, ed., The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. VII: c. 1415–c. 1500 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 220–242.

Introduction

3

It must not be thought, however, that these studia evolved necessarily toward some static congruency with an abstract archetypical ideal. Because they arose out of society, they continued to change in the later middle ages, both responding to and at the same time subtly shaping the conditions of their environment. The collegiate movement is an important example of this kind of change. Sometimes these collegia were little more than academic residence halls or hostels.5 But in many instances in trans-Alpine Europe, these foundations became more-or-less autonomous communities engaged in learning, located in endowed quarters, with specific statutes and privileges;6 and to speak of the university without the college becomes an absurdity. This is true not only because in some studia the financial and social character of the institution would have been fundamentally different without the college, but also because the forward thrust of advanced learning lay within them.7 A second example of change is not unrelated to the first. This was the tendency for the medieval universities to acquire the beginnings of the material “plant” so characteristic of traditional higher education today. At first, medieval universities were not places; they were states of being. They were corporations—the Latin term universitas means a legal whole or entirety that was eventually extended to what are known now as universities8—whose reality rested not in some physical locus, but in privileges, in disputations, in persons. They functioned wherever students and teachers gathered, whether in some rented hall or in the academic taverns of the city. But with the collegiate 5  For this status, see the comments of Weijers, Terminologie des universités au XIIIe siècle (Rome: Ed. dell’Ateneo & Bizzan, 1987 [Lessico Intellettuale Europeo, 39]), 82–84. The bursae in fifteenth century Cracow to be discussed in Chapter Three and Four fall into this category. A fuller discussion of the meaning of the term collegium is provided by Mariken Teeuwen, The Vocabulary of Intellectual Life in the Middle Ages (Turnhout: Brepols, 2003 [CIVICIMA Études sur le vocabulaire intellectual du Moyen Âge, 10]), pp. 57–60. 6  This is paraphrased from the extended definition given by Astrik L. Gabriel, “Motivation of the Founders of Mediaeval Colleges,” Paul Wilpert, ed., Beiträge zum Berufsbewußtsein des mittelalterlichen Menschen (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1964 [Miscellanea Mediaevalia, 3]), 61–72, here 61, reprinted in Gabriel, Garlandia. Studies in the History of the Mediaeval University (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1969), 211–223, here 211. 7  See the chapter on the European collegiate movement in Cobban, The Medieval Universities, 122–159; and Jacques Verger, “Patterns,” and Ranier Christoph Schwinges, “Student Education, Student Life,” both in Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 60–62 and 213–231 respectively. 8  Weijers, Terminologie des universités, 15–26; Jürgen Mietke, “Universitas und Studium zu den Verfassungsstrukturen mittelalterlicher Universitäten,” Aevum 73 (1999): 493–511; and Teeuwen, Vocabulary of Intellectual Life, 147–149.

4

Introduction

­ ovement and endowments came buildings and belongings. While this perm haps meant a weakening of the international character of the universities and an enhanced identification with the city and polity in which they were located, it also reduced the potential freedom of the university to secede from a location if its rights or autonomy were abridged. But these changes were balanced by a deeper involvement in the affairs of society and by corresponding support from the established authorities, whether municipal, ecclesiastical, royal, or princely. The tendency for these same authorities to found universities, effectively de novo, by specific enactment marks another change from the spontaneous evolutions of the earlier period. For example, Emperor Frederick II erected a studium in Naples in 1224 in part, perhaps, to undermine the primacy of Bologna. Five years later Pope Gregory IX created a papal foundation at Toulouse that was intended to serve as a bulwark against heresy. By the end of that century, several more had been established, and this number had risen above three-score by ca. 1500.9 In this process of university foundation, continental Europe east of the Rhine did not participate until the mid-fourteenth century. Then, with increasing rapidity, the major rulers of the region hurried to join the rest of Europe. Prague was founded in 1347/1348, Cracow in 1364, Vienna in the next year, Pécs in 1367, Heidelberg in 1385 (the first university in the German lands proper), followed subsequently by other studia in the Empire. This pattern of royal and princely foundation (though Charles IV was also Holy Roman Emperor when Prague was founded) is not without significance. As rulers came increasingly actually to govern that which they claimed theoretically, they sought means to regularize their administration and to symbolize their accomplishments. The university, which was the crowning educational achievement of the time, was both an effective tool and a suitable reflection of the other achievements of its founder. Such individuals endeavored to adorn the corona with the brightest cultural jewel the age could provide. Symbolically, they chose the pearl, the margarita, as that jewel. In the parable of the pearl in Matthew 13:45–46, the pearl is unique and supreme. In philosophical and theological terms which would have been familiar to all within medieval universities, the pearl was the principle of the summum bonum.10 9  For a discussion of which institutions were founded and when and of what their status was (Rashdall, Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, 2, 325–337, talked about “paper universities” and “alleged universities”), see now the treatment, with maps, by Verger, “Patterns,” 62–65, 68–74. 10  The very mention of “the pearl” brings to mind the extensive literature on the medieval English poem “Pearl.” With regard to the comments in the text, I have found the following

Introduction

5

With reference to the founding of the University of Cracow both Casimir the Great and Władysław Jagiełło specified that it should be, as I translate it with a degree of license, “a pearl of powerful learning:” Sitque ibi scienciarum prevalencium margarita.11 From their declarations I have taken the title of this study. The proliferation of studia in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries may have undermined the unique status, and even reduced the influence, of some of the older studia, but it also clearly suggests the importance of these institutions in this later period, contradicting the traditional view that universities were in decline at the end of the Middle Ages. Measured purely by quantitative criteria, especially in the Empire and in Poland, expanding student enrollment in Europe in these years provided a burgeoning corps of university trained men whose impact was felt in schools, courts, and chanceries of powers both great and small, both civil and ecclesiastic.12 With this increase in the number of schools came a corresponding rise in the attention given to their support. To insure that these schools would not be subject to the same financial exigencies and resultant instabilities that periled earlier academic life, provisions were

works stimulating: D.W. Robertson, Jr., “The Pearl as a Symbol,” reprinted from Modern Language Notes 65 (1950): 155–161, in John Conley, ed., The Middle English Pearl, Critical Essays (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1970, 18–26; Ian Bishop, Pearl in Its Setting (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1968), pp. 92–98, especially p. 93; and Theodore Bogdanos, Pearl, Image of the Ineffable: A Study in Medieval Poetic Symbolism (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1983), 4–12. See also Robert J. Blanch, “Pearl,” in Dictionary of the Middle Ages, Joseph R. Strayer, Editor-in-Chief, 13 volumes (New York: Scribners, 1982–1989), 9 (1987), 476–477; and H.L. Spencer, “Pearl: ‘God’s law’ and ‘Man’s law’,” Review of English Studies, n.s. 59:240 (2008): 317–341. 11  For the context of the Casimiran and Jagiellonian use of margarita as symbol and its context with respect to the establishment of other European universities, see the recent comments of Janusz Sondel, Przywileje fundacyjne Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego oraz przywilej nadania szlachectwa jego profesorom (z historyczno-prawnym komentarzem) (Cracow: Universitas, 2015), 57–58 and 202. 12  For the pattern in German universities see the study by Schwinges, Deutsche Universitätsbesucher im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert. Studien zur Sozialgeschichte des alten Reiches (Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, 1986), especially his massive chapter three, 61–220. The case of Prague—where there was decline in student enrollment—is special due to the impact of the Hussite Revolution; the general pattern is traced by František Šmahel, “L’Université de Prague de 1433 à 1622: recrutement géographique, carrières et mobilité social des étudiants gradués,” in Dominique Julia, Jacques Revel, and Roger Chartier, eds., Les universités européennes du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle. Histoire sociale des populations étudiantes, 2 vols. (Paris: Editions de l’Ecole des hautes etudes en sciences sociales, 1986–1989), 1 (1986) 65–88. For developments at Cracow, see Chapter Four of this study.

6

Introduction

increasingly made for salaried professorships as well as endowed livings for both faculty and students.13 Much of the foregoing has focused upon institutional matters, and it was indeed these questions which drew the attention of early scholars. In addition they were concerned with identifying the curriculum of the schools and intellectual life within studia, especially the production of the professors. More than half a century ago, Sven Stelling-Michaud, himself a master scholar of Swiss universities, presented a magisterial survey of scholarship dealing with the history of medieval and Renaissance universities in the previous twenty-five years. In addition, he laid out an agenda for additional research, focusing upon the social history of these schools.14 His agenda, which already reflected some developments in university historiography, has been successfully pursued in the decades since. Issues of social origins, mobility, career paths, patronage networks, and the role of university-trained personnel in administration have become the focus of a remarkable body of scholarship.15 13  There is a particularly rich and suggestive study on this topic, much broader than its title suggests, by Jacques Paquet, Salaires et prébendes des professeurs de l’Université de Louvain au quinzième siècle (Leopoldville: Editions de l’Université, 1958 [Studia Universitatis Lovanium, 2]). This topic is also treated with reference to specific studia in A.L. Gabriel, ed., The Economic and Material Frame of the Mediaeval University (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), including an important contribution by Aleksander Gieysztor on Cracow, “Aspects financiers de l’Université de Cracovie au XV siècle,” 51–56; see also the comments by Gieysztor, “Management and Resources,” and Verger, “Teachers,” both in Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 133–136 and 151–154 respectively. 14  Sven Stelling-Michaud, “L’histoire des universités au Moyen Âge et à la Renaissance au cours des vingt-cinq dernières années,” in Rapports du XIe Congrès International des Sciences historiques, 1 (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1960), 97–143. 15  The following items are noted merely to be indicative of the range and depth of what has been published. See Laetitia Boehm, “Libertas Scholastica und Negotium Scholare: Entstehung und Sozialprestige des Akademischen Standes im Mittelalter,” in Helmut Rössler and Günther Franz, eds. Universität und Gelehrtenstand 1400–1800 (Limburg/Lahn: C.A. Starke, 1970), 15–61; Johannes Fried, ed., Schulen und Studium im sozialen Wandel des hohen und späten Mittelalters (Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 1986); Schwinges, Deutsche Universitätsbesucher; numerous studies by Hilde de Ridder-Symoens (including her edited Universities in the Middle Ages) and by her students; William J. Courtenay, Parisian Scholars in the Early Fourteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); and the remarkable series of publications in the series Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance edited by Jürgen Miethke, Courtenay, Jeremy Catto, and Verger, including Courtenay and Miethke, eds., with the assistance of David B. Priest, Universities and Schooling in Medieval Society (Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill, 2000)

Introduction

7

We are, as a result, beginning to get a clearer idea of the social and geographical background of medieval university students, although progress on specific universities has been uneven. While much work remains to be done, some preliminary conclusions can already be drawn. For example, in general students at late medieval were increasingly drawn from the political jurisdiction within which the university was located.16 In addition, the trauma of the Great Western Schism beginning in 1378 and its aftermath contributed greatly both to the shattering of universalist pretensions and to the proliferation of foundations noted above. As Jacques Verger has noted, seven studia were founded or reopened between 1378 and 1400, another eighteen (or twenty) in the next half-century, with twenty-two more by 1500.17 At many of these, students were increasingly drawn from a catchment area that was local. While medieval universities were, to a degree, places where, as Herbert Grundmann once put it, the amor sciendi lay at the heart of their emergence and growth,18 they were also, and perhaps more predominantly, institutions which provided the practical training desired by individuals seeking to make [no. 10]. This series includes also such valuable collections of studies as, for example, Klaus Wriedt, Schule und Universität. Bildungsverhältnisse in norddeutschen Städten des Spätmittelalters, Gesammelte Aufsätze (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005) [23]; Šmahel, Die Prager Universität im Mittelalter / The Charles University in the Middle Ages. Gesammelte Aufsätze / Selected Studies (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007) [28]; Peter Moraw, Gesammelte Beiträge zur Deutschen und Europäischen Universitätsgeschichte. Strukturen—Personen— Entwicklungen (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008) [no. 31]; and Schwinges, Studenten und Gelehrte. Studien zur Sozial- und Kulturgeschichte deutscher Universitäten im Mittelalter / Students and Scholars. A social and cultural history of medieval German universities (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008) [32]. For an overview of continuing research, see the list of bibliographies in Verger, “Patterns,” pp. 65–66. and the bibliographies in each issue of the journal History of Universities. The pattern of careers is discussed by Moraw, “Careers of Graduates,” in de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 244–279, reprinted in his Gesammelte Beiträge zur Deutschen und Europäischen Universitätsgeschichte, 391–432. 16  For an overview, see the comments on the transition from internationalism to regionalism by Ridder-Symoens, “Mobility,” in Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 285–290. 17  Verger, “Patterns,” 57. 18  Herbert Grundmann, Vom Ursprung der Universität im Mittelalter, 2nd ed. (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960), 39. Though Grundmann’s thesis is not now widely held, in some instances, as shown for Paris by Stephen C. Ferruolo, The Origins of the University. The Schools of Paris and their Critics 1100–1215 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1985), the desire to create knowledge as well as to train professionals was also a part of the origins and functioning of the medieval university.

8

Introduction

a career in society.19 The professional, institutionally ecclesiastical, and governmental concerns of society were what drew most men to the university. Vocational training, in order to obtain social preferment and a well-paying job, was the goal of most university students. While some of them—relatively few—came from the wealthier upper-strata of society and the aristocracy, most were individuals from the middle (sometime even lower-middle) strata of society: sons of knights, free farmers, merchants (both petty and grand), and artisans, for whom a professional career in teaching, law, medicine, or the church was an escape to a better life.20 Collectively, by the end of the middle ages, these “men of learning,” as Jacques Verger has called them,21 had come to constitute a specific social group, most of them having gained a certain level of knowledge and possessing a practical competency. They were the living embodiment of the medieval university tradition. All of the foregoing developments are part of the heritage that the University of Cracow received from its predecessors. The Polish studium was both to parallel and deviate from this dynamic inheritance in the fifteenth century. In the pages which follow, there are several foci. After a chapter which traces the fortunes of the university from the times of Casimir the Great in 1364 to the refoundation of 1400, we turn in the next chapter to a description of the municipal matrix in which the university functioned, i.e., the city of Cracow and its relations with the school. Chapter Three traces the institutional history and development of the university in the fifteenth century; Chapter Four analyzes the personnel of the school in an attempt to provide a social and academic profile of them; and Chapter Five describes and evaluates the role the university—both students and faculty members—played in the national life 19  See the discussion in Rüegg, “Themes,” 9–14, drawing upon, among other materials, Peter Classen, Studium und Gesellschaft im Mittelalter, Johannes Fried, ed. (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1983), and some of the contributions to the aforementioned edited volume by Johannes Fried, ed., Schulen und Studium. 20  The social range at one late medieval university is shown in Christoph Fuchs, Dives, Pauper, Nobilis, Magister, Frater, Clericus. Sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchungen über Heidelberger Universitätsbesucher des Spätmittelalters (1386–1450) (Leiden, New York, Cologne: Brill, 1995 [Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, 5]). More generally, see Schwinges, “On Recruitment in German Universities from the Fourteenth to Sixteenth Centuries,” in Courtenay and Miethke, eds., Universities and Schooling in Medieval Society, 32–48; and Arno Seifert, “Studium als soziales System,” in Fried, ed., Schulen und Studium, 601–619. 21  Verger, Men of learning in Europe at the End of the Middle Ages, Lisa Neal and Steven Rendell, trans. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000; French original 1997), 2–3 especially.

Introduction

9

of the country in this period. Thereafter, the focus shifts to the academic and intellectual life of the school, dealing in particular with the productivity and contributions of the masters. Chapters Six and Seven discuss the faculty of arts by focusing upon the elements of the trivium, quadrivium, and the three philosophies, with special attention to the natural and exact sciences. Chapter Eight deals with the medical and law faculties, and Chapter Nine treats the theology faculty. Two final chapters are devoted to the question of humanism at Cracow in this period and the growth of the university library in the fifteenth century. In what follows several individuals will be particularly prominent. Among these are, for example, Stanisław of Skarbimierz, Benedict Hesse of Cracow, John of Dąbrówka, and John of Głogów, each of whom played important institutional roles and were also significant in their intellectual contributions. There are many others, whose specific names I do not mention here but whose activities and productivity will be seen in multiple contexts in the pages that follow. Because this study is not a collection of biographical portraits but rather an attempt to provide a fully rounded picture of the university’s history, readers will need to see the aforementioned scholars and the others who were mentioned implicitly in this context. I wish it were possible here to provide extended biographies of the many leading member of the Cracovian studium in this period. Instead, what the chapters that follow present is a picture of the university as a whole in an effort to demonstrate the contribution that Cracow made to, and the role it played in, the broader picture of fifteenth century Poland and of late medieval university life.

CHAPTER 1

Instauracio Studii: The Foundation of a Pearl of Powerful Learning The end of the beginning for the University of Cracow came in mid-summer 1400. Less than a decade and one-half before, King Władysław Jagiełło had been the pagan Grand Prince of the still unconverted Lithuanians. Now as the Christian ruler of Catholic Poland, he was presiding over the opening in Cracow of an institution which, in its several European permutations, was, as A.B. Cobban has noted,1 one of the most “valuable and fructifying bequests of the middle ages to the modern world.” On Monday 26 July, in the house he had purchased for the school, the king stood in the presence of learned dignitaries from throughout the kingdom and proclaimed the establishment of a studium in Cracow, where his predecessor Casimir the Great had sought to found one in the 1360s. Although his wife Jadwiga, herself ruler of Poland since 1384, had also been a fervent supporter of this reactivation, she had not lived to see it; she had died the year before. Thus it fell to the king to complete what she and he had begun. In his proclamation he decreed that in Cracow there should be A pearl of all powerful learning to produce men noteworthy for the ripeness of their judgment, clad in the splendours of the virtues and flourishing in diverse branches of study, and in that place let a plentiful spring of knowledge well up, from the abundance whereof all desirous of being imbued with learning may take a draught.2

1  A.B. Cobban, The Medieval Universities: their development and organization, (London: Methuen, 1975), 235. 2  C DUC, I, no. 16, 25–30, here 26. This charter is also printed in Najstarsze przywileje Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego / The Oldest Charters of the University of Cracow, edited with an introduction by Bożena Wyrozumska, ed. (Cracow: Biuro Jubileuszowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2000), 43–47; and, in the following item, 51–56. In the text above, I have utilized the translation of these words in Casimir’s documents of foundation (1364) found in University of Cracow, Documents Concerning Its Origins, with An Introduction by Leon Koczy (Dundee, Scotland: Millennium Poloniae Christianae, 1966), 81. Jagiełło’s document draws upon the earlier decree verbatim at this point. This Dundee volume was prepared by the Polish diaspora in Scotland to celebrate the millennium of Polish Christianity in 1966. It is revealing of the values of this émigré community, whose presence abroad was due to events of the Second World War and

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004326019_003

Instauracio Studii

11

From this act and those to follow in the next days, the school in Cracow eventually come to honor Jagiełło as its greatest benefactor, and today it is known as the Jagiellonian University (Universitas Jagellonica, Uniwersytet Jagielloński), proudly bearing the name of its second founder.3 The details of this foundation represent the culmination of a process whose roots lie in the university tradition of the middle ages sketched in the Introduction to this study. But they have their source equally in the Casimiran era of the previous century and in late fourteenth century attempts to bring about the instauracio studii that was successfully accomplished in Jagiełło’s lifetime. This chapter is devoted to these latter two elements and the details of the foundation of 1400.

The Casimiran Foundation

According to a long-standing historiographical tradition, Casimir the Great, King of Poland from 1333 to 1370, had recognized early in his reign the importance of university education for the welfare of his kingdom. Spurred by the example of Emperor Charles IV, who with papal support had founded his own university in Prague in 1347, Casimir dispatched Chancellor Florian Mokrski of Łęczyca, who had studied canon law in Padua and was one of his most trusted the subsequent establishment of Communism in Poland, that it should choose to mark the millennium by reference to the establishment of an institution of higher learning. 3  Son of Lithuanian Grand Prince Algirdas (Polish Olgierd), King Władysław was born in 1348. He ruled Lithuania as Grand Prince from 1377 to 1401 under his Lithuanian name Jogaila, but this was eventually Polonized to Jagiełło after he converted to Catholic Christianity and married the Polish ruler Jadwiga in 1386. At that time he adopted the Christian name Władysław (Wladislaus). For his biography see, among much else, the following: Małgorzata Duczmal, Jagiellonowie. Leksykon biograficzny (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1996), 461– 478; Urszula Borkowska, Dynastia Jagiellonów w Polsce (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 2011), 36–46; and Jadwiga Krzyżaniakowa and Jerzy Ochmański, Władysław II Jagiełło (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1990). For the appellation “Jagiellonian” as applied to the Cracow Studium, note that the king is designated first among the secular personages listed in the “Nota modum et ordinem petendi pro benefactoribus Universitatis” (MS Cracow, BJ 258, f. 2), printed in Album Studiosorum, 1, 8–9 and Metryka, 1, 5–6, where he is identified as “fundatore et conservatore.” (Two other lay names above his have either been crossed out or, perhaps, added later.) The question of Jagiełło’s status as “founder,” which will be touched upon again in Chapter Three, is addressed by Krzysztof Stopka, “The Jagiellonian Foundation of Cracow University,” Quaestiones medii aevi novae 8 (2003): 49–66, the English version of his “Jagiellońska fundacja Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” Rocznik Krakowski 69 (2003): 35–46. The university was officially designated “Jagiellonian” in the Organic Statute of 1817, which governed the Free City of Cracow that had been established at the Congress of Vienna.

12

CHAPTER 1

civil officials, to Italy in 1351 to investigate the workings of universities there.4 From this information, as well as knowledge available from some three-score university trained men within the regnum,5 Casimir laid plans for his own foundation. It has been recently shown, however, that Chancellor Mokrski was not involved in any mission of this kind, and that the beginnings of Casimir’s efforts to establish a university in Poland lie much later, in the early 1360s.6 By that time at least two important factors were involved in the king’s endeavors toward this end. On the one hand, the needs of the kingdom were such that men trained in law particularly were increasingly required by the civil administration. Casimir himself had done much to bring about this condition.7 His efforts to take the individual Polish principalities that his father had united politically and weld them into a uniformly administered whole were signalized by his codifications of law in the 1350’s. This effort had gone far beyond simply gathering and standardizing Polish customary practice. It had included foreign elements, even Roman, which gave substance to the king’s political ambition of royal centralization. Such law would be effective only if wielded by men trained in its use. Except for expensive and often dangerous travels to foreign studia, however, such an education was unavailable.8 Moreover, by this time an older cadre of advisors and officials was being replaced by persons with univer4  First presented by Jan Fijałek, Dominus Bartolus de Saxoferrato eiusque permagna in Polonos auctoritas (Cracow: Academia Litterarum Cracoviensis, 1914), 4, and followed by most scholars subsequently, including myself in the works cited in the following note. 5  For this number see Karbowiak, Dzieje wychowania, 1, 256, and the revisions of his figures by Zdzisław Kaczmarczyk, Monarchia Kazimierza Wielkiego, 2 vols. (Poznań: Księgarnia Akademicka, 1939–1946), 2, 323–325. They were incorporated into my “Casimir the Great and the University of Cracow,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 16 (1968): 236, and my “Learning in Late Piast Poland,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 120, no. 2 (1976): 140. Krzysztof Ożóg, Intelektualiści w służbie Królestwo Polskiego w latach 1306–1382 (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1995), 92, has identified fifty-six university educated individuals engaged in various aspects of administration during Casimir’s reign. See also the observation below, n. 10. 6  See the convincing analysis by Stanisław Szczur, Papież Urban V i powstanie uniwersytetu w Krakowie w 1364 r. (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 1999), 75–80. 7  Janusz Kurtyka, Odrodzone Królestwo. Monarchia Władysława Łokietka i Kazimierza Wielkiego w świetle nowszych badań (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2001), 115–188, provides an excellent overview of what the author terms “modernization” in royal administration, especially law. The second volume of Kaczmarczyk, Monarchia Kazimierza Wielkiego, which is devoted to the king’s internal policies, still retains much that is useful also, but the best current overview of Casimir’s achievement is provided in Tomasz Jurek and Edmund Kizik, Historia Polski do 1572 (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 2013), 314–362. 8  See the argument made by Casimir’s representatives in 1363 discussed below, n. 12.

Instauracio Studii

13

sity experience. In his concern for legal education, Casimir was seconded by the Polish church. Its increasingly elaborate and sophisticated structure also required professionally trained men instead of the traditional appointment of well-intentioned amateurs. Prince and prelate were to walk the path to a university as partners.9 On the other hand, the institutional and intellectual resources of the kingdom were thought to be sufficient to support an institution of higher learning. The thin stream of individuals from beyond the Oder who had sought university education in the west during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries had become a moving tide by the time of Casimir. A scattering of individuals had attended Paris or Bologna in the decades before 1300, but by the middle years of Casimir’s reign, there were more than a hundred clerics in Poland who had received university training, as Krzysztof Oźóg has shown.10 These scholars upon their return to Poland had the potential to provide faculty members for a university. The academic base upon which a university would rest was also promising, for there were more than two hundred schools of various levels functioning in Casimiran Poland. All could be expected to provide potential students for the several faculties of a studium generale. In addition, the libraries of Poland were deemed rich enough to support instruction. Some were limited in size to be sure; but in the royal capital of Cracow, both the cathedral

9  The condition of the Polish church in this period is treated by Kaczmarczyk, Polska czasów Kazimierza Wielkiego (Cracow: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1964), 141–150; and Jurek and Kizik, Historia Polski do 1572, 347–352. The education and role of educated clergy in Poland in this period, particularly in the royal administration, is treated in detail by Ożóg, Intelektualiści, pp. 11–27 and 49–92. 10  Krzysztof Oźóg, Kultura umysłowa w Krakowie w XIV wieku. Środowisko duchowieństwa świeckiego (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1987), 14–15 and 141–151 (his Appendix 1, listing all included in this group). Older studies include Stanisław Kutrzeba, “Polacy na studiach w Paryżu w wiekach średnich,” Biblioteka Warszawska 60, no. 2 (1900): 514–541; Pierre David, Étudiants Polonais dans les Universités françaises du Moyen-Âge XIIIe–XVe siècles (Grenoble: J. Aubert, 1929); Henryk Barycz, Spojrzenie w przeszłość polsko-włoską (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1965), 17–35; and Aleksander Gieysztor, “Mistrzowie polscy uniwersytetu paryskiego w XIV i XV wieku,” in Gieysztor, et al., eds., Wieki Średnie. Prace ofiarowane Tadeuszowi Manteufflowi w 60 rocznicę urodzin (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1962), 213–225. More recently Jacques Verger, “Les étudiants slaves et hongrois dans les universités occidentales (XIIIe–XVe siècles),” in L’Eglise et le peuple chrétien dans les pays de l’Europe du Centre-Est et du Nord (XIVe–XVe siècles) (Rome: École Française de Rome, 1990 [Collection de l’Ecole Française de Rome, 128]), 83–106, has provided a broader picture of matriculations in the west from east central Europe.

14

CHAPTER 1

chapter on Wawel hill and the parish church of St. Mary’s had extensive holding of liturgical, theological, literary, and particularly legal works.11 These factors all apparently augured well for the erection of a university in Poland. Consequently, Casimir began negotiations with Pope Urban V toward that end. The Polish delegation that arrived in Avignon, probably late in 1362 or early in 1363, bore the royal petition for a “studium generale in all faculties, and especially in canon as well as civil law.”12 Their justification for this request was based upon the needs of the kingdom, the great travel distance (ultra XL dietas) from other studia (Italian institutions are clearly meant, for Prague would have been much closer), the expense of education abroad, and the danger of such travel for Poles, who might be captured by enemies and even die in imprisonment. Urban’s response was to ponder the request, then, in a letter of 16 October 1363, to ask the Archbishop of Gniezno to obtain more information about the nature of the licenses and privileges intended for the new school.13 Archbishop Jarosław Bogoria Scotnicki, who had earlier been the tutor of the king and a crucial figure in the codification of Polish law, arrived in Cracow in January 1364 and apparently undertook the investigations the pope had requested. Whether the eventual royal and municipal documents were drafted at this time and sent by the archbishop to Avignon is not clear. Although he would surely have reported his findings to the pope, his letter doing so has not survived. One can only infer from the eventual papal documents regarding the university what he might have recommended.

11  Schools and libraries in medieval Poland are treated generally in Stopka, Szkoły katedralne Metropolii Gnieźnieńskiej w średniowieczu. Studia nad kształceniem kleru polskiego w wiekach średnich (Cracow: Nakładem Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności, 1994). Ożóg, Kultura umysłowa w Krakowie w XIV wieku. Środowisko duchowieństwa świeckiego (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1987), 14–49 and 103–137, more specifically focuses upon education and libraries in Cracow. 12  The text of this supplication, known only from papal registers and entered under the date 6 April, was printed by Stanisław Krzyżanowski, “Poselstwo Kazimierza Wielkiego do Awinionu i pierwsze uniwersyteckie przywileje,” Rocznik Krakowski 4 (1900): 55–57. For the Polish representatives, along with other problems associated with this delegation, see Krzyżanowski, “Poselstwo,” 1–24; and Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Z ostatnich lat Kazimierza Wielkiego,” Małopolskie studia historyczne 6, no. 3/4 (1964): 15–21. More recently these matters have been revisited by Szczur, Papież Urban V i powstanie uniwersytetu, 80–93. 13  This letter, also known only from papal registers, is printed in Krzyżanowski, “Poselstwo,” 58–59;

Instauracio Studii

15

On 12 May 1364 Casimir issued the document traditionally regarded as founding the university. In words that were to be echoed a generation later by Jagiełło, he proclaimed: We Casimir . . . have decided that in Our city of Cracow a site shall be named, chosen, established and regulated where a Studium Generale in every approved Faculty shall flourish and by these presents We wish it to be so for all time henceforth. [There follows the statement about a “pearl of all powerful learning” quoted at the beginning of this chapter] To each and every one of those, We promise the terms contained in the present document and in good faith We pledge Ourselves strictly to keep and maintain Our promises. . . .14 In this document, Casimir provided for the erection of one chair in liberal arts, two chairs in medicine, three in canon law, and five in Roman (i.e., civil) law. The salaries for these chairs were to come, not from student fees, but from royal endowment. Casimir guaranteed income payable quarterly from the royal salt monopoly at near-by Wieliczka. Not all faculty, however, were to receive the same salary. In the faculty of canon law forty silver marks were to be paid to each of the two who lectured respectively on the Decretum of Gratian and the Decretales of Gregory IX, while he who lectured on the Liber sextus and the Clementinae was to receive twenty marks. In the faculty of medicine, both masters were to receive twenty marks; the chair in arts had an income of ten marks a year, but carried with it the headship of the parish school of St. Mary’s in Cracow, from which additional income would be derived; and in the faculty of civil law, all five chairs were to receive forty marks a year, except for that which concerned the Volumen, which had an income of only one half the others. The constitutional character of the university reflects the Italian archetypes from which it was derived (the document explicitly refers to Bologna and Padua).15 Students were granted extensive privileges: not only those traditional exemptions from taxes, tolls, and civil jurisdiction, but also in their rights of control over the school. The rector, who was to be the chief governing officer, was to be elected by students from among their own number, masters being 14  C DUC, 1, no. 1, 1–4, here 1; reprinted in Krzyżanowski, “Poselstwo,” 60–64. The translation in the text is from University of Cracow, Documents, 81. 15  “Eisdem esse volumus dominus graciosus, ipsosque et eorum quemlibet in suis iuribus, privilegiis, libertatibus et statutis et consuetudinibus omnibus aliis, quae in Studiis generalibus, videlicet Bononiensi et Padwano, tenentur et observantur, conservare, defensare ac tueri.” CDUC, 1, no. 1, 1.

16

CHAPTER 1

ineligible. In addition, students were to be responsible for the appointment of professors to their respective chairs. The only important administrative authority to lie in extra-university hands was the right of private examination and promotion. The royal charter reserved this to the Chancellor of Cracow, a royal and civil official. Other advantages granted to students included provision for student loans, with interest limited to one groschen per mark per month; the establishment of numerous hospices, each to be governed by a committee of two townspeople and two students; and the special protection of the king in civil rights. The same day the city of Cracow issued a charter listing the privileges it was granting to the new university and its students.16 In general, it provided the extension of Cracovian privileges and protections to all who were associated with the school, specifically exempting students and professors from municipal justice. The city also made clear its understanding of why the university was being founded: so that the infidels, pagans, and schismatics who surrounded Poland might, by the zeal and devotions of the masters, doctors, and scholars, be converted to the Catholic faith for the greater glory of God and the Virgin Mary who bore Him.17 In this respect, the city officials manifested a more explicitly religious motivation than had Casimir in his document. While he had specified that the university was to have every approved faculty (in qualibet licita facultate), including presumably theology, he had made mention only of faculties in arts, medicine, and law—both civil and canon—and said little about this missionary ideal. It is not clear how and when Pope Urban V received information about the content of the royal and municipal charters, whether before the events of May in a report from Archbishop Skotnicki or subsequently. Within four months, however, on 1 September, he issued his own document either confirming or constituting the university’s foundation (see the discussion below).18 In two important respects Urban modified the conditions requested by Casimir in his original request and that were contained in the royal document. Although the king had requested the establishment of a university in every legitimate faculty, the pope refused to allow the foundation of one in theology. His decision appears to have been due to the absence of any native doctors of theology 16   C DUC, 1, no. 2, 4–6; also in Krzyżanowski, “Poselstwo,” 65–67. 17  “Ut ex congregatione dictorum Magistrorum, Doctorum et Scolarium, pro conversione infidelium paganorum et scismaticorum, dicto regno confinantium, maior devotio praedicationis et instructio fidei catholicae ad laudem et gloriam omnipotentis Dei et genitricis eius gloriosae Virginis Mariae crescat et augeatur.” CDUC, 1, no. 2, 5. 18  C DUC, 1, no. 3, 6–7; also in Krzyżanowski, “Poselstwo,” 68–70.

Instauracio Studii

17

in Poland and to other local factors, not the result of pressures applied either by Paris or Prague to preserve their theological primacy.19 In addition, Urban transferred control over examinations and promotions from the Chancellor of Cracow to the Bishop of Cracow. Since the incumbent in this position, Bodzanta, was an archenemy of Casimir20—they had quarreled earlier in the decade and the king had tried to have him removed—this decision raised potential problems as Casimir sought to activate the studium. Later that same month, on 13 September, Pope Urban addressed a letter directly to Casimir, in which he elaborated on his reasons for placing control of the university in the hands of the bishop.21 He explained that the right to approve examinations and, in effect, to grant degrees, was ultimately a papal prerogative, though exercised on his behalf by the local bishop or, should there be a vacancy, by the vicar-general of the cathedral chapter. Both of these documents would have reached Poland sometime after their date of issue, perhaps not until late fall or early winter. Most Polish scholarship—and following it much western European and North American work—has straightforwardly regarded Casimir as having founded the university in May 1364 and that subsequently Pope Urban confirmed, with modifications, the Casimiran erection.22 The recent analysis by Stanisław Szczur of the documents discussed above, however, has called this into question. It is his conclusion that Casimir’s document was merely an “endowment privilege” in which a place for the studium was designated, potential resources identified, and an organizational model defined. The

19  Instead of my comments in “Casimir the Great and the University of Cracow,” 244, see Adam Vetulani, “La fondation des universités dans l’Europe Centrale aux temps du pontificat d’Urbain V,” Atti del primo Congresso internazionale della Societa Italiana di Storia del Diritto (Florence: L.S. Olschki, 1966), 361–367, and his Początki najstarszych wszechnic środkowoeuropejskich (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970), 94–103. This same point is made by Paolo Nardi, “Relations with Authority,” in Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 98. 20  The older work by Mieczysław Niwiński, “Biskup krakowski Bodzanta i Kazimierz Wielki,” Collectanea Theologica 17 (1936): 225–262, is still useful, but should be supplemented by the discussion in Kurtyka, Odrodzone Królestwo, 107–111. 21  C DUC, 1, no. 4, 8–9; also in Krzyżanowski, “Poselstwo,” 71–73. 22  In addition to works cited above published prior to Szczur’s study, see Jan Dąbrowski, “Czasy Kazimierza Wielkiego,” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 20–33; and Jerzy Wyrozumski, Z najstarszych dziejów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego. Szkice (Cracow: Universitas, 1996), 21–33.

18

CHAPTER 1

actual ­foundation act was rather that of Urban.23 His study has understandably evoked wide discussion,24 which is likely to continue, with technical considerations of legal practice and procedure being subjected to increasingly precise analysis. But on the central point of who was the founder, Szczur appears to have carried the day.25 The presentation in this chapter has been careful to show the initiative of Casimir, while accepting that in the final analysis the legal foundation of a university in this period was still in the hands of universal authority. Apart from the issue of who should be formally recognized as founder, the importance of the king should not be minimized. The university had a juridical basis, making it—after Prague—the second institution of this kind in east central Europe. It is important to recognize that although Casimir did not intend this to be a lay institution in the tradition of Frederick II’s Naples, it nevertheless had as its primary function service to the kingdom. The need for trained lawyers in Poland had caused the king to lay special emphasis upon legal studies in his request to the pope, and although he saw fit to endow only a single chair in the arts (apparently hoping that others would provide support for the additional faculty needed there), he provided fuller support for the eight faculty in canon and civil law. In addition, Casimir hoped that the university would become one of the means by which he would consolidate state (i.e., royal) power and regularize the system of public administration. This is partially reflected in his desire to have control of university governance in the hands of the chancellor

23  Szczur, Papież Urban V i powstanie uniwersytetu, 127–194. In his very closely argued analysis of the procedures by which papal documents were issued and the status they had, Szczur also disputes whether Casimir’s negotiations with the papal curia constituted a precedent for the procedures that were followed for the establishment of the University of Vienna in 1365 and of Pécs in 1367, concluding they were not. 24   See, for example, Janusz Sondel, “Kilka uwag na temat początków Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” Kwartalnik Historyczny 109 (2002): 117–125 and his further treatment in Przywileje fundacyjne Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego oraz przywilej nadania szlachectwa jego profesorom (z historyczno-prawnym komentarzem) (Cracow: Universitas, 2015), 21–136; and Krzysztof Stopka, “Głos w dyskusji nad fundacją uniwersytetu w Krakowie,” Rocznik Krakowski 71 (2005): 31–40, who agrees with Szczur’s main point, but on different grounds. 25  For example, in Najstarsze przywileje / Oldest Charters, 6 and 12, the author (Jerzy Wyrozumski’s spouse) specifically identifies the pope as the founder. Szczur’s conclusion has not been universally accepted. Mieczysław Markowski, “Od Kazimierzowskiej do Jagiellońskiej fundacji Uniwersytetu w Krakowie,” Acta Mediaevalia 15 (2002): 13–41, especially 14–19, presented the university as having been founded by Casimir without mentioning Szczur’s position.

Instauracio Studii

19

of Cracow, who was a royal appointee. Thus the university began with the high hopes of its founder in the best medieval tradition of utilitarian education.26 Where he intended the university to function is a complicated issue. He may have intended that it have its physical location in the municipality of Kazimierz, which lay to the south of Cracow and which the king had incorporated in 1335 (it is now a district of Cracow). Archaeologists in the last century uncovered the remains of substantial structures whose location was described by the fifteenth century Polish historian John Długosz.27 According to him, in an area which was a thousand paces square, royal workmen completed spacious cellars and began work on what would have been a walled university compound including homes for professors and students, commons, lecture halls, and private study rooms. When work was begun and why it was not completed has been the subject of much scholarly conjecture. Some have suggested construction began before the foundation of the university and that these efforts were halted when the municipal council of Cracow and Bishop Bodzanta of Cracow joined forces to argue successfully to the papal curia that their city was a more suitable site for the university.28 Others have argued that construction could only have started after the papal authorization for the studium, and probably after the death of Bishop Bodzanta in 1366,29 and that it was stopped sometime thereafter, perhaps as a result of flooding from an arm of the Vistula

26  The substance of this paragraph is somewhat at variance with the position taken regarding Casimir’s motives by Szczur, Papież Urban V i powstanie uniwersytetu, 195–200. 27  Długosz, Annales, 5, 307 (Liber nonus, s.a. 1361): “in loco amplo et spacioso ad mille et amplius passus in omnes partes.” Elsewhere, when telling about the death of Queen Jadwiga, Długosz repeated the information that Casimir had undertaken to found a university in Kazimierz: “hec studium generale, a Kazimiro secundo Polonie rege in oppido Kazimieriensi fundari ceptum, instauravit.” (Annales, 6, 232, [Liber decimus, s.a. 1399]) This location is confirmed by a document connected with the fifteenth century foundation of a Carthusian monastery “ubi quondam clarissimus Casimirus Polonie rex studium generale fabrica murali fundandum duxerat” cited from Szczur, Papież Urban V i powstanie uniwersytetu, 212, who quotes a document printed in Alfred Brandowski, Założeniu Uniwersytetu krakowskiego w roku 1364 skreślił na podstawie dyplomatycznej (Cracow: Drukarnia Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1872), 126–129, which I have not seen. 28  This is the position taken by Vetulani, Początki najstarszych wszechnic, 82–91; see also his “Les origins de l’Université de Cracovie,” Acta Poloniae Historica 13 (1966): 14–40, especially 19–24. I originally followed Vetulani in “Casimir the Great and the University of Cracow,” 232–249, but now believe on this point that Szczur, Papież Urban V i powstanie uniwersytetu, 210–216 is correct. 29  See the argument of Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Z ostatnich lat Kazimierza Wielkiego,” 11–15.

20

CHAPTER 1

River.30 Whenever construction began and ended, it is clear that the Casimiran university never functioned in Kazimierz.31 There was a time when it was doubted whether the charters of foundation were ever implemented and the university actually functioned. Casimir’s last Vice-Chancellor, the historian Janko of Czarnków, made no mention of the studium in his Chronica Polonorum, which in its early sections hymns the glories of Casimir’s reign. In addition John Długosz in his fifteenth century Annales commented about the university that “it did not prosper, the death of King Casimir having intervened, and neither donation nor support was forthcoming for it.”32 But we now know that there was some feeble activity connected with the school. At least four individuals who are identified as having received their bachelor’s degree in Cracow are known by name, and there may well have been ­others. Although we cannot identify any of the faculty with certainty—the names of one or two have been proposed by some scholars—extant manuscripts and fragmentary notices provide some surety about where lectures were given. The arts were studied at either the cathedral on Wawel hill or at the collegiate church of St. Mary’s on the town square, while if the legal faculties were activated (canon law may have been studied, though apparently not civil), they were probably taught at the cathedral and royal residence, in which chapter and chancery respectively were to be found men qualified and trained in law. The medical faculty we may more definitely identify with the castle itself: those in Cracow trained in medicine would serve in the first instances as royal physicians, and it is not coincidental that one of the manuscripts which reveal the functioning of medical studies bears the gloss that it was written in castro Cracoviensi seu in universitate studii. . . . Finally, the beginnings of the university library may be traced to this era, for at lest three surviving manuscripts in the collection of the Jagiellonian Library are derived from the Casimiran period. These are the fragmentary remnants of what may have been, one may reasonably infer, a more substantial achievement. But it is true that the university never remotely realized the ambitions which Casimir had held for it.33 30  So Dąbrowski, “Czasy Kazimierza Wielkiego,” 33–36, especially 35. 31   Ibid., 33–36, successfully taking issue with Henryk Barycz, Alma Mater Jagellonica. Studia i szkice z przeszłości Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1958), 11–38, especially 34. 32  Długosz, Annales, V, 307 (Liber nonus s.a. 1361): “morte Regis Kazimiri interveniente non fuit prosperatum nec dotacio ipsa et fundacio fuit sortita effectum.” 33  Debates over the interpretation of very fragmentary details have often resulted in sharply divergent conclusions. Generally scholars such as Barycz, Vetulani, and Dąbrowski have

Instauracio Studii

21

The limited impact of the Casimiran university may be traced to several factors. Even before Casimir’s death, the original conception for the studium had been compromised. The failure of the pope to approve the erection of a theological faculty meant that there would be no scholastic forum for the growing Polish expertise in this area, which was to be shown by the generation of Polish students educated in theology at Prague prior to the 1400 refoundation. Further, Casimir apparently decided to delay activation of the school until after the death of Bishop Bodzanta of Cracow, and this allowed precious time to pass without opening the university. In addition, the financial base upon which studies were to rest had not yet been clearly regulated by 1370; for example, the statutes of the Wieliczka salt mines issued in 1368 contained no mention of faculty salaries. This leads either to the conclusion that Casimir felt himself released from the promises in his document of 12 May 1364 since the university had not been erected in conformity with his request to the papacy or that, following the example of Charles IV in Prague, who in 1366 had founded an arts college within his university (the Carolinium), Casimir had decided to establish his own collegium and support it with buildings (perhaps those begun in Kazimierz?) and resources, leaving the other parts of the university for others to finance.34 But the most obvious problem faced by the university was the inopportune death of its patron. No new Maecenas arose to replace Casimir for a generation, and in the interim, the political tribulations which afflicted Poland under the rule of Louis of Anjou from Hungary allowed the attention of political and ecclesiastical leaders alike to be directed away from the university. As Janko of Czarnków later remarked rather bitterly, “At the time of this king, there was neither stability nor justice in the kingdom of Poland.”35 As seen earlier and more extensive functioning of the studium. Wyrozumski has been more guarded, while Szczur, Papież Urban V i powstanie uniwersytetu, 200–216, who provides an analysis of the evidence and a critique of previous scholarship and whose conservatism on this particular matter I share, has been especially cautious about what can be said with surety. He lists the names of the four students who can be identified with confidence as having studied at Cracow on 201 and 204–205. See below in this study, Chapter Three, n. 135. 34  This last suggestion was first made, I believe, by Barycz, “Z zagadek uniwersytetu Kazimierzowskiego w Krakowie,” Przegląd Zachodni 8 (1952): 113–125, especially 121– 123. On Charles’ Carolinum, see Josef Petráň, Karolinum (Prague: Univerzita Karlova, 1988), 13–20, and Wolfgang Eric Wagner, Universitätsstift und Kollegium in Prag, Wien und Heidelberg. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung spätmittelalterlicher Stiftungen im Spannungsfeld von Herrschaft und Genossenschaft (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1999), 37–89. 35   Joannis de Czarnków, Chronicon Polonorum, Jan Szlachtowski, ed., in Monumenta Poloniae Historica, 2 (Lwów: Nakładem Własnym, 1872), 721: “Hujus autem regis tempore nulla stabilitas, nulla justitia in regno Poloniae habebatur.” His testimony may be suspect,

22

CHAPTER 1

a result, the university sank quickly into decrepitude. After the early-1370’s it apparently ceased to function. There is record of neither students nor professors, no trace whatever of activity. But the university was not completely dead; the tradition remained. And it was this which in the last decade of the century inspired attempts to revive it. They were the final scene in the prologue to the revitalization of 1400.36

Efforts at Revival

By 1390 Władysław Jagiełło and others had apparently already given thought to the question of university studies in Cracow. We know from a series of speeches and sermons given by Bartholomew of Jasło that activity toward that end was already underway, and indeed, that he himself may have been involved in instruction. (As Krzysztof Stopka has noted, there is no evidence that at this point Queen Jadwiga was involved in these matters.)37 Bartholomew was born sometime before 1360 in the Little Poland city of Jasło. Pursuing an ecclesiastical career, he went to Prague, where about 1380 he matriculated in arts along with the eventual first rector of the revived studium in Cracow, Stanisław of Skarbimierz. He passed his bachelor’s examination at Christmas 1382 and two years later was promoted to the master’s degree. In 1385 he entered the faculty of law, supporting himself by teaching in the arts faculty. (Traces of this activity are reflected in four of his extant arts lectures at Cracow.) Despite the comment of one of his Polish contemporaries that he “excelled all the other professors in his knowledge of law,” he apparently took no degree in this field, and after the beginning of the fall semester in 1389 he left Prague and returned

however, since he was a partisan participant in the events of the years 1370–1382; for the problems related to accepting Janko’s testimony, see Jerzy Kłoczowski, “Louis the Great of King of Poland as Seen in the Chronicle of Janko of Czarnków, “ in S.B. Vardy, Geza Grossmidt, and L.S. Domonkos, eds., Louis the Great, King of Hungary and Poland (New York: Distributed by Columbia University Press, 1986 [East European Monographs CIXIV (sic.)]), 129–154. 36  There is a good overview of the Casimiran period of the university’s history by Stopka, “From Foundation to the Late 18th Century,” in Stopka, Andrzej Kazimierz Banach, and Julian Dybiec, The History of the Jagiellonian University, Teresa Bałuk-Ulewiczowa, trans. (Cracow: Jagiellonian University Press, 2000), 9–15. 37  Stopka, “The Jagiellonian Foundation of Cracow University,” 54.

Instauracio Studii

23

to Poland. Of his later career in Prague and at the University of Cracow after 1400, we shall have more to say below.38 For an oration delivered prior to 4 December 1390, he significantly chose a text from the Doctrinale of Alexander of Villa Dei, one of the standard grammar books of the late medieval trivium.39 In this lecture, Bartholomew described the four means necessary to the revival of the university. The causa movens was the whole kingdom which desired the studium. Nobles and peasants alike (specialiter tamen ex his movent pauperes), the city dwellers and the whole of the clergy, all under the leadership of the king, would insure that the already existing papal, royal, and municipal privileges would not have been issued in vain. To be more specific, the causa efficiens was King Władysław himself, who had turned from paganism to the rule of a great Christian country, a task which he could not accomplish without learned advisors. For this reason he would order the reopening of the studium. The causa concurrens was identified as the incumbent Bishop of Cracow, John Radlica, whom Bartholomew designated as university chancellor, along with the Cracow official Nawój Tęczyński. The instrumental cause (causa instrumentalis) in the revival of the school would be three masters already available in Cracow. They were identified as Stanisław and two named Nicholas.40 The speech closed with an eloquent description of the long absence of philosophy from Cracow and its current 38  Bartholomew’s biography was first systematically treated in Fijałek, Studya, 73–78. Additional material has been added by Maria Kowalczyk, “Bartłomiej z Jasła,” Materiały 5 (1965): 3–23, and reprinted in a collection of her works Colligite fragmenta ne pereant . . . Studia z dziejów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w średniowieczu (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2010), 111–131. Other brief treatments of his biography are to be found in LTPC / SPTK, 1, 113–114; and Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w latach 1397–1525 (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej w Krakowie, 1996 [Studia do dziejów Wydziału Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2]), 104–105. These materials, together with some further evidence, have now been synthesized by Adam Gogacz, Koncepcja uniwersytetu według Bartłomieja z Jasła (Łódź: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Humanistyczno-Ekonomicznej w Łodzi, 2008), especially 35–56 for his life and works. 39  This speech, and the following five orations and sermons, are all contained in MS Cracow BJ 2192 and have been studied in detail by Kowalczyk, “Odnowienie Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w świetle mów Bartłomieja z Jasła,” Małopolskie Studia Historyczne 6, no. 3/4 (1964): 23–42, reprinted in Colligite fragmenta ne pereant, 81–100. 40  It is commonly assumed that the first was Stanisław of Skarbimierz, and that the two “Nicholases” were Nicholas Gorzkowski (below, n. 45) and Nicholas Wigand; see, among other treatments, Kowalczyk, “Odnowienie Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” 42 and Colligite fragmenta ne pereant, 100; and Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Odnowienie Jagiellońskiego Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego (1390–1414),” in Lepszy, ed. Dzieje UJ, 38. If Bartholomew was

24

CHAPTER 1

need. By ­philosophia Bartholomew clearly meant learning in a broad sense, for he speaks of it encompassing and even regulating such specific studies as arts, law, and medicine.41 His description of the education to be given at Cracow suggests, therefore, a concern with intellectual goals beyond the merely pragmatic and professional.42 His second speech, which was delivered shortly thereafter (though again prior to 4 December), indicates that this earlier appeal, which undoubtedly reflected negotiations and efforts otherwise hidden from us, had born fruit. Bartholomew chose a text from Boethius’ De consolatione philosophiae and set his comments in the mouth of a personified Polish society. It celebrates a de facto revival of studies that has banished the night of darkness and ignorance that had been besetting the country due to the absence of a university.43 King Władysław is again identified as in the forefront of the revival, but the speech points out that there had been many others who supported him. The final appeal in this speech is to potential students to listen to philosophy and give themselves wholly to learning. In the third speech, which was delivered on 4 December as the first university sermon, Bartholomew provides us with additional information about the revived university. Based upon the text of Matthew 11:6, this speech emphasizes the very great efforts of those, both living and dead, who had been responsible for the reopening of the school. It also criticizes, however, the habits of some students who by their license cause offense to Polish society in general and the citizenry of Cracow in particular. Nevertheless, Bartholomew affirms that study in the university should be for all strata of society: rich, poor, noble, nonnoble, princes, peasants, magnates, and artisans.44 teaching in Cracow at this point, as seems probable from these speeches and sermons, there would have been four faculty for the school. 41  “Sed diceret hic aliquis: cum in Studio hic instituendo non solum philosophie administracio fieri debeat, verum et septem arcium liberalium aliarumque duarum facultatum videlicet iuris canonici cum medicina, cur igitur hic de ipsis mencio non fit.” Kowalczyk, “Odnowienie Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” 32, note 36 and Colligite fragmenta ne pereant, 90, note 36. See also below, n. 43. 42  The larger view Bartholomew took has been analyzed by Gogacz, Koncepcja uniwersytetu, 57–98. 43  “. . . regimen domine imperiose auctoritatis videlicet domine philosophie . . . hic tamen noviter incepit vigorari scilicet tunc, cum possessio ipsius ei hic restituebatur per Studii instauracionem, que prius ei ablata fuerat et a qua per plures annos fuerat proscripta sive enormiter propulsata . . .” Kowalczyk, “Odnowienie Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” 34, n. 41 and Colligite fragmenta ne pereant, 92, n. 41. 44  “Quis enim advertens bene non mirabitur maxime, qui prius simile per talem fieri non viderat, cum ipsa Universitas pauperes cum divitibus, ignobiles sum principibus in unum

Instauracio Studii

25

The remaining three speeches by Bartholomew confirm the functioning of the school until at least the end of 1392, but provide few details of the schooling there. On a text of the Anticlaudianus of Alanus de Insulis, Bartholomew celebrates the ordination of a certain magister Stanisław as priest. Directing his comments to university masters, both present and absent, he laments the absence in Cracow of a theological faculty. On a more positive note, he praises the keenness of mind of the priest, who, he implies, had lectured with distinction in the arts (possibly in Cracow). Bartholomew’s comments about the lack of theology were echoed in his fifth speech, delivered on 8 May 1391 for the feast of St. Stanisław, the patron saint of Poland. This sermon (though he calls it simply an actus bemoaning his lack of theological training) is based on Proverbs 28:15 and contains a stinging critique of the local clergy. It tells us nothing more, however, about the university. His final speech, drawn like the first from the Doctrinale, celebrates the inauguration of Peter Wysz, “a man of learning in the arts and law,” as the new Bishop of Cracow.45 The only reference to the university in the speech is Bartholomew’s comment that he was speaking in the presence of a great many learned men. Fragmentary though the data in these speeches are, we do learn certain things about the university. It had ceased to function prior to 1390, but was renovated (Bartholomew uses the word instauracio most frequently) on the basis of the original privileges issued by Casimir and the city of Cracow in 1364. For at least the next two years there were both professors and students in arts, canon law, and medicine. Bartholomew also mentions the salt mines at Bochnia and Wieliczka, on the basis of which we may infer that the university attempted to obtain the income from these sources that had originally been promised by Casimir. Perhaps the most interesting insights he provides are connected with his allusions to those who opposed the university. He explains this on the basis that they understood and appreciated neither the nature nor colligens illos quasi equare videbitur, ymmo pluries pauperes divitibus, iuvenesque senibus preferens, interdum agricolas fabrosque ac sutores et ceteros similes principum lateribus coequabit. . . .” Ibid., 35, n. 45 and 93, n. 45. 45  Bishop John Radlica had died on 12 January 1392, and for nearly a year the affairs of the diocese had been in the hands of Nicholas Gorzkowski, who had earned his doctorate in canon law at Prague and after 1387 was dean of the chapter at St. Florian’s church in Kleparz; he has traditionally been identified as one of the two “Nicholases” mentioned in Bartholomew’s first speech. A dispute between the papacy and cathedral chapter on the one hand and the royal court on the other was eventually resolved with the appointment, confirmed by the pope on 4 December 1392, of the ambitious Peter Wysz, who held doctoral degrees in canon law from Padua and who had close relations to Queen Jadwiga. See Krzysztof Ożóg, “Spór o biskupstwo krakowskie w roku 1392 na tle stosunków Polski z papiestwem u schyłku XIV w.,” Kwartalnik Historyczny 104 (1997): 3–20.

26

CHAPTER 1

the importance of true learning. Finally, it is worth noting that nowhere do the figures of Queen Jadwiga or Bishop Peter Wysz appear as supporters of the university (though the latter is praised for his learning in the arts and law). Only Jagiełło and John Radlica are exhorted and praised. That there was no theological faculty in this revival reflects the original restrictions in the papal authorization of 1364. But there were soon efforts made to change this. In this context, the figure of Matthew of Cracow is particularly crucial. Born into one of the patrician circles of the Polish capital about 1345, Matthew had gone to study in Prague. He finished his arts course in 1367 and began to study theology, in which faculty he is noted as a magister by 1381 and as a doctor in 1384. In the years prior to 1390, he had emerged, by virtue of his theological writings and his diplomatic activity, as one of the leading figures of the University of Prague.46 He had also maintained close contacts with Cracow, particularly with Peter Wysz and the great families to which he was related: the Stadtschreibers, the Isners, the Wigands, and others. It is not surprising therefore that in the efforts to revive the university and establish a theological faculty, people should turn to him. In 1390, the town council of Cracow paid the expenses of a special messenger to carry a letter to Prague for Matthew,47 and the following year he had come to Cracow, had been housed at the expense of the council,48 and discussed the on-going efforts to effect 46  On Matthew in Prague, see Jadwiga Krzyżaniakowa, “Mateusz z Krakowa, działalność w Pradze w latach 1355–1394,” Roczniki Historyczne 29 (1963): 9–57. For his full career there and his contacts with Cracow to be discussed below, Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 63–69; and Matthias Nuding, Matthäus von Krakau. Theologe, Politker, Kirchenreformer in Krakau, Prag und Heidelberg zur Zeit des Großen Abendländlichen Schismas (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). More briefly, see Thomas Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen. Personen, Politik und Programme aus Polen zur Verfassungsfrage der Kirche in der Zeit der mittelalterlichen Reformkonzilien (Paderborn, Munich, Vienna, and Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1998), 36–37. His literary and theological activity is discussed by A.L. Szafrański, “Mateusz z Krakowa. Wstęp do badań nad życiem i tworczością naukową,” Materiały 8 (1967): 25–92; and Miroslav Danys, Master Matthew of Cracow (Warsaw: Semper, 1995), especially 17–34. More specialized items include two studies by Zenon Kałuża, “Eklezjologia Mateusza z Krakowa (Uwagi o De praxi Romanae curiae),” St. Med. 18, no. 1 (1977): 51–174, and “Metateologia Mateusza z Krakowa (Rozważania wstępne nad ‘Rationale operum divinorum’),” St. Med. 20, no. 1 (1980): 19–90. 47   Libri Antiquissimi civitatis Cracoviensis 1300–1400 / Najstarsze księgi i rachunki miasta Krakowa od r. 1300 do 1400, Franciszek Piekosiński and Józef Szujski, eds., (Cracow: Nakładem Akademii Umiejętności, 1878 [Monumenta Medii Aevi historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia 4]), part 2, 229: “. . . xvi ½ scotos cum litera ad magistrum Matheum.” 48   Ibid., 231: “. . . x gr. Minus vi denar. Pro polis datis magistro Matheo;” “. . . xi gr. Datos magistro Matheo pro mutone;” 232: “. . . xv gr. Pro vino dato magistro Matheo;” 233: “. . . xvi gr. Datos grif et pruse ad conducendum magistrum Matheum.”

Instauracio Studii

27

an instauracio of the Casimiran studium and the creation of a studium sacre scripture. It is probable he had some real influence in the revival reflected in Bartholomew’s speeches, though he is nowhere mentioned. The erection of a theological faculty, however, had to wait several more years. In the meantime, the university as a whole seems to have ceased to function. Matthew of Cracow had returned to Prague, then gone to teach at Heidelberg; Bartholomew of Jasło left Cracow in 1394 to become director of the school in Sandomierz, then went to Prague to study theology; and two years later the magister Stanisław mentioned by Bartholomew was made rector of the school in his home town. The departure of these individuals meant that this effort to revive the university had been successful only in the short term. There were, however, others in Cracow who stood ready to defend and promote the fortunes of the studium. One of these was Peter Wysz. He had gained his position as Bishop of Cracow late in 1392 despite political opposition, especially from the cathedral chapter, with crucial support on his behalf coming from Queen Jadwiga (whose chancellor he had been) and Jagiełło, both of whom supported Wysz’s aggressive program of clerical reform. Prior to his elevation he had given no indication that he might be sympathetic to the concerns of the university, and as we have seen Bartholomew made no mention of him as a potential patron. But this ambitious and talented churchman from Great Poland was no stranger to learning. He had studied at Padua, serving as rector of the ultramontane university in 1385. The following year he had received doctoral degrees in both laws, then had taught canon law there for two years before returning to Poland and had been active there and abroad in both ecclesiastical affairs and royal diplomacy.49 As bishop, Wysz quickly recognized the usefulness of the university as a tool in bringing about the reform he desired. Its educational program could be used to train disciplined and qualified clergy who could act as a leaven in the larger body politic of the Polish church. In order to accomplish this, he sought the support of his patrons. This effort coincided with Jadwiga’s interests (and probably Jagiełło’s interests too) in a related area: that of the need for a studium to complete the conversion of the Lithuanians and provide for the education of a native clergy there. By the end of 1396, it was later remembered that Jadwiga

49  For Wysz’s biography, see PSB, 26 (1981), 422–428; LTCP / SPTK, 4, 489–490; and the crucial details in Oźóg, “Formacja intelektualna biskupów krakowskich w średniowieczu,” in Waldemar Bukowski, et al., eds., Cracovia – Polonia – Europa. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane Jerzemu Wyrozumskiemu w sześćdziesiątą piątą rocznicę urodzin i czterdziestolecie pracy naukowej (Cracow: “Secesja,” 1995), 159–177, here 171–172.

28

CHAPTER 1

had become an equal partner with Wysz in continuing and expanding the university tradition in Cracow.50

The Erection of a Faculty in Theology; Developments in Prague and Cracow

Both the bishop and the queen were therefore agreed that religious studies in Cracow would further their individual concerns. Jagiełło also agreed to support their efforts to request a modification of the existing papal privileges for the earlier Casimiran studium to allow for the establishment of a theological faculty. A delegation was sent to the pope in Rome (whom the Polish church and monarchy recognized in the continuing Great Western Schism) bearing a petition pro parte Regis et Regine, and on 11 January 1397 Boniface IX issued a papal bull confirming this request.51 The renewed presence in Cracow of the distinguished theologian Matthew of Cracow,52 despite the fact that he had 50  The eulogy delivered by Francis of Brzeg at Peter Wysz’s death in 1414 specifically identifies him as the agent of Jadwiga’s involvement in the university: “. . . ipse fuit dominus et pater, fautor et amicus noster graciosus. Sicud enim constat ipse fuit dioecesanus Cracoviensis et cancellarius Universitatis, ad cuius preces et motiva domina regina bone memorie plurimum nota, movit dominum regum ad prosequendam illam Universitatem, que antea temporibus domini Cazimiri erat inchoata, sed post mortem eius interrupta.” The manuscript containing this sermon (MS Wrocław, BU I Q 381, f. 145) is partially printed by Kowalczyk, Krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie z pierwszej połowy XV w. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970), 131, n. 14, from which I quote it; see also 123. For the question of how much credit Jadwiga should be given for the refoundation of 1400, see below. 51  C DUC, 1, no. 15, 24f.; reprinted in Krzyżanowski, “Poselstwo,” 74–75, and elsewhere. A Polish translation is in Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 244–245. The papal document is explicit in modifying an existing charter: “. . . ex statuto et ordinatione Sedis Apostolice, ab olim fuerit atque sit in utroque iure et alia qualibet licita facultate, preterquam in sacra theologia, Studium Generale, pro parte Regis ac regine praedictorum nobis fuit humiliter supplicatum, ut in civitate praedicta statuere, ordinare huiusmodi Studium Generale etiam in ipsa theologia de benignitate apostolica dignaremur.” “. . . statuimus et etiam ordinamus, quod in ipsa civitate exnunc in antea perpetuis futuris temporibus sit ac esse valeat etiam in eadem Theologia huiusmodi Studium generale. . . .” (25) 52  Matthew’s presence in Cracow as late as 29 October 1397 is reflected in Libri antiquissimi civitatis Cracoviensis, part 2, 255. Late in the same year, the city council voted Matthew a lifetime income of forty marks yearly if he would remain in Cracow. (Ibid., 166) Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen, 37, doubts that in fact Matthew was in Cracow at this time, though his presence is accepted there by the authors of entries in PSB, 20 (1975), 197, and LTCP / SPTK, 3, 80.

Instauracio Studii

29

been named rector of the University of Heidelberg in 1396, must have given some hope that this faculty might actually function and serve to invigorate the remaining parts of the studium. Such was not to be, however, for Matthew soon left to take up his new position. Although some theological instruction may have taken place between 1397 and 1400,53 the ideal of a fully elaborated university in Cracow clearly had not yet been realized. Apart from the matter of personnel to teach, in part it may also have been political conflict over control of the university which frustrated this attempt to provide theological education in Cracow. The papal bull diplomatically avoids this issue by saying only that the studium should be “headed by him who had led it from the beginning.”54 But by its vagueness the bull of 1397 left open the question of whether it was the Bishop of Cracow or the royal chancellor who had responsibility for the school. In the hostility between them the possibility of a true revival languished.55 Thwarted in Cracow, Queen Jadwiga turned her attention to the only fully functioning studium in the area, the University of Prague, which by this point had overcome some difficult organizational problems and was preeminent in the region.56 There had been close educational and intellectual contacts 53  A speech given by Stanisław of Skarbimierz on 16 October 1401 to honor the newly elected rector can be read to suggest that this individual, Prince John of Drohobicz, had studied theology in Cracow prior to the 1400 refoundation: “. . . nonnulis annorum curriculis olim in alma Universitate sacre pagine studentis . . .; ” see Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Odnowienie Jagiellońskie Uniwersytetu,” 41–42 and note 16. If so, then the question is, who was teaching theology? Kozłowska-Budkowa accepts the idea that it was probably Matthew of Cracow (42, n. 17), while Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 63–69 agrees and discusses a variety of related issues. He goes further, however, and argues reasonably that in addition to Matthew, the Dominican, Henry Bitterfeld of Brzeg, educated at Prague and Ferrara, was another theologian who taught at Cracow before 1400 (69–70). On this possibility, see the comments in Henricus Bitterfeld de Brega OP Tractatus De vita contemplativa et Activa, Bruno Mazur, Władysław Seńko, and Ryszard Tatarzyński, eds. (Warsaw: Instytut Tomistyczny, 2003 [Studia Przeglądu Tomistycznego, 4]), xix–xx and lxxix–lxxx, with bibliography. 54  “. . . qui eidem Studio hactenus praefuit ab antiquo.” CDUC, 1, no. 15, 25. 55  The author of the entry on Matthew in PSB, 20, 197, Seńko, has explicitly suggested that though Matthew of Cracow had lectured in theology for a while at Cracow, he returned to Heidelberg in part because of the growing conflict between Bishop Wysz and royal chancellor Wojciech Jastrzębiec over control of the university. 56  On this point, compare the treatments of Peter Moraw, “Die Prager Universitäten des Mittelalters. Perspektiven von gestern und von heute,” in Susanna Burghartz, et al., eds. Spannungen und Widersprüche. Gedenkschrift für František Graus (Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke, 1992), 109–123; and František Šmahel, “Die Anfänge der Prager Universität.

30

CHAPTER 1

between Cracow and Prague in the last decades of the fourteenth century, and this was a logical alternative for her.57 Advised by Wojciech Jastrzębiec, her court preacher (and eventually royal chancellor and after that Bishop of Cracow) and John Štěkna, a Prague theology professor who had come to Cracow as the result of contacts with Matthew of Cracow, Jadwiga approached King Václav of Bohemia with a request to establish a bursa for Lithuanian students studying theology at the university in Prague. She arranged to purchase a building to house them not far from the more famous Bethlehem Chapel where John Hus was to preach so successfully in a few years. Though this request was slow to be considered (it may even have been undertaken at the same time or even prior to the negotiations with the pope for a theology faculty at Cracow), eventually Václav approved it on 20 July 1397. Within four months—on 10 November 1397—Jadwiga issued a document in her own name establishing the hostel for twelve paupers, intending to endow it with a very substantial grant (scholarly opinion varies on the actual amount).58 She had done so, she noted, “after many sleepless nights” (plurimas noctes transivimus insomnes) so that the recent conversion of Lithuania might be completed and a native Lithuanian clergy trained up for service. Having accomplished this foundation, Jadwiga continued to urge her husband to refound or resurrect the university in Cracow. This was ironically to come posthumously, for Jadwiga died on 17 July 1399. Two days later the funeral ceremonies began, to be completed on 14 August. Among the most moving Kritische Reflexionen zum Jubiläum eines ‘Nationalen Monuments’,” Historica SN 3–4 (1996–1997): 7–50, reprinted in Šmahel, Die Prager Universität im Mittelalter / The Charles University in the Middle Ages. Gesammelte Augsätze / Selected Studies (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007 [Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, 28]), 3–50. 57  These contacts have been treated in two studies by Krzyżaniakowa, “Związki Uniwersytetu Praskiego z Uniwersytetem Krakowskim w drugiej połowie XIV wieku,” Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Historia Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis 5, no. 1–2 (1964): 53–134, and “Profesorowie krakowscy na uniwersytecie w Pradze—ich mistrzowie i koledzy,” in Cracovia – Polonia – Europa, Bukowski, ed., 505–527. 58  The text of her foundation was originally printed in Józef Muczkowski, Wiadomość o założeniu Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego (Cracow: Drukarnia Uniwersytetu, 1849), 66–71, and reprinted several times since. See the discussions of this foundation by Celina Zawodzińska “Kolegium królowej Jadwigi przy Uniwersytecie Karola w Pradze i jego pierewszy statut,” Prace Historyczne 9 (1962): 19–30, and her re-edition of the text, 31–36; and Bożena Chmielowska, “Przywilej fundacyny kolegium królowej Jadwigi przy uniwersytecie Karola w Pradze,” in Wojciech Biliński, ed., Dzieło Jadwigi i Jagiełło. W sześćsetlecie chrztu Litwy i jej związków z Polską (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Archidiecezji Warszawskiej, 1989), 273–279.

Instauracio Studii

31

moments of those days was the eloquent eulogy, termed a soliloquy, preached by Stanisław of Skarbimierz. In an extended conversation with God, he reviewed the many pieties of the deceased queen and her numerous virtues.59 In death Jadwiga made provision for the university. In her will, she urged her husband to support its renewal, and she provided money, garments, and jewels to endow it.60 To administer her bequest, she designated Bishop Peter Wysz and John Tęczyński, the Castellan of Cracow.61 Although the financial effect of her bequest may have been limited (we shall return below to some of the uses to which it was put),62 its psychological impact was decisive.63 In ­subsequent

59  “Si placet, quod stirps regia, de domo sancta producta, regina Hedvigis inclita, mater pauperum, refugium miserorum, advocata pupillorum, ancora debilium, interventrix omnium subiectorum, decus ecclesiae, ornamentum templi, purpura parietum, fulcimentum altarium, occidat, fiat voluntas tua.” Quoted from Stanisław ze Skarbimierza Mowy wybrane o mądrości, Mirosław Korolko, ed. (Cracow: Arcana, 2000), 204–221 (facing Latin text and Polish translation), here 214. The sermon is discussed in more detail and translated into Polish by Chmielowska, “Stanisława ze Skarbimierza rozmyślania o umieraniu królowej Jadwigi,” in Dzieło Jadwigi i Jagiełło, Biliński, ed., 280–290. Jadwiga was often to figure in sermons delivered in subsequent years; see Jerzy Wolny and Roman Maria Zawadzki, “Królowa Jadwiga w tradycji kaznodziejskiej XV wieku,” Analecta Cracoviensis 7 (1975): 15–90; and Markowski, “Święta Jadwiga Królowa a Uniwersytet Krakowski,” Studia Warmińskie 35 (1998): 47–60. 60  The details of her bequest are derived from Długosz, Annales, 6, 231–232 (Liber decimus, s.a. 1399): “hec studium generale, a Kazimiro secundo Polonie rege . . . fundari ceptum, instauravit. . . . omnia clenodia sua, vestes, pecunias et omnem regiam supellectilem in relevamen miserabilium personarum et in fundacionem universitatis studii Cracowiensis eroganda executoribus . . . mandavit. 61  John was an important official, and his service in relation to Jadwiga’s bequest is noted below. His family name, however, is better known as a result of the spectacular events surrounding the death of his younger brother, Andrzej; for these, see Wyrozumski, Kraków do schyłku wieków średnich (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1992 [volume 1 of Janina Bieniarzowa and Jan Małecki, eds., Dzieje Krakowa]), 520–524; and, more briefly, in English, Norman Davies, God’s Playground, A History of Poland, 2 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 1, 127–128. 62  The most recent analysis of these moneys is by Stopka, “The Jagiellonian Foundation of Cracow University,” 53 and n. 22, who shows that, in contrast to the traditional view that the amount was substantial, in fact it was substantially below 3000 Polish marks, and probably did not exceed 2,288 marks. See also the discussion by Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Odnowienie Jagiellońskiego Uniwersytetu,” 42. 63  In a sermon in about 1426, Francis of Brzeg, former dean of arts and a professor in theology at Cracow, remembered that Jadwgia had worked for the restoration of the university “non sine magnis fatigiis;” quoted from Kowalczyk, Krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie, 124

32

CHAPTER 1

months, the king, the clergy, and the citizens of Cracow moved toward the reopening of the university.64

The Jagiellonian Foundation

One of the steps taken was to find a home for the studium. Jagiełło chose for this purpose a house in the Jewish quarter of Cracow on the platea Judeorum or Judengasse, also known as St. Anne’s Street.65 The early fourteenth century building (called the domus maius or lapidea magna from both its size and its construction) had been purchased in 1394 from the widow and son of Stephen Pęcherz by the Cracow burger Peter Gerhardsdorf, perhaps at the request of both Jadwiga and Jagiełło.66 It later came into royal possession (the historian Długosz specifically says that Jadwiga’s bequest was used, in part, to purchase this house, though there is no direct record of this).67 In 1400 the king gave it

and 133, n 22, who corrects the date of 1413 or 1414 given by Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Kodeks Mikołaja Tempelfelda,” Sprawozdania Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności 53 (1952): 466–469. 64  Oźóg, “Związki Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego z kapitułą katedralną krakowską u schyłku XIV i w pierwszej ćwierci XV wieku,” Rocznik Biblioteki PAN w Krakowie 43 (1998): 7–35, here 9–12, has shown anew that the cathedral chapter was especially important in the steps leading to the events of 1400. 65  Hanna Zaremska, “Jewish Street (Platea Judeorum) in Cracow: the 14th–the First Half of the 15th c.,” Acta Poloniae Historica 83 (2001): 27–57, here 32; as she notes (41), it was not uncommon for medieval universities to be established in properties located in the vicus Judeorum. For other examples in Cracow’s history, see below, Chapter Three. 66  C DUC, I, no. 8, 14–16: “Margaretha relicta Stefani dicti Panchirz et Franciscus filius ipsius . . . recognoverunt publice profitentes, se vendidisse ac perpetualiter resignasse duos parietes muratos et cum fundamento ipsorum domus suae maioris in contrata seu platea Sanctae Annae.” 67  According to his Annales, 6, 239 (Liber decimus, s. a. 1400): “Ex domo autem lapidea Akerstorff in platea sancta Anne, artistarum et theologorum; ex domo vero Sandiwogii de Subino pallatini Poznaniensis in platea Castrensi sitarum canonistarum et medicorum collegia, quarum utraque pecuniis Hedwigis regine in opus huiusmodi derelictis, per executors comparata est, eriguntur.” On this basis scholars have traditionally assumed that some part of Jadwiga’s bequest was used to purchase the house on St. Anne’s St. for the studium; see Stanisław Tomkowicz, “Gmach Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej, Historya i opis,” Rocznik Krakowski 4 (1900): 116–117. His scenario that there was a gradual accumulation of property for the university between 1392 and 1395 is, however, disputed by KozłowskaBudkowa, “Odnowienie Jagiellońskie Uniwersytetu,” 43, and n. 20.

Instauracio Studii

33

to the university.68 Another step was to assemble a sufficient number of both faculty and students to ensure the viability of the program. By mid-summer, all was ready. The ceremonies of opening took several days to complete.69 On Thursday 22 July Jagiełło convened those to be associated with the university and announced the refoundation. Though there are no official documents extant that may have been issued then, the constitution and privileges were apparently discussed. At that time, or perhaps the next day, Stanisław of Skarbimierz was elected the first rector and Peter Wysz was designated as chancellor.70 On Saturday the 24th came the registration of 206 (perhaps only 205) students, some of them undoubtedly honorary. In the matricula, in a note provided later and entered prior to the list of matriculants, the names of benefactors and both secular and ecclesiastical dignitaries were listed. Among this group, Jagiełło was noted first as fundator . . . et dotator piissimus; he was followed by Peter Wysz, Bishop Nicolas of Włocławek, and Castellan of Cracow John of Tęczyn (noted as executator testamenti ultime voluntatis recolende memorie domine Hedwigis regine). The climax of the opening process came on Monday the 26th. The king issued 68  Implicit in Jagiełło’s charter for the university (CDUC, 1, no. 16, 25–30) and confirmed in a subsequent document, available in two different forms, with slightly different spelling: CDUC, 1, no. 17, 30, and Libri antiquissimi civitatis Cracoviensis, part 2, 216, where the relevant phrases are in the former are: “. . . das czu dem Collegio gekauft ist vm vje marc, von Petro Kaldherberge in der herren des Bisschofs und des Cracoischen herrin namyn, dy vnsir gnedigin vrawin der Konigynne, der got gnade, zelewarter sint . . .” 69  What we know of the mechanics of the opening ceremonies for the studium is derived from Długosz, Annales, 6, 239–240 (Liber decimus, s.a. 1400), and from a short notice in the matriculation book of the university. These notes were recopied into the book in the 1420’s from a now lost original and come almost surely from an otherwise unidentified participant in the festivities. They are printed in Album Studiosorum, 1, 1 and in Metryka (the re-edited version of the Album Studiosorum), 11: “Sub anno Domini millesimo quadringentesimo Collegium alme Universitatis Studii Cracowiensis est institutum per serenissimum invictissimumque principem Wladislaum Dei gracia regem Polonie etc. ipso die sancta Marie Magdalene. Et leccio prima lecta est feria secunda post festum sancti Jacobi Apostoli in decretalibus per reverendum in Christo patrem ac dominum, dominum Petrum [Wysz—added in a sixteenth century hand] divina miseracione episcopum Cracowiensem, cancellarium eiusdem Studii Generalis.” 70  Born about 1360 Stanisław matriculated at Prague about 1380 and by 1385 had completed the arts course. Thereafter he studied law, gaining the doctoral degree in 1396, before which he may have been teaching in arts at Cracow and subsequently holding the position of rector in his home town. His subsequent career at Cracow is treated below. For his biography, see LTCP / SPTK, 4, 179–182; and, more briefly, Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen, 41–42. For Peter Wysz’s biography, see above, n. 49.

34

CHAPTER 1

the official charter of foundation,71 the bishop addressed the community on the subject of canon law,72 and the rector delivered a speech celebrating the university and its program.73 Let us examine each of these in turn. Jagiełło began his document by expressing his deep concern for the complete Christianization of Lithuania. He then reviewed the glories that other universities bring their respective countries (including the remarkable statement that Oxford brightens and makes fruitful the whole of Germany)74 and stated his long standing desire to do the same for Poland. He hoped that this studium would serve the good of the kingdom. Then, referring to the aforementioned decree of Boniface IX that authorized a faculty in theology, the king confirmed and extended the university’s privileges. In this context it is important to note that the papal bull of 1397 was his point of reference. Even though some sections of the 1364 royal privilege were repeated verbatim in this document, what Jagiełło seemed to be effecting was a foundation de novo, not the continuation of an earlier Casimiran tradition. To conclude this prefatory statement, the king turned to the familiar image of the pearl and expressed the hope that the university would be “the pearl of powerful learning” so that it may fulfill the ends he had defined for it. In the next part of the document the king specified the immunities and privileges for the university and its personnel. These are, on the whole, typical of those of studia elsewhere. He made, however, no mention of the number of professorships and the individual salaries to be attached to them; neither did he allow for any student participation in the governance of the university. This was clearly to be a magisterial institution, unlike the Italian prototypes that had been Casimir’s model. The chief symbol of this was the position of the rector. Although his powers were specified in detail in this document, the manner of his choosing was not stipulated. It is clear from the further history of the

71  C DUC, 1, no. 16, 25–30. 72  The speech has not survived, and only its general tenor may be determined from the notice quoted above in n. 69. 73  The manuscripts for Stanisław’s speech are discussed by Kowalczyk, Krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie, 43, and Juliusz Domański, “Discours d’inauguration fait par Stanislas de Skarbmierz à l’occasion du renouveau de l’Université de Cracovie,” MPP 24 (1979): 113–123, 121–123 especially. Following his comments Domański provides the first critical edition of the speech, 123–132, and quotations below are from that edition. Recent Polish translations include that in Domański, ed., Filozofia i myśl społeczna XIII–XV wieku, Domański, ed. (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1978 [vol. 1 of 700-lat Myśli polski]), 73–83, reprinted in Stanisław ze Skarbimierza Mowy wybrane, Korolko, ed., 236–257. 74  “. . . aut quomodo Vxonia totam fere Almaniam clarificat et fecundat.”

Instauracio Studii

35

university that the rector at Cracow was always chosen by the faculty, usually from among their own number. In contrast to earlier university foundations, this act of erection specified a home for the studium. As noted before, Jagiełło assigned the former house of Stephen Pęcherz on St. Anne’s Street for the “lodging of the masters and the daily gatherings of the students” in order that all connected with the university “might freely and conveniently hold lectures, classes, and studies” there. This was to be a grant in perpetuity, and provided exemption from all taxes, duties, and other legal fees for the university property.75 For the partial support of the professors living in this house, known first as the Royal or Artists and Theologians’ College and eventually as the Collegium Maius, Jagiełło designated 100 marks yearly, to be paid quarterly from the Cracow custom’s office. At the conclusion of the bull of foundation, the king included clauses which were to bulk large in the future development of the university. He designated the Bishop of Cracow as the conservator of the studium in its liberties, immunities, exemptions, and statues as well as giving him “full and free power” in all juridical matters touching the school and its students. He also designated the bishop, along with the university rector, as responsible for distributing moneys and salaries to the faculty on the basis of need and merit (iuxta exigenciam status et meriti cuiuslibet) and for allocating the use of the physical space in the collegium. In other words, he gave to the bishop the traditional prerogatives that are associated with the office of university chancellor. But nowhere in this charter does the king designate who shall be chancellor and what the authority of this office would be. In fact, earlier in the document he had specified that whenever the faculty admitted students to private examination in any of the faculties it was to be his own chancellor who was to have full power to approve such examination. This was the same arrangement asserted by Casimir the Great in 1364 and which Pope Urban had explicitly revised, reserving such a right to the bishop, and this was in general characteristic in medieval universities. Obviously, Jagiełło, like Casimir before him, wished to reserve this right for the person of the royal chancellor in order to insure a degree of royal control over the studium. Apparently unable to obtain from Peter Wysz any renunciation of episcopal claims, in the other documents touching the opening of the university, it is the bishop who appears as university Chancellor. To explain this contradiction over control, Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa proposed “that the 75  “. . . ipsam ab omnibus solutionibus, dationibus, tributis, conviciniis, exationibus, iudiciis, iuribus et consuetudinibus impositionibusque onerum et angariarum liberantes, quam Universitati praedicte appropriamus, incorporamus, adiungimus perpetue et in aevum. . . .”

36

CHAPTER 1

king gave [Wysz] this dignity only ad personam, reserving it for the future to the royal chancellor.”76 This solution on the part of the king was to signal a struggle in coming years for university control and autonomy at Cracow. In Jagiełło’s document, even though he referred to the papal bull of 1397 establishing a theology faculty which he and Jadwiga had jointly sought and he drew explicitly from the text of Jadwiga’s charter of 10 November 1397 establishing her bursa for Lithuanian theology students in Prague, the king nowhere made mention of his deceased wife. Some scholars have seen this as a reflection that he did not want to be seen as simply the executor of a woman’s will, and others have thought the omission to be something shameful.77 Whatever the reason for not mentioning her, it is clear that Jadwiga had made (and, through her will, would continue to make) a very significant contribution to the creation of the university. This does not minimize Jagiełło’s role as founder; indeed, as Krzysztof Stopka has argued, he fully deserves the recognition implicit in the official name of the university today.78 Rather, it is simply to suggest that the events of 1400 owe much to the efforts of both the queen and the king.79 This royal document was only a start. Such crucial matters as detailed statutes of the studium, provision of sufficient financial support for faculty, organization of the curriculum, and other lesser matters remained yet to be determined. These are details to be addressed in subsequent chapters of this study. Here it remains only to consider the address of Bishop Wysz and the sermon of Rector Stanisław as the concluding elements in the ceremonies of foundation for the university.

76  Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Odnowienie Jagiellońskiego uniwersytetu,” 47. 77  The first was the judgment of the great historian of the university’s 500th Anniversary celebration. See Morawski, Historya UJ, 1, 68 and 73; the king is termed a “semi-barbarian” merely carrying out the will of a noble woman, and the university is described as her “posthumous daughter.” The second is the statement of Oscar Halecki, Jadwiga of Anjou and the Rise of East Central Europe, edited with a Foreword by Thaddeus V. Gromada (Highland Lakes, NJ: Distributed by Columbia University Press, 1991 [East European Monographs 308]), p. 262; a distinguished medievalist and historian of the Polish-Lithuanian union, Halecki was also, as a deeply devout Catholic, a strong advocate of Jadwiga’s canonization, which he did not live to see. 78  Stopka, “The Jagiellonian Foundation of Cracow University,” 49–66, with summation on 66. The more traditional view of Jadwiga’s instrumentality in the foundation is emphasized by Markowski, “Die Heilige Hedwig—Gründerin der Universität in Krakau,” Acta Mediaevalia 13 (2000): 75–91, whose title represents his position in the matter. 79  See my “Jadwiga and Education,” The Polish Review 44 (1999): 419–431, especially 430–431.

Instauracio Studii

37

The bishop probably spoke first. Though trained in both laws at Padua, he devoted, according to the brief notice in the matriculation book of the university, his attention to the Decretales of Pope Gregory IX, undoubtedly sketching both their origins and discussing their role in the curriculum of canon law. What else he might have said is only conjecture. The text of the rectoral sermon that followed, however, has survived and sheds considerable insight into the intellectual and academic values of the new studium. Stanisław based his sermon on a passage from Revelation 4:5, which describes the throne of heaven and the four creatures there, who, night and day, praised God. He identified these with the four faculties of the university, which by their content also constantly praise God. Then he turned to a discussion of the nature and goals of study in each part of the school. One of these was the physical home of the university. Stanisław expressed the hope, which—as we shall see—was achieved to a very great extent, that it would be a symbol of the character of learning in Cracow, for “in it students from various backgrounds, shall gather to be united in one heart and soul” to realize the program of the school. Stanisław gave first rank in that program to the study of theology, because it dealt with matters of the soul; in a familiar analogy he compared its place in the studium to that of the head in the whole body. Although the rector acknowledged the importance of theology (and indeed in the following century this faculty achieved real distinction) he devoted relatively little attention to it in the address. Because of his background, he spent more time on the importance of law, particularly canon law. For him, it was an all encompassing discipline: it treated questions derived from the trivium and the quadrivium, as well as from practical philosophy, medicine, and theology. Canon law is therefore best able to improve the condition of mankind and perfect learning. Despite this extravagant praise for his own discipline, Stanisław did not ignore the remaining two faculties. Professors in medicine were, in his view, to have the responsibility to train good physicians, thereby ensuring that men would live long and fruitful lives.80 For the faculty of arts, Stanisław stressed 80  Some Polish scholars have seen in his emphasis upon not only man’s soul but also his body and in his concern for the useful role of man in society an echo of trecento Italian humanism’s interest in the whole man that was central to the aims of the studia humaniora; see, for example, Markowski, “Methodologische Grundlagen der offiziellen Universitätsbeschlüsse und Erklärungen der Professoren an der Krakauer Universität im XV. Jahrhundert,” St. Med. 17 (1977): 14–15, echoed, to a degree, by Domański, Początki humanizmu (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1982 [Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce, IX]), 164–168 and in the slightly revised version of this work Scholastyka i początki humanizmu w myśli polskiej XV wieku (Warsaw: Instytut Tomistyczny, 2011) 220–226. Although humanistic interests were to be an early and enduring factor within the university community

38

CHAPTER 1

the importance of two kinds of study: practical philosophy, such as ethics, economics, and politics; and theoretical philosophy, which included natural philosophy, mathematics, and metaphysics. Each complemented the other, so that “the honor of the church and the needs of the Polish kingdom” were well served.81 Finally, Stanisław praised the efforts of the king and the bishop to open the studium. Although he particularly glorified the study of canon law during this sermon, he showed his broader understanding of the role of the various parts of the school in his closing reference to the university building. He claimed that “this little house of wisdom contains the whole of the world.” His final peroration called upon Poles to learn from the wisdom contained therein in order to distinguish “where there is prudence, where justice, where there is temperance, where virtue, where there are the muses of the ancients, . . . where the profundity of divine scripture.”82

“Like Athens in Greece”

With the events of 1400, Cracow entered into a tradition of learning of which it was fully conscious. Those who were to lead the institution Władysław Jagiełło had resurrected regarded themselves as part of a continuum, rooted in antiqin Cracow in the fifteenth century and eventually penetrated both the curriculum and the school’s institutional structure, this point with regard to Stanisław seems to me to be overstated. There is, as I note below in Chapter Ten, a tendency in Polish historiography to over-estimate the earliness and the extent of humanistic influences with the university. 81  There is a certain pragmatic cast to this statement which accords well with the ambition of Jagiełło to have the university serve society, both the church and the kingdom; this tradition of service is explored in a number of ways in Chapter Five below. For the difference in his conception and that of the actual program of study which was established in 1406, see Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Odnowienie Jagiellońskie Uniwersytetu,” 46, and Domański, “Discours d’inauguration,” 116. Stanisław’s views and his role in the refoundation are discussed intelligently in Chmielowska, “Stanislas de Skarbimierz—le premier recteur de l’Université de Cracovie après le renouveau de celle-ci,” MPP 24 (1979): 73–112, especially 76–78. See also Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 74–80. 82  “Quod in una domo Parthi et Medi et Aelamitae et qui habitant Mesopotamiam, videlicet professionum magistri, congesti sunt, ut simul vivant, homines diversarum nationum iuncti vinculo caritatis? Unde istud nisi ex gratia illius, qui visitavit nos oriens ex alto, quod in parva casa sapientia mundi totius debebat concludi? Disce igitur, Polone, ubi sit prudentia, ubi iustitia, ubi temperantia, ubi virtus, ubi timor, ubi amor, ubi lex, ubi ratio, ubi musae gentilium, ubi rationes legistarum, ubi conflictus artistarum, ubi auctoritas canonum, ubi profunditas divinarum scripturarum.” (131)

Instauracio Studii

39

uity and transmitted to them through the great educational institutions of the European past. This translatio studii was clearly in the mind of Bartholomew of Jasło when, in his speech Tunc me discussa in 1390, he mentioned such individuals as Alexander the Great and Caesar who had given themselves to philosophy and served as an example for those who emulated them in Cracow.83 Stanisław of Skarbimierz too, in one of his sermons on wisdom, singled out as an example Charlemagne, who had brought learning from Rome to Paris, and he praised the emperor’s example of transmitting wisdom.84 Nor were these to be the only reflections on this theme. The royal notary George, who will be mentioned in subsequent chapters of this study and who was closely connected with developments at the university, was quite explicit in his early fifteenth century formulary about the itinerary that wisdom had taken en route to the school in Cracow: from Athens to Italy to England and to Bohemia before arriving in Poland. Finally the faculty members of the restored university were themselves cognizant about the inheritance they had received and preserved. Benedict Hesse of Cracow, six-times rector and one of the major scholars in the fifteenth century history of the university, addressed this question in his extensive commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, composed in the 1430s and 1440s. His interpretation of translatio reflected both theological and eschatological views, but saw wisdom (sapientia) and power (potentia) following a route from the east eventually to Paris, then to the German lands before coming to Cracow.85 Matthew of Łabiszyn, one of Benedict’s students and an important member of the theology faculty saw the route of translation without reference to Paris or Prague. In an undated speech celebrating the attainment of the BA degree by a certain Nicholas of Cracow, he traced the 83  Kowalczyk, “Odnowienie Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” 32–34, and in her Colligite fragmenta ne pereant, 90–92. 84   Stanisław ze Skarbimierza. Sermones Sapientiales. Bożena Chmielowska, ed. 3 parts. (Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1979 [Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia excultae spectantia 4, parts 1–3]), Sermon 42:4, part 2, 27–39, here 32: “Simile narratur de Magno Carolo, qui fuit studiosus in septem artibus liberalibus. . . . Hic transire facit studium de Roma usque Parisius. . . .” 85   Benedicti Hesse Lectura super Evangelium Matthaei. Wacław Bucichowski, ed. 8 vols. (Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1979–1990 [Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia excultae spectantia 8, 13, 16, 18, 21, 24, 26, 27]), 13, 24, lines 1–13, especially 5–10: Et quia Christus voluit omnia nova facere, qui est sapientia et virtus Patris veniens, nuntiatus est ab oriente. Et adverte, quia illa duo, quae inceperunt ab oriente, scilicet sapientia et potestas saeculi, nunc transierunt ad occidens, quia nunc est studium Parisius, qui est locus sapientiae et bella fiunt plura in Allmania, quia iam habent imperium.”

40

CHAPTER 1

subjects of the studium from the east (Egypt, Babylonia, and Greece) to Italy and thence to northern Europe at Paris and from there through the German lands to Cracow.86 John of Ludzisko, an astronomer and physician who was more important as a representative of humanism, provides one final example. In an oration he delivered in the 1440s, he saw Athens as the point of departure, from which sapientia, humanitas, and the pulcherrimae artes eventually were transmitted to Cracow.87 The vitality of this transmission was such that a century and more after the restoration of university studies in Cracow, an outsider, the Welsh humanist Leonard Coxe, could come to Cracow and deliver a speech praising the achievements and traditions of the university in his oration De laudibus celeberrimae Cracoviensis academiae. He found the school to be the equal of Athens in it devotion to literature and poetry.88 The university community in Cracow was thus fully aware of its place in the process by which the translatio studii had eventually come to Cracow.89 Rather 86  His speech is discussed briefly by Kowalczyk, Krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie, 70, with the text I quote here, 83, n. 23: “Et sic Parisius sciencia floruit, de qua ad Germaniam sunt studia translata, videlicet in Herfurdiam [Erfurt] et Wyenam [Vienna], deinde in Pragam et de Praga in Poloniam, videlicet Cracoviam.” 87   Ioannis de Ludzisko Orationes. Jacek Bojarski, ed. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1971), 43: “Nam ut olim Athenarum civitas et vetustate quadam et pulcerrimarum arcium dignitate Greciam illustrare solita erat, ita florentissima Cracovie civitas hereditario quodam iure Polonie decus sibi vendicat. Nam, ut obmittam agrorum ubertatem, qua ceteris ferme urbibus prestare videtur, que civitas vel sapiencia vel humanitate vel reliquis ornamentis est cum Cracovia comparanda?”. 88  Jacqueline Glomski, Patronage and Humanist Literature in the Age of the Jagiellons. Court and Career in the Writings of Rudolf Agricola Junior, Valentin Eck, and Leonard Cox (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), 30. See also Henryk Zins, “A British Humanist and the University of Kraków at the Beginning of the Sixteenth Century: A Chapter in Anglo-Polish Relations in the Age of the Renaissance,” Renaissance Studies 8 (1994): 13–39. 89  In addition to the sources cited in the previous half-dozen notes, the foregoing is based in large part in the skillful examination of the question of translatio studii at Cracow by Zenon Kałuża, “Topos Translatio studii w Krakowie po odnowieniu Uniwersytetu,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 11 (2005): 71–150. Other material which bear upon this theme and have also been useful include Jerzy Drewnowski, Uczony w świadomości polsksiego środowiska naukowego pierwszej połowy XV wieku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1987), 25–85 especially; and Krzysztof Oźóg, Uczeni w monarchii Jadwigi Andegaweńskiej i Władysława Jagiełły (1384–1434) (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2004), 74–146, passim. Prior to the appearance of the article cited as the beginning of this note, Kałuża had addressed the question of translatio in the context of the crisis at the University of Paris at the beginning of the great western schism, showing the process by which other institutions came to be considered Paris’ heirs and successors; see Kałuża, St. Med. 15 (1974): 71–108, especially 94–102 (where implications for Prague and Cracow are discussed).

Instauracio Studii

41

than standing apart, on an isolated periphery as it were, the members there were fully engaged in a centuries-old tradition that was, despite some difficult beginnings, to flourish in the course of the fifteenth century. The chapters which follow examine the civic, institutional, social, and intellectual dimensions of this accomplishment and seek to place the university’s achievement within that tradition.

CHAPTER 2

Cracow and Its University O, city of Cracow, the unity Of your inhabitants abundantly Serves as your adornment: A multitude of clergy, dignity of men, And matrons with a great many children; Riches in profusion. With these words the humanist Bishop of Poznań, Stanisław Ciołek, began a long panegyric upon the fame of Cracow in the third decade of the fifteenthcentury.1 As a native Pole he might have been expected to praise the city, but his was not an isolated voice. The more famous Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, though he never visited Cracow, was aware of its glories, and in his De Europa of 1458 (written just before he became Pope Pius II), he commented that “Cracow is the chief city of the kingdom in which the study of the liberal arts flourishes.”2 Thus by the time the University of Cracow had begun to develop the institutional, academic, and intellectual characteristics which established its identity throughout the region, the city of Cracow itself was also recognized as one of 1  “Cracovia Civitas! / Te civium unitas / Te cleria pluralitas / Virorum maturitas / Matronarum fecunditas / Rerum ornat copia.” Printed in Codex epistolaris Vitoldi magni ducis Lithuaniae 1376–1430, Antoni Prochaska, ed. (Cracow: Sumptibus Academiae literarum Cracoviensis, 1882), 1057–1058. English translation by Michael Mikos, Medieval Literature of Poland An Anthology (New York and London: Garland, 1992), 183, from the Polish translation by Antonia Jelicz, Toć jest dziwne a nowe. Antologia literatury polskiego średniowiecza (Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1987), 277–278. Ciołek had studied at the University of Prague between 1392 and later worked in the royal chancery of Władysław Jagiełło. This poem was written in 1428 to celebrate Cracow and the king’s fourth wife, Sonka (Zofia) Holszańska. For his biography, see Zofia Kowalska, Stanisław Ciołek.(†1437) Podkanclerzy królewski, biskup poznański, poeta dworski (Cracow: Universitas, 1993). 2  In his De Europa (XXV: “De Polonia,”), Aeneas commented that “Cracovia est paecipua regni civitas, in qua liberalium artium schola floret,” and in a letter to Martin Mayer, he described the city as an “urbs litterarum studiis ornat.” For an elaboration of these themes, see Ignacy Zarębski, “Stosunki Eneasza Sylwiusza z Polską i Polakami,” Rozprawy Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności: wydział Historyczno-filozoficzny, Series 2 XLV (1939): 281–437, especially 358– 360, from whom these quotations are taken.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004326019_004

Cracow And Its University

43

the leading cities of the area. The histories of the studium and the civitas in the fifteenth century are closely connected. Although the former was by no means an extension of the latter, it is important to understand the municipal context of the university. This can be approached in several ways, the first of which is by a brief description of the initial impressions a student would have had upon arrival at Cracow. No student from this period has left a memoir recording his first reactions to the city in whose university he had come to study. One is reduced, therefore, to the reconstruction of a hypothetical young scholar later in the fifteenth century, perhaps a certain “Nicolas the son of Nicholas of Toruń,” who arrived in 1491, or one of the numerous Mazovians from Warsaw traveling in the company of several of his regional colleagues. His route of travel might bring him up the Vistula river or overland through the highlands of the Holy Cross mountains. But he would arrive from the northeast and have before him a similar panorama of the city to that presented in the highly stylized woodcut included in Hartmann Schedel’s Cronicon mundi (or Liber chronicarum), which was published in Nuremberg in 1493 and which provides us with our earliest visual image of Cracow (see Illustration 1).3 Lying before him would be the largest city in the Regnum Poloniae, surrounded completely by walls and encircled by moat and the river. Outside the fortifications, suburbs are visible; inside, the city presents a view of prosperous burgher houses, many impressive church towers, and a great central square with its town hall and merchant headquarters. The university itself is nearly invisible, tucked off in one quarter of the city, its building facing inward upon its own life. From the outside there is little hint given that in importance it is the equal of the other features which strike the student’s eye. In the distance looms the acropolis of Wawel, dominated by its independent fortifications, the royal castle, and the cathedral of Cracow. Having paused to view, as if poised between two ages of life—that of innocent youth and that of the mature man both educated and also trained in the skills of a chosen profession—our student enters Cracow to begin his university career. He joins himself thereby to the life of the parts he has seen, entering into a city which is a social complex, a commercial center, the royal capital, an urban settlement, and a university town. These are the element which played a part in the milieu of the Cracow studium. Let us examine each in turn.

3  The life, career, and bibliophilic interests of Hartmann Schedel have most recently been analyzed by Bettina Wagner, et al., eds., Worlds of Learning. The Library and World Chronicle of the Nuremberg Physician Hartmann Schedel (1440–1514) (Munich: Allitera, 2015), 117–120 especially, for the world chronicle and its sources.

44

CHAPTER 2

Illustration 1 Depiction of Cracow in Hartmann Schedel’s Liber Chronicarum (1493). Courtesy of Jagiellonian Library, Early Printed Book Section, Jagiellonian University of Cracow.



The Society

As an organized society Cracow was both old and new in 1400. Settlement there dated far back into prehistoric times, and archaeologists have unearthed evidence of almost continuous occupation by various peoples from the Paleolithic period. But the medieval history of Cracow began with the history of the Polish state in the tenth century. By the mid-thirteenth century it was an important political, religious, and economic center. Then came the disaster of the Tatar invasions. In 1241 practically the whole of the urban area was destroyed, and only a few churches, part of the east side of the settlement, and the fortified acropolis remained. This was sufficient, however, to ensure Cracow’s continued existence. On 5 June 1257 a new act of location, granted under Magdeburg law, was issued by Duke Bolesław the Chaste of Sandomierz and Cracow. This charter applied to the open settlement area north of the fortified castle

Cracow And Its University

45

s­ uburbium of Okół, and in the course of the next century and one-half Cracow not only recovered its former position, but emerged as the leading city of the kingdom. Thus despite some important remnants from the early middle ages, the municipal seat of the newly founded university was young and dynamic.4 The governance of Cracow after its location was divided between two authorities, the advoctus (Polish wójt; German Vogt), who was a ducal or royal appointee, and the city council.5 By the beginning of the fifteenth century the power of the former had declined substantially, and the council was well advanced to becoming the real master of civil affairs in Cracow. Faculty and students had little relationship to the office of the advocatus, even when it remained relatively powerful. But the university was not isolated from the life of the city council. In the medical faculty in particular, where professors were usually laymen, there were individuals who participated in civic life. Peter Gaszowiec of Łoźmierza in Silesia had matriculated at the studium in 1446. After being promoted to master in arts in 1452, he went to Italy to study medicine and returned 4  There is a substantial literature on the early history of Cracow. A convenient starting point is the material included in the exhibition catalogue Kraków w chrześcijańskiej Europie X–XIII w. / Krakow in Christian Europe, 10th–13th c., Elżbieta Maria Firlet, ed. (Cracow: Muzeum Historyczne Miasta Krakowa, 2006), especially the chapters by Jerzy Wyrozumski, “Kraków w chrześcijańskiej Europie X–XIII w. / Krakow in Christian Europe, 10th–13th c.,” 36–77, and Emil Zaitz, “Osadnictwo wczesnośredniowieczne na terenie Krakowa / Settlement colonization on the area of Krakow in the early Middle Ages,” 220–272. (Zaitz’s chapter particularly reflects the latest archaeological information, a significant amount of it based in his own work.). See also the brief summary, with bibliography, by Andrzej Buko, The Archaeology of Early Medieval Poland (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008), 294–300, particularly 295, n. 101. Among other works, the following are useful: the chapters by Rudolf Jamka (“Pradzieje Krakowa,” 65–83), Renata Żurkowa (“Kraków wczesnośredniowieczny [wiek X do pierwszej połowy XIII],” 85–116), and Józef Mitkowski (“Kraków lokacyjny,” 117–139) in Jan Dąbrowski, ed., Kraków, Studia nad rozwojem miasta (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1957); Jamka, Kraków w pradziejach, vol. 1 (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1963); Kazimierz Radwański, Kraków przedlokacyjny, rozwój przestrzenny (Cracow: Muzeum Archeologiczne, 1975); Maria Borowiejska-Birkenmajerowa, Kształt średniowiecznego Krakowa (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1975); and Andrzej Żaki, “Kraków wiślański, czeski i wczesnopiastowski,” in Jan Marian Małecki, ed., Chrystianizacja Polski południowej (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1994), 41–71. 5  For the governance of Cracow following location see Wyrozumski, Kraków do schyłku wieków średnich (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1992 [Janina Bieniarzowa and Jan Małecki, eds., Dzieje Krakowa 1]), 186–199, 397–420. I have previous treated some of the elements in this chapter in my “The Urban Development of Medieval Poland, with Particular Reference to Kraków,” in Barisa Krekic, ed., The Urban Society of Eastern Europe in Pre-Modern Times, (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1987), 63–136, especially 89–91.

46

CHAPTER 2

to Cracow about 1456. He married a Cracow citizen three years later and was subsequently granted citizenship. His distinguished university career, in which he served twice as dean of the medical faculty and three times as rector, was matched by his active involvement in municipal affairs. Prior to his death in 1474, he was several times elected to the city council.6 John of Reguły was an even more successful citizen-academic. He was promoted to master in arts at Cracow in 1468 and studied medicine in Italy before being asked to return to the university “because of the absence of teachers in medicine.” During his forty years on the faculty there (he died in 1515), he was several times dean of medicine and was four times elected rector. But John’s appointment was not an unmixed blessing for the university. He served as royal physician and was politically active in Cracow, where he was elected to the council, served as mayor, and often represented the city at official functions. As a result, he neglected his academic responsibilities, and the faculty often complained of his absence. In 1498 they even voted to reduce his salary by one-fourth in order to pay a substitute lecturer.7 Within this structure of governance, Cracow society was composed of several distinct strata. At the top was the urban patriciate, composed largely of recently arrived great merchants whose families had come after the location of 1257 and made great fortunes from the trade and commerce that developed in Cracow. They added a foreign element to Cracow, mainly German speaking, which was only slowly and incompletely Polonized in the course of the fifteenth century.8 In general this stratum was imbued with a sense of responsibility first to themselves and their families, only secondarily to the city and its elements. But the university did sometimes profit from the largess of this group, particularly late in the century. For example, in 1499 John Morsteyn (by then Polonized to Morsztyn) donated his house in the university quarter to the studium,9 while in 1501 Andrew Rudowski in his will endowed an altar in St. Mary’s church with 500 florins, designating it to be held by a member of the arts faculty.10 In general, however, this stratum of society compares 6  PSB, 7, 294–295. 7  Conclusiones, 91: “Primo de salario magistri Iohannis de Regulis . . . retento a tribus quartalibus anni, ipso dudum absente;” see also 46 and 72. On John of Reguły, see PSB, 10, 274–275. 8  For Cracovian society, see Wyrozumski, Kraków do schyłku wieków średnich, 314–331, ­passim. The Cracow patriciate has been studied particularly by Jan Ptaśnik, “Studya nad patrycyatem Krakowskim wieków średnich,” Rocznik Krakowski 15 (1913): 23–95, and 16 (1914): 1–90. 9  CDUC, 3, no. 299, 203–204., where the donor is identified as Mornstein. 10   C DUC, 3, no. 300, 204–210, where the document is dated 4 March 1502. For further information, see Jerzy Michalewicz and Maria Michalewiczowa, eds., Fundationes Pecuniariae

Cracow And Its University

47

­ nfavorably in its patronage of learning with similar groups in contemporary u western Europe.11 Beneath the patriciate were the craftsmen and lesser merchants of Cracow. These constituted the bulk of society. Although it is difficult to generalize about their ethnic background, it appears that in the fifteenth century the use of German and Polish was about equal among this group, thus suggesting again a significant foreign element. Some of these individuals made their living by providing the goods and services basic to all society: they were butchers, ­bakers, carpenters, coopers, iron mongers, and the like. Others dealt in goods that were more closely related to the court, the council, and the clergy: silver and goldsmiths, importers of fine cloth from the Lowlands and Italy, bookbinders, and the like.12 It was this group within lay society that had the closest contact with the university, for it was they more than others who strove to educate their sons and provide them with a profession which would advance their station in life. The numbers of students from Cracow and its environs in Universitatis Iagellonica in saeculis XV–XVIII (Cracow: Archiwum Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1999 [Liber Beneficiorum et Benefactorum Universitatis Iagellonicae in saeculis XV–XVIII, vol. 1]), no. 85, 50–51. 11  See the comments of Franklin J. Pegues, “Philanthropy and the Universities in France and England in the Later Middle Ages,” in Astrik L. Gabriel, ed. The Economic and Material Frame of the Mediaeval University (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), 69–78; and Klaus Wriedt, “Studienförderung und Studienstiftungen in norddeutschen Städten (14.–16. Jahrhundert),” in Heinz Duchhardt, ed. Stadt und Universität (Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 1993), 33–49, reprinted in Wriedt, Schule und Universität. Bildungsverhältnisse in norddeutschen Städten des Spätmittelalters. Gesammelte Aufsätze (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005 [Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, 23]), 123–147. 12  Data on the various guilds of Cracow were gathered by Ptaśnik, Cracovia artificum 1300– 1500 (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1917). His material has now been updated through 1475 by Cracovia artificum. Supplementa, Bolesław Przybyszewski, ed., 5 vols. (Wrocław and Cracow: Ossolineum and Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1985–2001). See also Wyrozumski, Kraków do schyłku wieków średnich, 331–371, passim. A particularly fine depiction of guild life in late medieval Cracow is found in the illustrations to the so-called Behem Codex (MS Cracow, BJ 16), which was prepared in 1505 at the request of municipal councilor Baltazar Behem (or Beheim). It included the text of municipal regulations and a series of magnificent colored miniatures depicting the activity of many of Cracow’s guilds. It has often been reproduced, most conveniently in Zofia Ameisenowa, Kodeks Baltazara Behema (Warsaw: Auriga, 1961). What these reveal about Cracovian life is analyzed by Karol Estreicher, “Miniatury Kodeksu Behema oraz ich treść obyczajowa,” Rocznik Krakowski 24 (1933): 199–244. Antonia Jelicz, Życie codzienne w średniowiecznym Krakowie (wiek XIII–XV ) (Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1966), draws frequently from this source in her discussions of guild activities.

48

CHAPTER 2

the f­ ifteenth century (see below, Chapter Four) is testimony to the broad support which this urban “middle class” provided to the studium. One indication of this is reflected by enrollment during the first two decades of the university’s functioning, when nearly two-score different municipal occupations are represented in the families of matriculating students.13 In addition, of course, the commercial roles fulfilled by members of these groups were precisely those that affected the mundane, as opposed to academic, life of the students and faculty in the university: food, clothing, supplies, and the like. Finally, within the lay society of Cracow, there were the poor and the unskilled, who like their counterparts in all times and urban places lived on the margins of society, without rights and with little hope. Beyond this we know little of their lives, for they seldom appear in the records except when someone excoriates them in a particular instance14 or when they break one of the many laws set as barriers to keep them apart from the rest of society. But they were there. No discussion of the structure of Cracow society would be complete without brief mention of two additional groups, the clergy and the Jews. The city was, in addition to its other characteristics, a religious center. A glance at a map of the city and its environs (see Map 1) reveals the number of religious foundations of one kind or another. Cracow, therefore, like other large late medieval cities, reflected the great role which the church had come to play in urban life. As the result of long development, an ecclesiastical network within the space of the city had taken shape by the fifteenth century. In the Cracow ­agglomeration—Wawel, the city proper, and the suburbs of Kazimierz and Kleparz (Florencia / Florencja), founded by Casimir the Great in 1335 and 1366 respectively—there were some forty-five sacral building of various kinds: the cathedral, parish churches, monastic churches, hospitals, and the like. Collectively this sacred space subtly molded the shape of the city. The course of streets accommodated previously existing church buildings, and city boundaries and the line of eventual fortifications were modified to encompass new

13  A short list of matriculations from urban crafts and professions for this period is given by Brygida Kürbisówna, “Mieszczanie na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim i ich udział w kształtowaniu świadomości narodowej w XV w.,” Studia Staropolskie 5 (1957): Ze studiów nad literaturą staropolską, 74–76. Her emphasis upon the important contribution of urban residents to the development of the University of Cracow stands in a long historiographical tradition. The originality of her contribution lay in her application of these students’ influence upon the emergence of national consciousness. 14  A particularly vehement condemnation of them is cited by Jelicz, Życie codzienne, 40.

Cracow And Its University

49

religious foundations.15 Within this sacred space the university was, of course, another kind of religious institution, even though it had been founded by the king and some of its faculty (in medicine, for example) were lay. The studium was closely connected to the ecclesiastical life of Cracow. The faculty often held positions in the churches there, some of them designated and established explicitly for them. Some Cracovian clergy were also students at the university, though the studium did not attract many regulars, with the exception of the Cistercians. The Jews in Cracow had begun to arrive in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, when their position in Western Europe deteriorated and they were given grants of protection by a series of Polish dukes and rulers.16 There was a Jewish area, the platea Judeorum¸ on the west side of the city, and in the recently founded suburb of Kazimierz there was another concentration. Limited by statute and tradition in their participation in urban life, the Jews were active in small shops serving their own community and in money-lending. Casimir the Great allowed students to borrow from Jewish bankers in his 1364 document, but limited the interest which could be charged to one grossus per mark per month (about 2%, a relatively low rate at that time). This provision was repeated in 1400, almost verbatim, by Jagiełło in his act of foundation.17 15  Andrzej Niewiński, Przestrzeń kościelna w topografii średniowiecznego Krakowa. Próba syntezy (Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolicki Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 2004), has presented an urban analysis of the sacred space and buildings of the city and its environs that reflects the symbiotic relationship between the town and ecclesiastical buildings; see his summary 177–183 and, more briefly, in English, 211–213. 16  The older works by Eugeniusz Müller, Żydzi w Krakowie w drugiej połowie XIV stulecie (Cracow: Czas, 1906 [Biblioteka Krakowska, 35]), and especially Majer Bałaban, Historja Żydów w Krakowie i na Kazimierzu 1304–1868, 2 vols. (Cracow: Nadzieja, 1931–1936), particularly 1, 24–26., are still valuable, but should be supplemented by the following: Roman Grodecki, Polska Piastowska (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1969), 595– 702; Wyrozumski, Kraków do schyłku wieków średnich, 323–331; Bożena Wyrozumska, ed. Żydzi w średniowiecznym Krakowie. Wypisy źródłowe z ksiąg miejskich krakowskich / Jews in Mediaeval Cracow. Source Excerpts from the Cracow Town Books (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1996); and works by Hanna Zaremska: “Le Juif au tribunal: Cracovie XVème siècle,” in Balázs Nagy and Marcell Sebők, eds., The Man of Many Devices, who Wandered Full Many Ways, Festschrift in Honor of János M. Bak (Budapest: Central European University, 1999), 105–116; “Jewish Street (Platea Judeorum) in Cracow: the 14th-the First Half of the 15th c.,” Acta Poloniae Historica 83 (2001): 27–57, which is essentially a translation of her “Ulica Żydowska w Krakowie: XIV—pierwsza połowa XV wieku,” Kwartalnik Historii Kultury Materialnej 47 (1999): 113–130; and now, most fully, Żydzi w średniowiecznej Polsce. Gmina Krakowska (Warsaw: Instytut Historii PAN, 2011), 331–504 especially. 17  Compare CDUC, 1, no. 1, 3, and no. 16, 28.

50

CHAPTER 2

Commerce and the Economy

In addition to being a social complex, Cracow was also a commercial and economic center. In part this role derived from its location on the crossroads of major long-distance trade routes. The north-south road led out of the northern Balkans and Hungary through Cracow, thence northward to the Toruń, Gdańsk and the Baltic. Using both wheeled traffic and the river systems, this general route (which had several variant branches) put Cracow in touch with the Baltic to the north—the city was a loose member of the Hanseatic League—and with the Danube to the south. A second route was more complex. To the west, one could travel to the Oder River and thence to Wrocław, continuing downriver from there to Szczecin, Wolin, and the Baltic, or one could turn southwest at Racibórz in Silesia and cross overland to the Czech lands through Olomouc and to Prague and eventually Vienna. Eastward routes from Cracow connected the city with Lwów, which had been in Polish hands since Casimir the Great’s conquests in the 1340’s. These trading roads thus, as Polish scholars have traditionally observed and F.W. Carter has more recently analyzed, connected Cracow with distant centers in Europe such as Italy and the Low Countries.18 The most important commercial activity in the city in the fifteenth century was the cloth trade.19 Both raw materials and finished goods were sold in Cracow, and the focus of this activity was the town square, dominated by the Gothic clothiers’ hall. One of the small, but in our context significant, markets for this cloth was the university. As we shall see below (Chapter Four), each faculty member was required to own a specific kind of academic garb and to wear it on specified occasions. It was eventually ordered that no one could be elected dean or rector who did not own such regalia, and in 1449 the university bought two bales (stamina) of cloth from which these gowns could be made.

18  See Stanisław Kutrzeba, Handel Krakowa w wiekach średnich (na tle stosunków handłowych Polski) (Cracow: Nakład Akademii Umiejętności, 1902), 6–16; Wyrozumski, “Handel Krakowa za wschodem w średniowieczu,” Rocznik Krakowski 50 (1980): 57–64; and F.W. Carter, Trade and urban development in Poland. An economic geography of Cracow, from its origins to 1795 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994 [Cambridge Studies in Historical Geography, 20]), 93–98, on which the foregoing paragraph is largely based (see also his map of these trade routes, 94). 19  Carter, Trade and development in Poland, 143–153. Cloth imports from the west declined steadily throughout the fifteenth century, due, Carter suggests, to political conflicts with the Teutonic Knights until 1466, along with a rise in customs duty and a fall-off in volume with trading partners in Hungary, Silesia, and lands to the east.

Cracow And Its University

51

Those who could not afford full payment immediately were allowed to pay in installments.20 Another important commercial activity was the salt-trade.21 Cracow was located on what had once been the southern shore of the primeval Baltic Sea and, immediately to its south, there were great rock salt mines in Wieliczka and Bochnia. Their control was partly in private hands and partly a royal monopoly. In addition, by the fifteenth century Cracow also handled salt from Ruthenia to the east. As a fundamental commodity in daily life, the salt trade gave rise to numerous conflicts and competition, and there were many regulations established as to who could sell what kind of salt in Cracow. The university was involved in this part of the economic life of the city also. Although it had lost the original income from the salt monopoly of the royal treasury specified in the charter of Casimir the Great, it used some of the moneys from Queen Jadwiga to purchase its own salt mine in Bochnia and applied income derived from this to support part of the faculty.22 Cracow served not only as an emporium and a point of trans-shipment, it was also a center of production. In addition to silver and lead products, which were produced on a relatively modest scale,23 copper was of considerable importance. Deposits of the raw metal from Upper Hungary (i.e., present-day Slovakia) were shipped westward and particularly northward, and Cracow was the site of a considerable smelting industry. The Thurzon family, who had come originally from Hungary, had a major foundry just outside Cracow, and one contemporary remarked that the area “looked like Mt. Etna, with furnaces burning full of . . . [metals] . . . being joined in the fire.”24 There were also iron foundries in the area. Most of the commercial and industrial activity in Cracow lay in the hands of the various guilds. From the city record books of this period, some forty 20   Conclusiones, 12.: “Et ille, qui eundem pannum receperit, obligabitur Universitati, quilibet illorum, per medium annum solvere unum florenum, sub pene excommunicacionis iuxta inscripcionem, quam fecerunt;” see also 13, n. 1. 21  For Cracow’s salt trade and with reference to the older literature, see now Carter, Trade and urban development in Poland, 123–126 and map 124, showing the wide distribution of Cracow’s salt (i.e., from the mines at Wieliczka and Bochnia). 22   C DUC, 1, no. 35, 64. The purchase was made on the university’s behalf by John Tęczyński for 688 Polish marks. Jagiełło confirmed this purchase the same year, designating onethird of the annual income for faculty in theology and two-thirds for faculty in [canon] law; CDUC, 1, no. 36, 65. 23  See Carter, Trade and urban development in Poland, 109–115. 24  Quoted from Leonard Lepszy, Thurzonowie w Polsce (Cracow: Nakład Autora, 1890), 7. See also Carter, Trade and urban development in Poland, 115–118.

52

CHAPTER 2

different occupations have been identified, although there were apparently many fewer than that which were formally organized.25 One occupation with which the university understandably had close contacts was the parchment and paper makers. King Casimir had explicitly provided included stationers in the privileges he guaranteed to the studium in 1364, and Jagiełło repeated these protections in his own document of foundation. By the end of the fifteenth century paper was in common use in the city, even though it remained relatively expensive. Although city records make occasional mention of papyrifices and chartarii, it is doubtful that paper was manufactured in Cracow itself until late in the century. Apparently this was first done at the monastery of the Brothers of the Holy Spirit in near-by Prądnik; a second site for paper making was the Cistercian monastery in Mogiła. Only in the sixteenth century is there evidence of private, lay manufacture.26 No picture of the economic life of Cracow would be complete without some mention of prices and salaries, for these directly affected the lives of all who lived there, including the faculty and students. While data are fragmentary, it is possible to make some brief generalizations.27 Throughout the century 25  Wyrozumski, Kraków do schyłku wieków średnich, 331–371, discusses the gilds of Cracow, both confirming and modifying the picture presented by Klemens Bąkowski, Dawne cechy Krakowskie (Cracow: Czas, 1903 [Biblioteka Krakowska, 22]), 20–23, who in his own survey of Cracow guilds puts the number in the fifteenth century at “about twenty-five.” Wyrozumski has earlier published widely on a variety of guilds in medieval Poland. 26  Unlike the use of paper at western universities, the details of the Cracow scene have not been well studied. For scattered information, see Franciszek Piekosiński, “Wybór znaków wodnych z XV stulecia,” Wiadomości Numizmatyczno-Archeologiczne, Supplement (Cracow: Towarzystwo Numizmatyczno-Archeologiczne, 1896), 78–112; and Leonard Lepszy, “Pergameniści i papiernicy Krakowscy w ubiegłych wiekach i ich wyroby,” Rocznik Krakowski 4 (1900): 237, 245–247. There are also some suggestive comments about materials within the context of costs by Anna Kozłowska, “Ceny książek ręcznie pisanych,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 49, 1/2 (1999): 45–65, especially 45–48. 27  With regard to Polish coinage and the grossus Cracoviensis, see Ryszard Kiersnowski, Wstęp do numizmatyki polskiej wieków średnich (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1964), 128–131. Detailed information on prices for this period has been gathered by Juljan Pelc, Ceny w Krakowie w latach 1369–1600 (Lwów: Kasa J. Manowskiego, 1935), which, despite its age, remains the only systematic overview. The variety of foodstuffs in the Polish diet is described by Maria Dembińska, Food and Drink in Medieval Poland. Rediscovering a Cuisine of the Past, revised and adapted by William Woys Weaver (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999; Polish original, Konsumcja żywnościowa w Polsce średniowiecznej [Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1963]). The larger picture of wages, prices, and incomes is treated in my “Urban Development of Medieval Poland,” 95–97.

Cracow And Its University

53

there was some depreciation of the money most commonly in circulation, the grossus Cracoviensis (forty-eight of which equaled a mark), and there are some fluctuation in prices for staple commodities such as foodstuffs, clothing, building material and fuel. During the same period wages and salaries remained generally stable, thought there is some evidence of increase toward the end of the century. What these scattered data reflect, however, is a picture of general economic stability. There was no prolonged period of economic depression; neither was there anything like the price rise which was to come at the end of the sixteenth century.28 Within the context of this study, it is most relevant to compare the salaries of those in professional positions in Cracovian society with the income of faculty at the university. Among these positions, that of notary bears the closest comparison to a faculty member. The notary was a professional who had acquired, in some instances through some university training, specific skills. Although he might not have earned a degree, he would at least have mastered the formulary skills of the ars dictandi, which were a part of the bachelor’s course. In 1400 a Senior Notary received an annual income of 1600 grossi. Thereafter this salary increased to 1920 in 1401 and 1402 and rose to 2278 by 1405. Data for the remainder of the century are more scattered but in the late 1480’s an individual in this occupation still received a salary of about 2000 grossi. A Junior Notary earned 667 grossi per annum at the beginning of the century, and this remained much the same thereafter. (The figure of 1320 grossi for a Junior Notary’s salary in 1487 is, probably, an anomaly.)29 The following data reflect the income of faculty at Cracow.30 At the lower end of the academic pay-scale were the junior members of the arts faculty. Their endowed positions brought them some ten to twelve marks annually (480 to 576 grossi). At a slightly higher level, each of the six royal professors in the artists’ college, i.e., those who divided the one hundred marks annual income which Jagiełło designated from the Cracow custom’s office, received an annual salary of sixteen and two-thirds marks (800 grossi). Thus it can be seen that the arts’ faculty was relatively poorly paid. This fact must be ­balanced 28  The preceding is based largely on my “Urban Development of Medieval Poland,” 95–97. More detailed information on selected commodities is contained in Carter, Trade and urban development in Poland, 108–169, passim.; see also his concluding comments, 353– 359, which place the late medieval period in the larger context of the period to 1795. 29  For these notarial figures, see Pelc, Ceny w Krakowie, 79–81. 30  Documentation for the sources of faculty salaries may be found below in Chapter Three. A brief overview of faculty income is provided by Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Odnowienie Jagiellońskie Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego (1390–1414),” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 75–76.

54

CHAPTER 2

against their housing and board in the Collegium maius (or, after 1449, in the Collegium minus for junior faculty), for which they paid relatively modest sums. One study has shown that the yearly maintenance cost for masters in the Collegium maius was about seven marks.31 Despite this relatively low amount, the junior faculty in arts would have had little money left from this income for such personal expenses as clothing, books, candles, and the like. It is little wonder, therefore, that some faculty sought outside sources of income by taking positions in the city administration, the royal chancery, or private tutoring.32 In higher faculties, pay was somewhat better. A master in arts who held one of the better prebends while engaged in higher study receive about twenty marks annually (960 grossi), while a canon of St. Florian’s church in Kleparz, who would have been a member of the theology faculty in most instances, received thirty marks a year (1440 grossi). The professor ordinarius in theology earned thirty-six marks in the early part of the century (1728 grossi) and forty marks later in the century (1920 grossi), thus making him an approximate equal of the Senior Notary. In the law faculty the senior professor also earned forty marks a year, but the income of a younger faculty member, the licentiate who taught the nova iura, was considerably less, only twelve marks annual (576 grossi). None of these salaries would, of course, compare with the income of the patricians or the great merchants, although to their lives was added the risk of commercial failure which always shadows the entrepreneur. In sum, the faculty had somewhat lower living costs than others in Cracow because of their communal life, but they were also not well paid. Only the upper ranks of the professorate equaled the income of civic functionaries. One therefore who wished to pursue an academic life had to be prepared to find his reward partially in teaching, learning, and the tangible pleasures of the mind.

The Political Capital

Long before the accession of the Jagiellonian dynasty, Cracow had become the political capital of the Polish kingdom.33 This fact lent a particular character to the city, for although the royal residence at Wawel and the town proper were 31  Aleksander Gieysztor, “Aspects financiers de l’Université de Cracovie au XVe siècle,” in Astrik L. Gabriel, ed., The Economic and Material Frame of the Mediaeval University (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), 53–64. 32  Józef Garbacik, “Ognisko nauki i kultury Renasansowej (1470–1520),” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 194 and n. 14. 33  Knoll, “Urban Development of Medieval Poland,” 97.

Cracow And Its University

55

two separate entities, they were in practice closely connected and interrelated. As Antonia Jelicz has commented, “nothing that happened in the castle was uninteresting to the citizens of Cracow, and the residents of Wawel were in no way indifferent to the daily affairs and problems of the citizens.”34 This fact also influenced the life of the university to a certain extent. Thus it is appropriate to examine briefly the nature of this third element in the series defined at the beginning of this chapter: Cracow as a royal capital. The modern concept of a capital as the permanent residence of the ruler was generally unknown in the middle ages. The medieval monarchy was largely an itinerant institution, for as Antoni Gąsiorowski has remarked, “the presence of the ruler in his lands was made necessary by the demands of internal politics . . . . The King traveled pacem firmando, legem faciendo.”35 Thus we find the Polish kings of the fifteenth century spending relatively little time in the city, and for long periods Cracow was a capital without a ruler. Without the presence of the king, the university was left to develop without close royal oversight. Thus although it had been founded by Jagiełło and in fact greatly benefited from his grants and financial support, there was little practical possibility that his successors could pursue sustained intervention in its affairs or control it in any degree. The studium thereby escaped the kinds of constraints which the French monarchy imposed upon Paris and the limitations and dictated appointments which some of the German princes insisted upon in their new foundations in the fifteenth century. In the only real instance of a confrontation between royal authority and university autonomy in this period, Casimir the Jagiellonian was unable in 1447 to bend the school to his will in the matter of the abandonment of the Council of Basle and the recognition of Nicholas V as pope (see below, Chapter Five). Rather than too much attention, the university found that, for the most part, after Jagiełło the family paid relatively little attention to the school and, with some important qualifications and these early in the century, did little to further the material fortunes of the studium.36 Even in light of the foregoing comments it would be a mistake to see the university as completely isolated from royal interests and immune to the p ­ articular 34  Jelicz, Życie codzienne, 54. 35  Antoni Gąsiorowski, “Rex Ambulans,” Quaestiones Medii Aevi 1 (1977): 139, quoting the chronicler of the Emperor Conrad, Wipo. 36  I have developed this point in more detail in “The Jagiellonians and the University of Cracow,” in Urszula Borkowska and Markus Hörsch, eds., Hofkultur der Jagiellonendynastie und verwandter Fürstenhäuser / The Culture of the Jagellonian and Related Courts (Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke), 185–191, especially 188.

56

CHAPTER 2

character of Cracow as a royal capital. For example, the studium regularly participated in the annual anniversary celebrations marking Jagiełło’s victory over the Teutonic Knights at Grunwald / Tannenberg in 1410.37 Moreover, many of its former students had entered into careers in the royal chancery maintaining contacts with their alma mater; and although the king traveled, the chancery was permanently resident in Cracow, except for such personnel as were needed by the monarch en route. The best, but by no means the only, example of this phenomenon,38 was the career of Zbigniew Oleśnicki.39 After he finished his studies at Cracow he entered the royal service as a notary, and during his eventual rise to the see of Cracow retained his interests in the university. (As bishop, he was its chancellor.) Some members of the faculty had particularly close contacts with the royal court. These were the several doctors of medicine, who like the aforementioned John of Reguły, served as royal physicians. Finally in this context it should be noted that King John Albert had enough interest in the affairs of the studium to make a personal visit there, apparently the only Polish monarch to do so (except for Jagiełło’s participation in the opening ceremonies of 1400). We know little of the circumstances surrounding this, except that it took place soon after the disastrous fire of 1492 (see below) and may therefore have been an effort to bolster the morale of the faculty.40 One instance when the connections between Wawel and the studium were revealed came in 1431, at a time when the king was involved in delicate negotiations in the political arena with the Hussites in Bohemia. In conjunction with this, the Hussites sent a delegation of theologians to Cracow to participate in a disputation with the faculty of the university. Their meeting took place, not in the Collegium maius, but in the royal castle itself. Under Jagiełło’s auspices the two sides met for several days in the great stone hall overlooking Canons’ Street 37  Krystyna Pieradzka, Związki Długosza z Krakowem (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1975 [Biblioteka Krakowska, 115]), 35. 38  See the background of employees of the royal chancery in this period in Irena SułkowskaKurasiowa, Dokumenty królewskie i ich funkcja w państwie polskim za Andegawenów i pierwszych Jagiellonów 1370–1444 (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1977), 194–275; and idem, Polska kancelaria królewska w latach 1447–1506 (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1967), 107–162. See also Jadwiga Krzyżaniakowa, Kancelaria królewska Władysława Jagiełły. Studium z dziejów kultury politycznej Polski w XV wieku, 2 vols. (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, 1972–1979). 39   P SB, 23, 776–784. 40  We know of this visit only from the speech delivered on that occasion by John Ber Ursinus; this speech was first printed in Ursinus’ treatise Modus epistolandi (Nuremberg, 1496), and has now been edited and translated by Lidia Winniczuk, J. Ursinus Modus epistolandi (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1957).

Cracow And Its University

57

and the city.41 From this height it would have been possible for the participants to see Cracow, not only as a royal capital, but also as an urban settlement. This was a fourth element in the milieu within which the university functioned.

The Urban Scene

Cracow was an example of medieval town planning. After it had been destroyed by the Tatars in the mid-thirteenth century, the newly incorporated parts of the settlement were rebuilt on a plotted grid. Centered upon the unusually large town square, nearly 200 × 200 meters, the streets in this part of the city for the most part ran straight and regular, unlike the earlier section of Okół, where the streets were less regular. Oriented slightly to the northeast in the northern half, the roughly oval-shaped consolidated urban settlement narrows in the southern section and joins the acropolis of Wawel (see the map of the city and its environs). The planning extended even to the water-courses which surrounded the city. The Vistula and Rudawa rivers (the latter a smaller tributary to the former) were the chief elements utilized to give the city protection by water.42 In earlier times the Vistula had spread widely through several channels on the west side of Cracow. By the end of the fourteenth century, however, it had been forced into a single channel there, leaving behind a series of ponds and marshlands. To the south of Wawel the stream split into channels, one flowing east between Cracow and the suburb of Kazimierz, the other flowing around the south of Kazimierz. To the east the two eventually joined again. In the course of the fifteenth century efforts were made to dam the Vistula beneath Skałka hill in Kazimierz, thus draining the southern channel. These generally proved unsuccessful, and in time of high water the river flowed through both beds, often flooding great areas. The Rudawa was a less powerful stream. Flowing out of the north toward the Vistula, it was easily diverted. By the end of the thirteenth century it had been channeled along the north and part of the east sides of the city and, by at least 1401, its course had been extended along the west side down to the base of Wawel hill. In the following decades a further segment on the east was constructed. Thus by the end of the

41  This meeting and debate is described by Długosz, Annales, 9, 18–22 (Liber undecimus, s.a. 1431). 42  On the system of waterways and their changes over the years, see Klemens Bąkowski, “Dawne kierunki rzek pod Krakowem,” Rocznik Krakowski 5 (1902): 138–172.

58

CHAPTER 2

fifteenth century Cracow was completely encircled by the Rudawa.43 Within the circumference of this moat lay the fortifications of the city. By 1400 Cracow had been completely encircled by walls for more than a century, though the municipal system of fortification was not completed until late in the 1490s with the construction of a brick barbican, completely surrounded by its own moat and attached by a draw-bridge to the Floriańska gate.44 The walls averaged ten meters in height, and were constructed largely of relatively scarce native stone. Along their course were placed a series of at least fourteen towers, both to strengthen the wall and to provide positions for lookout and defense. In case of an attack each of the guilds in Cracow was assigned a specific tower to defend. Except for small private postern gates providing very limited access outside the walls, the city was entered through one of the seven great gates which pierced the wall. These were named predominantly for the streets that ran to them. On the southwest was the Wiślna gate (Vistula), which had been built in 1313; on the west was the Szewska (Shoemaker) gate, built in 1313; on the north were the Sławkowska (Famous) and Floriańska (St. Florian) gates, built respectively in 1311 and ante 1307; the east wall was dominated by the Mikołajska gate (St. Nicholas), which dated from the late thirteenth c­ entury, and the “New” gate, built in 1328; the southern entrance was through the Grodzka (Castle) gate, which was the earliest, dating from the late ­thirteenth century. The area within the city walls was dominated by the central town square (circulus, later forum; Polish rynek from German Ring), which had risen to importance after the location charter of 1257.45 On it stood the great rectangular cloth hall (camerae pannorum), begun in the time of Casimir the Great and completed in the last decades of the fourteenth century. Below the cloth hall, to its south, stood the main city scale; and beside it, to the west, the town hall. The square was also the site of the small Romanesque church of St. Wojciech (Adalbert), with which the university had close ties. The most important building fronting on the square was the leading parish church of the city, St. Mary’s. 43  See Knoll, “Urban Development of Medieval Poland,” 100. 44  The development of the fortifications of Cracow is best approached through Jarosław Widawski, Miejskie mury obronne w Państwie Polskim do początku XV wieku (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej, 1973), 192–227 especially; Mieczysław Tobiasz, Fortyfikacja dawnego Krakowa (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1973); and Wyrozumski, Kraków do schyłku wieków średnich, 269–292, which also treats stone construction within the city as well as the system of fortifications. 45  For the rynek, see Stanisław Tomkowicz, Ulice i place Krakowa w ciągu dziejów. Ich nazwy i zmiany postaci (Cracow: Czas, 1926 [Biblioteka Krakowska, 63/64]), 14–41.

Cracow And Its University

59

Rebuilt of brick in the Gothic style between 1320 and 1380, a second tower was added and the earlier tower raised in height during the fifteenth century. From atop one of these, the city watchman was always prepared to sound an alarm by trumpet in case of danger or fire. Surrounding the square were the two and three storey homes of wealthy merchants. Some of these building were constructed of stone or brick, but the majority, even at the end of the century, were of wood. Thus the cumulative effect of the central rynek was of a municipal center on a grand scale, reflecting the prosperity and importance of the city. For administrative purposes the city of Cracow was divided into four quarters, using the central square as a point of reference.46 The Grodzki quarter (castle, castrense) encompassed the area bounded approximately by Grodzka and Mikołajska streets and included the whole section south of Poselska street, which until the end of the fourteenth century had been known as nova civitas or Okół (so called in the vernacular because of its open spaces for cattle grazing). In the Grodzki quarter were located the Dominican church of the Holy Trinity with its friary. To its west was the church of All Saints, where university faculty often held benefices. Further south on the west side of Grodzka street were several stone houses, two of which the university purchased in the fifteenth century and combined into quarters for the Collegium Iuridicum.47 Adjoining this was the church of St. Mary Magdalene, where a professor often held one of the altars. Diagonally across from these was the Romanesque church of St. Andrew, together with the convent of the Poor Clares, who had been brought to Cracow in the fourteenth century. South of Poselska street, and roughly paralleling the fifteenth century extension of Grodzka, was Kanonicza (Canons) street, so called because canons of the Cracow cathedral lived on it. This was well built up by 1400, and on it were two building connected with the history of the university. One, toward the upper end, served as a student hostel for part of the century and was known as the Bursa pisarum. It later fell into disrepair and was returned by the studium to the cathedral chapter which owned it. The second building, at the south end, was the home of John

46  The earliest reference to these quarters comes in 1396; see Libri Antiquissimi civitatis Cracoviensis, F. Piekosiński and Józef Szujski, eds. (Cracow: Nakładem Akademii Umiejętności, 1878), part 2, 141. For the discussion which follows, particularly with regard to street names and location of buildings, Tomkowicz, Ulice i place Krakowa w ciągu dziejów, has been most useful. His presentation is still utilized by more recent treatments, for example Wyrozumski, Kraków do schyłku wieków średnich, 353, 356, 359. 47  See below for a discussion of the university buildings mentioned in this urban survey.

60

CHAPTER 2

Długosz,48 whose associations with and benefactions to the school mark him as one of its most important patrons. At the end of Grodzka street, beneath the slopes of Wawel, stood the small church of St. Giles, which also served as a source of support for some members of the faculty. The Rzeźniczy quarter (butchers, laniorum or carnificum) extended through a quarter-arc from St. Nicholas (Mikołajska) street to St. John’s street. This section was dominated on the south by the Gródek.49 Originally a strongly fortified residence, it served in the fifteenth century as one of the houses of the Tęczyńskis, a noble family whose members were closely associated with the university and with royal administration.50 In the northeast section of the quarter were the hospital of the Brothers of the Holy Spirit, who had moved to Cracow from Prądnik in the thirteenth century, and the parish church of the Holy Cross. Some faculty were altarists in the church during the century, and at least one professor, John of Reguły, served as provisor for the hospital. The chief street of this quarter, on which were numerous stone houses of prosperous citizens, was Floriańska. It constituted part of the old via regia from the north, through to the rynek, and down Grodzka street to Wawel. The rest of this section was only sparsely built up.51 The Sławkowska quarter (famous, Slawcoviense, from Polish sława: fame) encompassed the area from St. John’s to Szewska streets. This section was the least urbanized in Cracow, and stretches of open land extended to the walls in places. It included the church of St. Mark on the corner of Sławkowska and St. Mark’s streets, together with the monastery of the Canons Regular; and the church of St. Stephen on the corner of today’s St. Stephen’s (Szczepańska) and Jagiellońska streets. In between was bare ground, and it was here that Długosz arranged in 1469 to have the Jews of Cracow be allowed to build a synagogue, consistory, baths, and establish a cemetery. In return the univer-

48  Unpublished material relating to the building of Długosz’s house is utilized by Pieradzka, Związki Długosza, 81–85. The older account by Ignacy Polkowski, Dom Jana Długosza w Krakowie (Cracow, 1880), which I have not seen, is apparently still useful. 49   See Stefan Swiszczowski, “Gródek krakowski i mury miejskie między Gródkiem a Wawelem,” Rocznik Krakowski 32 (1950): 3–41; and Wyrozumski, Kraków do schyłku wieków średnich, 140 and 215. 50  Nawój Tęczyński was noted above in Chapter One as being involved in efforts to revive the university in the 1390’s and John Tęczyński was one of the executors of Queen Jadwiga’s will. On the family, see Janusz Kurtyka, Tęczyńscy herbu Topór. Studium z dziejow polskiej elity możnowładczej w średniowieczu (Cracow: Secesja, 1997). 51  See the comments on this and on the urbanization of the Sławkowska quarter by Pieradzka, “Rozkwit średniowiecznego Krakowa w XIV i XV wieku,” in Dąbrowski, ed., Kraków, Studia nad rozwojem miasta, 160–162.

Cracow And Its University

61

sity received Jewish property near the Collegium maius.52 Henceforth this area became the Jewish quarter in Cracow. The last quarter of the city, the Garncarski (potters, figulorum), extended from Szewska street to the present day Bracka street (then called platea minorum [i.e., the Franciscans] or Brüdergasse). There were numerous stone houses in this section, and it was both prosperous and well built up. It was also the most important municipal quarter for the history of the university. At the beginning of the century the Jewish quarter was located here, and its chief street was Żydowska or Judengasse (the platea Judeorum).53 The street which fronted the main university building, today Jagiellońska, had no recognized name at that time.54 In addition to the later Collegium maius, other university buildings were located here. The Jerusalem hostel for students was established in a large building located on Gołębia street (then Garncarska or Toppertwergasse) near the city wall; the bursa pauperum stood on the corner of Wiślna and Gołębia streets; late in the century a German hostel was built on St. Anne’s street (the previous platea Judeorum) near the wall; a Hungarian bursa was established in a former private residence on the west side of Bracka street; and the Collegium minus, originally founded in 1449, found a home after 1476 in the bursa divitum, located on Gołębia street between the Jerusalem and the paupers’ hostels. On the north side of St. Anne’s street stood the parish, later collegiate, church from which the street was named. This later became the university church, and for much of the century faculty held appointments in it. The original wooden building burned down in 1407 during an urban riot involving attacks upon the Jews,55 and was replaced soon thereafter by a stone structure. The palace of the Bishop of Cracow, who was also the university chancellor, stood against the city wall between Wiślna and today’s Franciszkańska streets.56 Constructed 52   C DUC, 2, no. 223, 262; see below, Chapter Three. On the Jewish settlement, see Bałaban, Przewodnik po żydowskich zabytkach Krakowa (Cracow: Nakład Stowarzyszenia “Solidarność-B’Nei B’rith”, 1935), 3–5; Zaremska, “Jewish Street in Cracow,” 34. 53  Zaremska, “Jewish Street in Cracow,” 32–34. 54  In fact as late as 1785 it was noted on city maps only as ulica bezimienna (“street without name”). See Tomkowicz, “Kołłątajowski Plan Krakowa z roku 1785,” Rocznik Krakowski 9 (1907): 149–175, here Table 1. 55  Described by Długosz, Annales, 7, 15–17 (Liber decimus, s.a. 1407); briefly treated by Wyrozumski, Kraków do schyłku wieków średnich, 326–327; and analyzed in more depth by Zaremska, “Jan Długosz o tumulcie krakowskim w 1407 roku,” in Cezary Kuklo, ed., Między politlyką a kulturą (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1999), 155–167, and in her Żydzi w średniowiecznej Polsce, 456–477. 56  The original name of the street is in doubt. It may have been called Biskupia or Bischofgasse or, for obscure reasons, known simply as forum caninum; see Tomkowicz, Ulice i place Krakowa, 134–136.

62

CHAPTER 2

­ robably of wood until the late fourteenth century, it was rebuilt in stone in p 1384 on the south side and a larger northern and an eastern segment were added in the fifteenth century.57 The largest ecclesiastical complex in this quarter was the Franciscan church and friary situated across the street from the south side of the bishop’s palace. It predated the 1257 location grant, but was greatly expanded and remodeled in the fifteenth century. Within these four quarters the total population of Cracow proper, if one excludes the university students (who never in most years numbered more than a few hundred), was probably about 12,000 to 13,000 at the beginning of the fifteenth century, perhaps as high as 14,000 or 15,000 at the end.58 The lives of these residents were often affected by two phenomena which also touched the university; these were epidemics and fires. There were several instances of city-wide epidemics during this period. Of unknown nature, they swept through the populace at least four times between 1450 and 1482. On such occasions many followed the proverbial advice “Quickly flee the plague, long avoid the place of infection, return home slowly.”59 In these years matriculations at the university were often sharply reduced, and, in the case of one disastrous drop in the summer semester of 1481 (from 177 the previous semester to only forty-seven), school registration records note starkly a “dispersion of . . . the university . . . from Cracow because of . . . the plague.”60 57  The history of this building is traced by Tomkowicz, Pałac biskupi w Krakowie (Cracow: Czas, 1933 [Biblioteka Krakowska, 78]). 58  The population of fifteenth century Cracow is difficult to establish with any precision. See the discussion by Wyrozumski, Kraków do schyłku wieków średnich, 314–321. Tadeusz Ładogórski, Studia nad zaludnieniem Polski XIV wieku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1958), despite some weaknesses in other areas, arrived at the fairly reliable figure of ca. 12,000 for about 1340 (148–151), and his methods have been used to extrapolate to later period. For the mid-sixteenth century (1551), Marian Friedberg, “Kraków w dobie Odrodzenia, in Dąbrowski, ed., Kraków, Studia nad rozwojem miasta, 203, reports a population of ca. 18,000, with much of the increase coming early in the sixteenth century. The figures given in Carter, Trade and Urban Development, 4–5, are derived from my “Urban Development of Medieval Poland,” 103, 120–121. 59  “Cito pestem fugere, longe a loco infecto recedere, tardi reverti domum,” cited by Jelicz, Życie codzienne, 84; see 75–78 for a discussion of medical conditions in Cracow in this period. 60   Album Studiosorum, 1, 247 and Metryka, 1, 415: “. . . in dispersione magistrorum et suppositorum Universitatis et hominum multorum utriusque status [sexus (added by separate hand)] de Cracouia propter conminacionem nimiam valdissime pestis. . . .” See also the notation for the winter semester 1482 in Album Studiosorum, 1, 252 and Metryka, 1, 422: “peste vigente.”

Cracow And Its University

63

Fires were more destructive of physical property, though it is probable that loss of life was minimal. Despite the general prosperity of the city and the presence of many stone houses and buildings, much of Cracow was still built of wood, and fire was a constant threat. The city employed watchmen to guard against the spread of a blaze, and one was always positioned on the highest tower in town, the turris excubiarum of St. Mary’s church on the square. If a fire were spotted, he gave the signal by trumpet, at which all were to assemble in a bucket brigade. According to a municipal statue of 1395 the first to arrive on the scene with water received a prize of twelve groszy (a wiardunek, quarter of a mark), the second six groszy, the third two groszy.61 Some fires could not be localized, however, and spread through whole quarters of the city. Two of the worst serve as examples. In 1462, according to Długosz,62 some members of the Dominican friary were experimenting late at night with alchemical combinations. These exploded and started a conflagration which eventually swept into the area of the university. The Collegium maius was damaged and the building of the recently founded Collegium minus was completely destroyed, leaving the junior arts faculty hard pressed for a home for some years. An even more serious fire broke out in July 1492.63 Starting near the Szewska gate it spread south and burned all the houses in the vicinity of St. Anne’s church. In this fire not even the Collegium maius was spared, for it suffered considerable damage to the lower story, eventually impeding the work of instruction. In the restoration which followed, and after some additional construction early in the next century, the Collegium maius achieved essentially its final form. Before discussing this process, however, let us note briefly three other areas beside the city proper which also played important roles in the life of the university. The most important of these was Wawel. This acropolis, rising twentyfive meters above the city, was crowned by the royal castle and the cathedral of St. Václav, along with other buildings. The castle included the chapel of St. Mary the Egyptian, where several university professors held benefices in this period. The cathedral had many chapels, the endowment of which provided income for faculty appointed to them. Two small churches which no longer exist, St. George’s and St. Michael’s, were also located atop Wawel, and each 61   Najstarzy zbiór przywilejów i wilkierzy miasta Krakowa, Stanisław Estreicher, ed. (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1936), 24. 62  Długosz, Annales, 11, 30–31 (Liber duodecimus, s.a. 1462); the Franciscan church, the Episcopal court, and properties on eight streets were burned, with damage amounting to 200,000 florins. 63   Monumenta Poloniae Historica, August Bielowski, et al., eds., 6 vols. (Lwów, 1864–1893 [vol. 6 Cracow]), 5 (1888), 908. Another major fire in 1494 is also reported on this page.

64

CHAPTER 2

constituted a benefice which was sometimes given to university faculty. To the east of Cracow was an area, Wesoła, which was only lightly populated and built up. It is of note here chiefly because of the parish church of St. Nicholas, where after mid-century the university held some rights of patronage. This provided income and support for any member of the faculty who gained an appointment there. North of Cracow lay the open suburb of Kleparz, which was also know as Florencia, from the name of its leading church, the collegiate church of St. Florian’s. There the studium held six, later nine, and eventually ten benefices, most of which were well endowed. A common sight in the fifteenth century was the procession of professors from the university to St. Florian’s, where they performed their ecclesiastical responsibilities, followed by the long walk back to a late mid-day meal at the Collegium maius. That this effort could sometimes be a hardship is reflected by an incident in 1491. Professor Matthew of Kobylin, who had taught in the university since he gained his MA, and had only recently been appointed to lecture in theology was named Dean of the church of St. Florian’s. Regretfully he asked the faculty to be relieved from his lectures, for, he argued, because of his age and infirmities he could no longer walk easily back and forth from St. Florian’s and responsibly fulfill his duties. He was granted his request.64

Urbs Scholastica

Each of the four elements discussed thus far in this chapter are parts which helped constitute the unified whole which is Cracow. But one part yet remains: the city as university town. Nothing symbolizes this element better than the physical buildings of the university, beginning with the Collegium maius, the building which housed the core of the pearl of powerful learning founded by Jagiełło. (Other buildings will be discussed briefly in Chapter Three.) 64   Conclusiones, 62–63. On Matthew, see PSB, 19, 10–11. It should be noted, however, that the university elected him rector for the coming semester; within a year, he was dead. There were many like him undoubtedly in the course of the century: weak, infirm, aged, for whom there was no retirement or emeritus status, only death. One wonders what the teaching of some of these veterans was like. There are a number of examples of aged professors and their ailments discussed in Henryk Barycz, Historja Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w epoce Humanizmu (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1935), 179–181; among them were John Sacranus (died at age eighty-four), Stanisław Biel (about whom it was said when he died at age eighty-six that he was “verus nostre Universitatis Abraam, ere dives et etate plenus,” and who said about himself “caligantibus oculis et deficientibus viribus corporis”), and Matthew of Szydłów (another octogenarian).

Cracow And Its University

65

The history of the Collegium maius begins before the history of the renewed studium. As noted above, the area that eventually become the university district was the vicus Judaeorum, which encompassed the space from today’s Jagiellońska street to the wall and from the Wiślna gate to Szewska street. Late in the thirteenth or early in the fourteenth century someone had built a large rectangular stone house on the sourthwest corner of the eventual Jagiellońska and St. Anne’s streets, known from its size as the domus maius or lapidea magna. The long side of the property extended along St. Anne’s street toward the wall. By 1400, the house had come into the possession of the king, and in that year he gave it to the university.65 Why Jagiełło chose to establish the studium in this area is not completely clear, but in so doing, he followed, consciously or unconsciously, a western tradition which had seen other universities—Prague, Vienna, Heidelberg, and Tübingen among them—located in Jewish areas.66 The original home of the university measured some ten by twenty meters. A front entrance from Jagiellońska street led into the ground floor where there were lecture rooms for classes located. We have no evidence to indicate where meals were taken in the earliest period of the university’s life, but cooking facilities and a commons area would probably have been on the ground floor also. At the rear of the house, along St. Anne’s street, a large gate opened 65  In addition to the close treatment of these developments by Tomkowicz, “Gmach Biblioteki Jagielloński,” 115–117 and Zaremska, “Jewish Street in Cracow,” 34–41, see Andrzej Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego (Cracow: Universitas, 2000), 25 and 88–90. 66  See the discussion of this point in Morawski, Historya, 1, 74; and by Zaremska, “Jewish Street in Cracow,” 41 and n. 65. She notes subsequent tensions between the personnel of the university and the Jews in this area by calling attention to a rectoral address by Stanisław of Skarbimierz which “condemned those who became familiar with the Jews, which was forbidden by school canons” and by citing the words of the fifteenth century author of a biography of John Długosz: “Nam et ex cervicibus maioris collegii et artistarum Iudeorum quam vicinam synagogam collegio habebant demolivit et diversoria, cum studentibus permixtam habentia colluviem, ex qua frequentes seditiones consurgebant, depulit ipsosque et eorum sedes usque ad extremam sancti Marcii platea habituros dimovit et assisua litigia studentium et Judeorum quietavit.” (42) The full speech by Stanisław is discussed and printed by Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Stanisława ze Skarbimierza mowa o złych studentach,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 15, 1/2 (1964): 11–21, text 15–21, quoted material 19. This speech has again been studied, in a different context (that of moral anthropology) by Klementyna Glińska, “The Conception of Humanity in the Sermo ad clerum erant appropinquantes, Rector’s Speech on the Bad Students by Stanisław of Skarbimierz (BJ MS 191 and BJ MS 723,” MPP 37 (3) (2008): 37–58. For the location of Zaremska’s citation from Długosz’s biography cited above, see Vita Joannis Dlugosch senioris cannonici cracoviensis, Mieczysław Brożek, ed. (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1961), 58.

66

CHAPTER 2

into an interior year with a square outbuilding along the street in which foodstuffs and other goods were stored. The second floor was dominated by a large hall, and it was here that formal lectures, meetings, and disputations were held. Living quarters for the faculty were also located on this floor. A steeply pitched peak roof covered the house, but it is not known whether the attic area was converted in any way for university use.67 It was not long before it became apparent that these quarters were insufficient. After a difficult first decade (below, Chapter Three), the university began to prosper. New endowments added professors in both the arts and the higher faculties, and the numbers of students increased. As a result, efforts were made to enlarge the building (which at this time was known simply as Collegium artistarum or Collegium Regis Vladislai). In 1417, as the result of negotiation which are unknown, the faculty succeeded in purchasing two houses which had been inherited by a Jew named Smerlo, one of which he had apparently combined with his own house adjoining the college on Jagiellońska street. For 300 marks they obtained the former house of Josman, which shared a common wall with the outbuilding of the college on St. Anne’s street, and the former house of the Jew Drobney, now incorporated into Smerlo’s house. Because the property of Smerlo was already obligated to the king,68 Jagiełło’s approval of this transaction was required. He gave it on 19 August.69 In his confirmation Jagiełło speaks explicitly about the crowded conditions of learning and living within the college and grants permission for the houses to be joined into single unit, extending to the whole complex the privileges and exemption he had earlier bestowed upon the Pęcherz house. It was more than two decades before the university was able to add additional property to its holdings in this area. In March 1439 Benedict Hesse of Cracow and Nicholas of Brzeg, both professors of theology and canons of St. Florian’s, paid a certain John Sweidniczer forty-four marks for the warehouse and plot lying behind the college on Jagiellońska street “near the bursa.” This purchase 67  See the description in Karol Estreicher, Collegium Maius—Dzieje Gmachu (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1968), 54. This work, long regarded as the authoritative treatment of the history of the building, has now been modified at crucial points by Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs. 68  As the result of his allowing the baptism of Smerlo’s children in 1412; see CDUC, 1, no. 52, 100. 69   C DUC, 1, no. 62, 118: “propter multiplicates personas . . . quam eidem Collegio assignavimus, sit nimis arcta et parva, nec sufficiat tam quoad commoda per Magistros inhabitanda, quam quoad lectoria pro lectionibus et exercitiis fiendis necessaria . . . duas domos Iudaeorum dictae domui Collegii contiguas . . . vendi admisimus et permisimus.”

Cracow And Its University

67

was confirmed in a notarial document in 1442.70 Another parcel of real estate came to the studium in 1469, when John Długosz and his brother arranged to buy the two synagogues, the hospital, and the land of the cemetery of the Jewish community lying on St. Anne’s street near the wall. (In return the Jews were, as we have seen, resettled in the Sławkowska quarter of the city.)71 In slightly more than a month, this property had been sold to the Cracow cathedral chapter, who then gave it to the university in return for the recovery of the Bursa pisarum on Kanonicza street.72 The university used part of this land to enlarge the college and part of it to build the Bursa nova upon (see below). Then in 1496 King John Albert confirmed the university’s purchase of a small plot of ground on the south side of St. Anne’s street across from the church for the purpose of expanding the college.73 One final acquisition came early in the sixteenth century. In 1511 a goldsmith’s workshop off St. Anne’s street was purchased, thus relieving the university community of the disturbing influences of what it claimed was the “eternal racket” made there.74 Slightly more than a century after its foundation, the university had thus succeeded in gathering houses and land around its original home in such a manner that its properties constituted a block approximately fifty meters square. The simple agglomeration of real estate, however, did not in and of itself create an integrated home for the school. We need, therefore, examine several different phases of constitution to see the process by which this raw material of individual houses and properties was shaped into a physical unity which both contributed to and reflected the commonality of the intellectual and academic endeavor within it.

70   C DUC, 2, no. 112, 18: “certum horreum cum area illi anexa, sita in vico Iudaeorum circa seu prope domum Bursam retro Collegium vulgariter nuncupatam civitatis Cracoviensis. . . .” It is not quite clear which bursa is meant in this document. Tomkowicz, “Gmach Biblioteki,” 118, thought this reference was to the boarding house for Bohemians studying theology. Estreicher, Collegium Maius—Dzieje Gmachu, 56, n. 10, believed this property to be located within what is the present Collegium maius, but Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs, 90, suggests that it lay between the Collegium maius and the Bursa divitum. 71   C DUC, 2, no. 223, 262, dated 20 January 1469. 72   C DUC, 2, no. 224, 263, dated 28 February 1469. 73   C DUC, 3, no. 296, 200. 74   C DUC, 4, no. 324, 34. See the complaints of the professors in Conclusiones, pp. 115–117: “non potuit pacifice et commode Collegium maius dominorum theologorum et artistarum stare, neque inhabitantes degere, ob continuos strepitus et pulsaciones vicini mechanici auricusoris, qui ferrarii fabric pulsum excedit, pluries monitus, conquiescere noluit.”

68

CHAPTER 2

Sometime prior to 1440 the first efforts were made by the faculty members to remodel part of their recently acquired houses. On 22 February 1440 the professors assembled in what would become a characteristic gathering, the convocatio, for the purpose of concluding some important matter of business. In this instance they spoke for the first time of being gathered in stuba communi, and from this it has been concluded that a specific commons room had been built in the college.75 This room, which was later to be often rebuilt, was located on the second floor of a building along Jagiellońska street south of the Pęcherz house. In its final form it was to be about ten meters wide by eleven deep, and its most important feature was an oriel set into the outside wall. This was a place where a faculty member could stand to deliver readings from scripture or the fathers during the meals, which were often eaten in silence. It also served undoubtedly as the place from which the rector or some other leader presided over the convocations. The oriel bears a great many architectural similarities to the earlier (by half a century) oriel in the Carolinum of the University of Prague. This is not surprising, given the general similarity of architectural and artistic styles which stretched in a broad cultural belt from southern Germany through Bohemia and Silesia to Cracow and given the ties between Prague and Cracow universities, with many of the earliest faculty having received their education in Bohemia.76 By the time our next data on construction in the college are available, it is permissible to call it the Collegium maius in contradistinction to the Collegium minus founded on Gołębia street in 1449 for junior members of the arts

75  Estreicher, Collegium Maius—Dzieje Gmachu, 59, has drawn this conclusion. 76  On the question of the cultural belt for artistic and architectural style, see the comments of Marian Kutzner, “Sztuka Polska póżnego średniowiecza,” in Aleksander Gieysztor, ed. Polska dzielnicowa i zjednoczona. Państwo, społeczeństwo, kultura (Warsaw: Wiedza Powszechna, 1972), 551–553. I have commented recently on the academic indebtedness of Cracow to Prague in “ ‘The Worst Heretic.’ Andrzej Gałka of Dobczyn in the Academic and Ecclesiastical Context of Mid-15th Century Cracow and Poland,” The Polish Review 54 (2009): 8–9. See also Jadwiga Krzyżaniakowa, “Profesorowie krakowscy na uniwersytecie w Pradze—ich mistrzowie i koledzy,” in Waldemar Bukowski, et al., eds. Cracovia. Polonia. Europa. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane Jerzemu Wyrozumskiemu w sześćdziesiątą piątą rocznicę urodzin i czterdziestolecie pracy naukowej (Cracow: Secesja, 1995), 505–527; and Krzysztof Oźóg, “Studia krakowian na praskim uniwersytecie do początku XV wieku,” in Zenon Piech, ed., Miasta. Ludzie. Instytucje. Znaki. Księga jubileuszowa ofiarowana Profesor Bożenie Wyrozumskiej w 75. rocznicę urodzin (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2008), 637–651. Estreicher, Collegium Maius—Dzieje Gmachu, 58–62, discusses the Prague and Cracow oriels and the influence of the Carolinum.

Cracow And Its University

69

faculty.77 During the 1460’s work in remodeling the college was begun in earnest. In 1462, following the fire of that year, the faculty authorized payment of thirty-six marks for unspecified work done and forty-four marks for a new roof on both the Collegium maius and minus. Work continued through the next four years, in the process of which the stuba communis was enlarged. That the construction of the college was not done haphazardly, but according to an overall concept, is revealed by the conclusions of a convocation in 1468. On 30 July the faculty resolved to have built within the walls a three-storey structure. On the first floor were to be lecture halls, on the second and third—in addition to the already existing commons room—were to be living quarters for the masters and doctors.78 By this time most of the separate buildings had been joined into a single unit.79 This building plan was expensive, and construction proceeded slowly. The university occasionally received cash gifts to speed the work, as in 1471 when the castellan of Sandomir Hincza of Rogów willed the studium 200 florins (125 marks) for the enlargement of its facilities.80 But more often it was expenditures which were counted, sometimes exceeding the resources on hand and requiring installment payments.81 Much of the work which was done in this stage of the construction was to provide vaulting in the lecture halls on the ground floor as support for the upper storeys. In particular the east and the south wings of the college, which now enclosed a central quadrangle, were given a series of powerful transversal vaults which marked a departure in Cracovian architectural style. The simple 77  In the university Conclusiones, however, the phrase “in stuba communi Collegii artistarum” continued to be commonly used to designate the location of a meeting. Only occasionally late in the century was the phrase “in stuba communi Collegii maioris artistarum” used; see Conclusiones, 67 (from 1491) for an example. 78   Conclusiones, 32: “. . . placuit Universitati, quod in muris, quos noviter aedificat [this reflecting recent remodeling and construction], tria intersticia fierent, scilicet tres ordines, unum lectoriorum, secundus et tercius camerarum.” 79   Both Józef Muczkowski, Mieszkania i postępowanie uczniów krakowskich (Cracow: J. Czech, 1842), 15 and 26–27 and Estreicher, Collegium Maius—Dzieje Gmachu, 63, discuss the manuscript evidence for this developments, but their analysis has now been refined by Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs, 90–91. 80  C DUC, 3, no. 230, 2: “. . . pro ipsorum Collegii incremento ducentos florenos praesentibus damus, donamus et gratiose largimur.” This was a small part of a total bequest of 6000 florins and 1000 marks given to local hospitals, poor priests, and the like, as well as the university. 81  Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs, 91, notes payments in 1470, 1479, 1480, 1481, and 1487, and again corrects Estreicher, Collegium Maius—Dzieje Gmachu, 64 on some points.

70

CHAPTER 2

ribbed vaults which characterized the cloth hall and some of the other buildings on the town square were nowhere in evidence here. This style of vaulting, which approaches the vaulting of the early Renaissance, was not to be used elsewhere in Cracow for another two decades, and then in the royal castle on Wawel. As Karol Estreicher has written, “in the vaulting of the lecture rooms built on the main floor of the Collegium maius in the second half of the fifteenth century, it is possible to see a foretaste of the new architectonic tendency, the new fashion, the new style flowing to us [Poland] from the south.”82 The west wing, which did not survive the reconstruction of the mid-nineteenth century, and the north wing, which has also been much changed, were built in this same period before ca. 1490 and probably bore the same characteristics. The picture which the college presented then at the beginning of the last decade of the fifteenth century was of an enclosed courtyard surrounded by a three storey complex of joined buildings, with roofs of unequal height. The Collegium maius was beginning to take shape, but it was not yet a unified whole. The fire of 1492 changed this. Racing south from the area of the Szewska gate, it consumed much in its path. Damage to the college was extensive, and the faculty was confronted with both the practical problem of how best to reconstruct their home and the fiscal problem of how to pay for the renovation. Several gifts and a stroke of good fortune helped ease the financial burden. The university itself provided 200 florins from its common treasury. Queen Mother Elizabeth gave 400 more on the anniversary of the death of her husband, King Casimir the Jagiellonian, and the renowned humanist and diplomat Philip Callimachus, who had been in Poland since the 1470s, bequeathed one hundred florins following his death in 1496.83 Then in 1494 workers uncovered a hidden hoard in the wall of one of the lecture rooms, perhaps left by one of the previous Jewish owners. The obsolete money contained in this treasure was redeemed by the king for more than 2000 złote, and the chancellor of the university gave the studium fifty marks for the rings and precious stones in 82  Estreicher, Collegium Maius—Dzieje Gmachu, 65. Some of this he sees as the influence of the classical style, In particular he points to the work of Vitruvius, which was now appearing in print, as one of the specific elements in this influence. 83  For the fire and Elizabeth’s gift, Monumenta Poloniae Historica, 5, 908. Callimachus’ gift was made specifically for one wing of the arcade (the north?) which was constructed in the interim: “Idem insuper centum florenos legavit pro edificijs domus nostre qui expositi sunt pro parte una ambitus que videlicet est versus ecclesiam sancte Anne que corruerat et tandem eisdem pecuniis restaurata est. . . .” Cited by both Estreicher, Collegium Maius—Dzieje Gmachu, 72, n. 11, and Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs, 92, n. 39, from manuscript Cracow, Archiwum UJ, 69, 33.

Cracow And Its University

71

the find.84 Later, similar finds in the sixteenth century supported other building efforts.85 The question of reconstruction was equally difficult, and discussions undoubtedly continued for some time. Ten months after the fire a consensus was reached. In a convocation on 1 May 1493, after much “mature deliberation,” it was decided that the house should be restored in its damaged or destroyed sections and that it should be rebuilt in a beautiful form for common usage and benefit.86 In the description of the damage provided in this conclusion it is apparent that some of the lecture halls were involved as well as some of the living quarters for faculty on the second floor. This is confirmed in the Liber diligentiarum, where use of some lecture rooms after 1494 is not mentioned, owing undoubtedly to the work of reconstruction.87 In this decision there is more than just a practical element involved; an aesthetic concern is also 84  The discovery is mentioned in Monumenta Poloniae Historica, 5, 908, with only bare details and no valuations. The Polish złoty (plural złote) in the sixteenth century equaled thirty grossi and was comparable in worth to the florin. There are three versions of this discovery and its disposition, none of them agreeing fully. According to one inventory which was taken at the time, the king bought the jewels for 2000 złote in ten bags and also gave as much for the other valuables and coins. The Cracow university professor Matthew of Miechów, writing in the early sixteenth century, valued the pieces of money at 2508 złote, which he says the king redeemed; then he lists the previous stones, rings, necklaces, etc., which Cardinal Fryderyk Jagiellon, Bishop of Cracow and Archbishop of Gniezno, confiscated and for which he gave the university only fifty marks as a substitute. One hundred fifty years later, another professor, Martin Radymiński, repeated the story, but apparently used a different contemporary inventory (now lost) for his account; he does, however, give the same information about the king and the cardinal. For these accounts, see Barycz, Historja Uniwersytetu, 165. 85  Estreicher, Collegium Maius—Dzieje Gmachu, 97–100. 86   Conclusiones, 74–75: “In qua convocacione, matura deliberacione omnium doctorum et magistrorum utriusque Collegii tunc presencium et unanimi consensu, id quod premissum est, votanicium et volencium [conclusione] facta, ut videlicet domus hoc Collegii maioris igni supervenienti consum(p)ta et abolita in forma pulcra et non tantum pro honestate ac utilitate communi reedificetur [ac] construatur, in singulis quoque suis defectibus et annihilacionibus per ignis violenciam inductis et factis restauretur, in ruinis reformetur, per hunc videlicit modum, ut murus novus ab ea parte, in qua cessatus est, ducatur et muretur, incipiens a stabulo usque ad magistri Alberti Brudzew habitacionem circumquaque Collegium consensuque suo firmaverunt, quod habitaciones doctorales et pavimenta et nonnulla tunc auditoria sua forma, suo situ reformentur, restaurentur sic et taliter, secundum quod expediencius videbitur communi tum utilitati, tum honestati.” 87  See Liber diligentiarum, 27–40 (Summer 1494–Summer 1498). It should be noted, however, that fire damage was not so great as to prevent classes from being held in all rooms throughout 1492 and 1493. It was the reconstruction which closed them.

72

CHAPTER 2

expressed. The faculty wished the rebuilding to be done in forma pulchra and pro . . . communi tam utilitati tam honestati. One way of understanding what was meant by this is to see what was actually done. According to a nineteenth century notice of an unattributed contemporary source, on 18 August 1493 the faculty came to an agreement with an architect named John to have him build stairs and porches around the commons room. For this they were to pay eighty florins.88 In the next few years fire damage was repaired, a flight of stone steps built in the northeast corner of the courtyard leading to the second floor, and the whole quadrangle tied together by a vaulted arcade which was surmounted by a porch running completely around the second floor. The pillars and the vaults of the arcade deserve special mention, for they represent something distinctive in terms of architectural style in Cracow. The former were carved with an intricate diamond pattern and with diagonal fluting. The latter used a deep crystalline structure which is similar to that found in parts of Germany. The arches are for the most part late gothic in character. The porch which lay above had a solid low railing. In addition, a series of stone plaques with the shield of the university and the arms of the Jagiellonian dynasty were installed in the walls and above the entrance gate. The effect was to integrate the disparate elements of the individual buildings and create a harmonious whole for the interior courtyard. There is little doubt that the wishes of the professors had been fulfilled. By its architecture the Collegium maius created a site where the work of the university could be carried out in tranquility and semi-isolation from the world around it. It spoke by its unity to the concentrated life of the mind. This, to say the least, was what the professors meant by “a beautiful form.” Can one say more? Is it possible to see in the Collegium maius a reflection of the cultural influences of contemporary Europe, particularly Renaissance Italy. Karol Estreicher, the one-time director museum of the university in the Collegium maius, now deceased, certainly thought so, and there is indirect evidence to suggest that this is possible.89 As we shall see below in Chapter Ten, 88  Cited by Estreicher, Collegium Maius—Dzieje Gmachu, 68–69, from the notebooks of Żegota Pauli, who was, among other things, the editor of the first four volumes of the CDUC: “1493 die 18 Augusti. Doctores conventionem faciunt cum Joanne lapicida super aedificatione gradus et ambitus Collegii majoris usque ad Stubam cum exedra, in 80 florenis (florenum per 30 grossos computando). Wystawiono tedy schody, ganki i wystawki wewnątrz dziedzińca.” Data about the presumed identity of the architect, John of Cologne, are given by Estreicher, 84–86 and accepted by Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs, 92. 89  In addition to his extended discussion of this interpretation in his Collegium Maius— Dzieje Gmachu, 68–76 and 82–90 passim, especially 89, n. 16, and the English language

Cracow And Its University

73

some of the university faculty had by the end of the fifteenth century been deeply influenced by the humanistic movement of the Renaissance. In the year after the decision to rebuild was taken, the rector was John Sacranus of Oświęcim, whose education in Italy and contacts with Filelfo made him an enthusiast for antiquity. Moreover Cracow had already been the scene of a two year stay by the German humanist Conrad Celtis, and the Sodalitas Vistulana which he was said to have founded included many faculty. The Italian humanist Callimachus, who had once studied at the university, maintained close contacts with the studium and the professors, and his bequest for the rebuilding suggests he had followed its process with interest. Thus many of the personnel of the institution would have been clearly aware of some of the ideals of the Renaissance. Whether these were specifically translated to and realized in the rebuilding of the Collegium maius is more problematic. As Estreicher pointed out, the interior arcade and porch are sharply reminiscent of the Bargello in Florence and the Spanish College at the University of Bologna, and the atmosphere of the interior contrasts with the more confined arcades of the medieval monastery. But there is no direct evidence to demonstrate that the faculty and its architect were consciously following trecento or quattrocento models. Even the theories of Leon Battista Alberti in his De re aedificatoria, written about 1450 and first printed in 1485, which presents many architectural ideals that seem to have been realized in the college and which Estreicher used as an important element of his argument, can not be shown to have been known in Cracow this early (though one should not exclude the possibility that individual faculty members may have been familiar with it as the result of their Italian studies). But the architectural style of the rebuilt Collegium maius reflects little of the classicism of Renaissance architecture; and despite some of the innovations of vaulting and in the arcades, it stands more firmly in the late medieval tradition. It was not founded upon Italianate models or the theories of the literary umanisti there, and one cannot conclude that, sensu strictu, the college represents the style of Renaissance classical humanism. Only in a very general sense can the word “humanism” be applied to the Collegium maius. It was intended to service in a practical way the life of the community; it was accessible in all of its parts to the needs of faculty and students, for the living and learning areas were publicly joined rather than being separated by obstructions; it was designed to celebrate the active pursuit of knowledge along with professional summary 276–277, see his The Collegium Maius of the Jagiellonian University in Cracow. History. Customs. Collections (Warsaw: Interpress, 1973), 18–27, where the same themes are developed.

74

CHAPTER 2

training; and it was built, as is all good architecture, in consonance with a modern spirit not tied rigidly to older forms. This may approximate one aspect of the content of Renaissance culture, but I do not think the building reflects the style or the spirit of architecture characteristic of Renaissance Italy. Two important additions to the Collegium maius in the early sixteenth century remain to be discussed. In 1507 the faculty decided to remodel the existing rooms on the second floor into a new large lecture hall in the northeast corner extending along St. Anne’s street. The architect chosen, a certain Mark, had earlier worked in Lwów on the town hall and may also have been involved in the building of the barbican in Cracow. He was directed by the college’s procurator Nicholas of Koprzywnicy, who, even though a canon lawyer, had received special papal permission to marry. The construction of the hall took three years, and Mark also executed a variety of other work in the college. Professorial rooms were reorganized, some being built on the ground floor to accommodate the increasing number of faculty, ovens were installed, chimneys built, drainpipes put in, the latrine improved, cellars strengthened, and a crow-step stone gable with pinnacles erected on the outside of the hall. In this process the height of the college roof all around was evened out so that it now presented a uniform profile. The new hall was ready to receive the ambassadors of Emperor Maximilian I, who visited the university in 1510. In future years this hall was designated as the aula or Theologians’ lecture room (also designated simply the Upper Hall, Lectorium superius), even though it was commonly used for lectures in arts.90 The next building project was a library. The book collection of the studium had grown so much in the course of the century (see below, Chapter Eleven) that in 1515 it was determined to build a separate hall for it. Under the direction of procurator Nicholas, a new architect, Stephen, began the construction of a large “L-shaped” room, accessible from the balcony on the second floor as well as from within the building. It extended south past the commons room, then east to Jagiellońska street. Each wing was approximately twenty meters in length along its long wall. Through the century professors had willed books to the college; now a professor gave the school money for the library. Thomas Obiedziński was a faculty member who had drawn his salary for some years even though he was not lecturing and had in fact been living abroad since 1504. He was eventually prevailed upon to return this money, and in 1515 he did so, designating it for the construction of a library (pro libraria). The room which was built was partially on the site of an older wooden building which had pre90  Estreicher’s analysis of the building of this hall (the aula) and related construction in Collegium Maius—Dzieje Gmachu, 91–95, has generally been accepted by later scholarship.

Cracow And Its University

75

viously served as an astronomical observatory. Although most of the construction was completed by 1519, finishing work and minor modifications continued for another two decades. The vaulting in the library is of late gothic style, but the windows are rectangular and open, with block lintels. They may show the influence of a second architect who succeeded Stephen, Benedict, who worked also as a royal architect in Sandomir, Piotrków, and at Wawel.91 These windows are not unlike those in the Ladislaus Hall in the Hradčany in Prague (built ca. 1492), which have been called an early harbinger of Renaissance style.92 The form which the Collegium maius had achieved by 1520 remained essentially unchanged during the next three centuries. (See Illustrations 2a, 2b, and 2c, showing the most reliable reconstruction of the Collegium maius, a view of the current exterior of the building, and a view of its interior.) On the basis of floor plans from the early nineteenth century, a brief description of the building can be provided, after which some of the changes from the early sixteenth century can be pointed out.93 There was an entrance on the ground floor from St. Anne’s street, approximately where the gate into the back courtyard in the Pęcherz house had been. Upon entering the enclosed quadrangle interior lay open to view. Turning to the right to proceed counterclockwise around the courtyard, one passed successively the Maron lecture room, several faculty apartments, the Hippocrates, Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato lecture halls, additional faculty rooms, an entrance from Jagiellońska street, the lecture hall Prope valvam, the Ptolemy, Mathematics, and Galen lecture halls, a small unnamed lecture room, and a professorial apartment, traditionally associated with Jan Kanty (although it is doubtful he ever lived there). Beneath the ground floor lay the basement rooms, used for storage and for the university carcer, the prison. The steps leading to the second floor brought one to the northeast corner of the building, where the Aula, or Theologians’ Lecture hall, was located. Walking, again counterclockwise, around the porch, one would 91  This suggestion was made by Tadeusz Dobrowolski, Życie, twórczość i znaczenie społeczne artystów polskich i w Polsce pracujących w okresie późego gotyku (1440–1520) (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1965), 72, but Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs, 94, has raised strong doubts about his role. 92  Estreicher, Collegium Maius—Dzieje Gmachu, 87. The older descriptions of the building of the library in Barycz, Historja Uniwersytetu, 669–676, and Estreicher, Collegium Maius—Dzieje Gmachu, 100–117, need to be corrected on some points by the manuscript evidence adduced by Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs, 93–95. 93  Both Estreicher, Collegium Maius—Dzieje Gmachu, 12, 13, 15, 121, 131, 136, and 138, who provides plans, and Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs, illustrations 1–4 following 142, who reproduces the early nineteenth century plans, are the basis for what follows.

76

Illustration 2a

CHAPTER 2

Reconstruction of the Collegium Maius as of the end of the fifteenth century. Courtesy of Collegium Maius Museum, Jagiellonian University of Cracow.

Illustration 2b Current view of the exterior of the Collegium Maius (current status). Courtesy of Stanisław Markowski.

Cracow And Its University

Illustration 2c

77

Interior courtyard of the Collegium Maius (current status). WikiMedia Commons, Diego Delso (https://commons.wikimedia .org/wiki/File:Collegium_Maius,_Cracovia,_Polonia.jpg, last accessed 22 April 2016).

pass a series of professorial apartments, the passage way which led to the kitchen and to the latrine on the southeast corner, additional faculty quarters, the entrance to the library, the doorway into the commons room, and another series of apartments. Access to the third floor was only by interior staircases. There one found either the upper levels of second floor rooms or independent rooms for professors. Some of these arrangements did not exist in the early sixteenth century. The Galen lecture hall, for example, is included in the list of teaching assignments only from the winter semester of 1537.94 The Theologians’ lecture hall assigned for classes in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century record, although located on the second floor in the remnants of the great hall of the Pęcherz house, was considerably smaller than the aula built there between 1507 and 1510. The Mathematics hall is not mentioned in the fifteenth century, and it, along with other rooms which were later converted to professors’ use on the 94   Liber diligentiarum, 231.

78

CHAPTER 2

ground floor, may have served as the site of the recitations which were required of all students.95 This then was the primary physical home of the Cracovian studium. But a university, then as now, is more than buildings. The next chapter is devoted to such institutional matters as governance, faculties, curriculum, and financial support, revealing yet another facet of the history of the university in this period. 95  Details connected with the final form of the Collegium maius are analyzed by Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs, 97–142. A brief, but authoritative, presentation on the Collegium maius, is provided by Tomasz Węcławowicz, “Średniowieczne kolegia uniwersyteckie i ich rekonstrukcje / Medieval university colleges and their reconstructions,” in Kolegia uniwersyteckie średniowiecznej Europy / University Colleges of Medieval Europe, Danuta Ambrożewicz and Grażyna Fallowa, eds. (Cracow: Muzeum Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2007 [Exhibition Catalogue, Jagiellonian University Museum]), 32–35; it is from this exhibition that the illustration of the reconstruction of the Collegium maius in this study is taken.

CHAPTER 3

Institutional History and Development Although instruction in all faculties began in 1400 at Cracow (except possibly medicine even though rector Stanisław of Skarbimierz mentioned medicine in his inaugural sermon), the institutional form within which this took place was by no means well defined. There were certain precedents which could be followed from earlier European studia, particularly Prague, but there was also sufficient variation between these schools that it was necessary for Cracow to develop its own individual structure.1 Toward that end in the course of the fifteenth century, university faculty and officials prepared a series of statutes to regulate the studium. At the same time, other formal records were created which reveal the structure of the school. Despite the fact that these are occasionally fragmentary, puzzlingly vague in content (minutes of faculty meetings seldom reveal all that transpired!), or available only in later versions, the official documents of the university are numerous and provide a sufficient basis upon which to determine the details with which this chapter is concerned. As F.M. Powicke and A.B. Emden wrote in 1936, “indeed, few universities can show so rich a collection of published records, illustrating university life in the later Middle Ages. . . .”2 1  In its early history, Cracow was in many respects dominated by faculty educated at Prague (and in some instances by individuals who had taught there). The question of whether the Polish studium followed the Czech university as a model for its institutional development is carefully examined by Krzysztof Oźog, “Utrum Universitas Pragensis sit mater Universitatis Cracoviensis? Czyli o wzorcach korporacynych krakowskiej wszechnicy w XV wieku,” in Wojciech Iwańczak and Janusz Smołucha, eds., Wspólnoty małe i duże w społeczeństwach Czech i Polski w średniowieczu i w czasach nowożytnych (Cracow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2010), 59–81. His conclusion, that the model of Prague was used, but significantly modified—particularly with respect to the question of nationes and a separate studium juridicum—successfully challenges the traditional view that Prague was the mother-model of all universities in central Europe, including Cracow. On the question of models, by way of more generalized treatment, see two works by Mieczysław Markowski: Pierwowzory uniwersytetów (Olecko: Wydawnictwo Wszechnicy Mazurskiej, 2003), 233–281 (for Prague) and 282–286 (for its influence on other schools, including Cracow); and Uniwersytet Krakowski w kontekście środkowoeuropejskim późnego średniowiecza i wczesnej nowożytności (Olecko: Wydwnictwo Wszechnicy Mazurskiej, 2005), 17–41 (overview) and 42–83 (Cracow). In general I have followed Oźóg. 2  Hastings Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, 2nd ed., F.M. Powicke and A.B. Emden, eds., 3 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936), 2, 289.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004326019_005

80

CHAPTER 3

The most important set of papers are those official, public acts and privileges touching the university which were gathered by the painstaking labors of nineteenth century scholars, the first three volumes of which bear upon the fifteenth century.3 Next comes the equivalent of the registrar’s records, listing all who matriculated at the school, together with some other documents.4 Then there are the comprehensive statutes of the university. In the first year of instruction, Bishop Peter Wysz of Cracow appointed a committee of six professors, all educated at Prague, to prepare these. The labors of rector Stanisław of Skarbimierz, John Isner, Nicholas of Gorzków, John Štěkna, Nicholas Peyser, and Bartholomew of Jasło provided the framework for the life of the school, but these statutes have perished except for a very small fragment contained in a seventeenth century notice.5 The statutes of the university dating from 1604 and 1724 are of relatively little use for our period.6 Additional information about individual parts of the studium is preserved in the statutes of the arts faculty, prepared in 1404–1406 by Stanisław of Skarbimierz, Wojciech of Młodzaw, Erasmus of Nysa, and Francis of Brzeg; these have been printed with later statutes and the list of promotions in arts.7 The original statues of the relatively weak medical faculty must be reconstructed from scattered references, for all of its records were destroyed by fire in the early eighteenth century.8 Neither are there records for civil law, since this discipline was not taught at Cracow until the sixteenth century. The earliest extant statutes of the theology faculty date only from the early sixteenth century, but subsume much that had

3  C DUC, 1–3. 4  Album studiosorum, recently re-edited as Metryka. For the nature of this type of source, in addition to the comments of editors Antoni Gąsiorowski and his fellow editors on xvii–xviii, see Jacques Pacquet, Les matricules universitaires (Turnhout: Brepols, 1992 [Typologie des sources du moyen âge occidental, 65]), and the up-dated bibliographical addendum by Anne-Marie Bultot-Verleysen (Turnhout: Brepols, 2003). 5  From the Annalium . . . . of Marcin Radymiński, printed by Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Odnowienie Jagiellońskie Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego (1390–1414),” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 56, n. 71. 6  These are printed by Józef Szujski, “Statuta Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego (z lat 1604 i 1724),” Archiwum do Dziejów Literatury i Oświaty w Polsce 2 (1882): 359–408. 7  Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., Księga promocji, and Najstarsza księga promocji. 8  Józef Majer, “Ustawy Wydziału Lekarskiego w Uniwersytecie Krakowskim za dziekaństwa Jana de Saccis z Pawii w r. 1433,” Rocznik Lekarski 1 (1838): 55–61; see also Mieczysław Markowski, “Pierwsi doktorzy medycyny Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w świetle źródeł rękopiśmiennych,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 6–7 (1997): 319 and n. 12.

Institutional History And Development

81

been earlier practice.9 Two final categories of material complete the voluntary corpus of university records. The statutes of several of the faculty collegia and student bursae have survived. These include those of the Collegium maius,10 whose earlier portions date from 1429; the Collegium minus from 1449 and after;11 the Jerusalem bursa founded in 1455 by Zbigniew Cardinal Oleśnicki;12 and the jurists’ bursa established by John Długosz.13 The other category of material includes the records of faculty decisions from 1441 on,14 the acts of the rectors, particularly in disciplinary matters,15 and the lecture assignments and teaching evaluations in arts from 1487 on.16 Upon the basis of these data it is possible to define the major characteristics of the institutional structure of the University of Cracow in this century. This chapter focuses first upon the officers of the school, then deals with the individual faculties and their curricula, describes the nature and organization of the Collegia and bursae, and finally treats the material frame of the university, particularly its economic resources and the financial support of the faculty.

University Officers

The Chancellor Although medieval universities were, to a very great degree, autonomous corporations, this did not mean they were without oversight. The most direct authority was that exercised by the chancellor, who conserved university

9  Szujski, “Statuta i matrykuły wydziału teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego z XVIego wieku,” Archiwum do Dziejów Literatury i Oświaty w Polsce 1 (1878): 71–94; Markowski, Dzieje wydziału teologii Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w latach 1397–1525 (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 1996 [Studia do dziejów wydziału teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2]), 95–100, especially 96. 10  Szujski, “Statuta Antiqua Collegii Maioris,” Archiwum do Dziejów Literatury i Oświaty w Polsce 1 (1878): 1–20. 11  Szujski, “Statuta Collegii Minoris Studii Generalis Cracoviensis,” Archiwum do Dziejów Literatury i Oświaty w Polsce 1 (1878): 95–118. 12  Antoni Karbowiak, “Ustawy bursy krakowskiej ‘Jeruzalem’ (1453–1841),” Archiwum do Dziejów Literatury i Oświaty w Polsce 6 (1890): 86–169. 13  Piotr Burzyński, “Statuta Bursae Longini seu Canonistarum ex a. 1485,” Czasopismo Poświęcone Prawu i Umiejętnościom Politycznym 2 (1864): LXIX–XCV. 14   Conclusiones. 15   Acta Rectoralia. 16   Liber diligentiarum.

82

CHAPTER 3

privileges and approved examinations, promotions, and licenses or degrees.17 At Cracow, the office of chancellor was accepted from the beginnings—both in 1364 and in 1400—but the issue in both instances was who would serve as chancellor. In order to protect royal interests, both Casimir the Great and Władysław Jagiełło had sought to place their royal chancellors at the head of the university. As we have seen, Casimir had been prevented from doing so by papal decree, and Jagiełło had been forced to accept a compromise in which bishop Peter Wysz was given the authority of the chancellor ad personam.18 In this situation the problem of the chancellorship remained unresolved. In his position as Bishop of Cracow he was zealous in his support and protection of the studium, and he was both accorded the title of chancellor in the opening ceremonies of 1400 and assumed it himself as bishop in acts touching the university. The most explicit identification of his two offices came in 1409 when Peter regulated the disposition of benefices among the faculty.19 This series of precedents did not, however, fully resolve the matter. In 1410 Pope John XXIII reverted to Jagiełło’s earlier formulation. He confirmed a number of university privileges and ecclesiastical benefices and explicitly designated the royal chancellor as the university chancellor.20 Despite this, Peter continued to claim the title, and exercise the power, of this office. In 1411 he appointed two delegates by virtue of his position as chancellor to act in the question of professorial appointment to benefices at the collegiate church of St. Florian’s in Kleparz.21 The death of Peter Wysz in 1412 did nothing to clarify the question of university control. He was succeeded as bishop by Wojciech Jastrzębiec, the former chancellor of Queen Jadwiga and subsequently Bishop of Poznań, who was also Jagiełło’s royal chancellor, an office which he continued to hold. For the 17  The background of this term in the university context is treated by Mariken Teeuwen, The Vocabulary of Intellectual Life in the Middle Ages (Turnhout: Brepols, Belgium, 2003 [Etudes sur le Vocabulaire intellectuel du moyen age, 10]), 45–47. 18  Above, Chapter One, n. 76. 19   C DUC, 1, no. 44, 79. The document shows “Iohannes Custos et Vicarius in spiritualibus et temporalibus episcopatus Cracoviensis et Otto Scolasticus Canonici Cracoviensis” acting to implement decisions from Peter, “Dei gratia Episcopum Cracoviensem nec non Cancellarium almae Universitatis Studii Cracoviensis,” regarding the benefices for university faculty at St. Florian’s church in Kleparz. 20   C DUC, 1, no. 47, 90: “Statuit etiam praefatus Rex, ut quotienscunque aliquos Scolares in qualibet facultate per Doctores seu Magistros ad privatum examen more consueto poni contingeret, super illos Cancellarius ipsius Regis, qui esset pro tempore, tanquam summus approbandi ipsum examen haberet omnimodam potestatem.” 21   C DUC, 1, no. 50, 96; the issue was essentially the same as had arisen in 1409 (above, n. 19).

Institutional History And Development

83

next decade-plus it is difficult to separate out the interests which Wojciech represented.22 Though he acted in 1422 in his capacity as bishop when he more precisely defined the authority of the university rector in both academic governance and financial matters,23 it is also clear that on other occasions he was pursuing royal interests, for example supporting royal policy vis-à-vis the Teutonic Knights by encouraging the organization of university discussions of Paul Vladimiri’s views on these matters.24 It should be emphasized, however, this in this continuing tension between royal and episcopal prerogatives, the university did not suffer. It was not itself torn between conflicting factions, for both king and bishop strongly supported the school. There arose in this time no major issue upon which interests divided and clashed. As a result when the see of Cracow fell vacant in 1423 following Wojciech’s translation to the archiepiscopal seat of Gniezno, it was relatively easy to resolve the question of control of the chancellorship during the thirty-two year incumbency of Wojciech’s successor. Few men in fifteenth century Poland were more remarkable, or important, than Zbigniew Oleśnicki, who became Bishop of Cracow in 1423.25 He was a proud, ambitious ecclesiastical politician in the style that prefigured Fryderyk Jagiellon at the end of the century and later French cardinal-ministers in the seventeenth century. Moreover he was one of the leading figures among the nobility from the region of Little Poland (Polonia minor, Małopolska). Oleśnicki matriculated at Cracow in 1406. He studied only in arts and was early attracted 22  His formal political interests and activities from 1412 to 1423 are treated by Grażyna Lichończak-Nurek, Wojciech Herbu Jastrzębiec Arcybiskup i mąż stanu (ok. 1362–1436) (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 1996 [Studia do dziejów Wydziału Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 4]), 67–100; for his relations with the university in his status as chancellor, see 124–131. 23   C DUC, 1, no. 71, 139. 24  This suggestion was made by Jadwiga Krzyżaniakowa, “Kancelaria królewska Władysława Jagiełły jako ośrodek kultury historycznej,” Studia Źródłoznawcze 18 (1973): 79–80, 87; see also the comments of Lichończak-Nurek, Wojciech Herbu Jastrzębiec, 129. 25  It is a measure of the complexity and greatness of Oleśnicki that there has been no full biography of him since Maurycy Dzieduszycki, Zbigniew Oleśnicki przez autora dzieła ‘Piotr Skarga i jego wiek’, 2 vols. (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Dzieł Katolickiego i Naukowego, 1853–1854). There are, however, some excellent overviews of his life and career, not least that by Maria Koczerska in PSB, 23, 776–784, and her detailed study Zbigniew Oleśnicki i kościół krakowski w czasach jego pontyfikatu (1423–1455) (Warsaw: DiG, 2004); see also the various studies in the conference volume Feliks Kiryk and Zdzisław Noga, eds. Zbigniew Oleśnicki Książę kościoła i mąż stanu (Cracow: Secesja, 2006), each with additional literature.

84

CHAPTER 3

to historical study and the Ciceronian style. Having spent part of his youth in Wrocław, he was as familiar with German as Polish, and may even have written some historical works of his own. His ability, family and personal connections (on the battlefield of Grunwald / Tannenberg he personally intervened to defend Jagiełło), his sense of literary and personal style, and his aggressiveness soon brought him into contact with the royal court, and thereafter his rise as royal secretary and diplomat was rapid. His position as Bishop of Cracow was the basis of his preeminent influence on Polish political and cultural life through three decades. He was an ambivalent enemy of the Teutonic Order in Prussia,26 a general supporter of the Polish-Lithuanian union, so long as it did not disadvantage the regnum Poloniae,27 an implacable enemy of the Hussite movement in Bohemia,28 and in some ways a conciliarist, who, like Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, later made a successful and graceful return to papal allegiance. He also patronized learning wherever it was found in Poland, and, in general, supported some of the newer humanistic forma and ideals in his letters and writings. It is not surprising therefore that Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini should praise him in 1454 as “the leading person in Poland after the king.”29 Throughout his episcopacy, Oleśnicki brooked no inference in the affairs of the university, and in every way he strove to give substance to the bishop’s claim to leadership of the studium. By virtue of his tenure and tenacity, no one after him seriously raised any alternative to the Bishop of Cracow as chancellor.30

26  Dariusz Wróbel, “Zbigniew Oleśnicki a kwestia pruska i krzyżacka,” in Kiryk and Noga, eds., Zbigniew Oleśnicki Książę kościoła i mąż stanu, 85–101. 27  The subtlety of Oleśnicki’s policy in this regard has been analyzed in two studies by Jarosław Nikodem, “Zbigniew Oleśnicki wobec unii Polsko-Litewskiej do śmierci Jagiełły,” Nasza Przeszłość 91 (1999): 101–151, and “Zbigniew Oleśnicki wobec unii polsko-litewskiej w latach 1434–1453,” Nasza Przeszłość 92 (1999): 95–135. On some points he has been challenged by Jan Tęgowski, “Stosunek Zbigniewa Oleśnickiego do unii Polski z Litwą,” in Kiryk and Noga, eds., Zbigniew Oleśnicki Książę kościoła i mąż stanu, pp. 73–84. 28  His policy is treated within a larger episcopal context by Jan Drabina, “Episkopat polski wobec husytyzmu,” in Stanisław Bylina and Ryszard Gładkiewicz, eds., Polskie echa Husytyzmu (Warsaw: Instytut Historii PAN, 1999), 62–81; see also Paweł Kras, Husyci w piętnastowiecznej Polsce (Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickie Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1998), 243–264. 29  “In Polonia post regem primum hominem.” Cod. epist., 1, part 2, 321; see also Janusz Smołucha, “Kontaky Zbigniewa Oleśnickiego z Eneaszem Sylwiuszem Piccolominim,” in Kiryk and Noga, eds., Zbigniew Oleśnicki Książę kościoła i mąż stanu, 205–210. On Oleśnicki’s relations with Aeneas Sylvius (later Pope Pius II), see below, Chapter Ten. 30  See the comment of Karbowiak, Dzieje wychowania, 2, 172.

Institutional History And Development

85

Relations between the university and its chancellor during Oleśnicki’s time were generally close and cooperative. He saw the faculty of the school as his surest supporters in defending and expanding Christianity;31 and in 1448 he defended the doctors and masters against threats from the papal nuncio, who sought rather aggressively the university’s submission to Pope Nicholas V in the wake of the collapse of the Council of Basle (see below, Chapter Five). Oleśnicki did not hesitate to intervene directly in the working of the studium when he thought it necessary to regulate or reform parts of it. Thus in 1433 he called a convocatio generale of the whole faculty to discuss and approve statutes for the medical faculty;32 he appointed a committee of eight professors in 1435 under his supervision to deal with problems of falling enrollment and abuses within the school;33 and in 1448 he empowered the rector to act with full episcopal powers to root out other abuses that had become so numerous they were filling the calendar of his episcopal court.34 Only in a few instances were the ties between university and chancellor strained. The most important of these came in 1450 when Oleśnicki attempted to appoint individuals from his own circle directly to vacant chairs and prebends within the studium. The faculty resisted strongly, arguing that this was an issue which belonged solely to the competency of the doctors and masters, the deans, and the rector, and that this was an infringement upon university autonomy.35

31   C DUC, 1, no. 82, 159: “. . . quod eiusdem Universitatis Doctores et Magistri sunt assidui et efficaces veprium et lolii, flagitiorumque cunctorum et ipsarum praesertim pestiferarum haeresum eradicatores, ac viriles, fortes et constantes propugnatores orthodoxae fidei atque catholicae defensores.” 32  See Majer, “Ustawy Wydziału Lekarskiego,” 58; and Mieczysław Skulimowski, “Dzieje Fakultetu Medycznego Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego do reform Kołłątaja,” in Leon Tochowicz, et al., eds., Nauki medyczne w sześćsetlecie Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Sześćsetlecie medycyny Krakowskiej, 2 vols. (Cracow: Akademia Medyczna w Krakowie, 1963–1964), 2: Historia katedr, 24. 33  “Inobedientes et calatrosos erga suos superiores dissensorum inter magistros seminatores.” See, for a discussion of this problem, Ignacy Zarębski, “Okres wczesnego humanizmu,” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 160 and n. 14. 34   Cod. epist., 1, part 2, 34: “Dum Clericorum singulorumque suppositorum Univ. Studii Crac. Varia scandala, lites, dissensiones, excessus, crimina et abusus. . . .” 35   Cod. epist., 3, 42–44. This issue was complicated by the fact that two of the individuals Oleśnicki wanted to appoint were foreigners, a Hungarian and a German. For a discussion of this ethnic question in the context of mid-fifteenth century Cracow, see Morawski, Historya, 1, 449–451.

86

CHAPTER 3

After Oleśnicki’s career, the bishop’s position as chancellor was unchallenged. Just as in other universities, this officer was responsible for preserving the rights, privileges, and prerogatives of the studium and had ultimate control over the academic life of the school by virtue of his right of examination and promotion. Later bishops of Cracow were content to follow the precedent of Oleśnicki, though none was ever so clearly involved with the studium as he.36 Some of the chancellor’s powers were exercised by a second university official, the vice-chancellor, whose position evolved during the course of the fifteenth century. Vice-Chancellor The first mention of a vice-chancellor appears in the arts statutes of 1406, where he is included among those to be present at examinations.37 Later references in 1411, 1415, and 1420 came within the same context,38 and it is apparent that this individual was empowered to represent the office of the chancellor on such occasions. It is only later in the century that we are able to identify specific individuals serving in this capacity. The first was Francis of Brzeg, professor of theology, in 1424/1425, but the most important figure from the first fifty years of the university’s functioning was Benedict Hesse of Cracow, a distinguished professor of theology and several-time rector, who held this position in 1448/1449. After him, notices of the activity of the vice-chancellor become more frequent. By the end of the century, there is evidence that in nearly every year the chancellor designated some individual, invariably a leading professor from one of the higher faculties, to be present for examinations.39

36  The bishops, and consequently chancellors, after Oleśnicki were: Thomas Strzempiński (1455–1460), James of Szemio (1460–1463), John Grusziński (1463–1464), John Lutek of Brzeź (1464–1471), John Rzeszowski (1472–1488), and Fryderyk Cardinal Jagiellon (1488– 1503). Strzempiński was a former professor at Cracow and an important benefactor of the university (see below, this chapter and Chapter Nine). Fryderyk Jagiellon was a patron of the university, who sought to enhance royal power in Poland. He has traditionally been judged very negatively, especially with regard to his relations with the studium; see Józef Garbacik, “Ognisko nauki i kultury renesansowej (1470–1520),” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 197 and 209. Natalia Nowakowska, Church, State and Dynasty in Renaissance Poland. The Career of Cardinal Fryderyk Jagiellon (1468–1503) (Aldershot, England and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007), has, however, presented a boldly revisionist picture of him and his career; for her views on his relations with the university, see 86 and 109. 37   Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., VIII. 38   Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., XXV; CDUC, 1, no. 50, 96. 39  See the discussion in Karbowiak, Dzieje wychowania, 2, 172–174; 3, 219–221.

Institutional History And Development

87

But this function was not the only responsibility of the vice-chancellor. There were periods when he also took over much of the management of the university’s financial interests in coordination with the rector. This is most clearly apparent from the activity of John of Dąbrówka, who held this office from 1458 to 1465. This remarkable academic played an important role in nearly every facet of the university between his matriculation in 1420 and his death in 1472, and in this study we shall see him in a variety of contexts. In his capacity as vice-chancellor he presided over examination in arts (and in 1463 he apparently refused to allow the dean of that faculty to participate in the examination)40 and also reviewed annually the investments and management of properties that were either owned directly by the university or were designated as benefices at the disposal of the school. It is difficult to determine how much of this activity derived from John’s own interests, how much from his position as rector (he was elected twice in this period), and how much was inherent in his office of vice-chancellor. In addition, it is doubtful whether the degree of involvement under him was continued in later years. The scope of this office seems to have contracted or expanded depending on the time and the incumbent.41 Far more important in the governance of the university was the rector.42 The Rector From the very beginning the faculty of the university adopted a centralized, unified structure which had as its focus the rector. The earliest statutes provided for a single official over the whole studium.43 This represented a departure from the tradition at Prague, from which many of the earliest faculty had come, where the studium had been divided in the 1370’s into a jurist’s university with its own rector, whose position was equal to that of the rector for the university with arts and a theology faculty.44 That this was a conscious d­ ecision on 40   Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., 58; Księga promocji, 52, and Najstarsze księga promocji, 227: “Ad horum examen decanus artium per vicecancellarium minime extitit vocatus.” 41  For John of Dąbrówka’s activity as vice-chancellor, see the short discussion in Fijałek, Studya, 13–15; and PSB, 5, 26–28. 42  For the general university context of this office in medieval universities, see Teeuwen, The Vocabulary of Intellectual Life in the Middle Ages, 122–125. 43  “Sit unus rector, quantumcumque supposita processu temporis fuerint, ad quaedam et quamlibet quaevis facultas eiusdem Universitatis recipiat incrementa, ne sit seccio ad invicem aliqualiter facultatum.” See above, n. 4. 44  On this distinction, see the comments of Oźóg, “Utrum Universitatis Pragensis sit mater Universitatis Cracoviensis?” 77–78. For developments at Prague, see Peter Moraw, “Die Juristenuniversität in Prag (1372–1419), verfassungs- und sozialgeschichtlich

88

CHAPTER 3

the part of the Prague trained professors at Cracow is reflected in the emphasis Stanisław of Skarbimierz laid on the role of this single official in a speech which he delivered to celebrate the election of the third rector.45 There is no detailed information as to how the rector was originally elected. According to the early seventeenth-century statutes of the university, the rectoral election was a complicated, four-stage, indirect process in which a large academic gathering nominated professors who were to designate other to choose a final committee to select a rector. The process was undoubtedly simpler in the fifteenth century, but that it was also indirect is reflected in another speech by former rector Stanisław celebrating the election of Otto Marcinkowic in 1403.46 We do not know whether bachelors in arts were eligible to hold the position of rector, but it is probable they were not, since all the academic rectors were doctors or masters. From the opening of the university through 1418 the rector was elected for a full academic year. It was traditionally thought the election took place in the fall,47 but all the early speeches celebrating newly elected rectors date from the period immediately after Easter, suggesting a spring election for the ­following academic year.48 Beginning with 1419, however, the annual term betrachtet,” in Johannes Fried, ed., Schulen und Studium im sozialen Wandel des hohen und späten Mittelalters, 439–486. Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 1986 (reprinted in Moraw, Gesammelte Beiträge zur Deutschen und Europäischen Universitätsgeschichte. Strukturen—Personen—Entwicklungen [Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008], 101–159). 45  “Est pater temporis maturitate, quia vir maturus et multarum experienciarum expertus . . . . Est etiam pater communi nostra opinione, nam per magistros pater communiter Universitatis appelatur . . . . Affectus ipsius domini rectoris ad Universitatem hanc exprimitur in eo quod amat vos. . . .” cited by Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Odnowienie Jagiellońskie Uniwersytetu,” in Lepszy, Dzieje UJ, 57, n. 75; the sermon she is citing appears in this MS from f. 192r to f. 196r. See the discussion of this sermon by Bożena Chmielowska, “Stanislas de Skarbimierz—le premier recteur de l’Université de Cracovie après le renouveau de celle-ci,” MPP 24 (1979):, 83. The speech has now been edited and studied by Ryszard Tatarzyński; see his “Stanisława ze Skarbimierza trzy mowy rekomendacyne—na rektoraty: Jana Wajduta, Mikołaja Gorzkowskiego, Ottona Marcinowica,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 6–7 (1997): 362–373 (the quotation in this note is on 371). 46  “Cum . . . venerabiles viri et magistri ad eligendum rectorem per almam Universitatem . . . deputati . . . processissent canonice . . . tam celeriter de persona ven. Domini Ottonis . . . convenerint. . . .” cited by Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Odnowienie Jagiellońskie Uniwersytetu,” 72, n. 125. This speech has also been edited by Tatarzyński, “Stanisława ze Skarbimierza trzy mowy rekomendacyne,” 374–384; the quotation in this note is on 375. 47  So Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Odnowienie Jagiellońskie Uniwersytetu,” 72. 48  On this point, the evidence of Maria Kowalczyk, Krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie z pierwszej połowy XV w. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970), 50, is convincing.

Institutional History And Development

89

was, with few exceptions, changed to that of only one semester. The faculty selected the rector for the winter term on the feast of St. Gallus (16 October) and for the summer term on the feast of St. George (24 April).49 This tradition continued throughout the whole century, and in fact until 1778. It was possible to be elected rector more than once. The first to repeat in office was, fittingly, Stanisław of Skarbimierz in 1413. Later in the century there were instances of individuals serving half-a-dozen or more times as rector. John of Dąbrówka was nine times rector, the record in the fifteenth century. As the highest university official, the rector should have been selected from among the professorial corps, and indeed he was in most instances and without exception from 1423 onward. But in the early years of the school, several of the rectors came from outside the studium, and these exceptions illustrate some of the interests of the university.50 In 1401/1402 the rector was Prince John Wajdut, Prince of Drohiczyn, doctor decretorum and canon of the cathedral in Cracow and of the collegiate church in Sandomir. He was a relative of king Władysław Jagiełło. Nicholas of Gorzków, doctor decretorum, canon of the cathedral, dean of the collegiate church of St. Florian’s in Kleparz, sometime lecturer in law at the university, and later Bishop of Vilnius was elected rector in 1402/1403. Another student of canon law and scholasticus of the Cracow cathedral, Otto Marcinkowic, served as rector in 1403/1404; while the following academic year John Szafraniec, curator of the cathedral and eventually Bishop of Kujavia, succeeded him. In 1405/1406 John of Rzeszów, provost of the church of St. Michael in Cracow, later Bishop of Lwów, and son of one of Casimir the Great’s favorite ambassadors, was chosen to be rector. For the next decade and one-half, all the rectors were drawn from the faculty, but for the summer semester of 1422 an exception was again made. Alexander, the son of Duke Ziemowit of Mazovia, held the rectorship. Later he became Bishop of Trent, Patriarch of Aquilea, and a cardinal of the church before his death in 1444. After him all rectors were drawn from those holding university benefices and teaching positions. The common denominator which unites these individuals who were not faculty members was that they were all benefactors of the studium or closely

49  Some rectors were, however, elected on other days. See the comments of the editors in Metryka, 1, XXXII and n. 47. The formula for the dates of rectoral terms given in Album Studiosorum, 1, 2 and Metryka, 1, 11, is “Uti Anna [26 July] aestivalis, ita Prisca [18 January] hyemalis, est dimidium officii cuiusque rectoralis” (written in a sixteenth century hand). 50  For the complete list of university rectors, see Appendix A.

90

CHAPTER 3

associated with someone who was or could be.51 There is no evidence to suggest that these names were in any way imposed from above by the king or chancellor. Their selection was rather a gesture of good faith on the part of the university to its external friends and came at a time when the still fledgling school had to ensure that its material needs and its importance within society were recognized. That the university itself understood and appreciated the importance of the support provided by these non-professorial rectors is shown by the fact that it included two of them (John Szafraniec and Otto Marcinkowic) in the list of benefactors to be especially remembered in official prayers.52 Others were extravagantly praised in funeral speeches.53 In discussing benefactions to the university below, we shall see some of these names again. Had the pattern of extra-university rectors become the norm, this position might have evolved into a sinecure. It did not, however, and the rectorship remained one of great authority and prestige. On the one hand, the rector represented the university at large; on the other, he exercised nearly full administrative and judicial power internally. In order to fulfill the first responsibility the rector was from the beginning endowed with the trappings of ­power.54 Students were urged to show him the greatest respect and his title was expanded to rector magnificus or princeps ac rector universitatis by the end of the century.55 He wore a resplendent robe which outshone those of the faculty; servitors, or bedels,56 flanked him in processions and carried out both ceremonial and petty administrative functions; and he commanded the symbols of university authority, the maces or scepters. Symbols of the Rector Eventually whoever was rector had access to three of these. The first, a simple gilded silver staff 112.5 cm in length with round segmented staff and decorated 51   See the characterization in this context by Krzysztof Oźóg, Uczeni w monarchii Jadwigi Andegaweńskiej i Władysława Jagiełły (1384–1434) (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2004), 39–44. 52   Album Studiosorum, 1, 8–9; Metryka, 5–6. 53  For example, in Stanisław of Skarbimierz’s memorial sermon for Otto Marcinkowic; for quotations, see Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Odnowienie Jagiellońskie Uniwersytetu,” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 73, n. 136, and Kowalczyk, Krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie, 121, 131, n. 9, and 182. 54  See the comments of Halina Manikowska, “Szkoły: nauczanie szkolne i uniwersyteckie,” in Bronisław Geremek, ed., Kultura polska średniowiecznej XIV–XV w. (Warsaw: Semper, 1997), 342. 55   Acta Rectoralia, nos. 194 and 2137. 56  This officer in the larger context of medieval European university life is analyzed by Teeuwen, Vocabulary of Intellectual Life, 38–40.

Institutional History And Development

91

with seven coats of arms topped with small crown-like sculptures, dates from about 1400 and may have been a gift from the king (see Illustration 3a).57 The second was originally the property of Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki of Cracow. Made of gilded silver and 117.5 cm in length, it is topped with an open crown made of leaves. Its inner rim contains a plaque with the keys of St. Peter under the papal tiara, along with the coats of arms of Poland and Lithuania and the coat of arms of the Oleśnicki family. Beneath the crown are four additional coats of arms, below which the round shaft is divided into banded segments . Following the bishop’s death in 1455 it came to the university by the terms of his will, which specified that it be carried “preceding the person of the rector and the masters of the University.” (See Illustration 3b)58 The final medieval scepter was the silver gilt cardinal’s mace of Fryderyk Cardinal Jagiellon. One hundred eight cm in length, it has a crown of leaves on top and its inner rim contains the coats of arms of Pope Alexander VI, of Inner Austria (the home of his mother, Elizabeth Habsburg), and of Cardinal Fryderyk (containing the Polish eagle and a cardinal’s hat, though the tiara on other examples of his coat of arms is missing). The hexagonal shaft of the mace is extravagantly carved and decorated, though without any territorial or family escutcheons. The mace came to the university following the cardinal’s death in 1503 (see Illustration 3c).59 57  This scepter was traditionally thought to have been donated by Queen Jadwiga on the occasion of the restoration of the university. See Adam Bochnak, Les insignes de l’Université Jagellonne (Cracow: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1962), 5–16. Stefan Krzysztof Kuczyński, “Jeszcze o najstarszym berle Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego,” Wiadomości Numizmatyczne 13 (1969): 193–210, has, however, identified coats of arms on the scepter, including not only those of the Jastrzębiec family, but also those of Anna of Cilia, second wife of Jagiełło, and consequently the scepter must be dated after 1403. See also the exhibition catalogue Mittelalterliche Universitätszepter. Meisterwerke europäischer Goldschmiedekunst der Gotik (Heidelberg: Heidelberger Verlagsanstalt und Druckerei, 1986), 24–25., which must be corrected by the text of the entry (by Anna Piskorz) in the exhibition catalogue Danuta Ambrożewicz and Grażyna Fallowa, eds., Kolegia Uniwersyteckie średniowiecznej Europy / University Colleges of Medieval Europe (Cracow: Muzeum Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2007), 126–128. 58  In addition to the treatment in Bochnak, Les insignes, 16–24, see Marek Walczak, “Działalność fundacyjna biskupa krakowskiego, kardynała Zbigniewa Oleśnickiego,” Folia Historiae Artium 28 (1992): 57–73, particularly 63, and Kolegia Uniwersyteckie średniowiecznej Europy, 129–131. The scepter is not discussed in Mittelalterliche Universitätszepter. 59  Bochnak, Les insignes, 24–28; Mittelalterliche Universitätszepter, 26–27. Nowakowska, Church, State and Dynasty in Renaissance Poland, 102–103, discusses the mace in the context of the cardinal’s image-making and propaganda but does not develop the university connection.

92

Illustration 3a

CHAPTER 3

Rectoral scepter, traditionally called “The Jadwiga Scepter;” and detail. Courtesy of Collegium Maius Museum, Jagiellonian University of Cracow.

Institutional History And Development

Illustration 3b

Rectoral scepter, donated by Zbigniew Cardinal Oleśnicki, bishop of Cracow and university chancellor; and detail. Courtesy of Collegium Maius Museum, Jagiellonian University of Cracow.

93

94

Illustration 3c

CHAPTER 3

Rectoral scepter, from the Estate of Fryderyk Cardinal Jagiellon, archbishop of Gniezno, bishop of Cracow, and university chancellor; and detail. Courtesy of Collegium Maius Museum, Jagiellonian University of Cracow.

Institutional History And Development

95

Though not exclusively tied to the office of the rector, the university also ­developed—as did other studia elsewhere in Europe—a various collection of seals that represented the authority and credibility of the several parts of the institution. These included the great seal of the university (dating probably from the beginning of the fifteenth century), which is dominated by a shield upon which is the image of what eventually became known as “the Polish eagle” and by the image of St. Stanisław (see Illustration 4a); the minor, or rectoral, seal composed of two crossed maces on a coat of arms surrounded by a ribbon on which there is an inscription and which was in use by the middle of the fifteenth century (see Illustration 4b); the seal for the royal college (the Collegium maius), which dates from before 1434 and contains the image of Władysław Jagiełło (see Illustration 4c); and the seal of the arts faculty, whose earliest extant version dates from the mid-seventeenth century but which was surely in use well before that (see Illustration 4d). The heraldic arms of the university consisted of two crossed scepters on a simple shield; it was first mentioned in 1485 and the earliest extant version—in sandstone and perhaps derived from the Collegium minus—comes from about 1500 (see Illustration 4e).60 Rectoral Responsibilities Within the university the rector oversaw the registration of students and the collection of fees, which he was then responsible for disbursing.61 When there were matters of major import touching the whole studium, the rector could convene all the members of the faculty, as he did with the chancellor in 1433 regarding the medical faculty or in 1476 regarding the construction of a new building for the Collegium minus. In less serious matters the rector relied upon the advice of an informal council of the older masters, or, if the issue touched only one faculty, the appropriate dean. Another important responsibility of the rector was the appointment of faculty to teaching positions, and, as a consequence, to the prebends which were at the disposal of the university. The only apparent guildeline which he followed was that seniority in studies

60   These seals and symbols are discussed by Adam Chmiel, Pieczęcie Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w Krakowie, Zenon Piech, ed. (Cracow: Universitas, 1996 [original edition 1917]), 41–69 especially; and Ambrożewicz and Fallowa, eds., Kollegia Uniwersyteckie średniowiecznej Europy, 132–135. The article by Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Pieczęć Wydziału Sztuk Wyzwolonych Uniwersytetu Jagiellońsiekgo,” Rocznik Krakowski 38 (1966): 75–78, deals with a seventeenth century seal, but provides some background on medieval developments. 61   Album Studiosorum, 1, v.

96

CHAPTER 3

Illustration 4a

The great seal of the University of Cracow, beginning of the fifteenth century. Courtesy of the Jagiellonian University Archives, ­parchment 229, University of Cracow.

Illustration 4b

The rector’s seal (minor seal) of the university, mid-fifteenth century. Courtesy of the Jagiellonian University Archives, parchment 363, University of Cracow.

Institutional History And Development

Illustration 4c

Seal of the royal college (Collegium maius), prior to 1434. Courtesy of the Jagiellonian University Archives, parchment 212, University of Cracow.

Illustration 4d

Seal of the faculty of arts, ca. 1644. Courtesy of the Jagiellonian University Archives, seal collection 6, University of Cracow.

97

98

Illustration 4e

CHAPTER 3

Heraldic arms of the university, ca. 1500. Courtesy of the Collegium Maius Museum, Jagiellonian University of Cracow.

was to be taken into account in the allocation of the better paying benefices.62 That he did not always consult the faculty in these appointments is shown by an incident in 1432, when rector Thomas Strzempiński unilaterally gave Nicholas Kozłowski a vacant chair in theology and appointed him to a canonry in the cathedral. The other professors appealed unsuccessfully to the pope on the grounds that the rector had exceeded his authority.63 62  “Quo primus extitit tempore sit potior de iure . . . dum modo . . . cetere virtute . . . latius suffragentur.” CDUC, 1, no. 22, 39; “Qui prior fuerit in onere et labore potior sit in premio et honore.” Szujski, “Statuta antiqua,” 13. 63  See Fijałek, Studya, 91.

Institutional History And Development

99

Finally, by virtue of the royal document of foundation in 1400 the rector was empowered to judge all infractions of university statutes and those legal issues deriving from individual faculties. Absent and inebriated professors, lazy and undisciplined students: all fell within his jurisdiction. He had the power to suspend, fine, and even in extreme cases expel both students and faculty. His jurisdiction even extended to civil matters when legally matriculated students or professors were involved, and his powers included both punishment and protection. Although his competency was sometimes overridden by the episcopal court, acting as an instrument of the chancellor, in most instances the decision of the rector was final. The procedures of his court were supposed to be based upon civil law, but it is probable that canon law was more commonly used, since civil law was not part of the university curriculum until the sixteenth century.64 Other Officers In addition to the officers which have been discussed thus far, brief mention should be made of several others who also played a role in the institutional structure of the studium. To assist him, the rector from time to time designated vice rectors or pro-rectors, and over the years there also emerged a staff of notaries. The aforementioned bedels occasionally undertook some administrative duties, not least of which was irregular eavesdropping upon lectures to ensure that instructors, particularly in arts, were fulfilling their responsibilities.65 In 1410 Pope John XXIII designated three conservatores, the deans of the cathedral chapters in Cracow, Gniezno, and Wrocław, whose nominal responsibility was to protect the interests and financial support of the masters, doctors, and the university.66 In practice it was the dean at Cracow cathedral who was most closely involved in this, but his efforts were modest, and the powers delegated to the conservatores remained largely theoretical. All these individuals were subordinate or peripheral to the central administration of the university. The composition of this was spelled out in 1422 by Bishop Wojciech Jastrzębiec, when he designated the rector together with the deans of the

64  For the workings of the rectoral court, Stanisław Estreicher, “Sądownictwo rektora Krakowskiego w wiekach średnich,” Rocznik Krakowski 4 (1900): 249–267. 65  On these, and some other minor university officials, see Morawski, Historya, 2, 406–412; and Karbowiak, Dzieje wychowania, 2, 182–183, 3, 224–228. 66   C DUC, 1, no. 46, 84–86. For the more general university context of this office, see Teeuwen, Vocabulary of Intellectual Life, 68–69.

100

CHAPTER 3

faculties to be the chief authorities of the school.67 In was in these academic divisions that the mission of the university was fulfilled.

The Faculties

Let us therefore move now to a discussion of the individual faculties and their curricula. Despite the predominance of Prague trained professors at the new university in 1400, the scholars at Cracow did not organize themselves (or their students) into nationes.68 Although some of the bursae to be discussed below had the appearance of being “nations,” they were in reality student living quarters and had little to do directly with the organization of learning or with university governance. Thus it is to the four faculties that we look to see the fulfillment of what Paweł Czartoryski once famously called “the idea of the university.”69 The Faculty of Arts This faculty was, like the others, headed by a dean, to whom the statutes of 1406 gave the power of convening the masters, of fining them for infractions of regulations, of assigning teaching responsibilities, and, as we know from the later Liber diligentiarum, also of evaluating the execution of those responsibilities. In addition the dean himself was required to hold recitation exercises on 67   C DUC, 1, no. 71, 139–144. In this document there is no mention of a medical dean, which reflects the fact that, if the faculty were actually functioning—on which point see below—there may have been only one or two professors. 68  Manikowska, “Szkoły,” in Geremek, ed., Kultura polska średniowiecznej, 333, has suggested that the absence of nationes at Cracow was a reflection of the national character of the newer universities of the later middle ages as opposed to the international character of earlier studia. But in the larger European context, many universities, both older and newer, were not organized by nationes. I have addressed this issue of university organization in “Nationes and Other Bonding Groups at Late Medieval Central European Universities,” in Nancy van Deusen and Leonard Michael Koff, eds. Mobs. An Interdisciplinary Inquiry (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012), 95–115. 69  Paweł Czartoryski, “La notion d’université et l’idée de la science à l’Université de Cracovie dans la première moitié du XVe siècle,” MPP 14 (1970): 23–39, and, in an earlier, slightly different, version in Polish, “Idea uniwersytetu i koncepcja nauki na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w pierwszej połowie XV wieku—program i jego realizacja,” Studia i Materiały z Dziejów Nauki Polskiej, Series A 12 (1968): 55–69. See also Czartoryski’s briefer treatment in “Średniowiecze,” in Czartoryski and Paweł Rybicki, Historia Nauki Polskiej, vol. 1: Średniowiecze i Odrodzenie, Bodgan Suchodolski, ed. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970), 48–49.

Institutional History And Development

101

the Physics of Aristotle, and, with the chancellor or his representative, preside over the examination of candidates for bachelors and masters degrees. The tenure of the dean was on a semester basis from the beginning, and elections were held, like those eventually for rector, on 24 April for the summer semester and 16 October for the winter semester. On those masters actually appointed to the faculty (actu regentes) might vote, and only a master who had completed the obligatory two years of teaching without appointment after the MA plus at least two further years of instruction while formally a member of the faculty could be elected dean. Although it is not explicit in the statutes, it is evident from actual practice that one might serve as dean more than once. To help the dean, the faculty often chose two assistants, whose responsibilities made them eligible to be relieved of part of their teaching obligations.70 The arts faculty was at Cracow, as elsewhere, the largest division in terms of both students and faculty. By comparing the lists of faculty extant from 1404/1405 and 1407/1408, it is possible to identify some fifty masters who had at one time or another taught in arts in this period, although in his dean’s speech of 1409 Francis of Brzeg mentioned that there were thirteen persons lecturing in arts.71 Some were non-regular faculty (the so-called extranei) and some were formally appointed faculty (actu regentes). Though not all taught in any single year, and not all who taught held formal faculty appointments, this number seems to be representative of the size of the arts faculty throughout the century, though it rose slightly in the decades before 1500 with the foundation of new chairs. In 1487, when the Liber diligentiarum begins, the number of masters holding actual appointments in arts was twenty-five. As for 70  These details are drawn from Statuta . . . Liber Promotionum, II–V. The names of the deans of the faculty have been more clearly identified with attention to their social and geographical background, by Antoni Gąsiorowski, “Bylina i inni. Dziekani Wydziału Sztuk krakowskiego uniwersytetu w XV wieku,” in Jacek Banaszkiewicz, et al., eds. Ludzie. Kościół. Wierzenia. Studia z dziejów kultury i społeczeństwa Europy Środkowej (średniowiecze—­ wczesna epoka nowożytna) (Warsaw: DiG, 2001), 523–537, correcting many errors in previous scholarship. See also Księga promocji, 237–249 and (extending to 1540) Najstarsze księga promocji, 416–419. 71  The list from 1404/1405 is in Album Studiosorum, 1, 4–5 and Metryka, 25–28; that from 1407/1408 is in Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., 1–2, Księga promocji, 5–7, and Najstarsza księga promocji, 192–193. See the comments of Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Odnowienie Jagiellońskie Uniwersytetu,” 61. Francis of Brzeg’s speech is also noted there; see also Kowalczyk, Mowy uniwersyteckie, 151 and her “Franciszek z Brzegu,” Acta Mediaevalia 12 (1999): 109–110, and reprinted in her Colligite fragmenta ne pereant . . . . Studia z dziejów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w średniowieczu (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2010 [Historia et Monumenta Universitatis Jagellonicae]), 339–340.

102

CHAPTER 3

s­ tudent n ­ umbers (discussed in more detail in Chapter Four; see also Appendix C), annual matriculations in arts averaged below 100 in the first two decades of the university’s functioning, rising to over 150 in the 1420’s. In the last third of the century university matriculations—which were chiefly in arts—averaged over 230 in the 1470’s and above 285 in the last decade of the century. It is by virtue of this size and because an arts degree was prerequisite for the higher faculties that this faculty was called, in the words of the king in 1401, “the handmaidens of the other faculties.”72 Students came to the university seeking, not necessarily learning, but rather a professionalized and institutionalized higher education which would qualify them for a position in society by virtue of which they might better themselves. What they found academically was a curriculum which tradition had forged into a combination of logic and philosophy, with remnants of the older subjects of the trivium and quadrivium. In form, their course of study did not depart significantly from the subjects and textbooks sanctioned in other studia, but, in some ways the actual content of that curriculum was undergoing significant change. According to the arts statutes of 1406,73 a prospective bachelor was required to hear the following eleven books in his course of study. From the original trivium, grammar was limited to the second part of Alexander of Villa Dei’s Doctrinale, which required six weeks; and rhetoric was subsumed in the Poetria nova of Geoffrey of Vinsauf, which apparently took about the same period of time. In some instances, as in 1455, students were allowed to substitute exercises drawn from the elementary grammar of Donatus for training in grammar.74 Such traditional medieval authorities in this area as Boethius and Alanus de Insulis were excluded from the curriculum until after 1420, when, with the foundation of a chair in rhetoric, they might be heard in extraordinary lectures. Another two months of the students’ time was spent hearing an elementary handbook on the calendar, the Computus chirometralis, and the thirteenth century treatise by Johannes de Sacrobosco De sphere materiali. The next part of the bachelor’s curriculum dealt with logic, beginning with three months devoted to the Summulae logicales of Petrus Hispanus (Pope John XXI, d. 1277); four months were then spent on the so-called Vetus ars of Aristotle, i.e., Praedicamente and De interpretatione. Additional Aristotelian logical works 72   C DUC, 1, no. 21, 37: “quia artes sunt aliarum ministrae facultatum.” The comment was made in the context of Jagiełło donating resources to support the faculty of the university. 73   Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., XII–XIII; Księga promocji, 3–5; Najstarsza księga promocji, 191–192. 74  See Jerzy Zathey, “ ‘Colligite fragmenta ne pereant.’ Contribution aux recherches sur l’histoire de l’enseignement à l’Université de Cracovie au XVe s.,” MPP 10 (1961): 100.

Institutional History And Development

103

were lectured upon for another ten and one-half months: the Libri priorum et posteriorum analyticorum and the Liber elenchorum. Finally, to complete the ordinary lectures, the student was to hear Aristotle’s Liber phisicorum for nine months and his De anima for four. Beyond these requirements a student had to participate in recitation exercises to ensure that he had mastered the material and to attend the weekly ordinary disputations, responding at least three times to the masters during his study. These latter activities are reflected in a detailed letter written by a Silesian student from Wrocław, Jodochus of Ziegenhals, who matriculated at Cracow in 1416 and earned his bachelors in arts in 1418. After listing the ordinary lectures and the instructors he had heard (some of them recently graduated bachelors who were continuing in arts), he says about himself that “he also participated in recitations: first in parva logica with Master Jerome, then in the vetus ars with master Benedict Hesse, then in the nova logica with master Paul of Zathor . . ., in phisica . . ., in Donatus . . ., and again in phisica with the dean. He also responded to the masters as the statutes require. As a result of all of this, he found favor.”75 Jodochus took two years to earn his BA, which was often the length of time one would expect from adding up the time required in individual subject, though some students took more or fewer years. Some, for example, were able to shorten their time to the BA by hearing more than one subject at a time or by requesting exemptions from specific courses. When this curriculum was completed, if the student wished and could afford to do so, he could continue for the master’s degree in arts.76 In that program the emphasis was equally Aristotelian, but the tools of logic, mastered in the previous years, were further refined and applied to the problems and study of philosophy: metaphysical, natural, and moral/practical. The candidate for the master’s degree began with a continuation of logic, but at a more advanced level, by hearing Aristotle’s Topica for three months. 75  This letter was discovered by and is printed and discussed in Morawski, Historya, 1, 211, n. 1, who lists his graduation as 1419; see, however, Księga promocji, 16 and Najstarsza księga promocji, 200, for the correct date: “Anno Domini millesimo CCCCº XVIII, in decanatu m[agistri] Olaui de Vpsalia, promoti sunt hii ad gradum baccalariatus: In primo examine: Frater Jodocus de Wratislauia”. 76  Although obviously graduations in arts took place from almost the beginning of the university’s renewed existence, the earliest copies of the actual certificates for these degrees date only from 1492 (for the BA) and 1512 (for the MA); see Wiktor Szymborska, “Krakowskie zaświadczenie o promocji bakalarskiej z 1492 roku,” Roczniki Historyczne 73 (2007): 199–202, and Tomasz Jurek, “Krakowski dyplom promocji magisterskiej z 1512 roku,” Rocznik Krakowski 72 (2006): 69–85.

104

CHAPTER 3

Then he studied natural philosophy from the philosopher’s De generatione for seven weeks, the works of the Parva naturalia for three and one-half months, and De coelo et mundo and Metheora each for four months. The twelve books of Metaphisica required six months, and the Aristotelian works were concluded by extended period devoted to Ethica (nine months), Politica (five months), and Oeconomica (one month). To conclude an approximately forty-eight month course of study, the following books were heard: the Theorica planetarum attributed to Gerard Sabbionetta of Cremona for a period of six weeks, De algorithmo of the aforementioned Johannes de Sacrobosco for one month, the Musica of Jean de Muris also for a month, the optical study Perspectiva communis of John Peckham over a three month period, and three books of Euclid’s Geometria (for an unspecified period). Finally, to complete the arts course, the student had to attend recitation exercises, participate in a specified number of disputations, receive the positive recommendation of a promoter, and be formally incepted. As with the bachelors degree many students were able to shorten this ostensible four year course, so that the norm appears to have been closer to two or three years.77 If we look at the curriculum in arts as a whole, several revealing patterns emerge. One is the dominance of natural philosophy. Including physics, these subjects required approximately twenty-seven months of a student’s time. Logic was the second most important subject, with some twenty- and one-half months devoted to it. Practical philosophy, as opposed to speculative metaphysics ranked third in terms of time devoted to study; it took fifteen months. These totals are not merely interesting mathematical calculations, for they suggest something about the intentions and assumptions of the organizers of the studium. As Mieczysław Markowski and others have often pointed out, by grounding the educational curriculum in the natural philosophy and logic of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century and by emphasizing the practical over the speculative, the founders of the university gave precedence in the 77  The detailed record left by Nicholas of Münsterberg of his studies for the MA between 1431 and 1437 differs slightly from the above outline which is derived from the statutes of 1406; see Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., CXLII–CXLV. His career is instructive, however, for it illustrated some of the normal variations one finds in university students. From the fragments of students’ course lists discovered by Zathey “ ‘Colligite fragmenta ne pereant.’,” 98–99, it is probable that students were occasionally exempted from the Parva naturalia and from music in this period, as in fact they regularly were at both Paris and Oxford. See the comments in Statuta antiqua Universitatis Oxoniensis, Strickland Gibson, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1931), xciv, n. 2; and the general overview presented by James A. Weisheipl, “Developments in the Arts Curriculum at Oxford in the Early Fourteenth Century,” Mediaeval Studies 28 (1966): 151–175.

Institutional History And Development

105

early part of the century to the tradition of late medieval nominalism, especially in the form developed by Jean Buridan. Moreover, while the “books” lectured at Cracow were, as in other medieval universities, predominantly those by Aristotle, it was the commentaries to these works that actually provide insight into the content of teaching and the outlook of intellectual life at the school.78 During the course of the fifteenth century several changes were to take place in the arts curriculum. In general they may be said to have been of two kinds: either the introduction of earlier medieval (or even classical) works into the course of study by means of the specialized chairs to be discussed below; or the replacement of some of the texts listed above with newer works, such as the Algorismus proportionum of the Cracow professor Sędziwój of Czechel for Sacrobosco’s De algorithmo, or the Viennese Georg Peuerbach’s Theoricae novae planetarum for Gerhard of Cremona’s work. But these and other similar changes belong properly to the discussion of the intellectual currents within the university in chapters below. Even with these alterations, however, the form of the arts curriculum remained at the end of the century largely what it was at the beginning: a course of study designed to emphasize logic and philosophy and to prepare students for employment in secular or ecclesiastical chanceries, or for teaching service in the numerous lower schools within Poland, or for advanced study in one of the higher faculties, particularly theology and law.79 Let us turn to the curriculum in these areas, including medicine. The Theology Faculty It is traditional to regard theology as the “Queen of the Sciences” in the middle ages, though the complexity of understanding connected with this phrase has recently been the subject of analysis by Bernard McGinn.80 Nevertheless it was clearly a faculty which, at least in the northern universities of Paris, Oxford, and Cambridge, took pride of place in the academic framework until the ­fourteenth 78  See three representative works of Markowski in this regard: Burydanizm w Polsce w okresie przedkopernikańskim. Studium z historii filozofii i nauk ścisłych na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1971 [Studia Copernicana, 2]); “Methodologische Grundlagen der offiziellen Universitätsbeschlüsse und Erklärungen der Professoren an der Krakauer Universität im XV. Jahrhundert,” St. Med. 17 (1977): 5–32, but especially 21–24; and “Programowe założenia uniwersyteckiego nauczania w Jagiellońskiej odnowie krakowskiego Studium Generale,” Analecta Cracoviensia XIX (1987): 223–244. 79  Manikowska, “Szkoły,” in Geremek, ed., Kultura polska średniowiecznej, 343–352 provides a good overview of this aspect of the university’s program. 80  Bernard McGinn, “Regina quondam . . .,” Speculum 83 (2008): 817–839.

106

CHAPTER 3

century. Then, increasingly, other studia, both those previously existing such as Bologna and newly founded universities such as Prague along with schools in Italy and elsewhere, had broken the monopoly of these schools.81 Within individual studia, theology continued to occupy a special place, and at Cracow the theology faculty was both the most heavily endowed and regarded as the leading part of the university. In the light of Jagiełło’s emphasis upon the importance of theology in 1400 and his subsequent benefactions, it could scarcely have been otherwise. The theology faculty was, however, a relatively small one, and its structure was correspondingly less complex than that of arts. It was headed by a dean, but we know next to nothing about his authority or the method of his choosing. What is apparent is that he did not automatically hold this position by virtue of being professor ordinarius, for lesser faculty are sometimes mentioned as dean. Beyond that, as Antoni Karkowiak noted, “we do not have any further details about the governance of the higher faculties.”82 The curriculum in theology was organized originally under one professor, later three, plus licentiates and bachelors, many of whom were at the same time teaching in arts.83 According to the sixteenth century statutes, in order to enter this faculty the student had to have a firm grounding in grammar, logic, and philosophy, have completed the arts course, and have been promoted in it.84 In addition he had to have completed the obligatory two years teaching in arts that was incumbent upon every MA. Then he could begin the long and arduous course which could eventually lead to the highest academic degree of the medieval university.85 He began by hearing two years of lectures and theology and participating in regular disputations. Then, after giving evidence of his faithful attendance and study, he might be promoted to Baccalaureus cursor biblicus, which meant that for the next two years he could comment in 81  See my article “The Papacy at Avignon and University Foundations,” in The Church in a Changing Society: Conflict—Reconciliation or Adjustment? Proceedings of the CIHECconference in Uppsala, August 17–20, 1977 (Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1978), 191–196. 82  Karbowiak, Dzieje wychowania, 3, 235. 83  The organization of study in theology at Cracow after 1400 is only a peripheral interest of Markowski, Dzieje wydziału teologii, 100–117, who focuses more on the biographies of individuals and their writings. But from some of his details, it is possible to infer certain organ­ izational matters. For example, it is clear that John Isner was clearly the organizational leader immediately after 1400, and that Bartholomew of Jasło continued his theological studies at Cracow after leaving Prague, eventually becoming one of the faculty members. 84  Szujski, “Statuta Wydziału Teologicznego,” 74. 85  What follows is largely derived from Fijałek, Mistrz Jakób, 1, 48–58, which, on this issue, is an extension of his earlier Studya, 118–126.

Institutional History And Development

107

a cursory fashion upon selected biblical texts. He was to provide two hours of lecture weekly, explaining a total of 160 individual texts. At the same time, he was required to hear lectures in dogmatic theology, continue to take part in disputations, and to preach at university services. After two years as cursor and an additional year free from teaching, the student could be promoted to Sententiarius and deliver lectures for a year on Books One and Two of the Sententiae of Peter Lombard. His inaugural lecture on this work—known as the Principium—was a solemn and public occasion and was often delivered in the presence of the full body of faculty members in theology. (This lecture was distinct from the principium that a student held at his inception as a master and that was a disputation that had multiple parts and usually dealt with multiple quaestiones).86 We have two extant examples of these principia from the early fifteenth century at Cracow. One is by John of Kluczbork in 1413; the other, by Andrew of Kokorzyn the following year.87 From the next decade or so, there are another five principia at our disposal.88 Both of the aforementioned individuals went on to have distinguished careers on the theological faculty. John was the first doctor in theology to be promoted at Cracow (in 1423); and Andrew was three times rector and served the king as an ambassador at the Council of Constance.89 Prior to beginning further lectures on the Sentences, the student was promoted to bachelor of theology (so-called formatus), and in this capacity he spent two more years commenting the third and fourth books. This he did, not in the manner of simple glosses as before, but in detail, magistraliter, discussing difficult questions. He also had to organize two ordinary disputations each year. After these assignments were completed, it was possible to receive the license in theology (licentiate). Only when these long years of study had passed could the student begin to lecture independently on theological topics, and after an indeterminate time he could request his final promotion, to Master or Doctor of Theology (the two titles being for all intents and purposes synonymous).

86  I follow here the distinction, usual in Polish scholarship, that is described by Teeuwen, Vocabulary of Intellectual Life, 315–317. 87  Markowski, “Wykład wstępny Andrzeja z Kokorzyna,” Materiały 2 (1962): 3–51, and “La réplique d’André de Kokorzyn au ‘Principium’ de Jean de Kluczbork du ms de la Bibl. de l’Un. de Wrocław I Q 376,” MPP 10 (1961): 50–54. 88  Oźóg, Uczeni w monarchii Jadwigi Andegaweńskiej i Władysława Jagiełły, 64, and, in more detail, Markowski, Dzieje wydziału teologii, 122–145. 89  For John of Kluczbork, see LTCP / SPTK, 2, 136–137; for Andrew, LTCP / SPTK, 1, 55–56.

108

CHAPTER 3

In practice, however, few took this final step. Promotion to doctor was a costly thing, and one who held only the license could also be appointed as professor. One of the best evidences we have of the cost of this promotion is derived from a letter which Sędziwój of Czechel sent to the historian John Długosz about 1466. He had studied theology at Paris, but felt he could not pay the sixty marks required there, so he tried to obtain promotion at Cracow, offering to pay forty florins to the masters there (whom, as a result of his humanistic interests, he called patres conscripti) and an equal amount to the Bursa pauperum. He was not successful in this maneuver and was never promoted in theology beyond the level he had obtained at Paris.90 The actual ceremony of promotion at Cracow was an impressive one. It consisted of religious services over a two day period, in which the candidate preached and participated, and a massive feast afterward in the Collegium maius. In addition to the costs involved in these activities, the new doctor paid three marks for the general university treasury, six to his professor (or professors), three to the bedels, and gave each of his guests at the feast a pair of fine gloves.91 In one sense it is relatively easy to list the formal textbooks used at Cracow in the fifteenth century. They do not differ significantly from other universities. In addition to Holy Scripture, the two fundamental commentaries used in biblical study were those of Nicholas of Gorran, a thirteenth century Dominican, and the Postilla on the Old and New Testaments of Nicholas of Lyra, the fourteenth century Franciscan. For dogmatic theology the basic text was the Sentences of Peter Lombard. On the other hand, however, the actual teaching is more difficult to determine, for, particularly in the case of Lombard, his work was used in conjunction with many later commentaries.92 These included, among 90  This is reflected in Długosz’s dedication of his life of St. Stanisław to Sędziwój in Joannis Długossii Senioris Canonici Cracoviensis Opera Omnia, Alexander Przeździecki, ed., 15 vols. (Cracow: E typographia ephemeridum “Czas:” Fr. Kluczycki & Soc., 1863–1887), 1 (1887), 172; as noted by Jacek Wiesiołowski, “Sędziwój z Czechła. Studium z dziejów kultury umysłowej Wielkopolski,” Studia Źródłoznawcze 9 (1964): 75–104, here 89 and 101, this is the first authorial dedication in Polish literature. More recently on Sędziwój, see PSB, 36, 394–399. 91  At least this was the tradition from the sixteenth century (Szujski, “Statuta Wydziału Teologicznego,” 82–84), though one can not be certain whether this was true in the fifteenth century or not. 92   The older observation on this point by Konstanty Michalski, “Prądy filozoficznoteologiczne na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim w pierwszej dobie jego istnienia,” Nasza Myśł Teologiczna 2 (1935): 30–47, should be complemented by those of Zofia Włodek, “Tendencje doktrynale na wydziale teologicznym Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XV wieku,” in Teresa Michałowska, ed., Literatura i kultura późnego średniowiecza w Polsce

Institutional History And Development

109

others, those of Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Peter of Tarantasio, Thomas of Strassburg, Heinrich Totting of Oyta, and Robert Holcot. In addition there are numerous Cracovian commentaries upon the Sentences and biblical commentaries which were used.93 The picture therefore of the content of the theology curriculum at Cracow is by no means a simple one, and we shall return to it below in Chapter Nine. The Law Faculty The faculty of law was also headed by a dean, but as the result of the fire in the Collegium Iuridicum in 1719 and other losses over the years, there are no data from which further conclusions may be drawn about the organizational and governance structure of this part of the university. All that can be said with certainty is that, despite the intention of Jagiełło in 1400, instruction was limited almost exclusively to canon law. Echoes of activity in civil law, which was in any case weak in many northern universities in the middle ages, do not come until late in the century. John Ber Ursinus, who earned an MA at Cracow in 1478 and later studied both law and medicine in Italy, was a forceful advocate of civil law when he returned to the faculty in 1488.94 But he was an isolated figure, and after his death between 1500 and 1503, the university had to wait until the chancellorship of Bishop Peter Tomicki of Cracow in the 1520s and 1530s before it found a true champion of civil law. Studies in law were neither as long nor complex as those in theology.95 The student progressed from bachelor to licentiate to doctor of canon law (Doctor decretorum) in a period of about seven or eight years, although many accomplished this in less time. Two examples suffice. Thomas Strzempiński, who was several times rector, a leading conciliarist, benefactor of the studium, and Zbigniew Oleśnicki’s successor as Bishop of Cracow, earned an MA in 1427 and was promoted to doctor of canon law in 1431. Later in the century Arnulf of Mirzyniec, four times rector (BA in 1451), studied further in arts (though there (Warsaw: Instytut Badań Literackich PAN, 1993), 17–27; and Markowski, Dzieje wydziału teologii, 216–218. 93   The full range of Cracovian biblical studies is analyzed by Stanisław Wielgus, Średniowieczna łacińskojęzyczna biblistyka polska (Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1992); see especially his general observations 9–12. 94  His legal interests are discussed by Jan Fijałek, Dominus Bartolus de Saxoferrato eiusque permagna in Polonos auctoritas (Cracow: Academia Litterarum Cracoviensis, 1914), 35–37. 95  On the basis of her analyses of speeches in the law faculty, Kowalczyk, Krakowskie mowy, 101–108, has provided some hitherto unnoticed details of the course of study in law. Elements of these are incorporated into the text that follows.

110

CHAPTER 3

is no record of him receiving an MA), then studied law and is listed as holding a doctorate degree by 1458. Promotion in law, as in other higher faculties, involved both a formal ceremony, in which the candidate delivered an address praising law and defending a positio on some disputed point.96 There was also the obligatory feast afterward.97 Instruction in this faculty was organized under a professor ordinarius, who lectured on the Decretum of Gratian and his commentators, the decretists. This professor was from the beginning of the century one of the leading faculty of the whole university, and the position was held by such distinguished persons as Stanisław of Skarbimierz, James Zaborowski, John Elgot, and Thomas Strzempiński. Later in the century, as the reputation of the law faculty declined, the holders of this position were often less well known. It may even be possible to observe a certain laxness in academic discipline by mid-century, for in 1451, the ordinarius was cautioned that he should be diligent in his work, not ­lecture perfunctorily, and not take extra vacations.98 In addition to this professor there were also faculty appointments for three other doctors and licentiates. They were to lecture upon the Decretales of Pope Gregory IX and the Nova iura, which consisted of the Liber sextus of Boniface VIII and the Clementinae of Clement V. After 1465 there were two additional endowed chairs designated for this faculty; and in 1491 a seventh chair was added, whose responsibilities included special lectures on the fourth book of the Decretales. Additional lectures on individual commentaries and glossators were provided by nonendowed faculty. There is extant from 1464 a revealing description of the law curriculum of the university at that time. In that year, the Dean of the Gniezno cathedral chapter sent his relative Nicholas of Czechel, a student in arts at Cracow, a list of the books necessary to complete the law course there. He listed sixteen

96  For Thomas, see LTCP / SPTK, 4, 221–223. The entry on Arnulf in PSB, 1, 165, is badly outdated. For details of the promotion, see Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Odnowienie Jagiellońskie Uniwersytetu,” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 84 and n. 168. 97  In 1475 Nicholas Wróblewski arranged to have his dinner catered by a local merchant, then refused to pay the three florins, eight grossi he was charged. As a result, he was hailed before the rector’s court, where judgment was rendered against him; see the details in Acta Rectoralia, nos. 407–409. 98   Conclusiones, 16: “secundum dictamen statutorum legat una hora cum media . . . singulis diebus legibilibus legat diligenter, non perfunctoris, non faciat sibi festivitates de non festivitatibus, nec querat occasiones aliquas quominus legeret, quoniam sic per suam negligenciam daret omnibus aliis lectoribus occasionem et causam scholas negligendi. . . .”

Institutional History And Development

111

upon which lectures had to be heard.99 First and foremost were the Decretum, the Decretales, and the Sextus cum Clementinis. In addition there were the following commentaries: Guido of Baysio’s Rosarium decretorum; Guilelmus Durandus’ Repertorium decreti and his Speculator; the Additiones to Durandus by Johannes Andreas and his Quinque volumina novellarum; the Registra magna of Henry Bog; two Summae, one by Hostiensis, the other on the decretals of Innocent IV; and a book of the Decisiones of the Roman curia. The list also included the following unidentified or anonymous works: Epistolae triplices, Additionatus (to Durandus’ Speculator), Decretalium duo volumina, and Cronica Martiana. The law course at Cracow was a popular one, for study there and the completion of its degrees insured employment. The financial burden of studies was eased by positions in church courts, which expanded rapidly in the fifteenth century, or by other kinds of appointment. In addition, graduation paved the way to a church or university career. Lawyers were also in great demand, particularly in the first two-thirds of the century, for royal service. Although they seldom held permanent positions, the continuing problems of the Polish body politic—the councils, the Teutonic Knights, the union with Lithuania—­ provided frequent opportunities for canonists to accept appointments from the king.100 Not all who studied law, however, were content to remain in that discipline. Many continued work in theology, and throughout the century there were lively contacts between theologians and canonists. One of the best examples of this tradition was John of Dąbrówka, who completed his doctorate in law about 1440, turned down the position of professor ordinarius there, and went on to study theology, apparently because he preferred a canonry at St. Florian’s.101 The Medical Faculty The history of the faculty of medicine at Cracow in this period is known only in fragments. There is evidence of teaching in medicine from the beginning, and in the course of the century several physicians were elected rector, the first of 99   Acta iudiciorum ecclesiasticorum dioecesum Gneznensis et Poznaniensis (a. 1403–1530, Bolesław Ulanowski, ed. (Cracow: Nakładem Akademii Umiejętności, 1902 [Monumenta Medii Aevi historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia, 16]), 238–239. 100  Oźóg, Uczeni w monarchii Jadwigi Andegaweńskiej i Władysława Jagiełły, 147–176 has discussed intellectuals, many of them lawyers, in the royal chancery and administration; see also 177–257, for his treatment of intellectuals in various diplomatic roles. 101   Cod. epist., 3, 124: “quia se ad facultatem theol. transtulit, adeo quod et canonicatum inter theologos in ecclesia s. Floriani pro alio beneficio suo accipere voluerit.”

112

CHAPTER 3

whom was John Kro in 1419. But this faculty was never the equal of the others. There was probably only one professor and a bachelor in medicine who taught formally (though there may have been others who lectured occasionally), and in the course of the century there was not a single promotion to doctor.102 A reflection of the weakness of this faculty comes from official descriptions of the governance of the university, In 1422 when Bishop Jastrzębiec designated the rector and the deans or arts, theology, and law as the highest officials of the studium, there was no mention of a dean in medicine. Again late in the century, in the records of rectoral meetings with the deans in 1490, 1492, and 1495, medicine is not mentioned.103 But there were times when this discipline showed more vitality. With the person of John de Saccis of Pavia we find sustained activity. Born about 1370 in Pavia, he may have come to Poland as early as 1415. By 1422 he was probably lecturing at Cracow, and three years later he was elected rector. In 1432/1433 he was dean of his faculty and was involved in the establishment of statutes, perhaps the first, to regulate and organize studies in this area.104 According to these, one who wished to study in medicine had first to be promoted to the MA degree, then study five years before he could receive his MD. In addition, anyone who wished to practice medicine in the diocese of Cracow had first to have his degree and competency confirmed by the university and was required to give occasional lectures at the school. With John de Saccis, who died shortly after these statutes were implemented, the Italian school of medicine was firmly established at Cracow. At this death, Nicholas Templefeld praised him in a sermon for his moral virtue, his activity in improving the study of medicine, and his support of poor students.105 The tradition which he initiated continued through the century. Those who lectured in medicine used the “authorities who provide the bases of knowledge

102  The first promotion came in 1527; see Henryk Barycz, Historja Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w epoce humanizmu (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1935), 215 and 230. 103   C DUC, 1, no. 71, 141; Acta Rectoralia, nos. 1325, 1515, and 1752. 104  For the statutes, see above, n. 8. There is some question in Polish scholarship as to whether these were innovations, reforms, or simply part of a larger process of confirming existing university structure in this area. See the discussion in PSB, 10, 473–475; Skulimowski, “Dzieje Fakultetu Medycznego, “Dzieje fakultetu medycznego Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego do reform Kołłątaja (1364–1779),” in Leon Tochowicz, et al., eds. Nauki medyczne w sześćsetlecie Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiej. Sześćsetlecie medycyny Krakowskiej, 2 vols. (Cracow: Akademia Medyczna w Krakowie, 1963–1964), 2, 24–26, especially; and Markowski, “Pierwsi doktorzy medycyny Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 315–324. 105  See Kowalczyk, Krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie, 126.

Institutional History And Development

113

and the origins of truth.”106 From the evidence of individual manuscripts, particularly those which contain specially gathered collections of medical treatises, it is possible to identify these authorities as Galen, Hippocrates, John the Syrian, Rhazes, and other familiar authors from the canon of traditional medical knowledge. According to university records, lectures were supposed to be given in the Collegium medicum, a small building on Grodzka street next to the Collegium Iuridicum, in which faculty were also to live.107 This may not have been a very satisfactory arrangement, however, for in 1450 Bernard of Hesse, who was the younger brother of the theologian Benedict of Hesse and who had been given the lectureship in medicine, refused to live in this building.108 This collegium was later destroyed by fire; and although there is a later mention of a domus medicorum in 1495,109 at the end of the century we find medical instruction being delivered in one of the lecture halls (the Galen) of the Collegium maius, with the faculty living in private quarters or in other university owned buildings. There was always a problem, however, of maintaining the program in medicine, though isolated figures were of some individual importance. Andrew Grzymała of Poznań earned his MA. at Cracow in 1447, then spent time in Italy both representing university and royal interests and earning a MD degree. When he returned to Cracow he taught in medicine, was twice elected rector, and began the study of law prior to his death in 1466. Peter Gaszowiec studied in arts under John of Ludzisko, Martin Król of Źórawica, and Andrew Grzymała, each of whom also later earned MD degrees. He studied in both Italy and Germany after his MA in 1452, then returned to Cracow, where he taught in medicine and was three times elected rector. As a layman, he married a Cracow woman who was related to the city patriciate, and Peter was himself active in Cracow civic life. It is important to note, however, that both Andrew Grzymała and Peter Gaszowiec (and incidentally the arts professors under whom Peter studied) were better known for their interests and achievements 106  “Qui radices scientiarum et origines veritatis existent,” quoted by Morawski, Historya, 1, 234. 107   Conclusiones, 2: “quod de stuba maiori domus seu Collegii medicorum fiat lectorium pro legendis lectionibus in medicina. Cuius lectorii hostium fiat ad plateam propter uxorem, stuba autem pro doctore medico fiat et construatur sumptibus Universitatis in palacio inferiori eiusdem domus.” 108   Conclusiones, 14: “quod magister Bernardus Hesse de Cracovia, medicine doctor, habeat lecturam medicine . . . . Occasione sive racione domus Collegii medicorum, quam pro hac vice non vult inhabitare. . . .” 109   Conclusiones, 84: “et de domo medicorum vicina Collegio dominorum canonistarum.”

114

CHAPTER 3

in non-­medical areas, particularly early humanism and astronomy. Ensuring the continuity of medical studies remained a problem. The best example of this is the early career of John of Reguły, who matriculated at Cracow in 1460. After he earned his MA in 1468 he went to Italy for further study, then in 1475 was summoned home to Cracow to lecture in medicine. He served as dean of that faculty in 1478, then apparently left the university. After some years the university complained to the king “that lecturers in medicine were unavailable,” and that John had been absent for a long time. Finally in 1498 the professors issued a stern admonition to their errant physician to return to teaching and informed him that for that year he was to be paid only part of his salary, since they had been forced to hire a replacement in his absence.110 As we have seen in a previous chapter, John had been involved in the civil government of Cracow. It was only in the sixteenth century with the activity of Matthew of Miechów and the foundation of a second chair in medicine that this faculty became an important part of the studium. We shall have more to say about medicine in Chapter Eight below when discussing the intellectual life of the university.111 Let us now turn to an analysis of life in the faculty collegia and student bursa within the school.

Collegia and Bursa

The previous chapter of this study included a discussion of the physical history of the Collegium maius to the early sixteenth century. This present section deals with the organizational structure of, and faculty life within, this building. Those who lived in what was first known as the royal college (Collegium 110  For the foregoing, see Conclusiones, 45–46: “facta convocacione . . . ad tractandum et consulendum super defectu lectorum medicine . . . et de absencia diutina egregii viri magistri Iohannis de Reguli . . . conclusum . . . moneatur et citetur per edictum publice, [ut] infra certum tempus ad locum sui officii . . . redeat;” 91: “Primo de salario magistri Johannis de Regulus . . . . retento a tribus quartalibus anni ipso dudum absente. Ubi omnes unanimi . . . dixerunt, quod pecunie salarii sui sunt retinende et lectori, qui nunc legit, loco sui iuxta statuta est solvendum. . . .” 111  Those who taught, either by being promoted (promoti ad cathedram) or by being incorporated into the faculty (incorportati) between 1400 and 1611 were originally listed, on the basis of four manuscripts, by Markowski, “Les manuscrits des listes de docteurs en médicine à l’Université de Cracovie entre 1400 et 1611,” MPP 20 (1974): 121–140; his later publication, “Pierwsi doktorzy medycyny Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” incorporates two additional manuscript lists.

Institutional History And Development

115

Vladislai Regis) were the professors of arts and theology, and they constituted an autonomous, self-governing group. Thus in 1429, the whole community prepared a series of statutes, de novo conscripta, according to which they lived.112 From among their number they semi-annually elected a provost (praepositus) who was responsible for insuring that life in the building ran smoothly. From each member he collected fees: a one-time payment of three-quarters of a mark upon appointment to the college, a yearly payment for fuel, and a weekly fee of one grossus per professor for foodstuffs and other provisions. In addition he had the power of judging infractions of the statutes, consulting with his colleagues in serious matters, and levying appropriate fines, which were then paid into the common treasury. Finally, it was his responsibility to purchase provisions, or at least ensure they were purchased, watch over the kitchen, employ and supervise the servants of the collegium, and prevent unauthorized persons from eating at the common table. A second faculty official of the college was the cellar-master (praepositus cellarii), who was responsible for dispensing beer and wine to the masters and doctors, either from the common cellar or from private professorial purchases which he stored for individuals. He was aided by a non-faculty pincerna, who received one grossus a week plus free room and board. Another faculty member was designated as lector, and it was his responsibility during the meals, which were eaten in silence, to provide an inspirational or edifying reading from the Fathers or other devotional source. The other staff members of the collegium were a cleaning servant and the cook, who was the only woman in the building. Food within the college was simple fare. Peas porridge, groats, and oatmeal were staples; soup, bread, cheese, and vegetables were common; fowl, fish, and meats such as mutton, pork, or beef were rarities, except following Sunday services and on certain other special occasions.113 Complaints and grumbling about the food or the size of the portions were not allowed, but the statutes specifically provided for instances when it was possible tactfully to suggest to the provost in private “that sufficient servings would enable the faculty to perform their lectures, exercises, and other university responsibilities more adequately.” Two meals were served daily, one at 11:00 a.m., the other at 6:00 p.m. What was not eaten could not be taken from the table, and the servings of those not present were saved for them only if some official university-related 112  The following, except where noted, is based upon Szujski, “Statuta antiqua,” 3–17. 113  See Karbowiak, Obiady profesorów Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w XVI i XVII w. (Cracow: Czas, 1900), 3–9, which discusses fifteenth century evidence; and Antonia Jelicz, Życie codzienne w średniowiecznym Krakowie (wiek XIII–XV) (Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1966), 129.

116

CHAPTER 3

duty delayed them. For example, on Sunday the professors ate their mid-day meal without waiting for those of their colleagues who were canons of St. Florian’s and were celebrating divine services. Under other circumstances, if a faculty member were late for a meal, he went without. Following the death in 1473 of John Kanty, a professor of theology who was canonized in the seventeenth century, the following tradition was instituted in honor of his concern for the poor: a special place was set at each meal and some impoverished cleric was invited to join the professors; as he entered, he was announced with the phrase pauper venit, to which the faculty responded in unison Christus venit.114 Each professor in the collegium had his own private cell, or later an apartment of three or four small rooms. These quarters were sparsely furnished with a writing desk, a bookcase, bed, chest, washstand, and cup. In addition, each faculty member had the right to keep one or more servants, usually poor students at the university. In 1447 the issue of the “multiplication of servants” was raised, and a new statute was adopted which limited each professor to one servant. He was allowed to eat in the commons room, together with other servants, at a special table, but the professor had to let him sleep in his cell and not consign him to the hallways. It was the faculty member’s responsibility to pay for the support of his servant in the amount of one grossus per week. The character of life in the college resembled that of a monastery, except that divine services were not celebrated there. Silence was the key to everything: at table, in cells, and in the corridors. After the evening meal, faculty were to retire to their rooms for reading and study. Two hours after sunset in summer, three in winter, the doors of the Collegium were locked, and any professor who had been in the city had to pay a fine of six grossi if he returned after closing. Overnight stays outside the college also carried with them a fine. Should a professor invite any outsider to visit him after hours, he paid a fine of two grossi. If for any official reason a faculty member had to go out after dark, he was required to take his servant with him to carry a lantern. Despite this regimen, which most academics today would find confining, there were advantages. Professor were part of a community. In addition they were freed from the distracting trivialities of domestic life, and the Collegium maius provided a context within which concentrated study and uplifting intellectual and even moral culture could take place. When the strictures of this semi-monastic life were too great, there was always the city with its spectrum of activity. Its attractions are suggested by one of the statutes which cautions against such things as aimless wandering, visiting taverns of ill-repute, making public spectacles of oneself, consorting with and talking to women, and anything else which 114  Morawski, Historya, 2, 425, citing an early sixteenth century manuscript.

Institutional History And Development

117

would bring scandal to the collegium, distract the mind, corrupt morals, and ruin reputations. The number of faculty members living in this building grew throughout the century. In addition to the six royal masters in arts and the nine chairs associated with St. Florian’s church (see below), private foundations and additional lectureships in theology swelled the total and created crowded conditions. This was to be one of the factors which led to the foundation of the Collegium minus in 1449, as a result of which some of the arts faculty were relocated. By about 1500, however, more than a score of professors were housed in the Collegium maius, making it both physically and academically the heart of the university.115 The Collegium minus was also to play an important role. By the late 1440’s both considerations of space and curriculum prompted the university to consider dividing the arts faculty. Whether precedents from other schools in the west where similar separations had occurred116 influenced this decision is not known, but discussions had proceeded so far by 1448 that when Thomas Zaborowski founded a new chair in grammar, he explicitly designated it to be part of the future Collegium minus.117 It was not until the following year, however, that the faculty convened to act on this issue. On 18 October, under the provostship of John of Dąbrówka, the professors of the artists’ college agreed to erect a new college.118 Eight members of the arts faculty were appointed to this, including three private chairs, the Nowko, Stobner, and Mężkowa. To house them a nearby building was designated, although they were to continue to teach in the Collegium maius. By the end of the century, additional foundations 115  Not all the faculty teaching in arts lived in the Collegium maius or, after 1448/1449, in the Collegium minus. For example, one of the most infamous of the masters at Cracow, Andrzej Gałka of Dobczyn, lived privately; in 1449 he was renting rooms from John Tesnar, a Cracow citizen and member of the city council; see my “ ‘The Worst Heretic:’ Andrzej Gałka of Dobczyn in the Academic and Ecclesiastical Context of Mid-15th century Kraków and Poland,” The Polish Review 54 (2009): 565. 116  The most important example of a Collegium minus was at Leipzig and, following its precedent, at its daughter studia, Rostock and Greifswald. See Rashdall, Medieval Universities, 2, 259, 261, 292, and 2, 363, 421 n. 4; and Ranier Christoph Schwinges, “Student education, student life” in Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992 [Walter Rüegg, General Editor, A History of the University in Europe, 1]), 217–218. 117   C DUC, 2, no. 148, 100: “Item decernimus, quod ipse altarista altaris praefati in Collegio minori Artistarum locum et ascensum ad alias Collegiaturas, si tamen sufficiens, idoneus et utilis Universitati compertus fuerit, habeat et ad unum actum in quacumque facultate in dicto Collegio per singulas commutationes explendum per se vel per alium sit astrictus.” 118  The decision is printed by Szujski, “Statuta Collegii minoris,” 95–96. See also CDUC, 3, no. 250, 45–48.

118

CHAPTER 3

and university reorganization increased the number of faculty in this college to fourteen. The history of this foundation in the next fifty years is a checkered one. Academically and intellectually its importance, particularly in the area of astronomy and early humanism, can scarcely be overestimated. But the material side of its existence is another matter. The building to which the faculty were assigned was barely adequate, and as one university document notes laconically “after a short time it was consumed by fire and destroyed,” either in the city fire of 1455 or more probably in 1462.119 In the aftermath the faculty were forced to seek living quarters wherever they could find them, and there is some evidence that on several occasions bitter complaints and recriminations were lodged by the members of the new college against those of the older. To solve these, the university, though the mediation of John Długosz, bought a storehouse in 1464 on Bracka street from the Melsztyński brothers, who had earlier been university benefactors.120 This building was designated as a Collegium Novum for lawyers, physicians, and those in arts who could not find housing in the Collegiium maius. This proved, however, to be only temporary and very unsatisfactory. For the next decade the university from time to time discussed the problem.121 Only in 1476 was a satisfactory solution found. A building located behind the Collegium maius, which had earlier been used as a bursa for wealthy students (the Bursa divitum) was given to the Collegium minus as a permanent home. While neither as spacious nor comfortable as the royal college (the Collegium maius), it was ­satisfactory.122 (Illustration 5 shows the status of this building in the mid—nineteenth century; it is no longer extant.) 119   C DUC, 3, no. 250, 46: “post breve tempus igne penitus fuit consumpta et incinerata.” For the fires, see Monumenta Poloniae Historica, August Bielowski, et al., eds., 6 vols. (Lwów: vol. 1 and 2 Nakładem Autora, 3–5 Akademia Umiejętności, 1864–1893 [vol. 6 Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności]), 2 (1872), 927, for the fire of 1455; and Długosz, Annales, 11, 30 (Liber duodecimus, s.a. 1462) for the fire of 1462. The most recent study of the history of the Collegium minus, Andrzej Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego (Cracow, 2000), 255, opts for the fire of 1462. 120   C DUC, 2, no. 208, 234; see also Conclusiones, 27. 121  For example in 1470: “conclusum est, quod minoris Collegii collegiati possunt morari in domibus Universitatis, scilicet in canonistarum Collegio aut divitum bursa.” Conclusiones, 32. 122   C DUC, 3, no. 250, 45–48. This document, which has been referred to above, n. 119 and 120, reviews the history of the college up to the time of this grant. This building is discussed by Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs, 255–268, whose comments now replaces the unpublished typewritten study (to which he refers) by E. DwornikGutkowska and M. Gutkowski, “Budynek Collegium Minus (wstępna dokumentacja architektoniczna)” (Cracow, 1960), which I have not seen.

Institutional History And Development

119

Illustration 5 Sketch of the Collegium minus, (no longer extant); nineteenth century, Teodor Stachowicz [?]. Courtesy of the National Archives in Cracow, Iconographic Collection 29/671/695.

In this house the faculty was able to put into practice the statutes and regulations it had drafted more than a quarter-century before and to develop some of the same sense of community that existed in the Collegium maius, upon whose statutes they based their own. Administration of the house was in the hands of a provost, elected semi-annually, and of two assistants. Daily readings were given at meals, silence was the rule, infractions were fined, and at night the college was a closed community. Rooms in the building and places at table were assigned on the basis of seniority, and in everything the semi-monastic spirit of gravity and probity was supreme.123 In general those who lived in this college were younger than their colleagues in the Collegium maius, since in most instances the teaching appointments designated to the Collegium minus were the lowest rungs on the ladder of an academic career. The corps of the college was not a static group, for every year or so one or two masters in the Collegium 123  See Szujski, “Statuta Collegii minoris,” 102–116.

120

CHAPTER 3

minus were newly appointed to the royal college and their place taken by a more recent master. Almost nothing is known directly about the organization and life of the Collegium Iuridicum. To provide a place of residence for professors in law, the university purchased a house in March 1403 on Grodzka street.124 According to Długosz, some of the funds for this came from the moneys left by Queen Jadwiga in her will.125 But this building quickly proved to be too small for faculty housing and lecturer; and three years later the adjoining house was bought for 300 marks, and the two structures were remodeled into a single unit.126 Those who lived in this college were under the jurisdiction of a provost,127 and it reasonable to assume that the statutes of this house were similar to the two others we have previously discussed. (See Illustration 6, showing the current exterior of the building.) It may well have been, however, that life among the lawyers was less restrictive and regulated than that in the Collegium maius. For example, not all the faculty lived in the college. Stanisław of Skarbimierz, the professor ordinarius for the first three decades of the century, retained his own house,128 and a later canonist, John Elgot, also had a private residence, which he willed at his death to the university for use by the ordinarius in law.129 In addition, masters who were not lawyers lived in the building. Some apparently rented sufficient space that they were able to sub-lease housing to students, creating a kind of private bursa.130 Thus there was a freer atmosphere here. As a reflection of this we see 124   C DUC, 1, no. 29, 51. For the previous history of this building, see Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs, 191–192. 125  Długosz, Annales, 6, 239 (Liber decimus, s.a. 1400). Though the document cited in the previous note makes no mention of this, Długosz notes this building was for both “canonists and physicians” (“ex domo . . . in platea Castrensi sitarum canonistarum et medicorum collegia . . . eriguntur”). 126   C DUC, 1, no. 39, 73. 127  His existence is noted in, among other sources, Acta Rectoralia, no. 1740. 128  A general convocation of the law faculty was held in his home in 1427; see Album Studiosorum, 1, v; Metryka, 1, 647. 129  See Conclusiones, 16: “Johannes de Elgoth . . . domum suam . . . universitati libere et liberaliter resignavit, dedit et contulit totaliter.” 130  Jodochus of Ziegenhals, whose bachelor’s curriculum was described above, also reported that he lived “in bursa magistri Johannes Sneschwicz in Collegio Iuristarum.” See Morawski, Historya, 1, 211, n. 1 A reflection of a similar arrangement may be seen in the speech of Stanisław of Skarbimierz praising Lucas of Wielki Koźmin: “quod plures de nobilibus et pauperibus in mensa sua pavit et omnimode moribus . . . instruxit;” cited by Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Odnowienie Jagiellońskie Uniwersytetu,” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ 62, n. 24.

Institutional History And Development

121

Illustration 6 View of the exterior, Collegium Iuridicum, Jagiellonian University of Cracow; current state. WikiMedi Commons. Ludvig 14 (https://commons.wikimedia .org/wiki/File:Krakow_CollegiumIuridicum_D14.jpg, last accessed 22 April 2016).

numerous instances, particularly in the second half of the century, of complaints about lapses in discipline.131 Although little is known about the law college, even less is extant about the organization of the medical facilities. There are occasional references to the Collegium medicorum, but this should not be taken to mean that a separate building for physicians prospered as an independent college. As we have seen, lectures may not even have been held there with regularity. Other data suggest that some physicians may have lived with the lawyers, but apparently more lived privately. This is all the more probably in light of the fact that many were laymen, and some were married and had families. 131  This point is made by Morawski, Historya, 2, 432f.

122

CHAPTER 3

After the refoundation of the university in 1400 the question of where students were to be housed became an issue. At first this was probably addressed in an ad hoc manner, but during the course of the century several student hostels were founded, some endowed, some partially subvented, others loosely organized around a particular academic or ethnic grouping. The following section of this chapter deals with the establishment and history of these living units and of the circumstances of students living in them.132 John Isner was the leading theologian of the early university. A member of a well-known family in Cracow, he may have begun his university education at the Casimiran studium, but went soon thereafter to Prague, where he completed the arts course and earned a license in theology. By 1399 he is noted as doctor in theology. According to some, the degree was earned in Cracow after the establishment of a theology faculty in 1397. He was crucial in organizing the study of theology there after 1400 and became well acquainted with the needs of the school.133 In 1409 he arranged to purchase a house located on the corner of Wiślna and Gołębia streets that was owned by the Cracow citizen John Stadtschreiber, a relative of Matthew of Cracow. This he transformed into a hostel. In his will of the following year he explicitly designated this to be a home for poor students, particularly those from Lithuania and Ruthenia. He did, however, provide that some rich students were to be allowed to live in the front part of the house. The fees charged them were to go to the general support of the other students in the building. In addition, six marks yearly were to be paid to this Bursa pauperum from the income of an altar in the cathedral that was endowed with lands in Trątnowice. Places were reserved annually for two impoverished Lithuanians studying theology to live in the house and to receive a yearly allowance of eight marks, for which there were required to say one mass weekly. To regulate the hostel, a junior member of the arts faculty was appointed as senior, and it was his responsibility to live in the house, maintain order, and work with the university appointed provisor to ensure a sufficient supply of fuel and food.134 132  Apart from the data relating to founding and architecture documented in subsequent notes, there is a very good picture of student life in these bursa provided by Krzysztof Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w późnym średniowieczu (Cracow: Avalon, 2010), 182–199. 133  For his biography see PSB, 10, 434–436; Markowski, Dzieje wydziału teologii, 100–104; and LTCP / SPTK, 2, 91–93. 134  These details are derived from CDUC, 1, nos. 41, 43, and 45, 75, 78–79, and 82, respectively, the last being Isner’s will. For the economic details in the will, see Fundationes pecuniariae Universitatis Iagellonicae in saeculis XV–XVIII, Jerzy Michalewicz and Maria Michalewiczowa, eds. (Cracow: Archiwum Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1999 [Liber

Institutional History And Development

123

The financial condition of the bursa was strengthened in 1417 when the executors of the will of Nicholas of Gliwice, who had been promoted to bachelor in arts at the Casimiran university,135 made a cash payment of 200 marks to this Isner foundation. In addition the will provided an annual payment of sixteen grossi for the oldest student living in the bursa.136 Later in the century, when the quarters of the Bursa pauperum eventually grew too crowded, John Długosz intervened on behalf of the university. In 1461 he arranged for the purchase of the adjoining house on Wiślna, and the two building were remodeled and joined.137 Early in the sixteenth century, further enlargements were made, including a chapel and sewer drainage to serve the students living there, which, in the judgment of earlier scholars may have numbered 200.138 (Illustration 7 shows the status of this bursa in 1835; it is no longer extant.) A second great benefaction for student came in mid-century with the foundation of the Jerusalem hostel. In 1453 Bishop Oleśnicki purchased a large building and lot on the corner of Jagiellońska and Gołębia streets which had been commonly known as the Jerusalem house. He immediately provided 1000 marks for it to be renovated. Then in his will, written on 15 May 1454 and executed upon his death the following year, he gave it to the university for student housing, adding another 1000 marks for remodeling and the future maintenance of students. He described the house as having “fifty rooms, with beneficiorum et benefactorum Universitatis Iagellonicae in saeculis XV–XVIII, 1]), no. 1, 1. Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs, 384–385, treats historical and architectural details of the bursa. 135   Album Studiosorum, 9; Metryka, 1, 9: “[Nota modum et ordinem petendi pro benefactoribus Universitatis] . . . item pro domino Nicolao Gleyvicz arcium baccalario studii Cracoviensis adhuc tempore Kazimiri Regis . . .” This datum of information is convincing evidence that at some level the Casimiran studium actually functioned; see Stanisław Szczur, Papież Urban V i powstanie uniwersytetu w Krakowie w 1364 r. (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 1999), 205. 136  Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Odnowienie Jagiellońskie Uniwersytetu,” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 56; Fundationes pecuniariae Universitatis Iagellonicae, no. 2, 1. 137   C DUC, 2, no. 196, 203–204. Further details are reflected in Długosz’s Liber beneficiorum dioecesis Cracoviensis, 1, 515 [Opera Omnia, 7 (1863)] See also the comments of Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs, 385–386. 138  Antoni Karbowiak, Mieszkania żaków krakowskich w XIV–XVI wieku (Lwów: Nakładem Autora, 1887), 19 [self-published off-print of article by same name in Muzeum 3 (1887): 489–503, 562–572, 611–625. Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs, 387, regards this number as exaggerated; he also provides information on the aforementioned sixteenth century changes and others later in that century. The eighteenth century floor plans of the bursa Włodarek includes between 396 and 397 suggest that his caution about the numbers of students is well founded.

124

CHAPTER 3

Illustration 7 Sketch of the Bursa pauperum (no longer extant), ca. 1835, J. Brodowski. Courtesy of the Historical Museum of the City of Cracow, 187/VIII.

a large chamber for the rector of the hostel, a library, and a kitchen.” To furnish the building, he also donated his silver and his library.139 This was a magnificent donation appropriate to Oleśnicki’s status as ecclesiastical prince and statesman, and it provided space for one hundred students. His benefaction is recorded on the stone tablet memorializing the erection of the bursa that is now installed in the courtyard of the Collegium maius (see Illustration 8). The university quickly established a series of statutes for the house, which provided, among other things, for a faculty senior to be resident and administer the regulations. This promising beginning received a severe setback in 1462, when the Jerusalem bursa was badly damaged by the fire mentioned several times in this study. In the aftermath, John Długosz, not only the chief executor of the bishop’s will but also at that point the provisor of the bursa, arranged for resources from the moneys left by Oleśnicki to have the hostel quickly rebuilt (see Illustration 9).140 Throughout the remainder of the century, this bursa was 139  The will, whose chief executor was John Długosz, is in CDUC, 2, no. 175, 156–159. For the details of the building’s history in the fifteenth century, see Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs, 344–347. 140  See the comments in Vita Ioannis Dlugosch Senioris Canonici Cracoviensis, Mieczysław Brożek, ed. (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1961), 38.

Institutional History And Development

Illustration 8 Foundation tablet for Zbigniew Oleśnicki’s Jerusalem bursa (1453?). Courtesy of the Collegium Maius Museum, Jagiellonian University of Cracow.

Illustration 9 Sketch of the Jerusalem bursa (no longer extant), prior to fire of 1841, J. Brodowski. Courtesy of the Historical Museum of the City of Cracow, 189/VIII.

125

126

CHAPTER 3

one of the most important centers of student activity within the university, and at times we see instances of young masters living within the house. These may have been the extranei non de facultate to be discussed in the next chapter. A third example of a student hostel was less substantial than the two previously mentioned. This was the Bursa pisarum or Grochowa hostel, also known as the Bursa juristarum. Founded by the cathedral chapter of Cracow in 1441 in a house on Kanonicza street, it had no endowment and provided space for only a few students.141 By 1454 its physical condition was so bad that the university agreed to repair it.142 Even this was inadequate, however, so in 1469 Długosz began a series of delicate negotiations with Jewish property holders in the vicinity of the Collegium maius. These were successfully concluded with the purchase of a stone structure, the Bursa pisarum was transferred to this building, and the Jews were allowed to build a new synagogue and open a cemetery in another part of the city.143 Beyond this, little is known about this hostel. Its significance as a place of residence for students in canon law was soon greatly diminished by yet another intervention by Długosz, who, although he had no formal standing within the university (having never earned any academic degree), was nevertheless an important figure in its history.144 Długosz was by the late 1460s a canon of the Cracow cathedral. In his youth he had early come to the attention of Zbigniew Oleśnicki, with whom he shared similar intellectual and religious views, and he had later served the bishop well as both diplomat and advisor. His interests were more historical 141   C DUC, 2, no. 106, 3–8. For the history of this building, see Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs, 320–323. 142   Conclusiones, 21–22. 143  These developments are reflected in CDUC, 2, no. 223, 262–263 and no. 224, 263–264. See above, Chapter Two, n. 52 and n. 71. 144  There is an very large body of literature on Długosz, in significant measure as the result of his great history of Poland, the Annales. The best way to approach the substantial historiography dealing with him is through two volumes published in connection with the 500th anniversary of his death: Dlugossiana. Studia historyczne w pięćsetlecie śmierci Jana Długosza, Stanisław Gawęnda, ed. [Part 1] (Warsaw: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1980, printed by Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe), and Dlugossiana. Studia historyczne w pięćsetlecie śmierci Jana Długosza, Gawęda, ed. [Part 2] (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1985 [Prace Historyczne, 76]); and Marian Plezia, “Jan Długosz,” in Stanisław Grzeszczuk, ed., Pisarze staropolscy sylwetki (Warsaw: Wiedza Powszechna, 1991), pp. 132–173. More recent is the brief treatment by Stanisław Grzybowski, Jan Długosz (Cracow: Wydawnictwo WAM, 2003). In English, see my “Jan Długosz, 1480–1980,” The Polish Review 27, 1–2 (1982): 3–28, reprinted in Charles S. Kraszewski, ed., Fifty Years of Polish Scholarship: The Polish Review 1956–2006 (New York: PIASA Books, 2006), 259–295.

Institutional History And Development

127

and literary than legal, but he had close ties to the lawyers of the university, particularly the students. In 1471 he purchased a relatively large stone house on Grodzka street near the Romanesque church of St. Andrew and designated it as a hostel for young students going into arts and then law.145 Unforeseen, and now unknown, delays prevented it from being fully functional until the early 1480s, but during the rectorship of Matthew of Kościan in 1485, detailed statutes were prepared.146 A faculty senior was appointed to administer the house. His support was derived from an endowed altar in the cathedral, and his faculty responsibilities included lectures in law on the fourth book of the Decretales.147 While it has been suggested that the Bursa Longini or Bursa canonistarum housed 100 students, there is apparently no evidence to support this information (see Illustration 10).148 Before discussing two final hostels which served students from specific national groups, it is well to draw together the scattered references to three other units, about each of which little is known. There are notices of a Bursa philosophorum on Gołębia street near the Jerusalem hostel, which apparently was intended for students in arts. While it may have been in existence from the beginning of the century, the first mention we have of it is from the year 1447. Its senior was a young master, in some instances even a bachelor.149 There are also allusions to students living in a Bursa medicum and a mention of the senior of this hostel.150 We have already discussed the Bursa divitum in connection with the housing problems of the Collegium maius. It apparently had no endowment and existed solely on student fees, which should have been readily forthcoming since it housed wealthy students. It disappeared after 1476 when its building was designated for housing junior faculty in arts.

145   C DUC, 3, no. 244, 38; Vita Dlugosii, vii. 146  See above, n. 13. 147   C DUC, 3, no. 291, 174. 148  Krystyna Pieradzka, Związki Długosza z Krakowem (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1975), 93, provides this number, but Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs, 282, has been unable to find evidence this was the case. See his discussion of the fifteenth and early sixteenth century history of the physical home of the Długosz bursa, 282–298. 149  See, for example, Acta Rectoralia, no. 717; see also Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs, 326–327, for the fifteenth century history of the home of this bursa, together with some observations about the ethnic identity of students who can be identified as living in this bursa. 150   Acta Rectoralia, nos. 1671 and 1724. Absent a building that can be identified as this bursa, there is no discussion of it in Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs.

128

CHAPTER 3

Illustration 10 Sketch of the John Długosz bursa prior to fire of 1841, K. Kopff. Courtesy of the Jagiellonian Library, Special Collections Department, Graphic and Cartographic Collection I.R. 87.

As we shall see in the following chapter, there were a relatively large number of foreign students at the University of Cracow in the fifteenth century. The largest groups came from Hungary and the German lands, and it is not therefore surprising that hostels should be established to provide them housing. The origins of the Bursa Hungarorum can be traced at least to 1452, when a Cracow nobleman, Nicholas Bielonka, willed his house near the Collegium maius to the university and established a professorship with an endowed altar in St. Anne’s church. The building was to be used to house students from Hungary or Germany or even other locations. This was confirmed in 1457.151 By this time there were already several Hungarian and German students living there. For some reason, however, these housing arrangements were not continued. Not until 1464, when Długosz helped the university buy the Melsztyński house on Bracka street, was a building found which could eventually serve as a student hostel. At first, this Collegium Novum was designated for lectures in law, medicine, and arts (see above). When the arts faculty were transferred to the Bursa 151   C DUC, 2, no. 189, 185.

Institutional History And Development

129

divitum building in 1476, this structure, where students from the Hungarian lands had already been living, became the Hungarian center. Housing at least forty students,152 the building was leased to a faculty manager for one or more years. In 1483, John of Głogów asked for this responsibility and in 1488 it was held by John Sommerfeld.153 In the course of the last decades of the century several hundred students from Hungary lived here, although there were other students, particularly German, who also resided in the house.154 In addition, this building served as an unofficial, quasi-academic center, particularly in relation to the development of humanism at the university. It was here that Conrad Celtis gave some of his lectures in 1489–1490. The other important ethnic or national center was the German hostel. As noted above, in 1483 the aforementioned Melsztyński house on Bracka street was given into the management of John of Głogów to house both students from both the Hungarian and German lands. Then in 1487 John built a wooden house on St. Anne’s street behind the Collegium maius, and used it to house students from Germany. Burned down in 1523, it was eventually rebuilt and was henceforth known as the Bursa nova. Beyond this, little is known of the history of this bursa in the middle ages.155 As a result of the growth throughout the century of facilities for students, the university eventually decided upon a uniform policy about housing. Unless students had family or relatives in Cracow with whom they might live, or were pauperes earning their way by services to some faculty member or private citizen with whom there were able to live, or (since rank has in most times and places held special privileges) were sons of nobles and required private quarters and tutors, the faculty concluded in 1491 that henceforth all students should live in bursae.156 This step may also be seen as an attempt to cut down 152   Conclusiones, 64. 153   Conclusiones, 50 and 58. 154  For the residents in this bursa, see Regestrum Bursae Hungarorum Cracoviensis (1493– 1558), Karl [Károly] Schrauf, ed. (Vienna: A. Hölder and Budapest: A.M. Tud. Akadémia kiadványa, 1893); and Krzysztof Baczkowski, “Die ungarischen Studenten an der krakauer Akademie im 15. Jahrhundert,” in Lázsló Szőgi and Júlia Varga, eds. Universitas Budensis, 1395–1995 (Budapest: Bak-Fisch KFT, 1997), 117–128. For the history of the building itself in this period, see Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs, 411–414. 155   Conclusiones, 50 and 56; Acta Rectoralia, nos. 1097 and 1180; the meager evidence for this bursa has been most recently analyzed by Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs, 44. He also discusses housing for other foreign students, for example a Czech bursa, and monastic bursa, about which little is also known. 156   Conclusionses, 63; Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., xlii. The uniformity of this policy stands in the historic tradition of academic rules from which exceptions are always made.

130

CHAPTER 3

on student violence and rowdiness and to prevent—or at least limit—student contact with women in the town.157 While it was traditional at Cracow, as in other medieval studia, that all students who matriculated in arts should be under the supervision of a faculty member, this decision represents a further extension of the tradition of the university in loco parentis.

Material Support for the Studium

The opening of the University of Cracow in 1400 had taken place in an atmos­ phere of enthusiasm and high expectation. The crowing jewel of medieval education, the “pearl of powerful learning” identified by both Casimir and Jagiełło, had again been placed in a Polish setting. Within a year, however, grim reality had intruded upon this scene. Universities may have been legally abstract corporations, but they functioned in a society in which concrete needs had to be met; and although professors like what they do, they require adequate financial support to live. This was lacking at Cracow. To be sure, the king had provided 100 marks annually for the faculty in the royal college, but it was soon apparent that this was insufficient. Thus one of the most important efforts of the university in its first years was to find additional sources of income and support for its faculty. In this section we shall concentrate upon specific bequests. Nearly half-a-century ago, in connection with the first 600th anniversary celebration of the foundation of the university, Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa pointed out that the times were not exactly propitious for the support of such a venture as a new university.158 The clergy in Poland, which had really developed into a separate legal entity only during the thirteenth century, had not yet been deeply exposed to higher learning, which it viewed as a function subordinate to the cura animarum and the celebration of divine services.159 The larger church was profoundly afflicted by the fever of the schism, the potential 157  See the comment of Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w późnym średniowieczu, 208, n. 160. 158  Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Uniwersytet Jagielloński w dobie Grunwaldu,” Prace Historyczne 8: Zeszyt Grunwaldzki (1961): 55. 159  Bolesław Kumor and Zdzisław Obertyński, eds., Historia Kościoła w Polsce, 1, 1 (Poznań and Warsaw: Pallotinum, 1974), 107–124, for thirteenth century developments; Oźóg, Kultura umysłowa w Krakowie w XIV wieku. Środowisko duchowieństwa świeckiego (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1987), 11–49 for the education of the secular clergy and their attitude toward learning.

Institutional History And Development

131

crisis of authority in the leadership of Christendom, and the growing secularization of society. In Poland the secular elite, ambitious to gain controls of land and revenue, were not likely to be sanguine about the diversion of moneys from potential benefices to a fledgling school whose usefulness they could not yet see. That the university was able to overcome these obstacles and become a viable institution, financially, academically, and in its usefulness to society, was a very great achievement. These things are all interrelated, but in 1400 the most immediate concern was what Astrik Gabriel has called “the economic and material frame” of the university.160 The king and the bishop Piotr Wysz of Cracow were the first to act. As the result of deliberations whose details are unknown to us, but which surely were related to Jagiełło’s original intentions (and perhaps also to the influence of his relative, Prince John Wajdut of Drohiczyn, who served as the second rector of the university) along with the general reforming zeal and support of the studium by the bishop, the king and Bishop Wysz made major grants in support of the university on 15 June 1401. The royal grant ceded to the school the deanship, chantry, and the four existing canonries in the collegiate church of St. Florian’s in the Cracow suburb of Kleparz. In addition Jagiełło assigned three regional chancelleries, those of Great Poland, Łęczyca, and Sieradz, as benefices to endow an additional three canonries in St. Florian’s for university faculty.161 (These three latter positions derived from offices whose importance had steadily declined in the face of the rise of a royal, national chancellery, but from which there was still income to be derived.) These nine prebends were designated for the faculty in theology, reflecting the royal concern for the importance of that discipline in completing the Christianization of Lithuania. The king did provide, however, that the first 100 marks derived from them were to go to the masters in the arts faculty. But what he gave with one hand, he took with the other, for he further specified that the moneys from the Cracow customs office specified in his royal act of foundation should cease when the income from these sources equaled it. Thus the position of the arts professors remained unchanged.

160  See Astrik L. Gabriel, ed., The Economic and Material Frame of the Mediaeval University (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1977), 11–13. 161   C DUC, 1, no. 21, 35–37. For the landed estates, tithes, and rents which supported these positions at St. Florian’s, see Beneficia Universitatis Jagellonicae saec. XV–XVIII, Jerzy Michalewicz and Maria Michalewiczowa, eds. (Cracow: Archiwum Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1991 [Liber beneficiorum et benefactorum Universitatis Jagellonicae in saeculis XV–XVIII 5]), part 1, no. 27, 44–51; no. 45, 87–93; no. 47, 95–98; no. 54, 110.

132

CHAPTER 3

The king requested papal approval of his act from Boniface IX in 1404,162 but this did not come immediately. Five years later, two representatives of bishop Peter Wysz, his vicarius in spiritualibus John Szafraniec and the scholasticus of the cathedral canons Otto, specified that these prebends were to go, not to faculty in theology, but rather to individuals who “ought to labor in accord with their degree in whatever faculty they have been appointed.”163 Two years later these same representatives communicated the bishop’s decision that the St. Florian’s benefices were to be held by masters whether or not they were appointed in higher faculties.164 In other words these nine professorships held by the promoti ad S. Florianum could also be held by arts faculty, no matter what their academic career, whether teaching only in arts, pursuing study for some advanced degree, or holding a faculty appointment in such a higher faculty.165 In his mid-summer grant of 1401 Peter Wysz provided two canonries in the Cracow cathedral, the rectorship of the parish church in Luborzyca, and the same office in the churches of St. Mary Magdalene and St. Wojciech in Cracow for the university.166 All were to go to the theological faculty. But again, later developments changed this. When the bishop confirmed this grant in 1403, he gave these five prebends to the university as a whole, without specific ­allocation.167 In a papal reconfirmation of both the royal and episcopal actions in 1411, John XXIII made no specific mention about the distribution of these appointments, but later in the year he did indicate that the bishop’s grant should be allocated to faculty in theology, law, or arts.168 Not until 1422 was this matter finally settled when Bishop Wojciech Jastrzębiec, confirming an earlier decision in 1419 by Pope Martin V, designated one benefice for theology, three for law, and one for arts.169 Although these grants were substantial and formed the core of the university’s endowment, there did not immediately solve its financial problems. For example, some of these benefices were currently held when they were given, 162   C DUC, 1, no. 32, 57. 163   C DUC, 1, no. 44, 81: “debet laborare iuxta gradum illius facultatis, in qua fuerit constitutus.” 164   C DUC, I, no. 50, 96. 165  For example, Andrzej Gałka, who held only the MA and may not have been studying further in theology, was appointed to a canonry at St. Florian’s in 1439, which he continued to hold until 1449; see my “The Worst Heretic,” 573. 166   C DUC, 1, no. 22, 38–40. 167   C DUC, 1, no. 33, 59. 168   C DUC, 1, no. 48, 91–93. 169   C DUC, 1, no. 65, 123–126 for the papal decision; CDUC, 1, no. 71, 139–144, for the bishop’s confirmation.

Institutional History And Development

133

and would be at the disposition of the studium only upon either the death or translation of the incumbent. Not until 1419 did one of the cathedral canonries, the church in Luborzyca, and the rectorship of St. Mary Magdalene come to the school,170 and there were similar waits for other prebends. In the meantime, some of the faculty had very hard times indeed. The older professors, particularly in theology and canon law, already held ecclesiastical appointments of their own, given to them ad personam as famous scholars, and they were in no immediate need.171 Some higher faculty were even able to donate their labors to the university.172 Faculty in the arts, however, were in desperate straits. The speeches of deans in all times and places have elements of a self-serving nature in them, but that of Francis of Brzeg in 1409 carries in addition the authentic ring of real hardship for his faculty. He speaks of thirteen professors working in arts (as noted above, the earliest specific mention we have of the size of this faculty), among whom the 100 marks provided by the king from taxes levied by the Cracow customs office had to be divided. For these, the medieval tradition of masters being able to collect student tuition (pastus) to supplement their salaries was one which, as far as he knew, simply did not take place at this university because students could not pay. The thirteen masters did not even collect in this way between them thirteen grossi annually, maybe not even ten. As a result, many masters had no salary. It was no wonder, he continued, that many had to give up their studies, having neither from the tuition fees nor the university sufficient salary with which to sustain themselves.173 170  This is reflected in Martin V’s letter of 1419; CDUC, 1, no. 65, 123–126. 171  For the benefices of, for example, John Isner, Nicholas Peyser, John Štěkna, Bartholomew of Jasło, Nicholas of Gorzków, and Stanisław, the authors of the first university statutes, see Fijałek, Studya, 57, 78, 62, 73, 8., and 118 respectively. 172  Nicholas Peyser was praised by Francis of Brzeg in his eulogy of 1424 because his years of teaching had been “suis propriis expensis diu militavit.” See Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Materiały do życiorysu redaktora statutów,” Studia Źródłoznawcze 1 (1957): 205; this sermon is discussed briefly by Kowalczyk, Krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie, 124 and 183, and in her “Franciszek z Brzegu” Acta Mediaevalia 12 (1999): 99–144, here 111; reprinted in her Colligite fragmenta ne pereant . . ., 329–374, here 341. 173  “Mira res et stupenda quod tredecim magistri laborantes in artibus, iuxta quod computavi, presenti medio anno insimul nondum receperunt tredecim grossos pro pastu, et forte nec decem, sicut intellexi, cum tamen manifestum sit, plures magistros nullum habere salarium. Et ergo non mirum, quod tales magistri tandem cogantur propter defectum a Studio recedere . . . . eo quod neque de pastu, sicut fieri solet alibi possunt habere nutrimentum, neque ab Universitate plenum sallarium.” Quoted by Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Uniwersytet Jagielloński w dobie Grunwaldu,” 57, n. 8; see also Kowalczyk, Krakowskie

134

CHAPTER 3

These conditions did not bode well for the university, and in them we see a reflection of how difficult the first decade of its functioning truly was.174 The school, despite its promising beginnings, came near to foundering. After relatively high early enrollment, student matriculations dropped precipitously. In 1406/1407, 124 students enrolled; the next year, ninety-three; and in 1408/1409, only 35. Even a slight rise the following year to fifty-six gave small comfort, for the opening of Leipzig following the migration of German faculty and students from Prague in 1409 was sure to attract many students, particularly from Silesia, who might otherwise go to Cracow.175 As a result there was pessimism about the future. When John Isner prepared his will in 1410, he intended to make certain benefactions to the university which he had faithfully served for a decade (the afore-mentioned Bursa pauparum and a chair to be discussed below); but so uncertain was he about its prospects that he also included clauses defining what was to be done with the resources of his bequest in case the studium no longer existed.176 In this situation, the university had to continue to seek enhanced resources and, as the same time, as we shall see in Chapter Five, justify itself in the eyes of the larger society which supported it. Private foundations were one of the ways of achieving the former; investments were another. A first, but abortive, effort came in the spring of 1401. The Tęczyński family, who were closely connected with both the court and the university by virtue of John Tęczyński’s position as castellan of Cracow and executor of Jadwiga’s will, attempted to give the school patronage over the collegiate church of St. Giles at Wawel, which contained a curatorship and three canonries. This was actually confirmed by Boniface IX in a bull of 10 May 1401,177 and mowy uniwersyteckie, 47 and her “Franciszek z Brzegu” 110 (also in her Colligite fragmenta ne pereant, 340. 174  The relatively rosy picture of the university’s first decade provided by Morawski, Historya, 1, 76–112, is unrealistic. Conversly, the grimly pessimistic portrayal presented by Peter Moraw, “Die Hohe Schule in Krakau und das europäische Universitätssystem um 1400,” in Johannes Helmrath and Heribert Müller, eds., Studien zum 15. Jahrhundert. Festschrift Erich Meuthen, 2 vols. (Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1994), 1, 521–539, and reprinted in Moraw, Gesammelte Beiträge zur Deutschen und Europäischen Universitätsgeschichte. Strukturen—Personen—Entwicklungen (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008 [Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, vol. 31]), 181–206, is, I believe, overly negative. 175  In 1409 Leipzig matriculated over 400 students, with over 200 in each of the four subsequent years, a significant number of them from Silesia; see Ranier Christoph Schwinges, Deutsche Universitätsbesucher im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert. Studien zur Sozialgeschichte des alten Reiches (Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, 1986), 108 and the graph in Figure 7, 110. 176   C DUC, 1, no. 45, 83: “Si autem Studium Cracoviense defluet. . . .” 177   C DUC, 1, no. 19, 32.

Institutional History And Development

135

the family was entered onto the list of benefactors prepared between 1407 and 1409 for whom the university should pray.178 Control over the lands endowing this church did not lie fully in their hands, however, and this grant was disputed, with the controversy dragging on into the next century. Although the school eventually came to have some control over a part of St. Giles, the fact that this donation came to naught is shown in the prayer list, where the Tęczyński foundation has been carefully crossed out.179 Investment efforts were more successful. In 1405 the same John Tęczyński used some of Jadwiga’s bequest to buy a salt mine in Bochnia for 688 marks. Future annual income from this was designated for the university, with the king confirming the same year that this was indeed property of the school.180 For some years, the allocation of these moneys is unclear, but in 1422 Bishop Wojciech Jastrzębski ordered that one-third of the income was to go to the theology faculty and two-thirds to the law faculty. Out of the latter, the professor ordinarius received a salary of forty marks and the licentiate lecturing on Nova iura had his salary supplemented by twelve marks.181 With this support, the law faculty in particular was relatively well endowed. Although there were later to be other examples of investments and the accumulation of real estate and buildings whose income went to the general treasury of the university, over the course of the century, it was individual benefactions and the endowment of professorial chairs which ultimately provided the greatest financial security for the studium. The earliest of these followed in the wake of the royal and episcopal grants. In the fall of 1402, four brothers of the Szafraniec family (including John, who had studied law at Prague, been recently named as curator of the Cracow cathedral, and was to become the fifth rector at Cracow) founded the altar of St. Bartholomew in the cathedral, endowed it with half their property holdings in the village of Trątnowice, and designated this for a master teaching in arts. This grant was eventually confirmed by the king in 1409.182 The family continued to take an interest in the university, and in 1420, they founded another chair. They endowed the Corpus Christi altar in the cathedral with lands in Bogucice near Wieliczka, and gave

178   Album Studiosorum, 1, 9; Metryka, 1, 7; John was one of the names listed in the matriculation list of 1400. 179  On this matter, see Janusz Kurtyka, Tęczyńscy herbu Topór. Studium z dziejów polskiej elity możnowładczej w średniowieczu (Cracow: Secesja, 1997), 234–239. 180   C DUC, 1, no. 35, 64, and no. 36, 65. 181   C DUC, 1, no. 71, 141. 182   C DUC, 1, no. 24, 43. for the foundation; no. 42, 76 for the royal confirmation.

136

CHAPTER 3

the university the right to nominate a professor in either law or theology as the altarist.183 Each of the chairs for arts noted thus far was undesignated as to what curricular responsibilities would be assigned to the holder. This was not the case in two other early grants, which were to be of great importance later on. The first was the bequest in 1405 by John Stobner. A citizen of Cracow (BA at Prague in 1379), he willed the university a house located in the rear of the Collegium maius and a small brewery in Cracow, the income of which was to support a master teaching mathematics and astronomy. A further obligation of this chair was the preparation of an annual almanac covering the movements of the heavenly bodies at the meridian of Cracow.184 Stobner’s house later served as the home of the Bursas divitum and eventually the Collegium minus, and because its income was therefore lost to the professor who held the Stobner chair, the university in 1476 transferred the endowment from a later foundation in arts to support it.185 The Stobner chair was to provide a continuing specialization in the exact sciences at Cracow, and its professor (unlike others in arts who were assigned on a yearly, or even semester, basis to lecturing on specific books) was able to develop a single topic over a period of years (see below, Chapter Seven). When the arts faculty was reformed in 1449, the Stobner chair was one of those assigned to the Collegium minus. At that time, it was mandated specifically to teach Euclid, perspective, arithmetic, music, planetary theory, the Alphonsine tables, the prediction of eclipses, and to keep the almanach up-to-date.186 The year after the Stobner foundation, Thomas of Lelów, called Nowko, founded a chair for the teaching of rhetoric or grammar. Nowko had been one of the honorary registrants in 1400 and at this time held the rectorship of the church of St. Wojciech in Cracow, a prebend which Peter Wysz had earlier designated for the university. As an endowment for this chair, he provided his house, which had been purchased some years before for 120 marks, and the altar of 183   C DUC, 1, no. 67, 128. 184  Details on this bequest are sketchy and are known only from the prayer list of benefactors and from later data. In addition to the treatment of this chair’s activity and holders below in Chapter Seven, see Markowski, “Kształowanie się krakowskiej szkoły astronomicznej,” in Jerzy Dobrzycki, Mieczysław Markowski, and Tadeusz Przypkowski, Historia Astronomii w Polsce, vol. 1, Eugeniusz Rybka, ed. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1975), 72–75. 185   C DUC, 3, no. 250, 45–48. 186  These details are known from a document of reorganization in 1475; Szujski, “Statuta Collegi minoris,” 99: “Stobneri vero Euclidem, perspectivam, arismeticam, musicam, theoricas planetarum, Alphonsii tabulas Algorismo premisso minuciarum aut resolutas, eclipses quoque cum minucionibus et farmaciis practicabit, intimabit et conficiet; Almanach quoque singulis annis Universitati presentabit.”

Institutional History And Development

137

the Holy Doctors, St. Mary the Egyptian and St. Alexis in the ­cathedral.187 The university was thus in the situation—not unfamiliar even in our own days—of waiting for the death of a benefactor in order to reap the fruits of a gift (in this case it came in 1419): on this occasion it was both the house and the rectorship which Nowko held. The Nowko chair was also assigned to the Collegium minus in 1449 and required to teach the old and the new rhetoric of Cicero, the Poetria nova of Geoffrey of Vinsauf, Quintilian’s De oratore institutione, and other works which dealt with oratory.188 A later modification of these requirements by John of Dąbrówka in 1466 included additionally the Labyrinthus of Eberhard of Bethune and the Chronicon Polonorum of Vincent Kadłubek, the late twelfth / early thirteenth century Polish historian, using John’s own commentary as a textbook.189 The establishment of this chair (together with the later Mężykowa foundation) did much, particularly after 1449 to balance the earlier emphasis upon logic and Aristotelian philosophy within the arts curriculum. John Isner’s concern for the university was not limited to poor students. He was also aware of the needs of his colleagues in the Collegium maius. Thus he arranged through John Szafraniec to purchase the other half of that family’s holdings in Trątnowice, and in his will in 1410 he specified that the income derived from them should be used to found an altar in the cathedral and pay six marks annual to the Bursa pauperum.190 The university was given the right to nominate two faculty members to the eldest member of the Szfraniec family, who would choose one of these for the altar. He was required to be at least a master and be lecturing “either in arts or in theology.”191 Two years later the Szafraniec family increased this endowment in memory of Isner by incorporating into it some small holdings in Podstolice, near Cracow.192

187   C DUC, 1, no. 38, 70–72. 188  Szujski, “Statuta Collegii minoris,” 98–99: “ut Collegiatus domini Nowkonis legat Tulii novam et veteram rhetoricas, Ganifredi poetriam, Quintilianum de oratoria institutione et alia, que ad oratoriam spectant, exerceat.” Repeated in CDUC, 3, no. 250, 47. But see below, Chapter Ten on the question of Quintilian. 189  Ignacy Zarębski, “Okres wczesnego humanizmu,” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 175, n. 35, quoting manuscript evidence from the university archives, suggests a way of interpreting the content of this modification to which we shall return in Chapter Ten. 190   C DUC, 1, no. 45, 82–84. Fundationes pecuniariae Universitatis Iagellonicae, no. 1, 1. 191  “Legere in artibus vel in theologia.” 192   C DUC, 1, no. 51, 98–100; see also the data in De Beneficiorum Universitatis Iagellonicae decimis, columbationibus, missalibus, mensalibus clericaturisque XV–XVIII saec., Jerzy Michalewicz and Maria Michalewiczowa, eds. (Cracow: Archiwum Uniwersytetu

138

CHAPTER 3

Two separate bequests came to the university in 1415. The first was provided by the widow of a royal marshal, who donated part of the village of Boszczyn near Skarbimierz outright to the royal college, which applied the moneys derived therefrom to its general needs. Jagiełło confirmed this grant almost immediately. In 1431 the university purchased for eight marks the remaining part of the village, continuing to apply its income to individual expenses and salaries, rather than erecting a separate, new professorship.193 The second grant in 1415 followed a complicated series of transactions, as the result of which the university obtained the right of appointment to the All Souls’ altar in the cathedral. This had been founded in 1403 by one of the cathedral canons, its responsibilities enlarged in 1411, and ultimate patronage over it purchased in 1415 by the original canon, who then transferred it to the faculty of the studium. Designated for an arts master, who was not necessarily required to teach but could devote nearly full time to further study, it was reserved only for Poles, or for those who were fluent in Polish. The altarist was required by the terms of the grant to preach in the vernacular, particularly at Christmas, Easter, Ascension Day, Pentecost, and all festivals of the Virgin Mary.194 Because the original founder still held the altar at this time, the university was able to dispose of it for its own needs only after his death, which did not come for nearly two decades. Although the cathedral in Cracow and the church of St. Florian’s were central to the economic and even academic stability of the university, neither of them came to have the close association with the studium which was developed by the parish church of St. Anne’s across the street from the Collegium maius. It eventually became the university church. The origins of this date to 1418 when Jagiełło and the abbot of the Cistercian monastery in nearby Mogiła jointly conferred upon the school the right of patronage there.195 Eventually this was to provide substantial revenues and several faculty appointments, particularly after St. Anne’s was elevated to the status of a collegiate church in Jagiellońskiego, 1999 [Liber Beneficiorum et benefactorum Universitatis Iagellonicae in saeculis XV–XVIII, 2]), no. 466, 166–167. 193   C DUC, 1, no. 55, 105; no. 57, 110; no. 86, 167. Faculty discussions on these matters are reflected in Conclusiones, 4. 194   C DUC, 1, no. 56, 106–108 for episcopal confirmation of the grant to the university, and no. 34, 59–63 for the original establishment of the altar. 195   C DUC, 1, no. 64, 122. The church of St. Anne was the provisional seat of residence for Cistercians coming to study in Cracow; see Krzysztof Kaczmarek, Studia uniwersyteckie cystersów z ziem polskich w okresie średniowiecza (Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, 2002), 108.

Institutional History And Development

139

1535,196 but for the time-being it supported only one master in the arts faculty plus providing some additional moneys for general university use. This faculty member was required, in addition to his duties as provost of the church, to hold lectures on one of the required books of the curriculum. The university’s right to this position did not go uncontested, however, for the abbot insisted on appointing his own candidate, who might or might not be a member of the faculty. Only after 1442 was this matter settled.197 Throughout the century, St. Anne’s was the site of university services and such formal ceremonies as the promotion of a doctor in theology. The foundation of the Mężykowa chair is one of the most interesting of the century. Catherine Mężykowa was the wife of the later starosta and wojewoda of Ruthenia. In 1420 she gave the university 200 marks to invest in an endowment for a master who was to teach grammar and rhetoric, including instruction in the art of writing letters and official documents.198 The latter part of these responsibilities was, of course, part of the medieval ars dictaminis, and there was in Cracow at this time a well-known royal notary, George of Chrostów, whose works on rhetoric and teaching activities have traditionally been associated not only with the royal chancery but with the university.199 Whether this was the case or not, the heightened role of rhetoric which he represented found in the Mężykowa chair an opportunity for students to obtain at the university the training necessary to enable them, even without completing an academic degree, to find a position in local and national chanceries, both secular and ecclesiastical. There was, in other words, a very pragmatic ­justification for this 196   Conclusiones, 198—200. 197   C DUC, 2, no. 111, 16; Conclusiones, 3, n. 2. 198  This document was first discovered and printed by Stanisław Kuraś, “Fundacja kolegiatury epistolografii i sztuki pisania dokumentów w Akademii Krakowskiej w r. 1420,” Małopolskie Studia Historyczne 6, no. 3/4 (1964): 121–122; reprinted in Kuraś, ed., Zbiór dokumentów katedry i diecezji krakowskiej, Kuraś, ed., 2: 1416–1450 (Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniw. Lubelskiego, 1973), 43–45. For details of the gift, see Fundationes pecuniariae Universitatis Iagellonicae, no. 3, 1–2. 199  His formularies are printed in two parts: Libri formularum saeculi XV, Bolesław Ulanowski, ed. (Cracow: Sumptibus Academiae Litterarum, 1888 [Starodawne Prawa Polskiego Pomniki 10]); and Formularz Jerzego pisarza grodzkiego krakowskiego ok. 1399–1415, Karol Górski, ed. (Toruń: Towarzystwo Naukowe w Toruniu, 1950). For some of the problems surrounding his activities in Cracow and his possible relations with or influence upon the university, see, from a contentious body of scholarship, Markowski, “Krakowskie piśmiennictwo retoryczne w świetle piętnastowiecznych źródeł,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 37 (1987): 5–83, here 46–49; and particularly Oźóg, Uczeni w monarchii Jadwigi Andegaweńskiej i Władysława Jagiełły, 156–158.

140

CHAPTER 3

part of a university education. In order to ensure that none who wished this training would be prevented by poverty from getting it, Catherine Mężkowa explicitly exempted pauperes from tuition payments to the master.200 More than this pragmatic dimension, this chair constituted an important aspect of the arts program; and in the course of the century, as the content of instruction began to change, the chair emerged in the forefront of literary and eventual humanistic influences within the studium. In 1449 the Mężykowa professor was included n the Collegium minus and given the responsibility of teaching the De consolatione of Boethius, Alanus de Insulis’ De planctu naturae, Valerius Maximus, the “books of Vergil, Ovid, Horace, Terence, Stacius, the comedies of Plautus, and other works in poetry.”201 This was a more marked literary approach than had been represented in the earlier curriculum. Some of the implications of this will engage us below in Chapter Ten. According to Długosz, one discordant note intruded upon the Mężykowa grant. Because Bishop Jastrzębiec did not adequately supervise the administration of her moneys, the clergy of St. Florian’s, who were to manage the principal, incorporated it into their own holdings, with the income being, as a result, lost to the university. The studium was forced to support the professor from its own treasury until the monies could be recovered.202 Two additional sources of endowment came to the university before the end of its first three decades. In 1425 a Cracow judge named James, who owned estates in Botrzyn, granted the school the right to present for his approval as patron one of its doctors, masters, bachelors, or students in law or theology for appointment as provost of the parish church in Igołomia, near Cracow.203 Two years later the cathedral chapter in Gniezno granted the tithe from its property in Działoszyn to the university. Since this amounted to only four marks annually, it was incorporated into the general university treasury.204 200  “Pauperes vero dicto magistro pastum pro dicta leccione dare non tenebuntur, nec magister ab eis ipsum exigere debebit.” Kuraś, “Fundacja kolegiatury,” 121. 201  Szujski, “Statuta Collegii minoris,” 97: “Collegiatus Domine Manzikonisse iuxta suam institucionem legat in Poesi libros infra deputatos videlicit: Boecium de Consolacione, Alanum de planctu nature, Valerium Maximum, Libros Vergilii, Ovidii, Oracii, Terencii, Stacii [three more names follow: Marcialis, Tibulli, Propercii, but they have been crossed out at some unknown later time;].” Added in 1475: “. . . et Plauti comedias aut alia poetica,” 99. 202  Długosz, Liber beneficiorum, 1, 513. 203   C DUC, 1, no. 76, 149; see also the data in De Beneficiorum Universitatis Iagellonicae decimis, columbationibus, missalibus, mensalibus clericaturisque XV–XVIII saec., nos. 186 and 187, 67. 204  Krabowiak, Dzieje wychowania, 1, 155, who was the first to draw attention to draw attention to this information.

Institutional History And Development

141

During the next third of the century, the endowment of the university grew and, consequently, its institutional stability improved. In 1433 a canon from Racibórz and his sister, who lived in Cracow, founded a new altar in the All Saints’ church in Cracow with an endowment worth 200 marks. The first incumbent of this altar was the canon himself, but after his death the royal college was to be given the right to present one of its members, either a master in theology or in arts, to the bishop for appointment.205 Despite the shortrange element of self-interest in this grant, in the future it provided important support.206 We have earlier seen that faculty of the university also acted as benefactors. An excellent example of this in this period was the figure of James Zaborowski. His early career would not have suggested that he would have much devotion to the school. After his MA in 1412, he studied law, was promoted to doctor of decretals in 1420, and elected rector for the winter term that years and again in 1424. But he was unable to obtain a satisfactory benefice to continue at the studium, so in frustration he left Cracow in 1427 to accept a position in the court of Bishop Alexander of Trent, a prince from Mazovia who had been rector of the school in 1422. He returned to the university only when a secure position had been obtained there, partly through the efforts of his Tridentine patron. Henceforth he was an active and influential member of the studium, serving twice more as rector.207 In 1441, as the result of gifts of real estate to him for this purpose by private citizens, he founded a new altar in the church of St. Mary Magdalene which was endowed with a house, gardens, an orchard, and a brick factory in Kazimierz. It was designated for a master in the arts faculty.208 This was not the end of his benefactions. In 1448, having obviously prospered financially in intervening years, he founded yet another chair. This one was associated with a newly endowed altar in the cathedral, whose support came from the income of one-half the village of Sidzina, which Zaborowski had purchased for an unspecified sum and one horse. The bishop was given patronage over this altar, and it was to go to a master in the arts ­faculty.209 This chair is interesting in part because, although erected a year before the establishment of the Collegium minus, it was designated explicitly for that college, thus suggesting something of the preparations which went into that ­reorganization. 205   C DUC, I, no. 91, 178; for further details, see Fundationes pecuniariae Universitatis Iagellonicae, no. 6, 2–3. 206  For other endowments in this period, see Fundationes pecuniariae Universitatis Iagellonicae nos. 7 and 8, 3–6 (provided from the estate of Peter Herschberg [or Hirszberg]). 207  For his biography, see PSB, 10, 368–369. 208   C DUC, 2, no. 106, 3–8. 209   C DUC, 2, no. 148, 98.

142

CHAPTER 3

After 1449, this chair was responsible for lectures in grammar.210 The year following the establishment of the first Zaborowski chair, the university won a legal suit it had entered some years before, and as a result was awarded onehalf the tithe from the village of Szczodrkowice. This income was incorporated into the general university treasury.211 In rapid succession, three more chairs were provided in the 1440’s. Canon James of Piotrków, from Płock, who had also been a member of the faculty at Cracow, designated property in 1443 to support either a master in arts or a professor in theology. This grant also carried with it a one-time payment of twenty-six florins for the common table of the masters in the royal college.212 (A final modest bequest from James in 1446 was the income from three small shops in Płock.)213 In 1444 the executors of the will of Nicholas of Brzeźnica purchased some properties which they gave directly to the studium. Part of the income from this was designated for a new faculty appointment, the Brzeźnica chair, and for the next few years this individual taught whatever he was assigned in arts.214 In 1449, however, this chair was included in the organization of the Collegium minus and mandated to lecture on grammar, particularly the works of Priscian, give recitation exercises in Donatus, and either lecture on, or organize disputations dealing with, the second part of Alexander of Villa Dei’s Doctrinale.215 The third chair also went to the arts faculty. In 1452 Bishop Oleśnicki confirmed an earlier bequest by the widow of the former castellan of Cracow, who had provided sufficient funds that even the modest annual interest derived from them was sufficient for a professorial salary.216 In the meantime, in a transaction which indicates the fiscal health of the studium, 400 marks had been loaned in 1445 to a priest and his brothers in Kielce. From this the university collected five percent interest, paying these twenty marks

210  Szujski, “Statuta Collegii minoris,” 97 and 99. 211   C DUC, 2, no. 109, 11. 212   C DUC, 2, no. 115, 22; further information is provided in Fundationes pecuniariae Universitatis Iagellonicae, nos. 9 and 10, 6–7. 213   C DUC, 2, no. 132, 67: “duas mensas pistorum cum uno macello carnificum perpetue . . . legavit.” 214   C DUC, 2, no. 124, 47. See also Fundationes pecuniariae Universitatis Iagellonicae, no. 12, 7–8. 215  Szujski, “Statuta Collegii minoris,” 97; and, from 1476, modifying some of the details of the 1449 reorganization, CDUC, 3, 250, 45–48 (47 for the Brzeźnica chair). 216   C DUC, 2, no. 169, 133–137; for details see also the data in De Beneficiorum Universitatis Iagellonicae decimis, columbationibus, missalibus, mensalibus clericaturisque XV–XVIII saec., no. 707, 253.

Institutional History And Development

143

annually to the Bursa pauperum for its ongoing expenses.217 This action was the first of several loans the school was to make in the second half of the century. Income was erratic and undependable from these, but apparently the university seldom lost money in such arrangements. Near the middle of the century the foundation of another privately endowed chair, this time in astronomy and astrology, brought further fame in this area to the University of Cracow and, in combination with the earlier Stobner chair, laid the foundation for making Cracow, in the words of Aleksander Birkenmajer, “the international center of astronomical education at the end of the middle ages.”218 Martin Król of Żórawica matriculated at Cracow about 1440 and after his BA in 1444 held the Stobner chair for a year while he completed his MA (1445). Then he left for study in Prague, Germany, and Italy. He became friends with the Viennese astronomer Georg Peuerbach in Padua in 1448 and earned an MD degree in Bologna in 1449. He was attracted to Hungary for a while, then was urgently requested to return to Cracow to lecture in arts and medicine, which he did until his premature death in 1453. Prior to this, however, he provided funds for the erection about 1450 of a chair in “practical” astronomy, particularly astrology, in which he had become interested while in Italy.219 When this foundation was incorporated into the Collegium minus, its teaching responsibilities included lectures on the Quadrupartitum and Centiloquium of Ptolemy, the works of the Arab astrologers Alchabitius and Albumaser, and “other books which deal with astrology.”220 During his thirty-two years as Bishop of Cracow and chancellor of the university, Zbigniew Oleśnicki had consistently supported the university and furthered its goals. In his last years he also became a benefactor to the studium. We have already seen his establishment of the Jerusalem hostel and the eventual receipt by the university of his scepter. But in addition, in 1454 he founded a 217   C DUC, 2, no. 122, 41–42. 218  Aleksander Birkenmajer, “L’Université de Cracovie, centre international d’enseignement astronomique à la fin du moyen age,” in his Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1972 [Studia Copernicana 4]), 483–495. 219  There is no document of foundation extant. For information, see Cod. epist., 1, part 2, 338; and Statuta . . . Lib. Prom. 35, Księga promocji, 35, and Najstarsza księga promocji, 214: “hii sunt promoti . . . Martinus de Sirawicze [ with the following gloss: alias de Premislia, iste fuit doctor Rex in medicinis. Collegiaturam iste in astrologia erexit]. . . .” See also below, Chapter Seven. 220   Szujski, “Statuta Collegii minoris,” 99. Recently Benedek Láng, Unlocked Books. Manuscripts of Learned Magic in the Medieval Libraries of Central Europe (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008), 241–264, has placed these books in their university context; for his treatment of Martin Król, see 247–249.

144

CHAPTER 3

permanent preaching prebend in the cathedral whose holder was to be named by the bishop and the chapter. There were two restrictions on this. First, no one could be appointed who was not at least a master in arts, preferably a master in theology or doctor of decretals, thus in practice ensuring that he was a faculty member of the studium; and second, he had to be able to preach perfectly in Polish.221 The tradition of professorial benefaction was continued in 1460 in the will of Thomas Strzempiński, doctor of decretals, professor of theology, several times rector, and late Bishop of Cracow. At his death there were four endowed chairs in the law faculty: the ordinarius, who was paid by income from the salt-mine in Bochnia and also had free housing as the result of John Elgot’s gift of his house; a lecturer on the Decretales, who held a canonry in the cathedral; and two people lecturing on the new law, one deriving support from the rectorship of the church in Luborzyca, the other from the same position in the church of Mary Magdalene. To augment this, Strzempiński gave the university 2000 Hungarian gold florins. When invested, this provided both for the erection of a new altar in the cathedral with two altarists who were to be at least bachelors in law and who were to lecture in the law faculty. The bequest also provided for annual payments of two marks to the common table of the Collegium Iuridicum, seven marks for the construction and maintenance of a building for students, and one for the care of the altar.222 This professorial precedent was followed also by Stanisław of Kobylin, doctor of decretals and canon of the cathedral. In 1466 he founded and endowed an altar in the church of St. Andrew in nearby Olkusz, which was to be held by a member of the ­theology faculty.223 If the enrollment within the university had remained stable, there would have been no pressing need to increase the number of faculty positions, and the endowed chairs of the first two-thirds of the century would probably have been sufficient. But, as can be seen from the tables and data in Chapter Four and Appendix C, student matriculations steadily increased and the number of masters who continued their studies in higher faculties grew also. Thus in the last third of the century the university was forced to keep pace with these needs, and there were several important grants. These came from professors, Polish clergy, and private citizens. 221   C DUC 2, no. 173, 140–143: “aut perfectum in idiomate Polonico” 141. 222   C DUC, 2, no. 212, 241–246; for futher details, see Fundationes pecuniariae Universitatis Iagellonicae, no. 25, 15–16. The building referred to in the document was a student hospital, but we know nothing more about it. 223   C DUC, 2, no. 215, 248–249; 3, no. 245, 39–41. Additional details in Fundationes pecuniariae Universitatis Iagellonicae, no. 28, 19–20.

Institutional History And Development

145

Near the end of his ninth rectorship, after a career in which he had made important contributions to all parts of the university, John of Dąbrówka died in January 1472. In his will he left a large sum of money with instructions to the university that it should be invested to endow two altars in St. Florian’s, thus providing income for two new faculty lecturing in arts.224 Four years later the endowment of one of these was transferred to the Stobner chair, which had lost its own endowment.225 In 1473 Nicholas of Bytom in Silesia willed the university property which his family had purchased from Spytko of Melsztyn and Nicholas of Kurozwęki, who had been important royal officials. This provided for the payment of eleven marks annually for the common table of the masters, chiefly in the Collegium maius, and for the foundation of an endowed altar in St. Anne’s church to be held by a master in theology.226 Nearly two decades followed before there was a last flurry of foundations in the ten years before 1500. In that interval, only one grant was made which touched the university. In 1487 the heirs of the Cracow citizen Nicholas Wolny added to the endowment of the altar in the church of St. Andrew in Olkusz, founded originally by Stanisław of Kobylin. This provided sufficient additional funds so that a second altarist could be supported, and although not specifically reserved to the university it was sometimes held by a faculty member.227 Then came a series of benefactions. In 1490, Nicholas of Staw, a professor of theology, endowed an altar in the cathedral, the candidate for which had to be a master, but could be teaching anywhere in the studium.228 The same year the canons of St. Florian’s, themselves university faculty, endowed a new altar in their church, to be held by a younger master in arts, with right of nomination reserved to the Collegium maius.229 In 1491 the law faculty received a seventh endowed chair. The will of James of Szadek, a professor of law who had died in 224   C DUC, 3, no. 234, 14–16; no. 235, 16–17; no. 237, 18–19.; no. 238, 20–27; no. 250, 45–48 (dated 1476 confirming details of the creation of the Collegium minus, including John of Dąbrówka’s benefactions); and no. 253, 50. For other details, see Fundationes pecuniariae Universitatis Iagellonicae, no. 37, 22–23; no. 43, 27–28; no. 44, 27–28; and no. 45, 28–29 John’s benefactions included cash (some 600 Hungarian gold florins), real estate, and income from a variety of shops. 225   C DUC, 3, no. 250, 47 (revisions in the organization of the Collegium minus). 226   C DUC, 3, no. 241, 31–34. Further details in Fundationes pecuniariae Universitatis Iagellonicae, no. 51, 32. 227   C DUC, 3, no. 280, 132–139; Fundationes pecuniariae Universitatis Iagellonicae, no. 60, 37. 228   C DUC, 3, no. 287, 161–164; Fundationes pecuniariae Universitatis Iagellonicae, no. 67, 42–43. 229   C DUC, 3, no. 285, 155–156 and no. 286, 156–161; this latter document describes the chair as having been “Collegio minori incorporandus.” See also Fundationes pecuniariae Universitatis Iagellonicae, no. 60, 41–42.

146

CHAPTER 3

1487, was executed, and property worth 500 florins was used to fund an altar in the cathedral. It was to be held by the senior of the Bursa pauperum, who was to lecture on the fourth book of the Decretals.230 A year later, upon the death of rector and professor of theology Matthew of Kobylin, his will provided for an endowment of a new altar in St. Anne’s which was designated for a young master in the Collegium minus.231 The final endowed chair of the century, like the first, came from the king. In 1498 John Albert designated one of the canonries of the cathedral in Przemyśl in Ruthenia for the university. It was to be held by a member of either the law or theology faculty.232 It is important to note, however, that this royal grant was practically the only significant benefaction for the university by the later Jagiellonians.233 In contrast to the secular rulers of states and principalities in the west at this time, they were surprisingly indifferent to the fortunes of the studium, and this attitude accounts in part for the reason why the university gradually ceased to play a significant role in royal, national policy. While the significance of the university’s contribution in other area of national life continued to grow, its lack of direct involvement in political issues contrasts sharply, as we shall see, with the earlier part of the century. In addition to these specific erections of endowed chairs, the university received in the course of the century a number of other gifts. Many were small, generating only a few marks or even only grossi during the year, but collectively they were of considerable importance to the functioning of the school.234 230   C DUC, 3, no. 287, 174–184; Fundationes pecuniariae Universitatis Iagellonicae, no. 63, 39. 231   C DUC, 3, no. 293, 188–190 and no. 293, 190–195; Fundationes pecuniariae Universitatis Iagellonicae, no. 65, 40–41. 232  This grant is somewhat obscure; see Karbowiak, Dzieje wychowania, 3, 164. 233  I have discussed this point in my “The Jagiellonians and the University of Cracow,” in Urszula Borkowska and Markus Hörsch, eds., Hofkultur der Jagiellonendynastie und verwandter Fürstenhäuser / The Culture of the Jagellonian and Related Courts (Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke, 2010 [Studia Jagellonica Lipsiensia 6]), 187–188. 234  The larger picture of the resources available to the university is discussed in a variety of contexts in the following, all of which underlie the research done to produce the Fundationes pecuniariae Universitatis Iagellonicae, and the De Beneficiorum Universitatis Iagellonicae decimis, columbationibus, missalibus, mensalibus clericaturisque: Jerzy Michalewicz and Maria Michalewiczowa, “Beneficum—element struktury majątkowej Akademii Krakowskiej,” Prace historyczne 50 (1974): 45–62; Michalewicz, “Les bases économique de l’Université Jagellonne et leurs aspects sociaux,” and Michalewiczowa, “Le benefice en tant qu’elément de la structure d’organisation de l’Université Jagellonne,” in L’histoire des universités. Problèmes et methods (Warsaw and Cracow, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1980 [Prace historyczne, 67]), 91–100 and 101–104 respectively.

Institutional History And Development

147

Others were more substantial. Some brief examples must suffice here to show the spectrum of support for the school. Some of the nobility in Poland, recognizing the contribution of the university, made grants. The castellan of Sandomir gave 200 florins in 1471; the aforementioned Nicholas of Kurozwęki provided property in the same year worth 142 marks, which yielded twelve marks annually; and Dersław and John of Rytwian assigned the patronage of an altar in St. Mary’s church in Sandomir to the school in 1477. This last gift provided forty marks annually, which was enough to pay an altarist (thus supporting a faculty position) and still have substantial moneys left over.235 Finally, mention should be made of a type of grant from which the university derived much benefit. The best example is one from earlier in the century from an ecclesiastical source, in this instance Zbigniew Oleśnicki, but this precedent was replicated in lesser degree in other cases. In 1427 the bishop increased the endowment of the St. Florian’s canonries by adding two villages to the three from which they already derived income.236 This increased the annual revenue from the endowment to approximately 336 marks. From this the university had to pay the salaries of the local vicars in each of these five villages at the rate of four marks apiece.237 In addition there were six marks annually designated as an administrative supplement to the salary of the dean of St. Florian’s. Each of the nine prebendaries of the church received thirty marks annually. These total expenses of 296 marks ensured an annual surplus of approximately forty marks, which the church, and by extension the university, had at its disposal. There are other instances where benefices provided the studium with a surplus, and these extra moneys were used for such one-time expenses as the repair and remodeling of buildings or for granting loans. In a few cases, the value of endowments decreased (as in the case of the Stobner chair), and general revenues had to be used to make up the difference. The total endowment of the university is difficult to determine, for records are incomplete. The most detailed listing of the ecclesiastical benefices and their value which were designated for the school is provided by the Liber beneficiorum diocesis Cracoviensis which John Długosz prepared in about 1470, but even this lacks financial data in places and does not, of course, cover the three decades following its compilation. An early sixteenth century record of 235  For these see CDUC, 3, no. 230, pp. 2–3; no. 242, 34–36; and no. 258, 62–70, respectively. For further details, Fundationes pecuniariae Universitatis Iagellonicae, no. 39, 24; no. 41, 24–25; and no. 53, 33, respectively. 236   C DUC, 1, no. 82, 159–162. 237  See the document in CDUC, 1, no. 69, 133–137, in which Bishop Jastrzębiec had required this.

148

CHAPTER 3

income, while helpful in supplementing Długosz, is incomplete and not wholly reliable.238 According to the most knowledgeable students of the economic history of the university, there were sixty-one individual benefices which were incorporated into the university in the fifteenth century.239 In addition, the studium derived income from houses, lands, shops, and investments of several different kinds.240 In the face of this, and despite the very great contributions made by Jerzy Michalewicz and Maria Michalewiczowa, overall estimates must be very general. The best calculation is that the annual income of the university by the end of the century approximated 1600 to 1800 marks.241 This did not make it rich, particularly in comparison to some western universities, but it was sufficient to reflect the confidence which its society bestowed upon it and to allow it to accomplish the mission of teaching and learning which was envisioned in the year of its foundation.

238   Księga dochodów beneficjów diecezji krakowskiej z roku 1529 [the so-called Liber Retaxationum], Zofia Leszczyńska-Skrętowa, ed. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1968). 239  Michalewicz and Michalewiczowa, “Beneficum—element struktury majątkowej,” 58. Their long-planned Economic History of the Jagiellonian University appears unlikely to be completed. 240  While the De Beneficiorum Universitatis Iagellonicae decimis, columbationibus, missalibus, mensalibus clericaturisque provides information of some of these sources of income, it is limited to materials associated with benefices. For resources that lie outside these parameters, see the comments by Krystyna Pieradzka, “Uniwersytet Krakowski w służbie państwa i wobec soborów w Konstancji i Bazylei,” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 130 and 134–135. 241  Józef Garbacik “Ognisko nauki kultury renessansowej, 194 and n. 16; Aleksander Gieysztor, “Aspects financiers de l’Université de Cracovie au XVe siècle,” in Gabriel, ed., The Economic and Material Frame of the Mediaeval University, 53–55.

CHAPTER 4

The Personnel of the University: A Statistical, Social, and Academic Profile They came from throughout the regnum, from the historic provinces of Little Poland and Great Poland, and from territories feudally dependent upon the crown such as Mazovia. They came from regions which were no longer subject to the Polish king, such as Silesia; from newly acquired lands such as Ruthenia and Lithuania; and from areas such as Pomorze (Pomerania, both east and west), which had in earlier centuries been ruled by Poland and some of which in the late middle ages were recovered by the crown. They came from all stations in society: from the nobility, the knights, and the peasantry; from the ranks of the great merchants in the cities and of the craft guilds which flourished in Polish towns, particularly Cracow. They came from abroad: from neighboring German states, from linguistically related Slavic lands, from the adjacent Hungarian kingdom and its multi-ethnic lands, from across the Baltic from Scandinavia, out of the Italian and Iberian peninsulas, and from the territories in between such as the Lowlands, Württemberg, Switzerland, Baden, and Bavaria. They made Cracow in the fifteenth century an international center of higher learning. They were the corps of students and professors who collectively together constituted the studium Cracoviense. The foregoing is not simply literary hyperbole. In terms of sheer numbers, the University of Cracow prospered mightily in this century. Moreover, it was not merely, as it was to become in later centuries, a local school; for even though the majority of the students (and to a greater degree, the faculty) came from Poland, there was always a significant percentage of foreign enrollment, which in some years late in the century equaled or surpassed the total of native students. This numerical strength was one of the reasons why, in contrast to the earlier Casimiran university, the Jagiellonian studium both survived and flourished. This chapter provides a profile of this phenomenon, presenting an analysis of the members and their geographic and social distribution. In addition it portrays the life of both students and faculty within the school by means of a description of the academic career and, to the extent made possible by the records, of the lives and careers of these individuals. It is an academic playbill to the actors and their roles upon the stage of their alma mater. The basis upon which any statistical and geographical analysis of the students at the university in the fifteenth century rests is the matricula, the ­register © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004326019_006

150

CHAPTER 4

of students, extant from the beginning of the refounded university in 1400, constituting a kind of record of the registrar’s office.1 The data contained in it are of several different kinds. When a student matriculated at Cracow, an entry was first made of the specific year and semester (in some instances also a specific date if mid-semester enrollments took place). Next there followed the name of the student and, in many instances, the name of his father and the place from which the student came or where he had been living or working prior to matriculation. In addition to these four elements, others were often added, apparently at the discretion of the registering notary without regard for any consistency in a given semester or from year to year. These included any nicknames or sobriquets, or the clan name if any; the social or religious status, such as nobilis or frater; any academic degree or title held by the student (baccalaurius, magister, rector); professional position or occupation, in many instances the latter being attributed to the father (cursor, notarius, molendinatoris, pellificis, sartoris); the name of the diocese to which the student or his family belonged; and a notation about how much of the registration fee was paid, if any. From this raw material it is possible to determine with a reasonable degree of certainty how many students studied at Cracow and, if they came from an urban background, what cities they represented. Unfortunately many lesser place names are today no longer identifiable, and thus geographical distribution is difficult to determine with precision. In the case of foreign registrants, place names which were unfamiliar to the notary are occasionally hopelessly corrupted. Because the methods of entry were inconsistent, it

1  Extant in MS Cracow, BJ 258, and containing entries up to 1508, this was first edited in the 19th century as Album Studiosorum. Jerzy Zathey and Jerzy Reichan, eds., Indeks studentów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w latach 1400–1500 (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1974), merely listed students from the Album Studiosorum alphabetically by Christian name with very little reference to the manuscript of the matricula. Now the manuscript has been re-edited and provided with essential indices as Metryka, upon which the figures and data given in this chapter are primarily based. The Cracow manuscript (BJ 259), which contains the record of matriculations from 1509 to 1551, has now also been reedited by the same team responsible for the Metryka: Antoni Gąsiorowski, Tomasz Jurek, and Izabela Skierska, eds., with the assistance of Ryszard Grzesik, Metryka czyli album Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego z lat 1509–1551 (Warsaw: Neriton, 2010). For these, and the recent publication of other sources relating to the fifteenth century history of the university, see the comments of Gąsiorowski, “O wydanie wykazów studentów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XV wieku,” Teki Krakowskie 5 (1997): 39–45, and my comments “In Search of Alma Mater Cracoviensis: Recent Publications,” The Polish Review 57 (2012): 101–117, especially 103–108.

The Personnel Of The University

151

is impossible to be completely precise about social status and occupational background.2 The following discussion should therefore be seen in that light.

Matriculation Patterns

Included in Appendix C of this study is a statistical table showing annual matriculation at the university in the period 1400–1509. This totaled over 21,000 students.3 In addition to this figure, however, there are over a hundred additional students who can be identified as having attended the university in the fifteenth century. These are students from the list of promotions to the bachelors and the masters degree in the arts faculty whose names, for whatever reason, do not appear in the matricula.4 This gross total, upon closer examination reflects several important trends and phenomena. For example when broken down by quarter century it is possible to see the growth in enrollment. Between 1400 and 1425, 3090 students matriculated for a yearly average of 118.85; between 1426 and 1450, 3623 new students are recorded, giving an annual average of 144.92; from 1451–1475, 5055 students entered, an average of 202.2 per year; and in the twenty-five year period from 1476 to 1500 there 2  See the discussion by Gąsiorowski, “Nad najstarszą Metryką najstarszego polskiego uniwersytetu. Album studiosorum Universitatis Cracoviensis 1400–1508,” Roczniki Historyczne 66 (2000): 135–156. 3  This total (21,204 to be exact) represents the figure given by Krzysztof Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w późnym średniowieczu (Cracow: Avalon, 2010), 329 (end of Appendix 1). His data should now be taken as the most reliable, as they represent his calculations based on the new edition of the Metryka. All previous statistical studies, such as those by Karbowiak, Dzieje wychowania, 2, 338–340, and Karbowiak, “Studia statystyczne,” 77–80, have now been superseded. Nevertheless such calculations are notoriously difficult. For example, in a number of instances duplicate entries in the matricula were made for students upon registration, undoubtedly by oversight. In addition, some student names listed have been crossed out. It is not always possible to determine the reason or the significance for this. Finally, some students are listed as matriculating in more than one year, sometimes with a significant interval between registrations. Perhaps they started their program, but did not complete a year, returning eventually to begin again. In such cases it is difficult to know whether to include them in the year’s matriculation totals or not. These problems are reflected in the differing totals arrived at by other scholars. Thus, for the period 1400–1499 Jerzy Kłoczowski, “Polska w kulturze europejskiej XIV i XV wieku,” in Aleksander Gieysztor, ed., Polska dzielnicowa i zjednocznna. Państwa, społeczeństwo, kultura (Warsaw: Wiedza Powszechna, 1972), 484, gave a total of 17,937; the corresponding number for this period given by Karbowiak is 18,302; my original calculations from the Metryka arrived at a total of 17,866! 4  See the comments on this matter by the editors in Metryka, 1, xxxv.

152 Table 4.1

CHAPTER 4 New matriculations by decade

Period

Total

Yearly average

1400–1410 1411–1420 1421–1430 1431–1440 1441–1450 1451–1460 1461–1470 1471–1480 1481–1490 1491–1500

1050 1395 1570 1118 1580 1836 2025 2244 2668 2901

 95.5 139.5 157.0 111.8 158.0 183.6 202.5 224.4 266.8 290.1

These figures are derived from Krzysztof Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w późnym średniowieczu (Cracow: Avalon, 2010), Appendix 1, 325–329. The number of registrations for the decade 1400–1410 includes the 206 entered for 1400, many of whom, however, were only honorary in nature.

were 6619 matriculations for a yearly average of 264.76. Thus it appears that the growth was steady. A slightly different picture appears when these totals are analyzed in more detail. Table 4.1 reflects matriculations by decade. If the matriculations in 1400, many of which were honorary, are subtracted from the first decade, the yearly average was only 84.4; in the last decade of the century from 1491 to 1500 the average was 290.1. The comparison of these two decades shows that there was indeed growth, but a closer examination shows that enrollment remained relatively static between 1421 and 1460, that in fact there was a sharp decrease in the decade from 1431–1440, and that the most significant growth occurred in the last third of the century.5 The decade of decline is particularly interesting to examine in detail. In 1430/1431 there had been 227 matriculations, but for the next three academic years enrollment fell steadily. It rose slightly in 1434/1435, and rose again in the

5  Even then, as Appendix C shows, the average for 1496 and 1497 was only 105.5. The overall pattern of recruitment and matriculation in these decades has been analyzed by André Gouron, “Le recrutement des étudiants à l’apogée de l’Université de Cracovie (1480–1509),” Czasopismo Prawno-historyczne 41, no. 1 (1989): 35–43.

The Personnel Of The University

153

last year of the decade.6 In eight years of this period there were 120 or fewer students, and in four of these the total was below 100, including the low of eight in 1439/1440. Several factors beyond the incidence of plague may account for this pattern. One was a series of disputes and dissensions which broke out among the masters in mid-decade. The reasons lying behind these are unclear. They may have been related to issues derived from the council of Basle; they may also have been connected with curricular matters, especially the question of humanistic innovations. More prosaically, it may have been a question of allocations of financial resources.7 The controversy was sufficiently disruptive of the university’s work, however, that Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki, in his capacity as chancellor of the university, was forced to intervene. To quell the dissension he appointed an eight person committee which included Professors Dziersław of Borzymów, John Elgot, and James of Paradyż (all of whom were at some point involved with the Council of Basle). They prepared recommendations on discipline which, when implemented, apparently restored some stability. But this was not the end of the university’s tribulation in this decade. The decline in 1438/1439 represented a thirty-percent drop from the previous year, and in 1439, when students matriculated only for the summer term and apparently no instruction took place in the winter term, the decade nadir was reached: only eight new students. The latter year’s decline is attributed to the presence of plague in Cracow of sufficient virulence that its effect was noted, by a later hand, in the matricula.8 Other disasters also affected the life of potential students at the studium in this period. Two major fires in May and July of 1439 brought devastation to the city, and large scale crop failures in 1438 produced soaring food prices and conditions of near famine which were compounded by currency manipulation.9 Little wonder then that the university experienced an over-all decline in enrollment during this decade. 6  The figures given by Ignacy Zarębski, “Okres wczesnego humanizmu,” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 175 and Table 1, 178, vary considerably from the Karbowiak statistics and from those of Boroda, without, however, giving any indication as to their means of calculation. 7  For the former interpretation, see Morawski, Historya, 1, 391, 448–449; for the second, see Zarębski, “Okres wczesnego humanizmu,” 160, n. 14. Chancellor Oleśnicki described this controversy by mentioning “inobedientes et calatrosos erga suos superiores dissensorum inter magistros seminatores.” Later he commented “Insuper pater venerandissime scripsit michi p. v. prolatam esse ad aures p. v. dissensionem inter doctores exortam esse in facto ipsarum indulgentiarum Sacri Concilii . . . .” (Quoted by Zarębski) 8  “Fuit autem per illam totam commutacionem in civitate Cracouiensi et circumcirca grandis pestilencia.” Album Studiosorum, 1, 94; Metryka, 1, 183. 9  Długosz, Annales, 9, 206 (Liber duodecimus, s.a. 1439): “Urbs Cracoviensis eo anno duplex incendium pertulit: unum feria quarta quatuor temprorum Penthecostes, quo tres platee:

154

CHAPTER 4

Another factor which may have played a role in this decline, and which deserves comment within a broader context also, was the possible effect of enrollment at neighboring studia, particularly Vienna and Leipzig. The Austrian university, whose early history of mid-fourteenth century foundation, decline, and refoundation had roughly paralleled the development of Cracow, also experienced a drop in new matriculations in the early 1430s. From a total of more than 300 matriculations in 1429/1430, enrollment had fallen by more than half by 1432/1433. Thereafter it had recovered, exceeding 500 new matriculants in 1437/1438.10 It is possible that among potential students from the German lands Vienna’s growth adversely affected matriculations for a while at Cracow. If so, the impact was short-lived, for student enrollment at Cracow soon stabilized and began to increase during the 1450s. Another instance when competition for students may have adversely affected the Polish university had come earlier in the century. This was the migration of German masters and students from Prague to establish a new university at Leipzig following the decree of Kutná Hora in 1409, which was discussed in the previous chapter.11 In general, however, there is little evidence beyond these two instances to indicate that the many new foundations of ­studia in fifteenth century Germany had any appreciable effect upon matriculation patterns in Cracow. While it may be possible that there were fewer Sutorum, Sancti Stephani et Iudeorum, aliud vicesima tercia Iulii, quo platea Sancti Nicolai et suburbia eius conflagrarunt;” and Annales, 9, 190–191 (Liber duodecimus, s.a. 1438): “Magna caristia frugum in Regno Polonie et in partibus vicinis exorta plures premebat: una enim mensura siliginis uno floreno appendebatur. Veris enim et estatis tempore valide descendentes pluvie ubertatem segetum, et presertim dum florem essent editure, extinxerant. . . . Non minor autem sub eodem tempore dictum regnum incomoditas falsificacione monete premebat.” Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 57, notes these elements also as crucial factors in the decline in matriculations, but puts these developments into a larger context of six enrollment cycles he identifies during the century (see below n. 12) 10  For these figures, based upon Die Matrikel der Universität Wien, Franz Gall and W. Szaivert, eds. 2 vols. (Vienna: Böhlau, 1954–1967, see the analysis by Rainer Christoph Schwinges, Deutsche Universitätsbesucher im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert. Studien zur Sozialgeschichte des Alten Reiches (Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, 1986), 65, Table 3. His figures differ considerably from those given for Vienna by Zarębski, “Okres wczesnego humanizmu,” 161. To put the overall enrollment of fifteenth century Cracow in Viennese perspective, in the years 1385 to 1505/1506, 40,683 individuals matriculated in Vienna, substantially more than twice as many as at Cracow. 11  Chapter Three, note 175.

The Personnel Of The University

155

foreign students in Cracow than there might otherwise have been, in absolute terms this is nowhere reflected in enrollment data. In the second half of the fifteenth century annual enrollment fell below 200 only eighteen times and below 150 in only seven instances. Some of this fluctuation may be regarded as normal, but a few of the extremes deserve closer attention. In 1472/1473, after the matriculation of 275 and 193 students in the preceding two years, only 106 were enrolled; then the total rose the following year to 325. In the next decade another drop occurred. For three straight years, between 1480/1481 and 1482/1482, enrollment fell below 180 before rising to 371 in 1483/1484. The third important decline came in the last decade of the century. After the matriculation of 378 and 328 students in 1493/1494 and 1494/1495 respectively, the total dropped to 187, then 93, and 118 in the next three academic years. There are no apparent external reasons which account for these three declines, though Cracow was afflicted with plague in 1496 and 1497 which perhaps explains the especially low total for the academic year 1496/1497.12 The disastrous fire in the university area in 1492 seems to have had no effect at all. Beyond the effect of natural events, however, it has been suggested that internal conditions within the university were one of the factors for the decline in the last decade.13 This was a period when the more aggressive advocates of humanistic reforms in the arts curriculum attempted to de-emphasize Aristotelian philosophy and incorporate a greater share of the rhetorical and literary traditions of antiquity. They represented, as we shall see in Chapter Ten, a substantial group within the faculty; but the corps of moderate humanists and traditionalists eventually won the struggle, and the curriculum remained essentially unchanged until well into the sixteenth century.14 While this issue was being resolved, the educational stability of the university could well have been affected, making it an unattractive option for 12  No mention is made of this, however, in the matricula. In his careful analysis of enrollment at fifteenth century Cracow, Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 56–57, identifies this as the sixth and last cycle of decline in student enrollment at fifteenth century Cracow. He emphasizes not only plague but a variety of natural disasters in this century which, he suggests correctly, influenced conditions in Cracow; he utilizes the solid older work by Antoni Walawender, Kronika klęsk elementarnych w Polsce i w krajach sąsiednich w latach 1450–1586, vol. 1: Zjawiska meteorologiczne i pomory (Lwów: Skład główny, Kasa im. Mianowskiego, 1932). 13  By Józef Garbacik, “Ognisko nauki i kultury Renesansowej (1470–1520),” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 212. 14  The effort at reform, which is in part an interpretation inferred from the attitudes of some of the faculty of this period and their humanistic interests, is traced in Morawski,

156

CHAPTER 4

new students. Thus the hypothesis is plausible, and there is some indirect evidence which speaks for it. University records reflect student unhappiness and ­frustration, although the faculty does not seem to have been divided to such an extent that many individuals left the studium. Thus even though one can not speak with any great assurance about why there was a decline in enrollment in these two years, those factors may have played a role. There are no similar reasons which are apparent to account for earlier decreases in the 1470s and 1480s. Their causes must be number among the numerous secrets which Clio is loath to reveal. Despite these isolated drops in matriculation, the pattern of the last half century is clear: steady growth of some sixty percent. This phenomenon can be explained in part by several elements, some small part of which may have been the general growth of the population at large. Beyond this, however, is the important factor that the university had succeeded in establishing its reputation, and individuals were consequently attending this studium in greater numbers. Within Polish society the school had shown the worth of a university education. Those in public and ecclesiastical chanceries recognized the usefulness of obtaining at least some of the professional training which the school had to offer. Even the members of the nobility, as we shall see, were attracted to the studium. If they came less for professional and career advancement than for the veneer of higher learning which was beginning to be esteemed in society, they nevertheless came. (Professional training for those from the nobility who were intending to pursue an ecclesiastical career was, however, more necessary.) Some of the specialized areas of excellence which Cracow developed, particularly in the exact sciences, contributed to the attractiveness of the school. This was particularly true for students from outside the Kingdom of Poland, and, as we shall see below, the frequency of their matriculation grew more rapidly than did that of students from within the kingdom.15 Thus by the end of the century the University of Cracow was, by the pure criterion of numbers, a flourishing institution. It remains now to analyze these numbers further, on the basis of geographical distribution, then as to social patterns.

Historya, 2, 165–196; and Garbacik, “Ognisko nauki i kultury Renesansowej,” pp. 204–207. We shall return to some of the evidence for this interpretation below and in Chapter Ten. 15  For convenience on this point, see the graph of total matriculations, of students from the Kingdom of Poland, and of foreign student matriculation in Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 55, which now supersedes the patterns described by Krabowiak, Dzieje wychowania, 3, 384.

The Personnel Of The University



157

Geographic Distribution

Determining where a student came from and including him in a specific ­category is a more complex problem than first appears. In the first place one must exclude attribution for any place name that is no longer identifiable, except within the most general framework of including that individual within the total, for example, of Poland. In the second place, it is not always easy to decide which areas might be thought of as foreign. Clearly the territories of Great and Little Poland were part of the Polish crown and students from there belong to the total of native matriculations. But the region of Silesia is more troublesome. Originally part of the regnum Poloniae, this rich and heavily ­populated area had followed its own political, and even social and ­economic, course during the nearly two centuries after 1138 when the kingdom was divided. Even with the reunion of the fourteenth century it had not come under Polish control, and by the end of the 1360s it was completely subject to the crown of Bohemia. From a political standpoint, therefore, it was a foreign territory. But culturally it was still very closely tied to Polish civilization. The population was about evenly divided in the fifteenth century between Polish and German speakers, and students from there, especially from the region of Upper Silesia, were drawn more to Cracow than to Prague, particularly after the decline of the Bohemian studium in the wake of the Hussite revolt.16 Thus in discussing statistics about enrollment at Cracow, many scholars have tended to include Silesian figures within the Polish total. In the treatment which ­follows an attempt will be made to distinguish Silesia from other Polish territories and when speaking of aggregates to make clear whether Silesia is included or not. The status of some other regions in the area also needs to be clarified. For example students came from Prussia. Prior to the end of the Thirteen Years’ War, this territory was ruled by the Teutonic Order, but after 1466 the western portion (the area of Gdańsk Pomorze or what became known as Royal Prussia) came under direct Polish rule. The eastern section (or what became known as Ducal Prussia after the early sixteenth century) remained under the rule of the Order, but officially as a vassal territory subject to the Polish crown. The population was heavily Germanized, particularly in the eastern section, and students from Prussia, especially from Royal Prussia after 1466, may conceivably be counted as either native or foreign. About the territories of Mazovia, Lithuania, and Ruthenia there is less confusion. The individual regions of the 16  Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 78, especially Table 5, discusses the attractiveness of Cracow for students from Upper Silesia.

158

CHAPTER 4

first were ruled either directly or indirectly by the Polish crown, its population was linguistically and culturally Polish (though the Mazovian dialect was distinctive), and by the end of the fifteenth century its chief city, Warsaw (which had gradually replaced Płock as a territorial capital), was playing an increasingly large role in Polish affairs. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania, though an autonomous state and not part of the crown lands, had after 1386 been joined in a personal union with Poland through the rule of Jagiełło and his sons and grandsons. While significant elements of the population in the Lithuanian lands were Orthodox Christians, the formerly pagan population there had been Christianized in the Catholic tradition in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. Ruthenia had been conquered in the fourteenth century, and although its population was mixed both linguistically and culturally, students from there may be included in the Polish total. All other matriculations at Cracow may be designated as foreign. The simplest division is between students from within the kingdom and those from outside it in this period. By including Silesia and Prussia in the latter category, the following approximate figures are obtained. As Krzysztof Boroda has shown, between 1400 and 1509 there were 21,204 matriculations at Cracow, with 10,026, or slightly more than 47%, from outside the kingdom. In the last three decades of this period, however, the percentage of students from outside the kingdom was consistently about 60%.17 This is a relatively large number of foreign matriculations, but it should be borne in mind that a significant number of these came from Silesia (see below), many of whom undoubtedly were individuals having a close cultural affinity to Poland. As was true with the gross statistics presented above, some interesting patterns are revealed when they are presented on the basis of decades, as is shown in Table 4.2. Enrollment by foreign students at Cracow can thus be seen to have been very light at the beginning of the century. It climbed steadily, however, and, with the exception of the decade of the 1470s, provided about half or more of the matriculations after 1460. In addition to the reasons discussed above in relation to the general matriculation increase, two additional elements should be mentioned here to explain this phenomenon. One was the almost complete eclipse of Prague after the Hussite period, which undoubtedly stimulated some of the heavy enrollment from Silesia; and the other was the return of Royal Prussia to Polish control in the last third of the century, which made Cracow a more attractive place to study for some prospective students there.18 17  These data, and those that follow, are provided in the text, tables, and graphs provided by Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 51–95, passim. 18  See below, notes 27 and 28.

159

The Personnel Of The University Table 4.2 Native and foreign matriculations by decade Period

Total

From kingdom

Outside kingdom

Percentage from kingdom

1400–1409 1410–1419 1420–1429 1430–1439 1440–1449 1450–1459 1460–1469 1470–1479 1480–1489 1490–1499 1500–1509

 963 1243 1582 1161 1580 1820 1951 2343 2587 2651 3323

 696  913 1014  783 1043 1051  909 1244 1014 1121 1390

 267  330  568  378  537  769 1042 1099 1573 1530 1933

72.27 73.45 64.10 67.44 66.01 57.75 46.59 53.09 39.20 42.29 41.83

These data are derived from Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, Appendix 1, 325–329. The numbers are somewhat problematic, since in almost every year it is not possible to identify the geographical origin of all matriculants. I have included in the number of students from outside the Kingdom of Poland for each decade all of those whom Boroda could not identify. Whether this is justified or not is problematic, but the numbers are generally small in this category, usually fewer than ten a year, except for the decade 1500–1509, when in seven years this number exceeded fifteen (thirty-three in 1509 alone). The percentage of matriculations from outside the kingdom would thus be the remainder when the percentage of those from with the kingdom is subtracted from 100%.

The geographical origins of the foreign students also show some interesting patterns. As one would expect, neighboring countries were the most heavily represented. Table 4.3 includes matriculations throughout the fifteenth century. The relatively high total of Hungarian students is not surprising. Since the beginning of the fourteenth century relations between Hungary and Poland had been close. Dynastic marriages and alliances had brought Louis the Great of Hungary to the Polish throne in 1370, and after his death in 1382, the Polish nobility had chosen his daughter Jadwiga as their ruler in 1384. In addition Hungary had no university of its own.19 Abortive attempts to found studia in the fourteenth century had required native students to seek elsewhere for 19  This general picture is briefly treated, with special reference to university matters, by Károly Kapronczay, “Ungarisch-polnische Beziehungen im Spiegel der Geschichte der

160

CHAPTER 4

Table 4.3 Foreign matriculations at Cracow University 1400–1509 Location

Total

Percentage of university total (21,204 for period)

Hungary Silesia German lands Prussia Bohemia and Moravia Lithuania and related lands Others locations and unidentified

3364 2727 1227  839  668  235  936

15.86% 12.86%  5.79%  3.96%  3.15%  1.11%  4.41%

These data are derived from Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 325–329, Appendix 1.

higher studies,20 and even the effort to erect a university in Upper Hungary (today’s Slovakia) in the fifteenth century had not been successful.21 The pattern of Hungarian matriculation reflects the broader picture of foreign enrollment. In the first quarter century only just over 150 came from the several regions of the Kingdom of Hungary (which included present-day Slovakia, the northern Balkans, and Transylvania); in the next twenty-five years that Krakauer Universität in dem 15. und 16. Jahrhundert,” in László Szőgi and Júlia Varga, eds., Universitas Budensis, 1395–1995 (Budapest: Bak-Fisch KFT, 1997), 129–134. 20  Astrik L. Gabriel, The Mediaeval Universities of Pécs and Pozsony (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, and Frankfurt: Josef Knecht, 1969), 9–25; Leslie S. Domonkos, “The History of the Sigismundean Foundation of the University of Óbuda (Hungary),” in Studium Generale. Studies Offered to Astrik L. Gabriel, L.S. Domonkos, ed. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1967 [Texts and Studies in The History of Medieval Education, XI]), 3–33; and Domonkos, “The Founding (1395) and Refounding (1410) of the University of Óbuda,” in Szőgi and Varga, eds., Universitas Budensis, 1395–1995, 19–34. See also Mieczysław Markowski, Uniwersytet Krakowski w kontekście środkowoeuropejskim późnego średniowiecza i wczesnej nowożytności (Olecko: Wydawnictwo Wszechnicy Mazurskiej, 2005), 115–124. 21  Gabriel, The Mediaeval Universities of Pécs and Pozsony, 37–50; Domonkos, “The Origins of the University of Pozsony,” The New Review: A Journal of East-European History 9, no. 4 (37) (1969): 270–289; Domonkos, “The Problems of Hungarian Foundations in the Middle Ages,” in Steven Bela Vardy and Agnes Huszar Vardy, eds., Society in Change. Studies in Honor of Béla K. Király (New York: Distributed by Columbia University Press, 1983 [East European Monographs 132]), 371–390; and Markowski, Uniwersytet Krakowski w kontekście środkowoeuropejskim późnego średniowiecza, 125–127.

The Personnel Of The University

161

figure nearly tripled. During the third quarter of the fifteenth century there were nearly a thousand, and in the final quarter and first decade of the sixteenth century Hungarian enrollment totaled nearly 1800, or nearly one-third of the total foreign matriculations and nearly twenty percent of overall enrollment in that period.22 Although many cities and places in Hungary sent students to Cracow and no region of the kingdom was unrepresented, the greatest number came not surprisingly from such major centers as Bardejov (60), Kežmarok (50), Košice (118), Kremnice (41), Levoča (89), and Prešov (42) in Upper Hungary (i.e., Slovakia); Kolosvár (20) Brassó (48), Sibiu (58), Septem Castra—i.e., Siebenbürgen (45), and Várad—i.e., Nagyvárad or Oradea (57) in Transylvania; and Buda (39 or 40), Esztergom (47), Pécs (27), Pest (33), Szeged (56), and Székesverhérvár (16) in Hungary proper.23 One should also remember that because the medieval Hungarian kingdom was a multi-ethnic entity, many of the students from there would not have been ethnically Hungarian. Many 22  See Endre Kovács, “Węgierscy scholarze na Akademii Krakowskiej w wiekach XV i XVI,” in Kovács, Uniwersytet Krakowski a kultura węgierska (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1965), 21–43; the discussion of Krzysztof Baczkowski, “Die ungarischen Studenten an der Krakauer Akademie im 15. Jahrhundert,” in Szögi and Varga, eds., Universitas Budensis, 1395–1995, 117– 128; and the somewhat larger framework—though with an emphasis upon the Hungarian connection—presented by Wanda Baczkowska, “Die internationalen Beziehungen der Krakauer Akademie in der Zeit vom 15. bis zum Anfang des 16. Jahrhunderts,” in Szögi and Varga, eds., Universitas Budensis, 79–87. The figures given in Kovács and, to a lesser extent, by Baczkowski and Baczkowska, must be revised in light of the new edition of the matricula and Boroda’s analysis of matriculations at Cracow in Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 66–74. 23  These figures are based in my counts of the entries in Index A (places of origin for matriculants) of Metryka, 2; for Hungary proper, there is one individual listed as from Budapest (though the city did not come into legal existence until the nineteenth century); I have included him with the Buda total rather than that for Pest. For some of the problems associated with place names, see the comments in Metryka, 2, 124, n. 249 discussing Strigonia, the Latin for Esztergom, which can be read as Strigouia, which refers to Strzegomia in Lower Silesia. Note also that some of the figures above include matriculations after 1500, but before 1508, the chronological terminus for Metryka. Gąsiorowski, “O mieszczanach studiujących na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku,” in Halina Manikowska, et al., eds., Aetas Media Aetas Moderna. Studia ofiarowane profesorowi Henrykowi Samsonowiczowi w siedemdziesiątą rocznicę urodzin (Warsaw: Instytut Historyczny Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2000), 662, Table 3, limiting himself to the fifteenth century only, lists the following numbers for some of the cities in the Hungarian kingdom listed above: Košice 111; Levoče 63; Bardejov 51; Brassó, 39; Kremnica, 36; Kežmarók, 29; and Buda, 27. Košice has been well studied by Iulia Caproş, “Košicki studenti na universite v Krakove v 15. a na začiatku 16. storočia,” Historický časopis 55 (2007): 249–266.

162

CHAPTER 4

would have been, for example, German speakers, including representatives from the significantly Germanized cities of Upper Hungary (i.e., Slovakia).24 Silesian students were attracted to Cracow somewhat earlier than the Hungarians. In the first quarter of the century over 400 matriculated; these were followed by 354 in the next twenty-five years; this number increased by more than sixty percent from 1450 to 1474, while between 1475 and 1509, over 1350 Silesian students matriculated.25 They too came from throughout the region, with the cities of Brzeg (85), Głogów (98), Legnica (91), Nysa (169), Opole (58), Racibórz (56), and Wrocław (491) being the most heavily represented. Other cities with significant contributions to the Silesian total include Świdnica (55), Cieszyn (46), Gliwice (45), Namysłów (43), and Jelenia Góra (42).26 In addition to its contribution to the student corps at Cracow, Silesia, more than any other “foreign” area, provided professors for the faculty.27 Many who came for study remained to continue an academic career in Cracow. If their numbers had been absent from the studium, the intellectual history of the university would have been greatly impoverished. In addition to geographic proximity, linguistic and cultural similarities were attractions for Silesians. Both the German and the Polish speaking students found assimilation easy in the city of Cracow. Although students from Prussia represent the fourth largest group among foreign matriculations, their numbers are smaller than might have been

24   This point is emphasized by Baczkowski, “Związki intelektualne Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego z Węgrami w dobie Kopernika,” Prace historyczne 40: Międzynarodowe powiązania Uniweresytetu Krakowskiego w dobie Kopernika (1973): 9–42, particularly 16–17, repeated in his “Die ungarischen Studenten an der Krakauer Akademie im 15. Jahrhundert,” 121–122 especially. 25  These quarter-century breakdowns are based in the analysis of the data provided by Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 74–78 and his Appendix 1, 325–329. 26  These figures are taken from Gąsiorowski, “O mieszczanach studiujących na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim,” 662, Table 2. 27  For the larger picture of Silesian relations with Cracow, see two works by Gustav Bauch, Deutsche Scholaren in Krakau in der Zeit der Renaissance 1460-bis 1520 (Wrocław: Commissions-Verlag von M. & H. Marcus, 1901), and “Schlesien und die Universität Krakau im XV. und XVI. Jahrhundert,” Zeitschrift des Vereins für Geschichte Schlesiens 41 (1907): 99–180. The early pages of Henryk Barycz, Ślązacy na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim od XV–XVIII w. (Katowice: Kasa im. Mianowskiego, 1935), treat some of the same material. More focused is Wacława Szelińska, Ślązacy w Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV i XVI wieku w świetle ich książek i księgozbiorów (Katowice: Wojewódzka Biblioteka Publiczna w Katowicach, 1997), which treats material to which we shall return below in Chapter Eleven.

The Personnel Of The University

163

expected.28 Prussia, though not so populous as Silesia, nevertheless had a density which exceeded ten inhabitants per square kilometer in the eastern (eventual ducal) section and was only slightly lower in the western (royal) ­section.29 Prior to 1466, matriculations from the lands of the Teutonic Order at Cracow was minimal. The attraction of Leipzig in Germany was strong following its founding in 1409, but later in the century it was northern German studia, such as Rostock and Greifswald, that exercised the greatest influence.30 This is one of the few instances where it is possible to see the effect upon Cracow of competition with other universities. Nevertheless, as we shall see, there were several major urban centers in Prussia which sent relatively large number of students to Cracow in this period.

28  For details, see Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 81–85. His analysis now supersedes the older, standard, treatment by Max Perlbach, Prussia Scholastica. Die Ostund Westpreussen auf den mittelalterlichen Universitäten (Braunsberg: Erml. Zeitungsund Verlagsdruckerei, 1895). The pattern of university enrollment of students from the larger cities in Prussia to 1466 has been recently studied by Robert Ruciński, “Studia uniwersyteckie mieszczan wielkich miast pruskich w średniowieczu,” Klio 8, no. 10 (2008): 31–86 (though, ironically, without using the new edition of the Cracow Metryka, relying instead upon the nineteenth century Album studiosorum). Patterns after 1466, which did involve Cracow to a greater extent, lie beyond his scope. 29  See the map for the mid-fourteenth century in Władysław Czapliński and Bogusław Gediga, eds., Atlas historyczny Polski, 14th ed. (Warsaw: Polskie Przedsiębiorstwo Wydawnictwo Kartograficznych, 1998), 11. The data on which this map are based are drawn from Tadeusz Ładogórski, Studia nad zaludnieniem Polski XIV wieku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1958), whose work has been accepted with some reservations by other Polish scholars. 30  The most systematic study of ties with north German universities is Zenon Nowak, “Związki Prus z uniwersytetami w Roztoce i Gryfii w XV i początkach XVI wieku,” Zapiski Historyczne 33, no. 4 (1968): 7–41. In addition, see the record of fifteenth century matriculations at these two universities, founded respectively in 1419 and 1456, in Schwinges, Deutsche Universitätsbesucher, 118–133, and Table 8, 121 (for Rostock, showing a slightly increasing average matriculation of about 150 annually); and 147–155, and Table 10, 152 (for Greifswald, showing a declining pattern of matriculation in the century, averaging eighty annually). The larger picture of regional developments is provided by Klaus Wriedt, “Schule und Universitätsbesuch in norddeutschen Städten des Spätmittelalters,” in Harald Dickerhof, ed., Bildungs- und schulgeschichtliche Studien zu Spätmittelalter, Reformation und konfessionellem Zeitalter (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1994 [Wissensliteratur im Mittelalter, 19]), 75–90, reprinted in Wriedt, Schule und Universität. Bildungsverhältnisse in norddeutschen Städten des Spätmittelalters. Gesammelte Aufsätze (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005 [Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, 23]), 27–44.

164

CHAPTER 4

The final group of foreign students to be analyzed in detail are those from Bohemia and Moravia.31 They have been treated together here, for both regions were part of the crown lands of the regnum Bohemiae, even though the two regions represent distinct parts of the kingdom, and there were far more students from the latter than from the former area. The University of Prague, despite its collapse in this period, continued to attract Czech students, and, because of the Cracovian antagonism toward Hussite influence, few Bohemian students sought to matriculate at Cracow.32 There were only nine or possibly ten from Prague who came to Poland in the whole century, four from the last decade and one-half. From Moravia, Olomouc (89), Brno (43), and Jihlava (14, most from late in the period) sent the most students between 1400 and 1508.33 Among the corps of faculty members, the Bohemian influence was felt most decisively in the earlier part of the century.34 After the arrival of the first cadre from Prague with the refounding of Cracow and the addition of some who left there in the wake of the Hussite turmoil, however, few Bohemian professors 31  See the discussion of Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 79–81. 32  Students matriculating at Cracow after the outbreak of the Hussite Revolution included in the oath they swore at registration a promise not to hold the heretical views of Jan Hus (“Item quod opinionem Hus heretici dampnati non servabo”); see Metryka, 1, 3, and the comment of the editors xxvii, n. 36. The larger picture of anti-Hussite attitudes in Poland is discussed by Paweł Kras, Husyci w piętnastowiecznej Polsce (Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1998), 209–241. 33  These numbers are derived from my analysis of the place-name Index in Metryka, 2. 34   In two works Jadwiga Krzyżaniakowa, “Związki uniwersytetu praskiego z uniwersytetem krakowskim w drugiej połowie XIV wieku,” Acta Universitas Carolinae—Historia Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis 5, no 1/2 (1964): 94–133; and “Profesorowie krakowscy na Uniwersytecie w Pradze—ich mistrzowie i koledzy,” in Waldemar Bukowski, et al., eds., Cracovia. Polonia. Europa. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane Jerzemu Wyrozumskiemu w sześćdziesiątą piątą rocznicę urodzin i czterdziestolecie pracy naukowej (Cracow: Secesja, 1995), 505–527, has studied the Prague background of the early years of the University of Cracow. See also Krzysztof Oźóg, “Studia krakowian na praskim uniwersytecie do początku XV wieku,” in Zenon Piech, ed., Miasta. Ludzie. Instytucje. Znaki. Księga jubileuszowa ofiarowana professor Bożenie Wyrozumskiej w 75. rocznicę urodzin (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2008), 637–665; and Oźóg, “Migrationen vom Professoren und Studenten aus Prag nach Krakau zu Beginn des 15. Jahrhunderts,” in Blanka Zilynská, ed., Universitäten, Landesherren und Landeskirchen: das Kuttenberger Dekret von 1409 im Kontext der Epoche von der Gründung der Karlsuniversität 1348 bis zum Augsburger Religionsfrieden 1555 (Prague: Univerzita Karlova, 2010), 99–112. I have made comments that bear on this phenomenon in “ ‘The Worst Heretic:’ Andrzej Gałka of Dobczyn in the Academic and Ecclesiastical Context of Mid-15th century Kraków and Poland,” The Polish Review 54 (2009): 8.

The Personnel Of The University

165

are noted. Almost none of the students from Bohemia and Moravia took up university careers in Cracow after their studies there. Finally, in discussing the geographical origins of foreign enrollment, mention should be made of some other elements implicit in Table 4.3 above (the category “Other Locations” and that for Germany). There were relatively few students from the Austrian lands (upper and lower Austria, Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola), and this was due almost entirely to the importance of the University of Vienna, which, as noted above, greatly exceeded Cracow in number of matriculations. Moreover its regional academic reputation made it the leading school of the region in that respect, and the general political hostility between the Habsburgs and Jagiellonians for much of the century militated against Austrian matriculations. There was some small enrollment from the Scandinavian and northern lands (fewer than a score), but matriculations from there continued to come from Sweden and Denmark after the foundation of Uppsala in 1477 and Copenhagen in 1479. Among those included in the “Others” category above, were an Albanian, two from the Iberian peninsula (one of whom was Marco Bonfilius, legate from the Council of Basle, sacre theologie professor, whose matriculation in 1446 was almost surely honorary), several Italians, two from England and Scotland, a half-dozen Belgians and Hollanders, nine from Livonia, fewer than a dozen from Alsace, another five from France and Lorraine, and individuals from Moldavia and Bukovina. Finally, the scattered matriculations from the various German lands may be attributed to the vitality of university life in many cities of the Empire and to Cracow’s distant position on the periphery of Latin Christendom. The geographic distribution of matriculations from Poland and Lithuania needs to be mentioned only briefly here, for we shall analyze these figures more carefully below in discussing social origins. The greatest number of students came from Little Poland, particularly during the first half of the century, when their preponderance was quite pronounced. A slightly smaller group came from Great Poland, Mazovia was well behind, and the smallest group came from Lithuanian and Ruthenia. The small number of Lithuanians in particular represents an inability of the studium to fulfill completely the original hopes of its founders, who regarded the conversion and education of this region as a high priority.35 35  The pattern noted above was reflected from the very beginning of the fifteenth century studium; see the geographic analysis of the matriculants in 1400 by Gąsiorowski, “Pierwsi studenci odnowionego Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego (1400/1401),” Roczniki Historyczne 71 (2005): 63–98, especially 65–66. The general geographical pattern of enrollment is reflected in the discussion of Garbacik, “Ognisko nauki i kultury Renesansowej,” 214.

166

CHAPTER 4

Social Origins

It has long been a historiographical tradition that the students at late medieval universities, particularly those in Germany on the eve of the Reformation, were drawn largely from the cities.36 At Cracow in this period there can be no question that the cities were of very great importance. In the regnum proper the major urban centers sent sufficient numbers to the studium to give it a decided municipal character. In addition, some of the towns of Prussia and Silesia were also heavily represented. But the Polish university differed from its counterparts elsewhere in that there was a surprisingly large enrollment from the countryside. This represented the nobility and knights, and, to a much lesser degree, the peasantry. This section provides information about the geographical and social background of students from Poland at the University of Cracow. Because of the difficulties inherent in the matricula precise attribution of social status is difficult, and the details of the conclusions below should be regarded as provisional. The broad outlines are clear, however, and they strongly suggest that all groups within society participated in the life of the school. With respect to urban enrollment in the period 1400–1509, the most obvious feature is that the city of Cracow sent the most.37 Some 898 students matriculated from there (with another eighty-one from Kazimierz, traditionally regarded as a Cracow suburb), though no other city in Little Poland sent more than 100 students. From Great Poland, Poznań sent 189, Kościan 128, and Kalisz 88.38 Gdańsk, which was part of Royal Prussia after 1466 and, with a population of over 30,000, was the largest city in the kingdom, sent 141. (The numbers of students from some Silesian cities has been noted above.) The pattern of urban enrollment reflects the general pattern of overall matriculations 36  See the comments of John M. Fletcher and Julian Deahl, “European Universities, 1300–1700: The Development of Research 1969–1981, and A Summary Bibliography,” in James M. Kittelson and Pamela J. Transue, eds., Rebirth, Reform, and Resilience. Universities in Transition 1300–1700 (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1984), 328–329; Schwinges, “Student Education, Student Life,” in Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, vol. 1 of Walter Rüegg, General Editor, A History of the University in Europe (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1992), 204; and Jacques Verger, Men of Learning in Europe at the End of the Middle Ages (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000 [French original, 1997]), 142–144. 37  This represents just over 4% of the total matriculation for the fifteenth century, a rather surprisingly small representation, but consistent with the percentage of Cracovian matriculants in the opening year of 1400; see the comment of Gąsiorowski, “Pierwsi studenci odnowionego Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” 66. 38  The foregoing figures are derived from Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 358–361, Appendix 21.

167

The Personnel Of The University Table 4.4 Cities within the Kingdom of Poland and outside represented by 50 to 100 matriculations Name

Number

Name

Number

Głogów Legnica Brzeg Kalisz Toruń Krosno Lwów Vilnius [Nowy] Sącz Warsaw Kazimierz Lublin

98 91 85 78 (88) 78 77 (88) 76 (93) 72 69 (81) 68 (77) 68 (81) (59)

Bochnia Opole Olkusz Sandomierz Tarnów Racibórz Świdnica Szamotuły Kleparz Wieliczka    

58 (64) 58 57 56 (59) 56 56 55 55 (65) 53 (63) 50 (64)    

Locations include Silesia. Data from Gąsiorowski, “O mieszczanach studiujących na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim,” 660–662, Tables 1 and 2. Figures in parentheses represent the numbers provided by Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 358–361, Appendix 21; these data are drawn from the period 1400–1509, which is different from the temporal framework of Gąsiorowski.

in that more students came to the university in the second half of the century than in the first and, for the most part, matriculations increased each quarter century. The one exception among urban centers was Kościan, where the number of students dropped sharply after 1475.39 In addition to these cities represented by 100 or more registrations, there is another group which sent between fifty and one-hundred students, as Table 4.4 shows. 39  Some of the figures in this paragraph are derived from Gąsiorowski, “O mieszczanach studiujących na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim,” 660–661, Table 1, and vary from data found in Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego because different time-frames are utilized. In addition, some of the information which follows in the text and data reflected in Tables 4.4 and 4.5 in this chapter is additionally drawn from Kłoczowski, “Polska w kulturze europejskiej,” 485–488. His presentation rests in turn upon four unpublished master’s theses which he directed at the Catholic University of Lublin in the 1960’s (by Jan Duer, Kazimierz Piech, Jan Ositek, and Roman Wielgus). See also his use of these details in his discussion of university attendance at Cracow in Młodsza Europa. Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia w kręgu cywilizacji chrześcijańskiej średniowiecza (Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1998), 361.

168

CHAPTER 4

Table 4.5 Selected regional distribution of urban student matriculations Period

Little Poland

Silesia

Great Poland

Mazovia, Prussia, Ruthenia, Lithuania

1400–1424/1425 1425–1449/1450 1450–1474/1475 1475–1499/1500

 345  415  519  682

 224  178  491  647

 314  308  291  370

 108  185  288  504

TOTALS

1961

1540

1283

1085

Adapted from Kłoczowski, Młodsza Europa, 361, unsatisfactory as it is (having been done prior to the publication of Metryka); it does, however, provide a picture whose overall character I regard as generally reliable. I have corrected his fourth column heading, where, instead of “Mazovia” he lists “Morawy”—i.e., Moravia in the Czech lands [?]. See the blunt critique of this table by Gąsiorowski, “O mieszczanach studiujących na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim,” 657, n. 11. The data generated by Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego in his tables and appendices do not fully allow the kind of breakdown shown in the table above, although his Appendix 18 (352–353) does provide a general picture of matriculations by decade from selected regions of the Regnum Poloniae, broken down into urban, noble, and indeterminate.

These cities accounted for a significant percentage of the students from urban backgrounds at Cracow, but they were by no means the only sources for such matriculations. Hundreds of other locations may be identified in the list provided in Appendix A in volume two of Metryka. They were for the most part small towns, having fewer than 2500 inhabitants and in many cases fewer than 750; but they all had city charters and may therefore be distinguished, at least on a legal basis, from rural villages. When one looks at the overall pattern of urban matriculation at Cracow in the fifteenth century it becomes apparent that developments there were in some degree different from universities in the Holy Roman Empire and elsewhere in Europe: the percentage of students from urban background was lower. The data in Table 4.5 provide some insight into this pattern. The total for this urban matriculation is 5869. From this same period and from these same regions there was total matriculation at the university just under 13,000. These urban students thus represent approximately forty-five to forty-seven percent of that group. Even if one takes into account place names which can not be identified and adds them to the urban total, the percentage does not rise much above a percentage in the low sixties. While this is a significant proportion, it is far lower than comparable figures from universities

The Personnel Of The University

169

elsewhere in Europe.40 The result of this pattern was to provide Cracow with a mixed student body. It is also reflective of a larger pattern in Polish society in the late middle ages which continued on into the early modern period. This was the relatively weak urbanization of the country and the consequent weakness of the cities in Polish politics and life.41 Thus despite the undeniable contribution of the urban students to the life and character of the studium, we see in the University of Cracow a microcosm of the whole of Polish social and political development.42 The diocese of Przemyśl in Ruthenia and the city of Warsaw have, unlike other areas and cities in Poland, been particularly well studied with respect to their contribution to the student corps at Cracow. Each reflects both some anomalies in the general picture drawn above and some common ­characteristics of 40  See the comment of Schwinges, “Student Education, Student Life,” in Hilde de Ridder Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 204: “The background of all student types—and this is one of the most important findings concerning the universities of central Europe and the German lands—was essentially urban.” This point is more fully developed in his “On Recruitment in German Universities from the Fourteenth to Sixteenth Centuries,” in William J. Courtenay and Jürgen Miethke, eds., Universities and Schooling in Medieval Society (Leiden, Boston, and Cologne: Brill, 2000 [Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 10]), 32–48, especially 45, and reprinted in Studenten und Gelehrte. Studies zur Sozial- und Kulturgeschichte deutscher Universitäten im Mittelalter / Students and Scholars. A Social and Cultural History of Medieval German Universities (Leiden and Bonston: Brill, 2008 [Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 32]), 191–213, especially 210. All of this is based on his fundamental study Deutsche Universitätsbesucher im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert. For a case study of these elements in a specific German university (Heidelberg), see Christoph Fuchs, Dives, Pauper, Nobilis, Magister, Frater, Clericus. Sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchungen über Heidelberger Universitätsbesucher des Spätmittelalters (1386–1450) (Leiden, New York, and Cologne: Brill, 1995 [Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 5]), 56–60 and Table 3, 133 especially. 41  This point is developed in more detail by J.K. Fedorowicz in his introduction to Maria Bogucka, “Polish Towns Between the Sixteenth and Eighteenth Century,” in Fedorowicz, ed., A Republic of Nobles. Studies in Polish History to 1864 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 135–137. The political weakness of cities is noted also by Stanisław Szczur, Historia Polski średniowiecze (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 2002), 562, and more fully developed in Maria Bogucka and Henryk Samsonowicz, Dzieje miast i mieszczaństwa w Polsce przedrozbiorowej (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1986), 284–317. 42  As Gąsiorowski, “Pierwsi studenci odnowionego Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” 66, n. 9, remarked pointedly, there has to date been no systematic analysis of the social backgrounds and careers of students from Cracow. As of this writing, despite the contribution of Boroda, Studenci Uniwersystetu Krakowskiego, this is still the case. See my comment in “In Search of Alma Mater Cracoviensis,” 116 and, in that article, notes 45 and 46.

170

CHAPTER 4

that pattern which are worth noting here. The district of Przemyśl lay in those western lands of Ruthenia which had been conquered by Poland under Casimir the Great in the fourteenth century, bringing into the kingdom a region mixed in both ethnicity and religion. Sparsely populated at that time, the area of the diocese had subsequently been opened to settlement; by the fifteenth century there were several important cities there.43 It was these which supplied most of the students from the area to the university.44 Between 1400 and 1499/1500 a total of 409 matriculations are noted from the diocese, of which 324 came from urban backgrounds, or 79.22%. This is a considerably higher percentage than the over-all figures for the century. Among the cities of this region which sent significant numbers of students to the studium in this period were Krosno (88 or 77), Przeworsk (24), Jarosław (24), Przemyśl (21 or 22) and Sanok (21 or 17).45 Warsaw was still a provincial backwash in 1400; a century later it was the leading city of the region. Its growth was paralleled by the increase in students it sent to Cracow.46 In the first quarter of the century it sent fourteen students there; during the next twenty-five years, only nine; between 1450 and 1474/1475 the total was twenty-nine; and in the final quarter of the century, eighteen students matriculated. (In the winter semester of 1500/1501 another Mazovian enrolled.)47 Many of these came in groups, and this was a phenomenon which 43  See the articles in Thomas Wünsch and Andrzej Janeczek, eds., On the Frontier of Latin Europe. Integration and Segregation in Red Ruthenia, 1350–1600 (Warsaw: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, 2004). 44  Data on Przemyśl are drawn from Adam Fastnacht, “Pochodzenie społeczne studentów Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego z diecezji przemyskiej w latach 1400–1642,” Rocznik Zakładu Narodowego imienie Ossolińskich 5 (1957): 195–232, especially 202 and 205 with Tables. 45  The first number given in parentheses above is from Fastnacht; the second, from Gąsiorowski, “O mieszczanach studiujących na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim,” 660–661, Table 1. There were also a number of students from Łańcut: either 45 (Fastnacht) or 8, the number actually listed under this rubric in Metryka, 2, 290 (the sharp difference is that this place name is easily confused with Landeshut [Polish: Kamienna Góra] in Silesia or Landshut in Bavaria; the entries under Kamienna Góra in Metryka, 2, 202, probably contain some names from Ruthenia). The figures calculated by Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 360, are based on the period to 1509: Przeworsk, 25; Jarosław, 30; Przemyśl, 24, Sanok, 22; and Łańcut, 31. 46  Andrzej Sołtan, “Warszawianie na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w latach 1400–1642 Studia Warszawskie 20, no. 1 (1974): 12 and Appendix 1, 40–41; and Sołtan, “Warszawskie peregrynacje akademickie od XV do połowy XVII w.,” Rocznik Warszawski 23 (1993): 187–210. 47  The total of seventy-one here is from Sołtan, “Warszawianie na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim;” Gąsiorowski, “O mieszczanach studiujących na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim,” 660, Table 1, lists only 68. Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 342, shows a total of 78 from Warsaw in the period extending to 1509.

The Personnel Of The University

171

can be noted from other provincial cities. For example, five Warsovians registered together in 1414/1415, in the summer semester of 1474 there were seventeen who matriculated, and they were joined by another seven for the winter term of 1474/1475. The examples of the diocese of Przemyśl and the city of Warsaw are sufficient to illustrate some of the variety of the recruitment of urban students which characterized the university in this period. The urban background of students at Cracow was varied. Unfortunately the fragmentary nature of the data provided by the matricula allows us only some general observations. These notations provide some information about the occupation of the students’ fathers.48 Some of them are ambiguous. In the case where one is noted as being the son of an advocatus, for example, it is possible that this refers to the administrative position of Vogt, Landvogt, or wójt, which was a royal or ducal office, rather than to a lawyer. Such an individual, of whom sixteen were noted in this period,49 were technically of urban origin. But in reality, they had little in common with the mercantile or craft character of the city, for they were in general drawn from the land. The designations fabri and cerdonis are equally problematical. These cover such a variety of occupations that it is difficult to attribute any specificity to it. What can be said in this case is that a son of a faber or cerdo would come to the university from a relatively modest background; for failing any specific vocational qualification connected with this term, it probably designated one who had basis skills in a variety of areas, a kind of “jack-of-all-trades.” There were fourteen students whose fathers were thus identified as the former, five as the latter.50 Despite these problems it is possible to see the full range of urban life reflected in the paternal occupations of Cracow students. One could provide for the basic needs of a city with the skills of the butchers, carpenters, coopers, millers, masons, smiths, and tanners who sent their sons to the university. The luxuries and the weapons could be provided by the gold and silver smiths and the armorers; selling could be done by the merchants and peddlers; diet could be varied by the fish mongers; fine textiles could be prepared by the washworkers and weavers; and the brewers and winemakers would find a place for their 48  Much of what follows is based upon Indeks studentów, in which its Index C lists the occupation of the fathers of students. The indices in Metryka include the category of the function and social role or status of students at the time of matriculation, but do not provide a separate breakdown of fathers’ occupations. 49   Indeks studentów, 357. 50   Indeks studentów, 359 and 358. Only two of these students came from Cracow; another is designated as de suburbia, perhaps, according to Metryka, 2, 476, Biskupie, a Cracow suburb.

172

CHAPTER 4

products in the shops of the tavern keepers.51 Their sons would not, of course, follow these vocations, for they would be professionally trained for other roles in either lay or ecclesiastical society. In addition to these craft backgrounds, whether of greater or lesser prestige, the urban patriciate was also represented at the university. Sons of city councilors and the great merchants, such as the Thurzo family, are included in the matriculation lists. But this survey can be no more than an impressionistic one, for fewer than 200 urban students are identified with a specific occupational background, and this is far too narrow a base from which to draw any statistical profile.52 Somewhat the same problem confronts us in discussing the pattern of matriculation from the countryside. By process of elimination, those students who can not be identified as coming from urban backgrounds may be assumed to derive from rural circumstances. This conclusion does not allow us, however, to discriminate very precisely between various types of country social status, and it is difficult to know the category to which these individuals may be assigned.53 It is possible 51   Metryka, 2, 740, n. 1, wryly notes that the designation of Nicholas, thabernator de Sprottaw, who matriculated in 1418, is surely a scribal error that should refer to him being the son of a tavern keeper. 52  See the general comments in this regard by Brygida Kürbisówna, “Mieszczanie na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim i ich udział w kształtowaniu świadomości narodowej x XV w.,” Studia Staropolska 5 (1957): Ze studiów nad literaturą staropolską: 36 and 74–76. Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 120–124, found himself very limited in efforts to identify the occupational status of students’ fathers and, hence, establishing more precisely than merely “urban” status the patterns of social categories. For Poznań (the city in Great Poland which sent the greatest number of students to Cracow), only twenty-five of 189 could be attributed with surety; for Cracow itself (including Kazimierz), only eightythree of nearly 900 (fifty-seven of whom came from the social elite of the city). 53  The most systematic discussion to this point has been Janina Tyszkowska, “Badania nad składem społeczny studentów Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w XV wieku,” (Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Cracow, 1967 [?]),” part 2; her methodology is discussed on pp. 1–6, and her results are summarized in the Table following 175. One of the weaknesses of her study was an implicit tendency to attribute rural, and particularly peasant, status to individuals, especially in doubtful instances; despite this, her general conclusion (i.e., of the predominant percentage of urban and the low total of peasant students) is sound. For the sixteenth century, the studies by Irena Kaniewska, “Młodzież Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w latach 1510–1560. Studium statystyczne,” in Kazimierz Lepszy, ed., Studia z dziejów młodzieży Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w dobie Renesansu (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1964 [Wydawnictwa Jubileuszowe 17]), 1–89, plus 3 maps and 23 tables; and Andrzej Wyczański, “Struktura społeczne Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XVI w.,” in Jerzy Dowiat, ed., Polska w świecie. Szkice z dziejów kultury polskiej (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972), 227–240, are of considerably more use as a

The Personnel Of The University

173

to determine rural locations from which students came, but very difficult to assess their actual social status. Only in the case of the nobility, where other sources may be used to identify specific families, can one accurately determine the names of members of the aristocracy. This group, while not large, was by no means absent from the university. The most famous examples were the matriculation of Alexander, son of Duke Siemowit of Mazovia, in 1417, and the series of Lithuanian nobles who attended Cracow throughout the century. Alexander never completed a university degree, but this did not prevent him from being elected rector in 1422. Thereafter he became Bishop of Trent, Patriarch of Aquilea, and was named a cardinal by the Baselean pope, Felix I. The first Lithuanian noble to enroll was Prince Herman Gedrojć in 1419. He gained a bachelor’s degree in 1426 and a master’s in 1433, and other members of this family followed in subsequent years. In 1488 Princes Andrew Swirski and John Gasztold matriculated, the latter being housed and tutored by professor Bernard of Nysa and later John of Głogów. In addition to these examples, there are other noble students who can be placed at Cracow in this period.54 Some of these are explicitly identified in the matricula, occasionally with the phrase nobilis genere. Others fall into the category of being the son of the “owner” or ruler of a particular rural village. There were many of these settlements in fifteenth century Poland which were essentially privately controlled. Their proprietor might not be wealthy, and in many instances he was quite impoverished. But such a family occupied a social status which set it apart from the rural population. At least sixty-two students at the university were sons of such individuals, and in many instances were identified as heres or filius heredis. These two groups together, to the extent that they can be identified, contributed some 887 members of the student body.55 More generally, as Boroda has shown, the numbers of students that can be termed “noble” is rather larger than one would normally expect in a medieval university. His data from the Regnum Poloniae show that some 11.57% model, and the way Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 97–107 structures his own analysis owes much to their methodology. 54  One particularly effective analysis of this category of students, drawn from the ruling elite in the reign of Casimir the Jagiellonian, is provided by Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 130–135. He uses the material in Metryka and bases his treatment of the important study by Wojciech Fałkowski, Elita władzy w Polsce za panowania Kazimierza Jagiellończyka (1447–1492). Studium aspektów politycznych (Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Fundacji “Historia pro Futuro:” 1992. 55  So Tyszkowa, “Badania nad składem społeczny studentów,” Part 2, 11. No one else who has attempted this kind of analysis has been willing to be this specific.

174

CHAPTER 4

of the matriculants from the kingdom should be identified as noble and that the percentage may be as high as 30 to 40%.56 It should be understood that the nobility—in Polish szlachta—was a legal status rather different from the way in which the nobility in western Europe (including England) is understood in historiography. There were great landed nobles—the magnateria; there were lesser nobles—often unfortunately termed in English language scholarship “the gentry”—who may or may not have owned or held property. Both groups were nobles. Some nobles were rich; others, poor. Noble status did not depend upon wealth or ownership, it did not necessarily involve what is traditionally called lordship, it was not predicated upon claims to military prowess or service, and it did not designate individuals holding hereditary titles. While most nobles were based in the countryside, some lived in villages, towns, and cities. Thus when Polish scholarship speaks of nobles at the university, one understands this to be a rather broad stratum in society holding this legal status, thus accounting for the rather large percentage noted by Boroda.57 A third category of rural student was the peasant. There are only a few (132) individuals who can with greater or lesser certainty, be classed as peasants, and efforts to be precise about the number have often proposed widely differing figures: a few score to several hundred, at most.58 It may well be that the total of peasants was higher than is suggested by the explicit evidence. Some individuals may have left the land and been able to associate themselves in the commercial or administrative practice of the mayor or bailiff of a nearby rural village or township. As such they would be identified as urban, or be placed in one of the rural designations that must be grouped into an uncomfortably vague fourth category: unknown. It is probable that among this number, which totals nearly 3100, some were individuals of noble background, either great or small; a few may have been peasants; but the great majority were sons of knights who sought in one degree or another the pleasures of the city for a 56  Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Karkowskiego, 127–130, especially 130, and 351, Appendix 17. The data he provides there reflect 9736 matriculations from the kingdom between 1400 and 1509, 53.38% from an urban environment, 11.57% identifiable as nobles, and 35.05% unidentified or indeterminate. 57  Compare the material about this order of western society in Timothy Reuter, ed., The Medieval Nobility (Amsterdam: North-Holland, Publishing Company, 1979), with the individual articles in Antoni Gąsiorowski, ed., The Polish Nobility in the Middle Ages (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1984 [Polish Historical Library 5]). 58  Compare, for example, Tyszkowa, “Badania nad składem społeczny studentów,” Part 2, 11, who identifies 132 individuals of peasant background in this period), with Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 143, who arrives at very different conclusions.

The Personnel Of The University

175

season, the promise of professional skills to obtain employment as a notary or teachers, or even the satisfaction of learning. Among the few individuals of probable peasant background, some were able to achieve considerable prominence. Foremost among these were John of Dąbrówka, possibly John of Ludzisko, one of the leading humanists of midcentury,59 and the Cistercian James of Paradyż, whose role in conciliar and theological matters is discussed below. The evidence for the social origin of the last comes from his own inaugural sermon upon being promoted to doctor of theology at Cracow in 1432. Then, in the presence of at least two faculty of noble background and four of urban origin, he mentioned his “rural youth” (soboles rusticana) in describing the path which had brought him to that honor.60 By way of summary on this question of the social origins of Cracow students it is appropriate to emphasize again the predominantly urban origins of their background. This can be seen from the beginning in 1400, although the high number of honorary matriculations shifted the social makeup of this cadre toward the nobility, with about half of those from the Polish crown lands and Mazovia being sons of the nobility. In subsequent yours, however, the burgher stratum of society was in the majority.61 Despite the presence of a large number of rural students, at least in comparison to other studia of this time, and because of the probability that few of the latter came from the peasantry, the university not only had an urban setting it had an urban character. Among other effects which this had was one which we shall see more clearly below. The role which humanistic interests played in the university should be seen in part as a result of this character. The emphasis upon rhetoric and the educated 59  Although most scholars identify him as from peasant background, doubts have been expressed by Jacek S. Bojarski, “Jan z Ludziska i przypisywane mu mowy uniwersyteckie, St. Med. 14 (1973): 12, who suggests that there is no explicit evidence to confirm this. I believe his reservations are unwarranted. 60  Quoted from Fijałek Mistrz Jakób, 1, 67–68. In addition, for his biography see now my comments in “Iacobus Carthusiensis [James of Paradise] and Ecclesiastical Reform in Fifteenth-Century Cracow and Erfurt,” in Nancy van Deusen, ed., Procession, Performance, Liturgy, and Ritual. Essays in Honor of Bryan R. Gillingham (Ottawa: Canada: The Institute of Mediaeval Music, 2007 [Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen 62/8 and Musicological Studies, 62/8]), 191–201, here 191–194; and Jarosław Stoś, Mistrz Jakub z Paradyża i devotio moderna. Główne problemy refleksji filozoficzno-teologicznej Jakuba z Paradyża i ich związek z devotio moderna (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Akademii Teologicznigo Katolickiego, 1997), 40–41. 61  For the social makeup of the matriculants in 1400, see Gąsiorowski, “Pierwsi studenci odnowionego Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” 66–68.

176

CHAPTER 4

man, as opposed to one merely trained in certain professional skills was reinforced by the urban values reflected in the student body.

Other Categories of Matriculants

There are other elements and considerations in the profile of personnel which is the concern of this chapter. These include questions touching the general clerical status of students, the particular issue of regular and mendicant clergy, the possible matriculation of women, and the status of poverty among students. What follows addresses these matters. Secular Clergy By no means were all of the students at the university in the fifteenth century members of the clergy, although the preponderant number of them either were or eventually became clerics. The importance of university studies for these individuals has long been the subject of analysis, especially with regard to the question of those who were prepared as theologians.62 More recently, however, there has been an emphasis upon the intellectual preparation the clergy received at the university in this period;63 upon the impact of university study for clergy in specific locations in the Polish church;64 upon the social context and composition of clerics in a specific location;65 or upon the regional origins of individuals in specific faculties of the university.66 These studies have, for the most part, been qualitative rather than quantitative in nature, though they have greatly enriched the picture of the impact the studium had within 62  The classic example of this type of study is Fijałek, Studya. 63  Oźóg, “Wpływ środowiska uniwersyteckiego na kształtowanie i rozwój kultury religijnej w Polsce średniowiecznej,” in Halina Manikowska and Wojciech Brojer, eds., Animarum cultura. Studia nad kulturą religijną na ziemiach polskich w średniowieczu (Warsaw: Instytut Historii PAN, 2008), 407–439. 64  Marta Czyżak, “Studia Uniwersyteckie kanoników gnieżnieńskich w I połowie XV wieku w świetle metryki kapitulnej,” in Tomasz Ratajczak, with Jacek Kowalski, eds., Księga, nauka, wiara w średniowiecznej Europie (Poznań: PTPN, 2004), 103–113. 65  Jacek Jaskulski, “Środowisko społeczne prałatów i kanoników kapituły katedralnej w Poznaniu w XV wieku w świetle metryki Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” in Dariusz A. Sikorski and Andrzej M. Wyrwa, eds., Cognitioni gestorum. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza dedykowane Profesorowi Jerzemu Strzelczykowi (Warsaw: DiG, 2006), 439–445. 66  Markowski, “Ślązacy na wydziale teologii Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XV wieku,” Folia Historica Cracoviensia 3 (1996): 53–68.

The Personnel Of The University

177

fifteenth century Polish society. Other approaches to members of the clergy have combined both the qualitative and quantitative. Thus, while not directly related to the issues of over-all numbers and geographic and social distribution which have been discussed to this point, these discussions have enriched our understanding of the role of the studium and its contributions to society in this period. It is not possible to provide a fuller picture of the status and influence of the secular clergy here, for such a treatment deserves the extended analysis provided in the scholarship referred to immediately above. There are, however, at numerous points in this study (especially in Chapter Nine) implicit reflections of the impact secular clergy, shaped by university training at Cracow, made in the Polish church and in Polish society. What is more possible is to treat in some degree the presence of the regulars and mendicants at Cracow, at least in terms of their numbers. Regulars and Mendicants In the general cultural history of the middle ages and in the specific institutional and intellectual development of the universities, regular clergy and the mendicants played such a large and crucial role that it is easy to forget how small their numbers really were. Even at Paris, where the conflict between the secular clergy and the friars in the theology faculty reverberated throughout the studium, and indeed much of Christendom, the absolute numbers of matriculants in religious orders were small.67 Among the whole corps of students and faculty members, except for masters (i.e., professors) in theology, they constituted an even smaller group. Thus it is not surprising to find that at Cracow, regulars and mendicants were a small group. Table 4.6 shows the frequency of matriculation in each half of the century for members of these groups.

67  Because of the substantial numbers of students there, Paris, which was larger than any other studium in medieval Europe, is an exception, for there were significant registrants who were in religious orders. In the theology faculty alone between 1373 and 1500, there were 583 licentiati from religious orders (eighteen canons regular, 129 monks, 427 mendicants, and nine others). See Thomas Sullivan, Parisian Licentiates in Theology, AD 1373–1500, A Biographical Register, vol. 1: The Religious Orders (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2004 [Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 18]); vol 2 of his study (Leiden and Boston, 2011 [Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 37]) is The Secular Clergy.

178

CHAPTER 4

Table 4.6 Matriculation of regular and Mendicant clergy 1400–1500 Period

Cister. Dom. Carmel. Franc. Aug.

Praem. Ben. Other Unknown

1400–1450 1451–1500

26 50

16 21

 6 25

11 12

 5 11

 7  4

10  0

7 1

10  5

TOTAL

76

37

31

23

16

11

10

8

15

The data above are based on my analysis of the rubric frater in Index C of Metryka, 2, 730–734. Older listings, such as that in Indeks studentów under the rubrics canonicus regularis, frater, monachus, and ordinis . . . are not reliable; neither are the statistics given by Tyszkowska, “Badania nad składem społeczny studentów,” 175. The data in Karbowiak, “Studya statystyczne,” 73–77 cover only the period 1433/1434 to 1509/1510, and are, of course, based on the Album Studiosorum, not the newly edited in Metryka. For flawed aspects in the numbers given in this table, see the discussion and the notes in the text that follows in this chapter.

Those listed in the “Others” category include five brothers of the Holy Sepulcher in Miechów, two canons regular of the order of St. Augustine, and one member of the Order of the Cross with the Star. The “Unknown” group is composed of individuals who are listed as frater, but without affiliation and who can not be attributed to a particular order through any other records. There are a total of 227 members of religious orders listed as having matriculated at Cracow, but this does figure does not represent accurately the actual number of such students.68 The preponderance of the Cistercians is a reflection of the very great general role which they played in medieval Poland. They contributed powerfully to the organization of the Polish church in the twelfth and, especially, the thirteenth century, and were particularly active in the social and economic development of the countryside.69 Their involvement in the studium of Cracow was very 68  The actual number of individuals in orders at the university in this period does not correspond to the matriculation list. As Krzysztof Kaczmarek, Studia uniwersyteckie cystersów z ziem polskich w okresie średniowiecza (Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, 2002), 109–115, notes there are, for example, more individuals from the Cistercian order that can be shown to have been at Cracow in the fifteenth century than can be accounted for by the matricula. His figure for the fifteenth century (1400–1500) is ninety, as opposed to the seventy-six that are listed in the matricula. See the discussion below. 69  For an overview, see Jerzy Kłoczowski, “Cystersi w Europie Środkowowschodniej wieków średnich,” in Andrzej Marek Wyrwa and Józef Dobosz, eds., Cystersi w społeczeństwie

The Personnel Of The University

179

early. In conjunction with a general reform of the order in Germany and the adjacent Slavic countries, Jagiełło (perhaps following the initiative of the Czech Cistercian John Štěkna, Jadwiga’s pastor, who was still in Cracow) was able to lobby successfully for the interests of his new university. In 1401 Boniface IX required all Polish Cistercians to study only at Cracow.70 The abbot at the nearby Cistercian monastery in Mogiła was designated as protector of these students, and, as we have seen, he was also named one of the conservators of the studium. Whatever the intent, Cistercians did not, as a result of this step, immediately begin to matriculate in significant numbers at Cracow. One came in 1404, another two years later, but apparently there was resistance to privileging Cracow. Thus in 1417, without reference to the previous papal mandate, the Cistercian General Chapter decreed that for university study all Cistercians in Poland and the provinces of Esztergom, Prague, Magdeburg, Riga, Lwów, and the diocese of Kamien should study only in Cracow or, in accord with ancient tradition, in Paris.71 This insured substantial attendance by members of the Europy Środkowej (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2000), 27–53. For Cistercian foundation in Poland specifically, see Kaczmarek, Studia uniwersyteckie cystersów, 73–80 The role of one specific monastery, that of Henryków in Silesia, and the implications its history holds for the larger question of development in the Polish lands is treated by Piotr Górecki, A Local Society in Transition. The Henryków Book and Related Documents (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2007), 36–86, and in his The Text and the World. The Henryków Book, Its Authors, and Their Region, 1160–1310 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 223–251 especially. 70   C DUC, 1, no. 20, 33–34. On the possible role of John Štěkna, see Zofia Siemiątkowska, “Jan Szczekna,” Materiały 5 (1965): 34–75, here 49–50; and Kaczmarek, Studia uniwersyteckie cystersów, 83. Elsewhere, Kaczmarek, “Król Władysław Jagiełło wobec krakowskich szkół cystersów i dominikanów,” in Marek Derwich and Anna Pobóg-Lenartowicz, eds., Klasztor w państwie średniowiecznym i nowożytnym (Wrocław, Opole, and Warsaw: DiG, 2005), 341– 350, 347–349 especially, has examined the support of the Polish king for Cistercian studies in Cracow. 71   C DUC, 1, no. 61, 116–117. For the developments which led to this see Kaczmarek, “Między Krakowem i Lipskiem. Prowincja szkolna polskich cystersów w średniowiecznu,” Nasza Przeszłość, 83 (1994), 125–138, especially 130; and Kaczmarek, Studia uniwersyteckie cystersów, 82–94. The study of monks from Mogiła is the particular focus of Marta Kusznierewicz-Mikś, “Studia Cystersów mogilskich na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV w.,” Studia Historyczne 43, no. 4 (2000): 551–568, who, however, overestimates the role the abbot at Mogiła played, especially in the second half of the century. See the critique of her work by Kaczmarek, “O teorii i praktyce szkolnej w zakonie cystersów i jego polskich klasztorach. Na marginesie artykułu M. Kusznierewicz-Mikś ‘Studia cystersów na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV w’,” Studia Historyczne 44, 3 (2001): 493–505, especially 501–503.

180

CHAPTER 4

order at Cracow,72 and in the last forty years of the century there was an average of one matriculation a year. Few Benedictines enrolled at Cracow. Nine matriculated in the first decade, all from the nearby monastery at Tyniec. After that there was only one more. Neither were the Dominicans an important factor at Cracow, for they were much more engaged in their own studia, one of which was located in Cracow in the Dominican church of the Holy Trinity.73 One of the most important figures in this studium in the early fifteenth century was Henry Bitterfeld of Brzeg, a professor in theology at Prague, whose treatise De vita contemplativa et activa was dedicated to Queen Jadwiga and whose influence in Polish theological circles was considerable. He may have been in Cracow (but did not matriculate at the university) between 1400 and 1403 or 1404.74 Another 72  Cistercians from Prussia in the abbeys at Pelpin and Oliwa were loath to accept the jurisdiction of the Abbot of Mogiła. Some of this was rivalry between the convents; some may have been due to ethnic considerations. These elements are discussed by Kaczmarek, “Dlaczego Cystersi z ‘Prus’ nie chcieli studiować w Krakowie?” Nasza Przeszłość 96 (2001): 195–207. 73  For the general picture of education of Polish Dominicans see now the comprehensive study by Kaczmarek, Szkoły i studia dominikanów krakowskich w średniowieczu (Warsaw: Neriton, 2005), which updates the study of Paweł Kielar, “Studia nad kulturą szkolną i intelektualną dominikanów prowincji polskiej w średniowieczu,” in Jerzy Kłoczowski, ed., Studia nad historią dominikanów w Polsce 1222–1972, 2 vols. (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Prowincji Dominikanów, 1975), 1, 271–515. More focused, and taking some issue with Kielar’s conclusions, is Jerzy Korolec, “Studium generale dominikanów klasztoru Święty Trójcy w Krakowie,” in Jerzy Kłoczowski and Jan Andrzej Spież, eds., Dominikanie w środkowej Europie w XIII–XV wieku. Aktywność duszpasterska i kultura intelektualna (Poznań: W Drodze, 2002 [Studia nad Historią Dominikanów w Polsce 3]), 173–186. I have not seen the unpublished Ph.D. dissertation of Maciej Zdanek, “Kultura intelektualna dominikanów krakowskich w średniowieczu” (Cracow, 2003). Krzysztof Oźóg, “Uwagi o potrzebach i perspektywach w zakresie badań nad dziejami dominikanów prowincji polskiej w średniowieczu ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem ich kultury intelektualnej i duchowej,” in Henryk Gapski and Jerzy Kłoczowski, eds., Dzieje dominikanów w Polsce XIII–XVIII wiek. Historiografia i warsztat badawczy historyka (Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego Jana Pawła II, 2006 [Studia nad Historią Dominikanów w Polsce, 4]), 103–121, especially 111–119, provides an assessment of current research on the intellectual and academic culture of fifteenth century Dominicans in Poland. 74  Krzysztof Oźóg, Uczeni w monarchii Jadwigi Andegaweńskiej i Władysława Jagiełły (1384– 1434) (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2004), 68; and Henricus Bitterfeld de Brega OP Tractatus de Vita contemplativa et activa, Bruno Mazur, Władysław Seńko, and Ryszard Tatarzyński, eds. (Warsaw: Instytut Tomistyczny, 2003 [Studia Przeglądu Tomistycznego, 4]), xx and lxxxi. Both works cite Kielar, “Studia nad kulturą szkolną i intelektualną

The Personnel Of The University

181

figure in Cracow, though a controversial one, was John Falkenberg, whose polemical attacks upon the views of Matthew of Cracow and Bishop Peter Wysz became n ­ otorious.75 His De monarchia mundi was especially sharp, but it reveals a good deal about the profile of theological opinion in Cracow—both in the Dominican studium and the university—at this point. In it he accused the Cracow theologians of ignorance and charged that their academic degrees were worthless.76 Despite his antagonism to the university, two of his contemporaries, John Biskupiec ( frater Johannes Episcopi) and Peter Wichman matriculated at the university in 1407, with the intent of continuing their theological studies.77 Subsequently other Dominicans matriculated, and in 1450 the faculty of the university agreed to allow Dominican graduates to be incorporated into the faculty of the studium.78 Despite this, the majority of Dominicans in the Polish province matriculated elsewhere instead of Cracow. In the decade after 1458, in fact, the province sent nine members to Bologna, seven to Paris, and six to both Florence and Cologne, i.e., more than matriculated at Cracow in the whole second half of the century.79

dominikanów prowincji polskiej w średniowieczu,” 354; see, however, the critique by Kaczmarek, “Głos w dyskusji nad początkami Studium Generalnego dominikanów w Krakowie,” Nasza Przeszłość 91 (1999): 77–100, here 97–100. 75  Hartmut Boockmann, Johannes Falkenberg, der Deutsche Orden und die polnische Politik. Untersuchungen zur politischen Theorie des späteren Mittelalters (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1975 [Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte, 45]), 133–137. 76  Cited by Kłoczowski, Dominikanie polscy na Śląsku (Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1956), 253, n. 1. Subsequently the De monarchia mundi was edited by Władysław Seńko in Materiały 9 (20) (1975): 1–289, with introductory material v–lvi, and again as Krakowska redakcja J. Falkenberga “De Monarchia Mundi” (Warsaw: Akademia teologii katolickiej, 1986 [Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia Excultae Spectantia 20]). We shall see below in Chapter Nine some of the specific characteristics of Cracovian thought at this point which he found to be objectionable. 77  Kielar, “Studia nad kulturą szkolną i intelektualną dominikanów prowincji polskiej w średniowieczu,” 374. John Biskupiec was an adversary of Falkenberg’s within the Dominican studium, but he shared his views regarding papal power and Falkenberg’s hostility to conciliarism; see Zdanek, “Tractatus contra sacra concilia Jana Biskupca. Nowe źródło do dziejów eklezjologii polskiej XV wieku,” Roczniki Historyczne 72 (2006): 105–114. 78   Conclusiones, 15. For the Dominican studium and its relations to the university in the first half of the fifteenth century in general, see Oźóg, Uczeni w monarchii Jadwigi Andegaweńskiej i Władysława Jagiełły, 67–73. 79  See Kłoczowski, “Studia w polskiej prowincji dominikańskiej za prowincjalatu Jakuba z Bydgoszczy (1447–1478), in Juliusz Bardach, et al., eds., Europa—Słowiańszczyna—Polska.

182

CHAPTER 4

With respect to other religious orders, a few words must suffice. The Carmelites at the university have not been well studied—as indeed this mendicant order has traditionally been in the shadow of the more famous Franciscans and Dominicans. The Franciscans also made little impact. While some Augustinian Eremites, most from the friary of St. Catherine in Kazimierz, matriculated at the university, there was no Augustinian studium in theology there, and because the Augustinians in Poland belonged to the German provinces of the order, potential students were directed to German universities.80 The Carthusians were completely absent from the Cracovian scene in the fifteenth century, despite efforts by John Długosz to bring them there.81 Thus it can be said that overall the involvement of regulars in the studium, whether as students or faculty, was limited. (The only regular who achieved any great position and made an important contribution was the Cistercian James of Paradyż.) It was the secular clergy who dominated the intellectual and academic life of the studium. Women and the Studium One of the most curious elements of the Cracow matricula is that it contains the names of a number of women who matriculated at the university in the fifteenth century, beginning with the opening of the studium in 1400.82 It was not unprecedented in medieval Poland for women to be educated, and particularly among the upper classes and in nunneries there are many examples of Studia ku uczczenia Profesora Kazimierza Tymienieckiego (Poznań: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewiecza, 1970), 457–481. 80  Kaczmarek, “Augustianie na studiach w Krakowie w XV wieku,” Nasza Przeszłość 99 (2003): 131–164, for the Augustinians in general. Among the Augustinians one of the most important was Isaiah (Izajasz) Boner, a member of a Cracow patrician family who was said to have died in the odor of sanctity . See briefly PSB, 2, 296, and Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 159–160; he has been more fully treated in two studies by Wacława Szelińska, “Izajasz Boner, Augustianin (ok. 1400–1471). I. Profesor Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” Analecta Cracoviensia 29 (1997): 597–623, and “Izajasz Boner, Augustianin (ok. 1400–1471). II. Droga do świętości,” Analecta Cracoviensia 30/31 (1998–1999): 571–589. 81  With respect to the Carthusians, see Jerzy Kaliszuk and Jacek Soszyński, “Die Kartäuser und Krakau im 15. Jahrhundert: Geistliche, Bürger und die Universität,” in Sönke Lorenz, Oliver Auge, and Robert Zagolla, eds., Bücher, Bibliotheken und Schriftkultur der Kartäuser. Festgabe zum 65. Geburtstag von Edward Potkowski (Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, 2002), 317–323. 82   Album Studiosorum, 1, 2; Metryka, 1, 14–15. There are a number of other names in addition to those mentioned below in the text. Some of these are explicitly listed, not as matriculants, but because they expressed a desire to pray for the past and present members of the studium.

The Personnel Of The University

183

women who may be classed as literate.83 According to Długosz Queen Jadwiga could speak several languages, and he implies that she could read Polish and other languages. Modern scholarship attributes to her the ability to speak and read in five languages.84 Jagiełło’s last wife, Zofia, a Lithuanian by birth and without formal education, may nevertheless have learned to read in Polish.85 But literacy and formal, academic education are two very different things. Women at the medieval universities, except in the case of a few isolated late examples at Italian studia, were virtually unknown.86 Thus the presence of these names at Cracow raises questions. The first name recorded was Barbara Clozwalynne, civis cracoviensis in 1400; a later entry lists Catherine, heres de Dambrova, i.e., Catherine Mężykowa, who founded the chair in arts in 1420. This is followed by four more women’s names: Johanna, the widow of Gniewosz, the castellan of Sandomir; Alexandra, the sister of Jagiełło and wife of Prince Siemowit of Mazovia; Elizabeth, the widow of Stephan of Biechów, who had been chamberlain of Sieradz; and another Elizabeth, the widow of Spytko of Melsztyń, the wojewoda of Cracow. Other women matriculants included (in 1451) Catherine, the daughter of Cracow city councilor Glazar, together with her two servants Catherine and Dorothy; (in 1464) Catherine Homan, the wife of university rector Peter Gaszowiec (a layman and a physician), and Ursula, probably her sister; (in 1466) Bemkowa, the grandmother of Stanisław Thurzo, the eventual Bishop of Olomouc in Moravia, together with her four daughters; and (in 1470) the three daughters of Peter Gaszowiec. There may have been others. Although it has been suggested that, particularly in the case of the Gaszowiec family, these matriculations reflect some kind of intellectual ambitions,87 it is more probable that they were purely honorary in character. One came in the year of the university’s foundation, when there were many entries of this sort; Catherine Mężykowa provided an important endowment; Bemkowa is identified explicitly as benefactrix Universitatis; and the family of rector Peter, who was a member of the medical faculty and physicus regius, were well known Cracow citizens. The assumption that these were purely of 83  For the Piast period see Krzysztof Ratajczak, Edukacja kobiet w kręgu dynastii piastowskiej w średniowieczu (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2005). 84  Długosz, Annales, 6, 232 (Liber decimus, s.a. 1399); see Knoll, “Jadwiga and Education,” The Polish Review: 44 (1999): 421; and Urszula Borkowska, Dynastia Jagiellonów w Polsce (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 2011), 483. 85  Małgorzata Duczmal, Jagiellonowie—Leksykon biograficzny (Cracow Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1996), 432. 86  Schwinges, “Student Education, Student Life,” 202. 87  Kürbisówna, “Mieszczanie na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim,” 35.

184

CHAPTER 4

honorary ­character is further reinforced by the fact that they are not included in the normal sequence of annual registrations in the matricula; they are listed separately. It is even not too much to say, as Antonia Jelicz once commented, that they reflect a kind of social snobbism.88 Thus one should see these matriculations as nothing but a curiosity and not directly germane to the academic and social issues with which we are concerned.89

88  Antonia Jelicz, Życie codzienne w średniowiecznym krakowie (wiek XIII–XV ) (Warsaw: Państwowe Instytut Wydawniczy, 1966), 139. 89  Nearly three decades ago an article appeared that has taken on a life of its own in women’s and gender studies circles: Michael H. Shank, “A Female University Student in Late Medieval Kraków,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 12 (1987): 373–380. The story Shank analyzes is one contained in the autobiography of Martin of Leibitz, abbot of the Benedictine Schottenstift in Vienna (d. 1464). In it Martin reported that while he was in Cracow there was a woman who attended the university in male garb for two years and came close to being promoted to bachelor in arts. He commented that she was eventually caught out by a soldier living in the house of a burgher named “Kaltherbrig,” and when asked by a judge why she had disguised her sex, replied “for the love of learning.” She was sent into a [local?] convent, where she eventually became the abbess. According to Martin’s report she was still living there. Since Martin matriculated at the University of Vienna in 1420 and since the burgher “Kaltherbrig” can probably be identified as the university benefactor Peter Kaldherberg listed among those who should be remembered in prayer (Album Studiosorum, 1, 9; Metryka, 1, 7) and who was involved with the purchase of what became the Collegium maius (CDUC, 1, no. 17, 30), Shank concluded the story has some basis in fact. He dates the woman’s probable attendance to the period 1400–1420, but is cautious about accepting the story as fact. The information he reports was not unknown. Morawski, Historya, 1, 45, n. 3, regards the story as apocryphal and relegates its context to sometime before 1400. The story is accepted as being more reliable by the popular historian Pawel Jasienica, Jagiellonian Poland, Alexander Jordan, trans. (Miami, FL: American Institute of Polish Culture, 1978 [Polish original Polska Jagiellonów, 1963]), 88. Despite Shank’s caution, the story has now come close to being accepted as fact; see Ruth Mazo Karras, “Universities,” in Margaret Schaus, ed., Women and Gender in Medieval Europe. An Encyclopedia (New York and London: Routledge, 2006), 808; Shank’s reference is listed in many women’s and gender studies bibliographies. The story is an interesting one, containing some solid historical references, but I can find no evidence to accept it as anything beyond hearsay. Judith M. Bennett, who reprinted Shank’s article in her edited volume Sisters and Workers in the Middle Ages (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), has commented in History Matters. Patriarchy and the Challenge of Feminism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 196, n. 51, that “Shank notes that this might be just a literary tale, but he also adduces good evidence to suggest its historicity.”

The Personnel Of The University

185

Pauperes Shortly after the university opened in 1400 the matriculation of students from the less privileged strata of society raised the need to make some provision for poor students. One of the ways this need was met was with the founding of the Bursa pauperum by professor John Isner discussed in the previous chapter. Beyond that, however, matriculation fees were frequently not required from students who could not pay—at least at registration—and presumably could not attend if they were required to pay. A third approach was that tuition fees which, in theory, the faculty were allowed to collect from students in individual classes, were foregone. These procedures raise the question, which has interested scholars in connection with other universities,90 of the degree to which one may identify pauperes among the students at Cracow. Unfortunately, only a partial and unsatisfactory answer may be given to this question. The data upon which a discussion of this issue must be based are fragmentary and one-dimensional. There was no university office—nor any other kind of institutional structure—which systematically kept the kind of statistics necessary for this. The only plausible basis was the record of matriculation fees. When a student registered, full payment was eight grossi. If he paid this, the matricula noted dedit totum or solvit totum, i.e., “paid in full.” In many instances, however, he paid less, in which case the amount was recorded. Many individuals paid nothing, some promised to pay (and are noted as promisit), and a very few gave more than the required amount (as did John, son of John de Coczini in 1432: one florin). On this basis Antoni Karbowiak divided the students from 1400 to 1432/1433 into four groups: the rich, the less rich, the poorer, and the poorest, paying respectively eight or more grossi, three and one-half 90  John M. Fletcher, “Wealth and Poverty in the Medieval German Universities,, with Particular Reference to the University of Freiburg,” in J.R. Hale, J.R.L. Highfield, and Beryl Smalley, eds., Europe in the Late Middle Ages (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1965), 410–436; James H. Overfield, “Nobles and Paupers at German Universities to 1600,” Societas: A Review of Social History 4 (1974): 175–210, 199–209 especially; Jacques Paquet, “L’Universitaire ‘pauvre’ au moyen age: problèmes, documentation, questions de méthode,” in Paquet and Jozef IJsewijn, eds., Les Universités a la fin du moyen age (Louvain: Institut d’Études médiévales U.C.L., 1978), 399–425 (subsuming the substantial prior literature); Christoph Fuchs, Dives, Pauper, Nobilis, Magister, Frater, Clericus, 56–100 and Tables 23 (163–168), 38 (189), 40 (191), 42 (193), 44 (195–196), 46 (199), 48 (201), and 50 (203). This last work is an outstanding example of the prosopographical analyses which have enriched our knowledge of the social history of medieval, especially late medieval, universities in the last decades. For the term pauperes scholares, see Mariken Teeuwen, The Vocabulary of Intellectual Life in the Middle Ages (Brepols: Turnhout, 2003 [Études sur le vocabulaire intellectual du Moyen Âge, 10]), 131 and n. 446.

186

CHAPTER 4

to seven, one to three, and nothing. Of the students he analyzed on the basis of the Album Studiosorum (the matricula not yet having been reedited) he calculated 12.7% fell into the first category, 12.5% in the second, 36.2% in the third, and 38.5% in the last.91 His random sampling of later years on the basis of these criteria showed a similar pattern. This is not a wholly satisfactory methodology. For example, it does not take into account whether those who promised to pay actually did so (about 280 students in Karbowiak’s “poorest” category bound themselves to do this) and how much they may actually have paid;92 it does not take into account the fluctuating state of many individuals’ finances; there are no other factors which are used as evidence; and it does not consider whether fees were rigorously demanded of students.93

The Academic Career and Degrees

The foregoing statistical and social survey underlies the actual collective life within which students at Cracow pursued their academic careers. To analyze more fully this academic framework, let us choose a specific student and follow him in his studies and after. He will not be typical, for he will graduate in arts (the pattern of graduations will be analyzed below), pursue further studies, and eventually become a member of the faculty, But the sum of his experiences within the university becomes a prism through which the whole of his associations with the studium can be refracted, thus revealing individual elements which were in one degree or another common to all of his predecessors, 91  Karbowiak, Dzieje wychownia, 2, 384–385. 92  In order to gain a degree, full payment of the matriculation fee would eventually have to be made, and the matricula notes a number of instances where students completed fractional payments just before taking examinations or upon receipt of a degree; see the comment in Metryka, xxxvii. According to Gąsiorowski, “Nad najstarszą Metryką najstarszego polskiego uniwersytetu,” 146, only about 38% of the matriculation records for eventual bachelor promotees in arts include a note confirming full payment. 93  It is worth noting that Karbowiak did not repeat this tedious statistical study for his treatment of the university from 1433 to 1532, and that later scholars have refrained in general from doing more than recapitulating his conclusions. There is no real mention of the issue of poverty in any of the chapters touching the fifteenth century in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ. The Metryka does, however, provide the basis for easier statistical analyses of this kind of data, and Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 244, and n. 1, has provided a preliminary calculation at least of broad patterns; he indicates 11,905 matriculants between 1400 and 1509 paid between one and four grossi at registration and only seventysix paid nothing.

The Personnel Of The University

187

contemporaries, and successors. Our student is John of Dąbrówka, born in relative social obscurity in Kujavia about 1405.94 John matriculated at Cracow in the in the winter semester of the academic year 1420/1421.95 He was one of 102 who enrolled at that time and one of 239 from the whole academic year. His “class” included such future dignitaries as John Lutek of Brzeź, Bishop of Cracow from 1464 to 1471, and Stanisław Ciołek, the eventual Bishop of Poznań and a leading humanist of his time. (Because of their later fame, both names in the matricula have been emphasized by notations in the hand of a later scribe.) In the process of registration, John presented himself before the rector who each semester presided over this ceremony. In this case it was James Zaborowski, who after incepting as a master in arts in 1412, had subsequently been promoted to doctor decretorum in the spring of 1420 and was subsequently elected to lead the university for a ­semester.96 John declared his name, paid a matriculation fee of two grossi instead of the full amount, and a notary entered this information into the registration book. From the fees which were thus collected, one-sixth was paid to the notary, one-third was retained by the rector as his honorarium, and one-third was paid into the common treasury of the university.97 These latter moneys, while they were not large in the early part of the century, eventually provided substantial income to the school; for example, in the academic year that John died (during his ninth term as rector), matriculation fees from the summer and winter semesters of 1471 prior to his death early in 1472 totaled eleven marks, thirty grossi, and if the same distribution formula still obtained in that year before his death three marks, forty-two grossi would have been the share of the university’s coffer. This was equal to about one-third of the salary of one of the junior faculty in arts. Moreover because these funds were undesignated they could be used for whatever purpose the school saw fit. It should be noted that not all students paid in cash. In 1400 a certain Andreas gave the rector a small barrel of beer. 94  His basic biography can be traced in PSB, 5, 26–28; FwP, p. 139; LTCP / SPTK, 1, 376–378; and, somewhat more fully, Marian Zwiercan, “Jan z Dąbrówki (ok. 1400–1472),” in Stanisław Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej (Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie, 2000), 179–185. 95   Album Studiosorum, 1, 49; Metryka, I, 109. 96   P SB, 10, 368–369. As discussed above in Chapter Three, note 208, James was later to be a benefactor of the university. 97   Album Studiosorum, 1, v; Metryka, 1, 106: “. . . servitoribus de quolibet intitulato . . ., et nunc restat videre partes, videlicet Universitatis rectoris et notariorum. . . .” This note, with erasures and later emendations, was eventually crossed out in the matricula; for the actual editorial detail, which are absent in the Album Studiosorum, see Metryka, 1, 106, n. 207– 210. For the interpretation given in the text above, see Karbowiak, Dzieje wychowania, 1, 326–327.

188

CHAPTER 4

Another, named Peter, provided three quarts of beer, and the following year the son of the provost of Sandomir bought dinner for the faculty in lieu of a matriculations payment. Later students were noted as having given a barrel of common wine or of malvasia, and in 1440 a father and son who registered together provided over a hundred pounds of wax.98 These formalities did not complete the registration process. By John’s time— and perhaps from the beginning of the university in 1400—all students were required to take an oath of loyalty to the university. In a solemn ceremony, he would have placed his finger on the text of the oath in the matriculation book and repeated the following: I, John, swear to you, Lord rector, and to your successors, that I shall to the extent I am able in whatever position I achieve faithfully abide by the regulations in all matters for the welfare of the University of Cracow, and that I shall not revenge myself against personal damages, neither by force nor with arms, but shall appeal to the judgment of the rector; further I shall not support the teachings of the condemned heretic Hus.99 May God and His holy gospel help me.100 There then followed the recitation of a biblical passage. Whereas in German universities the beginning of the Gospel of John was quoted, at Cracow, the text came from Luke 11:27–28, which concludes with the words of Jesus: “Blessed are those who hear the word of the Lord and keep it.”101 The following day, the university year was inaugurated. The rector assembled the whole community in a convocatio generalis universitatis.102 He made an introductory speech, then read the general university statutes. Next the dean of the arts faculty addressed those assembled and read the statutes of 98  “Dedit rectori 1 vas cervisie” and “3 quartas dedit cervisie;” Metryka, 1, 42. “Setheslaus . . . fecit prandium pro magistris:” Metryka, 1, 47. “Jacobus civis et consul Cracouiensis . . . Jacobus Jacobi eiusdem consulis de Cracouia dederunt 8 lapides cere;” Metryka, 1, 184. 99  According to Morawski, Historya, 1, 277, the statement about Hus in the oath was added about 1420, i.e., in the year Jan matriculated. In the sixteenth century the following phrase was added: “similiter Luteri et sequacium eius.” 100  This oath appears three times on 1 of the matricula, with older or worn versions being crossed out; sometime between 1434 and 1453, the oath was written down again on 3; see the editorial comments in Metryka, 1, xxvii–xxviii. 101  The editors of Metryka, 1, xxvii, have suggested that instead of the metaphysical outlook provided in John, the more practical advice chosen in Cracow reflects the predilection of Cracovian theologians for moral rather than speculative theology. This is a theme that will be developed more fully below in Chapter Nine. 102   Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., XII.

The Personnel Of The University

189

that faculty. In these speeches, which often dealt with disciplinary problems, the rector and dean reminded students of their duties. Apart from stereotypical admonitions, these lectures often expounded on the aims and functions of the university.103 They contain, consequently, many fascinating details about system and organization. From those he heard in his student years, John probably derived much insight into the nature of the studium of which he was to be an important faculty member and administrator. Before beginning the actual course of studies, each student was required to choose what might be called an academic advisor. This individual was not to make suggestions on which courses to take, for the curriculum in the medieval university was prescribed for all students in arts. His responsibility was rather to supervise the person, the studies, and the progress of the student. According to the statutes,104 this individual was to be chosen from among the masters and he was to conduct the students who were “limited” to him (suos limitantes) to classes and to direct their first steps. At the appropriate time he also recommended his charges for admission to examinations and promotions. Whom John chose as his advisor is not known, and in general the names of these academic nannies were not recorded in the Liber promotionum. From other sources, however, it is possible to identify some of them and the students with whom they were associated. Francis of Brzeg,105 who was educated in arts at Prague and one of the first professors in that discipline at Cracow while studying theology (he was dean of arts for the first time in 1402/1403), has left behind several speeches of recommendation for students who were attached to him;106 and Nicholas 103  See Maria Kowalczyk, Krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie z pierwszej połowy XV wieku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970), 43. 104   Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., XXXIX and LIV. 105   P SB, 7, 75–76; FwP, 87–88; LTCP / SPTK, 1, 483–484; Markowski, Dzieje wydziału teologii Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w latach 1397–1525 (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 1996 [Studia do dziejów wydziału teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 2]), 112–113; and Kowalczyk, “Franciszek z Brzegu,” Acta Mediaevalia 12 (1999): 99–107 (reprinted in the collection of her articles Colligite fragmenta ne pereant . . . Studia z dziejów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w średniowieczu [Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2010], 329–337), for his biography. 106  Kowalczyk, Krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie, 157 (no. 46—Stefan Frona and Stefan of Košice in 1408), 158 (no. 54—Lawrence of Brzeg in 1414; no. 55—Dersław of Maly Tursko in 1415; no. 57—Thomas of Lubicz? about 1420 [his name does not appear in the Liber promotionum]); 160, no. 64—nine candidates, including Michael of Radziejów in 1425); 163 (no. 84—a certain Nicholas, undated); 164 (n. 88—various masters and bachelors, undated); 165 (no. 97—another Nicholas, undated [perhaps the same as no. 84?]); and 166 (no. 99—for a master, undated). See also her “Franciszek z Brzegu,” 101 and 110, and in Colligite fragmenta ne pereant, 331 and 340.

190

CHAPTER 4

Kozłowski,107 a professor of theology who may have been vice-chancellor of the university in the year John matriculated, recommended the promotion in 1422 of seven candidates, including James of Paradyż, who entered the university the semester preceding John.108 One other element of university life which affected John and other entering students should be mentioned here; this was the status of being a “freshman.” Such students were often derided by those more advanced as a beanus or bejaunus (from the French bec jaune), a derogatory term imputing ignorance and academic naiveté.109 In later times, particularly in the German universities, but also in sixteenth century Cracow, there was a good deal of hazing of these students which sometimes became violent enough that university officials were forced to intervene. But because, as Hastings Rashdall once noted, the hoaxing and bullying of the academic fledgling satisfied deeply rooted instincts of human nature, control of hazing was often beyond the reach of magisterial suppression.110 In a previous chapter the prescribed curriculum in arts has already been discussed. By a three-fold path to learning—lectiones, exercitationes, disputationes—the student was expected to arrive at the fullness of knowledge. In the first the professor read the text aloud, discussed its contents, explained ­particularly difficult passages, and made comments upon it, often drawing upon other authorities. In some instances he prepared his own formal commentary; in others, he used simple marginal notations. In the second, the student was asked to recite from memory, to insure he had mastered the material, and to answer specific questions to demonstrate he was mastering the techniques of 107   P SB, 15, 26–28; FwP, 271–272; LTCP / SPTK, 2, 384–386; and Markowski, Dzieje wydziału teologii, 129–132. 108  Kowalczyk, Krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie, 159 (no. 62). 109  Teeuwen, The Vocabulary of Intellectual Life in the Middle Ages, 41. 110  Hastings Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, F.M. Powicke and A.B. Emden, eds., 2nd ed., 3 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936), 3, 377; also, 1, 286, n. 1; 1, 407, n. 5; and 3, 376–385. R.S. Rait, Life in the Medieval University (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912), 109–123, surveys France, Germany, and England; see also the comments of Schwinges, “Student Education, Student Life,” 230–231 and especially 236, where he describes the beanium as “a kind of ‘entrance fee’ into the student body demanded by older students from the freshman (beanus) and without upper limit.” The following acronymic phrase defined a beanus: “Beanus est animal nesciens vitam studiosorum.” The derivation and development of this term is treated by Teeuwen, The Vocabulary of Intellectual Life in the Middle Ages, 41. For Cracow in this period, see Morawski, Historya, 2, 329; for the sixteenth century, Henryk Barycz, Historja Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w epoce ­humanizmu (Cracow, 1935), 655–656.

The Personnel Of The University

191

argument and response. In the third, a concrete thesis was proposed which touched some disputed question in the curriculum. Students were expected in the course of their studies to provide the arguments for that thesis, those that were opposed to it, and to defend the former against the latter. An individual was not required to do all of these things in the same disputation, but over a reasonable period to participate in all three capacities on several different occasions.111 At Cracow the disputatio ordinaria was held every Saturday immediately following the early mass at St. Anne’s church.112 In the final semester before promotion those who were to be candidates were required to attend weekly, to answer or respond to any question put directly to them, and were not allowed to leave the hall prior to the conclusion, even if they had already been ­questioned.113 Though these methods today appear mechanical and even stultifying in their emphasis upon rote learning and ability to cite authority, in a society which was highly litigious and respectful of precedent, the ability to 111  The best general overview of these approaches is now Alfonso Maierù, University Training in Medieval Europe, translated and edited by Darleen N. Pryds (Leiden, New York, and Cologne: Brill, 1994 [Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, 3]), 36–69. For lectures, recitations, and disputations, see Teeuwen, The Vocabulary of Intellectual Life in the Middle Ages, 292–297 (legere, lectio); 268, n. 229 (repetitiones); and 256–259 (disputatio, disputare). On the disputatio, see also Olga Weijers, La ‘disputatio’ dans les Facultés des arts au moyen âge (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2002 [Studia Artistarum. Études sur la Faculté des arts dans les Universités médiévales 10]), especially 277–315, which focuses on Central Europe, and, more generally, her In Search of the Truth. A History of Disputation Techniques from Antiquity to Early Modern Times (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), 119–147; and Bernardo C. Bazàn, “Les questions disputées, principalement dans les facultés de théologie,” in Bazán, Gérard Fransen, John W. Wippel, and Danielle Jacquart, Les questions disputées et les questions quodlibétique dans les facultés de théologie, de droit et de médicine (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 1985 [Typologie des sources du Moyen Âge occidental 44–45]), 21–48. While traditionally regarded, especially by those not engaged in the study of a university, as “medieval vestiges of an anti-intellectual world: pedantic at best, pointless at worst,” Alex J. Novikoff, “Toward a Cultural History of Scholastic Disputation,” The American Historical Review 117 (2012): 331–364, has recently shown it to be an important cultural transformation that has informed the western tradition for some centuries now and that has cultural implications beyond the academic context. The quotation in this note is on 331. 112   Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., XX; Księga promocji, 3; and Najstarsza księga promocji, 191. See also the comment of Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 195, citing the unpublished statutes of the Bursa Pauperum and the Bursa Philosophorum. 113   Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., XVI and XVII. See also Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 149.

192

CHAPTER 4

reason logically, rigorously, and “learnedly” in a public situation was necessary and highly esteemed. In this pedagogical approach Cracow was no different from other medieval universities. Although those faculty who held formal appointment received income from their endowed position, some teaching in the arts was provided by instructors whose salaries might be limited or who even derived no other income than from student tuition (pastus). Ostensibly all faculty were allowed to collect fees from those whom they taught, but the aforementioned lament of Francis of Brzeg in 1409 suggested that in the early part of the century at least this was not done.114 Nevertheless the statutes of the arts faculty established certain costs for the students.115 The Grammar of Alexander of Villa Dei was apparently lectured free, but exercises in it or on Donatus cost four grossi per month per student. Exercises in poetry and rhetoric had the same tuition. The ars vetus lectures cost thirty grossi and the exercises fifteen, and the same price was established for the books of the new logic. Topica and Elenchi together required a payment of sixty grossi for the lectures and thirty for the exercises. The Parva logicalia cost twenty-four and twelve grossi for lectures and exercises respectively; and while there was no charge established for the work of Petrus Hispanus, exercises on the Sophismata of Albert the Great cost thirty grossi. The longer a student studied, the more costly became his learning.116 Lectures in Metaphysica required payment of eight grossi for the six months it required, while exercises cost another forty for the whole period. For the Libri physicorum, a student paid forty grossi for lectures and an equal amount for exercises. The De anima, De coelo, and Meteora each cost forty grossi, and exercises in Ethica required another forty. There is no mention of charges for the remaining part of the Aristotelian corpus. In the truncated remains of the old quadrivium, the following costs were established: twelve grossi for Perspectiva; for astronomical subjects, including Theorica planetarum, twenty-four grossi; music, eight; and arithmetic, including Euclid, at least fourteen grossi. In addition to tuition for courses, there were additional costs if a student intended earn a degree. These included a variety of promotion costs ranging from twenty-four grossi at the bachelor’s level to forty-eight grossi at the master’s 114  See above, Chapter Three, n. 172. 115   Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., VII, XII–XV. For these costs see Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 245, Table 17, which shows the effects of reduced costs in some cases. 116  The expenses cited in connection with the preceding note came in the course of studies in Arts leading toward the bachelor’s degree. Those discussed in this paragraph fall into the category of costs for students continuing toward the master’s degree in Arts, though some courses could be included in the bachelor’s program. See Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 246, Table 18.

The Personnel Of The University

193

level. If a student heard lectures in all subjects and attended the required exercises, the course of instruction leading to a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in arts would, according to the most recent analysis by Boroda, cost some 426 grossi for the first degree in Arts and approximately another 482 grossi for the master’s degree, i.e., a total of over 900 grossi (over eighteen marks at 48 to the mark), or just over thirty florins (at thirty to the florin).117 It should be noted that a student’s expenses would also have included moneys expended to provide his examiners with formal baths and to entertain afterwards, at his own expense, at a banquet.118 Costs for these are difficult to determine.119 Tuition was not the only expense a student would have had in pursuing the academic life at Cracow. Food, housing, clothing, books,120 candles, and other costs (such as travel, medicine, recreation, even court costs for those times when one might fall afoul of the law—either municipal or the rectoral court in the university) all added to the financial burdens of obtaining an education. For the first two of these, it depended where a student lived, whether in academic bursas, housing provided in parish schools, private residences or hospices, or even in the quarters of faculty in the status of servants. These costs—both high end and those more modest in nature—can be fairly precisely calculated. Boroda’s recent study of these questions has been very effective in exploiting both traditional sources and others—such as unpublished university materials and municipal records not traditionally analyzed for this purpose. Likewise, clothing costs can be identified with some certainty. But other costs are more difficult to determine. Thus the expenses including tuition a student would incur in the course of study 117  Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 250 summarizes his fuller discussion of what he terms “educational costs paid to the university,” 244–250. 118  For the bath, see Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., IX–X: Examinati et ad gradum in artibus admissi, de cetero neminem ad balneum ducant, nisi magistros examinatores, qui se laboribus pro eisdem exposuerunt. For the banquet, see Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., X: Nec, balneo facto, aliquid pro collacionibus exponent, nisi quis propria liberalitate motus fecerit, communitate eorum, qui examinati sunt, procul mota. 119  Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 249–250 and notes 16 and 17, cites two instances from the Acta Rectoralia, no. 409 and nos. 1734 and 1736, that mention an order of food by Mikołaj Wróblowski in the amount of three florins, eight grossi, and two brothers who owed one florin for food preparation. 120  One of the most original contributions of Boroda’s study of Cracovian students (both in his Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 223–242, and the original article from which this is derived, “Książka w życiu studentów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XV i początkach XVI stulecia,” in Cezary Kukla, ed., with the assistance of Piotr Guzowski, Cała historia to dzieje ludzi. Studia z historii społecznej ofiarowane profesorowi Andrzejowi Wyczańskiemu w 80-tą rocznicę urodzin i 55-lecie pracy naukowej [Białystok: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, 2004], 39–54) is the way he has exploited insights from the Acta Rectoralia about student possession of books and their value.

194

CHAPTER 4

must be stated within an approximate range. Boroda’s solidly based conclusions are that two years of study for the baccalaureate range between eighteen and one-third marks (882.5 grossi) and just over forty-two marks (2024 grossi). Costs for three additional years of study for the master’s degree would have required between twenty-four marks (1154 grossi) and fifty-six and a quarter marks (2702 grossi).121 The yearly average of these expenses is not dissimilar, as he notes, to that calculated for students in German universities.122 In order to complete the bachelor’s curriculum a normal period of two years was required. John of Dąbrówka, however, achieved his degree in a single year, for he was promoted about Pentecost, 1421, while Benedict Hesse of Cracow was dean of arts. (In this rapid acquisition of the bachelor’s degree, he was by no means alone.)123 This suggests that he would have come to the university already well prepared for study. He was not promoted to master until Christmas time 1427, under the deanship of Laurence of Racibórz. Among the students in his bachelor’s class was James of Paradyż; and in his master’s class, the later Bishop of Cracow, Thomas Strzempiński.124 The ceremony of promotion was an exhausting and impressive one. After having successfully completed course requirements, the candidate was recommended by his advisor or some other member of the faculty. He was examined, first to determine if he had attended courses regularly, participated in disputations, had satisfactorily responded, was of good character (i.e., having neither defamed the masters nor raised his hand in violence to them and was neither infamis nor criminosus), and had properly registered at the university. He was also questioned to determine where he had been living. Then he was examined in detail by a panel of questioners about his academic knowledge. If he satisfactorily passed this stage, then he was formally incepted. He was given a signet ring by 121  Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 253–254. In a previous section of his study (173–210) he has examined in detail the housing options available to students; his use of the Acta Rectoralia, especially with reference to students living in rooms and hospices provided by Cracovians, is particularly innovative. 122  Schwinges, “Student Education, Student Life,” 237–238. 123   Gąsiorowski, “Immatrykulowani i promowani. Jednoroczni studenci akademii krakowskiej w XV wieku,” in Jerzy Strzelczyk and Józef Dobosz, eds., with the assistance of Zbyszek Górczak, et al., Nihil Superfluum Esse. Prace z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane Profesor Jadwidze Krzyżaniakowej (Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, 2000), 479–491, has, in the process of reediting the Liber Promotionum, identified sixty-one students who earned the BA in the very year of their matriculation or within one year; he has further analyzed their geographical origins and subsequent careers in a model prosopographical study. 124   Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., 14 and 18; Księga promocji, 18 and 22; and Najstarsza księga promocji, 202 and 204, for the two degrees.

The Personnel Of The University

195

the rector and allowed to wear the biretta of his new station. This was followed in many instances by a formal speech by the now successful candidate.125 In it he praised philosophy and the liberal arts. Many of these speeches discuss the relationship between philosophy and other disciplines and emphasize the superiority of the liberal arts over the practical and mechanical arts. When this ceremony was completed the new master hosted the faculty at a dinner. In addition to the cost of this, the degree itself also required payment. An unspecified fee was paid to the university and the treasury of the arts faculty, and payment went also to the servitors of the school (between eight and twelve grossi to each).126 The academic success which John of Dąbrówka achieved in 1427 was only the first stage of his university career, and in this he is representative of a relatively small group of individuals who pursued study in the higher faculties and earned advanced degrees. Before examining these developments and those of his peers further, however, it is instructive to analyze the question of the frequency of degrees, for, as noted above, by virtue of his graduation, John was an exception. Patterns are revealing. If one assumes the normative length of time for study in arts, the bachelor’s degree should come after two or three years, the master’s after a further two or three. Table 4.7 shows in summary form the number of degrees granted in individual decades and the average length of time to degree in each decade.127 125  Several of these are discussed by Kowalczyk, Krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie, 66–94. Of particular interest are those actually delivered by the new master; see 157 (no. 48), 161 (no. 71), 163 (no. 82—Francis of Brzeg [see Kowalczyk, “Franciszek z Brzegu,” 110, reprinted in Colligite fragmenta ne pereant, 340, with the cautionary comment that this may be a lecture from Francis’ time at Prague]); and 164 (no. 89). 126  The details of the process of examination and promotion in arts are drawn from Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., VII–VIII, IX–XI, XV–XVI. See also the treatment of student payments in the promotion process above. A fragmentary insight into the income of the dean of the arts faculty from these payments has been recently analyzed and edited by Waldemar Bukowski, “Z najstarszych dziejów skarbowości Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego. Rachunki dziekanów Wydziału Sztuk z lat 1458–1470,” in Tomasz Jurek and Izabela Skierska, eds., Fontes et Historia. Prace dedykowane Antoniemu Gąsiorowskiemu (Poznań: Instytut Historii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2007), 7–29; he has extended this analysis in his “Z najstarszych dziejów skarbowości Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego. Rachunki prokuratorów generalnych za lata 1458–1490,” in Zenon Piech, ed., Miasta. Ludzie. Instytucje. Znaki. Księga jubileuszowa ofiarowana Profesor Bożenie Wyrozumskiej w 75. rocznicę urodzin (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2008), 653–713. 127  See the comments in n. a of the Table. The data presented by Karbowiak, Dzieje wychowania, 2, 339–340, and “Studia statystyczne,” 78–80 (derived from the Album Studiosorum and the lists of promotions given in Statuta . . . Liber. Prom.) and relied upon by subsequent publications prior to the re-editing of the Cracow matricula and the Liber Promotionum

196

CHAPTER 4

Table 4.7 Bachelors and masters degrees by decade: Percentage of matriculations completing degrees; length of time to degreea Decade

Number of matric.

Number of B.A. degreesb

Percent earning B.A.

Time to B.A.

Number of M.A. degrees

Percent Time B.A. earning to M.A. M.A.

1401–09 1410–19 1420–29 1430–39 1440–49 1450–59 1460–69 1470–79 1480–89 1490–99 1500–09

  963  1243  1582  1161  1580  1820  1951  2343  2587  2651  3323

  94  167  225  231  295  373  516  601  650  666  732

 9.66 13.44 14.22 19.9 18.67 20.49 26.45 25.65 25.13 25.12 22.03

2.91 2.86 3.02 3.18 3.18 3.1 2.76 2.86 2.88 2.65 2.79

 21  44  74  74  72 108 110 128 102 126 119

2.18 3.54 4.68 6.37 4.56 5.93 5.64 5.46 3.94 4.75 3.58

3.11 3.54 3.46 3.67 4.06 3.38 3.92 3.47 3.55 3.86 3.89

TOTAL

21,204

4550

21.46

—

978

4.61

—

a These data about matriculations and degrees are drawn from my analyses of the Metryka and from the Księga promocji and Najstarza księga promocji. Average time to degree is taken from the analyses of Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 153–156 and Tables 42–45, and 362–365, Appendices 22 and 23; his calculations about numbers of degrees are different due to slightly different methods of totaling in each decade. b Whether any degrees were awarded in 1400 or 1401 cannot be determined; the MS of the Liber promotionum in the arts faculty only begins with 1402. There is, as noted in the text, a probable two to three year lag for bachelor’s degrees and of another two to three year lag for master’s, so presenting data according to decade reflects a slightly skewed picture on the micro level; for the decade and century as a whole, the over-all picture and pattern is more reliable.

From the table it can be seen that overall rate at which students achieved the first degree in arts in the course of the century was just over one-fifth of matriculations, and slightly over one-fifth (21.49%) of the students who earned are no longer reliable. One additional comment should be made. The totals for bachelors and masters include some individuals who had studied elsewhere and whose work or even degrees were accepted at Cracow by petition or examination.

The Personnel Of The University

197

bachelors eventually gained masters. Overall fewer than 5% of all matriculants earned masters. Further analyses by Boroda have revealed additional patterns. Overall, the Regnum Poloniae accounted for slightly less than half the total bachelor’s degrees. In the early decades of the century, however, the percentage from this territory was well over sixty percent, reaching into the seventies in two decades. By the end of the century the percentage from the kingdom had declined into the thirties and forties relative to the numbers from other states and territories. While few students from Hungary matriculated and graduated in the first half of the century, their share of the degrees had increased by the end of the period treated here, reaching over 22% in the 1480s before falling back slightly in the following two decades. A slightly different pattern may be observed with BA degrees for students from Silesia. Percentages of total degrees at the bachelor’s level were in the teens or even twenties in the first three decades of the century, but dropped back into single digits for two decades before rising into the middle and even high teens for the remainder of the period. With respect to Prussia and the German lands, the percentage of overall bachelor’s degrees in the first half of the century was relatively low, but rose during the second half—in the case of the German lands reaching over 10% in the 1480s and almost 15% in the 1490s. Some of the foregoing is misleading, however, due to the fact that matriculations from the kingdom were so numerous. Among Silesian and Hungarian students there were periods (especially between the 1450s and the end of the 1480s) when the percentages of students from these areas who earned bachelors degrees consistently reach 25% and even 35%. At the master’s degree level, the overall picture is slightly different. In the period after 1450 students from the kingdom consistently earned more than 50% of the degrees (with the exception of the decade of the 1480s, when their share was slightly under 50%) and, during the last decade of our period, exceeded 60%. This may suggest that for students from outside the kingdom Cracow was a better place for earning a bachelor’s degree than a master’s.128 With respect to graduations in arts in the fifteenth century to 1500 from specific cities, both inside and outside the kingdom, Cracow, not surprisingly had the most: 146 BAs and 51 MAs. Promotion rates from other Polish cities who sent numerous students are reflected in the total from Poznań (fortyfive bachelors and nineteen masters) and Kościan (forty and seven respectively). From Prussia, thirty-one of the Gdańsk students earned the bachelors; only four, the masters. Graduation rates from Ruthenia and Lithuania were higher than the overall pattern. Lwów had twenty-six students promoted to 128  The foregoing has been based largely in Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 147–171, especially Tables 46–52 and 370–373, Appendices 27 and 28.

198

CHAPTER 4

bachelor in arts and nine promoted to master in arts (34.2% and 11.8% of its matriculants respectively). Vilnius’s rates were even higher: twenty-six bachelor’s degrees (36.1%) and ten masters (13.9%). Selective data from locations outside the kingdom show the pattern from the largest sending cities. From Silesia, students from Wrocław earned 100 bachelor’s degrees and eighteen masters (20.4% and 3.7%); Nysa fifty-six bachelors and fifteen masters (33.1% and 8.9%); and Głogów thirty-two bachelors and eleven masters (32.7% and 11.2%) From Upper Hungary (i.e., Slovakia), Košice students gained twenty-six bachelor’s degrees and four masters (23.4% and 3.6% of the matriculants); and nearly half of Levoče’s students earned the bachelor’s degree—thirty one (i.e., 49.2%), while thirteen obtained the masters (20.6%) From towns in Moravia, Olomouc students earned thirty-one bachelor’s degrees (39.2% of the matriculants) and nine masters (11.4%)129 In the course of the century the overall decennial totals tended to increase slightly. While this frequency—and “retention and graduation rate,” to use current academic terminology—is low by today’s standards and expectation, it is not atypical of the medieval university. In the German studia of the fifteenth century, for example, the incidence of graduations was approximately the same.130 In the light of these data it is possible to draw some conclusions about the number of students in Cracow. Although, as noted in the previous chapter, Józef Garbacik has remarked that the city and university bursae had to accommodate an average of 2000 students each year,131 the actual total was probably much lower. Few students remained at the university for more than a year; of 129  The foregoing data are drawn from Gąsiorowski, “O mieszczanach studiujących na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim,” 660–662, Tables 1–3. Gąsiorowski also provides in his Table 4 (663) the pattern of bachelor’s and masters degrees by quarter century from selected cities in Poland, Lithuania, and Silesia. The respective totals for each degree in each period from Cracow, for example, are 21–9, 21–10, 35–12, and 69–20. From Wrocław, few students graduated in the first half of the century (only five bachelors and five masters), but in the second half, with much greater attendance came higher rates of graduation: in the third quarter the bachelor-master totals were 32–4; and in the fourth quarter, 63–9. 130  Schwinges, “Student Education, Student Life,” 196–197, drawing in particular upon his own Deutsche Universitätsbesucher. He terms the majority of medieval university attendees the scholaris simplex, who sits no examinations and obtains no academic title and whose attendance (at least in German universities) averaged 1.8 years. Among older studies, see the percentages given by Franz Eulenburg, Die Frequenz der deutschen Universitäten (Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1904 [Abhandlungen der Sächische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philologische-Historische Klasse 54]), 29; and Georg Kaufmann, Die Geschichte der deutschen Universitäten, 2 vols. (Stuttgart: Cotta, 1888–1896), 2, 305. 131  Garbacik “Ognisko nauki i kultury Renesansowej,” 211.

The Personnel Of The University

199

those who did, only the relatively small percentages noted above studied long enough to graduate. (There are of course instances where individuals continued to take classes over a period of years, but never attempted the examinations for a degree. Nicholas Copernicus, for example, was in Cracow from 1491 until at least 1494, and perhaps a year after that,132 but earned no degree.) A reasonable probability is that about half the students who registered in a given year remained for a second; of these, only half were promoted, and in the following two years this group would have been twice more reduced by one-half. Thus in the early part of the century, the total number of students in the city was never more than a few hundred; and in the decades of greatest enrollment between 1470 and 1500, it is doubtful that there was ever a total student body of 1000. It should be noted that the number of graduated masters who undertook higher studies in medicine, law, or theology was very small and would not appreciably have affected the total size of the student population. Apart from the differing pragmatic motivations among students that conditioned whether they would remains at university and even seek to obtain degrees,133 Polish scholars have in the past held two positions regarding the explanation for the low frequency of degrees at Cracow in the fifteenth century. One attributes this to the idealism inherent in the medieval attitude which scorned the transitory nature of early life and with it vanity of such honors as university degrees.134 A second traces the cause to the growing influences of humanistic interests which did not highly esteem the scholastic character of university instruction.135 (A combination of both these attitudes may be found in the person of John Długosz, who represented the culmination of medieval Polish historiography but who was also an individual who found the literary style, and even content, of antiquity congenial. He did not finish the ­university

132  Compare Edward Rosen, Three Copernican Treatises, 3rd ed. (New York: Octagon, 1971), 316, and Marian Biskup, ed., Regesta Copernicana (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1973 [Studia Copernicana, 7]), 53–54 and note to entry no. 21. Biskup, ed., Regesta Copernicana (Calendar of Copernicus’ Papers) (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1973 [Studia Copernicana 8]) 36 is identical, except in English translation. See also Appendix D of this study, n. 5. 133  Schwinges, “Student Education, Student Life,” 196–200, identifies four additional types of students beyond the aforementioned scholaris simplex: the baccalarius, the masterstudent, the student of rank, and the specialist student, the last corresponding in his judgment, most closely to the modern student. 134  Morawski, Historya, 1, 214–215. He also discusses the pragmatism discussed in the text below. 135  Zarębski, “Okres wczesnego humanizmu,” 176.

200

CHAPTER 4

course for which he had matriculated in 1428,136 leaving, according to his biographer, because he wanted to be truly wise, not just thought wise.)137 Though there may be some truth to these two positions in Polish scholarship, the former unrealistically idealizes medieval piety while the latter overstates the degree to which humanism became influential in the fifteenth century, as we shall see in Chapter Ten. More important than these two explanations is a fundamental, practical reason which should be emphasized. Students did not attend the university for an education only, though some were undoubtedly genuinely interested in this. They went for professional training, to obtain the qualifications for a career. The formal degree was of less interest to them than a position as a notary, teacher, or official in a chancery, whether secular or ecclesiastical. Once they had attained the appropriate skills necessary for this, many of them left, whether in a year or in two or in three, and often without taking the steps required to receive a degree. Those who were interested in a career, particularly an academic one, which required completion of the full program remained to take one or more degrees. The low incidence of graduation may have been in part due to “medieval idealism,” and to antipathy to scholastic education; it was also due to a realistic careerist pragmatism. Higher studies in the university followed the pattern outlined above in Chapter Three and need not be further elaborated here. Most of those who pursued medicine, law, or theology also taught in arts until they received an appointment to a position that supported study or teaching in one of these faculties. Not all who eventually took advanced degrees began this work immediately upon finishing their master’s degree and the required teaching in arts associated with it. John of Dąbrówka, for example, continued to teach in arts for several years. From 1427 to 1433 he held the Nowko chair, with results to be noted in a subsequent chapter. Only upon receiving one of the royal professorships in the studium did he begin advanced study in both law and theology. He was promoted to bachelor of theology in 1434/1435 and lectured on the Sentences of Peter Lombard from 1439 to 1441. By 1440 he held the doctorate in law 1440, but instead of lecturing in canon law he continued the study of theology. By October 1446 he had earned the licentiate and by 1449 (perhaps earlier) he had been promoted to the doctorate; early in the following year he began 136   Album Studiosorum, 1, 68; Metryka, 1, 140 and n. 283. Maria Kowalczyk, who assisted the editors of the latter on palaeographical matters, has identified Długosz’s own hand in the notation that he had not only paid full fee (solvit totum) but that he had provided an extra amount of four grossi (1 fertonem, i.e., a total of 12 grossi). 137   Vita Ioannis Dlugosch Senioris canonici Cracoviensis, Mieczysław Brożek, ed. (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1961), 30: “doctus esse maluit, quam videri.”

The Personnel Of The University

201

lecturing in theology, holding one of the canonries at St. Florian’s church.138 Many other students in this period studied in more than one of the higher faculties, and there are numerous instances of individuals holding degrees in medicine and law or in law and theology. (The combination of medicine and theology was rare.) By the time John had attained his final degree, his career was already involved with the broader life of the university: as administrator, curricular reformer, and intellectual leader. These elements are discussed elsewhere. In the remaining sections of this chapter, the focus will therefore be on other aspects of the life of the personnel at Cracow: upon the nature of student and faculty life.

Student and Faculty Life; Identity

Lectures began for students in arts very early. According to the schedules contained in the Liber diligentiarum, during the summer semester classes were held from the thirteenth or fourteenth hour until the end of the twenty-second hour. The seventeenth hour was a free time, undoubtedly for the mid-day meal.139 Since time was reckoned from sunset to sunset and the “day” arbitrarily began at 5:00 p.m. in the winter semester, this means that by modern definitions the first lecture was held at 6:00 a.m. (7:00 a.m. in some years) and the last at 2:00 p.m. The first class, held in the dark of night or the gray dawn of a cold winter morning, was a test of the devotion of both teacher and student to the life of learning. Nevertheless it was done, for a notice from 1483 tells us that on 2 December the scholars as usual assembled before sunrise to begin lectures.140 During the summer semester when the sun rose earlier and set later, it was possible to begin even earlier. Lectures were held from the ninth hour, that is 4:00 a.m., until the end of the twentieth hour. Two hours, the thirteenth and fourteenth were set aside for the meal. It is evident from this 138  Kowalczyk, Krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie, 139, n. 1, has identified notes gathered for a lecture in theology by John that are separate from his rectoral addresses and other works; fragmentary in nature, it is doubtful he ever worked them into a formal address, even more doubtful that it was delivered. 139  See the printed schedules for 1487, which is when this record begins, to 1500 in Liber diligentiarum, 2–50. For each semester this valuable source lists first the individual lecture rooms with the courses and instructors for each hour, them summarizes the teaching assignments of each instructor, and finally concludes with a grouping of the faculty on the basis of the quality of their teaching, plus occasional individual notes. 140   Acta Rectoralia, no. 933: “scholares . . . summo mane . . . ante auroram ad lectiones suas audiendes in Collegium artistarum . . . .”

202

CHAPTER 4

schedule that students did most of their learning during classes, for there were few daylight hours available for study, and the early beginning of each class day did not encourage late night study. At the University of Cracow, as in other medieval studia, the fifty-minute hour of modern universities was unknown. Faculty were expected to lecture a full sixty minutes, and when they did not it was noted in the Liber diligentiarum.141 It was, correspondingly, important for them to end promptly, for students had to hurry to another of the nearby classrooms for the next lecture. Classes were held on all week days, either lectures or exercises. As a result students in arts had Sundays free. In addition there were many other religious holidays which interrupted the course of study. An analysis of the year 1432 shows the following pattern.142 Including Sundays, January and February had seven and one-half free days; March eight and one-half; April, fifteen and onehalf (including a week vacation at Easter); May and June, fourteen and ­one-half; July, ten and one-half; August and September, nine and one-half; October, nine; November and December, ten. In other words, despite the fact that there were no long summer vacations and vacations between and within terms were limited, more than one-third of the academic year was free of formal instruction and drill. The total varied slightly in other years, but the differences would not have been great. In some instances, however, these dies non legibiles that were given by the academic right hand were taken by the left. In 1451 the statutes of the arts faculty were revised so that feast days in summer were included as dies legibiles for some lesser subject in the bachelor’s curriculum, and disputations were ordered for some Sundays in Lent.143 In 1464 the university faculty concluded that the decretalist lecturing on the fourth book of the Decretales should be required to give instruction on all feast days that fell on Saturday, Sunday, and during the summer.144 Then in 1491 the responsibility for lectures was extended into the previous vacation period after Christmas and Easter and to Saturdays 141   Liber diligentiarum, 81: “Martinus Belse de Cracovia . . . saepe ante finem horae cessavit;” 203: “Martinus de Cerdonibus . . . raro integram horam legebat, aut tarde veniendo, aut tantum textum finiendo;” 208: “idem, aliquotiens non cito post horam lectionem incepit, et aliquam horam cessavit.” These three examples are drawn from the early sixteenth century, but similar unreported instances undoubtedly occurred in the fifteenth. 142  Karbowiak, Dzieje wychownia, 2, 344–347. His analysis is based on the calendar contained in the fragment of the statutes for the arts faculty from 1406, listing days when there were to be no lectures or disputations; see Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., XXI–XXIV; Księga promocji, 3–5; and Najstarsza księga promocji, 191–192. 143   Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., XXIX. 144   Conclusiones, 27.

The Personnel Of The University

203

and Sundays between Twelfth Night and the feast of St. George on 24 April and between the feast of St. Michael on 29 September and that of St. Gall on 16 October.145 In addition students in arts preparing for examination and promotion were required to participate in recitation exercises on the Physics with the dean of arts throughout the whole semester prior to their promotion without regard to most feast days.146 Students were not, however, kept so busy in their studies that they did not have time for other activities.147 Within the first year of the university’s existence, the first rector had occasion to make some pointed remarks about the failings of young scholars. While university administrators often hold a negative view of student activity, the sermon which Stanisław of Skarbimierz preached at the beginning of the summer semester 1401 carries with it an air of authentic, eyewitness observation—and indignation.148 According to him, some socalled students (he calls them vagabonds—girovagi) neither attend lectures nor formally matriculate at the university; they do not live in the private bursae run by professors but find housing with their mistresses and are in no way subject to the discipline of student life. Other students, who do register, are really more interested in games and feasting. If they do attend lectures, they do not listen but instead are constantly thinking of the pleasures of the market place, of food, or of the beds of their lovers. Some students, who, Stanisław grudgingly admits, may eventually gain degrees, enter the university as gentle lambs but soon turn into lions or wolves. Then there are those who are only interested in their own welfare, paying no attention to the needs of either the university or even their own mothers. Another category of student includes the ones who, immediately after recitation exercises, before the very eyes of their instructors, don fancy clothes, wear wreaths on their heads, and hurry to the nearest ­tavern. 145   C DUC, 3, no. 291, 180. 146   Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., XIV. 147  Some of what follows has been adapted from my “Nationes and Other Bonding Groups,” 111–113. 148  The sermon, or speech, is edited and printed from the two extant texts by Zofia KozłowskaBudkowa, “Stanisława ze Skarbmierza mowa o złych studentach,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 15, no. 1/2 (1964): 11–21 (text 15–21). See also Celina Zawodzińska, “Pisma Stanisława za Skarbmierza w Kodeksach Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej,” Roczniki Biblioteczne 4 (1960): 313–318, 322–324. This speech has recently been analyzed from a very different perspective—that of moral anthropology—by Klementyna Glińska, “The Conception of Humanity in the Sermo ad clerum erant appropinquantes, Rector’s Speech on the Bad Students by Stanisław of Skarbimierz (BJ MS 191 and BJ MS 723),” MPP 36 (3) (2008): 37–58. One of the manuscripts containing this speech once belonged to John of Dąbrówka and contains works of Augustine and Petrarch.

204

CHAPTER 4

Others spend their time in the company of fools and women, giving vent to their carnal desires to the extent that they worship these idols of the flesh. (According to Stanisław, even Solomon could not match their idolatry despite the number of foreign gods he introduced into the temple.)149 Many students fail to honor their professors, whom—like one’s parents—one can never pay fully for their services; and, as regards payment, few students even bother to pay the professors the fees that are due them: out of every group of thirty in lectures or exercises, only one or two pay the required tuition. Stanisław specifically singles out students who are able to pay, and has no word of criticism for the poor. Many so-called students do not obey the regulations of the rector, and they either do not attend university masses or they leave before the conclusion and put nothing into the offering plate.150 In a reflection upon some of the social antagonisms of the day, he also chides those who put on airs about their noble background. We all have one father, he affirms, and that is God. We all descend from Adam and are all in that regard neither noble nor non-noble. True nobility lies only in true virtue. He concludes by enumerating the ideals and virtues which should characterize the true student, and warns against the careless student, whom he compares to a bird of passage, never resting, or to a pig, constantly wallowing in the mire. Perhaps his indictment of “bad students” is only a familiar topos. But this general picture of student misbehavior is more sharply defined by details drawn from the hearings in the rectoral court, whose records are extant from 1469. There a panorama of petty—and sometimes not so petty—issues is revealed. One minor matter was often a point of contention; this was the issue of appropriate dress. Many medieval corporations adopted a kind of distinguishing garb, and all universities required students and faculty to wear quasi-clerical garb in public. Cracow was no exception.151 This consisted of 149  “Unde Salomon inordinate amore atque assiduitate libidinis ad hoc usque perductus est, quod qui templum Deo fabricaverat, postea ydolis templa fabricare non timuit.” 17. 150  At this point, Stanisław mentions some students who even consort with Jews, which is forbidden by church law unless one is attempting to convert them. In particular he inveighs against those who cheat Jews, saying that they will be more quickly converted if they have no grievances against Christians. Earlier in this study (Chapter Two, note 66), it was noted that Stanisław’s speech reflects tension between the personnel of the university and the Jews in the area of the studium. 151  The standard, traditional treatment on student uniforms at Cracow, drawing upon both fifteenth and early sixteenth century sources, by Karbowiak, Ubiory profesorów i uczniów Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim (Cracow: Nakładem Autora, 1890), 18–21, has now been superseded by Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 211–218. Other useful works, such as the comments by Lucyna Nowak, “Scholar, Student, Bakkalaureus, Magister—Bildung

The Personnel Of The University

205

a tunic (vestitus clericalis or tunica) of calf or ankle length, buttoned to the throat. Generally black in color, though sometimes brown or grey, it was made of coarse woolen cloth. Various weights of cloth were worn during the several seasons of the year. Scholars were also required to wear a round, flat cap, which was replaced after promotion with the biretta. The first mention of this corporate garb comes in the statutes of the Jerusalem hostel in 1456, but it is probable that it was required even earlier. Students were required to wear this at meals in the bursae, to classes, and at all times when they were on the streets of Cracow. As a distinguishing uniform it provided visual evidence of the privileged status which the student occupied in society. Nevertheless, they were often loath to wear it, particularly within the university. In 1494 (as one example), a certain Hungarian student, Martin, was fined in the rectoral court because he had worn secular clothes to lecture.152 In another instance the same year a Lithuanian student living in the bursa pauperum was fined and suspended for a short period because he wore clothes, prohibited by the statutes,” which were of an “indecent” nature, i.e., either lay-garb, too colorful, or perhaps too short, revealing modish boots with pointed toes.153 Other problems were more serious. Many of these were associated with life in the city. Students frequently made purchases which resulted in disputes with merchants. One James of Cracow, a student, was sued in the rectoral court in 1480 by a local shoemaker for non-payment of a debt of twenty-three grossi.154 In another instance four years later, a Hungarian student at Cracow ordered im Mittelalter,” Acta Mediaevalia 18 (2005): 368 (original Polish version “Scholar, student, bakałarz, magister—edukacja w średniowieczu,” in Wiesława Sajdek, ed., Czasy katedr— czasy uniwersytetów. Źródła jedności narodów Europy [Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolicki Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 2005], 115–132), and Krszytof Stopka, “Życie codzienne w kolegiach uniwersyteckich średniowiecza / Everyday life in medieval university colleges,” in Danuta Ambrożewicz and Grażyna Fallowa, eds., Kolegia Uniwersyteckie średniowiecznej Europy / University Colleges of Medieval Europe (Cracow: Muzeum Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2007), 110, essentially repeat Karbowiak’s analysis of the medieval sources for Cracow. 152   Acta Rectoralia, no. 1732: “ad audiendum lectiones laicaliter intrabat in mitris prohibitis. . . .” He was fined one-half florin. 153   Acta Rectoralia, no. 1677. These boots, which curled up from the toes, were called Cracowes or poulaines and were known throughout Europe, including England. John Wycliffe condemned Cracowes as a work of the devil in 1380; see Violetta Włoch, “Obuwie Krakowskie w średniowiecznej Anglii,” Kronika Miasta Krakowa 1959–1960 ([Cracow] 1962): 67–78. Shoes and sandals are mentioned several times in the Acta Rectoralia; see the treatment by Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 214. 154   Acta Rectoralia, no. 831. At issue was a pair of boots. The agreement reached provided for the purchase of another four pair and full payment.

206

CHAPTER 4

meat from a Cracow butcher for which he refused to pay; he was sentenced by the rector to make full payment of one florin, eleven grossi within eight days upon pain of excommunication.155 In this same decade, a Cracow doctor was forced to bring suit against a certain Christopher for unpaid medical bills which had mounted to nearly thirty-four florins. He was successful in his action.156 Somewhat earlier a Cracovian couple who had provided room and board for a student at the rate of one florin a year sued to recover four years of unpaid rent. The rectoral court forced the student to make full payment.157 These examples could be multiplied many-fold, but they are sufficient to indicate the range of disputes. At one time or another nearly every occupation in the city had problems with the finances of students. Disciplinary problems were not limited to “town-gown” issues. Antagonism between and within bursae were also frequent. On one occasion in the Jerusalem bursa, students argued at dinner and came to blows. There was hair pulling, individuals were knocked to the floor, and some hundred florins worth of personal and property damage resulted. Some students were subsequently excommunicated, others were fined.158 In a more serious incident in 1489 two Czech students from the bursa nova got into an argument which the senior of the Jerusalem bursa, who was present, tried to stop. For his efforts, he was himself beaten up and hospitalized. In a long series of later interrogations, the students, both from the same town, continued the battle by verbal accusations. They were eventually expelled and excommunicated.159 This same bursa was the scene of violence again in 1493, when for unknown reasons a Hungarian student was disciplined, fined thirty florins, and threatened with excommunication if he again caused difficulty.160 One final incident of this type should be mentioned here to show that not all student energy was directed toward learning. In 1474 the noble Bernard of Lubiszów, who lived in the bursa divitum, was accused of parading with his sword in front of the Jerusalem hostel at night shouting insults at its inhabitants in a loud voice. Among those mentioned in the rectoral proceeding were the epithets that the students there, many of 155   Acta Rectoralia, no. 951. 156   Acta Rectoralia, no. 1105 (from 1487). Christopher informed the court he could not get the money from his father, but promised to pay the full amount eventually. In the interim he was allowed to provide the physician with installment payments. 157   Acta Rectoralia, no. 568 (from 1477). 158   Acta Rectoralia, no. 369 (from 1475). 159   Acta Rectoralia, nos. 1221, 1223, 1232, 1247. 160   Acta Rectoralia, no. 1557.

The Personnel Of The University

207

them Germans, were illegitimate offspring of Pontius Pilate, a “bunch of Jews,” beggars, and “other injurious words.” He was enjoined from any further such action and fined.161 This last example reflects some of the strong regional and national antagonisms present within the student corps of the university despite the ideal of a common community of learning. Conflict between students from southern Poland around Cracow (the region of Little Poland—Polonia minor) and those from Mazovia, the region around Warsaw and Płock was especially strong. In 1493 John of Ostrzeschów was disciplined because in the presence of the rector he referred to Mazovians as swine, declared them to be “ignorant idiots,” and otherwise denigrated them.162 Among many from Little Poland, Mazovians had the contradictory general reputation of being both dullards and crafty sneaks. Their distinctive regional dialect was laughed at, and one rectoral court case adjudicated a fight between some “Poles” and Mazovians in the Bursa pauperum. It had been caused when one of the former had gone from room to room asking if it were true that Judas had been sent to convert the Mazovians; when questioned why, he replied that was the only way one could explain their funny language. Another, in this same hearing was reported to have inquired whether there were vowels in Mazovian, with the first student answering “there were,” then illustrating each with five slang words of some vulgarity.163 One satirical epigram that circulated in the university was similarly disparaging: “rightly I say to you, flee the company of Mazovians, because fraud and envy rule in Mazovia.”164

161   Acta Rectoralia, no. 316. 162   Acta Rectoralia, no. 1580. 163   Acta Rectoralia, nos. 2189 and 2191 (from 1513): “. . . quot sunt vocales apud masovitas. Quidam dicebant quinque, videlicit: ‘Stank, penk, mienk, pock, tutka,’ quidam septem, ad quinque descriptas addebant duas: ‘ssziejeno, topka’. . . .” These seven words were marked to be deleted by a later scribe. 164  Wojciech Kętrzyński, ed., “Varia e variis codicibus,” in Monumenta Poloniae Historica / Pomniki dziejowe Polski, August Bielowski, et al., ed ., 6 vols. (Lwów and Cracow: Nakład autora and Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1864–1893), V (1888), 1010f.: “Dico vobis rite, fugite consortium Mazovite, / Quia fraus et invidia regnat in Mazovia.” This passage is further elaborated by the statement: “Mazovita interpretatur quasi malarum accionum zelator, odiens veritatem iramque tenens amarissimam.” The antagonism in contemporary Poland between Cracovians and Varsovians (residents of the capital of Mazovia and also the national capital) remains strong. My apologies to friends in Warsaw for dredging up these old insults; my Cracovian friends will not mind so much.

208

CHAPTER 4

This regional hostility was often equaled and exceeded by national antagonism, Sometimes this was between Hungarians and Germans.165 At other times there were brawls between Hungarian and Polish students. Two in the early sixteenth century, when Hungarian matriculation reached its height, were particularly serious. In late December 1507 several Hungarian students were responsible for killing a Polish scholar. When questioned in the rectoral court, their spokesman, Michael of Kisvárda, explained that it was the habit in their country to celebrate the feast of the Innocents, commemorating Herod’s massacre of the children of Bethlehem, by going about taking revenge against Christ’s enemies. The rector commented that this was a depraved custom which was repugnant to the Poles. Foreigners ought to conform to the traditions of Cracow and the statutes of the university. He told them, “when you are in Rome, lives by Roman habits; when you are elsewhere, live the way they do there.” He strictly prohibited this degenerate custom of the Hungarians in the Cracow studium. All the Hungarian students involved were heavily fined and given sentences of imprisonment in the university carcer.166 A less severe incident in 1515 resulted in the suspension of several Hungarian students.167 Germans were also the subject of hostility within the university. A long list of epithets could be compiled from among the names they were called by Polish students. Some of the most typical were repeated in a rectoral hearing in 1493: fur, asinus, beanus, scrofa, canis, illegitime natus.168 To be fair, however, the contents of the Acta Rectoralia and other evidence provide few examples of the kind of ethnic antagonism and verbal vituperation that match Jacques de Vitry’s famous skewering of foreign university students whom he regarded as responsible for the debauchery and drunkenness of the Latin Quarter at the University of Paris.169 Four additional kinds of activity were included in the student repertoire and caused frequent problems: wine, women, winnings, and thievery. Students 165  See the instances cited by Baczkowski, ‘Die ungarischen Studenten an der Krakauen Akademie,” 127, citing the following cases from the Acta Rectoralia: nos. 1343, 1466, 1557, 1560, 1564, 1567, 1572, 1600, 1696, 1707, and 1728. 166   Acta Rectoralia, nos. 2131 and 2132. This carcer, a long rectangular cell in the ground floor of the Collegium maius, was apparently little used in the fifteenth century. Compare Karol Estreicher, Collegium Maius. Dzieje Gmachu (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1968 [Prace z Historii Sztuki, 6]), 122–123, and Andrzej Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego (Cracow: Universitas, 2000), 107. 167   Acta Rectoralia, no. 2381. 168   Acta Rectoralia, no. 1574. 169  See my reference to this in “Nationes at Late Medieval Central European Universities,” 113.

The Personnel Of The University

209

often frequented the tabernae of Cracow, with results which impaired both their learning and the peace of the owner. A large group was fined twelve grossi each in 1489 as the result of a complaint lodged by a local innkeeper;170 and nine years later a young bachelor was accused of frequenting taverns by night and doing violence to several of the other patrons.171 The rector, in fact, found himself constantly issuing admonitions against such activity and pointing out the dangers of “suspect places.” Similar injunctions against mulieres suspectae were also common. One of the most notorious incidents of the century came in 1479 when a student publicly undressed a woman and then threw her into the Vistula River, “by which action the onlooking students and laity were gravely scandalized.”172 In other instances, students were charged with bringing women into the bursae.173 Gambling was another kind of problem. Most gambling was either with cards or dice, and was severely discouraged by university officials. The number of complaints over a continuing period suggest, however, that this particular nuisance was not abated. Finally, students were often prey to one another. It was not just that books were often borrowed and not returned without recourse to the rector,174 there were many instances of thievery in the hostels. Undoubtedly only a small percentage of these were traceable, with consequent legal recourse available.175 The incidence was thus probably much higher than is reflected in the records of the rector’s court. All of the foregoing is not evidence that the university was a place of constant disorder and empty of the decorum which was so highly esteemed in the students. It was merely the home of human beings, living in community, and as a result there were issues which needed adjudication. The contents of the Acta Rectoralia, while they reveal much litigiousness and petty infractions of the rules,176 are less suggestive of a robust student life than similar records from thirteenth century Paris. In general, students and faculty truly were involved in the academic pursuit of professional skills and learning. With some notable 170   Acta Rectoralia, no. 1263. 171   Acta Rectoralia, no. 1824. 172   Acta Rectoralia, no. 797. 173  See the sworn testimony of four students so charged in Acta Rectoralia, no. 2480. Other instances are recorded in nos. 2371, 2478, and 3035. 174  See, for examples, Acta Rectoralia, nos. 678, 733, 1836. 175  One instance is recorded in Acta Rectoralia, no. 1333. 176  Between 1469 and the beginning of 1500, 1855 cases were brought before the rectoral court, or an average of fewer than sixty per year. Some of these cases were, moreover, continued hearings related to a single incident. The history and structure of the court is best approached through the classic study by Stanisław Estreicher, “Sądownictwo rektora Krakowskiego w wiekach średnich,” Rocznik Krakowski 4 (1900): 249–267.

210

CHAPTER 4

exceptions, students were respectful of authority, and the life of the university was only peripherally affected by the issues which were brought before the rectoral court. In the 1490s, however, there occurred several instances where the academic life was indeed disrupted. These are worth examining in detail. On 11 February 1491 in the Socrates lecture hall, master Nicholas of Michałowice was lecturing on Ovid’s poem De ponto.177 He was interrupted by bachelor Michael of Nowe Miasto, who created a sensation by calling the instructor a brute, an ass, an ignoramus, and “many other injurious names.” The offender was later fined and admonished.178 In August of the same year, Nicholas of Lwów suffered a similar experience. In the middle of his lecture he was accused by a student of knowing nothing and was ridiculed by laughter. What was described in the rectoral court as “insolence” prevented the lecture from continuing.179 The spirit of disrespect spread. Several days later the lecture of John of Kościan was disrupted by Matthew of Napachanie, who called out “this dunghead” (cacalarius) doesn’t know how to lecture,” and stalked out of the room, taking two students with him. Matthew later defended himself by saying the others had left voluntarily—one of them had an errand to run for his mother—but he did not deny the insult to the professor. He was fined and suspended.180 One is tempted to attribute this rash of rudeness to simple student rebelliousness and high spirits, and to see nothing significant in it. More than a century ago, Kazimierz Morawski, a distinguished classicist at the University of Cracow and author of a two-volume study of its history in the fourteenth and fifteenth century, argued that these events should be seen in the light of humanistic challenges to the traditional curriculum and its content. He argued these were incidents that reflected voices of protest, not of playful mockery.181 Later historians have echoed his interpretation, suggesting that it was not coincidental that these disruptions came at a time when the issue of humanism and humanistic education was being discussed within the university.182 In Chapter

177  His name is not listed among the regular lecturers in the Liber diligentiarum for this year. He is mentioned as an extraneus simpliciter seu non de facultate in 1489 and as extraneus de facultate in both semesters of 1490 (11 and 17). The “lecture” was therefore either an extraordinary one or an exercise. See Acta Rectoralia, 1, 305, n. 2. 178   Acta Rectoralia, no. 1388. 179   Acta Rectoralia, no. 1457. 180   Acta Rectoralia, no. 1459. 181  Morawski, Historya, 2, 194–195. 182  Garbacik, “Ognisko nauki i kultury renesansowej,” 206.

The Personnel Of The University

211

Ten, we shall see some of the detail of this and the individual professors who were most involved and be able better to evaluate the accuracy of these views. Before turning to a discussion of the faculty members at Cracow, it is worth noting that the communal life of students at the university in the fifteenth century had a certain impact in terms of developing a sense of common identity. It is traditional in some Polish historical writing to see this as an element in the formation of Polish national consciousness,183 and with this interpretation I agree in many ways.184 At the same time, however, students at the university also developed a group identity that was focused as much upon themselves as any kind of larger consciousness. As Krzysztof Boroda has shown, a variety of factors—clothing, literacy, possession of written materials (i.e., books), professional aspirations, institutional regulations that they resisted—all served to breed in them an identity of being superior to some groups, such as the peasantry, and similar to other groups such as court circles. As a result their own self-esteem as an elite group was strong, and also—in some ways—led them to aspire to a lay lifestyle. While much of this was inchoate through much of the century, it was nevertheless a vision that had taken tangible form by the end of our period.185 In discussing the professorial corps at Cracow, several points should be emphasized. These included the substantial role played by Prague in the early part of the fifteenth century, the later geographic and social distribution of native faculty in the studium, specific aspects of the academic career which have not been treated thus far in this study, and finally the private lives and problems of the faculty. We shall briefly examine each of these points by way of concluding this profile of the school’s personnel. Prague was the leading university of the region at the beginning of the fifteenth century. Already more than half a century old, it had a tradition of academic and cultural contact with the Polish capital that dated from the middle years of the reigns of Charles IV and Casimir the Great, and in the second half of 183   Particularly in the work of Brygida Kürbisówna, “Mieszczanie na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim, 5–79. 184   See, for example, my comments in “Nationes at Late Medieval Central European Universities,” 114. 185  Boroda, “Ipse est ignarus gracie et in omnibus ydyota, czyli o tożsamości grupowej średniowiecznych studentów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” in Jacek Banaszkiewicz, Jacek Maciejewski, and Joanna Sobiesiak, eds., Persona. Gestus Habitusque. Insignium. Zachowania i atrybuty jako wyznaczniki tożsamości społecznej jednostki w średniowieczu (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curii-Skłodowskiej, 2009), 91–102, and Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 279–295.

212

CHAPTER 4

that century the natio Polonica at Prague enrolled several thousand students.186 It is not surprising therefore that Prague served as the single greatest source of faculty members for the new Jagiellonian foundation. Almost all the first professors at Cracow had been educated and had taught at Prague, and the Prague influence was particularly strong in the theology and canon law faculties.187 By “importing” mature and experienced professors from Prague—even though many of these were themselves from Poland—the Cracovian studium was able to begin functioning immediately. It therefore avoided the halting evolution of a body of teaching masters which had plagued the Casimiran foundation, and which incidentally had slowed the development of Prague and made its first two decades in the fourteenth century so precarious.188 Cracow thus inherited fully and vigorously the institutional traditions of the medieval university. Although it shaped its own structure to meet its own organizational needs, the knowledge and participation of the Prague professors were invaluable. 186  This natio, one of four at Prague enrolled students from Poland proper, Silesia, Thuringia, Pomerania, Lusatia, Meissen, Prussia, Warmia, and Lithuania. See the discussion by Oźóg, Uczeni w monarchii Jadwigi Andegaweńskiej i Władysława Jagiełły, 31f. Among the older works on Poland’s relations with Prague in this period, see the fundamental study by Krzyżaniakowa, “Związki Uniwersytetu Praskiego z Uniwersytetem Krakowskim w drugiej połowie XIV wieku,” Acta Universitatis Carolinae: Historia Universitatis Carolinae Praagensis 5, 1/2 (1964): 53–134; and, in less detail, Barycz, “Dziejowe związki Polski z Uniwersytetem Karola w Pradze,” Przegląd Zachodni 4 (1948): 253–269, 337–355. The group of Cracovians who studied at Prague in the late fourteenth and very early fifteenth century included individuals who eventually became faculty members at Cracow; on this see Oźóg, “Studia krakowian na praskim uniwersytecie do początku XV wieku,” 637– 651; his study begins with the first Cracovian to matriculate there, Matthew of Cracow (638–640). 187  Krzyżaniakowa, “Profesorowie krakowscy na uniwersytecie w Pradze,” 505–527, particularly her table 525–526. 188   This is not an uncontested assessment. Compare Peter Moraw, “Prag. Die älteste Universität in Mitteleuropa,” in Stätten des Geistes, Alexander Demand, ed. (Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 1999), 127–146, reprinted in his Gesammelte Beitäge zur Deutschen und Europäischen Universitätsgeschichte, 79–100, especially (in the reprinted text), 87–97, with František Šmahel, “Die Anfänge der Prager Universität. Kritische Reflexionen zum Jubiläum eines ‘Nationalen Monuments’,” Historica SN 3–4 (1996–1997): 7–50, reprinted in his Die Prager Universität im Mittelalter / The Charles University in the Middle Ages. Gesammelte Aufsätze / Selected Studies (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007), 3–50, especially (in the reprinted text) 3–6, but passim throughout the article. A less polemical discussion of Prague’s early development is found in Šmahel’s chapter “The Faculty of Liberal Arts 1348–1419,” in František Kavka and Josef Petráň, eds., A History of Charles University, vol. 1: 1348–1802 (Prague: Karolinum, 2001), 93–120, reprinted in revised and enlarged form in his Die Prager Universität im Mittelalter, 214–315; see especially 213–229.

The Personnel Of The University

213

This vitality was complemented by a second contribution from the Czech school. Prague professors brought to Poland the full intellectual spectrum of the late medieval university. Elements of Thomism, Scotism, Ockhamism, and Buridanism may be observed in the teaching and writing at Cracow from the very earliest period; the school, as a consequence, was not an academic backwash on the far frontier of Christendom but was fully abreast of all the intellectual currents which were fermenting in the European mind. The influence of Prague was felt in other, more subtle, ways also. One specific example serves to illustrate this. In the speeches made at Cracow during this period, whether rectoral addresses, promotion recommendations in the several faculties, or funeral orations, the rhetorical style of Prague was the model for the first part of the century. Only gradually did an admiration for Polish speakers, particularly Stanisław of Skarbimierz, give rise to a more distinctive Cracovian mode of speeches.189 Great as the importance of Prague was at the beginning, neither its degree nor its duration should be overemphasized. Cracow soon proved to be selfsustaining. Of the 128 faculty who taught at Cracow in the first third of the century, sixty-three received all their education and academic degrees at Cracow, another eighteen took arts degrees at Prague and their higher degrees in Cracow, twenty-one were educated solely in Prague, and twenty-six studied at other foreign studia.190 There was, of course, a more pronounced Prague influence in theology and law, but the above pattern reveals that by the 1430’s the Cracow studium was largely a product of its own education. This continued to be true throughout the rest of the century. After the influence of Prague at Cracow waned during the Hussite era, the only notable “foreign” contingent among the faculty were professors from Silesia, some of whom came from German cultural backgrounds, others of whom were Polish. The following individuals are representative of that trend. Bernard Crotinphul of Nysa matriculated in 1456 and was promoted to master in arts in 1462. For nearly twenty years he lectured in arts, serving as dean of that faculty in 1470/1471. In the meantime he began to study theology, being promoted to bachelor in 1473 and designated a licentiate in 1482. By 1484 he had been promoted to doctor and was holding a canonry at St. Florian’s church. His university career culminated in his election as rector for the winter semester in 1489, during which term he died. His library reflects his theological interests, but also contains several classical and humanistic authors.191 John Sommerfeld 189  See the observations of Kowalczyk, Krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie, 11. 190  Karbowiak, Dzieje wychowania, II, 252–254. 191   P SB, I, 460; Markowski, Dzieje wydziału teologii, 189–190.

214

CHAPTER 4

(Aesticampianus) the Elder was born in Lusatia and matriculated at Cracow in 1479 (BA in 1481 and MA in 1485). He lectured in arts until his death in 1501. Late in life he began the study of theology, and apparently earned a bachelor’s degree.192 His chief interest lay in rhetoric and ars dictandi, and from this came a keen appreciation of classical and humanistic literature. His Modus epistolandi, which was published posthumously in 1513,193 compares twenty types of letters and was clearly influenced by the work of the Venetian humanist Francis Niger.194 Two additional examples can be presented here. John of Głogów was born in Silesia ca. 1445, matriculated at Cracow in 1462, was promoted to master in arts in 1468, then began to lecture in arts, where he remained for forty years. He served as provost of the Collegium maius in 1476, was twice dean of arts, and, as we have seen, was a special protector of German students at the university. He tried to obtain a chair at Vienna late in the century, but failed and spent the rest of his career at Cracow, dying in 1507. His great importance in several areas of the arts (grammar, astronomy, and other subjects), where he left many writings, will be examined in a later chapter.195 Michael Falkener of Wrocław, whose career stretched well into the sixteenth century (d. 1534), was born about 1460 and matriculated at Cracow in 1478. He was not promoted to master in arts until 1488. He lectured in arts until 1512, emphasizing particularly mathematical and astronomical teaching. His most important early work was an influential introduction to Cracovian astronomy and the almanac, which first appeared in 1506. Before beginning the study of theology, he twice served as dean for the arts faculty (1499 and 1505). He is noted as a bachelor of theology in 1510, as Sententiarius in 1513, and his promotion to doctor of theology took place early in 1517.196 These four examples, among many who could 192  Markowski, Dzieje wydziału teologii, 200, suggests that he gave cursory lectures on scripture. 193  Morawski, Historya, 2, 206, sets the date of first publication in 1510; but see Lidia Winniczuk, Epistolografia (Warsaw: Warszawska Drukarnia Naukowa, 1953), 40. 194   FwP, 145. 195   P SB, 10, 450–452; FwP, 140–143, for his biography. 196   P SB, 6, 357f.; FwP, 265–266; and Markowski, Dzieje wydziału teologii, 210–211. The first two (and other works to be cited in later chapters in connection with a fuller examination of his contributions to the intellectual life of the university) give the date of his matriculation at Cracow as 1479; the last gives the date 1478. The university matricula lists no Michael of Wrocław for any of the 1479 terms, but lists “Michael Gregorii de Wratislauia” in the summer 1478 list and “Michael Lauencii de Vratislauia” in the winter 1478 list; Metryka, I, 398 and I, 402 respectively. New material on his biography is provided by Juliusz Domański,

The Personnel Of The University

215

be mentioned, suggest the variety of roles which Silesians played within the faculty.197 They are the professorial counterparts to the strong attendance by Silesian students discussed above. Only a few generalizations may be made about the social composition of the faculty.198 It is clear that few faculty came from peasant background. With the exception of three of the peasant students noted above, all of whom later taught at the university (John of Ludzisko, James of Paradyż, John of Dąbrówka), apparently no other professors came from this social stratum. It is equally clear that most of the faculty were from urban backgrounds. They are identified with specific municipalities and probably reflected the variety of social groups that existed among the students and in approximately the same proportions. What is least clear is the number of professors who came from noble backgrounds. During the first decade of the century about one-fourth of the masters may be said to have come from this group, although this undoubtedly includes many from the middling and poorer knights.199 A slightly smaller percentage may be observed in the professorial corps from the first third of the century. Of the 128 doctors and masters in the period, at least twenty-three had some kind of noble background, or about 18%. These included such distinguished professors as Andrew Kokorzyński, Dziersław of Borzymów, James Parkoszowicz, John Elgot, Nicholas of Gorzków, Paul Vladimiri, and Thomas Strzempiński. Of these twenty-three, the greatest number (fourteen) were in the faculty of (canon) law.200

“Michała Falkenera z Wrocławia (ok. 1460–1534) Prolog do Wykładu hymnów kościelnych,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 15 (2009) 223–246, especially 223–225. 197  This topic is discussed in more depth by Bauch, “Schlesien und die Universität Krakau,” 99–180, especially 123–130; and in the short book by Barycz, Ślązacy na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim, 2–15; see also his Alma Mater Jagellonica (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1958), 91–111. 198   Unlike the several efforts (most recently by Boroda in his Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego) there has been little done by way of analyzing the social background of the faculty at Cracow. It is possible to extrapolate—with a good degree of probability— from the general picture of the student body, and it is possible to track students whose social context is known if they continued through the Arts program, gained degrees in one higher faculty or another, and became faculty members at the Cracow studium. The comments that follow are highly provisional. 199   See the analysis of Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Uniwersytet Jagielloński w dobie Grunwaldu,” Prace Historyczne 8 (1961): 62. 200  Karbowiak, Dzieje wychowania, II, 260.

216

CHAPTER 4

Concluding Comments

To embark upon an academic career was to begin a life that was frequently long, full of labor, and often boring. Upon promotion to the degree of master in arts, one was bound by university statute to lecture for two years in arts as an extraneus non de facultate.201 In this capacity one received no pay, except what could be gathered from student tuition, and had no choice in what teaching assignment was given. Such non-regular faculty presented two courses each week, often involving daily lectures or exercises in each. At the end of this time it was possible to seek appointment to one of the less well-endowed benefices. If none was available, however, one had to wait for a vacancy created by promotions in the line-of-march ahead. Once obtained, the obligations of such a position were ordinarily heavy. Two subjects were included in the teaching requirements, as well as participation in both ordinary and extraordinary disputations. For those studying in some higher faculty, however, it was often possible to be relieved of one of the teaching obligations.202 Only after two years in this capacity had been fulfilled might one seek appointment to one of the endowed professorships associated with the royal college, but for these also there was often a wait of several years for a vacancy. Succession was in order of seniority, as was spelled out in a revision of the statutes in 1480.203 For many of the faculty this pattern was followed rigidly, but there were always exceptions. Particularly in the case of those endowed chairs which carried specialized responsibilities (the Nowko, Mężykowa, Stobner), some newly graduated masters received appointment to them upon receipt of their degrees. Thus we find John of Ludzisko holding the Stobner professorship and giving lectures in astronomy in 1422, the same year he was promoted to master in arts. Martin Król of Żórawica may even have been appointed to this chair while he was still a bachelor, for we know he lectured in astronomy before leaving the university for Germany and Italy in 1445 after incepting as a master in arts in that year. The rule of seniority was also breached occasionally. In 1450, John of Dąbrówka, by then a doctor of law and of theology, complained that although he had been promoted before master Paul of Cracow, the latter had been given preference over him for appointment to one of the “fat ­prebends” that all aspiring faculty sought. The matter was eventually decided in John’s favor.204 201   Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., V (“De aptis ad regendam facultatem”). 202   Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., V (“De completione biennii magistrorum”). 203   Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., XXXIII: “sed recto et iusto ordine promotionis magistrorum . . . in suo quilibet loco et ordine, succedente tempore, senior ante iuniorum. . . .” 204   Conclusiones, 13–14.

The Personnel Of The University

217

Reflections of faculty life fall into two categories: those actions which were related to their teaching and those aspects of their private lives which often brought them before the rectoral court. Sometimes professors did not lecture the full hour, and this was invariably noted by the dean in the Liber diligentiarum.205 In other instances they seldom even attended the lectures they were assigned.206 On one occasion when lectures were not given, however, it was not the faculty member who was at fault; no one enrolled in the class.207 Professors were also known to lecture cursorily and to summarize material quickly to end the course before the close of the semester.208 In general, however, abuses of the teaching responsibilities seem to have been relatively infrequent. Perhaps it is because our data are incomplete (the Liber diligentiarum begins only in 1487 and most of the early notations are laconic), but the faculty appears to have been conscientious in fulfilling both the lectures and the exercises assigned to them. No less than students, faculty often ran afoul of the rectoral court in matters of dress. Particularly at the end of the fifteenth century, it is possible to observe a growing resentment against traditional garb. The long clerical tunic, or tabard, was complemented by the biretta. After 1449 all faculty were required to wear these while lecturing and appearing in public, official university functions.209 Younger faculty attempted to obtain a change in the regulations, but were opposed by the rector. In 1508 rector Matthew of Miechów affirmed older traditions, but the issue continued to roil the academic waters.210 205  See above, note 141. 206   Liber diligentiarum, 15: “Martinus de Cracovia De anima, non legit;” 20: “Thomas de Castro Elencorum, non exercitavit completus;” 37: “Bartolomeus de Lipnycza Lecturam De generacione, nec continuavit neque incepit;” 47: “Erasmus de Cracovia Speram materialem, per se raro, per alium raro.” 207   Liber diligentiarum, 16: Iohannes de Cracovia Parvorum naturalium, non continuavit, propter auditores, quia non erant.” 208   Liber diligentiarum, 70: Vincencius de Cracovia Metaphisice, male finivit ante Crucis, una hora tres libros expedivit.” 209  See Conclusiones, 12; and Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., XXIX. In more detail, see Karbowiak, Ubiory profesorów, 28–30. To the extent that faculty garb was similar, if more complex than the scholastic, quasi-clerical, tunics students wore, the comments of Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 211–218 are useful. 210  For Matthew of Miechów’s attitude and the course of the dispute, which was eventually taken up before the episcopal court of Bishop John Konarski, see Karbowiak, Ubiory profesorów, 40–41. One of the best descriptions of the traditional, formal garb was given in a rectoral judgment in 1533: “Ex mandato dni rectoris doctores et magistri minoris Collegij, circa prandium ad tabellam sedentes, moniti sunt, ut omnes et singuli veniant . . . in vestibus decentibus, statui eorum congreuntibus, utputa tunicis longis, tallaribus, more

218

CHAPTER 4

It was not until much later in the sixteenth century that certain modifications were made.211 At other times disputes were among the professors themselves. In one notable instance in 1480, two young masters were fined and enjoined by the rectoral court to maintain peace between themselves in the future; their quarreling had brought them to blows, and the physician who had been called was himself wounded.212 Despite the requirements that faculty members be in the college when the gates were locked, some nevertheless spent nights on the town. One in the early sixteenth century was accused of disturbing the peace of the city.213 A few individual professors can be singled out as chronic problems. Michael of Bystrzyków (MA from Paris), was the senior of the Jerusalem bursa in 1489/1490. He was charged with ill-treatment of the students there, including physical assaults resulting in injuries.214 A decade later he was before the rector again, charged with certain excessa enormi et turpi. He refused at first to recognize the jurisdiction of the court over him and at a point threatened the person of the rector with his fists. He was eventually fined ten marks (equal to a year’s salary for a junior professor) and suspended.215 Prior to this he had tried to pass bad money within the university. In 1497 Paul of Zakliczewo accused him of depositing several counterfeit florins in the common treasury of the college, then withdrawing good money at a later time.216 Another late century professor whose name frequently appeared in rectoral records was Martin Kułap of Tarnowiec. He was promoted to bachelor in 1486 and to master in 1490 (at the beginning of a university career which lasted to his death in 1538), then served as Dean of Arts faculty in 1502, where he was described as an individual “whom the college esteemed for his wit and sharp words.”217 His sharp tongue, however, wounded as well as being witty. He was several times accused clericali factis, et biretis rotundis . . .” (Acta Rectoralia, no. 3195); the same year a master was fined for “sedentes ad tabulam in vestibus curtis et lagicalibus contra mandatum dni rectoris” (no. 3197). 211  Barycz, Historja Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 630–632. 212   Acta Rectoralia, no. 827. 213   Acta Rectoralia, no. 2488: “Occasione nocturnae vagationis ac inquietationes hominum.” 214   Acta Rectoralia, nos. 1221, 1223, 1231, 1235. 215   Acta Rectoralia, nos. 1874, 1876. 216   Acta Rectoralia, nos. 1815, 1835. 217  “Quem collegia diligebant ob eius iocosa et aucta dicta;” cited by Morawski, Historya, 2, 435, from Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., 133. His promotions are noted in Księga promocji, 78 and 85; Najstarsza księga promocji, 247 and 252; the quotation cited in the text reads “quem collegae diligebant ob eius iocosa et acuta dictamina” in Najstarsza księga promocji, 266, and n. 364.

The Personnel Of The University

219

by his colleagues of infamies and insults.218 He also had other problems. He drank too much, and on several occasions appeared at university festivities in either a too festive manner or in a stupor. He also was unable to lecture at times because of his drinking.219 Nor was his detestabile vitium ebrietatis an isolated phenomenon. Other professors were disciplined in the rectoral court for similar excesses and problems.220 Despite these examples and others which could be cited, the masters at Cracow were probably no worse than faculty members in other times and places. Fallible as human beings, beset by the pressures which accompany the academic life, and living together in sometimes too close community, they nevertheless successfully prepared students for careers, contributed to learning, and participated actively in the national life of Poland. It is this last aspect of their role to which we now turn our attention. 218   Acta Rectoralia, no. 1966: “Occasione iniuriarum verbalium, videlicet obietionis (sic.) furti et illegittimitatis in audiencia studentum illatarum . . .;” no. 2940: “infamia non divulganda.” 219   Acta Rectoralia, no. 2175. 220  See Acta Rectoralia, no. 890. Notes in the Liber diligentiarum, passim, may refer to this also: “actus neglexit;” “cum celebraret actum discedebat in hora;” “neglexit;” “raro integram horam legebat, aut tarde veniendo aut tantum textum finiendo;” “in medio horae interim exivit;” “cessabat frequenter et similiter incipiebat;” “neglexit 22;” “non finivit;” etc.

CHAPTER 5

The University in the National Life of Poland Learning was, of course, one of the fundamental purposes of the medieval university. As James Kittelson once commented, “the company of masters and students gathered together into the universitas . . . to develop and disseminate knowledge in a continuous and systematic fashion with little regard to the consequences of their activities.”1 But the studia generalia of the middle ages did not exist as stereotypical ivory towers, isolated and apart. Much of their activity was directly practical and was oriented to such professions as teaching, law, medicine, and the array of notarial and administrative activities which characterized the ever more sophisticated political, religious, economic, and social institutions of Europe. Even as the foci of speculative thought, there was an immediacy about university activity which impinged upon fundamental doctrinal issues affecting the whole of Christian society. In ways that are difficult for contemporary secular men and women to envision, the doctrinal impact of university thought and discussion was relevant to the very fabric of medieval life. Thus the nature of these schools was multi-dimensional. In their physical settings and in the composition of their personnel, they were, as we have seen in previous chapters, extensions of their city, country, and society. In their professional, intellectual, and ideological context they were expressions of one of the governing elements of Christianitas. All of these factors were implicit in the charter of foundation which King Władysław Jagiełło issued for his “pearl of powerful learning” in 1400. His view of the function of the university was a broad one. In addition to its other responsibilities, it was intended to play an important role in the national life of Poland.2 This chapter is devoted to a discussion of the ways in which the studium fulfilled this royal design. The role it played included such disparate 1  James M. Kittelson, “Introduction: The Durability of the Universities of Old Europe,” in Kittelson and Pamela J. Transue, eds., Rebirth, Reform, and Resilience. Universities in Transition 1300–1700 (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1984), 1. 2  C DUC, 1, no. 16, 26: “Profecto ad hoc summi dispositione praesidii plurimarum terrarum obtinuimus principatum et regni Poloniae recepimus dyadema, ut ipsum regnum claritate doctarem personarum illustremus . . . ipsumque caeteris regionibus coaequare . . . eiusdem Studii generalis . . . ad decus nostrae sacrae Coronae Poloniae instaurandum decrevimus, incrementa Felicia ampliare frequentius affectantes et longinquarum incolas regionum ad eius allicere desiderantes accessum”.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004326019_007

The University In The National Life Of Poland

221

elements as the reform of the Polish church, support of state policy against such enemies as the Teutonic Order, upholding the union with Lithuania, engaging in the problems posed by the Hussite movement in Bohemia, participation in the great issues of the larger church as reflected in the conciliar movement, particularly the Council of Basle, and the emergence of national identity as reflected in language, administration, education, and even patriot­ism. We shall look at each of these in turn.3

Justifying the Institution in the Larger Society

In addition to the material needs of the university which we discussed in a previous chapter, one of the most pressing concerns of the new studium was to justify itself within both clerical and lay Polish society. From some of the sermons and speeches delivered in the first decade of the century, it is possible to see that there was actual hostility to the school. For example, Stanisław of Skarbimierz remarked in 1408 that the love of the people for the clergy was disappearing and the whole church was ill from the bottom to the top.4 This did not improve the prospect for a newly founded ecclesiastical institution, even though it had received some royal support. When one considered, Stanisław 3  For the broad view of the role in and contribution to the subject of this chapter made by the university, see Krzysztof Oźóg,” Die Krakauer Universität und ihre Teilnahme am öffentlichen Leben des jagiellonischen Königreiches,” in Ritualisierung politischer Willensbildung. Polen und Deutschland im hohen und späten Mittelalter, Wojciech Fałkowski and Stefan Weinfurter, eds. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010), 163–181; and my own “Working for the King (and the Queen): Krakovian Scholars in Royal Service in Late Medieval Poland,” The Polish Review 59 (2014): 3–18. The narrower role which university trained personnel undertook at the royal court—confessors, writers, physicians, astrologers, and teachers of the monarchs’ children—has been systematically addressed in English by Oźóg, “University Masters at the Royal Court of Hedwig of Anjou and Władysław Jagiełło,” in Piotr Górecki and Nancy van Deusen, eds., Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages. A Cultural History. Essays in Honour of Paul W. Knoll (London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2009), 147–160, with notes 267–274. 4  “Non mirum . . . quod caritas populi erga clerum nedum remissa, sed quasi medullitus est extincta. Omne quippe caput ecclesie est languidum . . . a planta pedis usque ad verticem non est in eo sanitas.” Originally cited by Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Uniwersytet Jagielloński w dobie Grunwaldu,” Prace Historyczne 8 (1961): 56, n. 1, from MS Cracow BJ 192, f. 5v. This sermon has now been edited by Bożena Chmielowska: Stanisław ze Skarbimierza, Sermones sapientiales, 3 parts. (Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1979 [Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia excultae spectantia, 4, parts 1–3]), 4, part 1, 44–59, here 48.

222

CHAPTER 5

commented on another occasion, how the clergy were neglected and despised, one might well wonder how long God in his patience would sustain them.5 Even some of the clergy seemed slow to respond to the school. For example, the Dominicans, who had their own center of religious and academic activity at the church of the Holy Trinity in Cracow, were particularly antagonistic.6 One, in particular, John Falkenberg, engaged in an on-going polemic with Matthew of Cracow (author of De praxi [or squaloribus] Romanae Curiae), Bishop Peter Wysz (author of Speculum aurem de titulis beneficiorum ecclesiasticorum), and Stanisław of Skarbimierz that was later to have international repercussions (see below in this chapter; for the writings of the Polish authors see Chapters Eight and Nine). His De monarchia mundi, which was a full-blown defense of papal theocracy, was a polemical work directed in significant ways against religious and theological developments associated with the University of Cracow.7 It was apparent also that the secular clergy was cautious in its support of the studium. The tradition of higher studies was less than half a century old for the majority of the Polish clergy, and teaching and learning were viewed as subordinate to other ecclesiastical functions. Thus, in another of his early sermons, by-then former rector Stanisław of Skarbimierz gave voice to the lack

5  “Quod clerus a secularibus opprimitus, ceditur et plurimum conculcatur . . . . Et revera considerata negligencia et malicia clericorum . . . mirari poterimus, quod Deus tam diu ita pacienter nos sustinet. . . .” Stanisław ze Skarbimierz, Sermones sapientiales, 4, part 3, 262–276, here 269–270. In her original quotation of this passage, Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Uniwersytet Jagiellońskiego w dobie Grunwaldu,” 56, n. 2, mistakenly cites f. 227v of the manuscript; it is f. 237v. 6  There is now an insightful study of the Dominican tradition in Cracow by Maciej Zdanek, Szkoły i studia dominikanów krakowskich w średniowieczu (Cracow: Neriton, 2005). 7  The treatise has been twice edited by Władysław Seńko, De monarchia mundi, Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 9 (20) (1975): vii-lvi, 1–289, and Krakowska redakcja Jana Falkenberga De monarchia mundi (Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1986 [Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia excultae spectantia 20]). For discussions of these developments, see first Jan Fijałek, “Dwaj dominikanie krakowscy: Jan Biskupiec i Jan Falkenberg,” in Księga pamiątkowa ku czci Oswalda Balzera, 2 vols. (Lwów: Gubrynowicz, 1925), 1, 271–348. More recent treatments include Hartmut Boockmann, Johannes Falkenberg, der Deutsche Orden und die polnische Politik (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1975), 135–154; Zenon Kałuża, “Chronologie des premières discussions ecclésiologiques à Cracovie (1404–1407),” Rivista di Storia della Filosofia 52 (1997): 111–127; and, more briefly, Krzysztof Oźóg, Uczeni w Monarchii Jadwigi Andegaweńskiej i Władysław Jagiełły (1384–1434) (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2004), 62–63.

The University In The National Life Of Poland

223

of recognition which the school was receiving.8 The answer to the challenges confronting the university lay in the ability of the studium to exercise its specialized skills for the good of society. Thus we see faculty members in both canon law and theology dealing with the immediate needs of the Polish church.9 They participated in synods and diocesan meetings, cooperating with those who drafted reform statutes. From this activity a new current of renewal could be felt among the Polish clergy. Abuses were ameliorated and discipline was tightened. It was the particular legal training of the canonists which provided a structure for this movement. But professorial involvement did not stop there. Handbooks of pastoral care were prepared for local priests; sermons both ad vulgum and ad clerum were prepared by such noted academic preachers at Cracow as Nicholas Wigand, Lucas of Wielki Koźmin, Matthew of Legnica, and Stanisław of Skarbimierz. These were later collected for local use.10 Three specific examples illustrate the general picture given in the preceding paragraph. Bishop Peter Wysz, whom we have seen before in the context of the instauracio studii in 1400,11 was deeply committed to the reform of the church. His aforementioned Speculum aureum, written in 1404, was a powerful critique of conditions in the church in general and of the church in Poland, particularly with respect to the question of simony.12 His episcopal pontificate 8  Sermon “Noli flere” (given apparently at an evening collation of faculty) cited by Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Uniwersytet Jagielloński w dobie Grunwaldu,” 59, n. 12: “tamquam esses spiritualis et mores haberes extraneos, parvipendunt, etsi quidam exspectent quod vestiaris aliter, quod epuleris magis habundanter, quod conportes exenia, quod multiplices dona venusta, quibus, secundum ipsos, quasi careas pro presenti, propter que merito lugere posses et distrahi . . . terge tamen lacrimas. . . .” 9  It is also obvious that support for the university was forthcoming from the Cracow chapter. Krzysztof Oźóg, “Związki Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego z kapitułą katedralną krakowską u schyłku XIV i w pierwszej ćwierci XV wieku,” Rocznik Biblioteki PAN w Krakowie 43 (1998): 7–35, here 12–34, has shown effectively the positive relations between the chapter and the studium and also the significant support—in both material matters and personnel—from the former for the latter. 10   For these elements, see the discussions Jerzy Wolny, “Z dziejów katechezy,” and “Kaznodziejstwo,” in Marian Rechowicz, ed., Dzieje Teologii katolickiej w Polsce, vol. 1: Średniowiecza (Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1974), 196–203 and 285–307 respectively, with reference to many manuscript examples still unpublished. 11  Above, Chapter One, notes 49 and 50, with bibliography for his biography. 12  Seńko, Piotr Wysz z Radolina i jego dzieło ‘Speculum aureum’ (Warsaw: Instytut Tomistyczny, 1995), has edited this work and provided a good overview of the bishop’s program. The formal title of Wysz’s work is Speculum aureum de titulis beneficiorum ecclesiasticorum.

224

CHAPTER 5

was in significant ways devoted to matters of reform in his diocese, and in his role as chancellor of the university he drew upon faculty expertise in shaping the content and approach of his efforts. Thomas Wünsch has shown that his approach was characterized by the following concerns: the holding of synods (the statutes from those in 1396 and 1408 are partially extant), implementation of visitation and the discipline of errant clergy, regulation of monastic life, systematic participation in the general assemblies of cathedral chapters, modification in the structure of incomes for cathedral canons, and promotion of the liturgy.13 The second example comes from the end of the first third of the century. Nicholas of Błonie, a former student of both Stanisław of Skarbimierz and Francis of Brzeg, summed up the work of his predecessors in his Tractatus [sacerdotalis] de Sacramentis et divinis officiis (1431).14 Drawing heavily upon Ambrose, Gregory the Great, and his own contemporaries, this manual was designed to provide a comprehensive set of guidelines for the cura animarum, adapted for the Polish scene. Its usefulness and popularity are reflected by numerous extant manuscripts and by several printed versions from the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. His mastery of the body of pastoral and liturgical literature, his experience as a faculty member at Cracow, his own pastoral engagement in the diocese of Poznań (two appointment as a provost and eventually as chaplain for Bishop Stanisław Ciołek), and his familiarity with the practices of parish life provided a solid foundation for preparing a practical and popular guide for clergy at all levels. Its wide adoption is reflected in the forty-two printed editions that extended into the sixteenth century.15 His work, and similar efforts by others, made—as we shall see again in Chapter Nine

13  Thomas Wünsch, “Das Reformprogramm des Krakauer Bischofs Petrus Wysz 1392–1412, Mit Neuedition der 22-Punkte-Liste ‘De Reformatione Ecclesie’,” in Winfried Eberhard and Franz Machilek, eds., Kirchliche Reformimpulse des 14//15. Jahrhunderts in Ostmitteleuropa (Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 2006), 157–178, especially 159. 14  For his biography, see PSB, 21, 102–104 (by Marian Zwiercan), which supersedes the older treatment by Bolesław Ulanowski, “Mikołaj z Błonia, kanonista polski z pierwszej połowie XV wieku,” Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności: wydział Historyczno-filozoficzny 23 (1888): 1–60. 15   Marek Tomasz Zahajkiewicz, “”Polskie traktaty teologiczno-duszpasterskie okresu przedtrydenckiego,”Archiwa Biblioteki i Muzea Kościelne 21 (1970): 199–210, here 206–207; see also Zahajkiewicz, “Teoria duszpasterstwa,” in Rechowicz, ed., Dzieje Teologii katolickiej, 232–233. The publishing history of Michael’s treatise is provided by Krzysztof Bracha, Casus pulchri de vitandis erroribus conscientiae purae. Orzeczenia kazuistyczne kanonistów i teologów krakowskich z XV w. (Warsaw: DiG, 2013), 77–78.

The University In The National Life Of Poland

225

below—an important contribution to pastoral care which was increasingly felt in all strata of society. It is not surprising that the third example derives from the contribution of Stanisław of Skarbimierz. This extraordinarily gifted canonist, who was so important in establishing the framework within which the university would function after 1400, was also a brilliant preacher and an active participant in diocesan synods and assemblies. His Sermones de Sapientia Dei constitute a body of 113 sermons in the Chmielowska edition that range widely over the various kinds of wisdom the clergy and laity should understand: God’s wisdom, the wisdom of the believer in following divine precepts, the wisdom of knowing the church as the house of God, etc. These sermons, probably gathered between 1409 and 1415, are filled with the spirit of popular piety and of clerical reform, and it was not by coincidence he chose a title for his sermon cycle that had earlier been used by Milič of Kroměříž in Bohemia, whom he may have heard preach as a student in Prague.16 The character of his contribution is reflected in the comments of Mirosław Korolko on behalf of the Stanislas of Skarbimierz Association: “the theme [of the sermons] is the notion of wisdom perceived as the most important virtue and value of Christian society.”17 Each of the foregoing examples represents aspects of a broad impact that, to judge from comments made by Francis of Brzeg in 1413, created a degree of optimism about the role the university was serving in the larger society. According to him, it was thanks to “our university” that not only the Kingdom of Poland, but even its neighbors, had received many benefits. Among there were the development of moral maturity, virtue, expertise in many things, illustrious learning, and a good reputation.18 Francis’ claims may have been 16  In addition to the discussions of Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Sermones Sapientiales Stanisława ze Skalbmierza,” Sprawozdania Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności 53 (1952): 394–396, and Celina Zawodzińska, “Pisma Stanisława ze Skarbimierza,” Roczniki Biblioteczne 4 (1960): 299–327, see Chmielowska “Stanislas de Skarbimierz—Le premier recteur de l’Université de Cracovie après le renouveau de celle-ci,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 24 (1979): 73–112, especially 102–103 (“Stanislas fut un participant actif de maints synodes et assemblées de diocèse; nous en trouvons la confirmation dans ses sermons, notamment ceux du recueil des Sermones sapientiales;” and her introduction to the three-part edition of these sermons (4, part 1, 9–24, particularly her comments 12–15. 17   Stanisław ze Skarbimierza Mowy wybrane o mądrości, Mirosław Korolko, ed. (Cracow: Arcana, 2000) 271 (from the English language summary; see also Korolko’s more extended comments in the Polish introduction, 9–23). 18  See his comments as quoted by Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Uniwersytet Jagielloński w dobie Grunwaldu,” 58, n. 11: “Praecipue cum ex Universitate nostra varia dependeant beneficia non solum quo ad incolas Regni, sed eciam quo ad exteras naciones . . . dum bene utatur

226

CHAPTER 5

somewhat exaggerated, but they clearly reflect a growing confidence in the usefulness and contributions of the university. Summing up these developments and the scholarship devoted to them in recent years, Jerzy Kłoczowski has remarked “In the fifteenth century there was a significant increase in the standard of educational works and activities undertaken by the Church, largely due to the University of Krakow which constituted a fundamental instrument of its reform.”19 If the university could be seen making a contribution to the church, its relationship to lay society was somewhat more complicated. The academic concerns of logic and academic philosophy held little interest for the peasantry, and the same was probably true for both the nobility and the knights. These latter groups were involved in economic, fiscal, and political matters. There was, however, as we have seen in Chapter Four, always some attendance at the school by sons of the greater nobility and of the knights, and it was once estimated that during the first decade of the century approximately one-quarter of the faculty at Cracow were derived from the lesser nobility and the knights.20 These individuals were to form an important bridge between the studium and the larger society. This tie was strengthened by the involvement of the university in the Polish struggle against the Knights of the Teutonic Order. By virtue of this, the details of which we shall see below, there was a growing recognition from both sides that a community of interests existed between professors and populace. The symbol of this was the promotion to Doctor of Decretals of Paul Vladimiri, skilled negotiator and articulate defender of royal and national interests. His teacher, Stanisław of Skarbimierz, in a sermon predicated upon a text from Proverbs 3:13 (Beatus vir, qui inveniat sapienciam) recommended him in 1411 for that degree. He did so in part by virtue of Paul’s knowledge of secular matters, saying that his service pro profectu Rei publice was an important qualification and an argument for his promotion. While knowledge of God’s laws and of canonical matters was important, so too was knowledge of secular learning and participation in secular matters.21 With the person of Paul premisso studio nonnunquam efficitur matures in moribus, clarus in virtutibus, in multis rebus expertus et in variis scienciis illustratus, et interdum sicud propheta reputatus.” 19  Jerzy Kłoczowski, A History of Polish Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 70. 20  Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Uniwersytet Jagielloński w dobie Grunwaldu,” 62. The question of whether this percentage held for the remainder of the century has yet, despite the insights provided by Krzysztof Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w późnym średniowieczu (Cracow: Avalon, 2010), to be systematically investigated. 21  Chmielowska: Stanisław ze Skarbimierza, Sermones sapientiales, 4, part 3 and Stanisław ze Skarbimierza Mowy, Korolko, ed. “Verum ad hoc, quod quis praesumatur verisimiliter

The University In The National Life Of Poland

227

Vladimiri and the problem of the Teutonic Order, we are at the nexus of one major role which the university played in the national life in this period.

The University and the Teutonic Order

The Teutonic Order had been a problem for Poland since the early thirteenth century.22 They established themselves in the 1220s in the region of Chełmno bordering Mazovia with the mandate to assist the local duke in the conquest and conversion of the pagan Prussians and other peoples in the area. In the course sapientiam invenisse, necesse est, ut in ipso duo signa refulgeant: scientia et vita virtuosa” (234 and 184 respectively); “Et experientia negotiorum saecularium facit in peritia magis latum” (241 and 196); “Ideo, reverende magistre, cum Deus dedit vobis os et sapientiam pro honore Altissimi, pro reverentia sanctae matris ecclesiae, pro decore Cracoviensis ecclesiae et magis profectu rei publicae, suadeo, ut accipiatis insignia doctoralia, quibus estis dignus” (244 and 200). On this point, see further Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Uniwersytet Jagielloński w dobie Grunwaldu,” 66, and Oźóg, Uczeni, 90. Oźóg has developed the larger point about the qualities of rulership in two other works: “Stanisława ze Skarbimierza refleksje o państwie, in Piotr Dymmel, Krzysztof Skupieński, and Barbara Trelińska, eds., Droga historii. Studia ofiarowane Profesorowi Józefowi Szymańskiemu w siedemdziesiątą rocznicę urodzin (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2001), 47–61, and “Ideal władcy w krakowskim środowisko intelektualnym na początku XV wieku,” in Jerzy Strzelczyk and Józef Dobosz, eds., Nihil Superfluum Esse. Prace z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane Profesor Jadwidze Krzyżaniakowej (Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, 2000), 415–426. 22   Ordo militum hospitalis S. Mariae Theutonicorum Hierosolymitani, called Der Deutsche Orden in German historiography and Krzyżacy (Knights of the Cross), because of the symbol they wore on their tunics, in Polish historiography. In this study I use the terms Teutonic Order, Order, Teutonic Knights, and Knights (all capitalized) interchangeably. There is an enormous literature on the Order. From the German side, see Udo Arnold, 800 Jahre Deutscher Orden (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Lexikon Verlag, 1990); and Boockmann, Der Deutsche Orden. Zwölf Capital aus seiner Geschichte (Munich: Beck, 1981). From the Polish side see Karol Górski, L’Ordine teutonico. Alle origini dello stato prussiano (Turin: Einaudi, 1971) or the Polish edition of the same work, Zakon Krzyżacki a powstanie państwa pruskiego (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1977); and Marian Biskup and Gerard Labuda, Dzieje Zakonu Krzyżackiego w Prusach: Gospodarka—Społeczeństwo—Państwo— Ideologia (Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Morskie, 1986). The best English treatment is William Urban, The Teutonic Knights. A Military History (London: Greenhill, 2003). More briefly in English is my “The Most Unique Crusader State: The Teutonic Order in the Development of the Political Culture of Northeastern Europe during the Middle Ages,” in Charles W. Ingrao and Franz A.J. Szabo, eds., The Germans and the East (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2008), 37–48, especially 44 and notes 39 and 40.

228

CHAPTER 5

of the next half-century they were successful in this, but at the same time they transformed their temporary occupancy of Chełmno and the lands which they conquered into permanent possession. What emerged was a territorially based Ordensstaat, which in the late thirteenth and fourteenth century pursued a two-fold policy of conversion by force and territorial aggrandizement. The first was directed particularly against the Baltic tribes of the region—first the Prussians, then afterward the Lithuanians—while the second fell most heavily upon some of the lands of the Polish kingdom.23 A major turning point in this issue came late in the fourteenth century. The accession in Poland of Jadwiga of Anjou, her marriage to Grand Duke Jogaila of Lithuania, his baptism as a Catholic (with the Christian name Władysław and his Lithuanian name Polonized to Jagiełło), the conversion also of his cousin Vytautas (Witold in Polish), who succeeded him as Grand Duke, the personal union of Poland and Lithuania, and the public conversion of a previously pagan land to Christianity confronted the Teutonic Order with a fundamental problem. The Order had to decide whether its task of conversion, ferro et igni, had been fulfilled and whether it should therefore disband, or move, or transform itself into a different kind of organization. None of these was an appealing alternative,24 and the Knights rejected them all. They took the position that the conversion of Lithuania had been at best superficial, at worst a sham. In neither case need it be taken into account. In particular they regarded Grand Duke Jogaila’s conversion as a fake. On this basis the Order declared the continued necessity of the crusade and the conflict with the heathens (i.e., the Lithuanians). This set the tone for both the propaganda and military activity for the next quarter of a century and prepared the ground for further conflict between Poland and the Teutonic Order.25 By the time the seeds sewn in those years were ready to germinate, however, Polish spokesmen 23  For Polish relations with the Teutonic Knights during the fourteenth century before the 1380s, see my The Rise of the Polish Monarchy. Piast Poland in East Central Europe 1320–1370 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972), 42–58, 101–103, 118–120, and 194–196. 24  This was especially true of options one and three, for, according to canon law, “when the cause is ended the legal basis ends,” and this would result in the nullification of all—or, at least with respect to Prussia, many of—the privileges and immunities of the Order. See Hermann Krause, “Cessante causa cessat lex,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung, Kanonistische Abteilung 46 (1960): 81–111, here 89–91. This argument was later used by the Polish prosecutor in a suit against the Order in 1413; see Ignacy Zakrzewski and Jadwiga Karwasińska, eds., Lites ac res gestae inter Polonos Ordinemque Cruciferorum, editio altera, 3 vols. (Poznań and Warsaw: Biblioteka Kórnickiej, 1890–1935), 2, 295. 25  For a description of Teutonic Order propaganda from 1386 to 1409, see Boockman, Johannes Falkenberg, 53–82. See also Sven Ekdahl, Die Schlacht bei Tannenberg 1410.

The University In The National Life Of Poland

229

had emerged to justify and defend the Polish position. Among these we find the first rector of the University of Cracow and, with him, the entry of faculty into the affairs of national policy. By early 1409 arbitration and diplomacy had failed, and the Knights and Jagiełło, with his allies, were preparing for war. The looming conflict evoked much debate at the university about the justification for war and the terms under which it could be waged. In this, the medieval tradition of the bellum iustum weighted heavily.26 In the Cracovian discussions there were other, related, topics involved. One issue was who was allowed to wage a just war: in the auctoritas principis which, according to the canonists, justified resort to war, was it only the emperor who was designated, or were sovereign princes and kings also included? A second issue was the more immediately Polish problem of whether a Christian ruler could use non-Christian or even heretical troops and subjects in a war against another Christian power. This was important because in the Polish-Lithuanian army there were sure to be individuals who had not fully converted or whose baptism had been simply opportunistic as the Teutonic Order had charged. In addition, Jagiełło and Vytautas might have cause to utilize some of their orthodox subjects in their armies. These were by this time commonly regarded as scismatici and therefore of questionable use in a just war. Out of the discussion came a systematic exposition on the law of public war prepared by Stanisław of Skarbimierz, which we discuss briefly here. Stanisław’s work is labeled a Sermo de bellis iustis and is included with his Sermones Sapientiales, but it is more a scholastic treatise than a sermon.27 Quellenkritische Untersuchungen, vol. 1: Einführung und Quellenlage (Berlin: Dunker and Humblot, 1982), 2–7. 26  The classic study by Frederick H. Russell, The Just War in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975) treats this tradition. See also the treatment by Philip Contamine, War in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Blackwell, 1984, French original 1980), 260–302, especially 280–292. 27   First edited by Ludwik Ehrlich, Polski wykład prawa wojny XV wieku (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Prawnicze, 1955), 90–145 (Latin text and Polish translation); for Ehrlich’s introduction and analysis, 3–75. The Sermo was subsequently edited by Chmielowska, Stanisław ze Skarbimierza, Sermones Sapientiales, 4, part 1, 323–340, and reprinted in Stanisław ze Skarbimierza Mowy, Korolko, ed., 86–111. The work had, however, attracted attention much earlier, being discussed by Fijałek, Studya, 118–119, and Morawski, Historya UJ, 1, 141. Previous to his edition, Ehrlich had discussed this sermon in his Paweł Włodkowic i Stanisław ze Skarbimierza (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1954), 23–40. It is generally agreed that this work was written in 1410 just prior to the Grunwald campaign; see Ehrlich, Polski Wykład, 11–14, and Stanislaus F. Belch, Paulus Vladimiri and His Doctrine

230

CHAPTER 5

In a short introduction he affirms the need to prohibit groundless wars and the necessity of learning the relevant principles which govern war. Then in his argumentatio he discusses the nature of the just war, the problem of pagans, and the responsibility of subjects and soldiers in a just war. Although this treatise is argued in the abstract, with no specific references made to Poland, its ruler, neighbors or enemies, it is clearly Stanisław’s intention to speak to a concrete situation.28 We shall discuss more fully in Chapter Eight the content of this treatise. In the present context it is sufficient to emphasize that Stanisław and others had taken a position supportive of the monarchy on a pressing issue of public policy.29 Concerning International Law and Politics, 2 vols. (The Hague: Mouton, 1965), 1, 127. The larger context of Stanisław’s sermon is treated by Stanisław Wielgus, Polska średniowieczna doktryna Ius gentium (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego), 21–24, and in a slightly revised English translation The Medieval Polish Doctrine of the Law of Nations Ius Gentium (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1996), 25–28; see his comment (10 and 12 in the Polish and English versions respectively) in which he allows a possible date of 1414 for the composition of the sermon. 28  In his discussion of the educated in Polish royal service, Oźóg, Uczeni, 177–183, sets Stanisław’s treatise and activity in the context of others who were committed to support royal policy in the run-up to the war between 1409 and 1411. 29  Ehrlich, Polski wykład, 198–202, has edited an anonymous treatise known, from its Latin incipit, as Revocatur, which postulates the right of the ruler avail himself of the support of heretics in a just war. It is clearly derived from a university professor at Cracow, but dating it is difficult and even questions about whether the Polish king is referred to are unclear. Ehrlich (193–197); Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 204–205; Zawodzińska, “Pisma Stanisława ze Skarbimierza,” 323–324; and Ryszard Bierzanek, “Les conceptions de la paix chez les auteurs Polonais de la fin du moyen âge et de la renaissance,” Recueils de la société Jean Bodin 15 (1961): 179, all date it ca. 1430/1432, some suggesting it may be a work of Stanisław himself. Jerzy Rebeta, “Czy notatka ‘Revocatur’ należy do polskiej szkoły prawa stosunków międzynarodowych z połowy XV wieku,” Kwartalnik Historii Nauk i Techniki 20 (1975): 533–540, argues, on the basis of second, earlier, manuscript of the treatise, that it is not a work of Stanisław and does not even derive from Polish authorship. Roman Maria Zawadzki, Spuścizna pisarska Stanisława ze Skarbimierza. Studium źródłoznawcze (Cracow: Polskie Towarzystwo Teologiczne, 1979), 102, has argued that the work should be assigned to Stanisław. Boockmann, Johannes Falkenberg, 175–178, has made an effective case for assigning this work to the Cracovian scene in the period of the debate ca. 1410. According to him, the work utilizes many of the same arguments from canon and natural law that Stanisław adopted, and Boockmann suggests it is an extension of his theses. In addition he notes (155–179), according to a treatise (the so-called “Vienna Treatise” “Utrum fas sit principes fideles ducere infidels ad extirpandum fideles”), now generally attributed to Johannes Falkenberg, one of the representatives of the royal position had in fact argued for the support of heretics. (This treatise—actually designated a quaestio—

The University In The National Life Of Poland

231

On 24 June 1410 a truce between the Order and Poland expired. Soon thereafter the army of Jagiełło and Vytautas (Witold) was gathered. After hearing a sermon in the vernacular presented by the Bishop of Płock, whose text apparently relied in some degree upon the De bellis iustis of Stanisław,30 it marched into battle, meeting the Knights in Prussia near Grunwald. (German historiography sites the battle with reference to the nearby village of Tannenberg; Lithuanian historiography refers to it as the Battle of Żalgiris.)31 The defeat of the Order on 15 July was overwhelming. The Grand Master was killed along with the marshal, the grand commander, the treasurer, at least 200 knights and thousands of soldiers. Other thousands were taken captive. But the Polish army was unable to follow up its victory, and the [First] Peace of Toruń signed the following year solved few of the outstanding issues. If the Battle of Grunwald was thereby reduced to an episode in the war, it nevertheless became for the Poles a historical moment of high significance.32 On 16 July, while still fresh from the victory, the king sought to notify society of his triumph. It is significant that one of his letters was directed to the faculty of the university, due in part undoubtedly to recognition of their prior s­ upport.33 has been edited by Włodek, “La Satire de Jean Falkenberg. Texte inédit avec introduction,” MPP 18 [1973]: 96–120.) If Boockmann is correct, Revocatur—whether the work of Stanisław or not—would represent yet another evidence of university participation in the debate over royal policy. On these points see Wielgus, Polska średniowieczna doktryna, 13–14 and Medieval Polish Doctrine, 15–16, and the discussion in Oźóg, Uczeni, 26 and 136– 139, who takes no firm position on the date of composition of Revocatur (“probably in the second and third decade of the XVth century”). Accepting the hypothetical authorship of Stanisław of Skarbimierz, the terminus ad quem would be the date of the death of this learned figure, i.e., 9 January 1431.” (139) 30  Our only knowledge of this sermon and its contents comes from Długosz, Annales, 7, 65 (Liber decimus et undecimus 1406–1412, sub anno 1410); his father, who was a participant in the battle, may have heard the sermon and told the historian about it. 31  On the question of siting, see Eckdahl, Die Schlacht bei Tannenberg, I, 12–14. 32  The recent 600th anniversary of the battle saw the publication of a very substantial output of scholarly and popular literature. Among the best are Andrzej Nadolski, Grunwald. Problemy wybrane (Warsaw: Templum, 2010), a revised version of his study that originally appeared in 1990, and his more popular Grunwald 1410 (Warsaw: Dom Wydawniczy Bellona, 2003). With respect to the historiographical significance of the battle in Polish tradition, see Czesława Ochałówna, “Bitwa grunwaldzka w poezji polsko-łacińskiej XV w.,” Małopolskie Studia Historyczne 3, part 1/2 (1960): 81–106; and the survey provided by Eckdahl, Die Schlacht bei Tannenberg, 1, 14–37. 33  The letter is not extant, and we know of it only through mention by Długosz, Annales, 7, 125–126 (Liber decimus et undecimus 1406–1412, sub anno 1410), listing those to whom news was sent: “item universitati.”

232

CHAPTER 5

The reaction of the professors was to arrange a service of ­thanksgiving in St. Anne’s church, and John of Kluczbork, a recent bachelor of theology, was asked to give the sermon.34 His effort is not as polished as a formal treatise (he complained in it that he had insufficient time to prepare),35 and is as much a religious meditation as a document that reflects a concrete historical incident. But it is nevertheless important. It is the earliest extant response to the victory, and it is pervaded by a sense of relief and pride which was shared by the whole of society. In addition, the sermon contains many observations which make it a miniature commentary on royal power, the responsibilities of the king to his subject, and the duties of the governed to their lord. At the end of his sermon John asks God to bless the king further and to help him establish the peace which is necessary for even the poorest of his subjects.36 Later that same year, on the feast day of St. Brice (13 November) and marking his promotion to Bachelor of Theology, Lucas of Wielki Koźmin preached a sermon that had similar praise for the king and his victories.37 His theme was the phrase “Behold a Great Priest” (Ecce sacerdos magnus, related to Ecclesiasticus 50), and in the sermon, in which he compared the king to St. Brice, he also aggressively defended Jagiełło against accusations levied by the Teutonic Order in the aftermath of Grunwald. He listed the virtues of the king: “our most serene ruler King Wladyslaw, is pious, prudent, humble, modest, sober, religious, and peaceful”38 and not capable of that which the Order had accused him. He becomes, in Lucas’s description, an ideal prince. 34   For his biography, see Kazimierz Wójcik, Jan z Kluczborka (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1995), 13–39. His sermon was first printed by Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Mowa mistrza Jana z Kluczborka na cześć króla Władysława Jagiełły,” in Józef Garbacik et al., eds., Mediaevalia—w 50 rocznicę pracy naukowej Jana Dąbrowskiego (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1960), 159–176 (167–176 for the text of the sermon). 35  “Propter breve tempus ad hanc faciendam michi assignatum.” (168) 36  “Igitur petamus Dominum . . . ut det victoriam Regi, si est pro honore Dei et pro profectu et incremento Regni, vivis et ecclesie pacem, peccatoribus veniam, defunctis requiem et omnibus nobis post hanc vitam miseram, vitam sempiternam” (176) For a further analysis of this sermon, see Oźóg, Uczeni, 100–101. 37  Unedited, this sermon is described by Maria Kowalczyk, “Mowy i kazania uniwersyteckie Łukasza z Wielkiego Koźmina,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 12, part 2 (1960): 7–20, here 17–18, and reprinted in her collected works, Colligite fragmenta ne pereant . . . Studiów z dziejów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w średniowieczu (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2010), 67–80, here 77–78; it is further analyzed by Oźóg, Uczeni, 101–104, whose interpretations I adopt here. 38  “Princeps noster serenissimus rex Wladislaus est pius, prudens, humilis, pudicus, sobrius, castus, quietus,” cited from Oźóg, Uczeni, 103.

The University In The National Life Of Poland

233

With these actions in the Grunwald era the university demonstrated its support for the king, it showed its concern with the needs of lay society, and it was to lead to further involvement by the professors there in the pursuit of national policy. Not without cause was Jagiełło to write to the pope in later years that he loved the university as if it were filia mea.39 In the aftermath of the “Great War” of 1409–1411 (as it is known in Polish historiography),40 the faculty and other academically trained individuals continued to render service to the monarchy in its policy vis-à-vis the Order. For example, in hearings before Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund in 1412, the Polish cause was presented by Paul Vladimiri (who participated, however, only in the last stages of the hearings),41 Michael Blida, a doctor of canon law and canon of Poznań, and Andrew Łaskarz, a doctor of canon law from Padua, Queen Jadwiga’s former chancellor, later Bishop of Poznań, and an active participant in Polish political matters, including those that dealt with the Teutonic Order. All had academic backgrounds and training, though the latter two were not associated with Cracow at this point and Paul Vladimiri technically represented Prince Janusz of Mazovia and did not speak for the university. What they had in common at this point was that, as faculty or university graduates, they directly or indirectly served the interests of the king.42 But the most important example of professorial support of royal and national policy came within the context of the Council of Constance.43 39   C DUC, 1, no. 63, 121 (from 1418). 40  The classic work is Stefan M. Kuczyński, Wielka Wojna z Zakonem Krzyżackim w latach 1409–1411, revised 4th ed. (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej, 1987); the original edition appeared in 1955; Kuczyński died in 1985; a 5th edition appeared in 1988 and the book remains in print to the present. It is, in some respects, controversial in its interpretations and conclusions (especially with respect to its siting of the battle). For a discussion of some of these see Nadolski, Grunwald. Problemy wybrane. 41  See Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 129–131. 42  For these individuals and the suit brought before the Emperor, see Oźóg, “Udział Andrzeja Łaskarzyca w sprawach i sporach Polsko-Krzyżackich do soboru w Konstancji,” in Ożóg and Stanisław Szczur, eds., Polska i jej sąsiedzi w późnym średniowieczu (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2000), 159–186, here 168–170. The larger context of these developments in Polish relations with the Teutonic Order is treated by Ożóg, Uczeni, 186–206; see also Zenon Hubert Nowak, Międzynarodowe procesy polubowne jako narzędzie politiki Zygmunta Luksemburskiego 1412–1424 (Toruń: Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika, 1981), here 41. 43  The university had been invited to participate in the Council of Pisa and had responded favorably, indicating its support of the council. A formal delegation was, however, never sent, although the chancellor of the studium, Bishop Peter Wysz and several eventual members of the faculty may have been present in other capacities. This failure to participate more actively is largely explained by the fact that Jagiełło continued to support the

234

CHAPTER 5

The Council of Constance Although cursory treatments of this council are usually limited to a description of the three major items for which Constance had been called (ending the schism, extirpating heresy, and reforming the church in head and members),44 there were a number of other problems of European-wide import which were also of concern to the assembly. Emperor Sigismund outlined them in an address before a general convocation on 13 July 1415. They included union between the eastern and western churches, peace between France and England, a crusade against the Turks, and the conflict between the Teutonic Order and Poland.45 With this last item, the issue which had convulsed northeastern Europe for several generations was brought officially before the representatives of Christendom.

Roman line of Gregory XII. The professors wished to avoid any conflict between themselves and the king at this early point in the history of the studium. In addition, the academic year 1408/1409 was one that saw sharply reduced enrollment at the university. The subject has been thoroughly treated in Władysław Abraham, “Udział Polski w soborze pizańskim 1409,” Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności: wydział Historyczno-filozoficzny 47 (1905): 125–157, especially his “Dodatki” I–IV, 150–157. The question of Cracow and the Council of Pisa has been addressed more recently by Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen. Personen, Politik und Programme aus Polen zur Verfassungsfrage der Kirche in der Zeit der mittelalterlichen Reformkonzilien (Paderborn, Munich, Vienna, and Zürich: Schöningh, 1998 [Konziliengeschichte]), 47–53. 44  A good general overview, somewhat outdated now, is Joseph Gill, Constance et BâleFlorence (Paris: Éditions de l’Orante, 1965 [Histoire des Conciles Oecuménique 9]), 41–209. See also Antony J. Black, “Popes and Councils, in Christopher Allmand, ed., The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 7: c. 1415–1500 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 67–69, 76–80. More focused is Phillip Stump, The Reforms of the Council of Constance 1414–1418 (Leiden, New York, and Cologne: Brill, 1994 [Studies in the History of Christian Thought 53]). 45  Heinrich Finke, et al., eds., Acta concilii Constanciensis, 4 vols. (Münster: Regensbergsche Buchhandlung, 1896–1928), 2, 418. Some of the material which follows on Constance is adapted from my “The University of Cracow and the Conciliar Movement,” in Kittelson and Transue, eds., Universities in Transition, 192–198. Cracovian involvement with the conciliar movement, both in the context of Constance and later with Basle, has been treated by Jan Drabina, “Konziliarismus an der Krakauer Universität in der ersten Hälfte des XV. Jahrhunderts,” in Zofia Włodek, ed., Société et Église. Textes et discussions dans les universités d’Europe Centrale pendant le moyen âge tardif (Turnhout: Brepols, 1995), 117–131, 118–122 for Pisa and Constance.

The University In The National Life Of Poland

235

When the invitations to attend the Council of Constance came to the king, the Polish church, and the university of Cracow,46 there was no question that a Polish delegation would be sent.47 Jagiełło’s policy was to rely upon the faculty of his new studium and other learned representatives to present the issue of the Order to the council. The Poles at Constance aimed at discrediting the Knights before the assembled delegates of Christendom, of obtaining the dissolution of the Order, and of portraying themselves and their king both as the true defenders of Christendom and as the new missionaries through whom the spread of the Christian faith was being accomplished. The instrument of this diplomatic Realpolitik was political philosophy formulated by the faculty of the university and forcefully expressed by its rector. The Polish delegation to Constance included, among other, Archbishop Nicholas Trąba of Gniezno, Bishop-elect Andrew Łaskarz of Poznań, rector Paul Vladimiri of the university (though formally as a representative of the king and not the studium), Peter Wolfram, licentiate in decretis and a faculty member at Cracow, plus some members of the laity.48 Three of these ­individuals 46  The invitation to the king was delivered in conjunction with the arrangement of a truce with the Knights (Cod. Epist., 2, no. 56); see Ożóg, Uczeni, 206 and Boockmann, Johannes Falkenberg, 117–120). The invitation to the Polish church came independently: Augustin Theiner, ed., Vetera Monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae gentiumque finitimarum historiam illustrantia . . ., 4 vols. (Rome: Typis Vaticanis, 1860–1864), 2, 9. The invitation to the university has not survived, but was presumably similar to those sent other studia in Europe. 47  A characteristically expansive overview of the university’s engagement with the church councils of the fifteenth century is provided by Mieczysław Markowski, “Uniwersytet Krakowski a sobory pierwszej połowy XV wieku,” Acta Mediaevalia 12 (1999): 178–213. 48   Cod. epist. 2, no. 56. Other Polish representatives came to Constance, but, as in the case of the visit of Professor Andrew Kokorzyński described by Długosz, Annales, 8, 73 (Liber undecimus 1413–1430, sub anno 1417) they were pursuing private issues incidental to the work of the council. (Andrew was seeking, on behalf of Jagiełło, a dispensation for the king to remain married to his third wife, Elizabeth, to whom he was related within the proscribed degrees of separation.) Although the king supplied some monies to support the Polish delegation (so Długosz, 8, 44 [Liber undecimus 1413–1430, sub anno 1414]), Archbishop Trąba provided most of the money; see Krystyna Pieradzka, “Uniwersytet Krakowski w służbie państwa i wobec soborów w Konstancji i Bazylei,” in Lepszy, Dzieje UJ, 96, especially n. 20. For the career of the archbishop, see Tadeusz Silnicki, Arcybiskup Mikołaj Trąba (Warsaw: PAX, 1954); Jadwiga Krzyżaniakowa, “Początki kariery Mikołaja Trąby,” Roczniki Historyczne 35 (1969): 125–135; PSB, 21, 97–99; and Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen, 54. The comment made by Johannes Helmrath, Das Basler Konzil 1431–1449, Forschungsstand und Probleme (Cologne and Vienna: Böhlau, 1987), 264, to the effect that there is no modern study of Poland and the Council of Basle is equally true for the ­general

236

CHAPTER 5

deserve special identification, even though we have met two of them in passing above. Born into a noble family in Great Poland, Andrew Łaskarz had studied in Prague, where he earned degrees in Arts, then began the study of canon law, probably in Padua, then returned to Poland. After service for Queen Jadwiga in Cracow, he returned to studies in Padua, where he studied under Francis Cardinal Zabarella, being promoted to Doctor of Canon Law in 1405. (Among his promoters was Peter Wysz.) During his years in Italy, he came under the influence of the humanistic movement and became a close friend of Pier Paolo Vergerio. After his return to Poland, his ecclesiastical rise was rapid (his pilgrimage to the Holy Land with Bishop Peter Wysz strengthened his ecclesiastical networks), and he often served—as we have already seen—as a royal representative in dealings with the Knights. Shortly before he left for Constance, his nomination and election as Bishop of Poznań was confirmed.49 At Constance, he was particularly active in the committee on matters of the faith. It was Andrew who was chosen by the council to be one of several who delivered addresses on 6 April 1415 giving full expression to the principle of conciliarism. He was later a member of the commission appointed to study the issues raised by John Falkenberg’s Satira. Though not a member of the university faculty, he was nevertheless a learned representative who pursued Polish policy at the council.50 Peter Wolfram of Lwów was a new Cracow professor in the faculty of law at the university. He had spent some time in Rome early in the century, then matriculated at Prague in 1408. He did not remain long enough to earn a degree, for the next year Jagiełło appointed him to be his court chaplain. Shortly thereafter he returned to Italy where he eventually became licentiatus in Decretis at Bologna in October 1413. By the fall of 1414 he was lecturing in the law faculty at Cracow and serving as royal diplomat. At Constance he participated in several commissions and tried, with limited success, to act as an early-day Boswell by keeping notes about the activities of the participants. While on a mission to Poland in 1416 he drafted the letters which Jagiełło and the university sent to the council. His earlier stays in Italy apparently brought him into contact with humanistic currents, for these letters and his other writings are picture of Poland and the Council of Constance. This chapter makes no pretense of doing this; see, however, the older work by Antoni Prochaska, “Na soborze w Konstancyi,” Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności: wydział Historyczno-filozoficzny 35 (1898): 1–100. 49  His biography to this point has now been most closely studied by Ożóg, “Udział Andrzeja Łaskarzyca w sprawach i sporach Polsko-Krzyżackich,” 160–164. 50  An older biographical notice is contained in PSB, 1, 103–106.

The University In The National Life Of Poland

237

replete with classical ­allusions and citations. Although his commission to the council came from the Bishop of Cracow, for whom he acted as procurator, Peter’s associations with the university and his legal skills contributed effectively to the Polish effort there.51 Paul Vladimiri was the leading member of the delegation. Born in the early 1370s in the region of Dobrzyń, which adjoined the territory of the Teutonic Order and was often attacked by them,52 he began his university studies in Prague, being promoted as master in arts MA in 1393 and Bachelor of Laws in 1396. His ecclesiastical career progressed until he became a canon in Płock, but in 1403 he left for Italy to pursue the study of law further. At Padua he studied under Zabarella and Peter de Ancarano, receiving the licentiate in Canon Law in 1408. Before returning to Poland, he—on at lest one occasion—represented Jagiełło in Rome in the matter of the Knights. In 1411 the Bishop of Cracow appointed him curator of the cathedral and the pope issued a special dispensation for him to take a doctoral degree in canon law at Cracow. His promotion came in late 1411 or early 1412, and we have previously seen the circumstances of Stanisław of Skarbimierz’s sermon on the occasion of his promotion. Henceforth his career was closely associated with royal policy and the university. He acted as Jagiełło’s agent on several occasions, taught in the law faculty, and in 1414 was elected rector of the studium. His re-election for the following academic year, despite his absence in Constance, was a symbol of the school’s confidence in him and its support of royal policy.53 After the council he continued to be involved in political affairs. In 1432 he was in Padua, from where he wrote to Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki of Cracow about the ways of

51   P SB, 26, 403–406; LTCP / SPTK, 3, 363–365. 52  Fijałek, “Ostatnie słowo Pawła Włodkowica o zakonie krzyżackim,” Przegląd Kościelny 1 (1902): 92–93, has accurately, if poetically, described Dobrzyń as a land “soaked in blood and tears as a result of constant attacks and violence by the Knights.” 53  That Paul was a royal, not a university, delegate at Constance is reflected by his statement that he was “rector protunc universitatis studii . . . cum aliis dominis pro ambassiatore missus;” see his Tractatus de annatis camerae apostolicae solvendis, ed. Michał Bobrzyński, in Starodawne Prawa Polskiego Pomniki. Antoni Helcel, et al., eds., 12 vols. (Cracow and Warsaw: Polska Akademia Umiejętności and G. Sennenwald, 1856–1921), 5 (1878), 299–314, here 304. He was also listed as “ambassiator Regis Poloniae” in some of the records of the council; see Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 132, n. 94, and Ehrlich, Paweł Włodkowic i Stanisław ze Skarbimierza, 50.

238

CHAPTER 5

settling the conflict between Poland and the Order. He died in the Polish royal capital late in 1435 or early the following year.54 At Constance, the confrontation between Poland and the Order was elevated into a fundamental debate on policy and legal theory by the writings of Paul Vladimiri.55 During the winter of 1415/1416 he prepared materials which were later transformed into a series of treatises on the theoretical powers of both emperor and pope. We shall examine the contents of these works in more detail in Chapter Eight. In them Paul studied the question of whether the privileges which both powers had granted to the Teutonic Order had any legal validity in either church or natural law. In addition, he analyzed the issue of whether it had been lawful for the Order to attack pagans simply because they were pagans and whether it was just for the Knights to wage war against converted pagans using the pretext that they might lapse from Christianity. In this endeavor, Paul was supported not only by general discussions which had taken place at the University of Cracow before his departure, but also by detailed suggestions from the faculty there on the issues which he was to present to the council.56 He did not speak therefore as an isolated, private individual, but as the representative of an official opinion informed by the counsel of the faculty.

54   In addition to the biographical details in Fijałek, “Ostatnie słowo,” and Tadeusz Brzostowski, Paweł Włodkowic (Warsaw: PAX, 1954), see the biographical section in Ehrlich, ed., Pisma Wybrana Pawła Włodkowica: Works of Paul Wladimiri (A Selection), 3 vols. (Warsaw: Instytut Wydawniczy PAX, 1966–1969), 1, 115–155; and Kurt Forstreuter, “Aus den letzen Jahren des Paulus Wladimiri,” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 19 (1970): 467– 478. Other useful works in this context include Jacek Wiesiołowski, “Prace i projekty Pawła Włodkowica—Konstancja, zima 1415 i 1416 roku,” Roczniki Historyczne 35 (1969), 93–95; Jan W. Woś,” Paulus Wladimiri aus Brudzen—Vorläufer oder Fortsetzer,” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 25 (1976): 438–461; PSB, 25, 377–381; LTCP / SPTK, 3, 302–308; and Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen, 56–57. 55  The theological aspects of this have been treated recently by Stefan Kwiatkowski, Der Deutsche Orden im Streit mit Polen-Litauen. Eine theologische Kontroverse über Krieg und Frieden auf dem Konzil von Konstanz (1414–1418) (Stuttgart, Berlin, and Cologne: Kohlhammer, 2000). Some of these aspects from the Polish side will be discussed in Chapter Eight. 56  See the comments in Paul’s letter of 22 January 1416 to Jagiełło, printed in Wiesiołowski, “Prace i projekty,” 118–120: “eadem universitas sum ministerium ad hoc realiter prestitit, licet per me cuius rector eram anno preterito et nunc prestat ministrando dictis negociis bonum principium atque causam, que divina gratis operante videtur posita in fundamento solido, cui non potuerit resistere omnis adversarii vestri hostesque dicti Regni.”

The University In The National Life Of Poland

239

Early in the summer of 1416 Paul distributed two works.57 The first, entitled Saevientibus from its opening word,58 was given to the German nation, of which, in the organization of the council, the Poles were a part along with the rest of northern and central Europe. It contained an introduction, a section of eleven points treating the power of the pope with respect to infidels, a second section of equal length dealing with the power of the emperor in the same context, and a concluding section which argued against the opinion of Hostiensis (Henry of Susa, the thirteenth century canonist and Cardinal of Ostia), who 57  The treatise Saevientibus is undated; the Opinio Ostiensis is dated 6 July 1415, and in it Paul refers to the former work having been given to the German nation the day before: “in tractatu supradicto et tradito Germanice Nacioni A.D. millesimo CCCC XV° die quinta mensis Julij.” On this straightforward basis it has been nearly universal to place these two treatises in early July 1415. See, among others, Tadeusz Brzostowski, Paweł Włodkowic (Warsaw: Pax, 1954), 66; Ehrlich, Paweł Włodkowic, 67–69, and Pisma wybrane, 1, xxiii and xxvii; Morawski, Historya, 1, 140–143; Pieradzka, “Uniwersytet w służbie państwa,” 103; and Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 166. Nevertheless, there are some problems with this dating. The general procurator of the Order wrote to the Order on 28 June 1416 to say that he (the Grand Master) “habe wohl schon von den conclusiones gehört.” (Kurt Forstreuter and Hans Koeppen, eds., Die Berichte der Generalprokuratoren des Deutschen Ordens an der Kurie, 3 vols. [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1960–1971], 2, no. 164.) It is difficult to believe that so crucial an attack would have gone unremarked for nearly a year, but there is no earlier mention which could be interpreted as an allusion to Paul’s works. In addition, when Paul Vladimiri wrote Jagiełło on 8 December 1415 (Wiesiołowski, “Prace i projekty,” 121–122), he spoke only of materials on which he was still working and planning to present to the council in order to achieve his ends of driving the Order from Prussia; he said nothing which would lead us to believe he had already presented and distributed two major works: “Et circa hoc bene advertatis quia postquam materia mea circa quam fuit mea occupacio, veniet in publicum et videbunt dicti inimici, quod non poterunt optinere istas omnes terras quas tanto tempore occupabant sicut de iure non possunt, de quo vos certifico.” Boockmann, Johannes Falkenberg, 225–228, particularly n. 179, was the first to challenge this dating and argued convincingly that the appearance of these works belongs to late spring or early summer. I followed his dating in my “The University of Cracow and the Conciliar Movement,” 195 and 209, n. 21. His dating in this respect has also been accepted by, among others, Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen, 62 and n. 116, and Oźóg, Uczeni, 213 and n. 210. More recently, Timothy M. Brennan, “Just War, Sovereignty, and Canon Law: Legal Arguments Over the Lithuanian Crusade and the Rights of Unbelievers at the Council of Constance (1414–1418),” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas, 2006), 145 and 147, has retained the date of 5 July 1415. Even if the traditional dating is correct, this does not essentially change the narrative of events as given above and certainly leaves untouched the substance of the arguments being presented and discussed more fully below in Chapter Eight. 58  Text in Ehrlich, Pisma wybrane, 1, 2–98; and Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 792–844.

240

CHAPTER 5

held that since the coming of Christ all pagan states had ceased to be legitimate and therefore a war against unbelievers was always a just war. Shortly thereafter, Paul distributed the second work, entitled Opinio Ostiensis,59 to all the nations at Constance. It contained a short statement of the position of Hostiensis, a longer rebuttal, and fifty-two articles or conclusiones, which summarized his previous treatise. In tightly structured arguments Paul asked whether the documents upon which the Order based its activity were valid. Even if they were not forged (though he and the other Polish representatives clearly considered them to be), this was to him an issue independent of his central, more crucial and theoretical question of whether, and in what degree, imperial and papal power extended to the lands of the unbeliever. He argued that papal power was limited by divine and natural law. It was nevertheless superior to imperial power, for unlike the pope, the emperor did not have the right to dispose of the lands of unbelievers. Thus imperial grants in pagan lands were invalid, and Paul dismissed the privileges which supposedly had allowed the Order to spread the faith by force and by war. He went on to argue, however, that non-Christians possessed their lands by natural law, and it was not legal, even for the pope, to command that they be converted by force or that their lands be taken from them without proper justification. The effects of these treatises had scarcely been absorbed when Paul again took the offensive. Later that summer he distributed two more works. The first, Ad aperiendam,60 repeated much from his earlier treatises, but went further. It charged that the Order had failed to respond adequately to his accusations, and since it no longer fulfilled its tasks, it had fallen into heresy and should be dissolved. The second work was a series of systematic points of accusation, both historical and theoretical, against the Order. It summed up his previous works in a devastating recapitulation (in its final redaction) of 156 articles.61 In 59  Text in Ehrlich, Pisma wybrane, 1, 113–137; and Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 864–884. See also the recent discussion by Charles J. Reid, Jr., “Paulus Vladimiri, the Tractatus, Opinio Hostiensis, and the Rights of Infidels,” in Pavel Krafl, ed., Sacri canones servandi sunt. Ius canonicum et status ecclesiae saeculis XIII–XV (Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR, 2008), 418–423. 60  Ehrlich, Pisma wybrane, 1, 144–259 and 2, 2–167. It is apparent from Paul’s letter of 22 January 1416 to Jagiełło (Wiesiołowski, “Prace i projekty,” 118–119) that he had essentially finished Ad aperiendam at that time, for he gives a summary of its structure and contents. Oźóg, Uczeni, 213, suggests that in this treatise Paul drew especially upon the arguments developed by Andrew Łaskarz in the process made in the dispute with the Order in 1413; see 200–205 for the details of that process. 61  Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 2, no. 6. That these also were essentially complete by early 1416 is clear from the letter referred to in the preceding note: “Pro cuius heresis exterminacione

The University In The National Life Of Poland

241

this same summer, the faculty of the University of Cracow sent a long letter to the council, expressing its approval of the decree Haec sancta and of the condemnation of Wycliffe, Hus, and Jerome of Prague. This letter emphasized the faculty’s full support of the Polish delegation.62 The impact of Paul’s spirited attacks upon the Knights was considerable. Their diplomacy had earlier been focused upon specific minimal goals in negotiation, and their propaganda had been characterized by narrow political aims, with little reference to theoretical legal formulations. Confronted by the learned and reasoned formulations by Paul Vladimiri, the Order was forced to change its tactics. In a report to the Grand Master on 28 June 1416, the general procurator wrote that he had given moneys to some doctors to prepare answers in kind.63 These were not long in coming. One was prepared by the Bamberg canonist John Urbach (or Auerbach, called Frebach or Vrebach in Polish historiography) and appeared near the end of 1416 or early in 1417.64 It consisted of eighteen conclusions with accompanying justifying statements. Paul responded to its distribution with a treatise of his own, Quoniam error,65 which is divided into a dogmatic and a polemical section. The first discussed efficaci . . . feci CLVI articulos et plures adhuc intendo facere . . .” Wiesiołowski, “Prace i projekty,” 120. 62   C DUC, 1, no. 58, 110–113: “Dum scilicet de vinea Domini ficu fatua et arbore malos fructus parturiente proiecta, ad succidendos haereseos palmites et nequam propagines Iohannis Wicleff, Hus et Hieronymi damnatorum iustissime securis posita est ad radicem” (112) “Nostram praeterea Cracoviensem, quae in sua novitiate sicut novellae olivarum in campo fidei audacter militans fructificat, velitis paternis complecti visceribus, ipsamque cum suis suppositis in agendio sue tempore gratiosius habere commendatam.” (113) See the discussion of this letter by Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen, 70 and n. 153. As Wünsch comments, this was carried, and probably drafted, by Peter Wolfram. 63   Berichte der Generalprokuratoren, 2, no. 164: “ich habe etlichen doctoribus gelt gegeben, redliche entwert doruff zu schriben.” For details, see Boockmann, Johannes Falkenberg, 234–237. 64  Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 2, 1116–1180. On the person of Urbach, see Boockmann, “Aus den Handakten des Kanonisten Johannes Urbach. Die Satire des Johannes Falkenberg und andere Funde zur Geschichte des Konstanzer Konzils,” Deutsches Archiv 28 (1972): 497–532; and Oźóg, Uczeni, 215. The problem of his identity, resolved in Boockmann’s 1972 article) had earlier been explored by Eberhard Schulz, “Paulus Vladimiri und das jagiellonischen Polen. Eine Untersuchung zu den Wirkungen der italienischen Rechtswissenschaft auf den jagiellonischen Staat,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (Göttingen, 1951), 24; Ehrlich, Paweł Włodkowicz, 79 and 159; and Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 2, 1110–1111. Brennan, “Just War, Sovereignty, and Canon Law,” 230–296 provides a full exposition and analysis of Urbach’s treatise. 65  Ehrlich, Pisma wybrane, 2, 216–398.

242

CHAPTER 5

the legality and reliability of the privileges of the Order, the question of whether the Knights might be said to possess true dominion over their lands, and the problem of whether they actually constitute a religious order that can be approved by the church. The second section answered in detail each of the points raised in the Urbach paper. A second treatise, more an attack upon the Poles than a defense of the Order, appeared late in 1416. Written in one form as early as 1412 by the Dominican John Falkenberg, whom we have seen during his earlier stay at the Dominican studium in Cracow, it had been presented to the Grand Master at that time for approval, but had been ignored since it did not fit the style of the Knights’ propaganda. Four years later, however, the needs of the Order had changed, and in a revised version it was distributed to the council.66 Known as the Satira67 it was the work of an individual who had spent time in his Order’s friary in Cracow and had, as we have seen, earlier been involved in polemics against professors from Cracow and with Polish political and ecclesiastical policy. Falkenberg’s love for the Poles was non-existent, his learning was abundant, and his pen had soaked for years in the purest vitriol. The Satira accused the King of Poland (“Jaghel”) of being a pagan idol and the Poles of worshipping him; they and he were despised by God as heretics and shameless pagan dogs; the best service to be rendered Christendom would be to kill Poles and their king (here advocating tyrannicide), for they were heathen, and heaven’s purposes were served by any who kill Poles; Poland and its king were a plague besetting the church; and so forth.68 All this invective was tricked out with bib66  The history of this treatise is discussed by Boockmann, Johannes Falkenberg, 37–49, and “Jan Falkenberg i jego obrona Zakonu Krzyżackiego,” Zapiski Historyczne 41 (1976): 669–683; and by Sophie Włodek, “Odnaleziona Satyra Falkenberga,” Studia Historyczne 14 (1971): 477–491. 67  Full title Satira contra hereses et cetera nephanda Polonorum et eorum Regis Jaghel. 68  Long thought to have been lost, two versions were independently discovered in Leipzig by Włodek (see her article cited in n. 66) and in Zeil by Hartmut Boockmann. Each has separately edited the work: Włodek, “La Satire de Jean Falkenberg. Texte inédit avec introduction,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 18 (1973): 51–120; Boockmann, Johannes Falkenberg, 312–353. The question of tyrannicide—implicit in the Satira—was one that resonated at the Council of Constance, for among the peripheral issues discussed at this assembly was the position of the Parisian scholar, Jean Petit (Johannes Parvus) who had earlier defended the assassination of the Duke of Orleans. His position was condemned, as it had earlier been at the University of Paris. One of those who had supported the condemnation at the university was Thomas of Cracow, sacra pagina professor in the College of the Sorbonne, and whose support for this was noted by the Poles at the council. Thomas, a cleric from the diocese of Cracow, had learned grammar in his home city,

The University In The National Life Of Poland

243

lical and canonical apparatus, giving it the appearance of respectability. But it went too far and brought to a climax the confrontation of Poland and the Order at the council. Paul immediately wrote a short response, Iste tractatus,69 but it was the Polish delegation as a whole which tried to bring about a condemnation of the Satira and have Falkenberg accused of heresy.70 They were successful in persuading the council to appoint a commission, which included Cardinals Zabarella, Orsini, and D’Ailly, to investigate the matters. By the end of the council, this group was prepared to condemn the author and his work. Despite continued agitation by the Poles, however, nothing was decided. The new pope, Martin V, ruled that only matters which were formally on the agenda of the council could be acted upon and approved. Since this issue had not yet been officially presented, there was nothing which could be done. He did promise, however, to investigate the matter further, and the Poles appealed the matter to a future council. Subsequently, this immediate issue was resolved by then gone to Prague (BA 1378). Oxford, then Paris (MA by 1401 and final degree in theology in 1405). The strained political environment in Paris and the similar issues at Constance connected with Falkenberg’s Satira, eventually led Thomas to petition King Władysław Jagiełło for appointment to a prebend in the Cracow cathedral. He apparently returned to Poland about 1416 or 1417, though details of his career there is not known, and apparently he had no role at the university. His importance at Paris—including his scholarly productivity—has been fully treated by Zenon Kałuża, Thomas de Cracovie. Contribution à l’Histoire du Collège de Sorbonne (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1978). See also Astrik L. Gabriel, “Intellectual Relations between the University of Paris and the University of Cracow in the 15th century,” Studia Źródłoznawcze 25 (1980): 37–63, here 37–48 (though without citing Kałuża), reprinted as “Scholarly Bonds of the University of Cracow with Paris Schools in the Late Medieval Period,” in Gabriel’s The Paris Studium: Robert of Sorbonne and His Legacy (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992), 259–307; and Thomas Sullivan, Parisian Licentiates in Theology, AD 1373–1500, vol. 2, The Secular Clergy (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2011 [Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 37]), 185–186. 69  Ehrlich, Pisma wybrane, 2, 182–209; Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 2, no. 7. 70  The importance of Polish bishops at Constance should not be underestimated. Although the council made a special place for faculty from the various universities of Europe, the major figures of the hierarchy were still particularly powerful. Their role has been effectively analyzed by Tomasz Graff, Episkopat monarchii jagiellońskiej w dobie soborów powszechnych XV wieku (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2008), 199–219; with particular reference to their role in the effort to condemn Falkenberg, see especially 209–212. He has also treated this subject more briefly in his Kościół w Polsce wobec konfliktu z Zakonen Krzyżackim w XV wieku. Studium z dziejów kultury politycznej polskiego episkopatu (Cracow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2010), 44–45.

244

CHAPTER 5

­compromise (the Satira itself was condemned, but not Falkenberg), and this gave Poland some degree of immediate satisfaction.71 Poland won no specific territorial or boundary concessions in negotiations at Constance; neither did it attain its optimum goal of the dissolution of its long-time foe. It did, however, achieve the considerable victory of demonstrating to the leadership of Europe the justness of its cause. In this process, Paul Vladimiri was an effective spokesman for the national concerns which King Władysław Jagiełło pursued. But Paul was not simply a royal representative; he was also known as a learned member of the Cracow faculty and as the university’s rector. His presence and activity at Constance symbolized the extent to which the studium was as much a part of the Regnum Poloniae as it was an institution of late medieval Christianitas. Post-Council Developments and Involvement After the Council of Constance, the faculty of the university continued to be engaged in national life and supportive of royal policy against the Knights. In a hearing before the emperor in Wrocław early in 1420, Paul Vladimiri was again the crucial figure. He was chiefly responsible for drafting a series of charges against the Order and for presenting the Polish case. Since the judgment handed down there by Sigismund gave no satisfaction to Jagiełło, he appealed the case to the pope, sending Paul to Rome as one of his representatives. Pope Martin appointed a legate to Poland in 1422 to convene a papal court, and at Gniezno and Poznań Stanisław of Skarbimierz and James Zaborowski from the law faculty acted as Polish prosecutors. They called twenty-nine witnesses to testify before the legate, including such faculty members as Peter Wolfram from Law and Stephen Paleč, formerly of Prague but now a member of the theology faculty at Cracow. The Polish case was convincing to the legate, but there were no concrete results from this process. The pope recalled his legate, and the many outstanding questions of disputed territories, boundaries, and

71  Events following the appearance of the Satira, Paul Vladimiri’s response, and the last session of the council, in which the Poles failed to obtain condemnation of the Satira are discussed by Boockmann, Johannes Falkenberg, 263–288; Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen, 63–67; and Oźóg, Uczeni, 217–222. The affair of Falkenberg had a strange dénouement. After further negotiations, an agreement was reached. On 17 January 1424 a Polish delegation led by Andrew Łaskarz and Paul Vladimiri met in Rome with Martin V and Falkenberg. The Dominican formally abjured his satire on the Polish king and his subjects, and the Poles retracted their appeal to a future council. For the role of Bishop Andrew Łaskarz in this, see Graff, Episkopat w dobie soborów, 220.

The University In The National Life Of Poland

245

indemnifications remained unresolved.72 It was ultimately to require a protracted thirteen year war between Poland and the Order before a settlement was achieved. In the diplomatic activity of that conflict between 1453 and 1466, as we shall see below, the faculty and those associated with the university played a role, though perhaps not at the high level that had been the case during Jagiełło’s reign. Nevertheless, the tradition that the studium was engaged in the larger life of the nation was maintained. In addition to the issue of the Order, there were other questions important in the national life of Poland in this period. The first two of them, to which we now turn, were the question of the union with Lithuania and the increasing problem of Hussite Bohemia. Along with members of Jagiełło’s royal administration and officials of the church, the faculty of the university was also involved in these matters.

The Union With Lithuania

Polish-Lithuanian ties were based in the marriage of Jadwiga and Jagiełło and the Union of Krewo of 1385. These were refined in 1401 at Wilno and Radom and further defined at Horodło in 1413. In these last two agreements the Polish nobles and Lithuanian boyars had formed themselves into a joint estate and relations between the two states had been regularized. Relations between Jagiełło and Vytautas, while often strained in the late fourteenth century when Vytautas had aimed at breaking the union with Poland, had been resolved with an agreement in 1392 at Astravas (Ostrowo), and subsequently reconfirmed in 1401.73 Thereafter, for much of their reigns Jagiełło and Vytautas had 72  Oźóg, Uczeni, 222–254, treats the continued involvement of the educated elite, many of them of course university faculty, in the context of the diplomatic and political issues between the Poles and the Order during this period. Paul Vladimiri was also supported in his activities by consultations with Italian canonists; see Oźóg, “Współpraca prawników włoskich z Pawłem Włodkowicem w procesie polsko-krzyżackim w Rzymie w latach 1420– 1421,” Nasza Przeszłość 76 (1991): 73–105. For the larger picture of Paul Vladimiri’s activities in this period, see Sławomir Marchel, “Ze studiów nad karierą Pawła Włodkowica. Okres po soborze w Konstancji, 1419–1436,” Słupskie Studia Historyczne 13 (2007): 183–198. 73  For the steps in the history of the Jagiellonian union, the starting point is the classic study by Oskar Halecki, Dzieje Unii Jagiellońskiej, 2 vols. (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1919–1920). More current treatments (in Polish) of Polish-Lithuanian relations during Jagiełło’s reign can be found in the appropriate chapter of Stanisław Szczur, Historia Polski średniowiecze (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 2002), 472–480 and 493– 505; and Tomasz Jurek and Edmund Kizik, Historia Polski do 1572 (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo

246

CHAPTER 5

worked in concert (most notably in the Grunwald campaign of 1410), but by the late 1420s their cooperation was again fraught with tension. In his old age, the Polish king had come more and more under the influence of an oligarchy of Little Poland nobles who were led by Zbigniew Oleśnicki—from 1423 Bishop of Cracow—and who sought to bring Lithuania into even closer union.74 Vytautas, however, was the unchallenged master of the east, increasingly independent, and not less powerful than the king. By the late 1420s it was clear that Polish and Lithuanian policies were diverging and the ambitions of Vytautas for a crown, which had been aroused earlier, were once again being revived. Into this growing breach stepped Emperor Sigismund. To encourage Vytautas in his ambitions he suggested the possibility of his coronation as King of Lithuania. This was a dangerous proposal for the union, but it was agreed that all interested parties, including representatives from the church, would meet in Łuck in Volhynia in 1429 to discuss a broad agenda of issues. By the time all were assembled, it was so magnificent a gathering of rulers, princes, prelates, and retinues that the chronicler John Długosz remarked that the ages had not seen such a glorious assembly.75 When Sigismund first proposed the question of the coronation, Jagiełło at first seemed to give his assent. Later the king was convinced by his advisors that it was unwise to let Sigismund interfere in this area, in particular to accept his assertion that he had the right to confer this title with or without the Polish king’s assent.76 Soon after the Naukowe PWN, 2013), 367–373 and 392–396. There is now a much fuller treatment, though focused on Vytautas, by Jarosław Nikodem, Witold Wielki Książę Litewski (1354 lub 1355–27 Października 1430 (Cracow: Avalon, 2013). In English, see Daniel Stone, The PolishLithuanian State, 1386–1795 (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 2001 [A History of East Central Europe 4]), 3–21, especially 10–11; and the masterful analysis of Robert Frost, The Oxford History of Poland-Lithuania, vol. 1: The Making of the PolishLithuanian Union, 1385–1569 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 47–91 especially, for developments into the 1390s. 74  Nikodem, “Zbigniew Oleśnicki wobec unii Polsko-Litewskiej do śmierci Jagiełły,” Nasza Przeszłość 91 (1999): 101–151, has treated the bishop’s policy and attitude in this period and suggests that the attribution to him of an aggressive “incorporationist” policy is an exaggeration; for developments in 1429, see 122–129. 75  Długosz, Annales, 8, 248 (Liber undecimus 1413–1430, sub anno 1429): “Convencionem tam magnificam et tam illustrium trium principum etas longa neque vidit neque visura est, utpote qui illa tempestate omnes reges et principes mundi fama, diviciis, pompa, gloria belli anteibant.” 76  This assertion is explicitly attributed to Sigismund by Długosz, Annales, 8, 252 (Liber undecimus 1413–1430, sub anno 1429): “Adhibere tuum consensum velis et fave et permitte, ut tam mihi quam tibi per me, qui nunc hanc potestatem velut Romanorum rex habeo, creatus in novum regem par fiat, nec solum caput sum, sed et patriam tuam Lithuaniam

The University In The National Life Of Poland

247

c­ onference at Łuck, Vytautas decided to accept the crown offered to him, and to forestall this Jagiełło and his advisors attempted to show that the emperor had no right to take such an action.77 They relied upon the university to formulate their arguments. To the law faculty fell the responsibility of preparing a statement of the royal position. During the course of 1429 they completed their work, and it formed the basis for a protest against Sigismund’s intentions which was registered in April 1430 by Polish representatives at the imperial Diet in Nuremberg.78 In form, the fruit of their labors was a consilium signed by the following professors: Stanisław of Skarbimierz, James Zaborowski, Thomas of Chroberz, Adam of Bandków, and John Elgot.79 They denied Sigismund’s right to crown Vytautas on two accounts. Their first point of departure was to ask whether the King of the Romans, not yet crowned Emperor (Sigismund’s status at that point, though he is not directly referred to in this document), might himself bestow a crown upon someone. In answering this they distinguished between royal jurisdiction and the authority of the imperial dignity. The King of the Romans possessed the first, but not the second. In support of this they argued that the electus must subsequently be approved and crowned by the pope. Until this took place he is not truly emperor. Only the imperial dignity bestows the right tantis decoris admitte ornari.” Sigismund had confronted Jagiełło in his bedchamber, while he was till in bed, to insist that the king agree to Vytautas’ coronation. 77  My narrative of these developments is based upon Gregorz Błaszczyk, Burza koronacyjna. Polska-Litwa 1429–1430. Dramatycznych fragment stosunków polsko-litewskich w XV wieku (Poznan: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, 1998); Nikodem, Witold Wielki Książę Litewski, especially 381–423; and Frost, The Making of the Polish-Lithuanian Union, 131–195 especially. See also the treatment by Krzyżaniakowa and Jerzy Ochmański, Władysław II Jagiełło (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1990), 286–292. 78  The text of this consilium has been edited and analyzed in detail by Stanisław Zachorowski, Studya z historyi prawa kościelniego i polskiego (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1917), 151–201, within the context of other documents touching the proposed coronation of Vytautas (see the author’s comments 187–192). The document is undated, but was clearly completed prior to April 1430. Pieradzka, “Uniwersytet w służbie państwa,” 113, has described it as a reply to consilia on the same issue from the University of Vienna. 79  For information on James, see PSB, 10, 368–369; for Thomas, see Piotr Rabiej, “Uczeni uniwersyteccy w służbie i otoczeniu Zbigniewa Oleśnickiego, Biskupa Krakowskiego,” in Oźóg and Szczur, eds., Polska i jej sąsiedzi, 214–215, and in a slightly revised version of this same article, “Les savants de l’Université au service et dans l’entrourage de Zbigniew Oleśnicki, évéque de Cracovie,” Quaestiones medii aevi novae 8 (2003): 67–103, here 84; Adam, doctor decretorum, is an individual mentioned only in passing by a number of scholars. Stanisław is a major figure treated above and to whose work we shall return below; John is also treated below.

248

CHAPTER 5

to provide someone with a crown, and then only in limited circumstances. They based their positions upon a variety of sources, including the decree Venerabilem of Pope Innocent III, the work of Innocent IV, and the writings of Guillelmus Durandus. When they confronted conflicting opinions, as in the teaching of Huguccio that imperial power is independent of papal power and is derived from election by the people and the princes, or in the decisions of the Diet of Rense sponsored by Lewis the Bavarian in 1338 which affirmed that the king of the Romans already disposes of all imperial powers, they either ignored them or cited other authorities to demonstrate their unreliability. One of the most egregious examples of this is a reference to John Andreas, “who, accord to Paul, is not to be believed because he was a German.”80 Their second point in denying Sigismund’s right was that royal power did not include authority to create kings and crown them; this was something which was reserved only to the pope. In general their arguments followed the so-called “curialist” tradition. This consilium is a very workmanlike document. Its authors were learned and drew upon a wide variety of sources. But it was by no means a dispassionate scholarly treatise. It was serving a particular goal of national policy. It represents an official public statement by one of the faculties of the university upon an issue of this import, and therein lies its significance.81 Vytautus’s death on 27 October 1430 rendered his coronation plans moot, and, indeed, prior to dying, he gave full power in Lithuania into Jagiełło’s hands. Subsequently the king named his younger brother, Švitrigaila (Polish: Świdrygiełło) as the new Grand Duke, though this decision was not to be without difficulties.82

Hussite Issues

Hussite Bohemia was one of the most troubling and intractable phenomena on the European scene in the fifteenth century. It played an important role in both Polish policy and the life of the University of Cracow. The Hussite movement was not John Hus alone. It was a deeply rooted religious reform that both antedated and survived him and over which he had presided for some years. 80  “Et idem tenet Paulus, dicens, nec est dicto Johanni credendum, quia erat Teothonicus. . . .” (190) The Paulus referred to may be Paul Vladimiri. Oźóg, Uczeni, 173, asserts, however, that John Andreas was one of their sources. 81  For a further analysis of this argument, see Błaszczyk, Burza koronacyjna, 101–103. 82  Nikodem, “Zbigniew Oleśnicki wobec unii Polsko-Litewskiej do śmierci Jagiełły,” 129– 142; Frost, The Making of the Polish-Lithuanian Union, 131–157; and, more briefly, Szczur, Historia Polski średniowiecze, 503–505.

The University In The National Life Of Poland

249

But it was even more than that. A sense of anxiety about the very symbols of medieval European civilization was at its core: the leadership and nature of the church, the institutions of political governance, the supranational character of Christendom, and traditional indifference to the reality of social and economic inequity. All of these concerns led to a crisis of confidence which found expression in religious revolt, political upheaval, nationalistic fervor, and social dislocation. From the beginning Poland had been affected to a certain degree by the movement. A large number of Poles who studied at the University of Prague in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century, when John Hus had come to the fore as a leading critic of the late medieval church, had contact with the developing ideas associated with the eventual Hussite movement. Hus himself had expressed an interest in Polish affairs, when, in the aftermath of the battle of Grunwald, he had written Jagiełło to congratulate him on the victory there.83 Subsequently one of his most ardent supporters, Jerome of Prague, had come to Cracow in March 1413 to present his views. A disputation of some kind followed, before Jerome left for Lithuania. Evidence that can be inferred from a later debate suggests that in subsequent years the question of Hus’ teachings continued to be a topic of discussion and debate in the Polish capital. Moreover the similarity between the two native languages had made Hussite thought, with its emphasis upon the vernacular, accessible beyond learned circles. In addition the anti-German element of the movement had appealed to many in a Poland still fresh from the struggle with the Teutonic Knights. Resentment among the lesser nobility and knights over the payment of tithes in Poland further added to the reception accorded reform preaching. Finally, the efforts by Emperor Sigismund who strove vainly to assert his rights to the succession in Bohemia constantly reminded the Poles that in his support of the Teutonic Order he was equally an enemy of theirs. Nevertheless, despite efforts during the era when Marxist scholarship dominated in Poland and efforts were made to show a wide range of Hussite penetration in Poland,84 Paweł Kras has now 83   Cod. Epist., 3, Dodatek, no. 3. 84  For representative examples, see especially the work of Ewa Maleczyńska, Ruch husycki w Czechach i w Polsce (Warsaw: Książka i Wiedza, 1959) and Roman Heck, Tabor a kandydatura jagiellońska w Czechach (1438–1444) (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1964). As a work in support of this historiographical tradition, the selection made by Heck and Maleczyńska, eds., Ruch husycki w Polsce. Wybór tekstów źródłowych (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1963), should also be mentioned. The history of Polish research on the Hussites in Poland is treated by Wojciech Iwańczak, “Polskie badania nad wpływami husyckimi w Polsce,” in Stanisław Bylina and Ryszard Gładkiewicz, eds., Polskie echa Husytyzmy (Warsaw: Instytut Historii PAN, 1999), 20–31, especially, in this context, 25–29.

250

CHAPTER 5

shown that the movement actually had a marginal impact there.85 The Hussite movement was for the most part perceived as a threat by the church in Poland, especially when the monarchy was drawn by political developments into Bohemian affairs. The university, however, with apparently only one important exception remained ambivalent and even hostile to Hus, the Czech reformation, and the Hussite movement.86 We have seen above that as early as 12 August 1416 the university had informed the Council of Constance that it approved of the condemnations of Hus and Jerome of Prague and that it was ready to do battle against heresy.87 Undoubtedly one of the most influential voices shaping university opinion was Stanisław of Skarbimierz, who also in 1416 preached a powerful sermon condemning heresy, specifically that of Wycliffe and Hus.88 In subsequent years he was to preach a number of other, similar sermons.89 It was not long after this (perhaps by the early 1420s) that the phrase condemning Hus was 85  Paweł Kras, Husyci w piętnastowiecznej Polsce (Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1998). More recently, the question of influence has been reopened a bit by the comments of Jerzy Strzelczyk, “Andrzej [Jędrzej, Andreas] Gałka von Dobczyn—ein polnischer Wyclif-Anhänger um die Mitte des 15. Jahrhunderts,” in Joachim Bahlcke, Karen Lambrecht, and Hans-Christian Maner, eds., Konfessionelle Pluralität als Herausforderung. Koexistenz und Konflikt in Spätmittelalter und Früher Neuzeit (Winfried Eberhard zum 65. Geburtstag) (Leipzig: Leipzig University Press, 2006), 71–83, here 80–83. 86  See the comments of Krzyżaniakowa, “Stanowisko polskiej elity intelektualnej wobec Jana Husa i husytyzmu—do roku 1420,” in Bylina and Gładkiewicz, eds., Echa Husytyzmu, 32–61; she defines “intellectual elite” for the most past as those who were connected with the university, and traces both contact with those around Hus and views regarding him and the movement associated with him. For the view of the Polish episcopate, see Jan Drabina, “”Episkopat polski wobec husytyzmu,” in Bylina and Gładkiewicz, eds., Echa Husytyzmu, 62–81. 87  Above, n. 62, citing CDUC, 1, no. 58, 110–113. 88  Chmielowska: Stanisław ze Skarbimierza, Sermones sapientiales, 4 part 3, 297–312: “De haereticis.” “Fugite summopere libellos Viclef et Ioannis Hus in sacris conciliis damnatos.” (302) It is not clear whether this sermon was delivered before or after the letter by the university to the council. Oźóg, Uczeni, 299, n. 723, in discussing this sermon, calls attention to another document that talks about the knight at the court of Vytautas, who in the spring of 1417, defended Hus as a saint, declaring that he had been unjustly condemned and executed. 89  Now edited by Zofia Włodek, with the cooperation of Ryszard Tatarzyński, Scripta manent. Textus ad theologiam spectantes in Universitate Cracoviensi saeculo XV conscripti (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej w Krakowie, 2000 [Studia Res Gestas Facultatis Theologicae Universitatis Jagellonicae illustrantia 12]), 103–162.

The University In The National Life Of Poland

251

inserted into the oath all students swore upon matriculating at the university.90 Hostility to Hussite influence at the university was reinforced after the Council of Constance. Some of Hus’ former colleagues, who had become his bitter critics and even accusers at the council, found it impossible to return to what had become a Hussite university in Prague, and they came instead to Cracow where they joined the faculty. These included Stephen Páleč and Maurycy Rvačka, while another Czech familiar with Hus’ teachings, John Štěkna, was already a faculty member there.91 The first formal contacts between Poland and the Hussites after Hus’ death apparently came in the early 1420s. Among the Czech Utraquists there was a faction which, as an alternative to Sigismund as the successor to King Wenceslaus (Václav) who had died in 1419, wanted Jagiełło to ascend the throne in Bohemia. He was actually offered the crown by a deputation from Prague in the first half of 1420, but, counseled by his advisors and church leaders, he turned it down. When, subsequently, the same offer was made to Grand Duke Vytautas, he agreed to consider the possibility. He even sent a family representative to Bohemia to act in his name, but that individual proved to be an ineffective administrator and undermined Vytautas’ support; he was, moreover, opposed by papal and imperial pressure. The Grand Duke gave up his Czech ambitions some years later.92 While the foregoing political program was being played out, Czech Utraquists attempted to present their views in a public disputation in Cracow.93 A delegation, including Peter Payne, an English follower of Wycliffe and Hus,94 90  Above, Chapter Four, n. 32 and n. 99. 91  Their biographies are treated briefly in Mieczysław Markowski, Dzieje wydziału teologii Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w latach 1397–1525 (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej w Krakowie, 1996 [Studia do dziejów Wydziału Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 2]), 105–107, 108–109, and 122. 92  For a summary of these developments, see Szczur, Historia Polski średniowiecza, 498–501, while a more comprehensive treatment may be found in Jerzy Grygiel, Życie i działalnosc Zygmunta Korybutowicza. Studium z dziejów stosunków polsko-czeskich w pierwszej połowie XV wieku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1988). In English, see Stone, Polish-Lithuanian State, 19–20; Giedrė Mickūnaitė, Making a Great Ruler. Grand Duke Vytautas of Lithuania (Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2006), 48–50; and Frost, Making of the Polish-Lithuanian Union, 136–137. 93  The Czech delegation had come to Poland with the primary mission of offering the Bohemian crown to Jagiełło; see the report in Długosz, Annales, 8, 138–140 (Liber undecimus 1413–1430, sub anno 1420). See the discussion which follows in the text. 94  For Peter, see my “ ‘The Worst Heretic:’ Andrzej Gałka of Dobczyn in the Academic and Ecclesiastical Context of Mid-15th Century Kraków and Poland,” The Polish Review 54

252

CHAPTER 5

sought to argue the merits of the Four Articles of Prague. Their request was rejected by rector James Zaborowski and no formal debate took place. Indeed Stephen Páleč apparently provided the rector with a position paper supporting the idea that a discussion of communion in both kinds, which was central to the Utraquist position and included in the Four Articles, could not be held since it was contrary to current church teaching. At the same time he prepared a treatise, Tractatus contra quattuor articulos Hussitarum, that articulated the full range of Cracovian opposition to Hussite principles.95 The Czech delegation would obviously have been disappointed in being thus rebuffed, feeling that they had come to inform but found that the Poles had anticipated they had come to be informed.96 It was to be a decade before the university was involved directly with the Hussites again.97 In the meantime, much had changed. The Hussites were at (2009): 14, n. 41. Peter’s theological influence in Bohemia is explored in some depth by Marcella K. Perett, “A Neglected Eucharistic Controversy: The Afterlife of John Wyclif’s Eucharistic Thought in Bohemia in the Early Fifteenth Century,” Church History 84 (2015): 64–89. 95  The details surrounding this proposed debate have been analyzed by Markowski, “Stanowisko Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego wobec petycji husyckiej z 1421 roku,” Materiały 4 (1965): 354–360. The foregoing text corrects my treatment in “The Worst Heretic,” 12. In his article, Markowski prints the text of the Responsiva Rectoris Universitatis Cracoviensis,” which includes the explanation “quod ipsorum doctrina insana, frivola, seducciosa, temeraria, piarum aurium offensiva est et tamquam heretica condempnata etc.” 96  See the text included in Maleczyński, Ruch husycki, 407, n. 104 (citing MS Cracow BJ 1628, f. 29: “Qui expresse ostendunt in Cracovia . . . dum informationem impellentes quam ficte prestolantes dixerunt verba in publica audiencia, quod non venimus informari sed informare et hoc idem facto iam pratticant et omnes quottuor articulos cum allegationibus male intellectis pro intentione illorum articulorum.” 97  In other ways, however, members of the faculty participated in efforts of the larger Polish church and the monarchy to address problems associated with Hussite issues; see the treatment of Oźóg, Uczeni, 300–305. See also Kras, Husyci, 212–221. The university was also touched by efforts to control orthodox belief when the episcopal inquisitor in Cracow brought suit against Henry Czech of Prague, who may have been a Cracovian master but who was certainly an astrologer closely connected with the royal court. In the second of two processes, Stanisław of Skarbimierz was involved. For these matters, see Kras, Husyci, 277–278; and Oźóg, Uczeni, 303–304. The basic information comes from Kowalczyk, “Przyczynki do biografii Henryka Czecha i Marcina Króla z Żurawicy,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 21 (1971): 87–89. The treatment of Benedek Láng, Unlocked Books. Manuscripts of Learned Magic in the Medieval Libraries of Central Europe (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008), 214–223, emphasizes elements of magic in the charges again Henry, though he recognizes the possible Hussite sympathies which also played a part in this suit.

The University In The National Life Of Poland

253

the peak of their political and military power, raiding widely throughout east central Europe. In Poland an anti-Hussite reaction had been consolidated, and the Polish church had gone far toward suppressing its influence by a series of firm synodal decrees combined with aggressive implementation. Thus the situation was tense when a Taborite and Utraquist delegation arrived in Cracow early in the spring of 1431 for a debate.98 Although they came under a safeconduct from Jagiełło, whom the papacy had previously given permission to undertake efforts to return the Hussites to communion with Rome,99 Bishop Oleśnicki refused to let them take quarters in Cracow proper, and they stayed instead in the separate city of Kazimierz. On 19 March, in the presence of the king and various prelates and nobles, representatives of both sides assembled in the royal castle on Wawel hill in the “great walled hall” (in stuba magna murata) overlooking Kanonicza street.100 The Czech representatives included 98  Apparently prior to this disputation, there had been (ca. 1430 according to Zofia Włodek) a debate in the theological faculty about the nature of papal power in the church which engaged quite directly Hus’ position on the church. The participants may have included Thomas Strzempiński, eventually an important member of the theology faculty, and Martin of Holešov, a Czech immigrant and adversary of Hus. In the text that emerged from the debate, there are long quotations from the writings of Stanislav of Znoyma and Stephen Páleč, both vigorously anti-Hus. There appears to have been no Hussite representatives who participated in this debate. The text resulting from this debate has now been edited by Włodek, Scripta manent, 163–225, and further analyzed by her in “Eklezjologia krakowska w pierwszej połowie XV wieku,” in Adam Kubiś, ed., Jubileusz Sześćsetlecia Wydziału Teologicznego w Krakowie 20 X 1996–20 X 1997, 247–282. (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 1998 [Studia do dziejów Wydział Teo­ logicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 10]), 247–282, here 258–271, reprinted in her, Z dziejów filozofii i teologii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku. Sylwetki, teksty, studia (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2011 [Historia et Monumenta Universitatis Jagellonicae 2]), 383–418, here 394–409. I do not discuss this determinatio further, either in this chapter or below in Chapter Nine. Oźóg, Uczeni, makes no mention of this debate in his discussion (299–308) of the role played by Cracovian intellectuals in support of royal (and church) policy against the Hussites, but in his The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe in the Middle Ages (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2009 [Krakow Historical Monographs 1]), 106, incorrectly—I believe—sets this event “soon after [the visit of Jerome of Prague], in 1414 or 1415.” 99  On this point, see the comments by Długosz, Annales, 8, 262–263 (Liber undecimus 1413– 1430, sub anno 1429); and Oźóg, Uczeni, 305. 100  Our information on this disputation is derived from Długosz, Annales, 9, 18–20 (Liber undecimus et duodecimus 1431–1444, sub anno 1431); from manuscript materials discussed in the following note, and from the letter by Jagiełło to Emperor Sigismund in Franz Palacký, ed., Urkundliche Beiträge zur Geschichte des Hussitenkrieges, 2 vols. (Prague: B.F. Temský, 1873), 2, no. 734. Długosz reports the remarkable presence of Stanisław of

254

CHAPTER 5

Prokop the Great, Bědřich of Stražnica, and Peter Payne; the Polish professors included Nicholas Kozłowski, Andrew Kokorzyński, Francis of Brzeg, John Elgot, Benedict Hesse, James of Paradyż, and Elias of Wąwelnica (leading faculty members of the university whom we shall discuss in more detail in later chapters). Over a several day period, the discussion, which according to Długosz, was carried on largely in Polish, dealt with the question of the Four Articles of Prague and with the closely related question of the nature of the church, with the Czechs maintaining a firm line of argument rooted in Hus’ De ecclesia and the Poles reflecting strongly normative views. While there was a basis for some accord on this issue (though we know little of the details), a second point of great discussion was the issue of communion in both kinds, and here there was no agreement.101 According to Długosz, the Hussites were unable to overcome the arguments of the Polish doctors; we may further suppose that neither side was able to sway the other. Following the end of the debate, Jagiełło addressed the assembled participants and observers, calling upon the Hussites to seek union with the church and with Rome, while at the same time reciting the misfortunes that had come upon the kingdom of Bohemia, the church there, and the University of Prague as the result of religious strife and discord. With the disputation ending inconclusively, the issues discussed in it were to be taken up again only in the broader context of the next great church council, that of Basle.102

Poland, the University and the Council of Basle

In the year following the Cracow debate, there were developments which drew Poland, its church, and the university more surely into the issues surrounding the Council of Basle. In the events which ensued, the university faculty found itself at times leading the Polish church and the larger society toward a distinctive vision of reform and renewal. At other times it ran counter to ecclesiastical Skarbimierz in the Polish delegation, but this is unlikely. Despite his undying influence upon the studium, Stanisław himself had been dead for some months! 101  The substance of the disputation, to the extent that it can be learned, has been analyzed by Rechowicz, Św. Jan Kanty i Benedykt Hesse w świetle krakowskiej kompilacji teologicznej z XV wieku (Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1958), 153–154. 102  A good overview in English of the university’s relations with the Hussites is provided by Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe in the Middle Ages (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2009 [Krakow Historical Monographs 1]), 106–110.

The University In The National Life Of Poland

255

and royal policy. The following pages trace this dimension of the university’s participation in the national life. In accord with the decree Frequens from the Council of Constance and in the face of pressure of opinion within the church, Pope Martin V grudgingly called for the convention of a new council. He died, however, early in 1431, leaving the question of the council to his successor Eugene IV, who was as hostile to the idea of a council as his predecessor. Nevertheless the Council of Basle opened in July 1431 with a loosely structured agenda for continued reform within the church, the establishment of peace within Europe, and the settlement of the Hussite question.103 Poland’s attitude toward the council was ambiguous from the start. Both the king and Oleśnicki originally supported the pope because of the help he provided against the Teutonic Order104 and both were at first suspicious of the council because (particularly after Eugene tried to move it to Bologna in 1431) its primary promoter and supporter was their enemy Sigismund. There was, however, considerable support for the council within the kingdom, especially at the university, and Oleśnicki was gradually brought over to the side of Basle because he saw in it real hope for reform in the church. Late in 1431 Cardinal Guiliano Cesarini, whom Eugene had designated as the council’s president, sent a special invitation to the Polish hierarchy urging them to send delegates. Oleśnicki’s response to the council reviewed in depth all the political and ecclesiastical problems of Poland: the alliance of the Teutonic Knights with Švitrigaila (Świdrygiełło) against Poland, the Hussite threat, issues with schismatics, threats from the Tatars and Turks, and so forth. He indicated that a delegation had been chosen (three abbots, three doctors of theology, two doctors of canon law, and others), but before they would be sent

103  There is a very substantial literature on the Council of Basle. Along with Gill, Constance et Bâle-Florence, 119–209, see Joachim W. Stieber, Pope Eugenius IV, the Council of Basel and the Secular and Ecclesiastical Authorities in the Empire. The Conflict over Supreme Authority and Power in the Church (Leiden: Brill, 1978); Helmrath, Das Basler Konzil; and Black “Popes and Councils, in Allmand, ed., The New Cambridge Medieval History, 7, 70–75, 80–84. Gill’s treatment of the Council of Florence (Constance et Bâle-Florence, 213–299) essentially reprises his The Council of Florence (Cambridge [not Oxford, as he lists it in his bibliography to Constance et Bâle-Florence, 394]: Cambridge University Press, 1959). 104  In early 1432 Eugene promised Jagiełło support against the Knights and allowed him to raise money among the Polish clergy for the war under the pretext of a crusade against the Tatars. In return the king promised to send no embassy to Basle, to support the pope in his efforts to move the council, and to establish close ties with Venice, which supported Eugene in his policy of delaying the coronation of Sigismund (Cod. epist., 2, no. 209).

256

CHAPTER 5

he needed guidance and information on a number of matters.105 This cautious attitude came, in part, from reservations that Jagiełło himself had about the council. Only gradually, in subsequent months were Polish positions clarified. A conciliar delegation to Poland in 1433 urged the king to bring the issues noted by Oleśnicki before the assembly at Basle for discussion and mediation. Jagiełło’s response was guarded. Addressing himself to “the congregation which is called by its representatives the Holy Council of Basle,” he indicated his willingness to establish peace with the Knights, so long as it was “with honor” and provided for indemnities and the return of conquered Polish territories. The question of adhesion to the council required further discussions with his advisors. It was important, however, that a schism between pope and council be avoided, and Jagiełło emphasized that as a Christian prince he would do all in his power to prevent this.106 Eventually the concerns of the king and the hierarchy were sufficiently satisfied that it was agreed to send a Polish delegation to the council. Originally intended to include Oleśnicki and the royal chancellor John Koniecpolski (they eventually remained in Poland because of the death of Jagiełło 31 May 1434), Polish delegates traveled to Basle and were incorporated as members of the council. These included Dziersław of Borzymów, professor canon law and rector of the university in 1431, who attended as a royal representative; Thomas Strzempiński, doctor decretorum and rector in 1432 and 1433, representing the Archbishop of Gniezno; and Nicholas Kozłowski, a noted preacher and later dean of the theology faculty, representing Oleśnicki. The delegation eventually included, among others, Bishop Stanisław Ciołek of Poznań, Nicholas Lasocki, sometime professor at Cracow, both of whom were notably influenced by the humanist movement, and John Lutek of Brzeź, eventually Bishop of Cracow. By the end of Jagiełło’s reign, then, Poland was fully engaged at Basle.107

105   Cod. epist., 2, no. 204. 106   Cod. epist., 2, no. 214: “congregacionen, quam ipsi nuncii (Basileenses) sacrosanctum concilium Basiliense appellant;” “. . . cum suo et corone suo honore . . .” 107  The tortuous course of early Polish policy to the council is traced by Ludwig Grossé, Stosunki Polski z soborem Bazyleiskim (Warsaw: Gebethner and Wolff, 1885), 23–42; and Teofil Żegarski, Polen und das Basler Konzil (Poznań: Praca, 1910), 11–29. Their accounts, however, are not without errors and weaknesses and should be complemented by Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen, 93–122, especially 115–117, and Oźóg, Uczeni, 244–248. The rather broad role played at Basle by Thomas Strzempiński (which included advice on calendar reform) is treated by Teofil Wojciechowski, “Działalność soborowa (bazylejska) Tomasza Strzempińskiego,” Prace Historyczno-Archiwalne 11 (2002): 5–22. For the total number of Polish delegates incorporated at Basle, compare Dean Loy Bilderback, “The

The University In The National Life Of Poland

257

Not all the Poles at the council were involved officially in the work there. For example, three faculty members, each of them former or future rectors, John Puszka, Nicholas Morsztyn Spicymirz, and Stanisław Sobniowski, were present pro fovendis alienis litibus and the university later wrote them demanding they return to their duties in the studium.108 But on the whole the Polish delegation was active in the affairs of the council. That this was recognized by the university is shown by the prayers Cracow professor Nicholas Tempelfeld requested in a sermon for the whole Basle congregation and “the doctors and masters of our kingdom who are working there for the common good.”109 Nicholas Lasocki was one of the most effective. It was he who informed the council in 1434 of the death of Jagiełło, who later that year attacked the Teutonic Order and defended the memory of Jagiełło as a Christian prince, and who was in that same year included in the conciliar delegation to the Congress of Arras whch tried to arrange peace between France and England.110 Lasocki was a fervent, but by no means radical, conciliarist, who broke with the council after the deposition of Eugene. In papal eyes, however, his earlier incorporation at Basle fatally compromised him, and despite support from the king, Pope Nicholas V refused to appoint him as Bishop of Poznań.111 Membership of the Council of Basle” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 1966), 203 and 222, with Helmrath, Das Basler Konzil, 267. 108  See Morawski, Historya, 1, 338, n. 3. 109  “Et signanter venerabilem patrum, doctorum et magistrorum a regno nostro pro communi bono ibi laborancium . . .” His sermon was delivered upon the death of John de Saccis of Pavia and is partially printed by Morawski, Historya, 1, 238. 110  For the first two elements, see two articles by Karolina Grodziska, “Mikołaja Lasockiego pochwała Władysława Jagiełły i królowej Jadwigi na soborze bazylejskim,” Analecta Cracoviensia 20 (1988): 381–399, and “Mikołaja Lasockiego obrona pamięci króla Władysława Jagiełły na soborze bazylejskim,” in Waldemar Bukowski, et al., eds., Cracovia—Polonia—Europa. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane Jerzemu Wyrozumskiemu w sześćdziesiątą piątą rocznicę urodzin i czterdziestolecie pracy naukowej (Cracow: Secesja, 1995), 345–350, with text edition 351–353; for the second, Zygmunt Lasocki, Un diplomate polonaise. Nicolas Lasocki, member de la delegation polonaise au concile de Bâle au congrès d’Arras en 1435 (Paris: Societé Générale d’Imprimerie et d’Editions, 1928), and, more recently, Grodziska, “Mikołaja Lasockiego apel o pokój na kongresie w Arras w 1435 r.,” Studia Historyczne 35 (1992): 241–251. 111  Ironically, some years later when Nicholas tried to appoint him Bishop of Wrocławek he was then opposed by the king. For these developments, see Jadwiga Kozicka, “Mikołaj Lasocki,” Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 4 (15) (1971): 41–71, especially 44–49 for his biography. A more current biographical treatment is in Grodziska, “Mikołaj Lasocki (zm. 1450). Życie i twórczość” (Unpublished Ph.D., University of Cracow, 1988), which I have not seen. There is some disagreement between Wünsch, Konziliarismus

258

CHAPTER 5

Nicholas Kozłowski, professor of theology, former rector, and renowned preacher, was also active at Basle. When the council solemnly commemorated the death of Jagiełło in July 1434, he delivered a moving eulogy upon the king, full of citations from Seneca and the church fathers and emphasizing the king’s role as renovator of the Cracow studium and defender of the faith in east central Europe. According to him there had not been, since apostolic times, any prince, whether spiritual or secular, who had led so many to the Christian faith.112 Dziersław of Borzymów also played an important role, both as member and as diplomat for the council, and we fortunately possess some contemporary details about his personality. He had a cutting wit and a lively and open manner. Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini tells us that he was “a Pole by race, pleasant and learned in conversation,” and has left us a humorous anecdote about him. (It may or may not be true, for Aeneas had no love for the Poles and was talented enough to embellish, if not even manufacture, a good caricature.) Aeneas tells us that Dersław was a member of the conclave which eventually elected Felix V. The Polish professor tried on one occasion to slip more than the single kind of meat allowed into the conclave. When his fat duck was confiscated by the chamberlain, he objected. He was told that the same restrictions applied to all, even the president of the council, Cardinal Louis of France. Dersław objected: What, are you comparing me with the cardinal, a Frenchman, austere and without a stomach, or to speak more accurately not a human being at all? As ill luck would have it I have been put beside him, and the transparent screen reveals to me all that he does. Up to now I have never seen him drinking or eating, and, what is more irksome to me, he spends his nights and days without sleep, though in fact we have no day! He is always either reading or doing business. He bothers less about his stomach than anything. I have nothing in common with him. I am a Pole, he a Frenchman. My stomach is hot, his is cold. Hunger is health for him, death for me. If I do not eat a lot and sleep a lot, it will soon be the end of me. He, however, has all he wants. Let the French fast and the Poles eat.113 und Polen, 75 and n. 169, and Kozicka, “Mikołaj Lasocki,” 45, as to the degree of Lasocki’s commitment to conciliarism. 112  The sermon in Cod. epist., 2, no. 221; Oźóg, Uczeni, 288–290., provides an excellent analysis. For his life and literary productivity, see Markowski, “Mikołaj z Kozłowa,” Materiały 5 (1965): 76–141, especially 80–95: and, more briefly, LTCP / SPTK, 2, 384–386. 113  Aeneas Sylvius Piccolominus, De gestis concilii Basiliensis Commentariorum, Libri II, Denys Hay and W.K. Smith, eds. and transl. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967), 214, 234–236.

The University In The National Life Of Poland

259

The mention of the conclave in this anecdote reveals the reality that relations between the council and the pope had completely broken down. The pope had transferred the council first to Ferrara, then to Florence. Many had followed him there, and others from throughout Europe had joined, including the young master from Cracow, Sędziwój of Czechel.114 When those who remained in Basle declared Eugene contumacious, deposed him, and elected a successor, they embarked upon a path which led to schism and looming failure for the conciliar movement. At the moment their support remained strong, but some states, Poland included, and ecclesiastical hierarchies in Europe adopted a position of neutrality between Basle and Eugene. The fathers at Basle now had to seek allegiance for themselves and their creature Felix from these neutral states and institutions. Poland and the University of Cracow were among those crucial to their hopes. In 1439 Eugene elevated Zbigniew Oleśnicki to the dignity he had so long desired by naming him a cardinal. For the bishop to accept this, however, would have meant repudiation of the neutrality which Poland had carefully pursued in the last years and at the same time would have damaged the best interests of what the bishop increasingly considered to be the universal church, assembled at Basle. To a later pope he was eventually to write (under changed circumstances) that the king had forbidden him to accept the h ­ onor.115 To the Council of Basle he eventually wrote to inform its members that he was turning down the papal nomination, discussing his reasons for doing so.116 This encouraged Basle to believe that it might yet win Poland to recognize Felix. As a consequence, the newly elected conciliar pope sent a legate to Jagiełło’s son and successor, Władysław, in May 1440 to inform him of his elevation and to ask for his allegiance. Władysław, by this time ruler of both Poland and Hungary, responded equivocally, promising to discuss the issue at a forthcoming diet. The legate then went to Cracow, where he was given a letter from the Archbishop of Gniezno and the rector of the university, John of Dobra, to transmit to the council. Its contents are no longer extant, but its tenor may be 114  Evidence that he was there and that he engaged a learned Greek in a discussion on simony comes from his letter to his friend John Długosz in 1472, printed in Cod. epist., 1, part 2, no. 226. For his activities first at Basle then later at Ferrara, see Jacek Wiesiołowski, “Sędziwój z Czechła (1410–1476). Studium z dziejów kultury umysłowej Wielkopolski,” Studia Źródłoznawcze 9 (1964): 85. 115   Cod. epist., 1, part 2, no. 14, dated 6 July 1447. By this time Oleśnicki was attempting to return to papal obedience and wanted the cardinal’s hat that he had been unable to accept earlier; see below, n. 131. 116   Bullarium Poloniae, Irena Sułkowska-Kuraś and Stanisław Kuraś, eds., 7 vols. (to 1471) (Rome: É cole Française de Rome and Lublin: Instytut Historii Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski, 1982–2006), 5, no. 1554.

260

CHAPTER 5

judged from the address: Sanctissimo domino nostro Felici in summum pontificem sacrosanctae generalis synodi Basiliensis auctoritate electo.117 These events encouraged the legate, and he returned to Basle to inform the council optimistically that Poland might yet be won to official adherence to Felix. Prior to his return, however, news reached the council of the meeting of the Diet, at which it had been decided to maintain the existing neutral position.118 Despite this setback the council decided on 21 September to send another embassy to Poland. Three members were chosen: Marco Bonfili, a Spanish theologian, who later became a matriculant (probably an honorary one) at the University of Cracow, Dziersław of Borzymów, and Stanisław Sobniowski, the last two being the only Poles remaining at the council, since other representatives had gradually returned home in previous years. Stanisław had matriculated at Cracow in 1403 and was promoted to master in arts in 1411. The rest of his university career had been spent teaching in arts, and in 1417 one of his students had been Prince Alexander of Mazovia, who was later to be rector and eventually Bishop of Trent. Stanisław had followed him to Italy, serving as his chaplain and advisor and working closely with him at the council. When Alexander had been named legatus a latere for Poland, Bohemia, Austria, and Hungary earlier in 1440, he had suggested that his former teacher would be effective in courting the king and the university.119 The delegation traveled separately to Poland. Dziersław went directly to Cracow; Marco and Stanisław went first to Poznań, where the bishop informed them he would support the council to the best of his ability.120 Then the two went to Gniezno where they informed Archbishop Vincent Kot that Felix had named both him and Oleśnicki as cardinals. Recognizing that the Bishop of Cracow was de facto the leading churchman in Poland, Vincent deferred acceptance of this honor until he had discussed it, and the question of the Polish 117  So Fijałek, Mistrz Jakób, 1, 169. 118  The actual maneuverings of Oleśnicki, the complex workings and dynamics of the Polish episcopate, and the political position of the Polish monarchy in the period 1439–1441 are more subtle than the text above indicates. These details have now been carefully studied by Graff, Episkopat monarchii jagiellońskiej w dobie soborów, 237–243, 248–252, and (for Oleśnicki) 262–270. Graff here builds upon his earlier article “Biskup krakowski Zbigniew Oleśnicki wobec schizmy bazylejskiej (1439–1449), in Feliks Kiryk and Zdzisław Noga, eds., Zbigniew Oleśnicki książę kościoła i mąż stanu (Cracow: Secesja, 2006), 195–204, here 195–200 for this period. 119  His career is traced in PSB, 39, 537–540. 120  For subtle qualification in his support, see the comments of Graff, Episkopat monarchii jagiellońskiej w dobie soborów, 279.

The University In The National Life Of Poland

261

church’s adherence to Felix, at a synod with his bishops.121 With these matters accomplished, the representatives journeyed to join Dziersław in Cracow for the most important part of their mission. Their achievement in the Polish capital exceeded their expectations, and the university’s response to their embassy established it as one of the leading voices of conciliarism in Europe. By mid-November the Basle delegation was in Cracow, where they were to remain for several months. Their arrival was the occasion for two welcoming speeches in the Collegium maius which revealed the deep commitment of the university faculty to the council. They were given on behalf of the studium and the city of Cracow by John of Ludzisko, who had only recently returned from Italy to be a faculty member at the university.122 John had been born of peasant background about 1400 and studied at Cracow, where he was promoted to bachelor in arts in 1419 and incepted as a master in arts in 1422. He was interested in astronomy and may have held the Stobner chair for a while.123 Then he went to Italy, where he earned a doctoral degree in medicine at Padua in 1433. He remained in Italy for the next seven years, spending some time as a student of Guarino in Ferrara and some time also in Rome. By the time he returned to Cracow in 1440 he was deeply committed to the studia humaniora, and for the next several years he may have served as the university’s official orator.124 His rhetorical prowess and humanistic interests are particularly revealed in his address to the Basle delegation. John began his first speech by praising, in almost lyrical phrases, the aims of the council to reform the church. Then he discussed many of the problems which cried out for reform: the condition of the clergy, the depraved status of the mendicants, wide-spread corruption affecting local parishes, and the like. The tone is dark and pessimistic and conjures up the wrath of God and his threatened punishment if these conditions were not removed and reformed. It is instructive that his concern was essentially directed to moral issues and 121   Cod. epist., 1, part 2, Dodatek 5. 122  It had been traditional to attribute the first of these two speeches to James of Paradyż; see Fijałek, Mistrz Jakób, 1, 199–210, and after him others, for example Krystyna Pieradzka, “Uniwersytet Krakowski w służbie państwa i wobec soborów w Konstancji i Bazylei,” in Lepszy, Dzieje UJ, 121 (though cautiously). It has now been shown, however, that John of Ludzisko gave both of them: see Jacek Stanisław Bojarski, “Jan z Ludzisko i przypisywane my mowy uniwersyteckie,” St. Med. 14 (1973): 3–85, especially 62–77. 123  See Markowski, “Działalność Jana z Ludziska na polu astronomii w świetle rękopisów Państwowej Biblioteki ZSRR im. W.I. Lenina w Moskwie i Bibliioteki Jagiellońskiej w Krakowie,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 23 (1973): 57–67. 124   P SB, 10, 461–462; and Bojarski, “Jan z Ludziska,” Materiały 8 (1967), 3–24, for biographical details.

262

CHAPTER 5

the question of the quality of spiritual life, rather than to problems of institutional structure and governance. He concluded by affirming the importance of the council, which, he said, had been legitimated by the Holy Spirit, and by praising the new pope.125 Throughout the speech runs a profound concern for the well-being and health of Christendom and a deep commitment to the conciliar movement. After the jeremiad came the soothing charm of the muses: in John’s second address eloquence, humanitas, and the new culture of the renaissance also supported reform and the cause of the council. This speech was a three-fold glorification of the delegates who had come to Cracow, of the council itself, and of Felix. As in the former speech there is here an emphasis upon the importance of reform, but there is also a stress upon the ideals of humanism. There are numerous citations from antique authors and many allusions to Greek and Roman history which John used to illustrate his themes of praise, reform, and eloquence. In concluding, he recommends the adhesion to Felix as a desirable goal in the discussions that were to follow in the academic community.126 During the winter of 1440/1441 the university debated the question of whether to declare its allegiance to the council and to Felix.127 An imponderable factor in this whole matter was the attitude of the chancellor, Oleśnicki, as to whether he would approve or be allowed to approve any such step.128 Nevertheless, the following procedure was adopted:129 a commission of twenty scholars was chosen to decide upon the form of the university response. This 125  This speech is printed by Fijałek, Mistrz Jakób, 1, 210–225 (though with the incorrect attribution to James of Paradyż; see above, n. 122). It has been reedited, with correct attribution, in Ioannis de Ludzisko Orationes, Bojarski, ed. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1971), 89–102. 126  The text is in Ioannis de Ludzisko Orationes, 79–88. 127  Developments regarding Cracow’s support for the conciliar movement (treated in more detail in Chapter Nine, where the treatises prepared by faculty there are analyzed) are reviewed in my “The University of Cracow and the Conciliar Movement,” 201–205, and Drabina, “Konziliarismus an der Krakauer Universität,” 122–128. See also Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen, 93–122. 128  The difficult position the bishop found himself in and the question of what his personal views were are discussed by Graff, Episkopat monarchii jagiellońskiej w dobie soborów, 266–269. 129  I follow here Fijałek, Mistrz Jakób, 1, 288–295, who was the first to untangle the threads of conciliar creation at Cracow in this period. He made effective use of the testimony of Marco Bonfili at Basle, as reported by the quasi-historian of the council, John of Segovia. All earlier works are hopeless confused, with the partial exceptions of Grossé, Stosunki Polski, 86–88, and Morawski, Historya, 1, 357–364 (though even these two go astray at points). Later works, such as Żegarski, Polen und das Basler Konzil, 52–56, and Pieradzka, “Uniwersytet Krakowski w służbie państwa,” 122–123, largely follow Fijałek.

The University In The National Life Of Poland

263

group consisted of ten from the theological faculty (including some who were also lecturing in arts), eight from law, and two from medicine. We have no record of the names of any of these professors, but it is probable that this commission included all those who were later involved in the treatises mentioned below. The conclusion of this commission was that all who wished might pre­ sent formal arguments on the question of the council. Once this decision had been made, a second group of six was chosen to review individual writings on this issue. The was composed of either three lawyers and three theologians, or, more probably, two and four respectively. One of the works presented to them was prepared by a theologian, Laurence of Racibórz; the second, by the canonist John Elgot. Neither of these proved to be acceptable to this group, and Thomas Strzempiński, who was both a doctor of canon law and a student in theology (he was eventually promoted to doctor in 1443), was selected to review all of the treatises which had been written and to prepare one of his own for university approval. In addition to the aforementioned two, he also made use of one by Benedict Hesse of Cracow and one by James of Paradyż, both of which had apparently been prepared independently of the process described above but which stood in the same conciliar spirit. By late spring 1441 Strzempiński’s treatise had been accepted. This work was dedicated to Bishop Oleśnicki, approved by the faculty, and sent with Bonfili to Basle. The council eventually adopted it as its official response in 1441 to Eugene’s bull Etsi non dubitemus.130 Despite, or perhaps because of, its derivative character, Strzempiński’ treatise is quite properly regarded as a concise handbook of fifteenth century strict conciliarism. Antony Black has gone so far as to term it “the most complete . . . defense of Basle conciliarism ever produced outside 130  Thomas’ treatise was printed in a provisional edition in Wacław Bucikowski, ed., Polskie traktaty koncyliarytyczne z połowie XV wieku (Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1987 [Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia excultae spectantia 23]), 167– 231, and then reedited; see Thomae de Strzempino Determinatio Basiliensis, in Scripta manent. Textus ad theologiam spectantes in Universitate Cracoviensi saeculo XV conscripti. Zofia Włodek, ed. with the cooperation of Ryszard Tatarzyński (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 2000 [Studia do dziejów Wydziału Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 12]), 227–292. The treatise had previously been available only in a fragmentary edition in Monumenta Conciliorum Generalium saeculi XV: Concilium Basiliense. Scriptores, 4 vols., František Palacký, Ernst Birk, et al. (Vienna: Typis C.R. Officinae typographicae aulae et status, 1857–1935), 3, 1153–1195; and in an even older form, based upon an inadequate manuscript, in C. Égasse du Boulay [Bulaeus], Historia Universitatis Parisiensis, 6 vols. (Paris: Parisiis [?], 1665–1673), 5 (1670), 479–517. The content of this, and the other Cracovian conciliar treatises, will be discussed below in Chapter Nine.

264

CHAPTER 5

Basle itself.”131 We shall reserve further discussion of the careers of the authors of these treatises and their contents for Chapter Nine. Although the explicit support of the University of Cracow had been obtained, it remained to be seen whether the rest of the Polish church would also declare for Felix. Here the ambassadors of the council had less success. Within the next months all the bishops (except for Poznań and Wrocław) declared their general support for the council, but did not mention Felix. At a synod in Łęczyca in May 1441, Oleśnicki voted for Basle, but on the question of the pope voted only pro ecclesia universali. The king also maintained an officially neutral position, but the ambassadors did not return empty handed to Basle. In July Bonfili presented a glowing report of all that had been achieved.132 He also reported that Oleśnicki had agreed to send a delegation to the council. When this arrived in October, led by John Elgot, it announced that the bishop had accepted his nomination as cardinal. In January 1442 Elgot formally recognized Felix on behalf of Oleśnicki as vero et unico summo pontifici.133 This seemingly abrupt decision had been long in the making. Oleśnicki was disturbed over Eugene’s slowness to recognize Władysław as king of Hungary; he saw no evidence that the real reform which he so devoutly wished could ever be accomplished by Eugene; the hopes for church union which he supported had proved to be ephemeral; and both the theology and the enthusiasm of the university for the council had affected him. But although his representatives and several members of the studium continued in the next years to be active at Basle, and the University of Paris praised their conciliar stand in 1442,134 all this proved to be a fruitless endeavor. By the mid-1440s the council’s cause was in precipitous decline. Symbolic of this was that Felix had left Basle to live in Lausanne and Oleśnicki had made a successful return to Rome. Throughout Europe, states gave up their official neutrality and returned to obedience to Eugene. It was not to be different in Poland, and between 1447 and 1449 the conciliar tradition came, with some qualification, to an end there. Two deaths were crucial in the resolution of this issue in Poland. King Władysław had perished in the disastrous crusade against the Turks at Varna in 1444 and was succeeded by his younger brother Casimir, who had been Grand Duke of Lithuania since 1440 and now became the ruler of both states in the 131  Antony C. Black, Council and Commune. The Conciliar Movement and the Council of Basle (London: Burns and Oates, 1979), 112. 132   Cod. epist., 3, 956–958. 133   Cod. epist., 2, 282. For the synod of Łęczyca, see Graff, Episkopat monarchii jagiellońskiej w dobie soborów, 248–252; his treatment of the question of the cardinal’s hat, 267–270. 134   C DUC, 2, no. 114, 21–22.

The University In The National Life Of Poland

265

personal Jagellonian union. Pope Eugene, who had failed to bring either peace or union to the church but had defended papal prerogatives against conciliar challenges by determination and stubbornness, succumbed to age and the ills which had long plagued him in March 1447. His successor, Nicholas V, represented a fresh start and was easier to deal with. On 6 July of that year Casimir formally declared Poland’s obedience to Rome, thus ending its official ­neutrality.135 There was some opposition to this among the nobility and clergy, including the university. The studium petitioned the king in vain to delay his decision and maintain the status quo for a year until matters of state and church were clarified.136 But Oleśnicki was not included in this camp. He had already begun to negotiate a graceful return to Rome. On 6 July also, recognizing the tactical importance of not lagging behind his king, he wrote Nicholas to explain his previous policy and to ask for confirmation of Eugene’s earlier nomination of him as cardinal. In this letter, he also requested that he be named legatus a latere and that a papal decree be issued absolving all who had been adherents of Basle and confirming them in their ecclesiastical dignities and benefices.137 Nicholas eventually agreed to these requests, but only after Oleśnicki had sent first Nicholas Lasocki and then John Długosz to Rome to negotiate with the pope. In 1449 these and other political matters were resolved, and on 1 October in a solemn ceremony at Wawel, Długosz presented the bishop with his hat.138 At the same time, Nicholas diplomatically informed the king, the Archbishop of Gniezno (who, this time, was not similarly honored), and the nobles of Great Poland that this dignity for Oleśnicki was in no way a recognition only of Cracow, but was instead a single honor for the whole of Poland.139 Only the University of Cracow now stood in opposition to national and ecclesiastical policy. In 1448 the issues came to a head. Nicholas sent a legate to Poland with (among other responsibilities) the commission to obtain the submission of the studium. When he arrived in June he was warmly greeted by all in the city—except the faculty members, who ostentatiously ignored his 135   Cod. epist., 1, part 2, no. 12–13, no. 17–18. Casimir had earlier been a supporter of the Council of Basle. 136   Cod. epist., 1, part 2, no. 15. 137   Cod. epist., 1, part 2, no. 16; see also his letter of the same day (above, n. 115). 138  See Długosz’s version of these developments in Annales, 10, 78–80 (Liber duodecimus 1445–1461, sub anno 1449). See also Cod. epist., 1, part 2, no. 79. I have treated Długosz’s diplomacy in this matter in my “Jan Długosz, 1480–1980,” The Polish Review 27 (1982): 3–28, here 13–14, reprinted in Charles Kraszewski, ed., Fifty Years of Polish Scholarship: The Polish Review 1956–2006 (New York: PIASA Books, 2006), 259–295, here 272. 139  See these letters in Grossé, Stosunki Polski, Dodatki VI and VII, 188–192.

266

CHAPTER 5

­presence.140 This created a great scandal and brought them much criticism, as they themselves recognized.141 The legate complained to the king, and in response Casimir summoned the professoriate before him and repeatedly demanded that they abandon Basle and recognize Nicholas. They remained obdurate. Then the legate informed the university that it alone of all the studia in Europe remained opposed to Rome; all the others had submitted. The faculty members could not believe this. One can sense their agony in the letters they dispatched as they sought, fearing the worst, to determine the truth of this statement. There is almost a plaintive note as they asked for information and guidance from their fellow academics. On 16 July they wrote to Paris, eleven days later to Vienna, Leipzig, Erfurt, and Cologne, telling of their plight and seeking to determine both the status of the movement and a basis for their own policy.142 They also sent a deputation to Basle to learn first hand the fate of the council. Later that summer the returns from the canvas began to trickle in. Vienna responded on 12 August and counseled submission.143 The remnants of Basle, who had fled to Lausanne, informed them on 26 August of their own desperate negotiations with Rome;144 the faculty of Cologne indicated their own resignation in the face of the inevitable in two letters on 19 September (though their beadle in a separate message vowed to continue the fight and exhorted Cracow to stand firm);145 and Leipzig wrote on 26 September to add its voice to the majority for the recognition of Nicholas.146 Only Erfurt remained loyal for the time being to Felix, and its letter of 3 October did little to resolve the problems whch confronted Cracow.147 Finally Paris spoke. The source of 140  These developments are artfully described by Długosz, Annales, 10, 65 (Liber duodecimus 1445–1461 sub anno 1448). 141   C DUC, 2, no. 136, 75: “magno cum scandalo populi, cum magna etiam infamia nominis nostri.” 142   C DUC, 2, no. 136, 73 to Paris; 2, no. 138, 78 to the others. With respect to the Parisian letter, Astrik Gabriel, “Intellectual Relations between the University of Paris and the University of Cracow in the 15th century,” Studia Źródłoznawcze 25 (1980): 37–63, here 55–57, has discussed it within a larger context of Parisian-Cracovian relations. His primary focus is upon Polish scholars who studied at Paris in this period, in particular Thomas of Cracow and Michael Twarog. 143   C DUC, 2, no. 139, 80. 144   C DUC, 2, no. 140, 81. 145   C DUC, 2, nos. 142 and 143, 86–88 for the university; 2, no. 144, 89 for the beadle. 146   C DUC, 2, no. 145, 93. 147   C DUC, 2, no. 146, 95. Although focused on the German universities and the Council of Basle, both of the following works contain much which is relevant to Cracow; see the

The University In The National Life Of Poland

267

the conciliar movement’s origins six decades before praised the contribution of the Polish university and applauded its service to the church. But in its letter of 3 October (which reach Poland after that from Erfurt) it tactfully suggested that it was hard “to swim against the current” and that Cracow should follow its lead and abandon Basle.148 In this turmoil, Oleśnicki as chancellor did nothing to interfere. In fact he defended the university’s deliberations to the king, for he understood the difficulty of turning away from deeply held convictions.149 The climax had come; the resolution followed more slowly. After having assured himself of a cardinal’s hat, Felix resigned on 7 April 1449. The bedraggled survivors of what had once been the proud assemblage of Christendom, claiming in its reaffirmation of the decree Haec sancta that it truly represented the church,150 dismissed for the last time in Lausanne on 25 April. Not until 3 July did the University of Cracow, as the last supporter of Felix and the council, submit. Only then, in an act of some ambiguity, did it recognize Nicholas, without at the same time renouncing the conciliar theory. It sent its declaration to Długosz in Rome to deliver to the pope.151 Throughout the conciliar period the university had been actively involved in the national life of Poland. At times it had brilliantly and effectively supported royal policy; at other times it had followed its own independent interests and run counter to the king. But this had not irreparably harmed the relationship between them, and although the school’s role was to be less active in the last half of the century, it continued to be of service to, and have an influence upon, the larger society.

older work of Heinrich Bressler, Die Stellung der deutschen Universitäten zum Basler Konzil, zum Schisma und zur deutschen Neutralität (Leipzig: G. Fock, 1885), and the much more current study by Stieber, Pope Eugenius IV and the Council of Basle. 148   C DUC, 2, no. 147, 96. 149  See the comments, in this regard, by Maria Koczerska, Zbigniew Oleśnicki i kościół krakowski w czasach jego pontyfikatu (1423–1455) (Warsaw: DiG, 2004), 453 (in the English summary), 275–278 (Polish text). 150  See the recent analysis of the way Haec sancta was understood at Constance and, in this case, at Basle by Michiel Decaluwé, “Das Dekret Haec sancta und sein gedanklicher Kontext auf dem Konzil von Konstanz und auf dem Konzil von Basel,” Annuarum historiae conciliorum 41 (2009): 313–340, especially 313–316:”Aber was war Eugens Reaktion auf Haec sancta? . . . Erst 1439 und erneut 1441 (in den Bullen Moyses Vir, 9. September 1439, und Etsi non dubitemus, 24. April 1441 [it was this bull that Basle answered by adopted the Cracovian Determinacio of Strzempiński]) wurde die Legitimität des Dekretes Haec sancta angezweifelt.” ( 315) 151   C DUC, 2, no. 160, 118.

268

CHAPTER 5

Other Issues Involving the University

Ecclesiastical Appointments That the ties between the monarch and the studium had not been irrevocably ruptured over the issue of allegiance to Rome rather than Basle is shown by two instances in the 1450s and early 1460s. The first was connected with events following the death of Cracow bishop Thomas Strzempiński. The former three-time rector, professor of both law and theology, and author of the aforementioned conciliarist Determinatio had eventually been named royal vice-chancellor by King Casimir, called the Jagiellonian (in Polish: Kazimierz Jagiellończyk). As a persona grata in royal circles it was not, therefore, surprising that when Bishop Oleśnicki died in 1455, Thomas should have had the support of the king as the next incumbent. His pontificate was short, for he died in 1460, and subsequently the Cracow chapter elected a candidate whom the king opposed, putting forth his own choice. In the ensuing dispute over the succession, Pope Pius II supported his own candidate. As an ecclesiastical institution, it might have been thought that the university would have supported either the choice of the cathedral canons (some of whom were faculty members) or the pope. Instead, their commitment in the matter was to the royal candidate. In a strongly worded appeal to the pope in June 1461, the university argued— unsuccessfully, as it turned out—on behalf of King Casimir’s candidate.152 The Question of Mazovia The faculty was also active on the king’s behalf the following year when one of the Mazovian princes died without heir. The territories of Rawa and Gostynin in Mazovia were claimed by both the king and other members of the Mazovian line. Since there were complex legal issues involved, Casimir turned to those competent in law and history to justify his claims. His Vice-chancellor, John Lutek of Brzeż, who had close associations with the university, turned to his former colleagues and co-workers for counsel and help.153 All had ties with the 152   C DUC, 2, no. 195, 202. Some of the details of this controversy can be followed in Długosz, Annales, 10, 348–350, 351–355, 363–366 (Liber duodecimus, 1445–1461 sub anno 1460 and sub anno 1462). Długosz’s testimony may be biased, for he did not support the king’s choice. Eventually, the king confiscated his benefices and properties, including his house in Cracow (374), and he was forced into quasi-exile for two years. On the controversy over the succession to Strzempiński, see the brief treatment in Szczur, Historia Polski średniowiecza, 581. 153  John was a former student at the university, had studied canon law, participated in various political and ecclesiastical activities (including the Council of Basle and the Synod of Łęczyca in 1441); it was he whom the Cracow chapter had elected bishop in 1460 to

The University In The National Life Of Poland

269

university of one kind or another; some were actively engaged with the institution. Sędziwój of Czechel (born c. 1410) had matriculated at the University of Cracow in 1423, was promoted as a bachelor in 1426, incepted as a master in 1429, then lectured for some years in arts. He left Cracow sometime before 1432, after which he was, with brief interruptions, associated with the church in Gniezno until he entered a monastery in 1458. Until his death in 1476, he maintained close contacts with the university, and the political and cultural circles in which he moved included some of the leading figures of the time. He was an important figure in the burgeoning humanistic movement in Poland, and he was active in political and diplomatic matters.154 When the issue of Mazovia emerged, he was quick to involve himself. Sometime between November 1662 and the middle of January 1463, drawing upon a broad range of sources, he wrote a genealogical-historical treatment of affairs in Mazovia. This valuable historical document, which in the words of one recent scholar, “very strongly emphasizes the connectedness of Mazovia to the Kingdom of Poland,” became an important part of the argument that supported the king’s claims.155 A second individual who was closely involved in preparing material to support Casimir’s efforts to incorporate Mazovia into the corona was John Długosz, who was not formally a member of the university but was nevertheless closely connected with it and its affairs. After having been briefly out of the king’s favor156 he was now willing to buttress the royal case with an effective set of legal-historical arguments. Długosz’s Articuli de incorporatione Mazoviae drew upon the body of historical material he was already assembling in the process of composing his great masterpiece, the Annales. In five short but well sourced points he tried to show that the earliest rulers of Poland had exercised dominion over Mazovia; that during the age of St. Stanisław (martyred 1079) and Boleslaw the Wrymouth in the eleventh century Mazovia had been part of the kingdom; that in the restored kingdom of the late thirteenth and fourteenth century the dukes and kings of that time had controlled the region; that this had continued in the time of Casimir the Great and the rule in Poland s­ ucceed Strzempiński in 1460; he served in the royal chancery from 1455 to 1464, and in that last year finally became Bishop of Cracow. For his biography, see PSB, 10, 443–445. 154  See Wiesiołowski, “Sędziwój z Czechła,” 75–104, and now the entry in PSB, 36, 394–399. 155  See the treatment of this document by Wojciech Drelicharz, Annalistyka Małopolska XIII–XV wieku. Kierunki rozwoju wielkich roczników kompilowanych (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2003), 142 and 410–418; and more fully by Piotr Węcowski, Mazowsze w Koronie. Propaganda i legitymizacja władzy Kazimierza Jagiellończyka na Mazowszu (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2004), 136–142; the quotation in the text is on 137. 156  See above, n. 152. It is not clear whether Długosz had been fully restored to royal favor by this point, or whether this came later.

270

CHAPTER 5

of Louis of Hungary; and, finally, that the authority of the Jagiellonian monarchs of the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries had been equally real over Mazovia. Each of the articles is designed to show the dependent relationship of Mazovia to the kingdom. Długosz’s learning and historical evidence were powerful indeed.157 Another individual who was involved in Mazovian issues, and one who was central to the life of the university, was John of Dąbrówka, multiple-time rector, doctor of decretals and of theology, and vice-chancellor of the studium. John apparently informed king Casimir of his royal rights to Mazovia at a diet held in Piotrków in November 1462.158 His contribution, which may have come at the prompting of the royal court, consisted of a detailed genealogy of Polish dukes and princes. His concern was not so much to legitimate the monarchy and show its rights to the various lands of the kingdom, but rather to show the family relationships between the rulers and the princes of Mazovia. By implication, therefore, it would be understood in the discussion over Mazovia that, in the absence of direct male heirs in Rawa and Gostynin, the ruler’s claims would be stronger than that put forward by other Mazovian princes.159 The final individual involved in the debates over Mazovia who had close associations with the university was James of Szadek, doctor of decretals and future two-time rector of the university (summer and winter 1475). Sometime before the Piotrków diet in 1462 he prepared a short treatise, Causa de Mazoviae ducatus unione. In it he argued that the disputed territory should be incorporated into the kingdom as Casimir the Jagiellonian wished. He begins with a historical background on the districts and its feudal dependency upon the Polish crown. He then proceeds to pose a series of questions and answer them. His crucial point relates to the agreement made by King Casimir the Great with then Duke Siemowit of Mazovia, and he shows to his own satisfaction that this did not absolve the prince’s successors from fulfilling feudal obligations, 157  The Articuli, edited by Wojciech Kętrzyński, are printed in Monumenta Poloniae Historica, August Bielowski, ed., 6 vols. (Lwów and Cracow: Nakładem autora and Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1864–1893), VI (1893), 623–627. For further analysis and commentary, see Węcowski, Mazowsze w koronie, 143–169. 158  This is according to Długosz, Annales, 11, 47–50, especially 48 (Liber duodecimus 1462–1480, sub anno 1462). 159  One version of the genealogy is printed in Monumenta Poloniae Historica, 3 (1878), 281–287. There are actually three such versions, and they are discussed by Drelicharz, Annalistyka małopolska XIII–XV wieku, 134–142, and Węcowski, Mazowsze w Koronie, 198–212, both of whom address technical issues of dating and attribution. As a piece of propaganda, the genealogy is discussed—along with the works of Sędziwój, John of Dąbrówka, and James of Szadek (to be treated in the text below) by Węcowski 259–340, passim.

The University In The National Life Of Poland

271

which ensured that the vassal relationship would continue. As a result of this, in the present circumstances, failing direct male heir, he argued, the territories legally escheat to the crown.160 Collectively all of the arguments, historical and legal, which the foregoing individuals made, proved convincing. These Mazovian territories were incorporated into the regnum, and this came about in significant measure because the resources of the university—its personnel and its learned expertise—were able to serve the monarchy and the larger interests of the Polish state. Diplomacy and Negotiating Peace The Thirteen Years War from 1454 to 1466 also thrust some members of the university faculty into royal and national service, again fulfilling Jagiełło’s expressed hope of 1400 that his new studium would be of service to the kingdom. At the beginning of the war, Casimir accepted the request of the Prussian estates to be incorporated into the Kingdom of Poland, thus freeing them from the rule of the Teutonic Order. The Knights, of course, resisted this, and conflict broke out. In the protracted course of the war, one of Casimir the Jagiellonian’s fundamental goals was to recover the lands that had been conquered by the Order in the fourteenth century. More than that he sought to confirm the incorporation of the remainder of the lands of the Order. This, however, was a policy opposed by Oleśnicki, who in his religious zeal saw the Knights as essentially a religious order and no longer of any danger to Poland. While it is true that they were no longer an instrument of imperial policy and that their ambitions regarding Lithuania had long since been resolved, it is equally true that they continued to constitute a territorial threat. Moreover, they controlled the economy of the lower Vistula, which vitally affected Poland’s own economy and access to the Baltic through Danzig (Gdańsk). When bishop Oleśnicki died in 1455, an impediment to Casimir’s policy was removed, and he was able to exploit the internal dissentions within Prussia. The war dragged on for over a decade before a series of crucial military and diplomatic successes brought eventual victory in the Second Peace of Toruń in 1466. The lands of the Order were partitioned into two provinces. The western lands, including Danzig, were incorporated into the Polish crown and became known as Royal Prussia. The eastern 160  James’ treatise is unpublished, and I follow here the treatment and analysis of Węcowski, Mazowsze w Koronie, 213–221, who cites extensive from the manuscript, Cracow BJ 1757, ff. 157–163. For James’ biography, see PSB, 10, 368. The larger topic of the feudal status of Mazovia from the time of Casimir the Great to the end of the Mazovian line was systematically studied, in an early work, by Maleczyńska, Książęce lenno mazowieckie, 1351–1526 (Lwów: Nakład Towarzystwa Naukowego, 1929).

272

CHAPTER 5

lands, with the city of Königsberg, remained under the rule of the Order but the Grand Master was subject to the Polish king as a vassal. Eventually, in the sixteenth century when the lands of the Order were secularized and the Duchy of Prussia was created, this province became known as Ducal Prussia.161 In the discussions leading up to the final peace, Casimir used Cracow professors as ambassadors and negotiators. In 1463 John of Dąbrówka and James of Szadek, among others, were sent to Brześć in Kujavia to negotiate on the king’s behalf.162 In July of the next year James, John, and John Długosz were members of the Polish delegation, with the former presenting fifteen specific claims to the territories of Pomorze, Chełmno, and Michałowo.163 Further dealings at Nerynd in August 1465 over the terms of the peace treaty were also given over into the hands of James and Długosz164 and at the final ceremonies in Toruń the next year both of these men were included in the Polish delegation which attended.165 In these negotiations James was by no means the only one responsible for royal policy; he was merely one of several Polish diplomats who pursued Casimir’s interests.166 It is significant, however, that the king thought it useful to include an academic lawyer among his representatives, and that the 161   The standard full and scholarly treatment of the Thirteen Years War is Biskup, Trzynastoletnia wojna z Zakonem Krzyżackim 1454–1466 (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Ministertwa Obrony Narodowego, 1967). For brief treatments in English, see Urban, The Teutonic Knights, 235–248; Stone, The Polish-Lithuanian State, 28–30; and Frost, Making of the Polish-Lithuanian Union, 222–230. 162  Długosz, Annales, 11, 61–63 (Liber duodecimus 1462–1480, sub anno 1463). 163  Długosz, Annales, 11, 83–88 (Liber duodecimus 1462–1480, sub anno 1464). What was presented by the learned members of the Polish delegation has come to be known as The Toruń Memorial. It has recently been analyzed in the context of how historical legend can be utilized as a weapon in diplomacy by Paul Radzilowski, “Poland Never Defeated: The Diplomatic Uses of Legend in the 15th Century,” The Polish Review 51 (2006): 173–187, here 175–179 for the Memorial itself. Further to this topic, see Radzilowski, “Binding the New Together with the Old: Fifteenth Century Writers on the Origins of the Polish State and People in the Face of Earlier Tradition” (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California, 2000), 305–307. 164  Długosz, Annales, 11, 111–116 (Liber duodecimus 1462–1480, sub anno 1465). 165  Długosz, Annales, 11, 152–153 (Liber duodecimus 1462–1480, sub anno 1466). 166  The Polish delegation was dominated by formal royal representatives (such as earlier by John Lutek of Brzeż when he had been Casimir’s Vice-Chancellor) and by the clerical hierarchy. To balance the picture presented in the text, it is important to note the activities of these groups. See Graff, Kościół w Polsce wobec konflilktu z Zakonem Krzyżackim, 73–97 for the war as a whole and the peace treaty, 89–94 for the last negotiations. The formal diplomatic details are treated most effectively in Biskup, ed., Historia dyplomacji polskiej, vol. 1 (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe., 1980), 460–468.

The University In The National Life Of Poland

273

historical expertise of Długosz as a part of the extended academic community was deemed important. In the last third of the century there was very little direct participation of the university faculty in royal policy. Peter Gaszowiec, royal physician, member of the city council in Cracow, professor of medicine, and three time rector, accompanied the king’s son to Prague in 1471 to participate in discussions touching the Jagiellonian succession in Bohemia. John Wells of Poznań, another professor of medicine, served Casimir in diplomatic negotiations and represented the interests of two of his sons, Władysław and Sigismund. One may also see similar activity in 1494 in the decision of rector John Sacranus, with the approval of chancellor Fryderyk the Jagiellonian, to send the renowned teacher and astronomer Adalbert (Wojciech) of Brudzewo to Lithuania “to serve our most illustrious prince, the Grand Duke of Lithuania.”167 There are several explanations which help account for the different levels of direct participation by the faculty in affairs of state in the earlier and later parts of the century. One is that Casimir the Jagiellonian and his sons essentially ignored the university, and we have earlier seen what effect this had upon dynastic benefactions to the studium. In political matters the kings in general chose to rely upon their own officials and personnel outside the formal university environment, even though they may have had some university training.168 Another reason may be that Casimir had, since the death of Oleśnicki, sought to assert his personal authority and wrest political initiative from the Little Poland nobility that had dominated his father and older brother.169 In doing so he may have seen the university as part of this same Little Poland dominance which he was trying to overcome. Whatever the cause, the professoriate was allowed in the second half of the century to live its own academic and institutional life largely untouched by the immediate political concerns of the Jagiellonians.

167   Conclusiones, 78: “. . . ad serviendum illustrissimo principi Magno Duci Lithwanie . . .” See also Garbacik, “Ognisko nauki kultury Renesansowej (1470–1520),” in Lepszy, Dzieje UJ, 218 for the other examples. 168  See the observation of Garbacik, “Ognisko nauki kultury,” 219: “at the turn of the 15th century great policy was now carried out by people utilized by the dynasty from outside the university.” 169  In her recent study, Natalia Nowakowska, Church, State and Dynasty in Renaissance Poland. The Career of Cardinal Fryderyk Jagiellon (1468–1503) (Aldershot, England and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007), 24–28, shows the steps Casimir took to break the Oleśnicki influence (including that of the cardinal’s nephew, also Zbigniew Oleśnicki, who—she suggests—was eventually brought round to the Jagiellonian project.

274

CHAPTER 5

On the other hand, however, there simply was less need to draw upon the expertise of individual faculty members, for their skills were increasingly shared by the individuals whom Casimir and his sons employed in the national administration. We shall see below the extent to which the Polish government, particularly at middle levels of the bureaucracy, was staffed by university trained personnel. Here it need simply be noted that to the extent the state drew upon the professional training provided by Cracow, the school continued to fulfill its mandate of service. This is reflected in two final topics to be discussed in this chapter: the share which the university had in the development of the Polish language, and its role as a matrix for education and administration of Poland. The University and the Polish Language Polish as a literary language developed more slowly than the vernaculars of the Latin and Germanic lands of medieval Europe. It had even lagged behind other Slavic languages, such as Czech. Not until the late thirteenth or even the fourteenth centuries were the beginnings of a vernacular literature to be found in Poland.170 The University of Cracow contributed to that further development in the fifteenth century, despite the fact that its functions were carried out in the language of the learned elite of the Middle Ages, Latin. One of the ways in which it did this was through preaching in the vernacular. Late in the century Długosz remarked about how seldom in earlier times the people had heard sermons in their own language; but, he went on to say, the founding of the studium had helped to change this.171 We have noted above (Chapter Three) that some of the benefactions which the university received carried with them the responsibility of preaching in Polish. Three examples reflect this activity. Nicholas Kozłowski, who as professor of theology had participated in the disputation with the Hussites and been a member of the Council of Basle, was also a famous preacher whose Polish sermons were remarked upon by his contemporaries.172 Sigismund of Pyzdry, who was ­promoted to master in arts in 1417 and served as Dean of Arts in 1426, 170  A survey of the development of vernacular literature in Poland is provided by Teresa Michałowska, Średniowiecze (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1995), 37–40 (an overview of phases) and 43–318 (in more detail). 171  Długosz, Liber Beneficiorum, 3 vols. (Cracow: Kluczycki, 1863–1864 [vols. 7–9 of Opera Omnia, Alexander Przeździecki, ed., 14 vols. (Cracow: Kluczycki, 1863–1887)]), I, 261: “Rara et plurimum infrequens apud universam Polonici regni ecclesiam declamandi in vulgari Polonico ad plebes fiebat praedicatio . . .; Universitatis deinde studii generalis in civitate Cracoviensi . . . neglectum illum atque deformitatem tam diuturno tempore vigentem, sustulit.” 172   P SB, 15, 27.

The University In The National Life Of Poland

275

was termed “a prominent and famous preacher in the Polish language” by Długosz.173 But the most outstanding vernacular preacher of the century was Paul Zator. He incepted as a master in arts in 1415, was later promoted as doctor of decretals, succeeded John Elgot as the bishop’s vicarius in spiritualibus, and became the first incumbent of the altar founded by Oleśnicki that required preaching in Polish. Hs prowess had already been demonstrated, however, in a vernacular sermon which he preached in 1434 upon the death of Jagiełło. According to Długosz, the whole audience was moved to tears by his eloquence.174 At his own death in 1463 he was praised by the anonymous author of the so-called Cracow calendar as having been unexcelled in preaching to the people in Polish.175 These are by no means the only examples of vernacular sermons in the fifteenth century, but surprising there are no written collections of these.176 Apparently they were either delivered extemporaneously or were translated or paraphrased from the numerous collections of Latin sermons which are extant from the late Middle Ages.177 Behind this phenomenon lies the problem of the difficulty of written Polish in this period. The vocabulary was uncertain, the orthography cumbersome, and the language itself not yet stabilized and standardized. The faculty members attempted, for its own reasons, to deal with the first aspect of this problem by preparing specialized dictionaries, and there are several collections extant of such professorial handbooks. They include Polish vocabulary for legal terms, rhetorical topoi, the names of plans and herbs, geographical terms, medical expressions, and homiletic phrases.178

173  Długosz, Liber Beneficiorum, 2, 12: “egregio et famoso praedicatori idiomatic polonici.” 174  Długosz, Annales, 9, 119 (Liber undecimus et duodecimus 1431–1444, sub anno 1434): “Magister Paulus de Zathor in vulgari sermonem habuit, in quo acciones pias et optimas Wladislai Regis enumerans, omnibus audientibus suo dulci eloquio lacrimas excussit.” 175   Kalendarz Krakowski, in Monumenta Poloniae Historica, 2 (1872), 939: “Vir celebris et in vulgari semone ad populum in etate sua nulli secundus.” The reedited version of this document, Kalendarz Katedry Krakowskiej, Kozłowska-Budkowa, ed., in Monumenta Poloniae Historica Series Nova, 5 (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1978), 191, transcribes the text slightly differently: “Vir celebris et in wlgari etc.” 176  There are some exceptions. See the treatment by Michałowska, Średniowiecze, 618–630, in which she discusses, among other items, the collection known as Kazania gnieźnieńskie, which included ten Polish sermons, probably by Lucas of Wielki Koźmin. 177  One exception is the sermon of Paul Zator upon Jagiełło’s death, which is preserved in Cracow MS BJ 2367, ff. 414–415. 178  See Brygida Kürbisówna, “Mieszczanie na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim i ich udział w kształtowaniu świadomości narodowej w XV w.,” Studia Staropolskie 5 (1957): Ze studiów nad literaturą staropolską 50, n. 28 with bibliography.

276

CHAPTER 5

The most elaborate effort in orthography came from James Parkoszewic of Żórawica (BA 1422, MA 1427). Prior to 1439 he was promoted to doctor of laws. He then served as rector in one of the semesters of each of the following three years. In this capacity he undertook a minor revision of the university statutes, probably in conjunction with Oleśnicki, with whom he was closely connected. He apparently died in 1452.179 Sometime before he finished his law studies he obtained a copy of John Hus’ crucial work on Czech orthography and resolved to try to regulate written Polish. His own treatise was finished by ca. 1440.180 His basic problem was trying to fit Slavic sounds to the Latin alphabet. Although he rejected many of the diacritical marks which Hus had adopted, he did utilize some of these and recommended the use of altered letter forms when it was necessary to designate sounds which were not represented in Latin. For long vowels he proposed doubling the letter (i.e.: aa, ee, and so forth). In the case of consonants with distinctive Slavonic sounds, he used double or even triple letters. Nasalized vowels, such as the current Polish ę, could be represented by different spellings: ranka for ręka and the like. Then, at the end of his treatise, he wrote a kind of mnemonic verse in doggerel showing “exactly how to write the Polish language” and each of its alphabetic letters.181 Despite his efforts, he was by no means able to solve all the difficulties; some he even ignored completely, not knowing how to deal with them. As a result the uniformity, practicality, and completeness which he sought was compromised, and the work was not widely utilized. The only specific evidence we have of its influence 179  To the biographical treatment in PSB, 10, 372–373, should now be added the information in Kowalczyk, “Jakub Parkosz z Żórawic. Przyczynki do życiorysu,” in Bukowski, et al., eds., Cracovia. Polonia. Europa, 81–91. 180   Jakuba Parkosza Traktat o ortografii polskiej, Marian Kucała, ed. (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1985). The older literature on James’ treatise is best approached through Aleksander Brückner, “Traktat Parkoszów ortograficzny,” Prace Filologiczne 6 (1907/1908): 644–650; and Ryszard Ganszyniec, “O ortografii Jakuba Parkosza,” Sprawozdania Towarzystwa Naukowego we Lwowie 12 (1932): 148–151. 181  For the foregoing see the treatment by Michałowska, Średniowiecze, 333–334. She sets his efforts in a larger context in her “Między słowem mówionym a pisanym (O poezji polskiej późnego średniowiecza),” in Michałowska, ed., Literatura i kultura późnego średniowiecza w Polsce (Warsaw: Instytut Badań Literackich, 1993), 83–124. James’ treatise is analyzed, with particular reference to the mnemonic verses he added at the end, by Rafał Wójcik and Wiesław Wydra, “Jakub Parkoszowic’s Polish Mnemonic Verse about Polish Orthography from the 15th Century,” in Wójcik, ed., Culture of Memory in East Central Europe in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period (Poznań: Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, 2008), 119–127, who see this set of verses as “a natural element of medieval pedagogy, in which the order of the letters was very often used in learning and teaching.” (127)

The University In The National Life Of Poland

277

is upon the later orthographical treatise of Stanisław Zaborowski, which was first printed in Cracow in 1514/1515. Thus this particular contribution was modest indeed, but it does reflect a practical concern which firmly places it in the tradition traced in this chapter. Moreover, James—or someone who had access to his work—understood his work to be important in more than a technical sense. He—or the anonymous commentator who wrote the Latin incipit for his text—explicitly tied his treatise to the spirit of patriotism which is so often associated with languages, for the work begins with a assertion that one should fight for one’s country, for to do serves to bring glory to her.182 Despite these problems, it should not be thought that Polish at this point was suitable only for addressing servants and animals or the common folk in simple homilies. The very fact that Polish was used as the language of discussion in the Hussite disputation of 1431 suggests that it was already a tool for expressing elevated thought and argument.183 What was necessary above all was to establish what standard Polish was. Here the incidental service of the university was very great indeed. It brought together over the period of the century several thousand Polish students, the majority from urban backgrounds, each speaking an idiom particular to their own region. Despite the regional tensions noted in the preceding chapter, the effect of the common society began gradually to erase these differences in language; and as these students return to their homes or served in various professional capacities throughout the kingdom they took with them the beginnings of what would be in the following century the first flowering of a literary Polish expressed in the writings of Rej, Kochanowski, Kromer, and others. One should not overestimate either the degree or the speed of this phenomenon, but one can recognize nevertheless the slow and steady progress which was made.184 The University and Schools in Poland There are three areas in which the role of the studium in education and administration may be noted. The first of these in the specific topic of pre-university 182  “Pugna pro patria, quia ipsam defendere laus est meritoria.” See the discussion by Michałowska, Średniowiecze, 334. 183  Długosz, Annales, 9, 19 (Liber undecimus et duodecimus 1431–1444, sub anno 1431): “Duravit autem disputacio ipsa diebus aliquot, cum in Polonico fere omnia argumenta et responsiones fierent.” 184  These points are discussed at some length by Kürbisówna, “Mieszczanie na Uniwersytetu,” 42–62; Ignacy Zarębski, Rola języka polskiego w nauczaniu szkolnym w Polsce XVI wieku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1955); and Witold Taszycki, Rola Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w dziejach języka polskiego (Cracow: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1964).

278

CHAPTER 5

schools. It has been traditional in Polish historiography to accept the detailed research of Antoni Karkowiak regarding the number of schools in Poland. For the period 1364–1432 he identified a total of 253, of which 170 were parish schools. Thirty-seven were, according to his calculations, monastic, thirty collegiate, and sixteen cathedral. For the period 1433–1510 he stated the existence of 653 schools, including 577 parish, eighteen monastic, thirty collegiate, and seventeen cathedral.185 Subsequent research has shown, however, that especially at the parish level his totals were far too low. In such dioceses as Poznań and Cracow and in the archdiocese of Gniezno, by the end of the fifteenth century there were schools in nearly every parish. From these three areas alone the number of schools was probably over 1400.186 At first glance therefore there would appear to have been a job waiting for every graduate of Cracow who wished to teach. This was not, however, realized in fact. Most of these schools provided only very elementary instruction in grammar and religious ­education.187 To teach that curriculum one did not need a university degree or even higher studies of any kind. In addition, the salaries paid in such schools were too low to attach highly qualified personnel. The average urban parish paid its rector or magister scholae an average of only two marks, seventeen grossi per year, and the rural parishes provided the teacher about one mark, fourteen grossi. As a result, many teachers also served as town scribes or as organists to supplement their income.188 185  Karbowiak, Dzieje wychowanie, 2, 441–442, 3, 505. 186  Representative of the work done since Karbowiak are the following: Józef Nowacki, Dzieje archidiecezji poznańskiej, 2 vols. (Poznań: Księgarnia św. Wojciecha, 1959–1964), vol. 2: Archidiecezja poznańska w granicach historycznych i jej ustrój (1964), especially 666; Eugeniusz Wiśniowski, “Sieć szkół parafialnych w Wieklopolsce i w Małopolsce w początkach XVI W.,” Roczniki Humanistyczne15, no. 2 (1967): 87–101, and “The Parochial School System in Poland Towards the Close of the Middle Ages,” Acta Poloniae Historica 27(1973): 31–35; and Jan Ryś, Szkolnictwo parafialne w miastach Małopolski w XV wieku (Warsaw: Instytut Historii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1995), especially his annexes 117–145 and maps 146–148. The most recent overview, soundly based, is Halina Manikowska, “Szkoły: nauczanie szkołne i uniwersyteckie,” in Bronisław Geremek, ed., Kultura Polski średniowiecznej XIV–XV w. (Warsaw: Semper, 1997), 313–326, especially 314: “It is difficult to decide [orzec] whether, by the turn of the 15th to the 16th century there were overall schools in about 90% of the parish churches, as has been demonstrated for the archdiocese of Gniezno and the bishopric of Cracow.” 187  On this point, see Stanisław Bylina, Chrystianizacja wsi polskiej u schyłku średniowiecza (Warsaw: Instytut Historii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2002), 58–59. 188  See Wiśniowski, “Rozwój organizacji parafialnej w Polsce do czasów reformacji,” in Jerzy Kłoczowski, ed., Kościól w Polsce, vol 1: Średniowiecze (Cracow: Znak, 1968), 340–430.

The University In The National Life Of Poland

279

The situation was different in the collegiate and cathedral schools of Poland. The curriculum often included much of the tradition trivium and perhaps some of the quadrivium, and the pay was sufficient to maintain a modest living standard. It was in such places that one increasingly found teachers who had, at the least, attended the university for a time, and many of them had gained a bachelors degree. By the end of the fifteenth century the several score schools of this type consistently appointed students or graduates from Cracow.189 These teachers brought with them the particular professionalized approach to learning that was characteristic of a university and thereby impressed the stamp of Cracow upon education in Poland. The intellectual atmosphere which they had known in the capital, the contacts which they had made, the academic tastes which they had developed: these were all incorporated into the smaller worlds of which they were now a part. Thus the university made its presence felt throughout the kingdom. The University and Administration A second area where the studium played a role was in the lay and ecclesiastical courts and chanceries of Poland. It had been the ideal of Casimir the Great to develop a corps of university trained administrators, but his death and the collapse of his school had intervened. Under the Jagiellonians, particularly Casimir and his sons, this ideal was more nearly realized. Under Jagiełło the personnel of the chancery, as Jadwiga Krzyżaniakowa has demonstrated, had far greater contact with university training and were characterized by a higher educational level than had hitherto been possible.190 By the second half of the fifteenth century the royal chancery had become a more complex one, demanding greater skills. At all levels there were personnel who had studied at Cracow. Of the 187 persons employed there between 1447 and 1506, eightyone had university training, seventy from Cracow. There were fourteen who 189  Karbowiak’s observations in Dzieje wychowania, 3, 248–253, have generally been born out in subsequent research. See Krzysztof Stopka, Szkoły katedralne metropolii Gnieźnieńskiej w średniowieczu. Studia nad kształceniem kleru polskiego w wiekach średnich (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1994), 79–86, particularly 82: “In the 15th century rectors of cathedral schools were educated exclusively at the renewed University of Cracow;” and “In the 15th century in general all rectors of cathedral schools had the magisterium in liberal arts.” A more general overview is provided by Manikowska, Szkoły, 326–329. 190  Krzyżaniakowa, Kancelaria królewska Władysława Jagiełły. Studium z dziejów kultury politycznej w XV wieku, 2 vols. (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, 1972–1979), 1, 115–249 especially. Oźóg, Uczeni, 147–176, has further analyzed the personnel of government for Jadwiga and Jagiełło, citing the relevant literature since the publication of Krzyżaniakowa’s work.

280

CHAPTER 5

had earned doctorates in one faculty or another, one licentiate, eight masters in arts, and twelve bachelors. Thus in effect the majority had taken sufficient training to find employment, but had not remained in the university to complete an academic degree. This reflects both the practical nature of studies in the studium and the desire of the monarchy to employ such individuals in the chancery. This university training was not limited to the highest ranks, though to be sure such administrators usually had attended Cracow. Five of the seven chancellors and seven of the ten vice-chancellors in this period had studied there (in some instances individuals are included twice in these statistics). But most of the university trained personnel in the chancery were employed as secretaries, notaries, and scribes.191 An interesting example of the development which has been sketched here is the career of Ambroży Pampowski. The son of one of the lesser nobles of Great Poland, Ambroży was born about 1440 and matriculated at Cracow in 1457. He left before taking a degree, but in his time there he gained skills sufficient to bring him employment in the royal chancery and developed contacts and interests which were to stay with him the rest of his life. At Cracow he became acquainted with a number of other students who were also to have distinguished careers in royal and church service and with whom his relationship continued until his death in 1510. These included Sędziwój Teczyński, later a royal secretary and provost of the church in Skarbimierz; Andrew Róża of Borzyszewice, a future Archbishop of Gniezno; Zbigniew Oleśnicki, son of wojewoda John of Sandomir and nephew of the great bishop, who was himself to be a royal vice-chancellor and later archbishop; Andrew Oporowski, eventually royal vice-chancellor and Bishop of Kujavia; Krzesław and Stanisław Kurozwęcki, both future chancellors and the former also Bishop of Włocławek; John of Targowisko, who rose to become the Bishop of Przemyśł; and at least two others who later joined him in the royal chancery. Ambroży served as a scriptor in the court of Casimir from 1469 to 1473, then in the next decade and one-half rose steadily in the royal service. He was given a regional military and administrative command in 1487 (castellan), appointed wojewoda of Sieradz in 1494, and for the last decade of his life was successively starosta (a regional royal vice-regent similar to a palatinus) for Łęczyca, Great Poland, and the former territory of the Teutonic Order with its capital in Malbork (Marienburg). Ambroży also developed literary tastes while in study at Cracow. He collected books throughout his life, was especially interested in astronomy 191  The foregoing data are derived from the study by Irena Sułkowska-Kurasiowa, Polska kancelaria królewska w latach 1447–1506 (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1967), particularly 107– 162, where the author has provided biograms of all the chancery staff in this period.

The University In The National Life Of Poland

281

and poetry, and kept a diary which is revealing of both him and his times.192 Insufficient research has been devoted to the cultural interests of the Polish nobility in the late middle ages, and it is impossible to say confidently to what degree Pampowski represents his group.193 But the pattern of an individual exposed to the personal and intellectual circles that characterize a university is clearly reflected in his life and career.194 One would of course expect the royal chancery in Cracow itself to draw upon the university, as indeed it did. But the same development took place in regional courts also. Warsaw, which was just beginning to emerge as an important political center, serves as an example. In the course of the fifteenth century twenty-three individuals were employed in the chancery of the Duke of Mazovia, and eighteen of these had matriculated at Cracow.195 In addition the city of Warsaw employed several university trained individuals in its administration. Cracow also contributed clergy to the churches in Warsaw, the most important of which was the collegiate church (today cathedral) of St. John’s. 192  The foregoing material is based upon the fascinating study by Wiesiołowski, Ambroży Pampowski—Starosta Jagiellonów. Z dziejów awansu społecznego na przełomie średniowiecza i odrodzenia (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1976). 193  Studies of individual noble families have usually focused upon their political, social, and economic role and status. More modern analyses, however, have taken important steps toward presenting a more fully rounded picture that includes cultural outlooks and values. See, for two examples, Janusz Kurtyka, Tęczyńscy herbu Topór. Studium z dziejów polskiej elity możnowładczej w średniowieczu (Cracow: Secesja, 1997); and Witold Kujawski, Krzesław z Kurozwęk jako wielki kanclerz koronny i biskup włocławski (Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1987 [Studia z Kościoła w Polsce 8]). A suggestive effort to provide an overview of the nobility’s cultural outlook and values is given by Wiesiołowski, “Kultura szlachecka,” in Geremek, ed., Kultura Polski średniowiecznej, 170–188, particularly 187, which treats the question of nobles and university education. 194  The detailed biographical profile of Ambroży is a model for a comprehensive prosopographical study of the students of the fifteenth century University of Cracow that would correspond to the ongoing work being accomplished for western medieval universities. It is doubtful, given the current—and probable permanent—state of sources available for Poland whether such a systematic venture will ever be possible for Poland’s medieval period (see, however, my comments in the conclusion to this study). Promising prosopographical work is, however, being done for more modern periods, particularly the nineteenth century. I have addressed this point and problem in “The Jagiellonians and the University of Cracow.” Urszula Borkowska and Markus Hörsch, eds., Hofkultur der Jagiellonendynastie und verwandter Fürstenhäuser / The Culture of the Jagellonian and Related Courts (Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke, 2010 [Studia Jagellonica Lipsiensia 6]), 188. 195  Andrzej Sołtan, “Warszawskie środowisko umsłowe w XV i początku XVI wieku,” Studia Warszawskie 19 [sic., recte 21] (1975): 100 and n. 10 particularly.

282

CHAPTER 5

In the years between 1406 and 1526 sixty-one of the 101 priests and canons there had studied at the university and thirty-four had earned at least one academic degree. In addition to their spiritual responsibilities many of these individuals served in the chancery of the church.196 The University and National Consciousness The third area in which the university played a role in the education of Poland was the subtle, but very important, way in which it shaped a sense of national consciousness. Some of this was the result, particularly for those from urban backgrounds, of being a part of the community which constituted the life of the studium, and we have already suggested above the role which language played. In addition the university brought its native students into contact with a number of foreign scholars from lands, particularly Hungary and Germany, which already had a relatively highly developed feeling of national identity. This reinforced the Poles’ sense of themselves. The fact that the Polish students in Cracow constituted a corporate group, based upon leaders from all areas and all social classes and engaged in a common professional enterprise, gave further expression to their growing consciousness of being a part of the larger nation. Many elements outside the studium were, of course, also important in this process,197 but it is significant that beyond the church and the monarchy, the university was the only other national institution in Poland and was thus one of the foci of this development.198 A final element in shaping a sense of national consciousness to be noted here was the particular picture of the national past presented by one of the faculty at Cracow, John of Dąbrówka. His work is discussed in more detail and in a different context below in Chapter Six, but it is also useful to examine it here, for it reflects activities within the university which served larger needs within Polish society. Sometime prior to 1435 John became interested in the Chronica Polonorum of the twelfth century Polish historian Vincent Kadłubek.199 He 196  Sołtan, “Warszawskie środowisko umysłowe,” 204, n. 31, and 206. 197  See my comments in “National Consciousness in Medieval Poland,” Ethnic Studies 10 (1993): 65–84. 198  Again, on this point, see Kürbisówna, “Mieszczanie na uniwersytecie,” 7–79, especially 46. 199  Much of what follows is derived from Marian Zwiercan, Komentarz Jana z Dąbrówki do Kroniki Mistrza Wincentego zwanego Kadłubkiem (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1969), 85–113 for the creation and structure of the commentary, 114–157 for its contents and the sources utilized. For the commentary itself see Commentum in Chronicam Polonorum Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek, Marian Zwiercan ed., with the assistance of Anna Zofia Kozłowska and Michał Rzepiela (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2008

The University In The National Life Of Poland

283

was at that time teaching in the arts faculty, holding the Nowko chair, and was responsible for lectures in grammar and rhetoric. But the combination of this awareness of the didactive usefulness of history and his understanding of the particularly florid style of Vincent caused him to decide to prepare a commentary upon that work which would be useful for teaching. He gathered many examples of medieval Polish historiography and a rich selection of works dealing with ethical and political matters.200 From these de drew the comments he wrote haphazardly in the wide margins of a copy of Vincent’s chronicle. The nature of this commentary was both historical and philosophical/ moral. In some sections he summarized Vincent’s narrative, adding material from other sources. He depended particularly upon the Annales Poloniae maioris, the Chronicon of Mierzwa, Martinus Polonus’ Chronicon pontificum et imperium, and the Annales Poloniae minoris. He also made original contribution on the basis of his own reading and research. But all of this was flavored with his other themes: the nature of the ideal ruler,201 the virtues of both war and peace, problems of nobility and love, and the appropriate education for youth. To illustrate these he drew upon Giles of Rome’s De regimine principum, several medieval florilegia from which he cited ancient authors as well as later writers, John of Salisbury’s Policraticus, Petrarch’s De remediis utriusque fortunae, and Pier Paulo Vergerio’s De ingenuis moribus. From both his use of these materials and from his own statements, it is clear what John’s purpose was: [Monumenta Poloniae Historica, Nova Series 14]). Other important treatments of John’s commentary include the brief comments by Juliusz Domański, Początki humanizmu (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1982 [Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 9]), 138–142, and in the slightly revised version of his study Scholastyka i początki humanizmu w myśli polskiej XV wieku (Warsaw: Instytut Tomistyczny, 2011), 178–185; Oźóg, Uczeni, 111–118; Jerzy Korolec, “Problem cnót moralnych w ‘komentarzu’ Jana z Dąbrówki do ‘Kroniki’ Mistrza Wincentego,” in Korolec, Wolność, cnota, praxis (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Filozofii i Socjologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2006 [Studia z dziejów filozofii 1]), 167–178 ; and, in English, Radzilowski, Binding the New Together With the Old, 230–287. 200  For the materials in his library, which will be discussed in more detail in Chapters Ten and Eleven, see two works by Wacława Szelińska, “Dwa testamenty Jana Dąbrówki,” Studia i Materiały z Dziejów Nauki Polskiej, Series A 5 (1962): 3–40, and Biblioteki profesorów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XV i początkach XVI wieku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1966), 62–70. 201  This aspect is the focus of the analysis by Oźóg, Uczeni, 111–118, and developed more fully by Zwiercan himself in “Model władcy w komentarzu Jana z Dąbrówki do Kroniki bł. Wincentego zwanego Kadłubkiem w wykładzie uniwersyteckim w latach Jana Długosza,” Analecta Cracoviensia 16 (1984): 233–246.

284

CHAPTER 5

he was attempting to serve moral, rhetorical, and didactic aims. John wished those who were taught from the commentary to recall the history of Poland,202 to learn to love their country, and to emulate the examples—historical, personal, and ethical—which he provided them. The commentary emerged in its final form when John was appointed to one of the royal professorships in the Collegium Maius and began to lecture on Aristotelian philosophy. At the same time he began further studies in law and eventually theology. As a result of the unusual academic circumstances of having been promoted before his first book was finished and published, John was now forced to bring the commentary to an end. Apparently he dictated it, and four copies were made simultaneously. He may have formally lectured on the chronicle in previous years, though the data that suggest this are ambiguous. But the commentary was to be used effectively by others after John had left the Nowko chair. It was apparently utilized in the fifteenth century in university lectures, first by John Szadek in 1446; and Dąbrówka himself included it among the requirements for the Nowko chair when the Collegium minus was founded in 1449. In addition, a student, Matthew of Pełczyń, made a partial copy of the work in the same year under circumstances which strongly suggest he had heard it in lecture. There are also fragments which derive from ca. 1455 which lead to the same conclusion. Finally, there is extant a manuscript which belonged to Nicholas Kotwicza of Żnin which contains the text of works which he had studied in lectures at Cracow prior to 1471, and a fragment of Dąbrówka’s commentary is included among these. But John did not intend his work only, or even primarily perhaps, for use in higher learning. It was also designed to be taught in cathedral, collegiate, and 202  Zwiercan has developed the more general question of historical interests at the university in the fifteenth century, but with special attention to John’s commentary, in his article “Zainteresowania historyczne społeczności Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XV wieku,” in Michałowska, ed., Literatura i kultura póznego średniowiecza, 41–56. For Zwiercan, John can not himself be called a historian; rather he terms him (in the monograph cited in n. 189 and in his entry “Jan z Dąbrówki,” in Stanisław Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej [Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna, 2000], 180–185, here 181) a “lover of history” or “an amateur historian.” (miłośnikiem historii) Both Radzilowski, Binding the New Together with the Old, 237, and I, in “Gallus—and Others—on the Problems of Origins and Identity,” in Krzysztof Stopka, ed., Gallus Anonymous and His Chronicle in the Context of Twelfth-Century Historiography from the Perspective of the Latest Research (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2010), 57–73, here 67, have termed him “a history buff.”

The University In The National Life Of Poland

285

parish schools, and there is much evidence to indicate that it was in fact used in these. During the academic year 1449/1450 Matthew of Kobylin, a master in arts who was later to be a member of the theological faculty and several time rector before his death in 1492, presented a series of lectures on the full commentary in the cathedral school in Cracow. He included some anonymous additions which may be dated to 1440, some of the material from the lectures of John Szadek, and interlinear glosses of his own. In 1450 John of Dąbrówka’s work was taught in St. Anne’s parish school by one of the student in the university. Outside Cracow, lectures were based on the commentary in 1457–1459 in Opatów, in the collegiate school in Łowicz in 1467, in the collegiate school in Sandomir in 1471, and in the parish school in Lublin in 1481 by a teacher who had earned his only academic degree, a bachelor in arts, at Cracow in 1477. In addition to these concrete instance of lectures being given, there is other evidence that the commentary continued to circulate. Nicholas of Latowicz made a copy of the work for himself sometime after he was promoted as a bachelor in arts in 1444, two complete copies were made in the 1450s in a context that suggests school use, the Benedictines of the monastery of the Holy Cross obtained a partial copy somewhat later, and in 1470/1471 the rector of the parish school of St. Stephen’s church in Cracow sued the son of the burgrave of Cracow (who was studying in the university at that time) for the return of his copy of the commentary which he had lent out more than a year before.203 The foregoing is based upon explicit documentary and manuscript evidence. It is reasonable to assume that this activity represents only a fragment of the role which John of Dąbrówka’s work played in shaping a popular understanding of the Polish past and what it meant to be a Pole. One should not make too much of its continuing influence, however, for in the sixteenth century the comprehensive histories of John Długosz and especially the Renaissance scholar Martin Kromer pushed all earlier works into the background until the nineteenth century.204 But neither should one underestimate the effect which John of Dąbrówka exercised.

203   Acta Rectoralia, no. 248. The data in this paragraph are discussed in more detail by Zwiercan, Komentarz, 158–169. 204  See Henryk Barycz, “Dwie syntezy dziejów narodowych przed sądem potomności. Losy ‘Historii’ Jana Długosza i Marcina Kromera w XVI i pierwszej połowie XVII wieku,” Pamiętnik Literacki 43 (1952): 194–251.

286

CHAPTER 5

Conclusion The direct and indirect activities of the university in the fifteenth century that have been treated in this chapter suggest the range of contributions that the studium made within society. Jagiełło obviously had high expectations in 1400 when he called upon the university in 1400 to help him “make this realm illustrious through the brilliance of learned persons, thank to whose knowledge we may remove the blemishes and the darkness, thereby making it the equal of other kingdoms.” He called upon the institution to be “a pearl of powerful learning, so that it may bring forth men outstanding for the maturity of their consul, pre-eminent for their virtue, and will-qualified in all the branches of knowledge.”205 As I have put it elsewhere, Jagiełło was saying: be useful—to me, to the kingdom, and to the larger society by your learning and service. And so the scholars of the studium Cracoviense were.206

205   C DUC, 1, no. 16, 20–25, quoted from the English translation by Bożena Wyrozumski in Najstarsze przywileje Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego / The Oldest Charters of the University of Cracow (Cracow: Biuro Jubileuszowa Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskeigo, 2000), 34. 206  Knoll, “Working for the King (and the Queen),” 18.

CHAPTER 6

The Arts Faculty, I In this chapter, and those to follow, we turn from the institutional, municipal, social, and national contexts of the University of Cracow in the fifteenth century treated above to the content of learning in the institution in this period and of the productivity of the faculty members, whether in the context of university instruction or in the larger intellectual life of the era. We begin with the Arts Faculty, the largest in terms of students and faculty and certainly the reason why most students came to study at Cracow, though—with important exceptions—it was not necessarily the most productive and creative part of the studium. The Arts Faculty served to provide the basic education and tools for students who desired to learn and who desired a career in teaching, administration, or the exercise of authority, whether within the church or in secular institutions. Toward this end, the curriculum of the faculty was predicated upon the traditional artes that, derived from antiquity and transformed and adapted in the Christian middle ages, came to be divided into the trivium (the three-fold way to knowledge and wisdom) and the quadrivium (the four-fold way).1 These seven subjects, usually taught upon the basis of a single text, were supplemented in the universities of the high and late middle ages by the addition, as Gordon Leff has noted, “of the three philosophies, natural, moral, and metaphysical, which were not covered by the older divisions.”2 The three philosophies, taught increasingly from the works of Aristotle, who was commonly referred to simply as “The Philosopher,” were grafted onto an existing arts curriculum and came to constitute what James Weisheipl called the faculty of arts and sciences.3 Although the trivium was retained, the growing importance of 1  For the terms artes liberales, trivium, and quadrivium in the context of medieval universities, see the treatment by Mariken Teeuwen, The Vocabulary of Intellectual Life in the Middle Ages (Turnhout: Brepols, 2003 [Études sur le vocabulaire intellectual du Moyen Åge 10]), 364–366. 2  Gordon Leff, “The Trivium and the Three Philosophies,” in Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992 [A History of the University in Europe, Walter Rüegg, General Editor, vol. 1]), 308. 3  James A. Weisheipl, “The Nature, Scope, and Classification of the Sciences,” St. Med. 18, no. 2 (1977): 85–101, here 97. This article is, with minor exceptions (see below, Chapter Seven, n. 1) identical to his “The Nature, Scope, and Classification of the Sciences,” in David C. Lindberg, ed., Science in the Middle Ages (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 461–482, and is

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004326019_008

288

CHAPTER 6

dialectic or logic in instruction emerged as an important characteristic of the arts curriculum. The approach of this chapter is to examine seriatim the treatment of each of the subjects and philosophies of the arts, with an emphasis upon showing the contributions made by Cracovian masters, paying less attention to the manuals and sources they used as the basis for their teaching. It will not be possible to discuss all of the achievements that have been identified. Some material has not yet been systematically worked through by scholars; and some contributions appear to be more important than others. Thus what follows is intended to be representative and indicative, rather than comprehensive. In treating individual works it will not be possible to provide full expositions. Rather the intent is to present brief summaries and analyses that are sufficient to indicate the nature and character of the contribution. Because of the eventual importance of and creativity in natural philosophy and the exact sciences at Cracow a separate chapter of this study (Chapter Seven) is devoted to them, though discussion of works dealing with Aristotle’s De anima—a subject sometimes associated with natural philosophy—will be included in this chapter.

The Problem of Classification in Philosophy

Before moving to an examination of the works by Cracow masters on discrete subjects in the arts, it is worth noting that Cracow revived a subject of discussion that had earlier been an important issue in western schools and universities, that of the system of classification or the divisions in philosophy. In the century or more after the incorporation of the Aristotelian corpus in the curriculum at the northern universities of Paris, Oxford, and, eventually, the other studia there, this topic had been a lively and stimulating one. Eventually, with issues having been worked through, attention in the west turned to other subjects. In the wake of the resurrection of Cracow in 1400, a variety of discussions there regarding the nature, scope, and classification of philosophy may be found in the fifteenth century. Here, for purposes of illustration, I provide some representative examples. Many writers, such as an anonymous Cracovian commentator on the Topics of Aristotle in the first quarter of the century, followed The Philosopher’s basic organization:

derived from his classic treatment “The Classification of the Sciences in Medieval Thought,” Mediaeval Studies 27 (1965): 54–90, esp. for background, 54–68.

The Arts Faculty, I

289

Philosophy is duplex, namely speculative, which is divided into three parts: metaphysics (which is called the first philosophy), mathematics, and natural philosophy; the other is practical philosophy, which is also duplex: one part is naturally practical and is divided into three parts— ethics, politics, and economics; the second part [of practical philosophy] is verbally practical and it is divided into three parts—logic, grammar, and rhetoric.4 Several other Cracovian discussions of this topic follow in greater or lesser detail this model.5 In contrast to this, there were several three-way schemas which were proposed and utilized by various scholars during the century. One was organized by dividing philosophy into three parts: active, factive (i.e., practical or verbal), and speculative. The first part includes ethics, monastica (not identical with ethics and not to be understood as economics), and politics; the second encompasses logic, rhetoric, and grammar; while the third treats mathematics, metaphysics, and natural philosophy.6 In this formulation, there is no mention of economics as one of the classified subjects. Whether this reflects the generally low interest in this subject at Cracow (the statutes of 1406 specify only one month study for it) is difficult to determine.7 A second, more important, triplex division of philosophy and one reflecting a position that was a commonplace in the middle ages, was that developed by Benedict of Hesse of Cracow, whose importance for the studium was based both in his institutional career and his intellectual contribution. Benedict’s chief categories of philosophy are defined as rational, moral, and natural, each of which are further divided into sub-categories. The first includes metaphysics, mathematics (i.e., arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy), and physics; the second takes in ethics (or monastica), economics, and politics; and

4   Cited by Mieczysław Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce w okresie przedkopernikańskim (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1971 [Studia Copernicana 2]), 56. 5   See the comments of Markowski, “Metodologia nauk, logika, i teoria poznania na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku,” in Ryszard Palacz, ed., Filozofia Polska XV wieku (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972), 260–261. 6  Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 60. 7  An effective argument against this conclusion is provided by the first detailed study of the fate of Aristotle’s Economics at Cracow in this period by Anna Słomczyńska, Krakowskie Komentarze z XV wieku do ‘Ekonomiki’ Arystotelesa (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1978), 26 especially, where she provides a detailed listing of the Commentaries on the Economics at Cracow in the fifteenth century. See the treatment of this subject below.

290

CHAPTER 6

the third is comprised of grammar, logic or dialectic, and rhetoric.8 Benedict’s influence proved to be enduring. Although he represented the philosophical tradition of John Buridan and the via moderna, which was strong within the faculty in the first half of the century, he was followed in his taxonomy by others at the end of the century who stood more traditionally in the camp of the via antiqua. Both those who followed an Albertist tradition, such as John of Głogów (ca. 1455–1507) and Michael Falkener of Wrocław (ca. 1460–1534), and those who followed a Scotist tradition, such as Michael of Biestrzyków (ca. 1450–ca. 1520) and John of Stobnica (ca. 1470–1519), proposed variations upon Benedict’s basic scheme.9 The tradition of working out the issues connected with the structure of “philosophy” thus continued throughout the century.10 The issue remained an important one. Depending upon the status one accorded a particular discipline, its place might be in a hierarchical structure (in which case it might be regarded either more noble than other subjects or perhaps instead as of inferior importance). Alternatively, its place might simply be related to another subject in a sequential and non-qualitative order of preparation to pursue another discipline. But from a practical standpoint, “philosophy” was not a specific subject; it was an all-encompassing term used to designate learning.11 The practical approach to this lay within the actual subjects pursued in the curriculum. There was, however, a larger rationale for the study of learning— i.e., the study of philosophy. Zofia Włodek has pointed out, with reference to 8  Benedict takes up this issue in a number of his writings, in particular in his treatment of Aristotle’s Physics. See Benedictus Hesse Quaestiones super octo libros ‘Physicorum’ Aristotelis, Stanisław Wielgus, ed. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1984), 8: “Utrum philosophia principalis, quae vocatur physica, sit scientia speculativa vel practica. Respondetur, quod speculativa. Pro quo nota: Secundum Albertum in principio suorum Naturalium, philosophia est triplex. Quaedam est rationalis, quaedam moralis et quaedam naturalis. etc.” The Albert he is citing is Albert of Orlamünde not Albertus Magnus. 9  For the schema of the last four of these examples, see Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 61, quoting in extenso from their unpublished works. 10  For a fuller treatment of these issues, see Markowski, Metodologia Nauk (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1976 [Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 2]), and, more briefly, in his “Metodologia nauk, logika i teoria poznania,” in Palacz, ed., Filozofia Polska, 255–267. The question of the classification of the sciences in this early period of the predominance of the via moderna is taken up in two studies by Feliks Krause, Klasyfikacja nauk według Piotra z Sienna,” St. Med. 32 (1997): 65–74 and “Wzajemne relacje nauk teoretycznych i praktycznych w ujęcie Piotra z Sienna,” St. Med. 32 (1997): 75–91. His analysis, based upon Peter’s commentary upon the Metaphysics, shows a close relationship to another Cracovian scholar, John of Ziębice. 11  Teeuwen, Vocabulary of Intellectual Life, 395–399.

The Arts Faculty, I

291

one of the sermons of Francis of Brzeg, that such study was not an end in itself but rather served to prepare one to defend the faith.12 Thus these subjects and the three philosophies, though taken up in the Arts Faculty, had broad implications for other parts of the studium. Gordon Leff has emphasized the historiographical truism that although “the main areas—metaphysics, moral philosophy, cosmology, psychology, epistemology—belonged to the arts their treatment [had] close connection with theology.”13 One might also add here that the same was true for the discipline of medicine, where a good deal of natural philosophy bore directly upon the subject matter of this faculty, and, as we shall see, for the field of law. Faculty in arts were understandably jealous that the autonomy of their subject matter be respected,14 but faculty in the higher disciplines were likewise fully aware that teaching in arts had implications for their fields and subject matter.15 The tone for the importance of the liberal arts was set at the very beginning of the university’s new life in 1400 in the inaugural lecture given by its first rector, Stanisław of Skarbimierz. In his survey of the subjects undertaken at the studium he boldly asserted the “wondrous, useful, and praiseworthy learning contained in the trivium and quadrivium.” His view was an expansive one, for he included a variety of subjects as elements of the seven arts beyond the traditional group of seven.16 With the foregoing in mind, let us turn to the creativity of and production by Cracovian masters in the several subjects of the trivium. 12  Sophie [Zofia] Włodek, “Pourquoi étudiait-on la philosophie à l’Université de Cracovie au Moyen Âge? Témoignage d’un maître de la première moitié du XVe siècle,” in Jan Aertsen and Andreas Speer, eds., Was ist Philosophie im Mittelalter? Qu’est-ce la philosophie au Moyen Âge? / What is Philosophy in the Middle Ages? Akten des X. Internationalen Kongresses für mittelalterliche Philosophie der Société Internationale pour l’Étude de la Philosophie Médiévale (S.I.E.P.M.) (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998), 330–337. 13  Leff, “The trivium and the Three Philosophies,” 331. 14  For example, at Paris, one of the statutes forbade the inclusion of theological material into instruction in the arts; see Chartularium universitatis Parisiensis, Heinrich Denifle, Emile Chatelain, et al. eds., 4 vols. (Paris: Delalain, 1889–1897), I, no. 441 from 1 April 1272. 15  On this point, see Pearl Kibre and Nancy G. Siraisi, “The Institutional Setting: The Universities,” in Lindberg, ed., Science in the Middle Ages, 132–133. But Edward Grant, God and Reason in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 185–186, warns against blurring the distinctions that should be made between what the arts faculty and higher faculties did. See also the comments by Monika Asztalos, “The Faculty of Theology,” in de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 423–424. 16  Mirabilis est haec scientia, utilis et laudabilis: quae continet in se trivium et quadrivium. Amplectitur enim orthographiam, etymologiam, diasyntheticam et prosodiam . . .; utitur rhetorica . . .; utitur monastica, quia docet honeste vivere quo ad se; utitur oeconomica, quia suadet et prohibet alterum laedere; ingreditur politicam, quia docet ius

292

CHAPTER 6

The Trivium: Grammar

As the foundation upon which all other learning depended, the study of Latin grammar had a long tradition by the time Cracow was reestablished in 1400. At one level, it was simply instruction in the Latin language as, among other things, the tool for which university study was indispensible. This kind of “practical” grammar, emphasizing morphology, relied essentially upon description. At another level, and especially after the reintroduction of such texts by Aristotle as the Posterior Analytics, reflections upon the meanings of substantive words, the relationship between language and reality, and explaining linguistic features causally by examining the modi significandi (modes of signifying) ensured that grammar could be treated in a speculative or “modistic” way.17 The approach of scholars such as Peter Helias, Peter of Spain, and John of Garland in the twelfth and first half of the thirteenth century achieved a partial synthesis between logic and grammar and turned grammar into a philosophical battlefield in the late middle ages.18 While modistic or speculative grammar lost ground to the logical critique mounted in the fourteenth century by individuals sometimes called nominalists, the debate continued. Developments at Cracow reflected both the tradition of practical grammar and that of speculative grammar.19 At the newly founded university after 1400, suum ­ unicuique tribuere; docet geometriam et arismeticam . . .; astronomiam . . . .; practicat materiam musicae . . .; medicinam sibi servire facit. “Stanislai de Scabimiria ‘Recommendatio Universitatis de novo fundatae’,” in Juliusz Domański, “Discours d’inauguration fait par Stanislas de Skarbimierz à l’occasion du renouveau de l’Université de Cracovie, MPP 24 (1979): 128; and Stanisław ze Skarbimierza Mowy wybrane o mądrości, Mirosław Korolko, ed. (Cracow: Arcana, 2000), 246. 17  See the distinction made by Jan Pinborg, “Speculative Grammar,” in Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 254. 18  For an overview of developments in grammar in the Middle Ages, see Jeffrey F. Huntsman, “Grammar,” in David L. Wagner, ed., The Seven Liberal Arts in the Middle Ages (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1983), 58–95. In his edition of Michael de Marbasio’s Summa de modis significandi, L.G. Kelly provides, by way of introduction, a convenient, systematic analysis of basic terms in speculative grammar, especially vox, dictio, and pars, together with partes generales, speciales, and accidentales of modi significandi. See Michaelis de Marbasio Summa de modis significandi, L.G. Kelly, ed. (Stuttgart and Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann Verlag, 1995 [Grammatica speculativa. Sprachtheorie und Logik des Mittelalters 5]), XVI–XLIII especially. 19  That the discipline of logic or dialectic was closely related to some of the characteristics of speculative grammar is reflected in the way in which linguistic issues in logic are included in the now standard survey of the history of medieval philosophy in Poland; see

The Arts Faculty, I

293

the Parisian curricular model established in its statutes of 1366 was transmitted through Prague, though with modifications.20 In the Cracovian curriculum, as specified in the statutes there of 1406, instruction in grammar was based upon the second part of Alexander of Villa Dei’s Doctrinale, a rhymed manual on grammar, morphology, and syntax from the late twelfth century, whose basic assumption was, as Terrence Heath has noted, philosophical and therefore part of the picture of speculation.21 Instruction in grammar was intended to last six weeks. Later in the century, with the establishment of endowed chairs to be devoted to grammar and rhetoric, especially the Brzeżnica chair, and with John of Dąbrówka’s organization of the Collegium Minus, grammar instruction was expected to include treatment of Priscian, exercises on Donatus, and disputations on the Doctrinale.22 For the most part, it appears that during the early decades of the fifteenth century, the masters at Cracow were content to utilize standard grammatical resources available from the west without preparing their own independent commentaries. Recent analyses of grammatical material in use in Cracow in this period have revealed marginal comments and random notations in manuscripts containing grammatical materials that would have been utilized by individuals lecturing on this subject, but no systematic and formal separate works by Cracovians.23 Works by non-Cracovian authors written abroad, brought to Cracow or copied there and perhaps used in instruction there, include a set of questions with Cracovian marginalia on the last two books of Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae (the so-called Priscianus minor), which was once owned by Bartholomew of Jasło and later by Matthew of Kobylin the Younger, who eventually gave this manuscript to the Jerusalem bursa.24 A second important grammatical text associated with Cracow is a set of questions on the Ars minor of Donatus, which may have been copied in Markowski, Logika (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1975 [Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 1]), 182–200 and notes 207–213 (a chapter devoted to the logic of language, i.e., the logic of modal grammar). 20  Krzysztof Oźóg, “Zakres i metody nauczania septem artes na Wydziale Sztuk Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XV wieku,” in Teresa Michałowska, ed. Septem artes w kształtowaniu kultury umysłowej w Polsce średniowiecznej (Wrocław: Chronicon, 2007), 107–110. 21  Terrence Heath, “Logical Grammar, Grammatical Logic, and Humanism in Three German Universities,” Studies in the Renaissance 18 (1971): 9–64, here 12; see also his subsequent discussion and analysis of the Doctrinale, 12–13. 22  See above, Chapter Three, notes 73, 74, and 214. 23  Krystyna Krauze-Błachowicz, Jan z Głogowa i tradycja gramatyki spekulatywnej (Warsaw: Semper, 2008), 49–52. 24  Matthew was promoted to bachelor in arts in 1468 and incepted as a master in 1472, when Matthew of Kobylin the Elder was Dean of Arts. He himself was several times dean and in

294

CHAPTER 6

Cracow and which was apparently lectured upon by John Kanty in a parish school in Miechów in 1420–1421. John, who was canonized in 1767, earned his MA in 1417. He then spent some years away from Cracow before returning in 1429 to lecture in arts, then beginning the study of theology, earning his masters degree in 1439; he subsequently became an important member of the theology faculty there.25 Whether John lectured on this text at Cracow is uncertain, but its presence there and fragmentary comments contained therein suggest that the approach to grammar reflected in it drew upon the older modist tradition and incorporated some of its elements with alternative, and by this time dominant, approaches characteristic of the school associated with nominalism.26 In the course of the fifteenth century, however, other works related to grammar were brought to Cracow, which in one way or another reflected more strongly associations with the outlook of speculative grammar.27 Their apparent usage in instruction at the university enriched the environment in which John of Głogów, the most important figure of the last part of the century, was educated and subsequently pursed his decades-long career lecturing in Arts.

1503 served as Vice-chancellor of the studium. Between 1487 and 1497 he lectured in arts. For his biography, see FwP, 244. 25  The complicated biography of John Kanty (or John of Kęty) is best approached with the general treatment in LTCP / SPTK, 2, 134–136, and PSB, 10, 446–449. His commentary on Donatus is analyzed by Roman M. Zawadzki, Spuściezna rękopiśmiena świętego Jana Kantego (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej w Krakowie, 1995 [Studia do dziejów Wydziału teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 3]), 227– 233; see also the comments of Krauze-Błachowicz, Jan z Głogowa, 51. The brief biographical treatment by Stanisław Piech, “Święty Jan z Kęt (1390–1473),” in Stanisław Piech, ed., Złota Księga papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej (Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie, 2000), 141–143, adds little to the material cited above, but his analysis of John’s canonization (150–158) provides insight that builds upon the earlier, standard, treatment of this process in Marian Rechowicz, Św. Jan Kanty i Benedykt Hesse w świetle krakowskiej kompilacji teologicznej z XV w. (Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1958). 26  Krauze-Błachowicz, Jan z Głogowa, 51 and notes 235 and 236. 27  An overview of developments relating to speculative grammar in the fifteenth century at Cracow, with particular reference to the last decades of the century, is provided by Cyprian Mielczarski, Między gramatyką scholastyczną a humanistyczną. Komentarz Jana Sommerfelda Starszego do traktatu gramatycznego Eberharda Hiszpańskiego (Strasburg 1499) (Warsaw: Uniwersytet Warszawski, Wydział Polonistyki, 2003), 47–64, which includes passing reference to the work of John of Głogów and John of Stobnica; the summary of the same general topic by Krauze-Błachowicz, Jan z Głogowa, 46–54 and notes 178–253, covers some of the same ground as Mielczarski.

The Arts Faculty, I

295

John was one of three faculty members in late fifteenth century Cracow who made contributions in the realm of grammar. (The other two, John Sommerfeld the Elder and John of Stobnice, are discussed briefly below.) One of the many Silesians who matriculated at Cracow in the middle ages, John was born in Głogów in 1445 and matriculated at Cracow in 1462, earning the bachelor in arts in 1465 and the masters in 1468. He began teaching in arts immediately and, with the exception of a year in Vienna (where he apparently sought, unsuccessfully, admission to teach),28 remained in that faculty until his death in 1507. In his long university career he held a number of administrative positions (twice Dean of the Arts Faculty), and, as we have seen in a previous chapter, was closely involved with both the Hungarian and German student hostels. At his death he was a canon of the collegiate church of St. Florian.29 In addition to his contributions in grammar, John was a prolific writer in other fields (including mathematics and astronomy, as we shall see in the following chapter), and his works were frequently published and reprinted.30 John’s most important works on grammar were his Declaratio Donati minoris de octo partibus orationis and Alexandri Gallici secunda pars Doctrinalis, both first published in Leipzig in 1500.31 In them he sought to provide material 28  See, with reference to other literature on this development, the comment of Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe in the Middle Ages (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2009 [Krakow Historical Monographs 1]), 143. 29  For his biography, see Władysław Seńko. “Wstęp do studium nad Janem z Głogowa,” Materiały 1 (1961): 9–59; Nowy Korbut, 2, 196–197; PSB, 11, 436–439; FwP, 140–143; and Marian Zwiercan, “Jan z Głogowa,” Prace historyczne 42: Copernicana Cracoviensia 3 (1973): 103–118. 30  Krauze-Błachowicz, Jan z Głogowa, 69–92, provides not only a detailed overview of his biography but also a listing of his works, the details of his teaching as reflected in the Acta rectoralia after 1487, and, before addressing in detail his grammatical work, a brief analysis of his philosophical views, including his methodological approach, his classifications of the divisions of philosophy, and his position on universals. The study by Stefan Swieżawski, “Materiały do studiów nad Janem z Głogowa († 1507),” St. Med. 2 (1961): 135– 184, is primarily devoted to an analysis of seven of John’s works (for the most part in logic) to determine the authors upon whom he relied and what his philosophical views were. 31  Although she treats both of his works in her Jan z Głogowa, Krauze-Błachowicz focuses more on the former in her brief, but enlightening, “Was Conceptualist Grammar in Use at Cracow University?” Studia Antyczne i Mediewistyczne 6 (2008): 275–285. The following treatment of John’s contributions follows, in general, her analysis and conclusions in the several items of here work cited in these notes. John’s works were published in several editions in the sixteenth century and this suggests he continued to be used at the university. Despite representing a medieval grammatical tradition, the introductions to these publications frequently included skillful and flattering poems in praise of the author by

296

CHAPTER 6

which would be useful in teaching and to address some of the fundamental issues of grammar that had been central to its development as a discipline. He clearly was familiar with the tradition of the modists and the challenge to them presented in the course of the fourteenth century. His philosophical orientation toward the traditions of the via antiqua did not, however, prevent him from trying to reach a middle ground between the critique of the conceptualists and the classical modist authors. For John, grammar was indeed a speculative science (scientia) in that it treated universal and immutable features of reality. What the voice utters becomes a word that was real which refers to an object or an attribute of an object (the first imposition) and is capable of signifying the relationship between objects and a range of categories (the second imposition). It serves both semantic and syntactic functions and forms the foundation of universal grammar. In discussing these matters John is able to combine diverse motifs. He recognizes the force of the ontological reservations by the conceptualists about the significance of context and the need to determine how a word functions in a specific framework (i.e., the second imposition), but is, for the most part, effective in preserving the position that grammar was impossible without making reference to reality. None of this is particularly innovative, and in some respects John’s works were compilations rather than systematic treatises. They were, however, rigorous in the way in which theories and traditions were analyzed and reflect, in their own way, a “certain originality to his approach which effectively served both the teaching objectives of his presentation as well as the dissemination of the idea of a universal grammar.”32 At the same time, the humanist challenge to medieval grammatical tradition was one which John (and John of Stobnica—discussed below) faced. It is significant that, as Krauze-Błachowicz has noted, he “tried not so much to prevent the spread of a new approach to grammar as to defend the reasonableness of linguistic analysis.”33

humanists; see the example cited in Krauze-Błachowicz, “Declaratio Donati minoris Jana z Głogowa—Prolog i kwestia pierwsza,” Acta Mediaevalia 15 (2002): 427–446, here 432, note 32 (poem by the noted humanist Lawrence Corvinus). 32  Krauze-Błachowicz, Jan z Głogowa, 325; (see also the English-language summary of her study, 392–398, here 398). Some of these same themes are discussed more briefly in Krauze-Błachowicz, “Jan z Głogowa w dialogu z tradycją gramatyki spekulatywnej,” Studia Warmińskie 41–42 (2004–2005): 77–86. 33  Krauze-Błachowicz, “Ioannes Glogoviensis: the Modist Grammarian on the Boundary between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 9 (2003):123– 138, here 124. On this same page, she goes on to note, citing Heath, “Logical Grammar, Grammatical Logic and Humanism,” 17, that “Glogoviensis defended the authority of

The Arts Faculty, I

297

The grammatical contribution of John Sommerfeld the Elder (known as Aesticampianus) reflects the way in which a new tradition, that of humanistic grammar, was making inroads at Cracow. John came from Lusatia and matriculated at Cracow in 1479, completing the requirements for the bachelor in arts in 1481 and incepting as a master in 1485. In subsequent years he taught a variety of subjects in arts as both an extraneus and a member of the Collegium minus. We will consider him later in this chapter and in greater detail below in Chapters Ten and Eleven.34 Among an impressive body of his writings was a commentary upon the versified version of Priscian’s grammar written, perhaps by the middle of the thirteenth century, by a certain Eberhard of Spain and attributed to the famous twelfth century Parisian grammarian Peter Helias. John’s commentary, finished in May 1497 and printed in Strasbourg in 1499, begins with an introduction written in a humanistic style. He then proceeds to deal in a summary manner with previous grammatical traditions, especially those represented by John Versor, the mid-fifteenth century philosopher at Paris,35 and John of Głogów, neither of whose work is to him acceptable. Nevertheless, in subsequent parts of his commentary, Aesticampianus is not completely able to develop a systematic critique of the traditions of speculative grammar. Indeed, in his commentary, he presents quite a clear description of this tradition. The result of his approach is that, unable to present a developed humanistic alternative, his presentation retains a familiar scholastic outlook. The closest analysis of his commentary, that by Cyprian Mielczarski, observes that he “was not successful in creating an independent grammatical compendium based on the rules of classical grammar but instead adopted

Alexander de Villa Dei, to whom the Humanists themselves had an ambivalent attitude, with no better pattern to follow yet.” 34  For his biography, basic information is provided by PSB, 40, 469; FwP, 145; and Nowy Korbut, 3, 277. The chapter devoted to John’s biography by Mielczarski, Między gramatyką scholastyczną a humanistyczną, 7–20 includes a broad discussion of the intellectual climate in which he was educated, taught, and wrote during his career. 35  Versor, as a representative of the via antiqua, became increasingly popular at Cracow in the second half of the fifteenth century; see the comments of Mielczarski, Między gramatyką scholastyczną a humanistyczną, 32–33 and note 54, p. 42. Versor also had a significant following at the University of Prague in the second half of the century; see František Šmahel, “Paris und Prag um 1450. Johannes Versor und seine böhmischen Schüler,” Studia Źródłoznawcze 25 (1980): 65–77, and in his Die Prager Universität im Mittelalter / The Charles University in the Middle Ages. Gesammelte Aufsätze / Selected Studies (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007 [Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 28]), 440–464.

298

CHAPTER 6

the approach of a commentary upon medieval texts and their rules.”36 Equally, he concludes, this commentary does not come up to the standards of new approaches in Germany (for example, Bernard Perger’s Grammatica nova), though he does reflect the beginnings of a new orientation.37 While the work is characteristically scholastic, it reveals a clear understanding of previous traditions, especially those of speculative grammar, and looks at them disapprovingly; it does show the influence of Renaissance humanism; and it is grounded in an impressive knowledge of Priscian and the works of the Greek grammarians to whom Sommerfeld referred.38 Finally, and briefly, in the context of grammatical contributions by Cracovian faculty in the late Middle Ages, mention should be made of John of Stobnica. Having matriculated in arts at Cracow in 1490, he was promoted to bachelor in 1494 and incepted as a master in 1498, then lectured in a broad range of arts subjects from 1498 to 1514. As was traditional, he began as an extraneus non de facultate, but later held an appointment in the Collegium minus and eventually the Collegium maius. A strong proponent of the philosophy of John Duns Scotus (i.e., the via antiqua), he gradually began to reflect the influences of humanism in his teaching and writing, as we shall see in a subsequent chapter. He served twice as Dean of the Arts faculty (1507 and 1513), though already in his first deanship he had entered the Bernadine Order as a monk. He died in 1518 or the following year, leaving behind a very broad range of important and influential writings.39 Among them is his Generalis doctrina de modis significandi, printed for the first time in Cracow prior to 1508, with at least three subsequent editions. This brief treatise (which, incidentally, provides in passing some interesting information about his teachers and his association with the Hungarian bursa at Cracow) presents in an elemental manner the basic outlines of modist grammar. In characteristic scholastic manner John makes three points in analyzing 36  Mielczarski, Między gramatyką scholastyczną a humanistyczną, 77; for his full analysis of the character of John’s commentary, see 71–79. 37   Ibid., 121, and, for the full range of Mielczarski’s conclusions, 121–125. 38   Ibid., 81–97 for the sources reflected in the commentary, and 99–120 for a comparison of scholastic grammar (especially that reflected by John of Głogów) and what Mielczarski calls Sommerfled’s scientia litteraria. 39  For his biography, see PSB, 10, 480; Nowy Korbut, 3, 289–291; FwP, 145–147; and Ryszard Palacz, “Jan ze Stobnicy,” Materiały 1 (12) (1970): 23–38, which provides a list of his teaching and his writings. In connection with the entry for his bachelor’s promotion in the Księga promocji, 91, and Najstarsza księga promocji, 258, a probable later hand has added the notation beside his name “frater ordinis Minorum ex collegiato factus, vir beatus et doctus.”

The Arts Faculty, I

299

the modes of understanding: that being is an external property of the thing considered, that knowing the thing is duplex, and that the modes of signification are also duplex.40 Ryszard Gansiniec, whose mid-twentieth century studies of speculative grammar in Poland constitute the foundation upon which more recent Polish scholarship rests, has commented that John’s work reflects tendencies in the Arts faculty that show conformity to medieval scholastic traditions.41 In many ways this is true as far as it goes, and his observations seems to be at the root of E.J. Ashworth’s dismissive statement about speculative grammar as part of the philosophy of language that “for the period we are concerned with, there is only one brief work in support of speculative grammar which needs to be mentioned, [that] by the Polish author John of Stobnica.”42 What is in some respects more interesting, however, is that this tradition—part of the revived via antiqua—coexisted with older vestiges of the via moderna and early manifestations of Renaissance influences from Italy. As L.G. Kelly has observed “By the mid-fifteenth century Krakow was an extremely international university, and very tolerant of all sorts of contrary trends. Not surprisingly it taught both the via antiqua and the via moderna, and integrated them into the new Humanist trends [even if t]his was not to the taste of some.”43 John of

40  “Primo itaque considerandum: Sicut modus intelligendi hanc vel illam rem sumit a modo essendi illius rei . . . . Pro quo intelligendo notatdum est secundo: quod . . . duplex est modus intelligendi . . .; Pro cuius clariori intellectione notandum tercio: Quod duplices sunt modi significandi, per quos discernuntur partes orationis, scilicet essentiales et accidentales.” Cited from the edition of Ryszard Gansiniec, Metrificale Marka z Opatowca i traktaty gramatyczne XIV i XV wieku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1960 [Studia Staropolskie 6]), 150 and 151. 41   Ibid., 146. This is not a positive judgment, for Gansiniec assessed the work of John of Głogów and John of Stobnica from the standpoint of a scholar of the Renaissance. Indeed, on the previous page (145) he assessed the former’s work very negatively. KrauzeBłachowicz, “Ioannes Glogoviensis,” 136–137, takes particular exception to his judgment: “R. Gansiniec seems to have missed the point . . . when he summed up Glogoviensis work as ‘repulsive for a Humanist’ because of its ‘technical Latin’ and devoid of ‘literary or compositional factors’.” 42  E.J. Ashworth, “Traditional Logic,” in Charles B. Schmitt, general editor, and Quentin Skinner and Eckhard Kessler, eds., The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 143–172, here 153. 43   Michaelis de Marbasio, Kelly, ed., LIII. The specific critic to whom he alludes was Heinrich Bebel (1472–1514 or 1518), a faculty member and curricular reformer at Tübingen who had studied at Cracow and attended courses in grammar taught by John Sommerfeld; see Heath, “Logical Grammar,” 24.

300

CHAPTER 6

Stobnica’s Generalis doctrina continued to be used at Cracow for instruction in grammar into the sixteenth century.44 This overview of Cracovian contributions in grammar, brief as it is, suggests that the masters were content, for the most part, during the bulk of the first century following the 1400 restauratio, to utilize works for instruction derived from external traditions, preparing limited comments and glosses when appropriate. Only late in the fifteenth century were more fully rounded and developed treatises produced by those lecturing on this subject. In some respects the same was true for rhetoric, to which we now turn, but there were important exceptions.

The Trivium: Rhetoric

The rhetorical tradition in the middle ages was derived from late antiquity and mediated through the emergence of the Christian culture of the Latin fathers. The influence of Cicero’s De inventione and the anonymous Rhetorica ad Herennium attributed to him, Augustine’s De doctrina Christiana, Martianus Capella’s De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii, the writings of Cassiodorus and Boethius—all created a complex heritage which, in the studia and courts of medieval Europe, provided a range of educational tools that served the increasingly sophisticated and broad needs of European society. For the purposes of university instruction, however, instruction in rhetoric was, in many ways, a pale imitation of the antique and patristic tradition, for much of its civic and public context had been profoundly altered in the intervening centuries. Thus written culture and the ars dictaminis, the art of preaching, and the increasing association of rhetoric with literary ornament—especially in a poetic context—shaped the texts that were used for instruction. While Cicero’s De inventione and the Pseudo-Cicero Rhetorica ad Herennium continued in use, they were supplements by such works as Geoffrey of Vinsauf’s early thirteenth century Poetria nova and the Laborintus of Eberhard “the German” (before 1280).45 44  Gansiniec, Metrificale Marka z Opatowca, 154 and note 26. 45  For an overview of medieval rhetoric, see—among many options—the following: James J. Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1974, reprinted 2001); Martin Camargo, “Rhetoric,” in Wagner, ed., The Seven Liberal Arts in the Middle Ages, 96–124; Leff, “The Trivium and the Three Philosophies,” 315–316; and Marjorie C. Woods, “A Medieval Rhetoric Goes to School—and to the University; The Commentaries on the Poetria nova,” Rhetorica 9 (1991): 55–65.

The Arts Faculty, I

301

At Cracow, as we have seen, according to the original statutes of 1406, rhetoric was to be taught from the Poetria nova of Geoffrey; as a result of the establishment of the Mężykowa chair in 1420 the works of Boethius and Alanus de Insulis were allowed in extraordinary lectures. With the establishment of the Collegium minus in 1449 and the assignment to it of the Nowko chair with instruction on a broadened textual basis,46 the status of rhetoric in the curriculum was enhanced. For the most part it appears, instruction in rhetoric, especially in the early part of the fifteenth century, was limited to the reading and verbal commentary upon the required texts. There is no evidence of works written by Cracovian scholars being used in instruction.47 What composition of a rhetorical nature there was, was used outside the academic curriculum. For example the treatise De rhetorica cum dictamino is a formulary written, probably by the Cracovian scholar Stanisław Ciołek between 1424 and 1428, was utilized independently of the university. The Liber formularum Cracoviensium, written by George, a notary of the king, was influential in the royal chancery but was apparently not used for academic instruction.48 Other materials, with one important exception, fall into the same category. The exception derives from John of Dąbrówka, whom we have previously met in a number of different contexts.49 John began to hold the Nowko chair in 1427 and retained it until 1433. The text which formed the core of instruction in rhetoric was the Poetria Nova of Geoffrey of Vinsauf. His treatise had gradually become the standard text in late medieval universities. In his 2100 hexameter lines, Geoffrey sought to present the three basic elements of rhetoric: ars, 46  See above, Chapter Three, notes 73 and 188. 47  For two students in the first half of the fifteenth century for whom we have detailed information regarding the courses they completed for their degrees, there is no mention of works by Cracovian authors being utilized; see Oźóg, “Septem artes na Wydziałe Sztuk Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” 111–113. 48  These, and other less significant works, are analyzed by Markowski, “”Krakowskie piśmiennictwo retoryczne w świetle piętnastowiecznych źródeł,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 37, no. 1/2 (1987) 5–71, especially 34–68. Zofia Kowalska, Stanisław Ciołek († 1437). Podkanclerzy królewski, biskup poznański, poeta dworski (Cracow: Universitas, 1993), 156 and n. 135, discusses this work of Stanisław’s and rejects Markowski’s conclusion that it was executed in the context of the university environment. George’s formulary was first edited and printed, with introduction and commentary, by Karol Górski, Formularz Jerzego pisarza grodzkiego krakowskiego ok. 1399–1415 (Toruń: Nakładem Towarzystwo Naukowe w Toruniu, 1950); subsequent studies include Jerzy Luciński, “Formularze czynności prawnych w Polsce w wiekach średnich. Przegłąd badań, Studia Źródłoznawcze 18 (1973): 149–179, especially 144–146. 49  For his basic biographical information see above, Chapter Four, note 94.

302

CHAPTER 6

the knowledge of the rules; imitatio, the study and imitation of writers; and usus, diligent practice. John of Dąbrówka apparently decided that this text was not fully sufficient for instructions purposes, and after he stepped down from the Nowko chair and had begun to lecture on Aristotle’s Politics, he embarked upon the preparation of a commentary upon the early thirteenth century chronicle by Vincent Kadłubek, Bishop of Cracow 1207–1218, d. 1228, which, as we shall see below, he intended to be used as a text for instruction in rhetoric.50 Vincent’s vision of the Polish past and his distinctive rhetorical style apparently appealed to John of Dąbrówka. In the commentary he prepared, he intended to sum up his own teaching practices and insights from the years he held the Nowko chair and to create a text that could be used in the teaching of rhetoric. The result was a work which, at the very least, introduced a historical text into the university milieu. Until recently this text has been little studied. Now, however, thanks to the modern critical edition prepared in 2008

50  Before becoming a bishop Vincent had written at least three and probably all four books of his Chronica Polonorum, an unusual and untypical historical work written in a particularly florid rhetorical style. The first three books are a dialogue at a feast between two historic individuals, Archbishop John of Gniezno and Bishop Matthew of Cracow. The latter narrates episodes from Polish history—generally in chronological order—and the former comments on them. Then they retire from the table to “sleep in the Lord,” (i.e., they died) and a servant—Vincent himself—who had been recording what they said, is called upon to continue the narrative, which he does reluctantly. For his biography, see—among a very rich literature—the following: Roman Grodecki, “Mistrz Wincenty, biskup krakowski (zarys biograficzny),” Rocznik Krakowski, 19 (1923): 30–61; Jan Dąbrowski, Dawne dziejopisarstwo polskie (do roku 1480) (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1964), 71–74; Brygida Kürbis’ introduction (Wstęp) in her translation, Mistrz Wincenty (tzw. Kadłubek) Kronika Polska, 2nd ed. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1996 [Biblioteka Narodowa 277]), IV–LVII (“Wiadomości o życie Mistrza Wincentego”); and two works by Marian Plezia: “Mistrz Wincenty zwany Kadłubkiem,” in Stanisław Grzeszczuk, ed., Pisarze staropolscy, sylwetki (Warsaw: Wiedza Powszechna, 1991) 93–131, and his introduction to his modern critical edition of the chronicle, Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek Chronica Polonorum, in Monumenta Poloniae Historica, Series nova 11 (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1994), V–X. See also the semi-popular but sound treatment by Krzysztof Rafał Prokop, Wincenty Kadłubek (Cracow: Wydawnictwo WAM 2005). Volume 20 (1976) of Studia Źródłoznawcze, printed the proceedings of a symposium devoted to Vincent Kadłubek: “Mistrz Wincenty Kadłubek, pierwszy uczony polski—w 750-lecie śmierci,” 3–140;” it contains much valuable material. The recent German translation of Vincent’s chronicle contains, in its editorial introduction, additional valuable insights; see Eduard Mühle, editor and translation, with commentary, Die Chronik der Polen des Magisters Vincentius (Darmstadt: WBG, 2014), 13–33 for details on Vincent, 33–68 for analysis of the chronicle.

The Arts Faculty, I

303

by Marian Zwiercan,51 whose preparatory analysis in the late 1960s52 initiated a growing appreciation of John’s work, it is possible to grasp the structure and more fully to appreciate the significance of the commentary. John of Dąbrówka began with a substantial preface explaining his purposes and his understanding of the uses of history. In it he commented: [Inspired by] the Ancients’ love of the fatherland . . ., it seemed to me worthwhile for the great increase of our unconquered Kingdom of Poland to bring back to the attention of moderns the ancient deeds worthy of memory contained in the chronicle of Vincent from the very beginning; to recall those virtues and vices, the victories granted Poland from on high, so that study of good deeds would excite the wills of the Poles, and that so aided their hearts might be invited to follow them.53 Thereafter his method was essentially threefold. First he sought to provide, unsystematically but fairly fully, historical summary, explanation, and where he deemed appropriate augmentation of the material contained in Vincent’s chronicle. For this he drew upon information and data provided in other historical materials to which he had access.54 Second, he provided an ­exposition, 51   Ioannes de Dąbrówka Commentum in Chronicam Polonorum Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek, Marian Zwiercan, ed., with the assistance of Anna Zofia Kozłowska and Michaele Rzepiela (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2008 [Monumenta Poloniae Historica, nova Series, 14]). 52  Zwiercan, Komentarz Jana z Dąbrówki do Kroniki mistrza Wincentego zwanego Kadłubkiem (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1969). 53  Quoted by Paul Radzilowski “Binding the New Together with the Old: Fifteenth-Century Writers on the Origins of the Polish State and People in the Face of Earlier Tradition,” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Southern California, 2000, 238, from MS Cracow BJ 2574, f. 1; Radzilowski’s work was completed prior to the publication of Zwiercan’s edition, but Zwiercan uses the same manuscript from which Radzilowski quotes as the base upon which to build his text. Zwiercan’s edited text (3) reads here “Quod cum memori mente digessissem, dignum fore reputavi amore patrie . . . pro nostri regni Polonie invictissimi incremento non modico gesta vetustissima, memoratu digna, ab ipsius exordio in Cronica Vincensiana verissime contenta pro posse repetere virtutesque ac dominia, verum eciam victorias celitus Polonis concessas ad modernorum noticiam reducere, ut ad studia bonorum actuum provocarentur vota ipsorum et profectu priorum invitarentur corda sequenciaum.” 54  These included (1) the Chronica Poloniae maioris (the Chronicle of Great Poland, i.e., the region around Poznań in the Warta river basin), which had been, probably, composed at the end of the thirteenth century; (2) an early fourteenth century chronicle derived from the milieu of the Franciscan community in Cracow traditionally attributed to a certain

304

CHAPTER 6

sometimes quite expansive, of the moral and ethical points implied in Vincent’s narrative, doing so by drawing upon a broad range of authors, both medieval and classical. His intent in this was to emphasize and clarify the ethical sense of these matters. And third, he included, sometimes randomly, at other times more systematically, explanations of the philological points contained in the more difficult terms used by Vincent. In this, he often reflects a dictaminal approach to the teaching of rhetoric in which he conceives each of the speeches in Vincent’s text as discrete “letters” responding to the “letters” of another speech. All of this was intended to enlighten his students, to edify them morally and ethically, and—by implication—to use historical materials as the means toward accomplishing this. The three most important scholars who have investigated John’s commentary all seem agreed that the main thrust of the work is the use of moral facts for moral elucidation. Marian Zwiercan, for example, while appreciating the innovation of introducing a historical chronicle into an academic curriculum, concluded that the essentially moralistic character of the commentary meant that whatever historiographical elements were present were subordinated to ethical concerns.55 Juliusz Domański approached John’s commentary in the context of the beginning of humanistic influences in Poland, particularly in the realm of philosophy. He looked at the metahistorical concepts reflected

Dzierzwa; (3) the universal chronicle of the popes and emperors by Martin of Troppau (Martinus Polonus) from the thirteenth century, and (4) a variety of annals associated with the region of Little Poland, including materials that have, along with the Chronicle of Great Poland, come to be regarded by some scholars as “the Great Chronicle” perhaps the work of Janko of Czarnków, the royal vice-chancellor of King Casimir III the Great (d. 1370) . The complex issue of the authorship or compilation of the Chronica Poloniae Maioris and what has come to be knows as “the Great Chronicle” is approached by Janusz Bieniak, “Jan (Janek) von Czarnków. Unvollendete polnische Chronik aus dem 14. Jahrhundert,” Quaestiones Medii Aevi novae 14 (2009): 123–184. Not all of his conclusions have been fully accepted, and this is still a very active area of scholarship. He did not use, or apparently have access to, the twelfth century chronicle traditionally known as that of Gallus Anonymous, but now more appropriately designated as Gesta principum Polonorum. For this title see the introduction to Gesta principum Polonorum / The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles, translated and annotated by Paul W. Knoll and Frank Schaer, with a Preface by Thomas N. Bisson, 2nd, revised printing (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2007 [Central European Medieval Texts 3]), xix–lxv. 55  Zwiercan, Komentarz Jana z Dąbrówki, 114–157 and, especially, 177–182.

The Arts Faculty, I

305

in the commentary.56 As summarized by Mikołaj Olszewski,57 Domański’s views are essentially that John regarded Vincent rescuing from oblivion past heroes’ deeds and virtues in a literary way; that literature is the only way to demonstrate patterns of moral acting; that it has a special role in promoting and popularizing virtues and virtuous persons; that the entire process of immortalizing by means of historical literature is strictly connected with the idea of patriotism (indeed John does cite this virtue with a favorable reference to Horace’s Carmina, repeating his maxim “Dulce . . . et decorum est pro patria mori);58 and similarly that, above all, John fundamentally subordinates history to moral philosophy. The approach of Jerzy Korolec was slightly different, for he was investigating what John had to say about Vincent’s views on the ideal ruler.59 His approach was to emphasize the theory of values represented by both individuals, and he saw John’s commentary in particular as being oriented toward the moral education of leaders such as Duke Casimir the Just. Thus none of these three see John’s outlook as being in any way historical. Indeed, Zwiercan had originally concluded explicitly that “John of Dąbrówka was not a historian. Rather one might call him a history buff60 [or amateur historian] (miłośnikiem historii).” There is nothing in Zwiercan’s recent edition or other related writings to indicate he has changed his opinion.61 56  Juliusz Domański, Początki humanizmu (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1982 [Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 9]), 138–142, and in the slightly revised version of this work, Scholastyka i początki humanizmu w myśli polskiej XV wieku (Warsaw: Instytut Tomistyczny, 2011), 178–185. 57  Mikołaj Olszewski, “History at the medieval university? Remarks on John of Dąbrówka’s Commentary on Vincent Kadłubek’s Chronicle of Poles”, unpublished [?] paper presented 8 September 2011 at the SIEPM Annual Colloquium, Łódź, Poland, 4. 58   Ioannes de Dąbrówka Commentum, 112. 59  Jerzy B. Korolec, “Problem cnót moralnych w ‘komentarzu’ Jana z Dąbrówki do ‘Kroniki’ Mistrza Wincentego,” in Korolec, Wolność, cnota, praxis (Warsaw: Polska Akademia Nauk, 2006 [Studia z dziejów filozofii, 1]), 167–178, reprinted from Teresa Michałowska, ed. Literatura i kultura późnego średniowiecza w Polsce (Warsaw: Instytut Badań Literackich, 1993), 57–67; in the volume of his collected works, Korolec includes a study of the role of moral virtue in the legitimization of the ideal ruler in Vincent’s chronicle, pp. 145–166. Indeed, the question of the image of the ideal ruler in the view of Polish intellectuals is one that has attracted a number of scholars; see the comments below in this chapter following note 134. 60  This is the phrase adopted by Radzilowski, “Binding the New Together with the Old,” 237. 61  The quote comes from Zwiercan, Komentarz, 181. Zwiercan is a bit more sympathetic to the legitimacy of historical interests in John’s work in his “Zainteresowanie historyczne społeczności Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XV wieku,” in Teresa Michałowska, ed., Literatura i kultura późnego średniowiecza w Polsce, 41–86.

306

CHAPTER 6

One should not minimize the degree to which moralization and ethical concerns were part of John of Dąbrówka’s outlook. But each of the scholars whose work has been summarized here may be too cautious when they limit John’s contribution merely to moral matters and characterize his concerns as merely ethical and rhetorical. There are points at which it appears that John goes further in the direction of what will eventually become an outlook in which history stands as an independent discipline rather than being subordinated to rhetoric, as Aristotle had argued in the Poetics. Three details seem to lead to this conclusion. First, in his commentary on Vincent’s prologue to Book Four of his history, John observes that Vincent, now the narrator of events, should not have been as averse as he asserted he was to serving as the one who would be the chronicler.62 Vincent’s excuse was that he felt incapable of achieving his responsibilities. John’s observation is that the active inventing of literature does not achieve as much as receptive learning and that by the addition of information one achieves knowledge and can aspire to truth.63 As Olszewski has noted, John is here suggesting that truth is the goal of a historian and making additions to knowledge helps one achieve it.64 Toward that end, in his own commentary John does not hesitate to provide information and data which complement what Vincent wrote and which elaborate and clarify points originally presented by Vincent. Second, there is a section in John’s commentary when he turns to a discussion of the banquet being celebrated between Archbishop John and Bishop Matthew in Vincent’s chronicle. John of Dąbrówka uses this context as a metaphor to observe that there are a variety of kinds of banquets: plebian, civic, and philosophical banquets. With the first two, it is evident from his comments, history has nothing in common. With the last, however, the philosophical concerns of the banquet do indeed seem in the treatment by John to resemble historical works. The philosopher seeks everything to be presented openly and in conformity with truth, and John argues that in chronicles one should also seek accuracy and conform to the practical goals of presenting what moral conditions previous individuals possessed that should be virtues and ­exemplars

62  See note 50 above. 63   Ioannes de Dąbrówka Commentum, 190: Facilius est autem parata colligere, quam aliqua ex proprio ingenio invenire, multa enim sunt, que per doctrinacionem habemus, modica autem, que per invencionem acquirimus, primo Methaphisice. Sciencie enim fiunt per additamenta, ut habetur in fine secundi Elencorum. 64  Olszewski, “History at the medieval university?” 6.

The Arts Faculty, I

307

emulated by the descendants of these ancestors. Thus history serves as a propaedutic in achieving the same goal as philosophy.65 Third, there is a relation between moral values and history that is reflected in John’s commentary. Throughout his observations, whether moralistic or informational by adding piece of data that Vincent had not included, John sees virtues strictly bound to the course of historical events. The modest and humble ruler (humilis) is successful—John provides many examples—while the arrogant or proud ruler (superbus) is doomed to failure—again many examples.66 One of the most important examples of John’s development of this interrelatedness is his discussion of the Battle of Grunwald (Tannenberg, Żalgiris) in 1410, an event which, of course, was not treated in Vincent’s chronicle from two centuries previous. In discussing this battle, in which the combined forces of the Polish and Lithuanian rulers decisively defeated the forces of the Knights of the Teutonic Order, John argues that the virtue of humilitas of King Władysław Jagiełło of Poland and Grand Duke Vytautas (Witold) of Lithuania and the arrogance (superbia) of the Order were central to and determined the outcome of the battle.67 In this discussion John may well have 65   Ioannes de Dąbrówka Commentum, 191: Tercium convivium est philosophicum et hoc omnino est castigatum et suis regulis limitatum, sobrium enim est et omni luxuria privatum. 192: Secundo, sicut in conviviis iuxta Valerium Maximum libro secundo, capitulo secundo De institutis antiquis ‘maiores natu ad tibias egregia superiorum opera carmine comprehensa pangebant, ut ad ea imitanda iuvenum virtutem alacriorem redderent’ sic in gestis cronicarum priscorum virtutes et gesta referuntur, ut succedanei ad virtutes similes et gesta laudabilia similiter facienda provocentur. 66  Related to this is the concept of the ideal ruler. Krzysztof Ożóg, Uczeni w monarchii Jadwigi Andegaweńskiej i Władysława Jagiełły (1384–1434) (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2004), 111–118, has analyzed John’s commentary as a reflection of his views on this issue, though within the larger context of political thought in general. See also Ożóg, “Ideal władcy w krakowskim środowisku intelektualnym na początku XV w.,” in Jerzy Strzelczyk and Józef Dobosz, eds., with the assistance of Zbyszek Górczak, et al., Nihil superfluum esse. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane professor Jadwidze Krzyżaniakowej (Poznań: Instytut Historii UAM, 2000), 415–426, which contains much material later incorporated into the book cited at the beginning of this note. See also Zwiercan, “Model władcy w Komentarzu Jana z Dąbrówki do Kroniki bł. Wincentego zwanego Kadłubkiem w wykładzie uniwersyteckim w latach Jana Długosza,” Analecta Cracoviensia 16 (1984): 233–245. In my view, John’s political views are solidly based in historical material even though couched in moralistic and ethical terms at points. See below. 67   Ioannes de Dąbrówka Commentum, 76: Similiter accidit inter regem Polonie Wladislaum et Cruciferos de Prussia anno Domini Mº CCCCº Xº. Cruciferi enim superbia afflati Wladislao regi Polonie cum Alexandro, alias Vitoldo, magno duce Lithwanie, fratre suo,

308

CHAPTER 6

imputed humility or arrogance to individuals incorrectly (in this sense he was not a historian in the modern sense in which one fundamental responsibility of history is to be accurate). But it is important to recognize that for him morality and ethical considerations were separate from historical details, even though related. There was, thus, the eventual potential for history to become an independent discipline and move beyond this symbiotic tie to ethical and moral values. This very brief analysis of a few details in a long text must suffice to support an assessment of John of Dąbrówka’s contribution to the way in which history had the potential to assert its independence from rhetoric. It is also important to note that John’s work was not merely a private meditation intended only for the edification of the author. We do not know whether John actually used it himself in his teaching. But we do know that when, as a university administrator in 1449 he acted to reorganize the Collegium maius and establish the Collegium minus for arts teaching, he included the chronicle of Vincent Kadłubek and specified the use of his own commentary as a text for instruction.68 It was taught along with Cicero’s De inventione, the pseudoCiceronian Rhetorica ad Herennium, Eberhard of Bethune’s Graecismus, and, of course, Geoffrey of Vinsauf’s Poetria nova. Beyond the curriculum in the university, we know that John’s commentary was used as a text in a variety of cathedral and even parish schools during the rest of the fifteenth century. All together there are twenty-four manuscript codices extant from the fifteenth century that contain John’s commentary, each together with Vincent’s chronicle.69 For the remainder of the century, the tradition of teaching in rhetoric at Cracow was enhanced by some of the institutional and curricular reforms associated, in particular, with John of Dąbrówka and noted in a previous c­ hapter. duos gladios cruentos ante congressum direxerunt, quibus ipsos necare intenderunt. Ipsi vero humiliter acceptis gladiis in auxilium Deo assumpto magistrum generalem cum marsalcone ac commendatoribus nec non aliis ipsorum complicibus centum milia XXX milia et quadringeta occiderunt. Quorum residui capti Cracouiam funibus vincti ac catenis ligati non pauci sunt appulsi vinculaque grandia ipsimet sustulerunt, quibus Polonos trucidare voluerunt. Hoc inflixit ipsis superbia, que iure meretur casum et non sublimia. 68  Igancy Zarębski, “Okres wczesnego humanizmu,” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 173–175. 69  Zwiercan, Komentarz, 14–83 and 158–176; Oźóg, Uczeni, 117–118; Radzilowski, “Binding the New Together with the Old,” 232–234. The foregoing text does not take into account the contributions made by Polish scholars in a conference 12–13 June 2013 in Warsaw devoted to John of Dąbrówka’s Commentary to the Polish chronicle of Bishop Vincent. The final session of this meeting included a presentation by Marian Zwiercan entitled “The History of Research on Dąbrówka.” It is probable that eventually a volume containing the presentations made at this conference will be published.

The Arts Faculty, I

309

The expansion of offerings in rhetoric in the second half of the century certainly reinforced this. Whether the inclusion of Quintilian in the rhetoric ­curriculum—ambiguously in 1449 and more explicitly in 1475–1476—meant that the full text of his Institutio oratoria became part of the academic program is not clear (a point to be discussed further in Chapter Ten).70 But it is clear, especially after 1487, when the record of the Liber diligentiarum begins and the courses assigned to faculty are known, that teaching in rhetoric continued to be vital. One indication of this was the productivity of materials related to this part of the trivium by individual Cracovian masters. The following examples should be regarded as indicative, as much remains yet to be done to analyze fully the activity and productivity in this field. One part of medieval rhetoric was ars dictaminis, which provided, as James J. Murphy has noted, “a sensible, pragmatic solution to the basic problem of letter writing.”71 At Cracow, the middle quarters of the fifteenth century saw contributions that were characteristically medieval, while the last decades of the century showed the beginnings of Renaissance influences in the approaches to epistolography. One example of the former is an anonymous treatise, Ars dictaminis, composed in the academic environment of Cracow apparently around 1449 or shortly thereafter.72 This work, as yet unedited and only superficially studied, is organized in a traditional manner. To give one example from it: the author suggests that the term carmen (generally understood as any kind of written work) is taken to be synonymous with dictamen, which is divided into three variant forms: prosaicum, metricum, and rithmicum. The sources upon which the author of this work relies are traditional medieval authorities (such as Ludolf of Hildesheim). It is not clear as to whether this work was ever 70  Compare the text of Tadeusz Ulewicz, “Polish Humanism and its Italian Sources: Beginnings and Historical Development,” in Samuel Fiszman, ed., The Polish Renaissance in its European Context (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1988), 215–235, at 221, with the comment by Paul W. Knoll, “Italian Humanism in Poland: The Role of the University of Kraków in the Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries,” in Jean R. Brink and William F. Gentrup, eds., Renaissance Culture in Context. Theory and Practice (Aldershot, England and Brookfield, VT: The Scolar Press, 1993), 164–175, at 168–169 and 175, n. 34. 71  James J. Murphy, “Rhetoric: Western European” in Joseph R. Strayer, editor in chief, Dictionary of the Middle Ages, 13 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1982–1989), 10 (1988): 351–364, here 359. 72  Discussed briefly by Teresa Michałowska, “ ‘Ars dictaminis’ w Polsce średniowiecznej. Literackie treści doktryny,” in Michałowska, ed., Septem artes w kształtowaniu kultury umysłowej w Polsce średniowiecznej, 53 and 63, upon whose work the text above relies. The treatise is contained in MS Cracow BJ 1961, a manuscript which also contains the treatise De orthographia Polonica of James Parkosz of Żórawica.

310

CHAPTER 6

used in instruction at the university, but it reflects an outlook that would have conformed to the approaches of teaching in the Arts, especially in the Nowko and Mężykowa chairs. Within a generation of this work, however, the picture of what constituted rhetorical and epistolographic approaches by Cracovian faculty had begun to change. In a subsequent chapter we shall see the larger ways in which Italian Renaissance humanism, and especially its approach to rhetoric, began to become evident in the academic tastes and approaches within the academic community. Here it is important to recognize, however, the productivity of a group of individuals in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century. Their works were generally of three kinds: manuals entitled variously Elegantiae or Hortus Elegantiarum, which basically provided generalized recommendations of phrases and forms for various kinds of letters; more fully developed collections of letters—whether real or fictitious—which constituted models of various types of letters, such as those of commendation, consolation, and lamentation and which often bore a reference in their titles or descriptions that they were ad usum iuventutis; and fully elaborated works including definitions, types, and treatment of theories of letter writing, often with reference to classical examples. This latter group was characteristically titled Modus or Ars or Methodus epistolandi.73 All of the individuals responsible for these works were products of the Cracovian studium; each produced works on letter writing that in lesser or greater degree bore the stamp of Renaissance influences. John Sacranus of Oświęcim, whose biography is more fully treated in Chapter Ten, studied for five years in Italy after completing requirements for degrees in arts at Cracow in 1469. There, in contact with Francesco Filelfo and John Argyropoulos, he developed a familiarity with and sympathy toward the humanistic movement, in particular its approach to epistolography. Perhaps still in the fifteenth century he composed a modest Modus epistolandi, which was first published in 150574 and reprinted multiple times thereafter. It is relatively short and simple, but treats a full range of issues and with pretensions in the area of written eloquence. The elementary character of the work is 73  For this taxonomy, see Lidia Winniczuk, “The Latin Manuals of Epistolography in Poland in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,” in I.D. McFarlane, ed., Acta Conventus NeoLatini Sanctandreani. Proceedings of the Fifth International congress of Neo-Latin Studies (Binghamton, NY: Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 1986 [Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies 38]), 551; this is an abbreviated presentation of a more fully developed treatment in her book Epistolografia. Łacińskie podręczniki epistolograficzne w Polsce w XV–XVI wieku (Warsaw: Ministerstwo Szkolnictwa Wyższego, 1952), 8–11. 74  There is some confusion as to the date of the first publication, 1505 or 1507; see Winniczuk, Epistolografia, 21 and 35 and “Latin Manuals,” 551 and 557.

The Arts Faculty, I

311

reflected in that Sacranus specifically indicated his audience was the minus eruditi. The quincentennial historian of the university, classicist Kazimierz Morawski, did not think highly of this work, but it represents a distinct departure from the medieval tradition of instruction in letter writing.75 The emerging interests of the aforementioned John Sommerfeld the Elder in issues related to letter writing were reflected in his lectures in 1492 on the De conficiendis epistolis of the Sienese chancellor Agostino Dati and in 1493 on epistolography, using the letters of the Venetian humanist Franciscus Niger and the pseudo-Senecan Epistolae ad Lucilium.76 He repeated this latter course in 1499 and 1501. Eventually, he prepared his own treatise, Modus epistolandi, based upon twenty letters of Niger. It is not clear whether he used it in his own lectures on epistolography, but Conrad Celtis thought it to be sufficiently valuable that he prepared it for the press and wrote an introduction for its publication in Vienna in 1515 (republished in Cracow in 1522). Although Sommerfeld’s work reflects an impressive knowledge of antique and Renaissance material, his approach to the subject was relatively conservative. As Lidia Winniczuk has noted, where Niger utilizes many names from antiquity in his model letters, Sommerfeld merely substituted Polish versions. For example, for a letter of commendation, where Niger presents Commendetur Caesari Sempronius pro equestri dignitate consequenda, Sommerfeld has Commendetur Rector Ursinus doctor Medicinae pro auxilio praestando; and for a letter of consolation, the former’s version is Consoletur Ciceronem Lentulus pro exilio quod propter Clodii odium et malivolentiam patitur, and the latter’s is Consoletur mgrm Ioannem Ioannes Ursinus pro exsilio suo quod accusatione cuiusdam nebulonis patitur.77 Sommerfeld’s work is, however, considered superior to that of Sacranus.

75  Morawski, Historya, 2, 80. The sixteenth century humanist and eventual Archbishop of Gniezno, Andrzej Krzycki (Cricius, 1482–1537), held him in somewhat higher regard; see his encomium of John Sacranus quoted in Henryk Barycz, Historja Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w epoce humanizmu (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1935), 177: Rhetorices studium confert hanc primus in urbem / Et teneram pubem non sine laude docet. / Non adeo Phoebum Satyri, nec tam Orphea silvae / Quam sequitur colitque hunc studiosa cohors. / Illius ori inerat dulcis facundia, per quam / Ad summum evasit conspicuumque deus. Ironically, given Morawski’s position, Barycz is here quoting from A. Cricii carmina, ed. K. Morawski, 184. 76  This is the first notation of lectures on epistolographia in the Liber diligentiarum, which begins only in 1487. Prior to 1493, there had been at least one previous occasion for lectures in this field at the university, however, when Conrad Celtis had done so in 1489, undoubtedly as an extraneus non de facultate; see below, Chapter Ten. 77  See the extended analysis by Winniczuk, Epistolografia, 39–54, and, more briefly, “Latin Manuals of Epistolography,” 552.

312

CHAPTER 6

Arguably the most important Cracovian master who produced significant work in the rhetorical sub-area of epistolography was John Ber Ursinus (ca. 1460–ca. 1500 [1503?]), whose fuller biography and contribution in a humanistic context is treated below in Chapter Ten.78 Here, it is his interest in Renaissance epistolography that is primary. Although teaching in the medical faculty, his experience and contacts during study in Italy led him to a career with an oratorical dimension and to the preparation of his Modus epistolandi . . . cum epistolis exemplaribus orationibus annexis. Material for this had been gathered by about 1493 and was first printed in Nuremberg in 1496. Unlike the hypothetical and somewhat lifeless letters which, for example, Sommerfeld included in his own collection, there are actual letters which John had sent to such individuals as Callimachus, King John Albert, the humanist Matthew Drzewicki,79 and others. They are full of sparkle and vitality. This book also contained five of John’s orations, together with brief commentary. Throughout, the commitment of the author to the ideals of Renaissance eloquence is clear.80 Impressive as these beginnings in epistolography were and despite the new material they introduced into the academic scene, they did not become standard texts in the Cracovian curriculum. Indeed, when one considers the larger picture of the productivity of faculty at Cracow in the disciplines of grammar and rhetoric, it is clear that the libri upon which courses were predicated and 78  Stanisław Biel of Nowe Miasto in Ruthenia, known as Albinus, whose career and accomplishments are treated below in Chapter Ten, also wrote a treatise on epistolography, Exordia epistolarum (1512); the career as humanist and epistolographer of his younger contemporary, Stanisław of Łowicz (ca. 1500–1542), falls outside the scope of this study. For them, see Barycz, Historja Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 177–179, and Winniczuk, Epistolografia, 54–60. John Sommerfeld from Lusatia, who also Latinized his name to Aesticampianus, but was known as Rhagius to distinguish him from Aesticampianus the Elder, was also important in Humanist contexts at Cracow, although in a slightly later period. His activity is treated briefly below in Chapter Ten. 79  Drzewicki (1467–1535) was a part of Callimachus’ circle and eventually became chief royal secretary under John Albert, who (in part because of the tutelage of Callimachus) was sympathetic to humanists. After the king’s death, he turned to an ecclesiastical career, although he continued to be important in court and diplomatic issues. He was the patron of the even greater humanist, John Dantyszek (Dantiscus). He ended his interesting life as Archbishop of Gniezno. For his biography, which needs extended monographic treatment, see Nowy Korbut, 2, 145–147. 80  For a fuller analysis, see J. Ursinus Modus epistolandi cum epistolis exemplaribus et orationibus annexis, Lidia Winniczuk, ed. and trans. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1957). She provides some examples from his treatise in Epistolografia, 30–34, and “Latin Manuals of Epistolography,” 553–556.

The Arts Faculty, I

313

upon which lectures were based remained solidly in the earlier medieval tradition of European studia, and as Lidia Winniczuk noted in the 1950s, “Thus none of these authors of epistolographic treatises demonstrated originality.”81 We shall return again to the larger question of the contribution made by Cracovian scholars at the end of this study, but with respect to the question of humanistic influences it is sufficient to mention one part of an argument made recently by Jacqueline Glomski. She has suggested that the new learning was only slowly being admitted into the institutional structure of the university and that it lacked patronage from the larger society.82 In this she echoes conclusions drawn more than three decades ago by James Overfield, whose analysis of selected German institutions showed how difficult it was for adherents of the new learning to gain regular positions in their respective studia, though it was not necessarily as the result of some intrinsic conflict between scholasticism and humanism.83 To this, it should also be said, that both grammar and, especially, rhetoric in the late medieval studium were very much overshadowed by the discipline of dialectic or logic, whose influence permeated all parts of the studium. To this topic and developments touching Cracovian productivity we now turn.

The Trivium: Dialectic or Logic

This discipline came to be especially important in the medieval universities, and by extension also at Cracow, because it was fundamental to the art—or science—of reasoning and argument, and was predicated upon rigorous and systematic analysis. Whether one wished to make demonstrative arguments that arrive at truthful and reliable knowledge (i.e., deductive reasoning from certain axiomatic truths, as in Geometry) or, alternatively, to develop dialectical arguments that persuade because they are believable and can compel agreement in a disputation, this discipline was central to the educational program of the arts. It had its own internal content and problems that it addressed, but its application was extremely broad. The impact could be felt in all areas 81  Winniczuk, Epistolografia, 72. 82  Jacqueline Glomski, Patronage and Humanist Literature in the Age of the Jagiellons. Court and Career in the Writings of Rudolf Agricola Junior, Valentine Eck, and Leonard Cox (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), 26–30. 83  James H. Overfield, Humanism and Scholasticism in Late Medieval Germany (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984), 222–241, for the picture of these developments at Leipzig in this period.

314

CHAPTER 6

of the three philosophies (as can be seen below) but was directly relevant also to the professions of medicine, law, and especially theology.84 The importance of dialectic or logic in the curriculum at Cracow was reflected in the statutes of the arts faculty from 1406, which, in this respect, remained largely unchanged by revisions for other disciplines later in the century in 1449 and 1475. More than twenty months were specified for the works designated for study to complete both degrees in arts, eighteen of them during the courses required in the trivium for the bachelor’s degree.85 These courses included the full range of the books in the old and the new logic, and at the beginning of the century were often taught from commentaries derived from Paris and transmitted through Prague, where many of the early faculty had studied or taught. Logic instruction at Cracow consequently in this period reflected the strong influence of John Buridan and those of the subsequent generation, such as Marsilius of Inghen.86 Eventually Cracovian masters began to compose their own works in this discipline, a process whose precedent had been a feature of those who eventually taught at Cracow who had been previously teaching in Prague prior to 1400.87 During the first two decades of the revived university’s functioning the productivity of faculty members in the realm of logic was, however, very modest. Much of this material, apart from a no-longer surviving anonymous work on the Posterior Analytics, was limited to brief works—sets of Quaestiones for the most part—and focused usually upon material derived from the logica vetus 84  For an overview of medieval developments in this discipline, see the chapter by Eleonore Stump, “Dialectic,” in Wagner, ed., The Seven Liberal Arts in the Middle Ages, 125–146 (though it is rather narrowly focused upon eleventh through thirteenth century dialectic). More fully developed are the relevant chapters in Kretzmann, Kenny, and Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy. 85  See above, Chapter Three, note 73. 86  Markowski, Logika, 29–36, and, for a fuller treatment of the manuscript materials, his Burydanizm w Polsce, 277–369. 87  John Isner, the professor of theology who eventually founded the Bursa pauperum, had written a series of short questions—as yet unedited—on various Aristotelian tracts at Prague, probably in the 1380s; see Jerzy Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364– 1492,” in Zathey, Anna Lewicka-Kamińska, and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, Historia Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej, vol. 1: 1364–1775, Ignacy Zarębski, ed. (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1966), 3–130, here 53. John of Ziębice (Münsterberg) had also written a set of disputed questions on Aristotle’s Prior Analytics, which Nicholas Kozłowski brought to Cracow prior to 1400 and, apparently, used for his own studies but not in teaching; see Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska,” 73, and Maria Kowalczyk, “Z badań nad życiem i biblioteką Mikołaja Kozłowskiego,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 22 (1972): 19–28, here 21 (but compare her treatment with that of Markowski, Logika, 37).

The Arts Faculty, I

315

and reflecting the influence particularly of John Buridan. While Mieczysław Markowski deemed some of these individual efforts to have been successful, it is nevertheless his conclusion that only after about 1420 does one begin to see works of significance and influence, even if only on the local scene, derived from masters engaged in the teaching of logic.88 The crucial figure in this context, whose commentary on Aristotle’s Categories and On Interpretation and on Porphyry’s Isagoge was apparently finished by 1420, was Benedict Hesse of Cracow, later an important theologian and university official.89 This work represents a broadly conceived and executed treatise examining the full range of issues taken up in these works of the vetus ars. It is, as the editor of the systematic quaestiones devoted to Benedict’s commentary on the first book of De interpretatione has noted, “by no means merely a typical compilation but rather an independent and creative investigation of the works of these earlier authors.”90 It deals directly with question of logic, of course, but it also characteristically treats a broader range of related matters, including ethical and theological issues, along with topics of natural philosophy. Benedict’s indebtedness to Buridan and Marsilius is evident throughout the work and, as Mieczyslaw Markowski emphasized repeatedly, reflects the dominant tradition associated with the via moderna of those traditionally described as late medieval nominalists.91 Benedict’s commentary is characteristically cast in scholastic format: a question is posed, then clarified and made more precise with reference to related matters; the correct answer to the quaestio is then presented, to which objections are raised; and finally the argument is presented which resolves the question in a correct manner. As such, it is, of course, not original or distinctive. But it stands solidly in this scholastic tradition, demonstrating a confident control of the subject, a critical knowledge of the auctores being treated, and reflecting a mature academic outlook that places intellectual developments at Cracow squarely in the 88  Markowski, Logika, 36–42. 89  His career and non-logical works are treated elsewhere in this study; for his biography, see, briefly, PSB, 9, 485–486; LTCP / SPTK, 2, 44–46; and Thomas Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen. Personen, Politik und Programme aus Polen zur Verfassungsfrage der Kirche in der Zeit der mittelalterlichen Reformkonzilien (Paderborn, Munich, Vienna, and Zürich: Schöningh, 1998), 85–87. 90   Quaestiones super primum librum De interpretatione Aristotelis secundum Benedictum Hesse (Editio critica), Michał Maciołek, ed., Acta Mediaevalia 23 (2011): XXV. 91  Markowski, “Nauki wyzwolone i filozofia na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku,” St. Med. 9 (1968): 91–116, here 105, and in his Burydanizm w Polsce, 296–303. See also the observation by Maciołek in the introduction to his edition, XXI–XXIV (in Polish) and, more briefly, XLVII (in German).

316

CHAPTER 6

European tradition. Benedict’s logical works are only beginning to be edited and studied, but enough is clear at this point to recognize the outlines of his influence.92 His commentary was used by the academic community at Cracow at least until the end of the 1450s.93 The decades following the creation of Benedict’s commentary were not particularly fruitful in the area of logic. John Kanty (John of Kęty) apparently prepared a commentary (no longer extant) on the Prior and Posterior Analytics about 1435, and there was a fragmentary set of Quaestiones disputae super octo libros ‘Topicorum’ Aristotelis written by an unknown, probably Cracovian, author in 1444. These, however, along with a few other minor efforts, did little to add to what had been achieved previously. In the realm of logic, therefore, the tradition of the via moderna remained strong. This began to change in the second half of the century, with the emergence of the influence of the via antiqua, which in a number of important ways altered the intellectual environment in which Cracovian masters thought, taught, and wrote about logical issues.94 The reasons behind this change reflect the growing awareness at Cracow of the full range of intellectual traditions reflected in universities to the west. The revival of Thomist, Albertist, and Scotist thought in the late fourteenth and, especially, the fifteenth century was transmitted to Cracow in the writings of such individuals, among others, as the Cologne Albertist John Hulshot of Malines and John Versor of Paris; the latter’s commentary on Peter of Spain’s Summulae Logicales, especially its seventh book, known as the Parva Logicalia, proved to be particularly popular at Cracow, but there were others in the tradition of the via antiqua whose influence was felt. In addition, the symbolism of King Louis XI’s decree in 1474 forbidding the study of what is often termed nominalism at Paris—even though, as E.J. Ashworth has noted this prohibition seemed to have little effect in the 92  Previous scholarship on Benedict’s logical works is discussed by Maciołek in his introduction, passim.; he also provides a listing of the, as yet unedited, contents of Benedict’s Quaestiones super secundum librum “De interpretatione,” XXXIV–XXXVII. A slightly fuller bibliographical guide to the larger corpus of Benedict’s works is in Wielgus, “Średniowieczna filozofia w Polsce. Encyklopedyczne opracowanie z wyczerpującą bibliografią,” in his Z badań nad średniowieczem (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1995), 51–116, here 82–83. 93  Markowski, Logika, 46; and, more generally, Maciołek, XXV. 94  Developments prior to the mid-fifteenth century are summarized by Markowski, Logika, 48–52, with particular attention to the manuscript evidence; and, more briefly, by Ryszard Palecz, “Nauczanie filozofii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV w. Główne tendencje i kierunki,” in Lech Szczucki, ed., Nauczanie filozofii w Polsce w XV–XVIII wieku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1978), 7–44, here, with reference to universals, 37–38.

The Arts Faculty, I

317

French ­capital95—nevertheless is thought by some Polish scholars to have reinforced the trend toward older approaches.96 As yet unedited manuscript evidence of the many smaller and fragmentary works in logic from this era represent the activity of several Cracovians who copied out work in logic by authors from abroad.97 In a few instances, they provided comments and exposition of their own to parts of this material, but none of these was systematic and the character of this material has been best described as very literal (expositio ad litteram). Near the end of the century, however, several of the more important masters in arts prepared fuller treatises that represent authentic, independent works. The most important of these were by John of Głogów, Michael of Biestrzyków, Michael of Wrocław, and John of Stobnica. In his long career of teaching in Arts, John of Głogów had numerous opportunities to deal with logical texts. In the 1480s and 1490s he prepared commentaries in the form of quaestiones on the Isagoge of Porphyry and Aristotle’s Categories and De interpretatione; these were later printed in 1504 in Cracow under the title Exercitium veteris artis Ioannis Glogoviensis, with reprints in 1516 and (in Strasbourg) 1517. At some point before 1495 he also composed a commentary on the Prior Analytics, one on the Sophistical Refutations, a set of Quaestiones super duos libros Analyticorum posteriorum (done in the spirit of John Versor’s similar work), and was responsible also for a set of questions on the first and fourth books of Peter of Spain’s Summulae logicales, plus his Parva logicalia.98 This impressive body of work stands firmly in what Ashworth has termed “the medieval tradition,” noting that it “produced its last original thinker with John.”99 John of Głogów’s works continued to be used in

95  Ashworth, “The Eclipse of Medieval Logic,” in Kretzmann, Kenny, and Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, 787–796, here 789. 96  Markowski, Logika, 153. 97  Material from the last quarter of the fifteenth century relevant to one author of the “old logic” is treated by Markowski, “Komentarze do ‘Isagogi’ Porfiriusza z Tyru, zachowane w średniowiecznych rękopisach i inkunabułach Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej,” Materiały 9 (1968): 25–75, here 40–45; see also Markowski, Logika, 200, note 2, for further related bibliography. 98  See the treatment of these materials by Markowski, Logika, 159–160. This corpus of logical materials has, for the most part not been edited or systematically studied, despite the impressive efforts of scholars—especially Markowski and now a number of o­ thers— associated with the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences. 99  Ashworth, “Eclipse of Medieval Logic,” 788.

318

CHAPTER 6

i­nstruction at the university—in manuscript and in printed form—well into the sixteenth century.100 Michael of Biestrzyków has not yet figured in this study of the university. He came to Cracow in 1485 from Paris and Ingolstadt as a strong adherent of the Scotist tradition and taught for many years in the arts faculty. His most influential writings were in other aspects of philosophy, as we shall see below, but he was also engaged with issues in logic. In the winter semester of 1501 he served as Dean of the Arts faculty, and continued to be active in teaching and writing until 1504.101 He wrote works on logic during the 1480s, which were printed in the early sixteenth century. These included a commentary on Porphyry’s Isagoge and Aristotle’s Categories and De interpretatione. It is revealing that the published title of this work explicitly indicated that it was done ad intentionem doctoris Scoti. Michael also compiled a commentary to the Parva logicalia. On balance, however, the significance of his work is inferior to that of John of Głogow.102 Another representative of the via antiqua in the late fifteenth century was Michael Falkener of Wrocław, whom Zdzisław Kuksiewicz has categorized as a firm Thomist.103 From one of Wrocław’s leading families, he matriculated at Cracow in 1479 and successfully completed requirements for the bachelor’s degree in arts two years later, though his master’s degree did not come until 1488. Thereafter he lectured in arts, serving as dean of that faculty in 1499 and again in 1505 before eventually beginning the study of theology. He was promoted to doctor in 1517 and lectured and published thereafter in theology. Appointed canon at St. Florian’s in 1531, he served eventually as dean of the chapter, dying in 1534 after a distinguished and productive career, both in arts and theology.104 Michael’s work in logic is characterized by an affinity to the tradition of John Versor, upon whose 1487 Quaestiones super duos 100  This has been effectively shown by Władysław Seńko, “Glosy i noty z wykładów niektórych profesorów wydziału artium Uniwersetetu Krakowskiego z pocz. XVI w. zaczerpnięte z druków dzieł Jana z Głogowa,” Materiały 4 (1965): 341–353. 101  For his biography, see Jerzy B. Korolec, “Michał z Bystrzykowa. Stan badań,” Materiały 1 (1961): 141–171, which substantially enhances the information provided by Konstanty Michalski, “Michał z Bystrzykowa i Jan ze Stobnicy jako przedstawiciele skotyzmu w Polsce,” Archiwum Komisji do Badań Filozofii w Polsce 1 (1915): 21–80; this latter work is focused upon the content and character of the thought of these two. 102  Markowski, Logika, 160. 103  Zdzisław Kuksiewicz, Albertyzm i Tomizm w XV wieku w Krakowie i Kolonii. Doktryna psychologiczna (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1973), particularly 129. 104  Ryszard Palacz, “Michał Falkener z Wrocławia. Stan badań,” Materiały 6 (1966): 35–91, especially 45–47 for his biography; note: the citation by Kuksiewicz, Albertyzm i Tomizm,

The Arts Faculty, I

319

libros Analyticorum priorum Aristotelis he wrote a commentary of explanatory glosses. He also apparently composed an explanatory commentary upon Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics, although this question is not fully clear and the authorship agreed upon.105 Michael’s Congestum logicum (also known as Introductorium dialecticae), written before 1504 when it was first printed, is a kind of general handbook covering, as Markowski rather grandly characterized it, “the whole of medieval logic.”106 Markowski’s treatment of the history of logic in medieval Polish philosophy—which still remains standard—concludes with reference to the aforementioned work by John of Stobnica, De modis significandi, which, although oriented to issues of modist grammar, treats also much that is related to logic.107 This is not at all surprising, for with the revival of medieval Realism associated with the via antiqua, the purview of logic included much that bore, not only upon issues of formal logic, but also upon grammatical logic. The logic of language was integrally related to logical linguistics. This is why, in his well-known study of grammar and logic at selected German universities, Terrence Heath, when moving from the subject of the former to that of the latter, made the telling remark that “when one says the medieval course [of studies] concentrated on logic . . ., this logic was before all else an analysis of language. The medieval dialectician was a linguistic specialist; the requirements for his work were a detailed knowledge of words and their logical usage in statements.”108 268, n. 6 to Palacz’s article incorrectly indicates that it is in volume 4 of Materiały. See also PSB, 6, 357–358 and LTCP / SPTK, 1, 452–454. 105  This work has now been attributed to Michael and edited, with an extensive introduction, by Ludwik Nowak, Michael Falkener de Vratislavia, Explanatio super Aristotelis librum ‘Posteriorum analyticorum’ (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Akademii Teologii Katolickiej, 1988 [Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia excultae spectantia 25]); for some of the issues regarding the edition and attributed authorship, see the review by Lucyna Nowak in St. Med. 29 (1992): 177–178. 106  Markowski, Logika, 160. 107   Ibid., 161. Later in his text, Markowski returns to an analysis of John of Stobnica’s treatise and the works of John of Głogów, Michael of Biestrzyków, and Michael Falkener of Wrocław while discussing the rise, in the last quarter of the fifteenth century, of the logic of language; see 182–200. On the more general question of the influence of Scotist thought at Cracow in the fifteenth century, see Markowski, “Der Skotismus an der Krakauer Universität im Mittelalter,” MPP 34 (2001):147–161, which updates slightly his “Szkotyzm na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w wiekach średnich,” Studia Franciszkańskie 3 (1988): 105– 120. A related work of John of Stobnica is analyzed and edited by Wanda Bajor, “De praedicationibus abstractorum de Ioannes de Stobnica,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 37 (3) (2008): 7–19. 108  Heath, “Logical Grammar, Grammatical Logic, and Humanism,” 45.

320

CHAPTER 6

The overall contribution of fifteenth century Cracovian masters in the realm of logic demonstrated a thorough familiarity with the major European traditions derived from antiquity.109 If there was no single work that could match the originality and influence of earlier western writers, there was nevertheless a sureness in presentation that effectively prepared students to pursue careers in schools or chanceries, to exercise spiritual or secular authority in the institutions of the church or the secular world, or to pursue professional careers by undertaking further study in the0 higher faculties. In this respect, the subjects of the trivium, as taught at Cracow were well served. Let us turn now to a treatment of some of the subject matter contained in the quadrivium.

The Quadrivium: Music

Three of the quadrivial disciplines—geometry, mathematics, and astronomy— form the focus of the following chapter, which is devoted to these subjects in the context of Cracovian developments and contributions in the natural and exact sciences. Here, before turning later in this chapter to consideration of moral, metaphysical, and natural philosophy, I discuss briefly developments touching the fourth subject of the quadrivium, music. Music in the medieval arts curriculum was relatively unimportant. Unlike the practical approach connected with vocal and instrumental usage in the context of Christian worship, in university instruction the approach was strongly theoretical and in general terms based upon Boethius’ synthesis in De musica. This rested, as John North has pointed out in his treatment of the quadrivium in medieval studia, upon arithmetical, geometrical, and harmonic ratios of numbers and their relationship.110 This character thus fully reflects the phrase often applied to quadrivial studies, the artes mathematicales. Boethius’s 109  An issue central to medieval logic, with broad implications in other areas (for example metaphysics and commentaries on De anima), was the question of universals. I do not deal with this question in the context of discussing Cracovian works, as it appears that masters there were largely content to accept the positions of either the via antiqua or the via moderna without much further discussion. On this, see Markowski, “Metodologia nauk, logika i teoria poznania na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku,” in Palacz, ed., Filozofia Polska XV wieku, 295–311, and, in more detail, in his “Problematyka uniwersaliów w polskich piętnastowiecznych pismach nominnalistycznych,” St. Med. 12 (1970): 73–166, especially 91–164. The issue of universals and the position taken by Cracovian masters on them is also discussed in depth by Zofia Włodek, Filozofia bytu (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1977 [Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 3]), 33–47. 110  John North, “The Quadrivium,” in de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 337–359, here 343. The treatment by Theodore C. Karp, “Music,” in Wagner, ed., The Seven

The Arts Faculty, I

321

work was, however, not an easy text to use in teaching, and eventually alternative treatises emerged for academic usage. By the end of the fourteenth century, these included the works of John of Murs (ca. 1290–post 1344), a Parisian master who taught at the Sorbonne.111 In 1319 he wrote an Ars novae musicae; in 1323, a Musica speculativa secundum Boethium. He also prepared several other treatises in the realm of music. At Cracow, the arts statutes of 1406 required one month study for music, using John of Murs, but without specifying which of his works was to be used as a text. It is possible that this requirement was frequently waived, as it was at other universities in the fifteenth century.112 John’s works were known in Cracow by the end of the fourteenth or—at the latest—the beginning of the fifteenth century. Apparently one of his treatises, described by Elżbieta Witkowska-Zaremba as Musica Muris, was used in instruction begun by at least 1409.113 The relative insignificance of quadrivial music instruction at Cracow is reflected in the fact that the Liber diligentiarum, indicating faculty teaching assignments from 1487 onward, mentions the teaching of Musica Muris only twice before 1563. Manuscript copies of John of Murs’ work from this period reflect textual corrections and random commentary, but there is nothing to indicate the composition of an independent work on music by anyone at the university.114

The Three Philosophies: Moral Philosophy

Moral philosophy as an element of the arts curriculum varied from institution to institution in the late middle ages. Some studia emphasized one part; others, another.115 Nevertheless, there was a broad understanding, based in Aristotle’s Liberal Arts in the Middle Ages, 169–195, is, with very minor exceptions, not directly relevant to quadrivial instruction in the medieval university. 111  Lawrence Gushee, “Jehan des Murs,” in Dictionary of the Middle Ages, 7, 56–57. 112  On this point, see Weisheipl, “The Place of the Liberal Arts in the University Curriculum During the XIVth and XVth Centuries,” in J. Koch, ed., Arts libéraux et philosophie au moyen âge (Actes du quatrième congrès internationale de philosophie médiévale) (Montréal: Institut d’études médiévales and Paris: J. Vrin, 1989), 209–213. 113  Elżbieta Witkowska-Zaremba, “Ars musica jako przedmiot nauczania w obrębie quadrivium,” in Michałowska, ed., Septem artes w kształtowaniu kultury umysłowej w Polsce średniowiecznej, 75–85, especially 83–85. 114   Ibid., 84. 115  Compare, for example, the lists cited in Anthony Kenny and Jan Pinborg “Medieval philosophical literature,” in Kretzmann, Kenny, and Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, 18–19 (Greifswald statutes of 1456—all three), and Olaf

322

CHAPTER 6

writings, especially the Topica, that moral philosophy or science (in the discussions about the classifications of the sciences, also designated practical or active science) included ethics, politics, and economics.116 At Cracow in the fifteenth century, all three were included in the formal arts curriculum and there was a range of contributions made by faculty members in all three areas. Let us begin with works devoted to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.117 Ethics Because the statutes required instruction based on this text, those teaching at Cracow apparently were engaged with the Ethics from the beginning. Those who came from Prague, such as Bartholomew of Jasło and Nicholas of Głogów, brought with them manuscripts of earlier commentaries upon this work, some of which contained glosses for which they may have been responsible. Others among the academic community of early fifteenth century students who subsequently taught following completion of the requirements for their degrees in arts are also known to have possessed manuscripts containing earlier commentaries on the Ethics. All of this suggests the intellectual and academic environment in the first quarter of the fifteenth century actively included attention to this aspect of moral philosophy.118 Pedersen, The First Universities. Studium generale and the origins of university education in Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 278–279 (Paris in 1255—Ethics only). John M. Fletcher, “Developments in the Faculty of Arts 1370–1520,” in The History of the University of Oxford, vol. 2: Late Medieval Oxford, J.I. Catto and T.A.R. Evens, eds. (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1992), 315–345, here 323, notes that the revised Oxford statutes in arts of 1431 required three terms of “Aristotle’s Ethics or Economics or Politics.” The revised Parisian statutes of 1366 called only for “the moral works, especially most of the Ethics” (Cited from Lynn Thorndike, ed., University Records and Life in the Middle Ages [New York: Columbia University Press, 1944], 247). 116  Teeuwen, Vocabulary of Intellectual Life in the Middle Ages, 382–383. See also the Cracovian text cited in n. 4 of this chapter. 117  Aristotle’s Eudemian Ethics as a whole was not known in the middle ages, as only fragments were translated. There is no evidence that these were known or studied at Cracow, and the authoritative catalogue of Aristotelian manuscripts held in Cracow lists only copies of or works touching the Nichomachean Ethics; see Mieczysław Markowski and Zofia Włodek, eds., Repertorium commentariorum medii aevi in Aristotelem Latinorum quae in Bibliotheca Iagellonica Cracoviae asservantur (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1974), 196–197. 118  An overview of these developments, including detailed reference to manuscript materials and individuals is provided by Jerzy B. Korolec, Filozofia moralna (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1980 [Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 7]), 10–13; and Korolec, “Kierunki i tendencje w nauczaniu Etyki Arystotelesa,” in Palacz, ed., Filozofia Polska XV wieku, Palacz, ed., 103–110.

The Arts Faculty, I

323

In this context there may have emerged the first commentary on the Ethics of local provenance. Nicholas Budziszyn (Bawdissyn, Budissen) of Cracow matriculated at the university in the inaugural class of 1400, completed his bachelor’s program in 1402 (or 1403) during the deanship of Francis of Brzeg and incepted as a master of arts in 1403/1404, lecturing thereafter in arts and serving in 1415 as dean of this faculty and the following year as rector of the university. Eventually he began the study of theology, though apparently not before he had been named as canon of St. Florian’s church. At some point he also became provost of St. Anne’s church in Cracow, the university church. He held the doctoral degree in theology in 1422. His body of writings apparently includes an exposition with interlinear glosses upon Aristotle’s Ethics. Most of the material in this commentary is based upon the work of John Arsen and Walter Burley. If this is indeed a work by Nicholas—and not all scholars have accepted that it is—it has pride of place in a series of such works in fifteenth century Cracow.119 In some ways the most important Cracovian commentator upon Aristotle’s Ethics during the century, and certainly the first whose authorship is certain, was Paul of Worczyn. Born about 1380, Paul completed the BA at Prague in 1403 and may have continued his studies there, though without finishing a master’s degree. He matriculated at the newly-established University of Leipzig late in 1409 and incepted as a master in arts in December of that year. He then taught in arts, perhaps serving as dean of that faculty, before leaving to study theology at Cracow, where by June of 1416 he had also become a faculty member in the arts faculty. Paul served as dean of that faculty in 1419 and lectured there until 1424, by which time he had achieved his first degree in theology. About 1426 he completed the final degree in this faculty and in 1427 served as dean of the chapter at the church of St. Florian. By the time of his death ca. 1430 he had produced a significant corpus of writing in the subjects of both arts and theology.120 119  For his biography, see Markowski, “Mikołaj Budissen,” Materiały 3 (1964): 92–119, here 93–99. Here, and in his Dzieje wydziału teologii Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w latach 1397– 1525 (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej w Krakowie, 1996 [Studia do dziejów wydziału Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 2]), 123–124, Markowski is dubious that this is Nicholas’ work. Korolec, Filozofia moralna, 13, implies this may be Nicholas’s work but is reserved. Krzysztof Oźóg, Uczeni, 49, concludes he was probably (“prawdopodobnie”) the author; in his Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, he is more cautious, saying the work is “presumably” by Nicholas. 120  For his biography, Jerzy Rebeta, “Paweł z Worczyna,” Materiały 3 (1964): 120–129 and Rebeta, Komentarz Pawła z Worczyna do ‘Etyki Nikomachejskiej’ Arystotelesa z 1424 roku. Zarys problematyki filozoficzno-społecznej (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970), 66–79 are

324

CHAPTER 6

At the very beginning of his career in Cracow, in 1415 and 1416, Paul sketched out a series of marginal glosses and interlinear comments on Aristotle’s Ethics, Politics, and Economics. For the first of these, he drew—probably at second hand—on the views of Thomas Aquinas and John Buridan.121 Other writings followed, but Paul returned to the moral questions raised by Aristotle in a fuller, more developed, commentary in the form of questions in 1424. Again relying on Aquinas and Buridan (i.e., both the via antiqua and the via moderna) but using other sources also,122 Paul posed a series of 527 questions touching the full range and implications of the issues raised by Aristotle, addressing each of them systematically and, for the most part, fully. Following Buridan, and implicitly criticizing Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas, he argued that the subject of moral philosophy is not virtue or human good but rather human happiness. Central to his concerns were the relations between philosophy and theology and the importance of the practical as opposed to the speculative and abstract. He sharply differentiated the concerns of ethics from those of theology. The former subject focuses upon the limits of human possibilities, the latter resorts to revelation; the former is concerned with human life and human happiness, the latter with divine life and supernatural happiness. Ethics particularly focuses upon the life of people who live in a human community. In all of this, Paul’s emphasis is on the moral and practical aspects of philosophy, a concern that was in many ways a hallmark of the Cracovian scene in the fifteenth century, as we shall see when discussing law and, especially, theology in subsequent chapters.123 Unlike many of the commentaries from, for example, Vienna, which limited themselves to only the first four f­ undamental. See also FwP, 309–311 (entry by Rebeta). Subsequent research is reflected in LTCP / SPTK, 3, 309–311; and Oźóg, Uczeni, 104–107. 121  Korolec, “Le commentaire de Jean Buridan sur l’Éthique à Nicomaque et l’université de Cracovie dans la première moitié du XVe siècle,” Organon 10 (1974): 187–208. 122  He drew upon Buridan’s commentary directly and did the same from the Secunda secundae of Thomas’ Summa; he also made use of the fourteenth century commentary by the Franciscan Gerard of Odo. For an analysis of his sources, see Rebeta, Komentarz Pawła z Worczyna, 104–160, especially 135–160. 123  The foregoing summary is based upon the masterful analyses of Rebeta, Komentarz Pawła z Worczyna, 161–216. His book includes also an extended treatment in chapter one (7–65) devoted to the practical character of the outlook reflected in the Cracovian ecclesiastical and intellectual environment. On this point, see also the comments of Korolec, “Kierunki i tendencje,” 112–116. The content of Paul’s commentary, along with the works of other Cracovian masters, is also discussed, though in a thematic manner, by Rebeta, Początki nauk społecznych. Podstawy metodologiczne (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1988 [Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 11]), 93–129, 209–222.

The Arts Faculty, I

325

or five books of Aristotle’s treatise, Paul’s work included treatment of all ten books. This insured that he presented views on and engaged with the questions of, as Georg Wieland put it, “intellectual virtues and the theoretical life.”124 It is unfortunately not clear whether Paul’s commentary circulated widely within the university and whether it was much used by others for their instruction in ethics.125 Indeed, it is not clear that in the remainder of the century there were other commentaries on this work prepared by faculty. Manuscripts of works by earlier authors at other universities—for example Albert the Great—were copied and almost certainly utilized in teaching, and by the end of the century the works of John Versor from Paris were being copied and drawn upon for instructional purposes.126 After the initiation of the Liber diligentiarum there is a clear record of who was charged with teaching ethica, and sometimes it can be determined what material they were using. But as for original Cracovian contributions such as that by Paul of Worczyn, the academic milieu within the university that dealt with Aristotle’s Ethics remained largely dependent upon the commentators and texts from abroad.127 Politics A second aspect of moral philosophy at Cracow was based in Aristotle’s Politics, although the arts statutes only required that it be taught for five months. A familiarity with and access to this work by scholars associated with the university is evident even before the Jagiellonian restoration of 1400.128 By 1410 one of the standard medieval commentaries on this text, that by Walter Burley, was available. An anonymous Cracow master compiled marginal and interlinear glosses to the part that dealt with the first book of the Politics, together with an introductory note, which Krzysztof Oźóg suggests served as a r­ ecommendation 124  Georg Wieland, “The Reception and Interpretation of Aristotle’s Ethics,” in Kretzmann, Kenny, and Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, 657–672, here 669. Wieland seems to be suggesting that Paul’s commentary, along with other Cracovian products, were also limited, and if this is what he means, he is incorrect. 125  Paul had a substantial personal library, much of which eventually found its way to the university library; see Lucyna Nowak, “Przyczynki do księgozbioru Pawła z Worczyna,” St. Med. 34–35 (2000): 283–288, and Chapter Eleven below. 126  Korolec, “Kierunki i tendencje,” 118–121 examines Versor’s influence briefly. 127  Korolec, Filozofia moralna, 17–27 provides an overview of the developments described in the text above. See also his concluding comments (216–234). Many of the same themes relevant to the moral philosophy reflected in the study of ethics are treated by Rebeta, Początki nauk społecznych for the first half of the fifteenth century. 128  Paweł Czartoryski, “Glosses et commentaires inconnus sur la Politique d’Aristote d’après les mss de la Bibliothèque Jagellonne de Cracovie,” MPP 5 (1960): 3–44.

326

CHAPTER 6

for moral philosophy.129 From this point on, as Paweł Czartoryski has noted, there was, until 1433, “a period of intensive work on the Politics.”130 In 1416, Paul of Worczyn gathered a series of notes on this work of Aristotle. These were more fragmentary and unsystematic than his commentary on the Ethics discussed above. This material was based upon the commentary by Albertus Magnus, but was structured along the lines of another commentary, this one by Henry Totting of Oyta.131 Arguably the most important Cracovian contribution in this area was a comprehensive commentary prepared about 1433 by an as yet unidentified faculty member. It is contained in a manuscript belonging to, and perhaps prepared for, the later astronomer and theologian, Laurence of Racibórz. This work drew upon Albert the Great, Walter Burley, Henry Totting of Oyta, and Paul of Worczyn, whose aforementioned work in a different manuscript had clearly been consulted. As with the two previous commentaries, this one also concentrated upon basic methodological questions, especially the issue of how Politics should be classified in relation to other disciplines. All three of these works emphasize the practical concerns of human existence, especially on those touching society. If they did not go beyond their original authority or the earlier medieval commentaries they used, they nevertheless gave the intellectual outlook among the teachers a pragmatic complexion.132 For the remainder of the century, lectures on Politics continued at the university, though it is not possible to determine whether they were offered every year. After 1487, when the Liber diligentiarum commences, we have a firmer basis for knowledge about frequency of teaching, and this record shows a few semesters in which no one is listed as having been assigned to teach this 129  Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 99. 130  Czartoryski, Wczesna recepcja ‘Polityki’ Arystotelesa na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1963), 43. This study represented a major reinterpretation of Aristotelian influence upon Polish thought touching society and the state, which had traditionally been seen as beginning only in the early sixteenth century. 131  Czartoryski, Wczesna recepcja ‘Politiki,’ 47–52. Henry (ca. 1330–1397) was a Prague graduate and Parisian master who was there a senior contemporary of Pierre d’Ailly. As a result of the Great Schism, he left for Prague and eventually Vienna, where with Henry Langenstein he helped draw up the statutes. He is traditionally labeled a nominalist, and his work appears to have been influential upon the view of some Cracovian masters. See the analysis of Jadwiga Krzyżaniakowa, “Henryk Totting z Oyty i jego prascy uczniowie,” Roczniki Historyczne 61 (1997): 87–109. 132  Czartoryski, Wczesna recepja ‘Politiki,’ 52–62, including his analysis of some revealing introductory notes, which are edited in an appendix, 186–188. See also Rebeta, Początki nauk społecznych, 47–51, and Oźóg, Uczeni, 125–128, for an overview of the foregoing.

The Arts Faculty, I

327

­subject.133 In this period there were apparently no new works of Cracovian origin added to the materials which could have used in instruction, although the printed text of John Versor on the Politics was being used by the end of the century. While the formal focus of lectures and commentaries on the Politics was upon issues as they were raised by Aristotle, these contained broad implications touching contemporary political life. It is not surprising, therefore, that Cracovian masters addressed these in writings not necessarily focused on Aristotle’s text. They did so not only in the context of their role as teachers in the arts, but also in a broad range of the higher faculties. This discussion came, not so much in formal works to be used in instruction, but rather in treatises written for a specific—often political—purpose, in sermons, and especially in addresses within the university upon occasions of promotions, inaugurations, or memorials.134 While some of these matters came properly with the frameworks of the arts faculty, often they fell to individuals already in higher faculties. This divided context for such discussions therefore makes it difficult to separate functional considerations, so it seems appropriate to develop some of these topics here. Two matters seemed to be especially important: the proper functioning of the state and the proper characteristics of authority, particularly of the ruler. The former, particularly in the context of Poland’s relations with other political entities, both secular and ecclesiastical, has been discussed above in Chapter Five and aspects of it will be treated below in Chapters Eight and Nine. For the latter, a few examples must suffice here. For the most part the references to rulership are based, not in direct reference to contemporary individuals, but rather to biblical, mythical, or historical personages whose characteristics or accomplishments are either lauded or condemned. Thus in his series of sermons on wisdom, Stanisław of Skarbimierz, the university’s leading canon lawyer and first rector emphasized sapientia, especially the wisdom to love God, as crucial. Failing this, there will be disorder and dread (horror). One of his favorite positive examples was Solomon, while 133  Czartoryski, Wczesna recepcja ‘Politiki,’ 169–172, lists lectures on the Politics between 1487 (in which year there were none) and 1562, noting (172) the semesters in which there were no offerings. 134  The classic example of the latter was studied by Maria Kowalczyk, Krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie z pierwszej połowy XV w. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970); the importance of her contribution is recognized by Oźóg in his introduction to Kowalczyk, Colligite fragmenta ne pereant . . . Studia z dziejów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w średniowieczu (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2010), 18–20 (Polish text) and 36–38 (English text). See also my comments in “In Search of Alma Mater Cracoviensis. Recent Publications,” The Polish Review 57 (2012): 110–111.

328

CHAPTER 6

Saul is held up as an example to be avoided. Other desirable characteristics that complement wisdom for Stanisław include, as he put it in his sermon honoring the promotion of Paul Vladimiri, learning and the virtuous life.135 Paul himself echoed some of these same ideals in his formal treatises, adding the responsibility of the ruler to maintain order and sustain justice to the general principle of being wise. Above all, according to him, the ruler must do nothing which brings harm to the territory which he rules.136 Similar themes are reflected in speeches and sermons by John of Kluczbork and Lucas of Wielki Koźmin. In his address upon completion of the bachelor of theology degree (delivered perhaps on the morrow of the great PolishLithuanian defeat of the Teutonic Knights at Grunwald / Tannenberg in 1410) the former identified a range of virtues that characterize the ideal ruler.137 In his sermon which is explicit in some ways but is, at the same time, surprisingly devoid of specific references to events of the time,138 John states that his purpose is to show how the majesty of the king is to be exalted.139 First it is the responsibility of his subject to recognize royal virtues and accomplishments

135  See the treatment of these themes by Stanisław in Oźóg, “Ideał władcy w krakowskim środowisku intelektualnym na początku XV wieku,” in Strzelczyk and Dobosz, eds., Nihil Superfluum Esse, 415–426, and in Oźóg, Uczeni, 80–91. 136  These elements are analyzed by Ludwik Ehrlich in his reconstruction of the views of Paulus introducing his edition of Pisma Wybrane Pawła Włodkowica / Works of Paul Wladimiri (A Selection), 3 vols. (Warsaw: Instytut Wydawniczy PAX, 1968–1969), 1, XLII– LXV, here XLV: “Paul’s view . . . is based on Canon Law which recognized that actions by a ruler must not infringe upon the well-being of the kingdom.” The points noted in the text above are developed more fully by Oźóg, Uczeni, 92–100. 137  The speech was edited, with commentary, by Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Mowa mistrza Jana z Kluczborka na cześć króla Władysława Jagiełły,” in Józef Garbacik, et al., eds., Mediaevalia. W 50 rocznicę pracy naukowej Jana Dąbrowskiego (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1960), 159–76; see also the analysis of Oźóg, Uczeni, 100–101. 138  In part this is due to the general characteristics of medieval sermons and university speeches, which seldom provide much detail of this nature. But it is also due to John’s skillful verbal navigation between the Scylla of Chancellor Peter Wysz’s known opposition to the war and the Charybdis of the monarchy and war party in the court at Cracow. See the discussion in Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Mowa mistrza Jana z Kluczborka,” 162. 139  “Compositum sermonem eloquar in conspectu vestro pro exaltacione domini domini nostri serenissimi principis Vladislay Regis.” (169) John chose as his text Psalm 29:2: “Exaltabo te Domine, quoniam suscepisti me, nec delectasti inimicos meos super me,” and used this as a point of departure “ad gloriam . . . Vladislai . . . Regis,” (168) whom he twice referred to as “leo fortissimus.”

The Arts Faculty, I

329

and to support the king in all that he does, being obedient to his ­commands.140 But the monarch also has responsibilities to his subjects. He is to provide justice and maintain order, to support the superiors of the kingdom in their conservation of public affairs, and to sustain inferiors in governing well.141 Finally, he suggests that both ruler and ruled owe to one another mutual fidelity, and that through this the kingdom is defended, remaining unmolested by enemies, is preserved free from scandal and damage, and the peace maintained.142 Based in part upon Canon Law and Seneca’s De clementia and using the abstraction of the four cardinal virtues, he includes other things also. These encompass goodness or kindness (bonitas), knowledge (scientia), wisdom (sapientia), moderation (sobrietas), fairness (iustitia), liberality (liberalitas) and skillfulness (solertia). Two things in particular are interesting about this sermon: it refers quite concretely to King Władysław Jagiełło, rather than being couched more generally in a biblical or historical context, and its concern for the reciprocal responsibilities of king and subjects is derived in part from the ideas of natural law current among the faculty at this time and which we shall see more clearly below in Chapter Eight. In a sermon of 1410 ostensibly focused on St. Brice, Bishop of Tours (d. 444), Lucas of Wielki Koźmin (who died prematurely two years later) also described King Władysław Jagiełło as having the same virtues as the saint. (This came in the context of being an explicit defense of the refounder of the university against accusations made against him by the Knights of the Teutonic Order in the aftermath of the battle of Grunwald / Tannenberg.) Lucas’ defense was to portray the king as a ruler possessing—just like the saint—the ideal characteristics by being “pious, prudent, humble, modest (pudicus), temperate, guiltless, peaceful (quietus).” He was, Lucas noted approvingly, a ruler who wished to be the “most just king” (rex equissimus).143 140  “Quod ex parte nostrum omnium tamquam devotissimi populi tangitur regie maiestatis exaltacio.” (170) 141  “Ex parte protegencium sicud serenissimi Regis gubernationis vel proteccionis susceptio . . . respectu superiorum rem publicam conservando et inferiorum respectu subditos utiliter gubernando . . . quo modo ex rege bono et iusto non solum terrestre regnum et humanum existit suorum hominum, sed et regnum celorum.” (173 and 174) 142  “Ex parte utriusque scilicet, tam Regis quam subiectorum,, piissime magnificencie passionis remocio . . . et omnium terrarium nostri serenissimi Regis populus et wulgus, sub eius defensione protecti, ab inimicis non vexati, a scandalis et dampnis preservati, tranqilla pace custoditi. . . .” (175) 143  This sermon is discussed by Kowalczyk, “Mowy i kazania Uniwersyteckie Łukasza z Wielkiego Koźmina,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 12, 2 (1960): 7–20, here 17–18 and in her Colligite fragmenta non pereant, 67–80, here 77–78; she quotes extensively in her notes

330

CHAPTER 6

Three final examples of faculty expressions about this particular aspect of politics come from the works of Nicholas Kozłowski, John of Dąbrówka, and Thomas Strzempiński. Nicholas, one of the leading theologians of the university and regarded as one of its most eloquent preachers, reflected upon the nature of the ideal ruler and his antithesis in two sermons preached at the Council of Basel. The first, delivered to memorialize the death of King Władysław Jagiełło, characterized the deceased ruler as just, wise, pious, moderate, humble, generous, faithful, pure, and loving peace. The second, celebrating the life and martyrdom in 1079 of St. Stanisław at the instigation of, and at the hands of, King Bolesław II the Bold, portrayed the duke as a tyrannical king and, most pejoratively, as another pharaoh.144 The chief locus of John of Dąbrówka’s reflection about the ideal ruler lies in his aforementioned commentary on the chronicle of Vincent of Kadłubek. In it, drawing particularly upon Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics and John of Salisbury’s Policraticus, he identifies four different kinds of virtues that characterize the good ruler: political, purgatorial, spiritually cleansing, and those that are divinely exemplary. The first kind are the traditional cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. Other kinds of virtues in the second and third categories include liberality and generosity, while the final set of virtues are faith, hope, and charity (caritas). All of these are illustrated by references to historical and biblical examples, but—as can be assumed from the treatment of John’s commentary earlier in this chapter—there is particular reference to individuals in the Polish past.145 Thomas Strzempiński’s ideas about the ideal ruler may best be inferred from his address in 1432 on the difficulties of the office of rector when he assumed that position for the first of his three terms.146 In his view such a ruler should always show concern for the welfare of his subjects, particularly with regard to their salvation. The ruler should be pure in thought, circumspect, helpful, and efficient. To support these points, Thomas relied upon the teachings of Canon from the as yet unpublished manuscript of this sermon. The discussion of Lucas’ sermon by Oźóg, Uczeni, 101–104, draws upon some more recent scholarship. 144  Nicholas’ sermon on St. Stanisław is discussed by Stanislavá Kuzmova, Preaching Saint Stanislaus. Medieval Sermons on St. Stanislaus of Cracow, His Image and Cult (Warsaw: DiG, 2013), 150–151. For an analysis of both sermons, see Oźóg, Uczeni, 109–110. 145  The fullest discussion of these virtues is by Korolec, “Problem cnót moralnych w ‘Komentarzu’ Jana z Dąbrówki,” 57–67, though a more general treatment of the question of the ideal ruler in John’s work is given by Zwiercan, “Model władcy w Komentarzu Jana z Dąbrówki,” 233–245. But see also the treatment by Oźóg, Uczeni, 111–118. 146  Latin text edited for the first time and with Polish translation in Prima verba. Krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie, Elżbieta Jung-Palczewska, ed. (Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2000), 168–185; see also the discussion of Oźóg, Uczeni, 118–120.

The Arts Faculty, I

331

Law and examples from the bible. In general, while consistent with the outlook of others mentioned here, there is a tone of practicality as well as religious moralism that is reflected in his speech. While these sources reflect political views about the nature of the ideal ruler, it should also be noted that there was a degree of self-interesting inherent in many of them. For example, in a hypothetical situation when the ruler is ­ignorant147 or does not possess wisdom, then writers like Stanisław of Skarbimierz recommend the ruler employ individuals who possess education, training, and wisdom.148 As Krzysztof Oźóg has noted, this—and other examples like it—were both “a theoretical argument [and] a little-veiled plea for the systematic appointment of university men to the king’s council, central government offices, courts of law and the diplomatic service.”149 As we have seen elsewhere in this book, such university trained individuals were indeed of service to the ruler and, by extension, to the kingdom and territories he ruled. In a slightly different way, Jerzy Drewnowski had earlier made an argument somewhat similar to that of Oźóg. His point was that, in the realm of politics, Cracovian faculty wished to present the university as an ideal state, arguing for the value and dignity of the studium.150 Economics The final element of moral philosophy was economics. Little studied and appreciated in the middle ages, the treatise Economics traditionally ascribed to Aristotle formed only a small part of the university curriculum. At Cracow, it received, in accord with the arts statutes, only one month of attention. We know the attention it received after the record of the Liber diligentiarum begins; there are only six instances where lectures on it are noted between 1487 and 147  On this theme, derived from John of Salisbury’s Policraticus, see Oźóg, “Rex Illiteratus est quasi asinus coronatur—narodziny średniowiecznego ideału władcy wykształconego,” in Halina Manikowska, et al., eds., Aetas media Aetas Moderna. Studia ofiarowane profesorowi Henrykowi Samsonowiczowi w siedemdziesiątą rocznicę urodzin (Warsaw: Instytut Historyczny Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2000), 699–712. 148  “Si ergo contigat, quod princeps sit ignarus sapientiae, requirat a sacerdotibus, a profesoribus veritatis, sapientibus notitiam legis divinae. Inquam: requirat et audiat veros doctores et eorum consilis acquiescat.” Quoted by Oźóg, Uczeni, 89, note 79, from Stanisław ze Skarbimierza, Sermones sapientiales, Bożena Chmielowska, ed., 3 vols. (Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1979 [Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia Excultae Spectantia 4]), 2, 36, no. 42. 149  Oźóg, Uczeni, 399. 150  Jerzy Drewnowski, Uczony w świadomości polskiego środowiska naukowego pierwszej połowy XV wieku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1987), 80–85.

332

CHAPTER 6

1500, sometimes in combination with Politics or other subjects. It is quite possible that earlier in the century, lectures in this field were equally infrequent. There are, however, contributions made by Cracovian masters that complement earlier medieval material that would have been available for lectures in this subject. On balance, however, they are modest. Apart from comments touching the Economics which circulated in late fourteenth and early fifteenth century Cracow as part of a collection traditionally identified as Auctoritates totius philosophiae, the first efforts devoted to this work were by Paul of Worczyn, whose commentaries on the Ethics and Politics have been previously discussed. He prepared this commentary which served as a handbook of instruction throughout the rest of the fifteenth century, parts of it eventually being incorporated as marginal comments in a 1491 printed version of John Versor’s commentary on this same treatise. Paul drew upon Economics commentaries by Albert the Great and Henry Totting of Oyta, but included material also from John Buridan’s commentary on Ethics. In his work Paul dealt, characteristically, with such practical issues as domestic administration, social relations between master and servant, marriage, and the dynamics of the relations between parents and children. Interesting, he strongly emphasizes education, including that for wives and for women generally. While there is much that is traditional in his work, there are also—as in these last mentioned discussions—some striking innovations and original elements.151 Some two decades after Paul’s work, Nicholas Grabostowski, who also wrote works in astronomy and mathematics, prepared and used for lectures a brief commentary on the Economics.152

The Three Philosophies: Metaphysics

Aristotle’s treatise on what came to be known in Latin as the Metaphysics was one of the more difficult and problematic works which confronted medieval 151  My discussion of this work in “Literary Production at the University of Cracow in the Fifteenth Century,” in Anna Adamska and Marco Mostert, eds., The Development of Literate Mentalities in East Central Europe (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), 227–228, and that by Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 100, are both based on Słomczyńska, Krakowskie Komentarze z XV wieku do ‘Ekonomiki’ Arystotelesa, 64–107; Słomczyńska provides a partial edition of Paul’s work on 127–164 of her study. 152  Słomczyński, Krakowskie Komentarze z XV wieku do ‘Ekonomiki’ Arystotelesa, 29–34, and, after her, Knoll, “Literary Production,” 228, and Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 100.

The Arts Faculty, I

333

thinkers. In some of his discussions Aristotle indicated that he was dealing with “being as being,” but in other places he seemed to regard his approach as “the first philosophy” which was the science of divine substance. For medieval Christians, it was tempting to think of this work as having a theological nature and, as such, was not something which was suitable for academic study in an arts faculty. Nevertheless, Metaphysica became a subject included in the arts curriculum. This was possible because, as Mariken Teeuwen has put it, “the focus of the discipline of metaphysics shifted from theological questions . . . to ontological questions in general, the science of ‘essence’ or ‘being’.”153 This distinction had effectively become standard by the time Cracow was refounded, but the inherent tension between the arts faculty and the theology faculty with regard to subject matter and methodology was always present. The Cracovian arts statutes of 1406 specified six months for the study of the Metaphysics, and originally lectures were primarily based upon commentaries written by Prague masters. These included John Arsen of Langenfeld, whose work reflected the influence of John Buridan, and John of Ziębice (Monsterberg in Silesia), upon whose work the imprint of Buridan and Marsilius of Inghen was strong. An anonymous commentary on the first eight books of the Metaphysics, copied in Prague by Nicholas Kozłowski—one of John of Ziębice’s students—and brought with him to Cracow when he came to study there, may also have been used in instruction. Another early resource for lectures available in Cracow was an exposition on the second through twelfth books of the Metaphysics by Adam of Buckfield, a thirteenth century Oxford master, together with a fragment of Thomas Aquinas’ commentary on the first book.154 These materials were complemented by two copies of Marsilius of Inghen’s commentary on the Metaphysics, which were in Cracow early in the 153  Teeuwen, Vocabulary of Intellectual Life, 379–381, here 379, with reference to the crucial literature. John F. Wippel, “Essence and Existence,” in Kretzmann, Kenny, and Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, 385–410, especially 385–386 explores this problem in some depth, showing the contribution of the major medieval thinkers, both Muslim and Christian, on this problem. 154  Włodek, Filozofia bytu, 10–11. Her work represents the major treatment of this topic at fifteenth century Cracow. John of Ziębice earned the masters in arts at Prague in 1387 and the masters in theology about 1400; he migrated from Prague—with others—to Leipzig in 1409, where he was the first rector and founder of the college for the Polish nation there. On him, see PSB, 10, 492, and the discussion, with reference to recent literature, by Oźóg, “Uniwersytet Krakowski: przykład późnośredniowiecznego eklektyzmu,” in Teresa Wolińska and Mirosław Leszka, eds., Średniowieczna wizja świata. Jedność czy różnorodność Idee i teksty (Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2009), 235–250, here 236. On the anonymous commentary, see Włodek, Filozofia bytu, 22, note 10.

334

CHAPTER 6

fifteenth century, and by Aquinas’ commentary on this work brought back from the Council of Constance by Paul Vladimiri. The spectrum of philosophical outlooks was expanded by John of Grodków’s Scotist commentary on Aquinas’ De ente et essentia, which John Stolle of Głogów brought to Cracow shortly after 1414. All of this suggests a lively Cracovian engagement with Aristotle’s Metaphysics in the first two decades of the revived university’s functioning.155 It is not, therefore, surprising that faculty members at Cracow should themselves prepare works addressing issues in the Metaphysics, and ultimately several Cracovian masters produced independent works for their own lectures that represent a modest, but meaningful, contribution to the profile of literary production within the university. The first of these efforts came from Peter of Sienno (in the region of Sandomierz) in 1418. Peter (ca. 1382-ante 1460) matriculated at Cracow in 1400, completed requirements for the degree of bachelors in arts in 1405 and for the masters in 1408; he served as dean of that faculty in 1416.156 His commentary upon the Metaphysics shows particularly the influence of the work of John of Ziębice and, even though it stands in the tradition of the via moderna, it does not yet represent a distinctive Cracovian position. In his commentary he takes up, among many issues, the question of impetus. Following Buridan (or at least being influenced by the Buridanist tradition), he touches upon the question of the possible motion of the earth and the possibility that impetus can be involved in the movement of the heavenly spheres.157 More generally his views are that the subject of metaphysics is being and that the concept of being qua being is its core. Peter’s work enjoyed an extended life; it was twice abbreviated and used for instruction later in the century.158 A second Cracovian commentary on the Metaphysics was prepared by 1423, but its author is unknown. Its general outlook reflects moderate nominalism 155  A good summary in English is provided by Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 95. 156  For his biography, see FwP, 319, and PSB, 26, 428. 157  On these points, see the discussion of Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 138–139. 158  The most recent analysis of the subject and object of metaphysics is the study by Feliks Krause, “Przedmiot metafizyki i jego specyficzne właściwości według Piotra z Sienna,” Acta Mediaevalia 12 (1999): 215–234, especially his summary conclusion, 232. His work does not fully supersede the discussion of Peter’s work by Włodek, Filozofia bytu, 11–12 and 59–62, and, more briefly, in her “Koncepcje metafizyki w Krakowie w XV wieku,” in Piotr Skubiszewski, ed. Sztuka i ideologia XV wieku (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1978), 89–96, here 90–91 (reprinted in Włodek, Z dziejów filozofii i teologii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku. Sylwetki, teksty, studia [Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2011], 299–306, here 300–301).

The Arts Faculty, I

335

and is consistent with the positions of Buridan and Marsilius of Inghen, though the views of Alexander Bonini of Alexandria and Aquinas can also be found.159 One of the central issues of this work was the relationship of metaphysics to other sciences. Krzysztof Oźóg has paraphrased the author and described one of his central conclusions: metaphysics is “the universal, divine and most honourable science, which deals with the knowledge of God and leads to the contemplation of God. Following this path, a man achieves happiness.”160 The practical sciences, such as ethics and politics (i.e., elements of moral philosophy) support metaphysics, enabling man to achieve moral goodness.161 This anonymous commentary proved to be particularly influential at Cracow, for it served as the foundation for subsequent works. The philosophical eclecticism at Cracow, even when the via moderna was in the ascendancy, was reflected in the next two Cracovian commentaries written upon the Metaphysics.162 In 1426 John Orient of Cracow (d. ca. 1460) prepared an exposition on all twelve books of Aristotle’s work which he used for lecturing on this topic, and in 1433 John of Słupca (1408–1488) finished his commentary on the same. The former had matriculated at the university in 1407 (though the Liber promotionum lists him as having earned a bachelor’s degree in 1405) and, after having finished the arts curriculum at Prague in 1412, matriculated again in 1430, though he had already been in 1427 dean of the arts faculty (he held this office two more time, in 1438 and 1440). Eventually he entered the theology faculty for study and in 1439 completed requirements 159  See the comment of Krause, “Filozoficzne poglądy Aleksandra z Aleksandrii i ich wpływ na Uniwersytet Krakowski,” St. Med. 23, 2 (1985): 5–164, here 53: “In addition to the nominalist interpretation of the Metaphysics, there was also active the influence [toczył się] of realism. The Cracow commentator of the aforementioned book of Aristotle in 1423 responded using . . . expressis verbis of Alexander of Alexandria.” The text he cites is from Markowski, Teoria poznania (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1978 [Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 6]), 26 and the manuscript (BJ 2102, f. 72r), since the work had not yet at that point been edited. 160  Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Poland, 96, quoting from Book One of the text edited by Ryszard Tatarzyński, “Krakowski anonimowy Komentarz do ‘Metafizyki’ w formie kwestii z roku 1423. Wstęp i edycja I Księgi,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 8 (2000): 11–30 (Introduction), 31–180 (edition), here 149. 161  In addition to Oźóg’s discussion (cited in the previous note), see the analysis of Włodek, Filozofia bytu, 62–66. 162  About 1430 there circulated in Cracow a commentary on the Metaphysics which was of foreign origin. Włodek, Filozofia bytu, 12, has commented that it does not appear it exercised any significant role in the philosophical outlook of the university; it reflected the thought of Aquinas and Albert the Great.

336

CHAPTER 6

for the bachelor of theology degree.163 His commentary, which has not been well studied, reflects a Scotist orientation derived from John’s reliance upon the aforementioned work of Alexander Bonini of Alexandria. Feliks Krause has commented that Alexander tried to reconcile Aristotelian naturalism with Augustinian views on the relation of the world to God.164 John of Słupca matriculated at Cracow in 1429 and incepted as a master in arts in 1433. He too eventually studied theology, achieving the masters degree in 1451. In addition to being twice dean of the arts faculty and university rector three times, he was a canon of the Cracow cathedral and, in the last year of his life, vice-chancellor of the university.165 His commentary was in many ways dependent upon the moderate nominalism of the work of Peter of Sienno, even though he tried to reconcile a broad range of views, including those of Augustinian Scotism and even those of Aquinas. For this reason, Oźóg has singled him out as particularly representative of a tradition of Cracovian philosophical eclecticism.166 During the remainder of the century, several more works treating the Metaphysics were composed by Cracovian faculty. From 1448 there is extant a commentary in the form of 232 short questions that has, with a high degree of probability, been attributed to John of Racibórz, about whom little is known. He matriculated at Cracow in 1425 and completed requirements for the bachelor of arts degree in 1429 and the masters in 1433. Thereafter he began the study of theology, apparently being authorized to lecture as a bachelor in that discipline about 1444 or 1445, having twice served as dean of the faculty of arts (1443 and 1444). He died probably in 1453.167 The work is not a full-fledged commentary, with traditional pro and contra formulations. The most fully developed 163  See Kazimierz Wójcik, “Jan Orient,” Materiały 5 (1965): 24–33, especially 24–26; and FwP, 144. 164  See the analysis of Krause, “Filozoficzne poglądy Aleksandra z Aleksandrii,” 54–56 (classification of the sciences), 74–76 (the nature of being), 104–106 (the question of universals), and 147–149 (epistemological matters). His treatment does not supersede in significant ways the treatment of John Orient’s commentary by Włodek, Filozofia bytu, 69–71 and 110–115, but does deepen the appreciation of the influence of Alexander. 165  Roman Zawadzki, “Jan ze Słupczy (1408–1488),” in Piech, ed., Złota Księga papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 195–199, with earlier bibliography; PSB, 10, 476–478; LTCP / SPTK, 2, 144–145. 166  Oźóg, “Uniwersytet Krakowskie: przykład późnośredniowiecznego eklektyzmu,” 241. See also the analysis of Włodek, Filozofia bytu, 66–67, 108–109, and 164–165. 167  The foregoing is based on Jacek Litwin’s introduction (“Wstęp do edycji,” and “Einführung in die kritische Edition,”) to his critical edition of John’s Q[u]aestiones Super Duodecim Libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis Joannis de Raciborsko, Acta Mediaevalia 19 (2006): XI–XVIII for the Polish text, XXXIII–XL for the German text; 3–141 for the edition.

The Arts Faculty, I

337

treatment is of question thirty-three of book seven: Utrum universale reale in essendo sit ponendum, in which he examines the fundamental issue regarding universals that distinguished medieval realists from those traditionally known as nominalists. He is most clearly indebted to Peter of Sienno among his Cracovian sources, and his most cited high and late medieval Latin auctoritates are John Buridan, Giles of Rome, Marsilius of Inghen, and Aquinas. Despite the mixed nature of his sources, on the whole he stands within the tradition of the via moderna, i.e., moderate nominalism. This stance allowed him to drawn upon both newer and traditional approaches. The most recent editor of his Quaestiones has concluded that John was relatively independent in his approach and conclusions, but that he often sought a common ground among disparate viae.168 The next Cracovian commentary came from an anonymous writer in the decade of the 1470s. Internal evidence from the manuscripts containing this work indicates it was used in lectures at the university. It reflects the changing intellectual and philosophical environment at the studium, for it reflects no significant characteristics of the via moderna. Rather, its most important doctrinal elements are derived from the works of Albert the Great, Aquinas, and Giles of Rome. The quaestiones that accompany this work stand in a Scotist and Albertist tradition.169 This shift toward a via antiqua orientation is confirmed by the commentary on the Metaphysics by James of Gostynin (ca. 1454– 1506), written sometime between 1477 and 1487. James matriculated at the university in 1472 and was promoted in arts in 1473 and 1477. Thereafter, until 1496, he lectured in this faculty on a variety of subjects, including rhetoric and poetry in the Nowko and Mężykowa chairs, where his growing interest in classical literature was evident. At the same time he had begun the study of theology, in which faculty he achieved doctoral status in 1496. Prior to this he had been twice dean of the arts faculty and in 1503 and 1504 he was elected university rector, in which latter year he became the university vice-chancellor. Before his death he had been a canon of the collegiate chapter at St. Florian’s church. His most important work was an extensive commentary on the pseudo-Aristotelian work Liber de causis, but the commentary on the Metaphysics was also well known.170 James relies upon the work of Alexander Bonini of Alexandria, but includes in marginal notations many comments from Albert the Great. This 168  Litwin, “Wstęp do edycji,” XXVI and “Einführung in die kritische Edition,” XLVIII–XLIX. The comments of Włodek, Filozofia bytu, 13 and 67–69 are still very useful. 169  Włodek, Filozofia bytu, 14 and 71–74. 170  For his basic biography, PSB, 10, 352, FwP, 135, and LTCP / SPTK, 2, 106–107. His work has been most fully studied by Władysław Seńko, “Jakub z Gostynina i jego Komentarz do

338

CHAPTER 6

work has not been well studied, being overshadowed by attention to his work on the Liber de causis and by the composition, at about this same time, of a more significant commentary on the Metaphysics by John of Głogów.171 John, whose importance for the institutional and intellectual life makes him one of the more important figures of the fifteenth century, wrote his commentary on the Metaphysics about 1483 and may have been the author of the anonymous metaphysics commentary mentioned in the previous paragraph.172 In any case, the treatise that can be attributed to him stands firmly in the tradition of the via antiqua.173 Sections of his text are verbally nearly identical to Aquinas’ treatise on the same book, and about 1490 he lectured on Aquinas’ De ente et essentia. In his treatise on metaphysics the influence of Albert the Great and a reliance upon Alexander Bonini are quite evident. He insisted that the object of metaphysics was immaterial, spiritual and superterrestrial.174 John of Głogów was responsible for a second, briefer, work on the Metaphysics in 1501. It consisted really of only a brief interlinear and marginal exposition and was based primarily upon the commentary of Alexander Bonini. Finally it should be noted that in 1499 John Sommerfeld (Aesticampianus) wrote a series of marginal and interlinear glosses on selections from the commentaries of Albert the Great and Aquinas. All of these developments suggest the degree to which the via antiqua had become dominant at Cracow. But the spirit of these materials that have just been discussed was part of the Albertist tradition of this via. By the early sixteenth century, however, the antique way was being broadened by the arrival of the influence of Scotism with the teaching of Michael of Biestrzyków and his student John of Stobnica, whose contributions in logic have been discussed above. Although they apparently wrote nothing ‘Liber de Causis’,” St. Med. 2 (1961): 185–210. For a critical edition, with introduction, see Piotr Góra, “Jakub z Gostynina, Komentarz do Liber de causis,” Materiały 11 (1969): 3–162. 171  See, however, Włodek, Filozofia bytu, 15 and 76; her discussion of his work, 76–77 and 124–126, focuses upon the Liber de causis. 172  Włodek, Filozofia bytu, 15. 173  See the edition of this work by Ryszard Tatarzyński, ed., Jana z Głogowa komentarz do ‘Metafizyki,’ 2 vols. (Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1984 [Opera Philosophorum Medii Aevi. Textus et Studia 7, fasc. 1 and 2]). 174  The discussion of John’s ca. 1483 treatise by Włodek, Filozofia bytu, 15–16 and 74–76 is still valuable; see her more recent summary of these issues in “L’art et la science dans les commentaires médiévaux cracoviens sur la Métaphysique d’Aristote,” in “Scientia” und “ars” im Hoch- und Spätmittelalter. Albert Zimmermann zum 60. Geburtstag, I. CraemerRuegenberg and A. Speer, eds., (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994), 257–265, here 259 and reprinted in her collected works, Z dziejów filozofii i teologii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku, 373–381, here 375.

The Arts Faculty, I

339

significant on Metaphysics, according to the Liber diligentiarum, they both taught this subject and would surely have brought their Scotist orientation to this activity.175 Despite their differing scholastic traditions, what all the aforementioned Cracovian treatises have in common a concern about the relations between metaphysics and theology, between metaphysics and ethics, and between metaphysics and politics. They attempt to integrate metaphysics into a coherent framework of learning and instruction. Thus it is not surprising that many of these authors—and others not mentioned—wrote works on several subjects of the curriculum. Metaphysics especially was relevant to the understanding of such Aristotelian works as De anima and earlier medieval works such as Thomas Aquinas’ De ente et essentia.176

The Three Philosophies: Natural Philosophy

As William Wallace noted nearly four decades ago, natural philosophy, scientia naturalis, was for all practical purposes identical with medieval science.177 Within the purview of natural philosophy, there fell the exact sciences, including all of the mathematical subjects of the quadrivium—especially arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy, as well as other subjects such as physics, perspectiva or optics, and cosmology. Since these will constitute the focus of the next chapter, it remains here to discuss Cracovian contributions to the most important remaining subject of natural philosophy, psychology and commentaries on the De anima of Aristotle. Designed to be lectured for a period of four months, the De anima was apparently taught for the first time at Cracow in 1403 by Nicholas of Wielki Koźmin and then after 1408 either by Nicholas of Gorzków or Nicholas Kozłowski.178 175  See Korolec, “Michał z Biestrzykowa, Stan badań,” Materiały 1 (1961): 164–166; and Palacz, “Jan ze Stobnicy,” Materiały 1 (12) (1970): 23–24 on these points. 176  These points are further developed by Domański, “Wieki XIII–XV,” his contribution to Domański, Zbigniew Ogonowski, and Lech Szczucki, Zarys dziejów filozofii w Polsce wieki XIII–XVII (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1989), 88–114. 177  William A. Wallace, “The Philosophical Setting of Medieval Science,” in Lindberg, ed., Science in the Middle Ages, 91–119, here 114. 178  The former is mentioned by Domański, “Wieki XIII–XV,” 146; the latter, by Kuksiewicz, Filozofia człowieka. Teoria duszy (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1975 [Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 5]), 15. I conclude that the lecturer was probably Nicholas Kozłowski, since Nicholas of Gorzków, the second rector of the university after 1400, had in 1407 been appointed Bishop of Vilnius.

340

CHAPTER 6

The material they used in lectures has been identified, for the earliest teaching, as a set of Quaestiones breves on the De anima commentary of John Buridan, and, for the years after 1408, Quaestiones longae based on the same commentary. Thus at the beginning of the fifteenth century the via moderna can be seen to dominate in this field, as in other subjects at Cracow. The first Cracovian contribution to De anima studies came in 1417 from Paul of Worczyn, who was, as we have seen, very active in preparing Aristotelian commentaries around this time. His work, in the form of ninety quaestiones on all three books of Aristotle’s work, reflects a view that took into account the positions of Buridan (whom he cited twenty-six times) and Marsilius of Inghen, but also relied upon earlier commentaries of Giles of Rome (forty-six citations), Aquinas (cited thirty-five times), and Albert the Great (thirteen references). Those authorities who are usually referred to as moderni, Paul terms the schola communis.179 In his analysis of Paul’s treatise, Juliusz Domański has noted Paul’s efforts to seek out some kind of middle way between Buridan and the antiqui, citing a number of different examples. For example in dealing with the question of whether the human intellect is a substantial form of man, he answers that it is, then later modifies his position to make it conform more closely to the position taken by what he regards as the Catholic faith.180 Domański cites other examples, but all support Krzysztof Oźóg’s comments about the eclectic character of late medieval Cracow philosophy and theology.181 Benedict Hesse of Cracow has figured strongly in previous sections of this study and we shall see him as an important individual in the next chapter, where in his work on Aristotle’s Physics he stands solidly in the tradition of Buridan. In our present context, he was, after Paul of Worczyn, the second to prepare a commentary on De anima, sometime between 1423 and 1431.182 His 179  Paul’s work has been edited, with introduction, by Kuksiewicz, “Komentarz Pawła z Worczyna do ‘De anima’,” Materiały 10 (1969): 3–35 (introduction) and 35–221 (edition). 180  Domański, “Wieki XIII–XV,” 147. Citing Question eight on Book Three from Kuksiewicz’s edition, 189 and 190: “Utrum intellectus humanus sit forma substantialis hominis vel corporis humani.” “ Consequenter dicitur quod sic, ut tenet fides.” “ Pro quo nota. Tenendum est ex fide catholica, quod intellectus sit forma substantialis corporis humani.” Paul’s commentary is discussed further by Kuksiewicz, Filozofia człowieka. Teoria duszy, 17–21, 82–84, 100–103, 116–120. 181  Oźóg, “Uniwersytet Krakowski: przykład późnośredniowiecznego eklektyzmu,” 235–250 passim., especially 237. 182  His commentary to Book One has been edited by Wanda Bajor, “Edycja wybranych kwestii komentarza do pierwszej księgi ‘De anima’ Arystotelesa według Benedykta Hessego,” Acta Mediaevalia 12 (1999): 381–428, and Benedicti Hesse Quaestiones disputatae super tres libros ‘De Anima’ Aristotelis (Libri II et III) Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2011). On the ques-

The Arts Faculty, I

341

outlook, however, is less directly indebted to Buridan than to the work of Lawrence of Lindores (ca. 1372–1437, who studied at Paris from 1393 onward, wrote a commentary on De anima about 1393–1395, and was an important figure in the early history of St. Andrew’s university in Scotland (founded in 1413), where he was the first rector.183 Benedict had a personal copy of Lawrence’s commentary on De anima in his own possession, which was eventually given to the university library, and he apparently used it in his own lectures on this work and drew from it for his own commentary. In his work, Benedict reflected the core tenets of the moderni, and his commentary became the standard handbook for several academic generations.184 His treatment of the first book Aristotle’s treatise consists of thirty-five questions and is basically an introduction to the study of the soul. The second book of his commentary is composed of eighty-two questions which pursue four points. The first concentrates on the concept and definition of the soul and the metaphysical categories connected with this problem: substance, accidents, material, form, act and potential. The second treats the attributes of the vegetative soul and the third analyzes the senses and their functions. The final point treated in the second book deals with the internal and external senses and their role in processing knowledge. Book three of Benedict’s commentary contains fifty-eight questions, focused chiefly upon the intellect, or the rational soul, and the various issues connected with it. In addressing these matter, Benedict is as likely to refer and draw upon authors associated with the via antiqua as he is to utilize the arguments of other moderni. Moreover, and in some ways like Paul of Worczyn, he often approaches topics from a ­theological tion of the date of composition, compare Kuksiewicz, Filozofia człowieka. Teoria duszy, 64, note 13, with the treatment in Benedicti Hesse Quaestiones disputatae, Bajor, ed., 35* and (in the French version of her introduction) 83*–84* 183  Włodek, “Wawrzyniec z Lindores—życie, dzieła i pogłądy,” St. Med. 19, 2 (1978): 95–108; as Włodek notes, Lawrence’s influence in Britain and even at his own university St. Andrew’s was limited; rather, it was on the continent—at Prague, Erfurt, and Cracow—that his work was best known and appreciated. Bajor, “Wawrzyńca Londoriusza kwestia relacji duszy i jej władz,” Acta Mediaevalia 22 (2009): 415–429, focuses upon a specific aspect of Lawrence’s commentary on the De anima, but in her introduction to the edition of Books Two and Three of Benedict’s commentary (229*–235*), she provides an over view of Lawrence’s views and position in his own commentary. 184   Benedicti Hesse Quaestiones disputae, Bajor, ed., 239*. The exposition in the text above follows Bajor’s analysis, 242*–244*. Her more detailed, thematic, treatment follows, 244*– 286*. The analysis by Kuksiewicz, Filozofia człowieka. Teoria duszy, 120–124, together with his detailed commentary in his notes and extensive quotations from the—at that point— unedited manuscript, 183–200, are quite valuable and full of insight.

342

CHAPTER 6

standpoint as well as a philosophical one, being inspired, as Domański has observed, by the contents of the Christian faith.185 Although the Buridanist tradition in its various manifestations remained dominant at Cracow throughout the first half of the fifteenth century186 and Benedict’s commentary on De anima continued to be used in this period, there were other currents of thought which were evident. In 1442 Andrew Ruczel of Kościan matriculated at Cracow and studied in arts for seven years, successfully completing the bachelors degree in 1445 and the masters in 1449. Thereafter he taught in arts.187 Sometime after mid-century, perhaps as late as the 1460s, he composed a commentary on De anima which falls almost completely outside the Cracovian tradition. It draws directly upon the twelfth century commentary on Aristotle’s work by Averroes, the great Muslim philosopher whose work on Aristotle was so impressive that he was often regarded in the west as s­ imply “The Commentator.” His controversial conclusion that individual human beings possess neither the agent intellect nor the receptive intellect and that the former was a single, eternal, and incorporeal substance evoked powerful responses from, among others, Albert the Great and Aquinas.188 Andrew’s commentary is thoroughgoing in its Averroist orientation. In many places when he poses a question from Averroes, he gives responses that are drawn from and consistent with Averroes’ own position. This commentary, though representing the work of a Cracovian author, apparently had little circulation and may have had less impact.189 185  Domański, “Wieki XIII–XV,” 148. After earning degrees in theology and lecturing in that faculty, Benedict eventually studied law at Cracow, but his fundamental outlook was as a thinker in natural science and as a theologian. 186  In the manuscript which contains Benedict’s commentary, there are fifteen folia which contain fourteen quaestiones on Books Two and Three of Aristotle’s De anima, whose authorship has been much discussed. Some have argued that Benedict himself was the author. Recently, in connection with her own edition of Benedict’s full commentary, Wanda Bajor, “Quaestiones Cracovienses in II–III libros De anima Aristotelis (Editio Critica),” Studia Antyczne i Mediewistyczne 5 (40) (2007): 225–268, has re-examined and edited this material and attributed it to an anonymous Cracovian author. See her analysis (in French) 225–231 and edition, 232–268. 187   FwP, 11–12 for what little is known about his biography. 188  For a brief discussion of this, see Kuksiewicz, “The Potential and the Agent Intellect,” and Edward P. Mahoney, “Sense, Intellect, and Imagination in Albert, Thomas, and Siger,´ both in Kretzmann, Kenny, and Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, 595–601 (especially 595–596), and 602–622 (especially 602–611) respectively. 189  The manuscript remains, I believe, unedited and unpublished. See Markowski, “Un commentaire averroîst sur le De anima de le motié du XV-e siècle dans le ms BJ 2024,” MPP 9 (1961): 48–50; Kuksewicz, Filozofia człowieka. Teoria duszy, 30–31, 129–131; and Domański,

The Arts Faculty, I

343

By the middle of the fifteenth century at Cracow the via antiqua was becoming dominant. There are a number of reasons for this, but among them was the arrival of manuscripts commenting on the De anima by such individuals as the late fourteenth/early fifteenth century Parisian master John de Nova Domo and the better known John Versor (d. 1485). This created an intellectual environment that was conducive to Cracovian compositions consistent with the traditions of the antiqui.190 With respect to commentaries on De anima, the most important figure in Cracow was John of Głogów, who has appeared in a number of contexts previously in this book. John’s commentary was prepared sometime during the 1480s—certainly after 1473 and at the latest by 1488.191 Although we have no information prior to the initiation of the Liber diligentiarum in 1487 as to whether John had lectured on De anima prior to 1488, he lectured or held exercises on it at least six and probably seven times before his death in 1507, undoubtedly using his own work as a basis for this activity. Representing a particular type of Albertist outlook—that associated especially with Cologne—his commentary also reflects the influence of Aquinas, whose views John tried to reconcile with Albert the Great, the thought of Averroes, and the influence of Giles of Rome.192 John seemed to have two concepts of the soul. In one respect he regarded it as a substantial form with the perfection of the body giving it existence. In the second, he regarded the soul as absolute from the standpoint of its substance. The first view allows one to see the soul as the object of natural philosophy; the second makes it the subject of metaphysics. For the most part in this commentary “Wieki XIII–XV,” 148–149 (both of the latter quote, explicitly or implicitly, from the manuscript). 190  John in particular was influential, although indirectly, in the way the traditions of the antiqui were felt at Cracow. The more general background of the emergence of the via antiqua is effectively treated by Zenon Kałuza, Les querelles doctrinales à Paris. Nominalistes et realists aux confines du XIVe et du XVe siècle (Bergamo: P. Lubrina, 1988 [Quodlibet 2]); more specifically see his “Les débuts de l’Albertisme Tardif (Paris et Cologne),” in Maarten J.F.M. Hoenen and Alain de Libera, eds., Albertus Magnus und der Albertismus. Deutsche philosophische Kultur des Mittelalters (Leiden and Cologne: Brill, 1995), 207–302 In the Polish context, with respect to material touching the De anima, the process is traced by Kuksiewicz, “Problematyka psychologiczna w polskiej filozofii XV w.,” in Palacz, ed., Filozofia Polska XV wieku, 133–138, and his Albertyzm i Tomizm, 100–109. 191  For this dating, see Kuksiewicz, Filozofia człowieka. Teoria duszy, 43 and 75, n. 41. 192  Stefan Swieżawski, “Materiały do studiów nad Janem z Głogowa († 1507),” 135–184; Seńko, “Wstęp do studium nad Janem z Głogowa,” 9–59; and Kuksiewicz, “Le manuscript des ‘Quaestiones sur le De anima’ de Jean de Głogów retrouvé,” MPP 12 (1967): 33–45, with a fragment of the text edited 39–45.

344

CHAPTER 6

he treats the soul from the first standpoint. When John deals with the question of the soul and its faculties he follows the realist tradition that sees these are distinct from the substance of the soul and develops this point throughout the rest of his treatment regarding the intellect agent. His work proved to be sufficiently influential that it was eventually published in 1501, reprinted three times thereafter, and continued to be a part of the intellectual environment at Cracow.193 John of Głogów was one of the Cracow professors whose memory and accomplishments were praised by the English humanist Leonard Cox in his public lecture De laudibus celeberrimae Cracoviensis academiae in December 1518.194 John’s commentary undoubtedly represents the high point of De anima compositions in the period when the via antiqua was dominant at Cracow, but his was not the last. That by James of Gostynin, whose work in metaphysics was discussed above, was composed between 1484 and 1488 in the form of a set of marginal glosses to an existing commentary. Reflecting an outlook that has been categorized as Albertist,195 his work was also marked by other elements that ushered in the beginnings of a new outlook on matters touching the soul. James was clearly sympathetic to aspects of the outlook of the via antiqua in that he held the classical Albertist position on the duplex conception of the intellect as being able to render actually intelligible that which is potentially intelligible while at the same time there being nothing in the powers of the soul that makes material things sensible.196 But, as noted above and as we shall 193   Kuksiewicz’s extended treatments of John’s commentary in his “Główne źródła ‘Komentarza do de anima’ Jana z Głogowa,” St. Med. 4 (1963): 5–204 and “Jana z Głogowa Koncepcja duszy,” St. Med. 6 (1964): 137–247 (both based only on the printed edition of 1501) and in his Albertyzm i Tomizm, 146–170, which I follow above, also provided the base for his own comments in other works, such as his chapter “Problematyka psychologiczna w polskiej filozofii XV w.,” in Palacz, ed., Filozofia Polska XV wieku, 138–143, 150–156, and 160–163, (this actually appeared prior to the aforementioned monograph but the material in it was derived from that already finished work) and his Filozofia człowieka. Teoria duszy, 107–109 and 134–136. His material is also the primary source for the treatment by Domański, “Wieki XIII–XV,” 150–151 and 158–160. 194  Henryk Zins, “A British Humanist and the University of Kraków at the Beginning of the Sixteenth Century: A Chapter in Anglo-Polish Relations in the Age of the Renaissance,” Renaissance Studies 8 (1994): 13–39. 195  Seńko, “Charakterystyka Albertyzmu na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim w XV wieku,” in Zdzisław Kuksiewicz, ed. Z dziejów filozofii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1965), 182–205, here 195; and Kuksiewicz, Albertyzm i Tomizm, 170. 196  I paraphrase here Mahoney, “Sense, Intellect, and Imagination in Albert, Thomas, and Siger,” 602.

The Arts Faculty, I

345

see in Chapter Ten, James’ outlook was also being informed by his appreciation of classical literature and the general interests of early humanism. He was still scholastic in his approach, but, as Juliusz Domański has noted, his concern for the practical expression of the philosophical life had much in common with humanism.197 While there were others at Cracow whose works on other topics had implications for the kinds of issues associated with De anima and commentaries thereon, the foregoing represents a representative profile of faculty contributions in this field. More than this, the larger picture of productivity in the arts—except for the natural and exact sciences to be treated in the following chapter—presents the full spectrum of what those who taught and wrote at the university were able to create. There was little perhaps in the foregoing that equaled, let alone surpassed, the accomplishments of the major figures and contributors in studia elsewhere, particularly in the great schools of the Italian peninsula, France, and England. Nevertheless, Cracow was largely abreast of the several schools east of the Rhine and certainly demonstrated in the first century of its refounded history an achievement which engaged it fully and actively in the university and intellectual tradition which it had joined in 1400. In some important ways, its accomplishments in the subjects to be treated next were even more impressive.

197  Domański, Scholastyka i początki humanizmu w myśli polskiej XV wieku, 324; see also 311– 312. This work is a very lightly revised and updated version of his Początki Humanizmu; see 235–238 for his discussion of James in this earlier work.

CHAPTER 7

The Arts Faculty, II This chapter is devoted to the remaining elements of natural philosophy, including those areas traditionally called the exact sciences. It focuses first upon specific contributions made by the faculty members to the subject of the physical sciences, with particular attention to the problem of enforced motion, then devotes brief attention to the lesser natural sciences. Next the subject of mathematics is treated. The important development of a Cracovian astronomical tradition forms the substantial last part of this chapter. Finally, some general comments about the scientific tradition at the university provide the opportunity to characterize and evaluate some of the major trends in the philosophical interests of the Cracow professoriate in this century.

The Physical Sciences: Physics

In the early books of his treatise on Physics, Aristotle had established that motion was involved in the very definition of nature.1 It is not, therefore, surprising that the study of natural science at Cracow (as indeed at other medieval universities) was to a very great extent concerned with problems of motion. In lectures on his other writings, such as De caelo et mundo, Meteora, De generatione et corruptione, and the elements of the Parva naturalia,2 the relationship between all natural bodies and their several kinds of motion—whether in the 1  On this point, see John E. Murdoch and Edith D. Sylla, “The Science of Motion,” in David C. Lindberg, ed., Science in the Middle Ages (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 206– 274, here 206, with a revealing quotation from Geoffry of Haspul. See also their excellent, brief, description of the contents of the Physics, 208–210. More generally, see the still standard treatment of this with respect to Aristotle’s medieval interpreters by James A. Weisheipl, “The interpretation of Aristotle’s Physics and the science of motion,” in Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 521–537. 2  The Parva naturalia traditionally—though not always—was regarded as including the following: De sensu et sensato, De memoria et reminiscentia, De somno et vigilia, De longitudine et brevitate vitae, De vita et morte, De respiratione, De iuventute et senectute, and the PseduoAristotelian works De motu cordis and De physionomia. For manuscripts of the Parva naturalia at Cracow, see the list in Mieczysław Markowski and Zofia Włodek, eds., Repertorium commentariorum medii aevi in Aristotelem Latinorum quae in Bibliotheca Iagellonica Cracoviae

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004326019_009

The Arts Faculty, II

347

strict or in an analogic sense—was central to the physical sciences. It was not these works, however, which generated the most productive thought on motion; it was Aristotle’s Physics which was of primary importance.3 Thus, although we shall have reference below to some of the other Aristotelian Libri naturales, it is this work upon which we shall concentrate. Several important commentaries upon the Physica were written at Cracow in the fifteenth century. Analysis of these enables us to identify the major currents of thought within the university on the subject of motion. By extension, this will become a key to a general appreciation of how the physical sciences were understood there. The earliest instruction in physics at Cracow was provided by masters trained abroad—for the most part at Prague—and was based upon works written outside Poland. Thus, for example, the short commentary upon the Physics by John Isner, which was probably used at Cracow shortly after 1400, was written about 1375 while John was still a student at Prague. He based his treatise upon the commentary written in the fourteenth century by John Buridan.4 (Another short treatise based on the Physics written abroad by Peter Polak, a fourteenth century Dominican, can probably not be shown to have been used at Cracow.)5 Taken together, these materials tell us rather little. With Andrew Wężyk, nicknamed Serpens, a more distinctive Cracovian tradition can be seen taking shape. Andrew completed his bachelor’s degree in arts at Prague in 1397, then came to study at Cracow where he was promoted to master in arts in 1402, one of the three first such degrees granted at the asservantur (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1974), 193–193. This chapter discusses the Parva naturalia below, but does not treat Aristotle’s De animalibus. 3  The importance of the Physics in the arts curriculum at Cracow was reflected in the great amount of time devoted to its study—nine months—and the fact that the dean of the faculty was responsible for exertatio in this subject; see above, Chapter Three. In practice, as pointed out by Markowski, “Nauki wyzwolone i filozofia na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku,” St. Med. 9 (1968): 91–115, here 95, works related to physics actually consumed almost three-quarters of the time of candidates for exams. 4  Quaestiones disputate super octo libros ‘Physicorum’ Aristotelis cum glossis Ioannis Isneri, Lucyna Nowak, ed., Acta Mediaevalia 9 (1996): 1–284. Markowski, Filozofia przyrody w pierwszej połowie XV wieku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1976 [Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 4]), 20; and Jerzy Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” in Zathey, Anna Lewicka-Kamińska, and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, Historia Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej, vol. 1: 1364–1775, Ignacy Zarębski, ed. (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1966), 53. Traditional scholarship attributed to John Isner a Scotist or Augustinian philosophical outlook, but Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce w okresie przedkopernikańskim (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1971 [Studia Copernicana 2]), 120, has shown this not to be the case. 5  Zofia Siemiątkowska, “Piotr Polak, filozof dominikański z XIV wieku,” Materiały 3 (1964): 157–172, here 161–163.

348

CHAPTER 7

reopened studium. For the next several years he lectured in arts, then by 1408 joined the Dominican order and apparently left Cracow.6 Sometime between 1403 and 1407 he wrote a rather full commentary on the Physics in the form of questions. It was apparently his only work. There is much that is traditional in Andrew’s set of quaestiones and reflects strongly the influence of John Buridan, especially with regard to the idea of impetus. The argument which Aristotle advanced at the beginning of the seventh book of the Physics, that everything which is in motion is moved by something else, is dealt with at some length by Andrew. First he defines the two traditional opinions: (a) that a projectile is moved through space by air displaced from in front rushing in behind to fill an incipient vacuum, i.e., the theory of antiperistasis; and (b) that a projectile is moved by the air immediately surrounding it, and this as a result of the power of the original propellant, i.e., the position taken by Aristotle. He rejects both these conclusions. Instead, he asserts that “according to the moderni,” a body is moved through the air after it leaves the hand of the mover by virtue of the force originally imparted to it by the mover. This force he terms impetus, following the tradition of Oresme and particularly Buridan.7 Though there were many followers of Buridan whose works were at Cracow and could have been influential upon him,8 it is difficult to place him more precisely than this. It is worth noting that Andrew had no difficulty in differing with Aristotle’s conclusion, even though he recognized it was not thought good to disagree with an authority.9 Instead, he analyzed the problem from the standpoint of probability and concluded that the theory he was supporting was the “more probable.”10 6  FwP, 12. See also Markowski, “Wpływ burydanizmu na Uniwersytet Krakowski w pierw­ szej połowie XV wieku,” in Zdzisław Kuksiewicz, ed. Z dziejów filozofii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1965), 133, n. 46. 7  “Sed secundum modernos ponitur conclusio ad questionem, quod proiectum a manu proicientis missum nec movetur ab aere insequente nec per antiparistasim, sed imprimitur sibi quidam impetus, quo ipsum movetur.” Questiones disputatae super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis, partially edited from ms Cracow BJ 688 under this title by Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 153. The question of impetus is central to Markowski’s treatment of Buridan’s influence and its possible relation to Copernicus’s ideas. The European context of discussions about impetus as it related eventually to the Polish scene is treated by Ryszard Palacz, “Z problematyki badań nad filozofią przyrody w XV w. Cz. II: Główne problemy europejskiej filozofii przyrody XIV i XV w.,” St. Med. 13 (1971): 3–107, especially 88–104. 8   See the discussion by Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 209–215. 9   “Illa conclusio est contra Aristotelem, ergo non est bona. Consequencia tenet per locum ab auctoritate.” Quaestiones disputatae in Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 153. 10   Ibid., “Secunda est probabilior.”

The Arts Faculty, II

349

A work which stands in this same tradition, but which reflects a more traditional Aristotelianism than Andrew’s commentary, was written Andrew of Kokorzyn. He probably prepared his commentary, now known only in an abridged form (Puncta super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis), in 1406 or 1407 in connection with his responsibilities as dean of the arts faculty.11 Andrew had begun his university career at Prague, where in 1399 he completed requirements for the BA. He was promoted to master three years later. Soon thereafter he came to Cracow and lectured in arts, serving as dean of that faculty in 1406. In 1409 he began the study of theology and became a master by 1426. He was three times rector of the university and after 1428 was archdeacon of the cathedral. Before his death about 1435, in addition to the Puncta under consideration here, he had written a number of theological treatises, other minor works relating to his lectures in arts, and a now-lost Historia ecclesiastica sui temporis. He also served the king, Władysław Jagiełło, in a number of different diplomatic and personal capacities.12 Andrew was regarded, at least by his younger contemporary, Andrew Gałka of Dobczyn, as the most famous teacher at the university.13 The most interesting sections of Andrew’s Puncta deal with the same issue as the commentary of Wężyk. Kokorzyn suggests the problem of motion may be dealt with in three ways: the antiperistasic tradition, the view of Aristotle, or the “common” (i.e., Buridanical) tradition. He concludes the third is the most reliable.14 He does not, however, leave the matter there. He adds an ­assertion that the air assists the force of impetus in moving the projectile. 11  This is suggested by Markowski, Filozofia przyrody, 21, but does not mention it in his “Poglądy filozoficzne Andrzeja z Kokorzyna,” St. Med. 6 (1964): 55–136, which contains (60–70) the fullest biographical treatment of Andrew. The description of his career which follows is based on this, more reliable, presentation, rather than on the older entry in PSB, 1, 107; see also, with some slightly more recent information, LTCP / SPTK, 1, 55–56. 12  Długosz, Annales, 8, 73 (Liber undecimus, sub anno 1417). Andrew had been sent to the Council of Constance to obtain permission for the king to marry again (his first wife, Jadwiga, had died in 1399, and a second wife had died in 1416). See Krzysztof Oźóg, Uczeni w monarchii Jadwigi Andegaweńskiej i Władysław Jagiełły (1384–1434) (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2004), 277. 13  On this point, see my treatment in “ ‘The Worst Heretic.’ Andrzej Gałka of Dobczyn in the Academic and Ecclesiastical Context of Mid-15th Century Kraków and Poland,” The Polish Review 54 (2009): 3–28, here 16. 14  “De ista sunt tres opiniones. Prima dicit, quod aer pellit in proiectum lapidem sic, quando lapis exivit de manu, tunc in illum locum ipsius manus, in quo loco in manu iacuit lapis, subintrat aer, ne comitatur vacuum, qui aer pellit et tradit lapidem. . . . Hanc opinionem reprobavit Aristoteles. . . . Secunda opinio, quod manus proycientis pellit illum lapidem sic, quod solum a manu ille lapis movetur et manus movet ipsum, que manus dicitur esse proiciens et sic movetur a proiciente. Iste iterum non valet . . . [tertia] opinio communis

350

CHAPTER 7

Thus he departs from the tradition of Buridan and moves in the direction of a quasi-Aristotelian interpretation.15 When he explores this corollary regarding enforced motion, Kokorzyn lists four conditions which must exist in order to account for the motion. There must be a mover who imparts movement to the body; impetus must be imparted to change the body’s movement from potential to actual; there must be a body which is to be moved; and there must be other media to assist in the movement.16 By including this fourth condition, Kokorzyn presents a confused picture of the nature of enforced motion which, although it appears to preserve the authority of “the Philosopher,” is neither Aristotelian nor Buridanical. One result of this unhappy marriage of two traditions is that Kokorzyn’s explanation of motion is applicable only to enforced motion on earth and may not be used to explain nature motion in the heavenly bodies. His contribution to the science of physics at Cracow is therefore not as important as others.17 One whose achievement was substantial was Benedict Hesse of Cracow. His general importance in the university’s life is reflected in the fact that he has often figured in the discussion of topics earlier in this study. He will also be the focus of further discussion in subsequent chapters. Here it remains to analyze his most significant composition in the arts faculty, his Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis. Written about 1421, this work is extant in a faithful copy made by Matthew of Łabiszyn sometime prior to 1425 and in a redaction prepared by John Kanty between 1429 and 1436. This latter is the more complete, but it was substantially reworked in its preparation and apparently departs at crucial points from Benedict’s work.18 On the whole, however, it is dependent upon Benedict, and one may examine the question of motion in et verior, quod proiectum, id est lapis post exitum a manu movetur ab impetu impresso proiecto. . . .” Puncta, partially edited by Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 156. 15  “Sequitur corrolarie, quod proiectum principaliter movetur ab impetu impresso et minus principaliter aer coadiuvet.” Ibid. 16  “Item ad tale proiectum ex manu requiritur quatuor condiciones: Primo proyciens, qui imprimit motum lapidi sicut manus et ballista, que imprimit motum lapidi vel funde; Secundo requiritur impressio, que impressio educitur de potencia lapidis ad actum; Tercio requiritur proiectivus lapis, de quo educitur talis impressio; Quarto aer, ignis vel aqua, que deferent, id est portant proiectum.” Ibid., 157. 17  There are other elements in Kokorzyn’s views. The nominalism which he reflects in these and other works is mixed with strong Augustinian overtones; see Markowski, “Poglądy Andrzeja,” 108–124. 18  See, for example, the comments of Palacz, “Z badań nad filozofią przyrody na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku,” in Palacz, ed., Filozofia Polska XV wieku (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972), 350.

The Arts Faculty, II

351

both these versions as being representative in greater or lesser degree of the work of Benedict.19 On the issue of the motion of a body after it has lost contact with the mover, Hesse begins by describing three possible interpretations: one, per antiperistasim; a second, related theory, in which the object is moved forward by the air which replaces it (this he incorrectly attributed to Aristotle); and the last, which assumes that the medium of the air surrounding the object is the agent of motion. “But,” he concludes, “these opinions are not true, as Buridan declares.” The French master thus provides a fourth opinion, and Hesse adopts his impetus theory in a pure form.20 He refines this position in some interesting ways. He describes impetus as a kind of vis motiva in its own right. It is not dissipated in all directions, but rather is focused in the direction in which it was first imparted. While he accepts the formulation of earlier Buridanists that impetus may be directed either recte or circulariter, he concludes that whatever its direction, this is dependent upon the source of the enforced motion and is not self-generating. For Benedict, impetus is a quality, not a substance. He further argues that impetus is something which is permanent, rather than temporary, though elsewhere he follows Buridan’s conclusion that local motion involved something which is purely successive and intrinsic to the body.21 Had 19  The editor of the critical edition of Benedict’s Quaestiones, Stanisław Wielgus, has rehabilitated to a certain degree the redaction of John Kanty. Though he bases his text on Matthew, he notes that John often provides a closer reading of Benedict’s intent and that he more often quotes correctly one of Benedict’s important sources, Lawrence of Lindores: Wielgus, “Über die Arbeiten zur kritischen Ausgabe des Kommentars von Benedikt Hesse zur ‘Physik’ des Aristoteles,” St. Med. 20, 2 (1980): 8–10, and Benedictus Hesse Quaestiones super octo libros ‘Physicorum’ Aristotelis, Wielgus, ed. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1984), VIII–X (Polish Preface) and XXV–XXVII (German Preface). The citations below from the Quaestiones of Benedict are from the Wielgus edition. 20  “Sed istae opinions non sunt verae, ut declarat Buridanus per expergentias [Kanty: “Biridanus in corpore”], est ergo quarta opinio, quod proiectum movetur ab impetu impresso a proiciente.” Hesse, Quaestiones, 763. 21  “. . . tunc imprimit sibi quandam virtutem motivam, per quam ipsum proiectum potest moveri ad istam partem, ad quam proicere intendit proiciens.” Hesse, Quaestiones, 763. “Notandum, impetus impressus est quoddam accidens et non est substantia et potest sic definiri: Est qualitas motiva immediate generata in mobili per impressionem violentam” (765) “Impetus impressus non est res successiva sed res permanens. . . .” (765) “. . . ibi notandum: Quamvis mobile movetur ab impetu impresso tamquam a principio intrinseco, tamen quia passum non habet ibi naturalem inclinationem ad huiusmodi motum, nec etiam est conveniens formae substantiali proiecti, igitur sequitur, quod non movetur naturaliter ab impetu impresso.” (766. The last phrase comes from the manuscript of Kanty’s text, since Matthew’s version is badly corrupted.)

352

CHAPTER 7

he elaborated on the permanent nature of impetus he might have been able to apply this force as an explanation for the movement of heavenly bodies. That he did not do so suggests he was not influenced by one of Buridan’s followers, Albert Rickmersdorf of Saxony, who did attempt a detailed explanation of celestial movement.22 Benedict’s Quaestiones was an original work in a number of ways. It was not simply a compilation, but was rather a treatise which he worked into an independent work. Only 140 of the 276 questions he posed can be identified as being drawn from the commentaries of Buridan and the other medieval authors whom he used.23 The remainder of them were elaborated either directly from Aristotle or, in most cases, from implications in his medieval sources. His clearest adherence to the Philosopher came in his treatment of Book Five, where Benedict rejected the order and series of questions used by medieval authors, particularly Buridan, and adopted instead the exact order used by Aristotle. Even in instances where he drew his questions and text from earlier writers, he often used only fragments, shaping what he took into treatments which pursued his own concepts. This independence is reflected in two ways. One is the way in which he provides numerous instances of homey examples from his Polish experience to illustrate a point.24 The second is reflected in his critical attitude in which he compares sources and repeatedly adopts a conclusion

22  For Albert’s views, see the discussion of Annaliese Maier, Zwei Grundprobleme der scholastischen Naturphilosophie (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1951), 259–270 (I have not used the third edition of this work.) See also her discussion in Zwischen Philosophie und Mechanik (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1958), 139–143. 23  His most important sources were Buridan, Marsilius of Inghen, Aquinas, Giles of Rome, Walter Burley, Themistius, Averroes, Albert the Great, Albert of Orlamünde, and— above all—Lawrence of Lindores, whose work constitutes some 15% of Benedict’s text. See Wielgus, “Über die Arbeiten zur kritischen Ausgabe des Kommentars von Benedikt Hesse,” 18, and, in more detail, his edition of the Quaestiones, XII–XV and XXX–XXIV. 24  Some of these were adopted by later Cracow writers. For example the later anonymous treatise Quaestiones Cracovienses (see below) quotes him exactly: “Utrum Socrates sit idem homo hodie, qui fuit heri. . . . Unde non debet concedi, quod sit eadem aqua ante civitatem hodie et heri in Visla, quia substantia aquae transit et una alteri succedit. Sed tamen bene concedendum est, quod sit idem Visla, quia hoc nomen ‘Visla’ est nomen situs et non substantiae; ergo teritus modus sufficit ad hoc, quo sit idem Visla.” Palacz, ed., “Quaestiones Cracovienses super octo libros ‘Physicorum’ Aristotelis,” St. Med. 10 (1969): 22, lines 13 and 23, lines 17–21. Compare these usages with Benedict’s text in Wielgus, ed., Quaestiones, 75–76.

The Arts Faculty, II

353

with such qualifications as per totalem scientiam . . .; sed alii dicunt, quod . . .; or quod est probabilior. . . .25 In many respects, of course, Benedict was not original. He worked within a traditional framework, and the popularity of his work which we note below suggests that he did not radically depart from that tradition. But there are certain subtleties in his work, beyond the more mechanical considerations mentioned in the preceding paragraph, which suggest an original contribution. The force with which he adopted and represented the impetus theory of Buridan was important. By accounting for projectile motion as something which was a property of an object in motion and not something continually imparted from moment to moment; and by providing the basis for an explanation of the puzzle of acceleration, the impetists—of whom Benedict was the most important in Cracow—departed slightly but significantly from Aristotle. Though this position did not seriously conflict with an Aristotelian system, it provided a solution which modified his authoritative answers. Thus, the approach continued to be within an Aristotelian context, but it opened fruitful alternatives.26 One of these was implicit in Benedict’s classification of the sciences and in his criteria for truth. When Benedict asked “whether the chief philosophy . . . is speculative or practical knowledge?”27 he answered in a traditional manner that it was speculative or theoretical. But he went on to suggest that it ought to become one of the non-abstract, practical sciences. As such, he suggested, it would be possible to apply to the questions of natural philosophy a criterion for truth based in lumen naturale or ratio naturalis. The authority of the philosophers, including Aristotle, and the dogmas of the Christian faith were, of course, two other criteria for truth. But where questions of nature are ­concerned, natural reason (ratio naturalis) may derive truth from prime principles, self-evident propositions, and the mathematically demonstrable

25  These seem to go beyond the conventional scholastic formulae; see the examples cited and discussed by Wielgus, “Über die Arbeiten zur kritischen Ausgabe des Kommentars,” 26, note 71. 26  On this point, see the comments of Murdoch and Sylla, “The Science of Motion,” 212–213; and the more detailed discussion in Maier, Zwei Grundprobleme, 219–290. Though some historians have found in the idea of impetus the kernel of the principle of inertia, Maier has shown (Zwei Grundprobleme, 113–115) this to be in error; see, however, the comments of Marshall Clagett, The Science of Mechanics in the Middle Ages (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1959), xxviii. 27  “Utrum philosophia principalis quae vocatur physica sit scientia speculativa vel practica.” Hesse, Quaestiones, 8.

354

CHAPTER 7

­ rinciples of the philosophy of nature.28 In discussing what natural philosophy p was, Benedict tended to circumscribe its focus. He limited it to physics (philosophia naturalis [or principalis], quae vocatur physica . . .) and made it more important in his hierarchy of knowledge than other speculative sciences, such as metaphysics.29 It is also in Benedict’s Quaestiones that we find his taxonomy of philosophy, noted in the previous chapter: “According to Albert . . ., philosophia is triplex. One part of it is Rational, one is Moral, and one is Natural. And by Rational he understands the Trivium, by Moral—moral philosophy, but by Natural, however, he understands Physics.”30 This view of Albert (who has been identified as Albert of Orlamünde, not Albert the Great),31 further reinforces Benedict’s emphasis upon physics. As seen in the previous chapter and will be seen again later in this chapter, the tradition of Buridan and the moderni with whom he is grouped was overlain by the more traditional approach to natural science of the via antiqua. But the theoretical impetus given by Buridan’s approach through the influence of Benedict Hesse had its application in the most practical of the physical sciences, astronomy. Benedict’s Quaestiones served for many years as a basic handbook at Cracow. In addition to being used in his no-longer extant autograph version and in the two copies noted above, it was also revised by others. In this version, it was known as the Quaestiones secundum Benedictum Hesse de Cracovia. One 28  These considerations are discussed at length by Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 64–81; see also his comments in his Metodologia nauk (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1976 [Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 2]), 133–154 and 164–169. 29  Markowski, Filozofia przyrody, 35, and quoting Hesse, 42, note 11: “De alio: Finis ultimatus et proporius scientiae naturalis non est opus, sed bene finis accidentalis potest esse opus, quia multi student philosophiam naturalem propter operari.” In the text edited by Wielgus and published eight years after Markowski’s use of the manuscript, the quotation is from Book One, Quaestio Two: Hesse, Quaestiones, 13. 30  “Secundum Albertum in principio suorum Naturalium, philosophia est triplex. Quaedam est rationalis, quaedam moralis et quaedam naturalis. Et per rationalem ipse intelligit trivium, per moralem—philosophiam moralem, sed per naturalem intelligit physicam.” Hesse, Quaestiones, 8. Markowski cites this passage in Burydanizm w Polsce, 600–61 and Filozofia przyrody, 35; he discusses it briefly in “Metodologia nauk, logika, i teoria poznania na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku,” in Palacz, ed., Filozofia Polska XV wieku, 263. 31  Wielgus, “Über die Arbeiten zur kritischen Ausgabe des Kommentars,” 23, has determined that this passage was cited by Benedict from the Philosophia pauperum, a work incorrectly attributed to Albert the Great. Martin Grabmann, Die Philosophia pauperum und ihr Verfasser Albert von Orlamünde. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des philosophischen Unterrichtes an den deutschen Stadtschulen des ausgehenden Mittelalters (Münster: Aschendorf, 1918 [Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters 20, no. 2]), has shown this work to be by Albert of Orlamünde.

The Arts Faculty, II

355

author prepared a definitive text, now lost, sometime about 1440, and within a decade it was recopied by at least three other individuals. Their extant copies provide us today with our knowledge of this text. This work reflects both Benedict’s influence and the continuing importance of the Buridanical tradition at Cracow.32 One of the differences between the Quaestiones of Benedict and this work based on it is that the former consists of a series of dialectical questions while the latter is couched more in the form of dogmatic statements. In other words, the former explored problems and proposed possible solutions; the latter stated these as positive conclusions. This suggests that the tradition which Benedict represented had begun by the middle of the fifteenth century to lose some of its originality and vitality. The Quaestiones secundum Benedictum includes the by-then standard description of possible explanations to account for motions, accepting as a principle the Aristotelian assumption quidquid movetur ab alio movetur. It follows Buridan and Benedict in accepting the impetus theory as the only correct explanation.33 Similarly, it defines impetus as a power which enables something in motion to move further. Although it is regarded as a permanent quality, the author of these Quaestiones does not apply it to the movement of the heavenly bodies, reserving it as an explanation only for the enforced, violent motion of objects on early. This work also emphasizes that impetus is something distinct from motion and the two should not be identified.34 With the Exercitium [or Quaestiones] super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis, written in 1449 by an unknown local master, we approach the end of the first period of Cracovian natural science.35 The author accepts the impetus theory of motion, and remarks that the object receives from the mover the strength 32  These manuscripts provide us with information about the interests of students and lecturers at Cracow. One is contained in a manuscript owned by John of Inowrocław and was copied by Kaspar of Wschowa. A second was copied by John of Tomaszowiec from a lecture given by John of Toszek in 1451. For these, see Markowski, “Krakowskie komentarze do Fizyki Arystotelesa zachowane w średniowiecznych rękopisach Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej,” St. Med. 7 (1966): 107–124, here 115. 33  “Quod proiectum movetur ab impetu impresso a proiciente.” Quaestionses . . . secundum Benedictum, partially edited by Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 166. 34  “Et potest sic diffiniri: Est qualitas motiva acquisita vel immediate generata in mobili per impressionem violentam.” Ibid.; “talis impetus est res permanens sicut habetur ex secundo articulo Biridani. . . .” Ibid., 167–168; “modo mobile non movetur ab impetu impresso tamquam a causa formali sed tamquam a causa efficiente et ergo impetus non est motus.” Ibid., 168. 35  Palacz, “Z badań nad filozofią przyrody,” 325, calls this work simply a “paraphrase” of Benedict Hesse’s work. While closely related in terms of viewpoint, it nevertheless seems to others to be a distinct work; see particularly Markowski, “Krakowskie komentarze,” 115.

356

CHAPTER 7

for further motion. He is particularly interested in the nature of impetus. In addition to accepting Benedict’s (and Buridan’s) view regarding the directional determinant of enforced motion and its permanent character, he spends some time in analyzing whether impetus is a quality of the first or the third order.36 (In this he reflects some familiarity with the similar treatment of this problem by Marsilius of Inghen, another follower of Buridan.) Along with the works of Wężyk, Hesse, and the Quaestiones . . . secundum Benedictum, this Exercitium may be taken as generally representative of the physical tradition at Cracow in the first half of the fifteenth century. All reflect, in greater or lesser degree, the influence of Buridan’s Subtilissimae quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum.37 During the second half of the fifteenth century, important changes took places in the intellectual orientation of the study and teaching of natural philosophy at Cracow. After Benedict Hesse died in 1456, Buridanism and the via moderna was no longer the leading tradition at the university. The five decades which followed were characterized by a variety of philosophical approaches. A brief analysis of the most important texts from this period—the anonymous Quaestiones Cracovienses, the writings of John of Głogów, the work of Michael Falkener of Wrocław, and the teachings of James of Gostynin, John of Stobnica, and Michael of Biestrzykowo—shows the range of this intellectual spectrum.

36  “Tercia opinio vera per modum conclusionis. Cum proiciens proicit ipsum proiectum, tunc imprimit sibi quendam impetum vel quandam virtutem motivam, per quam ipsum proiectum potest moveri ad illam partem, ad quam proiciens intendit proicere.” Exercitium, partially edited by Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 172; “Ille impetus impressus non est motus localis, quo proiectum movetur. Racio, quia ille impetus facit motum proiecti, sed idem non facit seipsum.” Ibid., 174; “Impetus non est res pure succesiva.” Ibid.; “Impetus impressus est res nature permanentis.” Ibid., 175; “Verisimile est illum impetum impressum esse unam qualitatem innatam movere corpus, cui est impressa.” Ibid.; “Sed impetus est qualitas innata, negatur et dicitur, quod corrolarium addit plus, quia ibi non dicitur, quod sit innata, sed innata, id est apta movere corpus, cui est impressa, ut dicit corrolarium.” Ibid., 176. 37  Palacz, “Z problematyki badań nad filozofią przyrody w XV wieku, Cz. I: Filozofia przyrody na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku,” St. Med. 11 (1970: 73–109, here 106. The influence of Buridan and his followers in Poland was first noted by Konstanty Michalski, “Jan Buridanus i jego wpływ na filozofią scholastyczną w Polsce,” Sprawozdania z Czynności i Posiedzeń Akademii Umiejętności w Krakowie 21, no. 10 (1916): 25–34, and “Zachodnie prądy filozoficzne w XIV wieku i stopniowy ich wpływ w środkowej i wschodniej Europie,” Przegląd Filozoficzny 31 (1928): 15–21. The importance of Buridan’s influence and of Benedict Hesse as a central figure in the intellectual milieu of Cracow in this context has been noted by Oźog, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe in the Middle Ages (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2009 [Krakow Historical Monographs 1]), 97.

The Arts Faculty, II

357

The Quaestiones Cracovienses super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis was prepared by an anonymous Polish author in Cracow within a decade of Benedict’s death. Our earliest copy dates from 1464, and there are three other versions extent from 1473, 1474, and post 1482.38 These multiple copies, the numerous marginal notations, and the fact that it was eventually printed in Cracow in 1510 suggest that the commentary became a kind of standard handbook, the quaestiones communes, for the teaching of physics at the university in the second half of the century.39 Composed of 142 questions, the work is in a number of ways eclectic. It draws upon the nominalist tradition of Buridan, but also utilized elements of the via antiqua. Within the Quaestiones Cracovienses, for example, the most common and influential sources were Aquinas, Albert the Great, Giles of Rome, Avicenna and Averroes, Buridan, and other ­moderni.40 As we shall see below, this work was for many years attributed to John of Głogów.41 When dealing with the problem which was central to the contribution of Buridan, the question of enforced motion, the author accepts his impetus theory but with significant modifications. He recognized the influence of impetus, but at the same time attributes to the medium through which an objects moves (i.e., air) a role in its continued motion.42 This compromise 38  For an analysis of this manuscript tradition, see Quaestiones Cracovienses . . ., Palacz, ed., in St. Med. 10 (1969): vi–xxiii. All quotations below are to this edition. 39  Palacz, “Der Streit zwischen der ‘via moderna’ und ‘via antiqua’ in der Naturphilosophie an der Krakauer Universität in der zweiten Hälfte des XV. Jahrhunderts,” MPP 20 (1974): 97–108, here 99–100; and Palacz, “Les ‘Quaestiones Cracovienses’—principale source pour la philosophie de la nature dans la second moitié du XVe siècle à l’Université Jagellonne à Cracovie,” MPP 14 (1970): 41–52, here 41–44. See also the treatment by Markowski, Filozofia przyrody w drugiej połowie XV wieku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1983 [Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 10]), 17–19. 40  See Quaestiones Cracovienses, Palacz, ed., 259–261 (the index to citations). 41  This attribution by both the seventeenth century biographer Szymon Starowolski and the nineteenth century bibliographer Karol Estreicher was demonstrated to be false by the recovery of John’s own commentary on the Physics; see Marian Zwiercan, “Les ‘Quaestiones in Physicam Aristotelis’ de Jean de Głogów enfin retrouvées!,” MPP 11 (1963): 86–92; and Władysław Seńko, “Wstęp do studium nad Janem z Głogowa,” Materiały 1 (1961): 9–59. 42  “Utrum proiecta cessante proiciente moveantur a medio, per quod feruntur, aut ab ipso proiciente . . . Pro responsione sciendum, quod duplex fuit opinio apud antiquos de motu proiectionis. Nam Plato dixit. . . . Sed ista opinio non sufficit,. . . . Alia opinio est Aristotelis, quod proiecta moveantur a proiciente, qui condensat aerem iuxta se, ei imprimendo suam virtutem, qui se iterum rarefaciens condensat alium aerem, et sic consequenter quousque cessat violentia; . . . Sed forte diceret aliquis, quod cessante movente a motu cessare deberet et mobile; ideo quiescente proiciente quiescere deberet aer et per

358

CHAPTER 7

between Buridan and traditional medieval interpretations of Aristotle’s views on this point has been seen as a conscious effort within university circles to adopt a syncretic approach.43 It is this compromise which undoubtedly made this work useful to so many generations of students; but it is also this which prevented the teaching based upon it from contributing significantly to the resolution of a continuing scientific problem. It should be noted, however, that by presenting the impetus theory, even in a modified version, it kept this aspect of the nominalist tradition alive within the university.44 It is also interesting to note that this commentary sustained the tradition of giving to physics a primary place in natural philosophy. According to the author, the abstract principles regarding a body in motion are the proper subjects of physics, while more concrete considerations are reserved for the rest of natural philosophy.45 In his discussion of this problem of what the subject matter of natural philosophy is, the author draws freely upon Buridan, Aquinas, and especially Albert the Great. That the Quaestiones Cracovienses was influential at the university in this period is confirmed by the teaching career of John of Głogów, who—as has been noted—dominated the arts faculty at Cracow for four decades. Sometime after John incepted as a master in arts in 1468, he began the preparation of his own commentary upon the Physics. His eventual publisher, the Cracow c­ onsequens proiectum. . . . Moderni autem ab Aristotele differunt, quia ponunt impetum in ipso proiecto, sed Aristoteles ponit proiectum ab aere motum moveri. Ex istis sequitur, quod motus proiectorum non est continuus, quia proiecta moventur a diversis motoribus, scilicet a diversis partibus aeris, ut dictum est. Secundo patet ex dictis, quod non oportet omnia moveri, tenendo positionem Aristotelis; licet enim aer cedat lapidi proiecto, tamen hoc est per condensationem. Tertio patet ex dictis, quod impetus concurrit in motu proiectorum, est enim in aere.” (250, 251) 43  Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 128. 44  This point is emphasized by Palacz, “Der Streit,” 107–108. 45  “Conclusio tertia: Corpus mobile non est subiectum physicae sub quacumque consideratione. Probatur, quia secundum quidditatem eius consideratur in septimo Metaphysicae. Conclusio quarta: Corpus mobile in eo, quod subsistit mutationi, est subiectum physicae. Probatur, quia mobile est aliae passiones in hac scientia consideratae conveniunt corpori secundum quod ipsum et ei per propria principia demonstrantur inesse tamquam primo subiecto, et omnia hac scientia considerata habent attributionem et ordinem ad corpus mobile. Sed tunc dubium, utrum corpus mobile, in quantum substat mutationi, sit subiectum libri Physicorum. Pro illo sciendum, quod genus aliquod dupliciter potest considerari. Uno modo simpliciter per abstractionem ab omni sequente substantiam talis generis. Alio modo considerantur genus sub fecunditate, quam habet ad suas species. Tunc dicitur, quod corpus mobile primo modo consideratum est subiectum primi libri Physicorum. Sed secundo modo consideratum est subiectum totius philosophiae ­naturalis.” (7)

The Arts Faculty, II

359

printer Haller, knew of and mentioned this work, and for generations it was assumed that the Cracovian Quaestiones communes, which Haller had published in 1510, was that work. Research in the second half of the last century has shown this attribution to be in error, for John’s own Quaestiones has now been identified, and it is to a degree derived from this aforementioned anonymous Quaestiones.46 Though influenced by this work, which was undoubtedly the text lectured when John studied the Physics, Głogów’s work constitutes a separate commentary. He used the framework of his model, but modified it for his own teaching. Some questions he did not deal with; others he grouped together into a single discussion in his own work. There are a total of eightynine questions with which he deals, and his approach reflects some of the same eclecticism as his model. This can be illustrated by examining the same two issues that were discussed above for the Quaestiones Cracovienses. John treats the question of enforced motion rather fully. He identifies and discusses two opinions, the first of which—the antiperistasis theory of Plato— he rejects. The second, which is the traditional Aristotelian answer, he accepts after concluding that the motion of a projectile is not caused by a single continuous motion from the projector, but rather is brought about by the air.47 This does not satisfy him, however, for he had to take into account the impetus theory as he knows it from his sources. Thus he includes the force of impetus as a concurrent explanation for motion.48 Recognizing the problems of combining these two explanations, Głogów adds the observation that though impetus

46  The crucial piece of evidence establishing his authorship is the rather bizarre notation in response to the question “Utrum natura producens monstrum, indendat monstrum.” He wrote: “Et ego magister Johannes de Glogovia Maiori ante annos 25 in civitate unde oriundus sum vidi puerum genitum unum masculini sexus, qui habuit sex pedes. . . . .” Quoted by Zwiercan, “Les ‘Quaestiones’ de Jean de Głogów enfin retrouvées!,” 87. In addition to the two manuscripts identified by Zwiercan, see Markowski, “Krakowskie komentarze do Fizyki Arystotelesa zachowane w średniowiecznych rękopisach Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej,” St. Med. 7 (1966): 120; and Seńko. “Uzupełnienia do katalogu pism filozoficznych Jana z Głogowa,” Materiały 3 (1964): 173–174. 47  This commentary is partially edited in Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 177–181, here 179: “Istis sic stantibus est hec conclusio: Motus proiectorum non est unus motus continuus et proiecta post recessum a primo proieciente moventur ab aere.” 48  “Alli tamen ponunt impetum esse in proiecto. Aristoteles autem dixit in aere. Sequitur corrolarie secundo, quod non oportet omnia moveri tenendo posicionem Aristotelis, licet enim aer cedat lapidi, hoc tamen est per condensacionem. Sequitur corrolarie tercio, quod impetus concurrit in motu proiectorum et est in aere.” Ibid.

360

CHAPTER 7

is present, it is only a potential force.49 John obviously knew the Buridanical tradition, but was trying to combine this with the traditional explanation. As a result, the compromise was not wholly successful. In addition to the sources available from the Quaestiones Cracovienses, John also utilized and was influenced by the Averroist tradition as reflected in the work of John of Jandun.50 As noted in passing in the previous chapter touching of John’s commentary on the De anima, this Averroist element was also evident in Głogów’s work here. With regard to the issue of the subject matter of natural philosophy, John is straightforward. He concludes that it is the science of considering the corpus mobile, not in its being (which is a subject for metaphysics) but in its motion.51 This simple formulation is not sufficient for him, however, and John continues his discussion by giving a summary of the views of Aquinas and Albert the Great on this matter. He does so by making use of a work by Gerard de Monte, the Concordia vel tractatus concordiae inter Albertum Magnum et sanctum Thomam, which had been written some years before in Cologne.52 The students who heard John use his text in lectures world have gotten a broad panorama, 49  “Sed in aere moto ista virtus non est in aliquo predicamento, quia non potest esse in aere moto actualiter, quia tunc in aere moto esset actualis potencia motiva et sic aer semper moveret proiectum absque extrinseco movente, sic nunc facit proiciens. Oportet ergo dicere, quod ista virtus est in aere moto potencialiter et virtualiter et illa virtus solvatur in motu talis aeris, qui motus est de praedicamento ubi.” Ibid., 181. 50  This point is particularly well made and Averroist influence traced briefly by Stefan Swieżawski, “Quelques aspects du contenu philosophique des ‘Quaestiones in Physicam Aristotelis’ de Jean de Głogów,” in La filosofia della natura nel medioevo, Bruno Nardi, et al., eds. (Milan: Società editrice Vita e pensiero, 1966), 699–709, here 708. 51  “Concluditur, quod corpus mobile debet esse proprium subiectum philosophiae naturalis et non ens mobile.” Cited by Palacz, “Z problematyki badań nad filozofią przyrody w XV wieku. Cz. III: Polska filozofia przyrody w drugiej połowie XV w.,” St. Med. 14 (1973): 87–198, here 114. 52  John concludes: “Quod pauca est discrepantia inter Thomam . . . et Albertum . . . in assignatione subiecti naturalis philosophiae. Patet corrolarium, quis verbis differunt, sed re convenient. Haec tamen distinctio plurimis non videtur esse congrua cum suis corrolariis. Tamen, quia apud plurimos sustinetur et est accepta, placuit eam hic annotare. Quae itaque opinionum probabilior videtur, cuilibet licet defendere.” Ibid., 115. On the question of Albertist elements in John’s thought on physics, see Seńko, “Charakterystyka Albertyzmu na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim w XV wieku,” in Kuksiewicz, ed., Z dziejów filozofii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku, 182–205, 199–203 especially. That John stood strongly in the Albertist tradition is, of course, a central point of Kuksiewicz’s treatment of him in Albertyzm i Tomizm w XV wieku Krakowie i Kolonii. Doktryna psychologiczna (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1973), 146–170, but he treats him in the context of work on De anima and related materials, not as someone dealing with physical science, i.e., physics.

The Arts Faculty, II

361

indeed, of the range of opinion in later medieval natural philosophy, one that Krzysztof Oźog has described as strikingly—and characteristically—eclectic.53 Later in his career, at the latest by 1499, John wrote another exposition on Aristotle’s Physics. This was in the form of marginal comments and interlinear notations. There is no longer any evidence of John of Jandun’s views in these glosses. Instead the influence of Giles of Rome and Albert the Great is strong. Głogów makes no mention of impetus theory here, and this has suggested to some that his views may have undergone a certain evolution.54 John’s glossed commentary was not used only in his own teaching. One of his students made use of it. In 1499–1500 Michael Falkener of Wrocław, the distinguished philosopher, astronomer, and theologian whose career fell chiefly in the early sixteenth century,55 read it and annotated it in the preparation of his own lectures on the Physics.56 These lectures were eventually worked into a full-fledged commentary and published in 1518 as Epitome figurarum in libros Physicorum. . . . In discussing enforced motion, he reviews the traditional interpretations and adopts a conclusion which owes something to Aristotle, to Aquinas, and to Buridan. His compromise is to suggest that both impetus and the air are responsible for movement. Since impetus is said not to be an enduring force (it is an “unnatural” condition and so its effect is soon dissipated), it plays a secondary role.57 The full spectrum of philosophical approaches to nature philosophy at Cracow in this period is completed by reference to three individuals at the end of the century. James of Gostynin (ca. 1454–1506), whose university career and 53  Krzysztof Oźóg, “Uniwersytet Krakowski: przykład późnośredniowiecznego eklektyzmu,” in Teresa Wolińska and Mirosław J. Leszka, eds., Średniowieczna wizja świata. Jedność czy róźnorodność Idee i teksty (Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2009), 235–250, here 249: “The culture of philosophy and theology from the very beginning of the functioning of the institution had an eclectic character.” 54  Palacz, “Der Streit,” 106. 55  For the biography of Michael (ca. 1460–1534), see Palacz, “Michał Falkener z Wrocławia. Stan badań,” Materiały 6 (1966): 35–91 (45–47 for biographical details proper); FwP, 265–266; and PSB, 6, 357–358. 56  Palacz, “Michał Falkener z Wrocławia,” 54. 57  “Corrolarium primum: Proiectum movetur a proiciente tamquam a primo movente et ab aere tamquam a secundo. Aer enim habet se sicut organum, quod agit sive movet in virtute principalis agentis sic etiam aer movet proiectum non in virtute propria, sed in virtute proicientis imprimentis ei impetum. Corrolarium secundum: Motus proicientis non est continuus, quia non fit ab uno motore, sed a pluribus consequenter se habentibus in virtute motiva.” Quoted from Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 182. See also the discussion in Palacz, “Problematyki z badań nad filozofią przyrody. Cz. III,” 184–185.

362

CHAPTER 7

some of his contributions have been sketched in the preceding chapter, lectured on the Physics in the 1490s. For this he prepared his own c­ ommentary.58 His work is one of the clearest representations during the century of the via antiqua. There is no discussion, with regard to the problem of enforced motion for example, of the impetus theory. Instead, the views of Aquinas and especially Albert the Great dominate. In fact, James follows Albert and reflects influences emanating from Cologne rather consistently.59 In his definition of natural science, he includes not only physics—which he places in a tertiary position—but also metaphysics and mathematics.60 The biography and university accomplishments of Michael Twaróg of Biestrzyków (ca. 1450–ca. 1520) in other contexts have been discussed in the previous chapter. His philosophical orientation was strongly Scotist, and most of his impact at Cracow lay outside the area of natural philosophy.61 But it is interesting to note here that upon his first return to Cracow from Paris he participated in a disputatio on the primary substance of the universe. The debate went on for several days, and some thirty masters from the university participated. The record of this is lost, and there is also no extant information about the content of the lectures in physics which Michael would have had to have given in his two terms as dean of the arts faculty (1495 and 1501). Based upon conclusions inferred from his other philosophical writings it can be assumed that, as a strong adherent to the via antiqua, he would have rejected the impetus theory (if indeed he even discussed it). It is possible to know a little more about the teaching of Michael’s student, John of Stobnica, whom we have previously treated in other contexts. 58  Palacz, “Jakuba z Gostynina Komentarz do Fizyki Arystotelesa,” Materiały 2 (13) (1970): 86–103 (the edited version of his introduction to the Physics, 88–103). 59  James’ Albertist outlook is discussed rather fully in the context of his commentary on the Liber de causis by Kuksiewicz, Albertyzm i Tomizm, 170–199, who has, however, little to say about his physical views. 60  “Unde naturalis philosophia iam descripta dividitur in tres partes: metaphysicam, mathematicam et physicam proprie dictam. Et ratio huius divisionis est, quia omnen intellectum speculativum necesse est perfici secundum rationes formae specificae circa quam verum speculatur, quae perfectio causat scientiam, sed forma naturalis ab intellectu speculabilis tripliciter variatur in illius esse considerationem. Ergo tres erunt philosophiae partes naturales.” Cited from the Introduction to James commentary, Palacz, ed., in Materiały 2 (13) 95. 61  Apart from the biographical materials cited for him in Chapter Six, see also, for his Scotism, Markowski, “Der Skotismus an der Krakauer Universität im Mittelalter,” MPP 34 (2001): 147–161, here 156–158,which updates slightly his “Szkotyzm na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w wiekach średnich,” Studia Franciszkańskie 3 (1988), 105–120, here 113–118.

The Arts Faculty, II

363

Influenced heavily by Michael, even though his arts instruction in natural philosophy would have been the via media or via communis presented in the early 1490s,62 John also represented a Scotist outlook in philosophy.63 His lecturing and writing in natural philosophy reflect this. He concentrated upon the De generatione et corruptione as well as the Physics and the De anima (discussed previously). He used works representing both the Thomist and the Albertist tradition from Cologne, though he himself is identified more with the Parisian Scotist tradition.64 In his work there is not any trace of the Buridanist tradition or of the impetus theory. These last three figures thus reveal the degree to which the via antiqua had succeeded by the beginning of the sixteenth century to the dominant position the moderni had held at the beginning of the fifteenth.

The Physical Sciences: Other Natural Sciences

The central position of Aristotle’s Physics in the curriculum of the arts faculty and its pervasive influence upon other areas of physical science should not blind us to the fact that there were other Libri naturales which were taught and studied at Cracow. In this section, brief attention is given to such other writings of Aristotle as De coelo et mundo, De generatione et corruptione, Meteora, and the Parva naturalia. The first of these was lectured for four months. Though there may have been a locally produced commentary from early in the century which was developed as a text for this teaching, the first extant Cracovian work to have been used in the curriculum was prepared in the early 1430s by John of Słupca, whose biography was detailed in the previous chapter in connection with his 62   On this point, see the comments of Oźóg, “Uniwersytet Krakowski: przykład późnośredniowiecznego eklektyzmu,” in Wolińska and Leszka, eds., Średniowieczna wizja świata, 249 and the comments in his English-language summary, 250. 63  Konstanty Michalski, “Michał z Bystrzykowa i Jan ze Stobnicy jako przedstawiciele skotyzmu w Polsce,” Archiwum Komisji do Badania Historii Filozofii w Polsce 1 (1915), part 1: 21–80. 64  His Parvulus philosophiae naturalis cum expositione textuali ac dubiorum magis necessariorum dissolutione ad intentionem Scoti congesta in Studio Cracoviensi (Cracow: Haller, 1507) is a Scotist exposition of the natural philosophy of Albert the Great, with particular emphasis upon the Physics, De generatione et corruptione, and the De anima. See Palacz, “Un manuel scotiste à l’Université de Cracovie,” in De doctrina Ioannis Duns Scoti. Acta Congressus Scotisti Internationalis Oxonii et Edimburgi . . . 1966 celebrati (Rome: Cura Commissionis Scotisticae, 1968), 185–187.

364

CHAPTER 7

commentary on the Metaphysics. His Quaestiones super quatuor libros De coelo et mundo Aristotelis bears many characteristics of a cosmological, rather than a physical treatise, thus reflecting the nature of the work upon which it is based. John does, however, discuss at some length two of the fundamental physical problems of late medieval natural philosophy: acceleration and enforced motion. He follows Buridan for the most part in adopting the theory of impetus, but he applies this theory not only to enforced motion but also to natural motion, i.e., the phenomenon of acceleration. He comes very close to implying that motion in the sub-lunar world may be understood in the same way all motion is interpreted, but he does not pursue this point.65 When discussing the nature of heavenly bodies, he rejects the views of Aquinas and Giles of Rome and concludes, in explicit agreement with Averroes, that they are not material, but are composed rather of pure substance. He also notes that John Buridan, Marsilius of Inghen, and Albert the Great were of the same opinion.66 Later in the century, at least three additional Cracovian works commenting on the De coelo, all anonymous, were prepared within university circles.67 Two were pale imitations of John’s work, short and superficial. The third, however, written prior to 1459, merits brief comment. Though based upon Aquinas’ commentary to the same work, it draws heavily for its structure upon Albert 65  “Utrum omnis motus naturalis velocior est in fine quam in principio? . . . Conclusio responalis: Omnis motus localis naturalis gravis vel levis simiplicis in medio uniformi non contrarietate aliquo extrinseco impedimento accidentali est velocior versus finem quam in principio. Patet per experienciam. Et patet, nam lapis descendens velocius moveter in fine quam in principio et ergo forcius ledit.” Quaestiones super . . . De coelo . . ., partially edited by Markowski, Burydanizm w Police, 182 and 183; see also Markowski’s comments on this treatise, 131–133, and in his Filozofia przyrody w pierwszej połowie XV wieku, 168–173. 66  See the discussion of this part of the treatise by Paweł Czartoryski, “Średniowiecze,” in Bogdan Suchodolski, ed., Historia Nauki Polskiej, vol 1: Średniowiecze i Odrodzenie (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970), 119. 67  In addition to the Cracovian works treated in this section there were also important commentaries on the De coelo written abroad which were used at Cracow. Two of the most important from the late fourteenth and late fifteenth centuries were those by Albert Rickmerdorf of Saxony (a follower of Buridan) and by John Versor (a follower of Aquinas); the latter’s commentaries on De generatione, Meteora, and Metaphysics were also used as the basis for lectures at Cracow. On these and their influence—which perhaps is reflected in Copernicus’ work (see below, Appendix D)—see two works by André Goddu, “Sources of Natural Philosophy at Kraków in the fifteenth century,” MPP 35, no. 1 (2006): 85–114, and “The Teaching of Natural Philosophy at Kraków in the fifteenth century,” MPP 36, no. 2 (2007): 37–81. The thrust of his argument in this latter article is more fully and systematically developed in his Copernicus and the Aristotelian Tradition: Education, Reading, and Philosophy in Copernicus’ Path to Heliocentrism (Leiden: Brill, 2010), especially his Part One that focuses upon Copernicus’ time at Cracow.

The Arts Faculty, II

365

the Great’s treatise and discusses many questions drawn directly from one of Buridan’s most important followers, Albert Rickmersdorf of Saxony. This eclectic compilation adds little to our general picture of the Cracovian scene. It does, however, take up the question of the possible motion of the earth. Though the writer concludes that the earth is stationary, the discussion is nevertheless more thorough than that characteristic of other similar works.68 De generatione et corruptione received only ten weeks of attention in the curriculum, but it nevertheless evoked considerable activity on the part of Cracovian scholars. At the beginning of the century, lectures were, of course, based upon commentaries of foreign origin. Thus, for example, Lucas of Wielki Koźmin used Buridan’s treatise on this work, thought it has been suggested that a now-lost Polish commentary which stemmed from the first two decades of the refounded university’s functioning may also have been used.69 The earliest known Polish commentary was that by Paul of Worczyn, prepared between 1421 and 1425.70 His work stands firmly in the tradition of Buridan, though it is most heavily dependent upon the Frenchman’s follower, Marsilius of Inghen. A number of anonymous commentaries on the De generatione were prepared during the decades which followed, the latest during the 1460s. One, dating from 1439, was explicitly based upon Paul’s treatise, and it later came into the possession of Wojciech (Adalbert) of Brudzewo (d. 1495), who used it in his own arts lectures. These anonymous commentaries are characterized by a general Buridanist point of view, particularly from the works of Albert of Saxony and Marsilius of Inghen. Nevertheless, they also drew upon the writings of 68  On the question of acceleration, the author concludes “quod causa velocitatis motus naturalis est impetus acquisitus in ipso mobile, qui consequenter acquiritur ad talem motum naturalem.” Regarding the nature of impetus, he comments, “Potest enim dici, quod quando Deus creavit speras celestes, ipse incipit movere unamquamquam earum, sicut voluit, et sic ab impetu quem dedit. Ille impetus ibi non corrumpitur nec diminuitur, cum tamen non habeat ibi corrumpens, postquam mobile non inclinatur ad oppositum.” And regarding the earth’s motion, he is definite: “Nec terra movetur circulariter ab oriente in occidentem, nec econverso, saltem motu diurno sicut quidam antiqui voluerunt dicere, dixerunt enim terram moveri et celum quiescere.” Cited from Commentum super . . . De coelo . . ., by Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 133 and 134, who also discusses the views of this treatise in relation to other late medieval treatises on this subject, in particular the views of Copernicus. Indeed, much of the assumption underlying Markowski’s book is that understanding the tradition of Buridan helps toward an understanding of how Copernicus was able to accomplish his “revolution.” 69  According to Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 402. 70  Jerzy Rebeta, Komentarz Pawła z Worczyna do ‘Etyki Nikomachejskiej’ Arystotelesa z 1424 roku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970), 96, dates it more precisely to 1422–1423. See also Rebeta, “Paweł z Worczyna,” Materiały 3 (1964): 146.

366

CHAPTER 7

Albert the Great and Giles of Rome, thus reflecting the eclectic character of Cracovian natural philosophy in the second half of the fifteenth century.71 The latest Cracovian commentary to be mentioned here is that prepared by Peter Aurifaber of Cracow in 1502.72 He followed closely the views of Giles of Rome and Albert the Great, and there is little evidence of the influence of Buridan or his followers.73 Meteora required four months of lecture according to the statutes. Of all the physical treatises it was the most explicitly astronomical, but at the same time it had implications for optics and such topics as we might today treat in chemistry or climatology. It was therefore a book of broad application and not a simple, straightforward treatise. Thus it is not surprising that it generated considerable interest among the faculty and students. In addition to a number of manuscripts of commentaries by foreigners which were recopied in Cracow, at least five Cracovian works were prepared. The earliest was written by Benedict Hesse, probably prior to 1420 and perhaps as early as 1415.74 It is interesting to note that although Benedict became the most important Cracovian representative of the Buridan tradition, there is little in this treatise to reflect that influence. It is instead the commentary on this same work by Albert the Great which seemed to have the most crucial for Benedict. If his commentary is, indeed, to be dated to 1415, when Benedict incepted as a master in arts, it suggests that years immediately following were crucial in the 71   The general picture of developments in this era is summarized by Czartoryski, “Średniowiecze,” in Suchodolski, ed., Historia Nauki Polski, 1, 119–120; and discussed in more depth by Markowski, Filozofia przyrody w drugiej połowy XV wieku, 46–50. 72  Peter’s career lies largely outside the scope of this study, but he was an important figure at the studium in the first three decades of the sixteenth century. Born about 1470, he matriculated at Cracow in 1488, earning the degrees in arts in 1491 and 1495. By 1512 he was a professor of theology and died in 1530. Apart from his works on subjects in arts, he wrote biblical commentaries and accumulated a very substantial library which he left to the cathedral chapter in Płock, where he served as bishop after 1513. For his biography, see PSB, 1, 187; FwP, 318; and Markowski, Dzieje wydziału teologii Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w latach 1397–1525 (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej w Krakowie, 1996 [Studia do dziejów Wydziału Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 2]), 213. 73  Zwiercan, “Materiały do wykładów Arystotelesowskich Piotra Aurifabera na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim na przełomie XV/XVI wieku,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 12, no. 2 (1960): 21–23. 74  The manuscript which contains it (Cracow BJ 674) is dated between 1421 and 1425; Markowski and Włodek, Repertorium commentariorum in Aristotelem quae in B.J. Cracoviae asservatur, 34; and Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 409. But see Czartoryski, “Średniowiecze,” in Suchodolski, ed., Historia Nauki Polskiej, 1, 120, whom I follow here.

The Arts Faculty, II

367

development of his philosophical outlook, for by the time of his commentary on the Physics, his views were substantially different, as has been shown above. A second Cracovian commentary, Quaestiones super quatuor libros Meteorum Aristotelis, was written by Peter of Sienno, whose biography was noted above. His work was prepared in 1420 and draws upon both Albert the Great and the commentary on Meteora by Nichole Oresme. Paul of Worczyn prepared two works on this subject, one a full fledged commentary, the other a set of disputed questions on its fourth book only. Both these works, though they draw upon the full range of medieval opinion regarding Aristotle’s study, are dominated by the tradition of Oresme and Buridan. Some questions are resolved according to the via antiqua; more according to the via moderna; and some without declaring for either tradition.75 As we have seen in discussing Paul’s commentary on the Ethics in a previous chapter, this was a characteristic style of his. The final Cracow commentary was an anonymous set of Puncta written about 1458. In these, Oresme and Marsilius of Inghen are the most influential sources. Beyond these observations, it should be noted throughout the century Oresme’s work was the leading influence upon all Cracovian teaching on Meteora, and his commentary was the one most commonly used in lectures.76 The Parva naturalia was supposed to be lectured for a period of fourteen weeks, though as a lesser work it was sometime apparently omitted from the curriculum.77 This topic was really a collection of minor Aristotelian works whose bearing on the major problems of physical science was marginal. The most important Polish commentaries on these books were written in the first half of the century by Paul of Worczyn between 1421 and 1425, by John of Słupca in 1433, and by Nicholas Tempelfeld of Brzeg sometime before 1447.78

75  This work was prepared at the same time Paul was lecturing on De generatione et corruptione and the Parva naturalia. For the relationship of these three and the characteristics of his Meteora commentary, see Rebeta, Komentarz Pawła z Worczyna do Etyki Nikomachejskiej, 95–97; and Czartoryski, “Średniowiecze,” in Suchodolski, ed., Historia Nauki Polskiej, 1, 120. 76  Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 410–413. 77  Jerzy Zathey, “ ‘Colligite fragmenta ne pereant.’ Contribution aux recherches sur l’histoire de l’enseignement à l’Université de Cracovie au XVe s.,” MPP 10 (1961): 96–102, here 99. 78  The first two authors have been treated previously. Nicholas (ca. 1400–ca. 1474) finished his arts degrees at Cracow, then studied theology, earning his doctoral degree by 1439. The manuscript containing the commentary referred to in the text is dated between 1432 and 1447; it is difficult to know when Nicholas composed his treatise, but it would have been unlikely for him to write it after he had finished his theology study. For his biography, see Markowski, Dzieje wydziału teologii Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 148.

368

CHAPTER 7

All show a general familiarity with the tradition of John Buridan, but on the whole the spirit of Albert the Great dominates these works.79 Mathematics Geometry and arithmetic at the University of Cracow stood firmly in the European academic tradition which subordinated the mathematical arts to logic.80 It received far less attention in the curriculum. Nevertheless, by the end of the century, the study of these subjects had advanced to a high level, in which process the Cracovian masters made their own contributions. Though an independent area of the curriculum, mathematics was closely related to the very considerable accomplishments of the university in the area of astronomy, which will be dealt with more directly below. The foundation of the Stobner chair about 1405, which was devoted to mathematics and astronomy, greatly reinforced the teaching of geometry and arithmetic at the university and illustrates the close connection at Cracow of the mathematical and astronomical disciplines. This section of the chapter discusses the content and achievement of the studium in mathematics in this period. The statutes of the arts faculty provided for instruction in geometry for an unspecified period and in arithmetic for one month. Although the standard text for the former was Euclid’s Elements, it is apparent from both the manuscript evidence and from other notices that not all books of this treatise were lectured. Only the first three were commonly studied by students at Cracow.81 79  The multiple works written by Cracovian authors on various parts of the Parva naturalia are listed by Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 422–440. On the problem of the works De motu cordis and De physionomia, traditionally attributed at Cracow to Aristotle, see Markowski, Filozofia przyrody w pierwszej połowie XV wieku, 29, note 49; and Maria Garbaczowa, “Krakowskie komentarze do “De motu cordis’ w zbiórach rękopiśmiennych Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej,” Materiały 7 (18) (1974): 92–109, here 92–98 (her edition of a set of Quaestiones on the De motu cordis by Nicholas Tempelfeld of Brzeg follows, 99–109). 80  See the discussion of Pearl Kibre and Nancy G. Siraisi, “The Institutional Setting: The Universities,” in Lindberg, ed., Science in the Middle Ages, 127–129; but compare with the comments of Gordon Leff, “The Trivium and the Three Philosophies,” in Hilde de RidderSymoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992 [A History of the University in Europe, Walter Rüegg, General Editor, vol. 1]) 322–325. 81  Jadwiga Dianni, Studium Matematyki na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim do połowy XIX wieku (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersyteckiego Jagiellońskiego, 1963 [Wydawnictwa Jubileuszowe 7]), 25. At Oxford, the only parts of the Elements required pro forma from the fourteenth century were books one through six; see James A. Weisheipl, “Curriculum of the Faculty of

The Arts Faculty, II

369

Since these books contain only the most introductory and elementary aspects of Euclid’s work, it suggests that for the most part instruction at Cracow was intended primarily to illustrate the logical structure of the work and the functioning of logical reasoning, to provide the necessary skills for understanding the geometrical references of Aristotle and the Church Fathers, and to master the mathematics necessary for astronomy, optics, and mensurational practice.82 While there are extant in Cracow in self-contained copies of the Elements which would have been used for lectures, it is most probable that teaching was based not upon the text itself, but upon the commentary by one of Euclid’s thirteenth century translators, Campanus of Novara.83 Apparently there were no Cracovian contributions to the corpus of geometrical literature during the first half of the century, certainly none which were used in the curriculum. There were, however, practical exercises touching basic geometric and mathematical problems which reflect an active and engaged environment in this field. For example, there are extant from about 1420 and about 1445 several Cracovian examples of efforts to demonstrate the process by which one could construct a square whose area equaled that of a circle and, by extension, thus determining the “π,” a problem that had been a topic that engaged mathematicians since antiquity While these exercises broke little new ground, they reflected a sophisticated knowledge and appreciation of not only the ­classical work of Archimedes but also that of the fourteenth century Mertonian Thomas Bradwardine.84 Arts at Oxford in the early Fourteenth Century,” Mediaeval Studies 26 (1964): 143–185, here 171. For the fuller picture of developments at Oxford, where there was a much stronger development of mathematics, see J.D. North, “Astronomy and Mathematics,” in J.I. Catto and T.A.R. Evans, eds. Late Medieval Oxford (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1992 [The History of the University of Oxford 2]), 103–174. 82  On this point, see Michael S. Mahoney, “Mathematics,” in Lindberg, ed., Science in the Middle Ages, Lindberg, ed., 153; and, in more detail, A.G. Molland, “The Geometrical Background to the ‘Merton School’. An Exploration into the Application of Mathematics to Natural Philosophy in the Fourteenth Century,” British Journal for the History of Science 4 (1968/1969): 108–125. 83  Dianni, Studium Matematyki, 27. For the Campanus textual tradition and his commentary, see John E. Murdoch, “The Medieval Euclid: Salient Aspects of the Translations of the Elements by Adelard of Bath and Campanus of Novara,” Revue de Synthese 89 (Series 3, nos. 49–52) (1968): 67–94. 84  Grażyna Rosińska, “Kwadratura koła i ‘liczba π’ w nauczaniu matematyki na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w pierwszej połowie XV. Recepcja Archimedesa De mensura circuli poprzez Tomasza Bradwardina Geometria speculativa,’ Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki 45 (2000): 49–62. One of the codices she discusses, MS Cracow, BJ 552, was copied by John of Ludzisko, probably in 1421; see below, note 114.

370

CHAPTER 7

The first Polish work in this area was the Opus de geometria, which Martin Król of Żórawica wrote about 1450.85 Details of his biography and career and his importance for the history of astronomy at the university are examined below; here the focus is upon his treatise. It was oriented toward the practical applications of geometry, rather than seeking to make any theoretical contribution. His introduction discusses the relation of proportion to measurement and the problems connected with measuring such figures as circles, spheres, cylinders, cones, and barrels. Then he proceeds to analyze the three chief areas of applied geometry: the measurement of heights (altimetria) of areas (planimetria), and of spherical volumes and three dimensional figures (cosimetria or stereometria). Martin’s work was not particularly original. It shows obvious influences from the treatise on practical geometry by the early fifteenth century Paduan mathematician, Prosdocimo de Beldomandi.86 This in turn had been influenced by the taxonomy of theoretical and practical geometry which had been formulated by Hugh of St. Victor in the Didascalicon.87 While Martin’s work may not have been an innovation, it was not without importance on the Cracow scene. Its clear, straightforward presentation was useful for improving the level of comprehension and calculating among those who studied mathematics. Although there is no evidence that this work was used as a text for lectures, the several copies made of it apparently circulated among students.88 Martin Król’s reputation was not, therefore, limited to his contribution in astronomy and arithmetic. Arithmetic was the topic for one month of lectures at Cracow. The text used for introduction to this subject was most commonly the Arithmetica communis of the fourteenth century French mathematician John de Muris, whose work on music was utilized as an instructional text in this quadrivial course. His elementary arithmetical work was devoted chiefly to the properties of whole numbers (perfect, odd, even) and to the question of arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic proportions. It did not deal with arithmetical functions; neither did it treat fractions. For these subjects, lectures were commonly based upon 85  Ludwik Antoni Birkenmajer, ed., Mistrza Marcina z Żórawicy inaczej Marcinem Królem z Przemyśla zwanego Geometrya praktyczna, czyli Traktat sztuki mierniczej (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Redakcyi Prac Matematyczno-Fizycznych, 1895). 86  It may be that the fifteenth century copy of Prosdocimo’s treatise at Cracow was brought there by Martin Król himself; he is thought to have studied at Padua. See Dianni, Studium Matematyki, 29. 87  See Mahoney, “Mathematics,” in Lindberg, ed., Science in the Middle Ages, 155 and especially n. 40 and 41. 88  Dianni, Studium Matematyki, 30.

The Arts Faculty, II

371

the Algorismus of John of Sacrobosco (Hollywood) and a work with the same name by the fourteenth century mathematician and astronomer, John Linières (de Lineris). These works dealt not only with common fractions but also with sexagesimal functions, the use of which was closely related to astronomy. Manuscript evidence at Cracow also suggests that the Minutiarum tractatus (or Algorismus) of Jordanus de Nemore may have been used occasionally in lectures. During the first three decades of the century at the refounded university, the faculty members were apparently content to utilize these texts directly, It was not until the end of the period that the first indigenous commentaries appeared. Sędziwój of Czechel, who matriculated at Cracow in 1423 and may have held the Stobner chair after his MA in 1429,89 prepared two commentaries in connection with his teaching. One was the Algorismus minutiarum; the second, Algorismus proportionum. They are simplified introductions to these subject, but whatever their usefulness to Sędziwój, they apparently did not enjoy popularity among his colleagues and successors, for they were little used. The writings of Martin Król were much more successful. About 1445 he prepared his own independent work, Algorismus minutiarum. He begins with a general discussion of what fractions are, then moves to a treatment of certain fundamental materials which he considered to have been insufficiently treated before. In three sections, he discusses the reduction of fractions to their common denominators, the variety of fractional functions (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, progression, etc.) and the nature and use of both common and sexagesimal fractions. In this final discussion, he uses data from the Alfonsine Tables as recorded for the Cracow latitude and implies that there are certain errors in the contemporary calculations.90 During the remainder of the century, Król’s work enjoyed considerable popularity at Cracow, being used by many of the individuals we can identify as having taught arithmetic.91 It was to a certain extent successful in replacing the works of both Sacrobosco and Linières, in large part because it was written not only as a work on arithmetic 89   P SB, 36, 394–399; and Jacek Wiesiołowski, “Sędziwój z Czechła (1410–1476). Studium z dziejów kultury umysłowej Wielkopolski,” Studia Źródłoznawcze 9 (1964): 85–103, here 79. This possibility is not raised by Rosińska, “Sandivogius de Czechel et l’école astronomique de Cracovie vers 1430,” Organon 9 (1973): 217–229. 90  Dianni, “Pierwszy znany traktat rękopiśmienny w literaturze matematycznej w Polsce. Algorismus minutiarum Martini Regis de Premislia,” Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki 12 (1967): 273–283. Despite Dianni’s title, Król’s treatise is no longer the earliest known. That honor belongs to Sędziwój works, which are, however, unedited. 91  See the list of these individuals in Markowski, “Nauki ścisłe na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku,” in Palacz, ed. Filozofia Polska XV w., 200–201.

372

CHAPTER 7

but as a university manual. Books which are designed for a certain purpose are often more successful than books adapted from another purpose, even though they may not be intrinsically superior. By the end of the century at Cracow, however, it was not Król’s work alone which was replacing earlier western treatises; it was also the algorismus novus de integris of Georg Peuerbach, published in Vienna in 1492 and soon thereafter brought to Cracow and lectured there.92 One other mathematical tradition should be mentioned in this context, that of the computus. There were a number of these prepared at Cracow, but the best of them are closely related to developments in astronomy, especially that by Peter Gaszowiec, which will be treated below.93 Here it is sufficient to suggest that in arithmetic in general, the medieval heritage had been fully incorporated into the Cracow studium. Let us turn now to the question of higher mathematics. Trigonometry was not a university subject per se. No courses were offered in this field, and there were no texts upon which instruction could be based. Nevertheless, it was a tool which played an important role within the curriculum of the school. The level of expertise in trigonometry is important beyond its implication for the practice of higher mathematics. Without it the teaching of both theoretical and practical astronomy would have been impossible. Neither would the particular character of astronomy as a mathematical science have been possible. The physical (i.e., philosophical) astronomy based upon Aristotle’s causal approach in, for example, De coelo et mundo, was not in the long run compatible with mathematical astronomy. The ability of the latter to predict and measure was highly dependent upon trigonometry.94 In order to understand the considerable achievements of the university in the area of astronomy, it is necessary to recognize developments in the mathematical subject of trigonometry. Cracovian astronomical teaching from the early fifteenth century reflects use of both the Greek and the Arab traditions of the trigonometry of sines.95 A more sophisticated trigonometry is to be found in Martin Król’s mid-century Summa super Tabulas Alphonsii. His mastery of such Arab writers as al-Battani and Geber, whose works he know in the translations of Gerard of Cremona, allowed him to present a critique of the Alphonsine tables which extended not only to calculations, but also to assumptions. One of Król’s students went beyond him 92  Dianni, Studium Matematyki, 22–23. 93  See this chapter, note 138. 94  See the comments of Olaf Pedersen, “Astronomy,” in Lindberg, ed., Science in the Middle Ages, 314 and 320–322. 95  Dianni, Studium Matematyki, 30, citing Cracow manuscripts.

The Arts Faculty, II

373

in trigonometry. Martin Bylica of Olkusz spent most of his career outside of Poland and away from the university, and we shall trace his importance in the astronomical tradition at Cracow below. But Martin maintained close contacts with the school from abroad, and his relationship with Regiomontanus was well known there. The Viennese astronomer’s Disputationes inter Viennensem [i.e., Regiomontanus] et Cracoviensem [i.e., Bylica] supra Cremonensis in planetarum theorica deliramenta96 and his Tabulae directionum profectionumque (printed in Nuremberg in 1474), which was prepared with the cooperation of Bylica, were well known to faculty at the university. Several of them used the latter work in particular in the years between 1480 and 1500.97 In both works the technical level of spherical trigonometry is very high, as is shown particularly in the Tabulae’s treatment of the spherical triangles formed by the intersection of the great heavenly circles. Finally, it should be noted that the use of trigonometry by the end of the century was sufficiently common that a student copied as an exercise Paul of Cologne’s Considerationes. He included in the Tabulae chordarum et sinum cum Canonibus sequentibus istae Tabulas his own calculations of a table of sines from 0° to 90° on one-half degree intervals. This work is only one representative of a body of several similar such manuscripts from late in the century.98 Astronomy Theoretical astronomy at the university was to be taught for a period of six weeks. But the laconic reference of the statutes (theorica per sex septimanas) reveals little of the importance which came to be attached to astronomy at Cracow. The foundation of the Stobner chair in 1405 provided a great stimulus for this subject, for the incumbent was charged specifically with teaching mathematics and astronomy and with keeping the almanac for Cracow ­current. Thus, nearly from the beginning of the century, there was a locus within the studium 96  First published in 1474, reprinted twenty years later. Both copies were known in Cracow by the end of the century. See Markowski’s comments in “Powstanie pełnej szkoły astronomicznej w Krakowie,” in Jerzy Dobrzyscki, Mieczysław Markowski, and Tadeusz Przypkowski, Historia Astronomii w Polsce, vol. 1, Eugeniusz Rybka, ed. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1975), 95–96. 97  Markowski, “Nauki ścisłe,” 197–198. 98  See the discussion by Ludwik A. Birkenmajer, Mikołaj Kopernik, część pierwsza, Studya nad pracami Kopernika, oraz materiały biograficzny (Cracow: Skład główny w Księgarni Spółko wydawniczej Polski, 1900), 680–682.

374

CHAPTER 7

for astronomical teaching and study that enabled the holder of the chair to develop a particular theme in depth over a period of time.99 This specialization enabled Cracow to build upon a tradition of Polish astronomy dating back to Witelo100 and Franco de Polonia, to draw upon the rich achievements of the European middle ages (see below), and to achieve by the end of the century an eminence in this field matched only by Vienna. To begin this survey of Cracovian university astronomy in the fifteenth century,101 it is appropriate to identify what texts and instruments were basic to instruction. 99  In comparison, endowed chairs in similar subjects at other universities came much later. For example, Ingolstadt did not have one until 1492, while a Viennese chair was not established until 1500. The chair in mathematics at Bologna was actually devoted to practical geometry and measurement. See the classic comments in this context of Aleksander Birkenmajer, “Uniwersytet Krakowski jako międzynarodowy ośrodek studiów astronomiczyny na przełomie XV i XVI stulecie,” Stanisław Arnold, et al., eds., Odrodzenie w Polsce, 5 vols. (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydanictwo Naukowe, 1955–1960), 2, part 2, 363–373, here 371, and, in French, “L’Université de Cracovie centre international d’enseignement astronomique å la fin du moyen age, in his Études d’histoire des science en Pologne (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1972 [Studia Copernicana 4]), 483–495, here 491. See also the comment of Aleksander Gieysztor, “Management and Resources,” in de RidderSymoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 108–143, here 134–135. University chairs with designated salaried income rather than the tradition of necessary regency at, for example, Cambridge, was a development only of the 1480s; see Damian Riehl Leader, A History of the University of Cambridge, vol. 1: The University to 1546 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) 242–243. As he notes, developments at Cambridge paralleled those at Oxford in this respect. 100  A. Birkenmajer’s extensive works on Witelo have been gathered and translated in his Études d’histoire des science en Pologne, 97–434. Witelo studies, especially with respect to his De perspectiva have continued to be a focus of the multi-volume series Studia Copernicana. Continuing work in this field is reviewed in several studies by Markowski, “Okresy rozwoju astronomii w Polsce w epoce przedkopernikańskiej,” Studia Warmińskie 9 (1972): 344–354; in “Astronomia w Polsce od X do XIV wieku,” in Dobrzycki, Markowski, and Przypkowski, Historia Astronomii w Polsce, 1, Rybka, ed., 43–59; and “Krakowska szkoła międzynarodowego nauczania astronomii,” in Teresa Michałowska, ed., Septem artes w kształtowaniu kultury umysłowej w Polsce średniowiecznej. Wybrane zagadnienia (Wrocław: Chronicon Wydawnictwo, 2007), 87–101, here 87–88. See also the treatment by Czartoryski, “Średniowiecze,” in Suchodolski, ed., Historia Nauki Polskiej, 87–97; and the comments of Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe in the Middle Ages, 52–64. 101  That there was a tradition extending back into the fourteenth century, associated in part with the royal court in Cracow and in part with the remnants of the Casimiran university, is reflected by syzygial calculations, lunar notations, cometial observations, and a solar eclipse measured in 1376. For these and other such fragmenta, see L.A. Birkenmajer,

The Arts Faculty, II

375

Although the greatest astronomical work of antiquity, Ptolemy’s Megalé syntaxis (better known as the Almagest, from the Latin form of its Arabic title) had been translated into Latin in the twelfth century, it was not generally used in university instruction. It was too advanced and sophisticated. Consequently, as a substitute, a common corpus astronomicum was gradually developed for use in the teaching of astronomy.102 This consisted of three works by John of Sacrobosco, the aforementioned Algorismus, the Tractatus de sphaera, and a manual of time reckoning.103 Other works, including a calendar and a treatise on the quadrant, were also included in this corpus. The Sphaera was a very elementary introduction, and it dealt with planetary theory only in a brief, superficial final chapter. To remedy this defect, an anonymous treatise entitled Theorica planetarum, often attributed to either Gerard of Cremona or Gerard of Sabionetta, was utilized. The eight chapters of this work accomplished several important things .104 They defined the vocabulary of theoretical astronomy and established a one-to-one correspondence between words and concepts which overcame the ambiguities which had characterized earlier treatments. Equally important, they utilized geometric models derived from Ptolemy and established thereby his astronomical theories as the normative treatment for planetary theory. Alternative approaches were given no ­opportunity for serious consideration. Finally, these chapters presented theoretical astronomy without regard to cosmology, thereby making mathematical considerations the only criterion for the usefulness of the theory. In the course of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, a number of minor treatises were added to this corpus, a new calendar was developed by Peter Philomena de Dacia (Peter Nightingale) and a set of tables were prepared under the auspices of King Alphonso X the Wise of Castile and were introduced to calculate planetary positions. Together with a number of treatises on instruments used in

“Krakowskie tablice syzygiów dla r. 1379 i 1380. Przyczynek do dziejów astronomii w Polsce w XIV-tym wieku,” Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności: wydział MatematycznoPrzyrodniczy, Series 2, 1 (1891): 261–285; and the comments of Markowski in Historia Astronomii w Polsce, Rybka, ed., 1, 57–58. 102  See Olaf Pedersen, “The Corpus Astronomicum and the Traditions of Medieval Latin Astronomy,” in Marian Biskup, et al., eds., Colloquia Copernicana, 3 (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1975 [Studia Copernicana 13]), 57–96; and the comments of John North, “The quadrivium,” in de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 346–347. 103  Pedersen, “In Quest of Sacrobosco, “Journal of the History of Astronomy 16 (1985): 175–221. 104  See the summary by Pedersen, “Astronomy,” in Lindberg, ed., Science in the Middle Ages, 316–318. There is a partial translation of this work in Edward Grant, ed., A Source Book in Medieval Science (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974), 451–465.

376

CHAPTER 7

o­ bservation or ­computation, these elements constituted the heritage which Cracow developed in the fifteenth century.105 Astronomical work and teaching at Cracow in the first decade and one-half of the century cannot be attributed to any specific individuals. We do not even know, except by inference, whether the Stobner chair functioned on a continuing basis before 1415.106 But there is evidence of anonymous activity. An eclipse in 1406 was described by someone associated with the university; and there is extant a fragment of a university lecture touching the calculation of astronomic tables and a 1409 solar eclipse that had been predicted two years earlier.107 It is reasonable to conclude that these data reflect both astronomical observation and instruction. After the middle of the second decade of the century, however, this anonymity comes to an end. The careers and activity of three major and a handful of minor figures take us to mid-century. Laurence of Racibórz, whose career in theology and involvement with the conciliar movement is treated in a subsequent chapter, was also important for the history of astronomy at Cracow.108 According to the list of courses 105  The instruments available to medieval astronomers were limited to sundials, the quadrants (“old” and “new”), astrolabes, the torquetum, the Jacob’s staff, armillary spheres, elementary gnomic apparatus, and several other minor instruments. In this subject, see the discussions, both bibliographical and substantive of Francis Maddison, “Early Astronomical and Mathematical Instruments. A Brief Survey of Sources and Modern Studies,” History of Science 2 (1963); 17–50; and, with particular relevance to Cracow, Rosińska, Instrumenty astronomiczne na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1974 [Studia Copernicana 11]), 25–48. 106  But, on this point, see the assertions of activity by 1410 made by Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Odnowienie Jagiellońskiego Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego (1390–1414),” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 52; and Henryk Barycz, “Nowa synteza dziejów Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego,” Przegląd Historyczno-Oświaty 9 (1966): 283–331, here 310. 107  These data are discussed by Rosińska, Instrumenty astronomiczne, 56–58. She has concluded that the anonymous lecturer(s) came either from Erfurt or Wrocław. 108  In addition to the sources cited below, see the general evaluation by Rebeta, “Miejsce Wawrzyńce z Raciborza w najwcześniejszym okresie krakowskiej astronomii XV wieku,” Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki 12 (1968): 553–564; and Maria Kowalczyk, “Warsztat naukowy Wawrzyńca z Raciborza,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 44 (1994): 49–62, and in the collection of her articles, Colligite fragmenta ne pereant . . . Studia z dziejów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w średniowieczu (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2010 [Historia et Monumenta Universitatis Jagellonicae 1]), 271–284. There are also three excellent works that focus in one way or another on Lawrence by Katherine Walsh: “Ein Schlesier an der Universität Krakau im 15. Jahrhundert. Zu Biographie, wissenschaftlichen Interessen und Handschriftenbesitz des Laurentius von Ratibor,” Archiv für Schlesischen Kirchengeschichte 40 (1982): 191–206; “Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften

The Arts Faculty, II

377

taken by an unknown bachelor between 1420 and 1427, Laurence lectured on the Theorica planetarum.109 Since this work was the formal responsibility of the Stobner chair, it is probably that Laurence was the incumbent in this position. His astronomical work undoubtedly began earlier than this, however, and it is reasonable to conclude that after his master’s degree in 1416 he had the opportunity to teach in this area. His accomplishments were such that Matthew of Łabiszyn remembered him in 1448 as the renewer of an astronomical tradition within the studium that had earlier fallen upon hard times.110 Peter of Zwanów, who was one of Laurence’s students and whom we discuss below, was also liberal with his praise and thanks in a speech delivered in 1449 upon occasion of his own promotion in theology.111 Laurence’s comments upon a Tabula radicum ad meridianum Cracoviensem AD 1420 that he prepared in 1420 for solar, lunar, and planetary positions for the latitude of Cracow establishes both that such calculations were being carried out at that time and that Lawrence was able to adjust these data for his own calculations. One is struck by the clarity of his astronomical tables and instruments. He is to be counted among those at Cracow (and elsewhere) who came to be known as tabulistae or practicae: astronomers who teach theoretical astronomy in a practical way. In his comments, he indicates that one may obtain the true place of planets from their mean place, which is provided by the Tabulae, either by mathematical calculations (from radices) or by use of instruments. To illustrate his point, he calculates the sun’s position for the future date of 26 June 1438.112 This is im Spätmittelalter. Die Universität Krakau als Vorbild für Wien,” Innsbrucker Historische Studien 10/11 (1988): 28–37; and “Die wissenschaftliche Umfeld des Laurentius von Ratibor: Astronom, Mathematiker, Theologe,” in Die Anfänge des Schrifttums in Oberschlesiens bis zum Frühhumanismus, Gerhardt Kosellek, ed. (Frankfurt am Main and New York: Peter Lang, 1997), 59–84. 109  Zathey, “ ‘Colligite fragmenta ne pereant’,” 99. 110  “Ipse in hac Universitate astronomiam et mathematicam cum maximo labore conquisitam in alios transfudit et dilatavit et plantavit, que quasi in Universitate perierat, si ipsius magno conatu non exercitata fuisset et quidquid nunc predicte sciencie in nostra Universitate remansit in aliquo suppositorum ab eo est derelictum et transfusum.” Cited from Kowalczyk, Krakowskie mowy Uniwersyteckie z pierwszej połowy XV w. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970), 135, n. 33. 111  “. . . magistro Laurencio . . . qui crebris vicibus suo favore speciali me legendum cursum dignatus est hortari ac in astronomia in diversis tabulis et instrumentis me funditus ac pie nullis meis meritis exigentibus dignatus est informare.” Cited from Rebeta, “Miejsce Wawrzyńca z Raciborza,” 257. 112  See Rosińska, Scientific Writings and Astronomical Tables in Cracow (XIVth–XVIth Centuries) (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1984 [Studia Copernicana 22]), 264, no. 1331, with a correction to her article cited below in my n. 114.

378

CHAPTER 7

not to suggest that there was anything innovative or unusual about his teaching. Rather it is to affirm that it was abreast of the levels achieved elsewhere. How long Laurence remained active in the teaching of astronomy is difficult to determine. He was still involved in 1433, for he calculated a solar eclipse that year;113 but since he was also promoted to master of theology at about the same time, it may be that his effective work ceased soon thereafter. His students and others were able to continue his tradition. John of Ludzisko, physician and humanist orator, was also active in astronomy. He had obviously received good academic preparation for the university, for he was promoted to bachelor in arts only one year after he matriculated in 1418. He incepted as a master in 1422. While studying in arts, John began systematically to make copies of the texts he was using for mathematics and astronomy. Apparently, he then used these in his own teaching. Between 1421 and 1425, he copied John Peckham’s Perspectiva commmunis, the commentary of John Campanus of Novara on Euclid’s Elements, an anonymous geometrical treatise De quadratura circuli referred to above,114 the Theorica planetarum attributed to Gerard of Sabbioneta, an anonymous Expositio super Theoricam planetarum Gerhardi, some brief Excerpta from the Theorica Campani, four works of John of Linières, including his Tabulae astronomicae (copied twice) and Canones super Tabulas astronomicas, the Alphonsine Tables, John of Saxony’s Canones super Tabulas eclipsium (three separate times), several minor anonymous astronomical tables, plus the aforementioned Radices ad meridianum Cracoviensem anno 1420 completo.115 This body of material presents an excellent summary of what was in use in Cracow at this point, and reveals further that the Theorica planetarum was by no means the only work used in theoretical astronomy. John did not merely copy, however; he also wrote glosses to many of these works, some of which (as in the case of Peckham’s Perspectiva) are so extensive as to constitute independent commentaries. These notes suggest that he used these manuscripts not only while he was a student but also in his teaching. One of his works was an Expositio super Canones circa tabulas astronomica Joannis 113   Rosińska, “Une table astronomique de Laurent de Racibórz. Le commentaire qui l’accompagne,” MPP 19 (1974): 141–147. 114  See Rosińska, “Kwadratura koło i ‘Liczba π’ w nauczaniu matematyki,” 54, and above, n. 83. 115  John’s activity was first discovered and analyzed by Markowski, “Działalność Jana z Ludziska na polu astronomii w świetle rękopisów Państwowej Biblioteki ZSRR im. W.I. Lenina w Moskwie i Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej w Krakowie,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 23 (1973): 57–67; for these works, see 60–62.

The Arts Faculty, II

379

de Saxonia (finished on 19 September 1421). Many of the tabular data included in this work were later incorporated into the Tabulae resolutae de mediis et veris motibus planetarum super meridianum Cracoviensem, which were developed in Cracow prior to 1428. This suggests that John may have assisted somehow in their preparation. His extensive glosses upon the Alphonsine Tables indicate his ability to calculate for the Cracow meridian, which was not given in these tables. In addition, he provides some radices for both Cracow and Toruń. The sum total of this activity has led at least one scholar to conclude that John almost certainly held the Stobner chair and that he was therefore its first identifiable incumbent.116 This perhaps overestimates John’s importance, for he was a full student generation junior to Lawrence of Racibórz, who probably should be regarded as the first known incumbent. Whatever the case, John’s activity before he left Cracow in 1428 to study medicine in Italy justifies identifying him as one of the “pioneers of Cracovian astronomy.”117 If his accomplishments were, like Lawrence before and after him, more mechanical and technical than theoretical, there are nevertheless sufficient to allow us to affirm that long before the great figures of mid-century and after there was a dynamic astronomical tradition at Cracow. Sędziwój of Czechel had a very short career at the university. After he earned his MA in 1429 he remained to lecture in arts only for the required two years. During this period, he may—as noted above—have held the Stobner chair. After 1431 his life and career were bound up with royal diplomacy and the cultural life of Great Poland, though his long association with John Długosz kept him in close contact with Cracow and probably with the university. In addition to his aforementioned mathematical commentaries, he wrote two a­ dditional works, a commentary on Peckham’s Perspectiva and one on the Theorica planetarum. This latter work attempts, on the whole without great success, to refine the calculation of planetary positions in accord with the principles set forth in the Theorica. He is also especially concerned with the problem of the precession of the equinoxes. In his commentary he discusses at some length the utilization of instruments, especially the astrolabe and the new quadrant.118 His activity is therefore similar to the traditions in Cracow connected with the 116  Markowski, “Działalność Jana z Ludziska,” 66. 117  The phrase is from Markowski, “Kształtowanie się krakowskie szkoły astronomicznej,” in Dobrzycki, Markowski, and Przypkowski Historia astronomii w Polsce, Rybka, ed., 1, 79. 118  See the discussion of this treatise by Rosińska, “Dzieło astronomiczne Sędziwoja z Czechla. Z problematyki i metod krakowskiej astronomii w XV wieku,” Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki 17 (1972): 11–24, especially 18–22; and Rosińska, Instrumenty astronomiczne, 65–68, notes 40–44 especially, quoting at length from the work.

380

CHAPTER 7

f­ ormulation throughout the decade of the 1420s of the Tabulae resolutae for the Cracow meridian. This fundamental work continued to be revised, ­up-dated, and commented upon throughout the fifteenth century and points up the close connection in the teaching of astronomy between the Theorica planetarum, the computation of astronomical tables, and instrumental observation. In addition to these three individuals, there were a number of others known to us who lectured in astronomy at Cracow in the first half of the century and who made contribution to the astronomical tradition there. Some of these individuals presumably may have held the Stobner chair.119 In the academic year 1416/1417 Francis of Legnica lectured on Sacrobosco’s De sphaera. Nicholas of Oszkowice lectured on the computus between 1416 and 1419, and, after he incepted as a master in the latter year, he prepared a set of glosses and notations to the Theorica planetarum, probably while lecturing this subject. Andrew of Buk came from Great Poland and matriculated at the university in 1412 (BA in 1416 and MA in 1418). He was twice dean of the arts faculty. After he earned a Bachelor of Theology degree, he was elected rector in 1435. He died four years later. While he was in arts he copied several astronomical treatises, annotating some, but we do not know if he ever taught.120 Nicholas of Grabostaw matriculated at Cracow in 1420, but did not receive completed requirements for the masters degree until 1431, for he studied computus and astrology in Prague for some years. He also copied astronomical works at Cracow and wrote a series of commentaries on various computistical treatises. Peter of Dzwonowo, who was one of Lawrence of Racibórz’s students, earned his MA in 1434 and lectured on the Theorica planetarum that year. He also taught the same subject several times in the years between 1437 and 1444, and in 1441 he commented upon the Alphonsine Tables.121 It is possible that Martin Król was one of his students, but it is difficult to determine the depth of his interests in astronomy or the level of his ability.122 Sometime in this period, probably in the 1430s, at 119  The activities of these individuals, together with indication to the sources, are traced in Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 228–230, and in his “Kształtowanie się krakowskie szkoły astronomicznej,” in Dobrzycki, Markowski, and Przypkowski, Historia astronomii w Polsce, Rybka, ed., 1, 79–84. 120  For his biography, see FwP, 10; and Markowski, “Repertorium bio-bibliographicum astronomorum Cracoviensium medii aevi: Adam Tussinus . . . Andreas Grzymała de Posnania,” St. Med. 27, no. 1 (1990): 111–163, here 140–141. 121  He is sometimes knows as Peter of Zwanowo or Swanowo; for details of his biography see PSB, 26, 396. 122  I follow here the more conservative assessment by Jerzy Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” in Zathey, Anna Lewicka-Kamińska, and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, Historia Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej, vol. 1: 1364–1775. Ignacy Zarębski, ed., 3–130. (Cracow: Nakładem

The Arts Faculty, II

381

least one member of the faculty, who has not been identified, prepared a commentary on Sacrobosco’s De Sphaera materiali that took up a number of issues in natural philosophy tangentially related to astronomical matters. According to Mieczysław Markowski, its orientation is solidly Buridanist and proved to be influential later in the century.123 All of this activity accounts for the fact that when, among other institutions, the University of Cracow was invited to weigh in on issues related to calendar reform by the Council of Basle in 1434 it was able to do so efficiently and effectively. The views developed by Cracovian scholars were presented at Basle by Thomas Strzempiński, whose academic career as a faculty member and an ecclesiastical politician has already been touched upon and whose contributions as a theologian will be treated in Chapter Nine.124 A new era in the history of Cracovian astronomy began with the arrival of Martin Król of Żórawica, whose home was Przemyśl in Ruthenia. Though he can no longer be called the pater et fundator of the school’s reputation—it is clear from the foregoing that it had a distinguished tradition when he arrived— his importance cannot be ignored. He raised the intellectual level of instruction, brought the school into contact with Italian and Viennese traditions, reinforced the institutional importance of astronomy by the foundation of a new chair, and introduced the astrological tradition into the curriculum. All of these elements are clear from an examination of his life and accomplishments. Martin matriculated at the university in 1438 (BA in 1444, MA the following year).125 His university teaching in mathematics and astronomy began after his Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1966). 104. This contrasts sharply with the favorable evaluation of Peter’s work by L.A. Birkenmajer, “Marcin Bylica z Olkusza oraz narzędzia astronomiczne, które zapisał Uniwersytetowi Jagiellońskiemu w roku 1493,” Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności: wydział Matematyczno-Przyrodniczny, 25 (1893): 1–164, here 118, note 84. 123  Markowski, “Nie znane polskie komentarze z XV wieku do ‘Traktatu o sferze’ Jana z Holywood,” Studia filozoficzne 4 (1974): 3–32, especially 24–32. 124  For Thomas’ role in this present matter, see the comments of Rebeta, “Miejsce Wawrzyńca z Raciborza w najwcześniejszym okresie krakowskiej astronomii,” 561; Markowski, “Astronomie an der Krakauer Universität im XV. Jahrhundert,” in Jacques Paquet and Jozef IJsewijn, eds. Les universités a la fin du moyen age (Louvain: Institut d’Études médiévales U.C.L., 1978), 256–275, here 264–265; and Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 137. 125  The date may have been 1440. There is no entry in the Album studiosorum / Metryka for a Martin of Przemyśl in 1438, though there is a matriculation under that name for 1440. For other reasons, however, the date given in the text has come to be the accepted one. See Kuksiewicz, “Marcin Król z Żurawicy alias z Przemyśla,” Materiały 1 (1961): 118–140.

382

CHAPTER 7

bachelor’s degree, and he apparently held the Stobner chair in 1445. That same year, however, he left Cracow for further study at Prague, then in Germany, and finally Bologna. There he earned a doctor’s degree in medicine and in 1448/1448 gave lectures on astrology. (An uncertain tradition holds that it was in these years of wandering that Martin became acquainted with Georg Peuerbach— either in Vienna or in Padua.126 It is certainly true that he knew Peuerbach’s work, but less certain that he knew the author.) It was undoubtedly in Italy that Martin developed an interest in and perfected a knowledge of the astrology which he was later to introduce to the university. The native tradition prior to him was weak in this regard, and his foreign experience would have been decisive.127 In 1449 he left Italy and went to Hungary, where he became part of the courts of the Hungarian governor, John Hunyadi. There he stayed, probably as a physician, for only a year before returning to Cracow. In the Polish capital he served as court physician for Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki and lectured in arts at the university. Then, sometime around 1450, he founded a chair within the studium whose purpose was to pursue astrology. The incumbent in this position was expected to lecture on the works of Claudius Ptolemy (the Opus quadripartitum and Centiloquium verborum), Abu Mashar, and other classics in this tradition.128 Apparently Martin was the first person to hold the chair, and it 126  Morawski, Historya, 2, 297. See also the literature on this cited by Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 137, n. 394. He is, appropriately, rather more skeptical about the reliability of this tradition than the two sources he cites. 127  The most important astrologer in Cracow in the early fifteenth century was Henry Czech (or Čech, i.e., Bohemus), who was the astrologer at the court of Władysław Jagiełło. He had achieved considerable reputation by the casting of horoscopes for Jagiełło’s sons between 1424 and 1427. He had been accused of heresy in 1429, perhaps because of his associations with the Hussites, perhaps because of his astrological and magical teachings. Spared from death by life-long imprisonment, he had apparently been released by the time Martin was at the university, for in 1440 he told John of Dobra, a physician and faculty member who was rector that year, about the news of the death in Bavaria of a 400 year old Armenian. On Henry, see the following: A. Birkenmajer, “Sprawa magistra Henryka Czecha,” Collectanea Theologica 17 (1936): 207–224, and his entry on Henry in PSB, 9, 419–420 (the last in French translation in Birkenmajer’s collected works, Études d’histoire des science en Pologne, 497–498); Kowalczyk, “Przyczynki do biografii Henryka Czecha i Marcina Króla z Żurawicy,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 21 (1971): 87–91, here 87–88, and in the collection of her works, Colligite fragmenta ne pereant, 181–185, here 181–182; and the treatment by Benedek Láng, Unlocked Books. Manuscripts of Learned Magic in the Medieval Libraries of Central Europe (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008), 214–223, which emphasizes elements beyond astrology. 128  The document of foundation, if there ever was one, has not survived. For information on this chair, see Cod. epist., 1, part 2, 338; and Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., 36. For the teaching

The Arts Faculty, II

383

was in connection with his teaching that he produced horoscopes in 1451 and in 1452 and wrote his other works. We have noted his arithmetic and geometric treatises above; we shall examine his astronomical corpus below. Martin’s activity in Cracow did not last long, for he died prematurely sometime before 1 August 1453.129 Martin’s importance as an astronomer rests upon works which he prepared during his arts teaching before he left Cracow in 1445.130 These include Summa super tabulas Alphonsii, Canones super calendarium and a fragment of a treatise upon the Theorica planetarum, successfully attributed to him by Grażyna Rosińska, in the form of a lecture with the incipit “Motus astrorum girancium. . . .”131 The treatise includes only six complete chapters, dealing with the movement of the sun and moon and with eclipses. It breaks off in the seventh chapter at the beginning of a discussion of the movements of the superior planets, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. If the work was ever finished (and there is no evidence to indicate that it was), presumably there would have been a subsequent section dealing with the movement of the inferior planets, Mercury and Venus. Martin’s treatise deals with a number of problems, but the chief concern is the problem of the sun’s motion, especially the fact—long established in observation—that its orbit was not concentric with the position of the earth. Such a phenomenon flew in the face of received philosophical responsibilities of the chair, see Józef Szujski, “Statuta Collegii Minoris Studii Generalis Cracoviensis,” Archiwum do dziejów Literatury i Oświaty w Polsce 1 (1878): 95–118, here 99. Recently Láng, Unlocked Books, 247–249, has examined the materials at Cracow which would have been available for lectures in astrology. For the significance of Martin Król’s contribution in this area, which is not further explored in this study, see Markowski, “Krakowska szkoła międzynarodowego nauczania astronomii,” in Michałowska, ed. Septem artes, 93 and the quotation he cites in note 25. 129  His death, traditionally thought to have occurred ca. 1460, has now been determined by Kowalczyk, “Przyczynki do biografii Henryka Czecha i Marcina Króla,” 89–91, and in her Colligite fragmenta ne pereant, 183–185. For his biography, see PSB, 19, 580–581; FwP, 254; and Kuksiewicz, “Marcin Król z Żurawicy,” 118–135. 130  For the dating, see the discussions by Rosińska, “Nieznany traktat astronomiczny Marcina Króla z Żurawicy,” Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki 17 (1972): 227–233, here 227, and her “Traité astronomique inconnu de Martin Rex de Żurawica,” MPP 18 (1973): 159–166, here 160. 131  See previous note. The initial letters of the first thirty-three words of this treatise identify the title, name, place of origin, and nationality in an extended acronym: “Magister Martinus de Premislia Polonus.” There are other, similar, examples of this device from faculty at the university in this period: see Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1363– 1492,” in Zathey, Lewicka-Kamińska, and Hajdukiewicz, Historia Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej, vol. 1, 108 and 115., 1, 108 and 115.

384

CHAPTER 7

­ isdom about the perfect nature of circular motion and the status that the sun w held as a vestige of incorruptible substance symbolizing the divine presence in the universe. Martin recognized that eccentric motion, which was clear when the sun’s orbit was considered in an astronomical manner, was at variance with uniform motion which was at the heart of the thought of philosophers and theologians. Thus he adopted the traditional solution which allowed for uniform motion of the sun on its own orbit while at the same time preserving its eccentric motion with regard to the earth. This was done by a geometric scheme which placed the center of the sun’s perfect circular orbit outside the earth. Part of Martin’s explanation was developed by reference to the sphere of the fixed stars (he uses the example of the Pleiades), which is concentric with the center of the earth. He thereby affirms both the uniform motion of the sun and accounts for its movement through the signs of the zodiac.132 Two further points should be made about Martin’s discussion. One is that he utilizes a geometric model to explain the movement of the celestial bodies, This model is obtained by projecting the sphere of the heavens on a plane. But, he explains, there are two ways to accomplish this. One is a polar projection, which he illustrates by reference to the use of an equatorial planetarium; the other is a visual presentation such as might be used in an astrolabe. Thus Martin also shares in the Cracow tradition of practicae who used models and astronomical instruments in their teaching. The second point is that Martin distinguishes between the ways the “physicians” (i.e., natural philosophers) and the astronomers approach certain problems regarding the motion of the planets. While the former speak in causal terms and refer to motion by qualitative references, the latter speak in quantitative terms with reference to the measurement of motion. An example of the difference comes with reference to the moon. The physician or philosopher would describe its motion as the slowest in the heavens because its sphere moves the same diameter as the ninth sphere in twenty-four hours. The astronomer would regard the moon’s motion as the most rapid in the heavens because it traverses its whole orbit in a briefer period than any other body.133 This distinction between the two approaches is 132  “Sed ad inequalitatem motus in zodiaco sufficit dicere sic: movetur Sol in ecentrico equaliter ergo in orbe signorum inequaliter, sicut Theorica dicit.” Cited by Rosińska, “Traité inconnu,” 163, note 12. 133   “Philosophus . . . capiendo motum raptus omnium sperarum nonam (speram) velocius dicit movere quam octavam et sic ad infra, quia maioris quantitatis nona est quam octava.” “Astronomus vero velocitatem et tarditatem considerat in ordine ad revolucionem dicens lunam velocissime movere quia cicius circumgirat suum circulum.” Ibid., n. 9 and 10.

The Arts Faculty, II

385

important, for Martin defends the autonomy and integrity of the astronomical approach. Martin’s treatise is, in a number of ways, an advance upon Sędziwój of Czechel’s work a decade and a half earlier. It deals with differing approaches in a more sophisticated and synthetic manner, attempting to reconcile divergent attitudes. Although it was apparently not used directly by the generation which came immediately after him, Martin’s treatise was not without influence. At the end of the century, Adalbert of Brudzewo consulted it when preparing his commentary upon Peuerbach’s Theoricae novae planetarum. As we shall see below, he adopted several of Martin’s solutions. The other two astronomical works noted above were also important, though in a different context. Both the Summa and the Canones were prepared for the purpose of making more precise astronomical—and perhaps a­ strological— calculations. The latter of the two was oriented toward calendar reform, which was an important issue during the mid-fifteenth century. (Reference has already been made above to the Cracovian proposal made to the Council of Basle by Thomas Strzempiński.) Moreover, it was becoming increasingly apparent as observations using astronomical instruments were refined that the data regarding planetary position provided in the standard reference tables were not accurate. Martin’s Summa was an effort to rectify this. In discussing his calculations he provided considerable information about the nature and utilization of a variety of astronomical instruments. But his work went further than this. By his desire to obtain exact predictions of celestial phenomena, Martin illustrated some of the shortcomings of the Ptolemaic assumptions upon which late medieval theoretical astronomy rested: the values derived from traditional geometric and trigonometric calculations did not square with the observational data. The theoretical foundations of these calculations were successful only up to a point in saving the appearances. Martin’s Summa and Canones both constitute implicit critiques upon existing planetary theory. Ironically, Martin’s interest in astrology reinforced this. His lectures on the Quadripartitum and Centiloquium of Ptolemy, upon the works of Abu Mashar and Al Qabisi (Alcabitius), together with his horoscopes,134 emphasized the necessity of precise measurement and calculations which were consistent with observational data. His foundation of a chair which emphasized astrology thus reinforced his tradition at Cracow. It was appropriate therefore, since Martin defended the astronomus against the philosophus and thus, in the words of one

134  Józef Muczkowski, Mieszkania i postępowanie uczniów krakowskich w wiekach średnich (Cracow: J. Czech, 1842), 22. See also Morawski, Historya, 2, 301.

386

CHAPTER 7

modern scholar, astrology helped “save the flower of mathematical astronomy from the hot winds of Aristotelian natural philosophy.”135 Andrew Grzymała of Poznań (ca. 1425–1466) was probably one of Martin Król’s students.136 After his matriculation at Cracow in 1442, he was promoted to bachelor in arts in 1443. In the next four years he served as a notary while continuing his studies, and he eventually incepted as a master in arts in 1447. He began lectures on astronomy in that year, completing his Canones Tabularum resolutarum no later than the beginning of 1449. He continued teaching at Cracow, probably in the Stobner chair, until he left to pursue medical studies in Italy. The remainder of his career will be treated in the next chapter. One of his colleagues, and also a student of Martin, was Adalbert of Opatów (ca. 1425–1467). After matriculating in 1442 and being promoted to the bachelor of arts in 1444 and to master in 1447, his first lectures at Cracow were in mathematics, for which he apparently used Król’s Algorismus minutiarum. After he had twice been dean of arts—1452 and 1453—he went to Bologna to study medicine, where between 1454 and 1456 he also lectured on astronomy and astrology. When he returned to Cracow in 1457 his career focused upon the medical faculty and upon his studies in theology. In the late 1460s he left Cracow for the cathedral school in Gniezno and apparently died there soon thereafter. His writings include a horoscope cast for the year 1456 and a brief commentary upon Ptolemy’s Quadripartitum.137 Peter Gaszowiec (ca. 1430–1474), whose later career in medicine and university affairs will be discussed in the next chapter, may have been a student of both Król and Andrew Grzymała. He matriculated at Cracow in 1446 and earned his BA in 1448, his MA in 1452. He may have lectured in arts before he completed his study, for in 1448 he prepared a set of Canones Tabularum 135  Pedersen, “Astronomy,” in Lindberg, ed., Science in the Middle Ages, 322. See also Pedersen and Mogens Pihl, Early Physics and Astronomy. A Historical Introduction (London: MacDonald and Janes and New York: American Elsivier, 1974), 295: “Even astrology, with its continuously spreading sphere of influence, contributed to an increased interest in planetary theory, the immediate result being the construction of numerous new collections of tables.” 136  A. Birkenmajer, “Andrzej Grzymała z Poznania astronom i lekarz z XV wieku,” Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki 3 (1958): 409–422, and, in French, “Andrzej Grzymała de Poznań, astronome et médecin du XVe siècle,” in his Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne, 515– 526; PSB, 9, 114–116; and Markowski, “Repertorium bio-bibliographicum astronomorum Cracoviensium medii aevi: Adam Tussinus . . . Andreas Grzymała de Posnania,” 144–158. 137   Markowski, comments in “Powstanie pełnej szkoły astronomicznej,” in Dobrzycki, Markowski, and Przypkowski, Historia astronomii w Polsce, Rybka, ed., 1, 92–93, and “Repertorium bio-bibliographicum astronomorum Cracoviensium medii aevi: Adam Tussinus . . . Andreas Grzymała de Posnania,” 138–140.

The Arts Faculty, II

387

aurearum de veris et mediis motibus planetarum. These were corrected for the meridian of Cracow, which he calculated (ut verius invenire potui, as he put it) as 49° 40’, thus revising the traditional value of 50° 11’ established by Król and his predecessors. (The value accepted today is 50° 055’.) It is evident from this treatise that Peter had a wide knowledge of astronomical instruments and that he utilized them. Peter later wrote a treatise for a certain professor Gerard of Hamont, with whom he had apparently studied at Cologne. Entitled De mutationibus aeris, it defines astrological principles from which one may determine the weather on the basis of the position of the stars. Peter was also responsible for bringing to Poland the tabulae caelestium motuum earumque canones of the leading Italian astronomer of the century, Giovanni Bianchini. Henceforth his work was to be widely circulated and consulted at Cracow.138 One other composition of his should be mentioned in this context. Sometime between 1468 and 1474 he composed a rhymed treatise, with commentary, which he entitled Computus novus. Such a work went beyond the general character of traditional mathematical treatises on this subject, for it had important implications in the realm of astronomy, in particular with respect to calendar reform. Peter’s treatise was used in Cracow, as marginal notations indicate, but copies were also widely disseminated in the German lands. Eventually printed (first in Leipzig, ca. 1487), the work went through multiple editions—nearly thirty— before giving way after 1546 to new alternatives. Its popularity outside Poland suggests its quality and usefulness and reflects the high level which Cracovian astronomy and computation had achieved by this point.139 The aforementioned three figures have in common their Italian experience and the combination of astronomy and medicine. The weakness of this latter faculty at the studium in the fifteenth century contributed greatly to the continuing engagement of Cracovian scholars in Italy. This was obviously to the enrichment of the ­astronomical tradition within the school, but, as we shall see below in a ­subsequent chapter, it also contributed to the emergence of humanism with the school. Some of Martin Król’s successors remained in Poland for their entire education. John of Olkusz Senior (ca. 1425–post 1463) matriculated in arts at Cracow in 1442 and was promoted to bachelor two years later. He incepted as a master only in 1450. After that he studied medicine and earned the license in that field. He apparently taught astronomy and mathematics while he ­continued 138  For his biography, PSB, 7, 294–295; and Birkenmajer, “Piotr Gaszowiec,” in his Études de sciences en Pologne, 527–529. 139   Markowski, “Piotr Gaszowiec twórcą Krakowskiej komputystyki o zasięgu międzynarodowym,” St. Med. 25, 1 (1988): 69–117; and, more briefly, Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 138–139.

388

CHAPTER 7

his study in this higher faculty, for we have extant manuscripts, recopied in his own hand, of such authors as John de Muris, John Peckham, Prosdocimo de Beldomandi, and others. He prepared a set of glosses to an anonymous Expositio super Theoricam planetarum and began a commentary of his own to this same text. Before his death, he wrote a treatise Tractatus de regimine pestilenciali which enjoyed some local popularity.140 A second individual, Stanisław of Pleszew (BA 1452, MA 1456) was too young to have studied under Król, though he could easily have known his works. One of his Stanisław’s contemporaries reported that in 1458 he lectured upon John of Saxony’s Canones circa tabulas astronomicas. He apparently continued to lecture in arts into the 1460s—perhaps in astronomy—and in 1462 and 1468 he was dean of that faculty. Nothing is known about his further career.141 A great deal is known, however, about Martin Bylica of Olkusz (ca. 1433– ca. 1493), who was an individual who ranks among the greatest of the fifteenth century Cracovian astronomers. Martin matriculated at Cracow in the fall of 1452, was promoted to bachelor in 1456, and incepted as a master in arts in 1459.142 While he was still a bachelor he began lectures in astronomy and astrology, and it has been traditional to identify him as the first incumbent in the Król chair after the founder. Shortly after 1459, Bylica left Poland for Italy. He may have studied for a short while at Padua, though evidence for this is indirect and ambiguous.143 In 1463 he accepted a position teaching astronomy at Bologna, but the next year he went to Rome, where he lived for two years, probably as a court astrologer for one of the Roman cardinals. It was there that he met— perhaps for the first time—Johannes Müller of Königsberg (in Franconia, not Prussia), who is better known by his Latinized name Regiomontanus. The fruits of one of the conversations (supposedly held on 28 August 1464) were published by Regiomontanus as the aforementioned Disputationes inter Viennensem et Cracoviensem super Cremonensis in Planetarum theoricas deliramenta. In this dialogue the two reach the conclusion that many parts of received planetary theory are in error. The Cracow master (i.e., Bylica) suggests that the data given 140   P SB, 10, 465–466; and A. Birkenmajer, “Jan d’Olkusz,” in his Ètudes d’histoire des science en Pologne, 512–514. 141  Markowski, “Powstanie pełnej szkoły astronomicznej,” in Dobrzycki, Markowski, and Przypkowski, Historia astronomii w Polsce, Rybka, ed., 1, 95. 142  Bylica’s biography is treated by L.A. Birkenmajer, “Marcin Bylicy z Olkusza,” 1–63; in PSB, 3, 166–168; and by A. Birkenmajer, “Marcin Bylica,” in his Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne, 533–536. 143  Among others, Markowski, “Powstanie pełnej szkoły astronomicznej,” in Dobrzycki, Markowski, and Przypkowski, Historia astronomii w Polsce, Rybka, ed., 1, 95, asserts that he met Regiomontanus (Johannes Müller of Königsberg) in Padua during his studies there.

The Arts Faculty, II

389

in Campanus of Novara’s Theorica planetarum were incorrect and in conflict with Euclidian geometry. The Viennese (i.e., Regiomontanus) asserts that his master, Georg Peuerbach, was correct in his Theoricae novae planetarum when he criticized the explanations given in the old Theorica. Both agree on the need for reforming astronomy, particularly the improvement and correction of the astronomical tables.144 In 1466 Bylica and Regiomontanus went to Hungary to lecture at the newly open university in Bratislava (Pozsony, Preßburg), the Academia Istropolitana, whose patron was Archbishop John Vitéz of Esztergom (Gran), the Primate of Hungary.145 There, and later at the archiepiscopal court, the two prepared the Tabulae directionum profectionumque for the Esztergom latitude. Though designed chiefly for astrological purposes, these tables are characterized by great accuracy and reflect a sophisticated usage of spherical trigonometry. For the next decades, until his own death, Bylica remained in Hungary enjoying both ecclesiastical and royal patronage and fulfilling astrological functions for John Vitéz, King Mathias Corvinus, and his successor, Władysław the Jagiellonian. To the end of his life, he was active in observation and the writing or horoscopes and astrological treatises, such as his De scientia nativitatum. Though he never returned to Poland, Bylica did not sever contacts with the country and his university. Sometime between 1467 and 1478 he sent the studium copies of the Tabulae directionum profectionumque and of Peuerbach’s Theoricae novae planetarum.146 At his death he willed the university his library and his astronomical instruments. The magnitude of this gift was recognized by the rector, for on 10 September 1494 he gathered the faculty to view the bequest in a solemn ceremony.147 In addition to his books, Bylica gave an Arab astrolabe made in Cordoba in 1054, a second, very large, astrolabe, a torquetum, and a large globe of the heavens. All three of the last named instruments had been made for Bylica by the famous Viennese instrument maker, John Dorn,

144  This important work has been re-examined by Markowski, “Martin Bylica aus Olkusz als Vermittler zwischen Johannes Regiomontanus und der Krakauer astronomischen Schule in der vorkopernikanischen Zeit,” St. Med. 26, 1 (1989): 125–132. 145  For Bylica’s Hungarian career, see the studies by Zathey, “Marcin Bylica z Olkusza, profesor Akademie Istropolitany,” in Ludovit Holotík and Anton Vantuch, eds. Humanizmus a Renesancia na Slovensku v 15–16 storočí (Bratislava: Vydavatelstvo Slovenskej Akadémie vied, 1967), 40–54; and L.S. Domonkos, “The Polish Astronomer Martinus Bylica de Ilkusz in Hungary,” The Polish Review 13, 3 (1968): 71–79. 146  Jerzy Dobrzycki, “Tablice astrologiczne Jana Regiomontana w Krakowie,” St. Med. 26, 1 (1989): 85–92. 147   Conclulsiones 80.

390

CHAPTER 7

between 1484 and 1487.148 Martin Bylica’s importance for the Cracovian astronomical tradition is three-fold. By his identification abroad as Cracoviense, he reinforced the international reputation which the school was developing; by his gifts and bequests he enriched the base upon which that reputation rested; and by his association with Peuerbach’s pupil Regiomontanus he strengthened the ties between Cracow and Vienna.149 Martin Bylica was not the only individual after Król and his immediate students who lent luster to the Cracovian astronomical tradition and preserved its high level of accomplishments. A series of masters maintained the heritage. Gregory of Nowa Wieś studied at Cracow in mid-century, but went soon thereafter to Rome, where from 1464 to 1468 he served as astrologer in the papal court of Paul II. His extant writings, which were known and consulted in Cracow, include a catalogue of the stars in the Alphonsine Tables. He also copied three of Giovanni Bianchini’s astronomical works. These were also known and used in Poland.150 Simon of Śrem matriculated at Cracow in 1446, was promoted to bachelor in 1453, and to master in arts in 1456. Sometime prior to 1465 he was named to lecture in the Król chair, but in that latter year, with the details not revealed, he was suspended from his teaching duties and fined one year’s salary because he was “rebellious and disobedient.”151 James of Zalesia, who completed his bachelor in arts in the same year as Martin Bylica, incepted as a master in 1462 and lectured in arts for four years. His interests included astronomy and astrology. After 1466 he studied medicine in Italy, but was also involved in astrological disputations and casting horoscopes. One of the most important of the former is from 1471 and is recorded with the title Rationes magistri Jacobi Zalesse Poloni contra magistri Bartholomei de Valencia de dierum aequationibus et earum causis. This debate focuses upon the differences between sidereal—or astronomical—time and average time 148  Bylica’s instruments are treated by L.A. Birkenmajer, “Marcin Bylica z Olkusza,” 63–106; Zofia Ameisenowa, Globus Marcina Bylicy z Olkusza i mapy nieba na Wschodzie i Zachodzie (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1959) (also in English translation: The Globe of Martin Bylica of Olkusz and Celestial Maps in the East and the West [Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1959)]); Rosińska, Instrumenty astronomiczne 84–86 and plates 1–4 and 19–20. 149   Markowski, “Beziehungen zwischen der Wiener mathematischen Schule und der Krakauer astronomischen Schule im Licht der erhaltenen mathematisch-astronomischen Schriften in den Manuskripten der Österreichischen Nationalbibliotek in Wien und der Jagellonischen Bibliothek in Kraków,” MPP 18 (1973): 133–158, especially 134–138. 150  Markowski, “Okresy rozwoju astronomii w Polsce w epoce przedkopernikańskiej,” Studia Warmińskie 9 (1972): 339–378, here 370–371. 151  “Conclusum est per Universitatem, quod magister Simon de Srzem debet suspendi a salario et lectura sua per decursum unius anni propter rebelliones et inobedienciam . . .” Conclusiones, 29.

The Arts Faculty, II

391

and reflected James’ command of a broad range of astronomical principles.152 When he returned to Cracow in 1472, he taught in medicine and served as physician and astrologer for the Jagiellonian family. He did not die until 1496.153 John Stercze of Kwieciszowo studied at Cracow under Martin Bylica, whom he termed “my most sagacious preceptor.” He published his first horoscope in 1463, eventually produced others, and apparently held the Król chair in 1467. Whether his horoscopes were reliable is a matter of judgments, but one of his more straightforward astronomical predictions was clearly flawed. His calculation of a total eclipse of the moon for August 1467 was unsuccessful. It turned out to be only a partial eclipse and was, moreover, invisible in Cracow. Another of his horoscopes was questioned by his former mentor in 1468. In a formal disputation in Hungary in the presence of Mathias Corvinus, John defended himself sufficiently well that he remained in Hungary for the remainder of his life.154 John de Bossis may have been a Pole and was apparently at least born there, staying until 1471. He may have studied at Cracow—though there is record neither of his matriculation nor degrees earned by him—but he went to Italy where he lectured between 1471 and 1475 in astronomy at Bologna, There he wrote several horoscopes and sent King Casimir the Jagiellonian a judgment on the significance of a comet in 1472. In addition, he spent time in Hungary, which, according to one modern Polish historian, “was a paradise for astrologers during the reign of Mathias Corvinus.”155 Two final individual complete this brief survey of the generations before John of Głogów and Adalbert of Brudzewo. Nicholas Wodka of Kwidzyn (1442–1494/1495), known ironically as Abstemius, matriculated at Cracow in 1462 and studied there for half a decade before leaving to go to the Academia Istropolitana. In 1475, having earned somewhere the degree of master in arts, he was attending the University of Bologna. There he obviously engaged in 152  This debate is discussed by A. Birkenmajer, “Une polémique entre deux astronomes médiévaux peu connus, l’un Espagnol et l’autre Polonaise,” in his Études d’histoire des ­sciences en Pologne, 545–547. 153   P SB, 10, 369–371; A. Birkenmajer, Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne, 541–544; and Markowski, “Krakowska szkoła międzynarodowego nauczania astronomii,” in Michałowska, ed., Septem arts, 95, n. 30. 154  A. Birkenmajer, Études d’histoire des science en Pologne, 459–460 (see especially note 74); Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 235, and his comments in “Powstanie pełnej szkoły astronomicznej,” in Dobrzycki, Markowski, and Przypkowski, Historia astronomii w Polsce, Rybka,, ed., 1, 100–101. 155  A. Birkenmajer’s entry on John in PSB, 10, 443 and “Jan de Bossis Polonus,” in his Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne, 548–549. See also Markowski’s comments in “Powstanie pełnej szkoły astronomicznej,” in Dobrzycki, Markowski, and Przypkowski, Historia astronomii w Polsce, Rybka, ed., 1, 101.

392

CHAPTER 7

astronomical work, for he prepared an astronomical calendar at the request of the university. In 1479/1480 he was named as a professor of astronomy; eventually he gained a medical degree. He moved easily through academic and social circles in Bologna, Rome, and Urbino, but by 1482 he had returned to Poland, to Poznań. Eventually he was named as a canon of the cathedral chapter in Włocławek. His activity after he returned to Poland included the casting of a horoscope for the year 1485 and, about 1490, constructing a sun-dial on the wall of the cathedral. If he taught in the cathedral school there, as is probable, and if the young “Nicholas the son of Nicholas” of Toruń attended school there, as is possible, one of Nicholas Wodka’s students may have been the young Copernicus.156 His combination of medicine, astronomy, and astrology was not atypical.157 George Kotermak of Drohobycz in Ruthenia (ca. 1450–1494) was a slightly younger contemporary of Nicholas Wodka. He matriculated at Cracow in 1468 and was promoted to both degrees in arts in 1470 and 1473 respectively. Then he left Poland, first for Hungary, then for Italy, where he studied medicine at Bologna. While doing so, he taught astronomy between the years 1478 and 1482 and developed a substantial reputation. He also pursued astrological interests, as the result of which he prepared at least two horoscopes. When he returned to Cracow in 1487, he lectured in both arts and medicine at the university and served the king as physician and court astrologer.158 Each of these individuals, minor through they may have been in comparison to some of those who came before and the major figures who came after, are important precisely because they illustrate the fact that Cracow was the scene of a continuing tradition which, by the 1480s, was three-quarters of a century old. The foundations had been laid for the achievements of Głogów and Brudzewo. With an analysis of the astronomical activity of John Schelling (or Schelynk) of Głogów, the full spectrum of this remarkable man’s contribution to the intellectual and institutional life of the studium in the fifteenth century is revealed.

156  On this point, see Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 236 and note 167. 157  The fullest treatment of his career remains L.A. Birkenmajer, “Mikołaj Wodka z Kwidzyna zwany Abstemius, lekarz i astronom polski XV-ego stulecie,” Roczniki Towarzystwa naukowego w Toruniu 23 (1926): 110–265. But see also Markowski, Astronomica et astrologica Cracoviensia ante annum 1550 (Florence: Olschki, 1990), 158–160. 158   P SB, 11, 187–188; A. Birkenmajer, “Jerzy de Drohobycz,” in his Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne, 550–552; Jarosław Isajewicz, “Jerzy z Drohobycza we Włoszech i w Krakowie,” Malopolskie Studia Historyczne 6, 3/4 (1964): 59–64, which contains material on his Ruthenian background; and Markowski, “Repertorium bio-bibliographicum astronomorum Cracoviensium medii aevi: Georgius Kotermak de Drohobycz—Iosephus Struthius (Struś) de Posnania,” St. Med. 28 (1992): 91–155, here 91–93.

The Arts Faculty, II

393

Polyhistor, philosopher, geographer,159 defender and protector of students, and sometime university administrator, John found the opportunity in his four decades of teaching in arts at Cracow to contribute also to the astronomical tradition under discussion here. His extant astronomical writings were closely connected with his teaching. One of his earliest works was a commentary upon the Theorica planetarum, written prior to 1483, but now no longer extant. This was apparently the text of his lectures on this subject and probably did little more than provide an introductory exposition for students. About 1488 he edited an Interpretatio Tabularum resolutarum ad meridianum Cracoviensem, which was recopied several times in the remaining years of the century. This suggests that John’s work may have vied in popularity with the better known manual for the same tables by his student, Adalbert of Brudzewo.160 Another astronomical work, Tractatus de 48 imaginibus caelestibus, was written in 1492. This description of the heavenly constellations drew upon the traditions of mythology to identify and explain the major celestial groupings, but it also included elements of interpretation which were clearly drawn from the realm of astrology. (As we shall see below, John was active in this area also.) In this treatise, John indicated that the otherwise highly regarded manual of the well-known Italian astronomer Giovanni Bianchini was both incomplete and inaccurate for the Cracow meridian.161 At about this same time, John prepared another work which bridged two fields of knowledge. His Introductorium cosmographiae was first written in 1492, revised two years later, and re-edited in a more fully developed form after 1501. Couched in the form of a commentary upon Ptolemy’s Cosmographia, this work has led one scholar to conclude that John lectured on this subject in the arts faculty.162 This conclusion is, however, nowhere substantiated in the Liber diligentiarum or in other records associated with the university. Whatever the application of this work, it is full of data regarding terrestrial latitudes and 159  This study has not treated John’s contributions as a geographer, even though geographical knowledge and productivity in this area was significant at Cracow. On this point, see the comment of Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 150, with reference to older literature on this subject. 160  See the comments by Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 237, and in “Szczyt rozkwitu i międzynarodowego promieniowania krakowskiej szkoły astronomicznej,” in Dobrzycki, Markowski, and Przypkowski, Historia astronomii w Polsce, Rybka, ed., 1, 108. 161  “. . . quod illi, qui erigunt figuram celi per ‘Tabulas’ Bianchini ad meridianum Cracoviensem multum errant et deficiunt.” Quoted by Markowski, “Okresy rozwoju astronomii w Polsce,” 374. 162  Franciszek Bujak, Studia geograficzno-historyczne (Warsaw: Gebethner and Wolff, 1925), 33–34 and 63–64.

394

CHAPTER 7

locations which bear directly upon accurate calculations for stellar and planetary positions. Not surprising, this treatise of John’s has traditionally been regarded, with justice, as part of the picture of late fifteenth century Cracovian astronomy.163 Late in his career, John prepared two works that, in part because they were printed, helped ensure his reputation as one of the leading figures of the Cracovian studium. His Computus chirometralis (printed 1507, but probably prepared some years before) is an exposition on an astronomical handbook. In it, John divides computation into normal (computus vulgaris seu ecclesiasticus), serving ecclesiastical needs in calculating moveable feasts; and into astronomical (computus astronomicus seu physicus), dealing with theories of solar and lunar motion. He describes both kinds of computus in his work. If there is nothing singular in his computistical understanding, it should be recognized that his work is a model of what it was designed to be: an elementary university text. It is clear, concise, practical, and would not confuse its readers with sophisticated and controversial theories. His other work was equally serviceable. In 1506 he lectured on the sphere of Sacrobosco, and in the same year his lectures were printed in Cracow as Introductorium in tractatum spherae Johannis de Sacrobusco (reprinted in Cracow in 1513 and in Strasbourg in 1518). This elementary text would have been a student’s first introduction to theoretical astronomy. One may assume that these traditional lectures from 1506 bear considerable similarity to John’s other teaching on related subjects. Two final astronomical works by John which cannot be precisely placed in his university career should also be mentioned here. His Canones Tabularum directionum Johannis de Regiomonte contained adaptations for Cracow of a manual by Regiomontanus which was extremely popular in both Vienna and Cracow.164 John reworked these canones at least three times, in 1493, in 1498, and in 1499. Finally, his Quaestiones de motu, while not primarily an astronomical work, dealt philosophically with issues which impinged upon the sphere of astronomy. The manuscript is no longer extant and we are dependent upon indirect evidence for its contents, but apparently it took up, among other things, the question of whether heavenly bodies may undergo two kinds of motion at the same time and whether Averroes had successfully demonstrated on a philosophical basis the impossibility of planetary motion on eccentrics

163  L.A. Birkenmajer, Stromata Copernicana. Studia, poszukiwania i materiały biograficzne (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1924), 105–111. 164  Markowski, “Beziehungen zwischen Wien und Krakau,” 135–136.

The Arts Faculty, II

395

and epicycles.165 John’s treatment of these issues was apparently not very thorough, and, in any case, was not primarily related to his teaching of astronomy.166 The impression one gains from a review of John’s writings therefore is that of a traditional, though technically highly accomplished, approach to the teaching of astronomy. It is interesting to note that, in contrast to both the earlier Cracovian tradition and the approach of some of his students, John laid little emphasis upon the use of instruments and observation. He taught astronomy in a theoretical manner and did not follow the approach of the “instrumentalists” or the practicae. This is due in large part to his primary orientation as a philosopher, even thought some of his tables and canons reflect his skill as a mathematical astronomer.167 It remained for one of his students, a younger contemporary, to bring the Cracovian tradition to its height. Adalbert of Brudzewo (he is more widely known outside of Poland by this Latin form of his name than by Wojciech, which is the Polish form) was born in Great Poland in 1445 or early 1446. He matriculated at Cracow and was promoted to bachelor in 1470 and incepted as a master four years later. He began soon thereafter to lecture in arts, emphasizing astronomy, ­mathematics, and ­natural 165  A. Birkenmajer, Astronomowie i astrologowie śląscy w wiekach średnich (Katowice: Nasza Księgarnia, 1937), 26, and in his Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne, 437–468, here 464. See also the comments of Markowski, Burydanizm w Polsce, 238. In John’s Quaestiones disputatae super duodecimo libros Mataphysicae Aristotelis, discussed briefly in the previous chapter, there is a passage touching astronomy which Markowski, Ibid., cites: “Sol est dignissimus planeta, ergo eciam eius influencia est nobilior et tamen sol non est planeta superior. Antecedens probatur: Ille planeta est dignior, qui omnes planetarum motus regit, dirigit et mensurat, sed sol est huiusmodi. Maior, quia regens est dignius recto. Minorem declarat Ptolomeus in sapienciis Almagesti, qui ostendit, quod omnes motus planetarum mensurantur et inventi sunt per motum solis. Unde argumenta concludunt, quod uno modo sol est dignior ceteris stellis et planetis et alio modo alie stelle digniores sunt sole, ut dictum est sufficienter in notabilibus et argumento quarto.” 166  John was also responsible for numerous astrological works, including a Summa astrologiae, divided into four parts; a number of horoscopes, most of which have not survived; and, among other works, a Defensio astrologiae, subtitled “Persuassio brevis, quo modo astrologiae studium religioni Christianae non est adversum, quo modo licitum et veris catholicis utilissimum.” The preliminary list of John’s identifiable works prepared by Władysław Seńko, “Wstęp do studium nad Janem z Głogowa, cz. 2: Katalog dzieł astrologicznych i astronomicznych,” Materiały 3 (1964): 30–38, has effectively been superseded by Markowski, “Repertorium bio-bibliographicum astronomorum Cracoviensium medii aevi: Ioannes Schelling de Glogovia,” St. Med. 26, 2 (1990): 103–162, who provides an authoritative list of what he terms (103) “illustris auctor non minus centum operum astronomicorum et astrologicorum, quorum quinquaginta et aliquot ad nos venerunt.” 167  See the comments by Rosińska, Instrumenty astronomiczne, 86–87.

396

CHAPTER 7

philosophy. For two decades he was closely associated with the ­intellectual life of the university. He apparently held, at different times, both the Stobner and the Król chairs. In addition, he was from 1476 a member of the Collegium minus and from 1483 of the Collegium maius. He was twice dean of the arts faculty, served as procurator of the studium during the difficult years about 1490, and studied theology, in which faculty he became sententiarius, probably in 1493. The next year, upon the request of Fryderyk Cardinal Jagiellonian, who in his status as Bishop of Cracow was also the university chancellor, the faculty granted Adalbert leave to become the secretary to Grand Duke Alexander of Lithuania. He never returned to his alma mater, for he died in Vilnius in April of 1495.168 During his years of study in arts, Adalbert became closely acquainted with the work of Peuerbach and Regiomontanus, and when he began to lecture he drew heavily upon their treatises. For example, in 1478 he augmented Regiomontanus’ Tabulae directionum profectionumque which Martin Bylica of Olkusz had sent to Cracow a decade earlier, and on the basis of these calculations prepared his own Tabulae duodecim domorum coeli.169 It was, however, Peuerbach’s Theoricae novae planetarum which interested him in particular. It was the most sophisticated work on planetary theory available in the late fifteenth century. Peuerbach (d. 1462) had been the protégé of Cardinals Nicholas of Cusa and Bessarion, at whose request he had begun a translation—only the first six chapters of which he completed—of Ptolemy’s Almagest.170 Two years before his death, Peuerbach had published his Vienna lectures that had been derived from his reading of this fundamental work. In his writing, he had aimed at replacing the old Theorica planetarum as a university text. Peuerbach hoped to rid astronomy of the errors and deviations which generations of Arabic and Latin astronomers had imposed upon Ptolemy. Peuerbach’s treatise—as Olaf Pedersen noted—was the “last major attempt to improve medieval astronomy on the basis of traditional sources and presuppositions.”171 But it was also a 168  The biography of Adalbert is best approached through two articles by Palacz: “Wojciech Blar z Brudzewa,” Materiały 1 (1961): 172–198, and “Wojciech z Brudzewa jako astronom i filozof,” Materiały 7 (18) (1974): 53–91. The study by Jan Pakulski, “Wojciech z Brudzewa (1445–1495). Rys biograficzny,” Zapiski historyczne 38 (1973): 21–41, is also useful; but the article by Zofia Pawlikowska-Brożek, “Wojciech z Brudzewa,” Prace historyczne 62 (1973): 67–82, has some serious flaws. 169  Markowski, “Die Beziehungen zwischen Wien und Krakau,” 135–136. 170  This was undertaken in concert with Regiomontanus, who himself died in 1476 before completing the new translation. The unfinished work was eventually published in 1496 in Venice as Epitome Almagesti. 171  Pedersen, “Astronomy,” in Lindberg, ed., Science in the Middle Ages, 330.

The Arts Faculty, II

397

work that raised questions as well as resolving the errata of medieval aberrations. By discussing, in most instances implicitly, criticisms of the theory of eccentrics and epicycles, by identifying problems in explaining the motion of the moon, and by showing that the motion of Mercury required depiction of an oval curve resembling an ellipse, Peuerbach elevated the level of discussion about theoretical astronomy.172 It was this that Adalbert introduced to Cracow. In 1482 he wrote a Commentariolum super Theoricas novas planetarum Georgii Purbachii173 which summarized and—as Adalbert noted in the text—corrected Peuerbach’s work.174 Within a decade this work had been printed, though not in Cracow, but in Milan. It quickly was adopted in Cracow as a replacement for the older, medieval Theorica planetarum. Although Adalbert himself did not lecture on its subject again after 1488,175 others at the university used it in their teaching. For example, during the last year of Adalbert’s presence at the school—in 1493—Simon of Sierpiec, who was probably a student of either Adalbert or John of Głogów, used it as the text for his lectures on “Theorica.”176 Adalbert’s commentary followed, for the most part, the structure of Peuerbach’s work. There are, however, some important elements which distinguish it and some other considerations that make it particularly significant within the context of the Cracovian tradition. First, Adalbert adopts many of the reservations expressed by Peuerbach about weakness in Ptolemy’s system: the motion of the moon and the problem of variations in its apparent diameter; the equant as a departure from the assumption of uniform circular motion; the growing reservations about the precision of measurements determining longitudes and latitudes using the values—even when adjusted—in 172  Entries in current references works (such as, for example, the Dictionary of Scientific Biography), are for the most part dependent upon the treatment of Peuerbach’s life and work in Ernst Zinner, Leben und Wirken des Johannes Müller von Königsberg genannt Regiomontanus, 2nd ed. (Osnabrück: O. Zeller), 26–49. The English translation, Regiomontanus, His Life and Work (Amsterdam and New York: North Holland Publishing Co., 1990) adds nothing new. 173   Albertus de Brudzewo, Commentariolum super theoricas novas planetarum Georgii Purbachii, ed. L.A. Birkenmajer (Cracow: Typis et Sumptibus Universitatis Jagellonicae, 1900); a short biography of Adalbert, now superseded in many details, is appended IX–LVI. 174  “. . . per magistrum Albertum de Brudzewo diligenter corregatum.” Cited by Markowski, “Die Beziehungen zwischen Wien und Krakau,” 135, note 10. 175  The courses which he taught are listed by Palacz, “Wojciech jako astronom,” 67, based upon the Liber diligentiarum. 176  On this point, in particular it relationship to the question of Copernicus’ education at Cracow, see the comments of L.A. Birkenmajer, Stromata Copernicana, 78 and 85 and in his introduction to the edition of Brudzewo, Commentariolum, XVI.

398

CHAPTER 7

Ptolemy’s catalogue; and the troublesome problem of precession, which was made worse by inaccuracies in Peuerbach’s theory of trepidation. It is apparent that Adalbert had a thorough knowledge of the Almagest and adopted a somewhat more critical attitude toward it than Peuerbach, who had been trying in many respects to rehabilitate the Ptolemaic system after generations of less ­sophisticated—and often erroneous—modification.177 Second Adalbert drew heavily upon not only critiques based upon observational problems; he utilized also a philosophical analysis which was to a considerable extent derived from the Averroist tradition. The idea that epicycles and eccentrics have no reality; the philosophical impossibility of Ptolemy’s attribution to the moon of three kinds of motion; and the argument against the ninth sphere as a philosophic absurdity—all are taken over, sometimes in the exact words of Averroes’s treatise, by Adalbert.178 In addition, echoing some of the traditions reflected in the work of Buridan and his followers, he pointed out that recent commentators had provided sound Aristotelian bases for accepting the earth’s motion on its own axis, and he explored the possibility that understanding motion could be relative might overcome sense evidence of solar motion. Third, Adalbert did not limit himself to theoretical discussions. There is much in the Commentariolum which is directly related to the use of astronomical instruments. He discusses the astrolabe and a parallactic triangle, for example, noting instances where Ptolemy mentioned similar instruments in the Almagest.179Adalbert was, therefore, firmly in the tradition of the practicae. Finally, Adalbert knew the work of his predecessors and used it. In particular, he was familiar with the lectures of Martin Król. His treatment of the projection of a sphere upon a plane is taken directly from Martin’s Motus astrorum girantium; and his quotation from Prosdocimo de Beldomandi’s work on the astrolabe is also derived directly from Martin’s writing.180 177  For this characterization of Adalbert’s works, see Palacz, “Wojciech jako astronom,” 74–78. 178  For examples, see Brudzewo, Commentariolum, Birkenmajer, ed., 25, lines 11–21, and 28, lines 27–31. 179  “Fuit itaque per ipsos observatores ordinatum et confectum quoddam notabile instrumentu, nomine armillae, cuius compositionem, etc. Ptolemaeus ponit dictione quinta capitulo primo, mediante quo poterant accipi vera loca planetarum et stellarum fixarum certissime, tam secundum longitudinem, quam secundum latitudinem.” “Per instrumentum autem speciale (cuius Ptolemaeus dictione V-ta capitulo 12-mo meminit, et vocatur regulae seu alhidade, et ponit compositionem) per quod accipitur diversitas aspectus Lunae, cognosci potes, respectu cuius astri terra perceptibilem sui habeat quantitatem, et—per consequens—in quo astro diversitas aspectus inveniatur, et in quo non.” Ibid., 96, line 131. See also Rosińska, Instrumenty astronomiczne, 90–91, for other examples. 180  Rosińska, Instrumenty astronomiczne, 88–89 and note 114, prints the text of Adalbert’s treatise next to the relevant lines from Martin’s lecture to show the degree of derivation.

The Arts Faculty, II

399

From the foregoing, one thing is clear and another needs to be kept in perspective. First, apart from his importance and leaving aside the question of any influence he may have had on others (such as Copernicus), Adalbert stood firmly in the Cracovian tradition and contributed greatly to its late medieval culmination. To this we shall return below. Second, because the foregoing treatment has emphasized Adalbert’s critique of the Ptolemaic system, it should not be forgotten that for all his reservations, he proposed nothing new by way of replacement, and that he remained firmly committed to a traditional, geocentric understanding of the universe. Technical expertise, even when combined with doubts, was not sufficient to “stop the sun and move the earth.” Adalbert’s commentary upon Peuerbach’s Theoricae novae was his most important work, but it was not his only one. We have already alluded to his works based upon Regiomontanus’ Tables. In addition, in 1482 he edited a set of Tabulae resolutae pro supputandis motibus corporum caelestium, which enjoyed—to judge from the manuscript evidence—a degree of popularity in the remaining years of the fifteenth century and in the early part of the sixteenth. He also prepared an Almanach pro AD 1482 . . ., undoubtedly in conjunction with his responsibilities in the Stobner chair; a brief Summarius parvulorum computualium for use in calculating the ecclesiastical calendar; an up-dated almanac, Kalendarium Cracovienses pro AD 1491; and a series of Iudicia, which are clearly astrological in character. Other works traditionally ­attributed to him do not belong in his canon. These include Conciliator, actually the work of the Averroist Peter of Abano; the short Introductorium Astronomorum Cracoviensium, written by one of his students, Michael Falkener of Wrocław, whom we have briefly treated above; a treatise De constructione astrolabii; a Tractatus et canones ad reducendum motum pro meridiano Cracoviense, attributed to Adalbert by John Brożek, a mathematician, astrologer, and theologian at the university in the sixteenth and early seventeenth century; and a brief commentary upon Peter Lombard’s Sententiae, which Adalbert owned but which has been shown to be the work of an anonymous master about 1458 or 1459.181 The didactic and literary activity of John of Głogów and Adalbert of Brudzewo are justly regarded as marking the high level of Cracovian astronomy in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. Just as they were the inheritors of the tradition we have traced in this chapter, so also their students continued See, in more detail, her argument in “Traité astronomique inconnu de Martin Rex de Żurawica,” 165. 181  Both the authentic and the spurious works are discussed by Palacz, “Wojciech jako astronom,” 70–74; see also Markowski, “Repertorium bio-bibliographicum astronomorum Cracoviensium medii aevi: Adam Tussinus . . . Andreas Grzymała de Posnania, 117–132.

400

CHAPTER 7

that tradition. At least a score of these from the 1480s, 1490s, and the first two decades of the sixteenth century can be identified. Some of them—Martin Łysy of Cracow, Stanisław Selig, Stanisław Biel Albinus, Nicholas of Łabiszyn, and John of Stobnica—were active not only in astronomy and mathematics, but made contributions to the intellectual and institutional life of the studium which are noted elsewhere in this study. Others devoted their energies more narrowly to the astronomical and exact sciences. These included such figures as Stanisław Bylica of Olkusz, the nephew of Martin Bylica;182 Martin Biem of Olkusz († 1540), another relative of Martin Bylica, who incepted as a master in arts in 1491 and lectured thereafter in that faculty, including treatment of Regiomontanus’ Calendarium in 1493;183 the above-mentioned Michael Falkener of Wrocław (d. 1534), who used Brudzewo’s Commentariolum for lectures several times in a career in arts which lasted until 1512 and who wrote several astronomical and astrological works of his own;184 and Leonard Dobczyce Vitreator, who was active in both astronomy and astrology.185 This was also the environment into which “Nicholas, the son of Nicholas” of Toruń entered in 1491 when he matriculated at Cracow. In the long run, of course, he was the most successful and arguably the most famous student at the university in this, or perhaps any, period. The degree to which his achievements in astronomy may be attributed to the school where he studied—even if he did not take a degree—has long been a provocative one, and I address it briefly in Appendix D of this study. Cracow’s achievements in astronomy and the depth and richness of its tradition were appreciated elsewhere in Europe,. The fame of such individual as Głogów and Brudzewo drew foreigners such as Conrad Celtis to the s­ tudium.186 182   P SB, 3, 168; and A. Birkenmajer, Études d’histoire des science en Pologne, 553–554. 183   P SB 2, 68–69; A. Birkenmajer, “Marcin Biem,” in his Études d’histoire des science en Pologne, 717–720; and Markowski, “Marcin Biem z Olkusza,” in Józef Gierowski, ed., Krakowski krąg Mikołaja Kopernika (Cracow: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1973 [Prace historyczne 42: Copernicana Cracoviensia 3]), 7–24, especially 19–23. See also the comments below in Appendix D. 184  See Palacz, “Mikołaj Falkener z Wrocławia,” Materiały 6 (1966): 35–92, especially 47–48, 58–60, and 85–86. 185  See Helena Friedberg, “Rodzina Vitreatorów (Zasańskich) i jej związki z Uniwersytetem Krakowskim na przełomie XV i XVI w.,” Biuletlyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 18, 1 (1968): 19–37, here 25–28. 186  In an autobiographical statement appended to an edition of his Odes, Celtis remarked that “Ubique astrorum studio vacauit . . .;” see also Chapter Ten below. Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 147–148, provides a good overview of the attractiveness of Cracow for foreign scholars in this respect.

The Arts Faculty, II

401

When the German chronicler Hartmann Schedel prepared his best-selling ­survey of the nations of Europe in 1493, he included the observation that in Cracow is the large and glorious gymnasium filled with many famous, learned men who teach the liberal arts, rhetoric, poetics, philosophy and physics. Astronomy is the most highly developed science. In the whole of Germany (and I know this from more than one source) one can not find a more famous school.187 Much the same favorable evaluation of the level of astronomy at Cracow was given by the contemporary historian of Hungary, A. Bonfinius, who wrote in 1491 that “Cracow teems with astronomers and astrologers.”188 These considerations lend support to Aleksander Birkenmajer’s oft-repeated assertion that the University of Cracow was “an international center of astronomical education at the end of the middle ages.”189

A Brief Observation

Natural science at Cracow in the fifteenth century was thus a complex phenomenon. It was in part the philosophical tradition based in Aristotle, as 187  I quote this passage in the elegant translation of the late Bogdan Deresiewicz in St. Stanisław Bishop of Cracow (Santa Barbara, CA: Polish American Historical Association California Chapter, 1979). 74. Original text in Hartmann Schedel, Liber Chronicarum (Nuremberg: Anton Koberger, 1493), 267. 188  “A coniectoribus et astrologis, quibus referta Cracovia est.” Quoted from S. Katona, Historia critica regem Hungariae (Buda, 1793), 10 (17), 258, by A. Birkenmajer, “L’Université de Cracovie. Centre international d’enseignement astronomique à la fin du moyen age,” in his Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne, 491. 189  A. Birkenmajer, Ibid., 483–495. His phrase was, in paraphrase, adopted by Markowski for his discussion of Cracovian developments in the second half of the fifteenth century in “Szczyt rozkwitu i międzynarodowego promieniowania krakowskiej szkoły astronomicznej,” in Dobrzycki, Markowski, and Przypkowski, Historia astronomii w Polsce, Rybka, ed., 1,107–126. The quantitative and qualitative corpus of astronomical material available in Cracow is revealed in the superb census, nearly 600 pages and with numerous plates, of Rosińska, Scientific Writings and Astronomical Tables in Cracow; see my review of this work in The Polish Review 30, 2 (1985): 225–227, which describes in detail the range of items she has analyzed and the contribution she makes to all who work on the subject of late medieval Cracovian astronomy.

402

CHAPTER 7

t­ransmitted and transmuted through the Arabic and Latin thinkers of the middle ages. This tradition was, in significant measure, devoted to physical questions; and in the way it was presented at the university it was tempered with the Christian concerns and assumptions of medieval Europe. In general, speculative matters were subordinate to others concerns. Another part of the tradition of natural science was more mathematical and exact. It had its greatest impact in the realm of astronomy, broadly conceived, which experienced considerable growth and development in this century. It should be noted that in both parts, various schools of thought vied for influence: the via moderna and the via antiqua; the mathematical and geometrical approach to astronomy and the “physical”—in an Aristotelian sense—approach. But none of these dominated to the extent of enforcing a kind of intellectual conformity. Neither was there the kind of intellectual guerrilla warfare between viae that many other studia experience in this period. If the moderni, particularly in the tradition of Buridan, were dominant in the first half of the century, the rise to preeminence of the via antiqua in its various Thomist, Albertist, and Scotist strains in the second half did not bring academic, instructional, or scholarly disruption, and none of this prevented a lively intellectual milieu from functioning. If Cracow was eclectic and pluralistic, it was at the same time dynamic and even, one may venture to say, progressive. The varying points of view within the university and the multiple approaches did not paralyze intellectual development. Instead they effected a creative tension as they struggled for insight and u ­ nderstanding; and this competition intensified, rather than stultified, the life of the mind within the studium. The intellectual history of the natural sciences at Cracow in this period is thus the history of change rather than crystallization. Indeed the plurality of outlooks and approaches reflected in the topics treated in the last two chapters reflect in many ways efforts of the faculty to achieve an opinio communis or a via media that would reconcile discordant positions. More than that, this variety is also rooted in the absence of any policy from the crown or the church to impose a specific program or outlook. We shall see this same range and variety reflected in the treatment below of the higher disciplines, medicine, law, and particularly theology.190

190  This is the central point of Oźóg. “Uniwersytet Krakowski: przykład późnośredniowiecznego eklektyzmu,” in Wolińska and Leszka, eds., Średniowieczna wizja świata, 249–250 especially.

CHAPTER 8

Medicine and Law Two of the higher faculties are the focus of this chapter, medicine and law. In contrast with the latter of these—and also with the faculty of theology treated in the following chapter—medicine was relatively weak at Cracow in the fifteenth century. Thus this chapter provides, at its beginning, a brief overview of the medical faculty, its personnel, and accomplishments before turning in more detail to achievements and contributions in law. This latter part of the university—which was intended to include teaching in both civil and canon law but which really only functioned in the latter—was characterized by considerable success. This was true not only in its teaching function, which provided preparation for those who sought a career in the church and sometimes in secular chanceries, but also rested in the broad range of the writings produced by its faculty and for the development of a distinctive tradition that has been called by some a school of international law. Medicine Medicine is one of the oldest professions.1 As long as humans have been prey to disease, some individuals have sought to account for its onset, course, and if possible to cure the condition. The knowledge and experience they have gained have been passed from generation to generation and have eventually come to constitute a corpus of medical lore and practice of considerable importance to human well-being. During the European middle ages, part of this expertise and the training in its application was institutionalized in formal studia where practitioners taught their successors. Some of the most characteristic features of medical teaching can be observed at Salerno, though it did not significantly evolve beyond a medical specialization. In other places, however, medical knowledge from antiquity, along with medieval contributions from Islamic, Jewish, and Christian sources developed into a coherent curriculum which was 1  On this theme, the works of Vern I. Bullough, The Development of Medicine as a Profession. The Contribution of the Medieval University to Modern Medicine (Basle: Karger, 1966), and “Achievement, Professionalization, and the University,” in Jacques Paquet and Jozef IJsewijn, eds., Les Universités a la fin du moyen age (Louvain: Institut d’Études médiévales U.C.L., 1978), 497–510, remain rich and suggestive.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004326019_010 .

404

CHAPTER 8

systematically taught and studied in the process of licensing physicians. By the late middle ages Bologna, Montpellier, Paris, and Padua had come to dominate the university medical tradition in continental Europe2 It was this medieval tradition of medical education which Casimir the Great attempted to institute at Cracow in 1364. But, as we have seen, the Casimiran studium did not flourish, and little is known beyond scattered references and inferences about medicine in the Piast university.3 With the Jagiellonian renewal of 1400, scholastic medicine in Poland shared in the promise of growth and achievement inherent in the ambitions of the new school. Despite this, it was never a strong faculty, either institutionally or intellectually, in the fifteenth century, and the potential was realized only later. This portion of the present chapter is devoted to a study of the content of medical instruction during that century, but it will be necessary to make passing reference to some of the institutional matters treated in Chapter Three. Rector Stanisław of Skarbimierz in 1400 was the first to describe the responsibilities of the medical faculty at Cracow. In his inauguration sermon, he likened medicine allegorically to one of the six-winged beasts of the apocalypse who cry day and night praising God. He described the good physician as one who takes pains to expel foreign elements from the body, strengthens the weak, and provides medicines cordially. His duty is to renew vital strength, prescribe remedies both for the head and the body, thus gladdening the heart and liver, and for other illnesses according to their kind and degree. Just as the lawyer must advise the general whole so that the body politic is not harmed, so the physician should manage the material body so that society does not 2  An overview of these developments is provided by A.B. Cobban, The Medieval Universities: their development and organization (London: Methuen and Co., 1975), who summarizes and updates the classic earlier studies by such pioneers as Heinrich Denifle and Hastings Rashdall; his treatment of Salerno, which he terms a “proto-university,” (37–47), should now be compared with Nancy Siraisi, “The Faculty of Medicine,” in Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992 [A History of the University in Europe, Walter Rüegg, General Editor, vol. 1]), 360–387, especially 364–366 for Salerno. Her treatment for the other studia is found on 366–369, while for Padua, her study Arts and Sciences at Padua (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1973) is fundamental. 3  For medicine in the Casimiran university, see Mieczysław Skulimowski, “Dzieje fakultetu medycznego Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego do reform Kołłątaja,,” in Leon Tochowicz, et al, eds., Nauki medyczne w sześćsetlecie Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiej. Sześćsetlecie Medyczny Krakowskiej, 2 vols. (Cracow: Academia Medica Cracoviensis, 1963–1964), 2: Historia Katedr, 15–53, here 15–18; and Stanisław Szczur, Papież Urban V i powstanie Uniwersytetu w Krakowie w 1364 r. (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 1999), 202–204.

Medicine And Law

405

lose a ­useful member.4 This idealistic task was translated by the faculty into the teaching of the medical curriculum. But this instruction must have been sporadic, for the faculty was never large and there were few students. Several sources are available to identify members of the faculty. Individual professors are sometimes mentioned in university records, and manuscript remains sometimes mention others. But the most complete data come from a series of lists which allow us to distinguish which medicinae doctores were formally appointed as professors and which were simply incorporated into the faculty either by payment or per responsionem, thus giving them a kind of adjunct status so that they could, in accord with the statutes, practice medicine in the diocese of Cracow and from time to time give lectures at the u­ niversity.5 It is clear that there were not many of the former. Throughout the century there was only one professorship in the faculty, and he who held it was from time to time assisted by one or more bachelors or licentiates.6 As we have seen, some of these faculty members played important roles within the university, though not necessarily in medicine. Several were rectors: John Kro, John de Saccis of Pavia, John of Dobra, Andrew Grzymała of Poznań, Peter Gaszowiec, and John of Reguły, to name only a few examples. Others who held medical degrees were more important in other parts of the school’s life and apparently lectured seldom, if at all, in medicine. These included John of Ludzisko,7 Martin Król 4  “Et sicut iurista habet consulere totius communitatis corpori ne quid officiat, ita medicus consulere corpori materiali, ne membro utili communitas privetur.” Text in Juliusz Domański, “Discours d’inauguration fait par Stanislas de Skarbimierz à l’occasion du renouveau de l’Université de Cracovie,” MPP 24 (1979): 123–132, here 129; and Stanisław ze Skarbimierza, Mowy wybrane o mądrości, Mirosław Korolko, ed. (Cracow: Arcana, 2000), 236–257, here 248 (there is a facing-page translation into Polish of this sermon in this edition). 5  One of the early pioneers in the study of the medical faculty printed a list without critical comments and without identifying his manuscript sources: Józef Majer, “Z dziejów Wydziału Lekarskiego w Uniwersytecie Krakowskim,” Rocznik Wydziału Lekarskiego w Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim 2 (1839): 44–52. Eventually Mieczysław Markowski, “Rękopisy Austriackiej Biblioteki Narodowej 13104 i Archiwum Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 296 i 297 jako źródła do dziejów medycyny w Polsce w XV, XVI, i XVII wieku,” Materiały 7 (18) (1974): 141–159, identified these manuscript and, in “Les manuscrits des Listes de docteurs en medicine à l’Université de Cracovie entre 1400 et 1611,” MPP 20 (1974): 121–140, described and edited them. In a later publication, he reviewed these materials and added two additional lists: “Pierwsi doktorzy medycyny Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w świetle źródeł rękopiśmiennych,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 6–7 (1997): 315–347. 6  As, for example, specified in the university Conclusiones, 28 (for the year 1464). 7  Krzystyna Pieradzka, “Uniwersytet Krakowski w służbie państwa i wobec soborów w Konstancji i Bazylei,” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 136, n. 289, incorrectly includes John of Ludzisko among the rectors of the university.

406

CHAPTER 8

of Żórawica,8 and John Ursinus. Only a few, such as Bernard Hesse of Cracow, were primarily involved with teaching on the medical faculty. The weakness of this division of the school is reflected in its absence from mentions of deans, the uncertain status of the domus or collegium medicorum,9 and above all by its late organization. Although there may have been some statutes which existed prior to 1433, they were clearly inadequate and had to be refined and revised in that year.10 This was done under the leadership of John de Saccis of Pavia, who apparently served as dean of this faculty during the process. Although it is not clear when he came to Cracow, and details about his biography prior to his arrival there are fragmentary, clearly he had established himself as a major figure in the academic community. Rector in 1435, his teaching in medicine had been an important contribution. His students, among probably others, included Nicholas Oszkowski (a relative of John of Dobra), Herman of Przeworsk, John of Ludzisko, and Bernard Hesse of Cracow. There is little which he may have written that is extant—or identified. Beyond his teaching, therefore, his greatest contribution to the studium was the process over which he presided in the two convocations of January and February 1433 in which the new statutes for medicine, which he himself had written, were established.11 Finally it should be mentioned again that there were probably no promotions to doctor during the fifteenth century (the first came only with the recommendation of three individuals in 1527),12 and few to licentiate. Only the names 8  The sobriquet “Król” (in Polish: king) comes from his designation “Rex in medicinis” and was not part of his actual name. 9  There are only passing references to such a building in university records. See the comments of Skulimowski, “Dzieje fakultetu medycznego,” in Tochowicz, ed., Nauki medyczne w sześćsetlecie UJ, 2, 23 and n. 30. Whatever there was apparently burned, along with the Collegium Iuridicum, in the great fire of 1455. In 1441 a special door was authorized to be built in the Collegium medicorum for the wife of the professor in medicine so that she would not have contact with the students and other faculty who were clergy; see Conclusiones, 2. The professor was probably John of Dobra. 10  See above, Chapter Three. The statutes are printed by Majer, “Ustawy Wydziału Lekarskiego w Uniwersytecie Krakowskim za dziekaństwo Jana de Saccis z Pawii w r. 1433,” Rocznik Wydziału Lekarskiego w Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim 1 (1838): 55–61. See also Skulimowski, “Dzieje fakultetu medycznego,” in Tochowicz, ed., Nauki medyczne w sześćsetlecie UJ, 2, 24. 11  John’s biography is still best approached through Birkenmajer’s entry in PSB, 10. 473–475, and (in French translation) “Jan de Saccis,” in his Études d’histoire des science en Pologne (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1972 [Studia Copernicana 4]), 499–504. 12  Markowski, “Les manuscrits des Listes de docteurs en medicine,” 139, and “Pierwsi doktorzy medycyny Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” 322; Henryk Barycz, Historja Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego e epoce humanizmu (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego,

Medicine And Law

407

of John of Olkusz, Stanisław of Pleszów, John Wells of Poznań, and Stanisław Selig of Cracow are mentioned in the latter category from this period.13 One of them—John of Olkusz—had his promotion delayed. He petitioned for this in 1459, but the vice-chancellor of the university, John of Dąbrówka, suspended action for a period of three years, requiring John in the interim fideliter laborare as a master in arts.14 It is doubtful if he ever taught in medicine. In order to obtain the doctorate in medicine so long as there was only one professor in that faculty at Cracow, it was necessary to travel abroad, usually to Italy. Distance and expense made this difficult for many, and it is significant that none of the aforementioned licentiates undertook further study in medicine. In light of this picture of institutional weakness, it is not therefore surprising that there should be little information about instruction.15 The Liber diligentiarum of the arts faculty provides only the barest data. Since by the end of the fifteenth century some lectures in medicine were being given in the Collegium maius, the deans noted when classrooms were assigned to the physicians. Thus in the winter semester 1487 the lecture hall normally designated for use by the theologians was the site of a medical lecture, two such classes were held in the summer semester of 1488 (both, again, in the theologians’ lectorium), and in subsequent years one or two instances may be found in many semesters.16 But the deans did not specify what was being taught, simply noting medicus or pro medico. Only in one case prior to 1500 was the name of the lecturer even 1935), 215 and 230. There is, however, some evidence to suggest that individuals were awarded the doctoral degree in medicine prior to the sixteenth century promotions; for example, as noted below (note 19), Herman of Przeworsk was mentioned as a medical doctor in a 1460 prayer list, and some have concluded that he earned this degree at Cracow: Aleksander Birkenmajer, “Jan de Saccis,” in his Études d’histoire des science en Pologne, 502, and PSB, 10, 475. Birkenmajer also suggests another three individuals from this period who were promoted to doctor at Cracow. On this question, see below, n. 28. 13  Markowski, “Les manuscrits des Listes de docteurs en medicine,” 140 and “Pierwsi doktorzy medycyny Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” 335. 14  “Occurrendo neglectui laborum in facultate artis, vicecancellarius cum facultate medicine consensu concordi concluserunt, magistrum Iohannem de Ilkus ad licenciam in medicina non admitti, nisi salva laborum facultatis artium integritate. . . . sed iuxta condicionem sue collegiature tunc habite et inantea quovismodo alterius cuiuscunque habende fideliter laborare. . . .” Conclusiones, 26. See also PSB, 10, 465–466, here 465; Birkenmajer, “Jan d’Olkusz,” in his Études d’histoire des science en Pologne, 512–514, here 512. 15  The general weakness of this faculty can be seen in the cursory treatment given it by Krzysztof Oźóg, Uczeni w monarchii Jadwigi Andegaweńskiej i Władysław Jagiełły (1384– 1434) (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2004), 52–54. 16   Liber diligentiarum, 452 (Index II, s.v. “Medici”).

408

CHAPTER 8

listed, that of George of Drohobycz in summer 1488.17 Neither are the formal statutes very revealing. Unlike other faculties, where the specific authors to be lectured and studied were indicated with some precision, the medical statutes state only very generally that lectures were to be based on those earlier authorities who were recognized “to be the sources of knowledge and the origins of truth.”18 Thus it is to manuscript evidence that scholars have turned to infer something about the content of the medical curriculum. Such inferences may be misleading, and it is well to keep a fundamental caveat in mind. Possession of a medical manuscript by someone associated with the faculty does not necessarily indicate that it was used in teaching. Some of the examples cited below, unless otherwise qualified by information which does tie them more closely to instruction, may just as well have been applied in the private practice of a physician. The spectrum of works is nevertheless suggestive and will allow us to draw some eventual general conclusions about intellectual currents. One of the earliest names associated with the medical faculty was Nicholas of Oszkowice, who appears first on two of the professorial lists mentioned above. He matriculated at Cracow in the academic year 1414/1415, was promoted as a bachelor in arts in 1416 and graduated first in his group of masters degree students in 1419. He was dean of arts in 1425 and was noted as a doctor of medicine in a university document of 1432.19 Included in his library was a codex which contained a number of works associated with Aristotelian natural philosophy, several of which (especially De generacione et corruptione) used to be suggested by some scholars as being related to medical practice.20 It is doubtful, however, if these treatises, more commonly used in the curriculum of the arts faculty, were lectured in medicine. A second figure, whose library included more specifically medical works, was Herman of Przeworsk, whose name appears on none of the lists of individuals admitted to the medical faculty, but who was nevertheless mentioned in 1460 as a medical doctor in a prayer 17  A Ruthenian, George of Drohobycz (or “de Russia”), who was discussed briefly in the previous chapter, has evoked considerable interest as an early representative of learning from this area. See Jarosław Isajewicz, “Jerzy z Drohobycza we Włoszek i w Krakowie,” Małopolskie Studia Historyczne 6, 3/4 (1964): 59–64; PSB, 11, 187–188. 18  Majer, “Ustawy Wydziału Lekarskiego,” 55. See also Morawski, Historya, 1, 234. 19  Literae notariales plenipotentiam Magistri Nicolai Oszkowski Doctoris Medicinae . . . Iacobo de Wolfram Baccalaureo in Artibus . . . ad petendam institutionem in Canonicatum et praebendam in ecclesia S. Georgii castri Cracoviensis.” CDUC, 1, no. 87, 170. 20  For example Władysław Szumowski, Historja medycyny (Cracow: Gebethner and Wolff, 1935), 79.

Medicine And Law

409

list for deceased faculty.21 He also served as royal physician for King Władysław Jagiełło. He owned a codex whose history is closely connected with medicine at the Casimiran studium and that later passed to other faculty at Cracow.22 In the fifteenth century it was probably used in medical lectures and contained, among other works, Hunain ibn Ishaq’s (Johannitius) ninth century survey of Arab medicine Isagoge in medicinam, Hippocrates’ Liber Aphorismorum and Liber prognosticorum, Theophilus’ Liber de urinis, Philaretus’ De pulsibus, and Galen’s Liber Tegni. Herman also owned a volume with a number of other works by Galen, chiefly in the field of internal medicine, which was later purchased by Andrew Grzymała pro quinque florenis de fisco communi and eventually given to the university. Dating from the thirteenth century, its most important Galenic writings were De crisi, De criticis diebus, De complexionibus, De interioribus, and Gerard of Cremona’s translation of De simplici medicina.23 Book collections of other faculty also reveal the scope of medical interest in this century. A mid-century professor, John of Świetlik, who was mentioned in 1449 as holding a chair in the artists’ college,24 owned a copy of Bertrucius of Lombardy’s Compendium sive collectorium artis medicae, which, in the 21  “Oratio pro defunctis et viris promotoribus ac benefactoribus universitatis Cracoviensis.” “Tandem animas doctorum in medicis videlicet . . . Hermani de Przeworsko.” See Morawski, Historya, 1, 237; Skulimowski, “Dzieje fakultetu medycznego,” in Tochowicz, ed., Nauki medyczne w sześćsetlecie UJ, 2, 22; and PSB, 9, 462. 22  This manuscript (Cracow, BJ 813) clearly contains in its first part the Ars medicinae as taught at Salerno and later at Bologna, Montpellier, and Paris; see Pearl Kibre, “Hippocrates Latinus: Repertorium of Hippocratic Writings in the Latin Middle Ages,” Traditio 32 (1976): 257–292, here 274. The manuscript and material in it is discussed in the Polish context by A. Birkenmajer, “Le rôle joué par les médecins et les naturalists dans la reception d’Aristote au XIIe et XIIIe siècles,” in both La Pologne au VIe Congrès International des Sciences Historiques, Oslo 1928 (Warsaw: Société polonaise d’histoire, 1930), 1–15, and his Études d’histoire des sciences et de la philosophie du Moyen Age (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970 [Studia Copernicana 1]), 73–87. The manuscript was copied at Cracow between 1364– 1368 by a student within the university, John de Hassia (d. 1434). It is one of the pieces of evidence that document some kind of functioning of the Casimiran studium; see Jerzy Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1354–1492,” in Zathey, Anna Lewicka-Kamińska, and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, Historia Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej, vol. 1, Ignacy Zarębski, ed. (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego), 18–20; and Paul W. Knoll, “Casimir the Great and the University of Cracow,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 16 (1968): 232–249, here 247–248. It passed to Herman of Przeworsk in the fifteenth century, then to Andrew Grzymała (d. 1466) and to John Beber of Oświęcim (d. 1488). 23  Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 116. 24   “Iohanne Schwiethlik, doctore in medicina ac collegiatis Collegii artistarum.” Conclusiones, 9.

410

CHAPTER 8

j­ udgment of some, he used in medical lectures.25 This collection of fourteenth century Italian anatomical works had been copied in 1422 according to a colophon on f. 357 “in the school of St. Nicholas outside the walls of Cracow,” i.e., in the suburb of Wesoła, but this provenance is coincidental and does not suggest any functioning of the medical faculty or program in conjunction with that school. A more important figure was John of Dobra, about whom, thanks to the scholarship of Maria Kowalczyk, we now know substantially more than we did before.26 John was probably of noble background from Łęczyca and matriculated at Cracow in 1419. He did not complete the bachelor’s curriculum until 1426, but he incepted as a master in arts the very next year. Immediately thereafter he began the study of medicine and had earned the doctoral degree by early 1433. Whether this was attained in Cracow or as the result of study in Italy is a point of continuing scholarly debate. John was elected university rector in 1439 and served as dean of the medical faculty in 1440/1441. A popular physician in Cracow—perhaps because of prescriptions that he may have brought from Italy—he apparently functioned as physician to Władysław Jagiełło. He also wrote a variety of notes and reflections, one of which is a short treatise on pestilence.27 His professional career enabled him to accumulate substantial wealth, and some of it was committed to acquiring a substantial medical library. Among the manuscripts which John of Dobra eventually contributed to the university’s collection of books, one included a short treatise on preparing dyes and a veterinary handbook, which he copied and may have written.28 Another two are of special importance in this context, because of what they 25  See the older authorities cited by Skulimowski, “Dzieje fakultetu medycznego,” in Tochowicz, ed., Nauki medyczne w sześćsetlecie UJ, 2, 29, note 45. 26  Maria Kowalczyk, “Lekarz Krakowski Jan z Dobrej,” St. Med. 34/35 (2000): 259–282, and in a volume of her collected works, Colligite fragmenta ne pereant . . . Studia z dziejów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w średniowieczu (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2010 [Historia et Monumenta Universitatis Jagellonicae 1]), 375–398. Earlier important literature on John includes the entry (by Leszek Hajdukiewicz) in PSB, 10, 449–450. 27   Kowalczyk, “Pomniejsze średniowieczne teksty ‘de peste’ z kręgu Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 30, no. 1/2 (1980): 5–13, here 7–8. 28  On the question of where John gained his doctoral degree in medicine, see Kowalczyk, “Lekarz Krakowski Jan z Dobrej,” 261 and 377; in one of his manuscripts, written in his own hand, John provides the second notice in Poland of the work of Dante Alighieri, and in this same manuscript is the veterinary handbook mentioned in the text, which has been edited and published by Kowalczyk and G. Staśkiewicz, “Lekarstwa końskie z dwóch rękopisów łacińskich z pierwszej połowy XV w.,” Annales Universitatis Mariae CurieSkłodowska, Section DD: Medicina Veterinaria 34 (1979): 227–248, which I have not seen.

Medicine And Law

411

tell us about the Cracovian medical environment. One contained Guido of Canliaco’s Chirurgia; Bernard of Gordonio’s treatise on the use of the uro­ scope, De urinis, one of the best representatives of the school of Montpellier; and Egidius of Corbeil’s Liber urinarium. The other contained extracts from Hippocrates, Philaretus’ De pulsibus, Johannitius’ Isagoge, Egidius’ Liber urinarium, Rhazes’ Liber Abubeci, and several other works. Without attributing this codex to John, Kazimierz Morawski identified it as one of the most representative reflections of Cracow medicine in this period.29 Other individuals who contributed to medical learning at the university also left books behind revealing their interests and perhaps their teaching. James of Boksyce, who like others gained his medical training in Italy,30 gave most of his large library to the cathedral school in Gniezno, including several works in canon law and theology (he held degrees in each of the three higher faculties). But at least two of his books remained in Cracow, both of them predominantly medical. The first contained Galen’s commentary on Hippocrates’ Aphorismos and the Prognostica of Constantine; the second included another commentary on the Aphorisms.31 Among the physicians, Andrew Grzymała of Poznań possessed one of the largest libraries.32 As we have seen, he obtained some of Herman of Przeworsk’s books. But he also held works of Hippocrates and Arnold of Villa Nova, astrological treatises with medical overtones (one of which was probably also owned by Herman), Matthew Sylvaticus’ Pandecta de simplicibus medicinis, Maimonides’ De veneris, Raymond Lull’s Ars medicinae, Serapion’s Libri aggregacionum in medicinis simplicibus, and a volume of the medical writings of the fourteenth century Polish bishop Thomas of Wrocław.33 The question of Andrew’s medical library and his use of it is an important one, for in addition to his other university and civic activities, he clearly taught in the medical faculty and undoubtedly lectured on these books. With the works of Hippocrates, Galen, Theophilus, Philaretus, Johannicius, and Egidius

29  Morawski, Historya, 1, 235. 30  As one of the licentiates promoted at Cracow, James was given permission by the faculty in 1474 to travel to the Holy Land, provided that he returned to Italy to study medicine (Conclusiones, 38). See also PSB, 2, 245. 31  Adam Bednarski, “Materiały do dziejów medycyny polskiej w XIV i XV stulecie,” Prace Komisji Historii Medycyny i Nauk Przyrodniczo-Matematycznych 1 (1939): 25–107, here 34–35, 43, 64, and 72; and Skulimowski, “Dzieje fakultetu medycznego,” in Tochowicz, ed., Nauki medyczne w sześćsetlecie UJ, 2, 30. 32  See below, Chapter Eleven, and Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 114–117. 33  Zathey, Ibid., 111, n. 220.

412

CHAPTER 8

of Corbeil, he continued the Italian tradition initiated at Cracow by John de Saccis of Pavia.34 Three of the licentiates in medicine noted above also owned texts which may have been used in the curriculum. Stanisław of Pleszów had a copy of a fourteenth century commentary upon Galen’s Super secretis mulierum and of an anonymous set of fourteenth century dicta on the same work known as Speculum fleubotomie. John Wells of Poznań, who later served as physician to king John Albert before his own death in 1498, had three medical codices, whose contents were largely practical. They included Arnold of Villa Nova’s Antidotarium, the Unguentum of Dini of Florence, the Antidotarium of Mesue (Yuhanna ibn Masawaih), and others of like nature. He also owned two medical incunabula. John of Olkusz, whose promotion was delayed by vice-chancellor John of Dąbrówka (see above in this chapter), was well thought of by his colleagues and wrote a treatise De regimine pestilenciali. Among the other volumes which can possibly be attributed to his library (there were three John of Olkuszes at the university in this time, thus creating some confusion) were Bertrucius’ Collectorium artis medicine and Giles of Rome’s De regimine principum.35 One of the most interesting medical manuscripts from this period was owned by an individual only peripherally connected with the university and whose role on the medical faculty was probably small. This is the Antibolomenum Benedicti Parthi, which was in large part a compilation by John Stanko (1430– 1493?). John was born in Wrocław and earned a medical degree in Italy. After his return to Silesia he pursued an ecclesiastical career there and in the kingdom of Poland. He was involved in negotiations for the second Peace of Toruń, was appointed physician in the cathedral chapter in Cracow in 1470, and was subsequently authorized to practice in the city and lecture at the university.36 He later treated the historian John Długosz for kidney stones. The collection of antidotes which he gathered included some 20,000 Latin, Greek, Arabic, Italian, and German medical terms, to which he added some 2000 Polish equiv34  A. Birkenmajer, “Andrzej Grzymała z Poznania, astronom i lekarz z XV wieku,” Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki 3 (1958): 409–421, and, in French translation, in his Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne, 515–526. The entry on Andrew in PSB, 9, 114–116 is also by Birkenmajer. 35  The latter work is, of course, not a medical treatise. The problems of identifying his library are discussed by Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 112–114. 36  Józef Rostfiński, Medycyna na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim w XV w. (Cracow: Nakładem autora, 1900), 79. Stanko is not, however, mentioned on any of the lists identified by Markowski, “Les manuscrits des listes de docteurs en medicine,” and “Pierwsi doktorzy medycyny Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego.”

Medicine And Law

413

alents. Its importance in medicine is matched by its significance in the development of the Polish language.37 Although his contribution to general medical circles may have been great,38 it is doubtful that he exercised any great influence within the studium. To assert, as does the entry for him in Nowy Korbut that “from 1470 to the end of his life he lectured in medicine in the Cracow Academy,” is without sound evidence.39 John of Reguły, who has several times been noted in this study to illustrate institutional and civic developments at Cracow, was also a noted physician. Included in his library were copies of Avicenna’s Canon and an anonymous Gazophylacium medicini, which contained numerous antidotes and several short medical treatises. His fifteenth century personal distractions referred to in a previous chapter gave way eventually to consistent lectures in medicine beginning after 1475, from which point he may have served as dean of that faculty until 1505. He also served as university rector in 1500, 1502, 1507, and 1508.40 From his time forward the teaching of medicine became more regular, and a semester seldom passed when at least one and usually more classes were held in the Collegium Maius. By the end of the century, the influence and contributions of professor Matthew of Miechów were evident. Matthew matriculated at Cracow in 1473, was promoted to bachelor in arts in 1476, and incepted as a master in that faculty three years later. For a year beginning in 1482 he directed the cathedral school in Cracow while beginning his study of medicine at the university. Then he studied at Prague, Padua, and Florence (where he made the acquaintance of Pico della Mirandola). He returned to Cracow in 1485 as a doctor of medicine (probably the degree came from Bologna), and in 1488 he was admitted to the medical faculty at the university. He rose quickly in the university hierarchy, eventually serving many times as rector. As a physician, his private income apparently allowed him to prosper, and in 1505 he founded and endowed a second chair in medicine within the studium. It is from him that the real development of this discipline at Cracow derived its impetus, and with him there

37  See above, Chapter Five, note 178. 38  Rostafiński, who edited Stanko’s work (Symbola ad historiam naturalem medii aevi [Cracow: Munera saecularia Universitatis Cracoviensis, 1900]), over-exuberantly recognized Stanko as of European significance, occupying a status in his own time similar to Albert the Great and Konrad Gesner (Medycyna na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim, 79). 39   Nowy Korbut, 3, 280–281, here 281. 40   Liber diligentiarum, 46, 78, 81. See PSB, 10, 472–473.

414

CHAPTER 8

began a new age in scholastic medicine that belongs to the sixteenth century and beyond.41 Some general conclusions may be drawn at this point to conclude this discussion of medicine in the fifteenth century university. Manuscript holdings suggest that the standard medical corpus from antiquity (Hippocrates and Galen) plus the late antique and medieval authorities that were commonly used in medical studia in the west were taught in Cracow. In that sense, therefore, the university provided an adequate basis for medical education. But there is no evidence to suggest that Cracovian scholars and students went beyond these authorities. Unlike other areas within the studium where auctores were used, but also challenged and modified, the received medical tradition at Cracow remained largely intact. The intellectual vitality shown at the studia in Italy and France in which both theoretical and practical advances were made appears to have been lacking at Cracow. Neither was there any of the larger philosophical contribution about the relationship between liberal arts and medical science that was, for example, shown at Padua in the fourteenth century.42 The Polish scene was characterized by a practical emphasis upon the mastery and transmission of an existing corpus; and while this is a characteristic that complements the practical thrust shown in other faculties 41  The many facets of Matthew’s achievements have been studied in detail in the several contributions to Henryk Barycz, ed., Maciej a Miechowa 1457–1523 (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1960); see particularly therein Barycz’s biographical sketch, “Życie i twórczość Macieja z Miechowa,” 7–74, and Tadeusz Bilikiewicz, “Maciej z Miechowa na tle medycyny Odrodzenia,” 167–203. See also, in this context, Bilikiewicz, “Maciej z Miechowa Karpiga (1457–1523),” in Tochowicz, ed., Nauki medyczne w sześćsetlecie UJ, 1, 9–24. Matthew’s extensive library has been studied by Leszek Hajdukiewicz, Biblioteka Macieja z Miechowa (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1960). An overview is provided in PSB, 19, 28–33. In his own treatment of Matthew, Krzysztof Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe in the Middle Ages (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2009), 150 and 156, also emphasizes his contributions as a geographer. Matthew’s most important work in this area was his treatise Tractatus de duabus Sarmatiis, which describes the territory between the Vistula and the Don rivers and the region between the Don and the meridian of the Caspian Sea. Matthew was also famous as a historian. His Chronica Polonorum of 1519 eventually superseded John Długosz’s Annales in the minds of many; see the assessment of Andrzej F. Grabski, Zarys historii historiografii polskiej (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2000), 33. 42  See Siraisi, Arts and Sciences at Padua. There is a fine summary of scholarship on academic medicine in the middle ages by Charles H. Talbot, “Medicine,” in David C. Lindberg, ed., Science in the Middle Ages (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 391–428; and a superb assessment of developments in this field by Siraisi, Medieval and Early Renaissance Medicine: An Introduction to Knowledge and Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).

Medicine And Law

415

in the university, in medicine it was not accompanied by the same kind of creativity which these other divisions reflected. Thus one may say that a kind of academic competency may be found in Cracow, but there was little beyond that in the fifteenth century. Only late in this period, for example in the writing of John Ursinus, was there some indication of new currents in medicine. John was a physician whose career was more distinguished in other areas, particularly—as we shall see in Chapter Ten—in early humanism at Cracow. But his medical education at Padua, where he earned his doctoral degree in 1487 under Peter Rocabonella and Francis Bentiusa, brought him into contact with Italian interests in dissection as a tool of medical knowledge. In his small handbook, Modus epistolandi (printed in Cracow in 1495 and discussed briefly in Chapter Six), he includes a passage which advocates anatomical sectioning to determine the course of disease.43 He was, however, an isolated figure, and there is no evidence that autopsies were ever carried out by any one associated with the university in this period. It is only when we turn to other fields of intellectual endeavor—law, political theory, and theology (and perhaps early Cracovian humanism)—that we find evidence to justify Cracow’s reputation as an important university. The first of these fields is associated with the faculty of canon law, to developments in which we turn now. Law Casimir the Great had envisioned the study of law in his university as one of the means by which he could consolidate state (i.e., royal) power and regularize the system of public administration.44 He had accordingly emphasized this faculty in his request to Pope Urban V and had signaled his intent to provide endowment for five chairs in civil law and three in canon law. His ideal had been, however, only partially realized by the time the school sank into academic decrepitude in the 1370s. With the Jagiellonian revival, law was somewhat overshadowed by the role which the theology faculty was assigned, but both in theory and in practice, it was nevertheless to play an important role in the academic and intellectual tradition of the fifteenth century studium.

43   J. Ursinus Modus epistolandi cum epistolis exemplaribus et orationibus annexis, Lidia Winniczuk, ed. and trans. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1957); see also Nowy Korbut, 3, 367–369. 44  Knoll, “Learning in Late Piast Poland,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 120, no. 2 (1976): 136–157, here 146–149; and Knoll, “Casimir the Great and the University of Cracow,” 234–235 and 243.

416

CHAPTER 8

The king included it (both canon and civil law in his original formulation)45 as one of the elements which he hoped would achieve the general goals he outlined for the university, and both the first rector and the new chancellor praised it upon the occasion of the festivities which marked the inauguration of studies in July 1400. Stanisław of Skarbimierz was particularly expansive in his description of the nature and importance of law, particularly canon law. To him, it was a wondrous science, by virtue of both its depth and breadth. Canon law not only makes explicit what is contained in Holy Scripture, it also subsumes the opinions of the philosophers, the words of the saints and the poets, the actions of jurists, and the intentions of artists. Moreover, canon law is wonderful because all of the problems of the trivium and the quadrivium are contained in it. It includes orthography, etymology, and prosody; economy is derived from it, for it prohibits one from doing damage to others; politics is contained in it, for it teaches the laws of justice; it teaches geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and many other disciplines; it treats humility and obedience, defines the responsibilities of the clergy, gives rise to medicine, and treats repentance. It is, in short, the learning which is best able to improve the condition of humanity and to perfect individudals.46 Stanisław’s partisan praise of law was such that in his conception of the university, the traditional structural symbolism of Bonaventure is changed so that law is no longer merely one of the walls of the house of learning supporting the theological roof, but becomes an equal partner with theology in enlightening and buttressing the church.47 Trained in 45   C DUC, 1, no. 16, 26: “in qualibet licite facultate . . . utpote in . . . Iuris canonici, Legum. . . .” 46  Domański, “Discours d’inauguration fait par Stanislas de Skarbimierz,” 128, and Stanisaw ze Skarbimierza. Mowy wybrane o mądrości, Korołko ed., 246. Often cited in this present study, Stanisław’s speech/sermon has equally been the focus of much Polish scholarship; see, for example, Oźóg, Uczeni, 54; and Roman Maria Zawadzki, “ ‘Dojść do mądrości Ojca.’ Stanisław za Skarbimierza jako kaznodzieja krakowski,” in Kazimierz Panuś, ed., Wielcy kaznodzieje Krakowa. Studia in honorem prof. Eduardii Stanek (Cracow: Unum PTT, 2006), 27–37, here 30, who develops some of the elements of Stanisław’s outlook more broadly in his Spuścizna pisarska Stanisława ze Skarbimierza. Studium Źródłoznawcze (Cracow: Polskie Towarszstwo Teologiczny, 1979). 47  See the comments of Zofia Włodek, “Filozofia a teologia w ujęciu mistrzów krakowskich,” in Ryszard Palacz, ed., Filozofia Polska XV wieku (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972), 58–93, here 73, reprinted in her collected articles, Z dziejów filozofii i teologii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku. Sylwetki, teksty, studia (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2011 [Historia et Monumenta Universitatis Jagellonicae 2]), 253–288, here 268; and Jerzy Rebeta, “Metodologiczno-filozoficzne założenia problematyki dyscyplin praktycznych w Polsce na początku XV wieku,” Studia i materiały z dziejów nauki Polskiej,

Medicine And Law

417

canon law and for the first three decades of the century the leading figure in this faculty, Stanisław was understandably partial to his own discipline. Despite this elevated conception of its importance, law study within the university followed the academic precedents set by western studia, and its institutional and educational structure has been discussed above. In this portion of the chapter, the focus is upon the intellectual contribution of the professoriate to the life of the school. That focus is two-fold. On the one hand we shall examine what little can be determined about the content of teaching in the area of canon law itself; on the other, we shall analyze and evaluate the legal thought of the faculty and its political dimensions, both inside and outside the studium. Teaching in canon law at Cracow was largely defined by the structure of the Corpus iuris canonici that had evolved during the high middle ages.48 One professor lectured the Decretum of Gratian; another—often a licentiate— taught the Decretales of Gregory IX; and a third faculty member was responsible for the so-called iura nova, i.e., the Liber sextus of Boniface VIII and the Clementinae of Clement V. As the number of endowed chairs in canon law increased, the range of teaching was expanded to include specific lectures on the fourth book of the Decretales (dealing with marriage law particularly) and on the Extravagantes of John XXII. By the end of the century, when there were seven endowed positions, lectures were given not only on those six collections, but also upon some of the major commentaries to these works. One instance of this was the aforementioned Jodochus of Ziegenhals, who earlier in the century had been taught the Summa of Raymond of Pennafort while a bachelor in decretals.49 His example suggests another characteristic of the faculty at Cracow. As in medicine, it was apparently not necessary to hold a university-related benefice in order to lecture. The basis for teaching was the degree and consent Series E, 3 (1968): 3–28, here 7. Elsewhere in his speech, Stanisław mentions theology, civil laws, and canon law as the “three faculties which mutually support one another and which are necessary for God’s Holy Church;” Domański, “Discours d’inauguration fait par Stanislas de Skarbimierz,” 129, and Stanisław ze Skarbimierza. Mowy wybrane o mądrości, Korołko ed., 246. 48  The title Corpus iuris canonici, subsuming the great collections mentioned below, was used officially for the first time in the bull of Gregory XIII, Quum pro munere, of 1 July 1580; James A. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law (London and New York: Longman, 1995), 181, citing, among other sources, Emil Friedberg’s Prolegomena to his edition of the Corpus. 49  Morawski, Historya, 1, 211, n. 2. This was some time before 1426, after which date he became prior of his monastery in Wrocław. On Jodochus’ course of study at Cracow, see above, Chapter Three.

418

CHAPTER 8

of ­university authority, not the holding of one of the prebends, which were for material support only.50 Thus Paul Vladimiri, whose benefices required no teaching responsibilities,51 nevertheless undoubtedly lectured at Cracow. Similarly, Peter Wolfram, a licentiate in decretis, was holding a chantry in the church of St. Mary in Wiślica, which had no ties to the studium, when in 1416 he was identified in the university’s letter to the Council of Constance as “a notable member of our school.”52 Beyond the mechanical process of lectiones, exercitia or repetitiones, and disputationes which were traditional to university instruction in all faculties, little is known of the substance of canon law teaching at Cracow. There are no works by Cracovian professors extant in this area,53 and as a result judgments about the intellectual content of teaching may only be inferred from the nature of the chief texts utilized. Even marginal glosses which may be attributed to the faculty there are unrevealing.54 In addition, disastrous fires which affected the Collegium Iuridicum, most notably in the fifteenth century and again in the eighteenth century, may well have consumed any writings in the canonists’ library.55 Only one composition by a Cracovian professor which bears academic characteristics has been identified. This short commentary on issues related to indulgences was written by Stanisław of Skarbimierz during his years in Prague, but there is no evidence it was used in his teaching of any part of canon law at Cracow.56 There is at least one additional indication, however, that other juristic works might have been produced at Cracow, though the 50  Ludwik Ehrlich, “Z dziejów Wydziału Prawa UJ w wieku XV,” in Michał Patkaniowski, ed., Studia z dziejów Wydziału Prawa Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1964 [Praca Prawnicze 18]), 35–48, here 40. 51  Paul was “custos et canonicus Ecclesiae Cracoviensis,” i.e., of the cathedral, but this appointment held no teaching responsibilities. This was noted by Johannes Długosz, Liber beneficiorum, 3 vols., Aleksander Przezdziecki, ed. (Cracow: Ex typographia Kirchmajeriana, 1863–1864 [vols. 7–9 of Ioannis Dlugossii Opera Omnia, 14 vols., Przezdziecki, ed. (Cracow: Ex typographia Kirchmajeriana, 1863–1887)]), 2, 94. 52   C DUC, 1, no. 58, 111: “Petrus de Wolfram Licentiatus in Decretis, Cantor Ecclesiae Sanctae Mariae Wisliciensis ac praedictae nostrae Universitatis membrum notabile.” 53  Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 103, discusses this problem. 54  Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 48, 63–64, 81. 55  For the fire of 1455, see the comments of Długosz, Annales, 10, 233 (Liber duodecimus, sub anno 1455): “. . . flamma cepit augeri in immensum . . . Collegium insuper nobile Canonistarum arsere.” See the implications of this for our knowledge of legal manuscripts by Zathey, Ibid., 32–33. 56  Zawadzki, Spuścizna pisarska Stanisława ze Skarbimierza, 104 and 191.

Medicine And Law

419

reference is again to Stanisław. An eighteenth century reference, printed in the early nineteenth century but now no longer extant, mentions a Commentum in quinque libros Decretalium cum prooemio ad divam Hedwigim reginam that can be attributed to him. Nothing is known of the nature and content of this work, itself apparently no longer extant.57 One should not, however, on the basis of this last reference and the destruction of the fires conclude that there were numerous writings in the field of canon law by the Cracow faculty. On the contrary, it is probable there were relatively few. The golden age of collection and organization of church law had largely come to an end by the end of the Avigonese papacy, with the fourteenth century especially having seen the creation of a sufficient body of technical apparatuses, commentaries, indices, handbooks of quotations, and legal dictionaries (vocabularia iuris) to serve the needs of routine instruction. As a result, except in the area of conciliar law, there was little need or opportunity for the summae of the classical era from Gratian to the end of the fourteenth century. This closing—or transformation—of the intellectual frontier, much more than the destruction of the fire, accounts for the almost complete absence of formal treatises in this area.58 As with medicine, the faculty members of canon law at Cracow were content to transmit a received tradition with respect to the formal curriculum. This does not mean that there were no creative legal minds within the university; there were, but their activity lay outside the structure of the curriculum. The law faculty taught within a context of the presentation of what the law was and how it was practiced, and the curriculum provided little opportunity for further theoretical reflection. Work of this reflective nature came not in university lectures, but in special polemical treatises; and the contribution of the faculty lay, as we have seen, in the a­ pplication of law 57  Bożena Chmielowska, Stanislas de Skarbimierz—le premier recteur de l’Université de Cracovie après le renouveau de celle-ci,” MPP 24 (1979): 73–112. Stanisław’s devotion to Queen Jadwiga was due in part because his studies at Prague had been supported by funds she supplied to the university there. He is responsible for at least three works devoted to her—a Soliloquium de transitu Hedvigis, reginae Poloniae, a Sermo ad regem et procures eius de obitu Hedvigis reginae et vita eius, and, to commemorate the second anniversary of her death, a Sermo Latinus in exsequiis dominae Hedvigis, reginae Poloniae; see the catalogue provided by Chmielowska in her article, nos. 9, 11, and 40. The first two are printed in Stanisław ze Skarbimierza. Mowy wybrane o mądrości, Korołko ed., 204–221 and 222–235. 58  For the larger European picture, see Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, 180–181. For specific developments in the Polish context, see Aleksy Petrani, “Kanonistyka,” in Michał Patkaniowski, ed. Dzieje Teologii Katolickiej w Polsce, vol. 1: Średniowiecze (Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1974), 359–399, here 374.

420

CHAPTER 8

to such contemporary problems as Poland’s political interests, the question of Vytautas’s coronation, the incorporation of Mazovia into the kingdom, and the transformation of Polish church structure by new synodal law.59 Even though Jagiełło, perhaps simply following the Casimiran precedent, had intended that the university provide instruction in both canon and civil law, only the former subject was taught at Cracow during this period. The latter had to wait until the following century before it was incorporated into the studium. Only occasional harbingers of future developments may be noted. One was the lecture by the humanist physician, John Ursinus, on 7 February 1495, in which the desirability of civil law was stressed.60

Stanisław of Skarbimierz: Sermo De bellis iustis

If Cracovian professors contributed little to canonical literature sensu stricto and largely ignored civil law, they were nevertheless active in other areas of legal thought. Particularly with respect to political philosophy, they drew upon their great learning to respond to some of the most immediate issues of the day, and in so doing, they developed views which deserve closer analysis. Two factors sketched above in Chapter Five dominated the context within which this political philosophy developed. One was the long-standing Polish conflict with the Teutonic Order; the other was the recent Christianization of Lithuania and its union with Poland by the conversion of Grand Prince Jogaila (i.e., Władysław Jagiełło) and his marriage to Jadwiga. As a result, much Polish political thought focused upon the issues of the laws of public war, the responsibility of citizens, the international order, and the question of the ideal ruler. The initial systematic exposition on the first of these issues came from the pen 59  Aspects of several of these issues have been discussed above in Chapter Five. For the synodal law codes developed by Archbishop Nicholas Trąba and the role of Cracow professors—particularly Stanisław of Skarbimierz and Peter Wolfram—in their preparation, see further Jerzy Kaliszuk, “Texts of Synodal Statutes in Social Communication of Late Medieval Poland—as exemplified by the Wieluń—Kalisz Statutes of Mikołaj Trąba,” in Krzysztof Bracha and Paweł Kras, eds., Przestrzeń religijna Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej w średniowieczu. Religious space of East-Central Europe in the Middle Ages (Warsaw: DiG, 2010), 67–78. 60  “In principio Institutionum Iustiniani Imperatoris.” Jan Fijałek, Dominus Bartolus de Saxoferrato eiusque permagna in Polonos auctoritas (Cracow: Academia Litterarum Cracoviensis, 1914), 35–36; Morawski, Historya, 2, 95; and Henryk Barycz, Historja Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w epoce humanizmu (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1935), 209.

Medicine And Law

421

of Stanisław of Skarbimierz. Prepared on the eve of the battle of Grunwald/ Tannenberg/Żalgris as part of the discussion within the university over the question of Christian alliances with pagan, this treatise, Sermo de bellis iustis,61 stands outside the tradition of formal institutions within the school. It nevertheless draws heavily upon its author’s academic background and experience. Representing an extension of the medieval tradition of thought on the bellum iustum,62 the treatise uses the three criteria established by Thomas Aquinas and the five circumstances defined by Ramón of Peñafort as a point 61  First critical edition by Ludwik Ehrlich, Polski wykład prawa wojny XV wieku. Kazanie Stanisława ze Skarbimierza De bellis iustis (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Prawnicze, 1955), together with a translation into Polish and an extended analysis; text 90–145. Second critical edition in Stanisław ze Skarbimierza, Sermones Sapientiales, 3 parts (Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1979 [Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia Excultae Spectantia 4, 1–3), Bożena Chmielowska, ed., 1, 323–340. Quotations below are to the Ehrlich edition. There is no question of attribution to anyone but Stanisław. He is named in the text itself as the author and the treatise is included in the collection of his Sermones sapientiales (or De sapientia Dei). The dating is inferred from the context, but it is generally accepted that it antedates the battle; see Ehrlich, Polski wykład, 253; Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Uniwersytet Jagielloński w dobie Grunwaldu,” Prace historyczne 8 (1961): 54–71, here 63; Stanislaus Belch, Paulus Vladimiri and His Doctrine Concerning International Law and Politics, 2 vols. (The Hague: Mouton, 1965), 1, 127; Hartmut Boockmann, Johannes Falkenberg, der Deutsche Orden und die polnische Politik (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1975), 174; and, most recently in English, Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 111. Stanisław Wielgus, Polska średniowieczna doktryna Ius Gentium (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1996), 11, and the English translation The Medieval Polish Doctrine of the Law of Nations: Ius Gentium (Lublin: University Press of the Catholic University of Lublin, 1998), 25, suggests the possibility of a later date. The Polish version suggests “about 1410 or about 1414,” the English version notes that the sermon is one of the “106 wisdom sermons . . . all of them . . .written in the period 1415–1417.” 62  The classic work by Frederick H. Russell, The Just War in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975) is still in many ways standard. But see also Jonathan Barnes, “The Just War,” in Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg, eds. The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 771–784; and Philippe Contamine, War in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984 [original French edition, Paris: Présses Universitaires de France, 1980]), 260–302, especially 282–284. The theme of the “just war” was central to Polish propaganda against the Knights. Sven Ekdahl, Die Schlacht bei Tannenberg 1410. Quellenkritische Untersuchungen, vol. 1: Einführung und Quellenlage (Berlin: Dunker und Humblot, 1982), 107–307, especially 127–156, has analyzed this in considerable depth, pointing out that it appears in the earliest Polish records of the Battle of Grunwald, i.e., the letters of King Jagiełło from the battlefield on the morrow of the battle (127–132). This theme was not, of

422

CHAPTER 8

of departure.63 In a short introduction, Stanisław affirms both the need to prevent groundless wars (paragraph 1) and the necessity of learning the relevant principles which govern war (paragraph 2). The punishment for unjustly breaking the peace is consignment to everlasting hell (paragraph 3). His long argumentatio is divided into three sections: the nature of the just war, the problem of pagans, and the responsibilities of subjects and soldiers in such a war. In the first (paragraphs 4–25) Stanisław justifies the right of a king, as well as the emperor, to wage a just war by saying that the two are equal in the respect that neither has a temporal superior above them. Although he does not phrase this explicitly, he clearly assumes that rex imperator in regno suo est.64 Having defined the basic principles of waging war, he then discusses some of the consequences of these: what rules govern booty, killing, and damage. He also concludes that a just war may be waged not only against pagans but also against Christians.65 This section ends with a refutation of those arguments which prohibit war of any kind and summarizes again the conditions under which a bellum iustum should be waged.66 In the core of this treatise (paragraphs 26–41), Stanisław deals with the question of pagans. He regards them as one of God’s creatures. Since God has used them as instruments in the past to punish His own followers, it follows then that they can be used to serve God’s purposes even in alliance with Christians in a just war fighting against evil Christians.67 To the arguments against alliances course, invented on the spot. It had its roots in the deliberations at Cracow before the war broke out; these, in turn, were based in the earlier medieval tradition. 63  These elements are effectively treated by Gerhard Beestermöller, Thomas von Aquin und der gerechte Krieg. Friedensethik im theologischen Kontext der Summa Theologiae (Cologne: J.P. Bachem Verlag, 1990). 64  In paragraph 11 of the sermon, Stanisław is following William of Rennes, a glossator of Ramón of Peñafort: “princeps et miles katholicus . . . nullum habet superiorem, sive sit rex, sive imperator, auctoritate propria, si subsit causa iusta, potest bellum inchoare, tam contra subditor, quam contra extraneos.” (100) An even more extreme statement of the relationship of the Polish king and the emperor had been given by Casimir the Great’s ambassador to Emperor Charles IV in 1357; see Knoll, “Learning in Late Piast Poland,” 147. 65  “Quod non solum contra paganos, sed eciam contra christianos potest quis bellum iustum movere.” (112) 66  Although his focus is primarily upon Paul Vladimiri and developments at Constance, Stefan Kwiatkowski, Der Deutsche Orden im Streit mit Polen-Litauen. Eine theologische Kontroverse über Krieg und Frieden auf dem Konzil von Konstanz (1414–1418) (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000), 20–25, provides some good insights about the theological foundations underlying the position taken by, among others, Stanisław. 67  “Et sic, si pagani per se inscrutabili Dei iudicio ad puniendum Christianos delinquentes quandoque moveantur . . ., cur eciam in bello iusto Christianis iustam partem habenti-

Medicine And Law

423

with pagans, he adduces nine points of refutation which justify his main point. One of the most far reaching of these is that pagans can help to serve the highest good of achieving real peace. Since Augustine held the goal of such a peace as one justification for a bellum iustum, pagans can be one means toward that end.68 Another point is that pagans also are capable of practicing the cardinal virtues, and in the prosecution of a just war Christians are allowed to practice those virtues with them.69 More than that, natural law is something shared by all peoples, whether Christian or not, and the principles of the just war are included in that law. Thus there is no harm if Christians, in order to achieve justice, receive assistance from pagans.70 His final argument in this section is, conversely, that if pagans have been invaded without just cause by Christians, they may justly wage war to recover their territories and defend themselves, and in so doing receive assistance from other Christians while pursuing their just cause.71 Much of Stanisław’s reasoning in this section is derived from his general understanding of the position of pagans. By natural law, they have their own states and property, and therefore have the right, just as Christians, to defend themselves and their lands from unjust attack. Even more than this, however, not even the pope may deprive pagans of their dominia if they possess them without sin and legally, i.e., not having taken them from Christians in the first place.72 On this latter basis Stanisław justifies Christian attempts to recover the Holy Land from the Saracens. bus coniuncti, contra alios Christianos malos pugnantes, Deo servire non dicantur?” (126) The problem of pagans for Stanisław has recently been analyzed by Wojciech Świeboda, Innowiercy w opiniach prawnych uczonych polskich w XV wieku. Poganie, żydzi, muzulmanie (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2013), 143–156, some of whose insights have influenced my treatment of this and other topics discussed below. 68  “In quo datur intelligi, quod quantum ad iusticiam nichil refert an per Christianos tantum vel Christianos iunctos paganis, quasi quibusdam insidiis, Christiani principes uti possunt.” (130) 69  “Sicut in actibus virtutum moralium potest quis communicare pagano . . . in actibus ipsarum Christianus et paganus converire possunt, quod esse potest in iusto bello.” (132) 70  “Ius naturale idem est apud omnes; sed principes vim vi repellentes iure naturali tuentur, in quo cum paganis conveniunt . . . bella sunt de iure gencium . . . nichil obviat, quin Christiani, ut fiat satis iusticie . . . paganorum adiutorium . . . invocare possint.” (130) 71  “Si pagani sine iusta causa invaduntur per Christianos, iuste bellant ad recuperandum terras suas vel patriam contra eos. . . . Igitur si Christiani sine causa . . . per Christianos iniuste . . . invaduntur, possunt sibi paganos in adiutorium assumere. . . . Alioquin infidelis esset melioris condicionis quam fidelis, quod esse non debet. . . .” (135–136) 72  “Dominia . . . licite sine peccato possunt esse apud infideles. . . . Patet eciam ulterius quod non licet papae vel fidelibus auferre dominia sive iurisdicciones infidelibus, quia sine peccato ea possident et de iure.” (136)

424

CHAPTER 8

To conclude the treatise, Stanisław provides a brief discussion about the responsibilities of citizens and soldiers in time of war (paragraphs 42–46). He distinguished those who command from those who are bound to obey. Although it is not legal to commence war without just cause, in the case of those bound to obedience the legality of an order should be presumed unless it is clear that the war is unjust. He carefully defines the circumstances of opposition to an unjust war, praises death in a just cause, enjoins discipline upon troops, and warns them against either overt or covert insubordination.73 The short peroratio (paragraphs 47–48) reaffirms the legitimacy of using pagans in a just war against evil Christians when it is humanly impossible to do otherwise and equally reaffirms the goal of true and eternal peach on earth.74 We do not know if this sermo was ever read publicly, but in its written version it circulated in university circles and its ideas were known to a broader public. The Bible, the writings of St. Augustine, and medieval canonical literature served as the basis for most of Stanisław’s remarks.75 He quoted the Old Testament directly only a few times, and his New Testament citations seem to have been largely drawn indirectly from the texts of Augustine and canon law. Although Augustine’s thought loomed large in his conception, he generally quoted him from such later authorities as Gratian, Ramón of Peñafort, or— especially—Aquinas. He also cited Gregory IX’s Decretales several times, but in most instances this was from Ramón’s Summa casuum. This manual was, in quantitative terms, his most important source, but some of his more original formulations were derived from the writings of Innocent IV. This is particularly true of the assertion that pagans have the right to their own states and that they may not be attacked without legal justification. (As we shall see, this point loomed large in the thought of other Cracovian writers.) Other sources which Stanisław used directly, though sparingly, were the Liber sextus and the Clementinae. While in general Stanisław does not go beyond his predecessors, his work is by no means without merit. In the first place, unlike previous literature on this 73  “Propter quod gloriosius est subditis mori cum rege suo in bello, quam turpiter fugiendo, eciam si non sequatur mors corporis, civiliter mori.” (142) 74  “Paganos contra malos Christianos principi katholico in necessitate inevitabili, si aliter humanitus sibi providere non potest, invocare ad bellum iustum non est malum.” (142) “Sic omnes pacem diligent, quod eciam, si opus est ut pax sit in terra, morti se exponant . . . ad pacem eternam, ubi nullus persecutor, qui turbare ipsam valeat, appropinquat, feliciter valeant pervenire. . . .” (144) 75  See the discussion of his sources in Ehrlich, Polski wykład, 15–37. There are briefer summaries by Oźóg, Uczeni, 91, and The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 113; and by Świeboda, Innowiercy, 147–150.

Medicine And Law

425

subject which was largely confined to passing reference on the just war in connection with other issues, his treatise has a very specific focus on the problems of war and of public war only. It is a systematic exposition, thought not a long one.76 In the second place, Stanisław’s emphasis upon the rights of pagans (among whom he included unbelievers or non-Christians) and their status according to natural law provides an accent which had seldom been made so explicit in previous literature. Finally, the conceptual framework within which he wrote was a positive contribution. The authorities whom he used to argue his points had evolved their positions largely in the context of European feudal warfare. But Stanisław was working on the problem of relations between independent rulers and at a time which states and princes were consolidating political—and, perhaps even, national—sovereignty. These factors cast his conclusion in a different light and give substance to the assertions that his was a treatise on international relations.77 That he was not alone in this approach is shown by an examination of other political writings of the time connected with the faculty of the University of Cracow. Revocatur The short note entitled, from its incipit, Revocatur in dubium is anonymous and undated.78 It deals in typically scholastic fashion with the question of 76  Just f. 67v–f. 71r, in the manuscript that serves as the basis for the edited version, MS Cracow, BJ 192. 77  Ehrlich, Polski wykład, 255, speaks of “The Polish school of international law, of which Stanislas was one of the representatives . . .” See also, for this same type of evaluation, his book Paweł Włodkowic i Stanisław ze Skarbimierza (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1954), 5–8: “Both scholars created at that time the Polish school of the law of nations.” (6) He is not alone in this interpretation; see Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 114; Wielgus, Polska średniowieczna doktryna Ius Gentium and the Medieval Polish Doctrine of the Law of Nations, passim.; and Oźóg, Uczeni, 87, and his The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 113. Each, in one way or another, arrives at the same conclusion. Some of the implications of this seem to me unfounded; see below. 78  First edited, with Polish translation, by Ehrlich, Polski wykład, 198–203. All quotations below, however, are from the edition by Chmielowska, “Notatka Revocatur w rękopisie Biblioteki Uniwersyteckiej w Gandawie,” St. Med. 30 (1993): 33–39 (36–38 for the edition of the manuscript); see below, note 88. The title assigned by Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 204 (Utrum christianis licitum sit auxilio haereticorum ad proprium defensionem uti), while accurately reflecting the content and tenor of the treatise, is nowhere found in any of the three extant manuscripts containing this work. The contents of Revocatur are effectively analyzed by Świeboda, Innowiercy, 156–160.

426

CHAPTER 8

whether the Polish king as a Christian is allowed to accept help from, and ally himself with, heretics in the defense of his own dominia. The author of this thousand word opinion (similar in form to the numerous consilia produced by many western lawyers)79 first presents five arguments against the proposition, next states his own view that such an action is permissible, then replies to each of the contra arguments, and ends by restating his conclusion. A brief analysis of this note reflects some of the same intellectual currents traced above in Stanisław’s treatise. Against the admissibility of help from heretics, the author lists the following points: they are excommunicate, they are enemies of Christ and the church, the Bible condemns such alliances, it is the responsibility of (Christian) kings to defend the church against heretics and pagans, and the church wages war on such people, mandating its faithful to do so also.80 To these arguments the following rejoinders are given: in case of necessity it is permissible to communicate with heretics; when one Christian kingdom is damaged all Christendom suffers thereby, and if the faithful need the help of heretics for their own just purposes, even dealing with the enemies of the church is permitted, particularly since the heretics were not waging war directly against the church. Christian kings should defend the church, but only in so far as it is possible; and the divine commandment “Thou shalt not kill” is subject to exceptions in case of self-defense, and thus must be weighed against the mandate to fight against heretics and pagans.81 (No direct response is made to the argument of biblical condemnation of alliances with pagans.) Beyond this bare outline, several other points of emphasis should be noted. The author argues that selfdefense is based in natural law, and that Christians are permitted to come to 79  Ehrlich, Paweł Włodkowic i Stanisław ze Skarbimierza, 184. 80  “Omnes haeretici sunt excommunicati. . . . Praeterea haeretici inferunt bellum Ecclesiae universali et sic sunt hostes Christi. . . . Ad hoc facit, quod habetur II Paralipomenon XVIII et Isaiae XXVII habetur. . . . Item ad Reges pertinet Ecclesiam defendere ab haereticis et paganis. . . . Praeterea contra tales haereticos Ecclesia insurrexit et guerram palam intulit et continuo infert, et omnibus christifidelibus, ut contra eos insurgant, mandavit.” (36) 81  “Nam in primis in casu necessitates licitum est cum excommunicatis communicare. . . . Non obstat eciam, quod regibus praeceptum sit insurgere contra hostes Christi, quia tale praeceptum recipit limitationem. . . . Item non obstat, quod haeretici sunt hostes Ecclesiae. . . . Quod ergo Ecclesia indixit contra infideles in favorem fidelium, debet intelligi: Nisi fideles eorum ope indiguerint. . . . Si ergo dominus Rex pro sua et suorum defensione vult uti suffragio huiusmodi infidelium, naturali iure innititur et ideo reprehendi non potest. . . . . Nam si precepta Decalogi: Non occides etc. patiuntur limitationem hanc, quando defensionis causa sit, multo magis patientur praecepta canonica ab Ecclesia introducta.” (38, 37)

Medicine And Law

427

the aid of pagans in a just war. In such a war, pagans can be instruments of God’s purposes, and in the pursuit of true peace all means, including alliance with pagans, are allowed. Finally, since it is not permissible in natural law to deprive pagans of their possessions, it is right to enter into relations with them. By extension, the author applies these views concerning pagans also to heretics.82 In light of the foregoing, some comments may be made about the question of authorship and date of composition. It is clear that many of the assumptions of the author are consonant with the views of Stanisław. On that basis, and also because the manuscript containing it, thought originally to be unique and used by Ludwik Ehrlich for his edition, contains works often cited by Stanisław and, in fact, contains many of Stanisław’s own works, some scholars attributed Revocatur to Stanisław.83 On the other hand, the canonical literature cited in this note is significantly different from that used by Stanisław. Revocatur used Oldradus and the Decretales of Gregory IX to a great extent, as well as some direct reference to the Code of Justinian. In addition, if this treatise was written in the context of deliberations over an alliance with the Hussites (the only heretics who could be mentioned in this time), this also would argue against Stanisław, who in his ecclesiastical politics and his unquestioned works was unremittingly hostile to them.84 Another possible author who, early in the twentieth century was seen as the probable source of the note, is Paul Vladimiri, since the views expressed in this work are similar to many of his

82  See Ehrlich, Polski wykład, 206, note 42, for comments about the implications of this. This point is taken up below in the text of this study. 83  The manuscript edited by Ehrlich (Cracow BJ 723) is described by Celine Zawodzińska, “Pisma Stanisława ze Skarbimierza, pierwszego rektora UJ w kodeksach Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej,” Roczniki Biblioteczne 4 (1960): 299–327 (with resumé 634–635 and Zusammenfassung 635–636), here 322–324. The manuscript first belonged to John Elgot and later to John of Dąbrówka, possibly the author of the note. But Ehrlich, Polski wykład, 196, explicitly rules him out: “During the rule of Władysław Jagiełło John of Dąbrówka would certain not yet have been able to write such a learned note.” John was still lecturing in arts (until 1433) when he began his law study. Ehrlich tends to regard Stanisław as the probable author. 84  See his aggressively hostile sermon of 1416 De haereticis, in Sermones Sapientiales, Chmielowska, ed., 3, 297–312; see also, on this point, Jadwiga Krzyżaniakowa, “Stanowisko polskiej elity intelektualnej wobec Jana Husa i husytyzmu—do roku 1420,” in Stanisław Bylina and Ryszard Gładkiewicz, eds., Polskie echa Husytyzmu, (Warsaw: Instytut Historii PAN, 1999), 32–61, here 59–60; and Oźóg, Uczeni, 299.

428

CHAPTER 8

own.85 But Paul was also hostile to the Hussites and in general preferred the path of judicial action over the military course implied in this treatise. Traditionally assigned to the period ca. 1430/1432 when the issue of the Hussites was under discussion in both royal and academic circles, there is some evidence to suggest that Revocatur may come from an earlier period about the time of the battle of Grunwald.86 The traditional attribution of this work to Cracovian circles was undermined with the identification of a second manuscript copy of Revocatur, which led Jerzy Rebeta to conclude that the work was not of Polish origin and that it had been revised to meet Polish needs by Laurence of Racibórz sometime after 1417.87 His argument has, however, been effectively countered by Bożena Chmielowska, who, on the basis of yet a third copy of this work, assigns the work to the 1430s and to Polish provenance, and her conclusions have generally come to be accepted.88 The question of authorship is still unresolved,89 and it may be that neither Stanisław nor Paul but a third, as yet unidentified, individual was responsible for it. In any case, the work can confidently be placed in the first third of the century, the period which saw the greatest accomplishments in Polish legal and political thought, and represents in its appeal to natural law a characteristic feature of Cracovian thought. 85  Stanisław Krzyżanowski, “Traktacik Pawła Włodkowice: czy wolno używać pomocy heretyków w wojnie z chrześcijanami?” Sprawozdania z czynności i posiedzeń Akademii Umiejętności 11, no. 3 (1906): 23–24, and more fully developed in his “Doktryna polityczna Pawła Włodkowicza,” in Jan Filipowski, ed., Studia historyczne wydane ku czci Profesora Wincentego Zakrzewskiego (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1908), 389–399; see also Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 204–205. 86  This is the argument of Boockmann, Johannes Falkenberg, 175–177. 87   Jerzy Rebeta, “Czy notaka ‘Revocatur’ należy do polskiej szkoły prawa stosunków międzynarodowych z połowy XV wieku,” Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki 20 (1975): 533–540; see also his Początki nauk społecznych (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1988 [Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 11]), 109. 88  Chmielowska, “Notatka Revocatur,” 33–39, and Chmielowska, “Traité de Stanislas de Skarbimierz ‘De contractu reemptionis’ retrouvé dans le manuscript G. 14838 de la Bibliothèque Universitaire de Gand,” MPP 31 (1992): 119–146, here 142–145. Though Wielgus’ Polska średniowieczna doktryna Ius Gentium and The Medieval Polish Doctrine of the Law of Nations were published after Chmielowska’s new edition and commentary appeared, he does not mention her work. 89  Zawadzki, Spuścizna pisarski, 101–102 and 235, no. 380 is confident the work is by Stanisław; Oźóg, Uczeni, 137, and The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Poland, 114, regards it as probable. Wielgus, Polska średniowieczna doktryna Ius Gentium, 13–14, and The Medieval Polish Doctrine of the Law of Nations, 15–16, treats the text as anonymous, while recognizing the position taken by others. Świeboda, Innowiercy, 157, seems to leave the question open.

Medicine And Law



429

Paul Vladimiri

Nowhere among the professoriate is this more fully revealed than in the writings of Paul Vladimiri. In a previous chapter, treatment of the political, polemical, and diplomatic activity of Paul served as an important example of the university’s involvement in the national life of Poland. That context is important, for although this active and prolific lawyer wrote many treatises which mark him as a political theorist of major importance, he was no speculative philosopher, writing disinterestedly about abstract principles. His contribution lay rather in the practical focus of his work and in his ceaseless political activity. Firmly grounded in the legal literature of the middle ages and possessing an outstanding juristic mind, Paul is one of the most important figures in the intellectual history of the university in this period.90 In treating him, it is necessary first to describe the contents of his major writings. On that basis an analysis of the themes which pervade his thought is possible. Finally, some effort can be made to evaluate his originality and larger contribution. The Works Among the many works of Paul, five are of particular importance to his political thought.91 These are his treatises Saevientibus, Opinio Ostiensis, Ad aperiendam, Ad vivendum, and, near death, his letter of 1432 to the Bishop of Cracow, Zbigniew Oleśnicki. Each of these was written in response to a specific issue, but each goes beyond the details of individual charges and specific legal points at issue to a fundamental discussion on policy and legal theory. The earliest of

90  One of the clearest critiques of Paul’s thought and policy, especially with respect to the way in which he sought to revise thinking about the just war, is the study by Russell, “Paulus Vladimiri’s Attack on the Just War: A Case Study in Legal Polemics,” in Brian Tierney and Peter Linehan, eds., Authority and Power: studies on medieval law and government presented to Walter Ullmann on his seventieth birthday (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 237–254. He is particularly good at showing the ways in which, though the arguments by Paul were sound, if extreme, the realism of his politics was very unsound. The analysis of his works and thought by Świeboda, Innowiercy, 175–213, is excellent and, to a degree, innovative; he treats legal issues in a way that is different from previous scholars, who have focused more of questions of theory. 91  Each of these are identified and discussed by Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 156–206. He lists thirty-five sure works of Paul and another four which he considers doubtful. Many of the former consist of the formal legal charges presented by the Poles in suits against the Knights of the Teutonic Order and do not therefore represent fully worked out treatises.

430

CHAPTER 8

these five works was Saevientibus.92 Divided into three parts, it first discusses in a section of eleven point the power of the pope with respect to infidels, then in a second section of eleven points discusses the power of the emperor in the same regard. It concludes with a short argument against the views of the jurist Hostiensis (Henry of Susa), who had legitimized any action against pagans. This treatise was written, Paul said, because letters from emperors and popes appear to have given the Knights of the Teutonic Order the right to pursue conquest and conversion by force, both among the pagans and against the Poles,93 and he wished to demonstrate that this is not justified. In his argument he cites, in many instances in long verbatim sections, canonical authors (such as Innocent IV and his own mentor Francis Cardinal Zabarella, who was present at the Council of Constance), whose prestige and authority in combination with his logic should, he believed, compel acceptance of his conclusions. In the first part, Paul begins with the general principle of toleration: “when infidels want to live peacefully among Christians, they should not be molested in persons and property . . . and not even the pope should take their goods away from them.”94 He then proceeds to define the power of the pope. He quotes Innocent IV to the effect that “infidels can licitly without sin have dominion of things, jurisdiction, and possessions,”95 and it is therefore “not legal to take these things away from them for they possess them without sin and by God’s authority.”96 (The Holy Land is exempted by Paul and his authorities from this 92  Edited first in the late nineteenth century, there are two modern editions: Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 2, 792–844; and Pisma wybrana Pawła Włodkowica. Works of Paul Wladimiri. A Selection, 3 vols. Ehrlich, ed. (Warsaw: Instytut Wydawniczy PAX, 1966–1969), 1, 2–98. Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from Paul’s works will be cited from the Ehrlich edition and quotations from his works will use the translation in Ehrlich’s edition. For the dating of Saevientibus, see Chapter Five, note 57. As noted there, Tadeusz Brzostowski, Paweł Włodkowic (Warsaw: PAX, 1954), 66; and, more recently, Timothy M. Brennan, “Just War, Sovereignty, and Canon Law: Legal Arguments Over the Lithuanian Crusade and the Rights of Unbelievers at the Council of Constance (1414–1418),” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas, 2006), 145 and 147, retain the traditional dating of 5 July 1415. 93  “Quia tamen dicte littere Imperatorum et pontificum Romanorum quas se habere ­asserunt omnium superius pretactorum videntur eisdem occasionem prestitisse et colorem.” 1. 5. 94  “Quod postquam infideles inter Christianos volunt vivere pacifice nulla molestia in personis et rebus est eis inferenda . . . nec papa debet eis bona auferre. 1, 9. 95  “Dic[un]t conclusive quod apud infideles rerum dominia iurisdicciones et possessiones possunt esse licite sine peccato.” 1, 11. 96  “Quod non licet infidelibus auferre dominia sua possessiones vel iurisdicciones quia sine peccato et Deo auctore ea possident.” 1, 13.

Medicine And Law

431

proscription because it was consecrated by the birth, life, and death of Christ and should be inhabited by Christians; moreover, it was conquered in just war by the Roman emperor, and hence it is licit for the pope, by reason of that empire, to reclaim it for his jurisdiction.) In general Paul ascribes to the pope jurisdiction over all humanity,97 but with regard to infidels (as well, incidentally, to Christians) that power is a paternal one, and they may be punished only when they fail to obey the laws they are obliged to observe. For pagans and infidels alike, that is natural law. Thus infidels may be deprived of their dominia by Christians upon the pope’s command only when they have obtained their possession contrary to natural law and the law of nations.98 Though Paul grants the plenitudo potestatis to the pope, he points out with regard to infidels that he must abridge their rights under natural law; whatever he does must be done de iure and, according to both Innocent and Zabarella, there must be a great cause for which the pope would go so far, for the pope must sustain the infidels in so far as he can, if only so that no danger for Christians nor grave scandal should arise.”99 Imperial power with respect to infidels is the subject of the second part of Saevientibus. Paul’s point of departure is the assertion “that both jurisdictions, that is of temporalities and of spiritualities, are the pope’s.” He has previously made this point in his preface to the treatise, where, in discussing the theory of the two swords, he indicates his position that “the pope alone is the prince of the world having both swords,” and asserts that “the emperor is minister in temporalities having power from the pope by virtue of positive law.”100 From this follow certain conclusions. The emperor does not have the right or power to grant a license to occupy lands of the infidels who do not recognize his empire; this is because of a lack of power, for the power to do that belongs not to the emperor but to the pope.101 Thus imperial letters granted to the Teutonic Order 97  “Quod papa qui est vicarius Christi potestatem habet non tantum super Christianos sed eciam super omnes infideles quia Christus habuit potestatem super omnes.” 1, 28. 98  “Si gentilis qui non habet legem nisi nature contra legem nature facit potest licite per papam puniri.” 1, 29. 99  “Quod magna causa debet esse propter quam papa ad hoc veniat debet enim papa sustinere infideles quantum potest dummodo non sit periculum Christianis nec grave scandalum generetur.” 1, 33–34. 100  “hec est veritas quod utraque iurisdiccio scilicet temporalium et spiritualium est in papa. . . .” 1, 42; “quod papa solus est princeps mundi habens utrumqsue gladium. Imperator vero est minister in temporalibus habens postestatem a papa iure posito” 1, 7. 101  “Imperator non habet dare licenciam occupandi terras infidelium non recognoscencium suum Imperium: hoc propter potestatis defectum que non apud imperatorem sed est apud papam.” 1, 57.

432

CHAPTER 8

to seize lands of infidels are invalid, for “he who has not, can give nothing,” and any such war waged by the Knights has in consequence never been a just war.102 In addition, since it is not “legal to compel infidels by arms or oppression to embrace the Christian faith,” anyone who aids in an attack upon infidels just “because they are infidels, whether it be said that this is for the purpose of spreading the Christian faith . . . cannot be excused from mortal sin.”103 Such military expeditions are in and of themselves sinful, and those who participate in them “are not to be excused by ignorance of the law, especially of natural or divine law.”104 Elements of natural law also figure in Paul’s discussion of whether a Christian may without sin use the aid of infidels. As had Stanisław before him, he concludes that “pacific infidels, not having active or passive war with us, can in case of imminent necessity licitly be called upon.105 A corollary conclusion is that an infidel has the right to bring suit before a Christian judge for the return of anything unjustly taken from him, and this is because “they, as we, have just dominion of things.”106 Dealing with this question, however, brings Paul face to face with the views of Hostiensis regarding pagans, and he devoted the third section of this treatise to an explanation and refutation of these. According to Paul’s understanding, Hostiensis’ position was that “with the coming of Christ, all jurisdiction, principates, and dominions were withdrawn from the infidels and transferred to the faithful, and this for just cause . . ., and for that reason by law . . . infidels should be subject to the faithful.”107 In other words, any war against pagans, for whatever purpose, was a just war. To Paul, this was an erroneous and dangerous opinion. Following Aquinas, he asserts to the contrary that “on the advent

102  “Quod littere Imperatoris Cruciferis concesse super occupandis terris infidelium nullum ius eis tribuunt ad petendum easdem cum nichil dat qui non habet. . . . Cruciferi etc. pungnantes cum infidelibus pacificis ut sic numquam habuerunt iustum bellum.” 1, 58. 103  “Non est licitum infideles armis vel oppressionibus compellere ad fidem Christianam . . . a mortali peccato excusari non possunt sive sint eorum subditi sive non.” 1, 60, 61. 104  “Nec excusat eos ignorancia iuris presertim naturalis vel divini. . . .” 1, 73. 105  “Infideles pacificos non habentes qwerram active vel passive nobiscum necessitate iminente licite posse vocare . . .” 1, 75. Ehrlich provides extensive references to Paul’s sources in his edition; here, he notes, that Paul is quoting John Andreas, the great canonist of the early fourteenth century who, despite being a layman, served as both a papal adviser and legate. 106  “Quia iusta rerum dominia ita sunt apud eos sicut apud nos.” 1, 80. 107  “Secundum Ostinsem in adventu Christi omnis iurisdiccio principatus et dominia subtracta fuerent ab infidelibus et translata ad fideles et hoc ex iusta causa. . . . Et hac racione de iure secundum eundem Ostiensem infidels debent subici fidelibus.” 1, 80, 81.

Medicine And Law

433

of Christ the dominion of infidels . . . was not taken away,”108 but that this was done later by ecclesiastical and secular law. Pagan dominions, jurisdictions, and possessions are not held by that kind of law, but by the law of nations (a point Paul developed more fully in other works). In his argument, Paul analyzed the numerous biblical, patristic, and canonistic authorities cited by Hostiensis in his treatise, and shows that they, in fact, support the thesis which Paul himself was advancing. Thus he demonstrates to his own satisfaction that Hostiensis’ teaching and its implications for the actions of the Teutonic Knights are invalid. Furthermore, in light of his understanding of the powers of the pope and the emperor regarding infidels, both papal and imperial privileges granted to the Order are invalid because they are injurious to the rights of the infidels.109 In this treatise Paul had been concerned with demonstrating the foundation of certain principles. In his second important work, Opinio Ostiensis,110 his purpose was to propose conclusions that followed from those principles and which he hoped would be implemented. For these (fifty-two in number) he provided logical and canonical justification which would “make easier the extirpation of this error” of Hostiensis.111 For the theoretical arguments ­underlying 108  “Igitur in adventu Christi dominium infideles non est sublatum.” 1, 91. 109  See Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 2, 786; and the discussion of Tadeusz Jasudowicz, Śladami Ludwika Ehrlicha: Do Pawła Włodkowica po naukę o prawach człowieka (Toruń: Wydawnictwo Comer, 1995), 60–64. The exposition and analysis of Saevientibus by Brennan, “Just War, Sovereignty, and Canon Law,” 152–202, is particularly clear and perceptive. 110  Following a nineteenth century edition, the work was edited and/or printed three times in the twentieth: by Belch, “Tractatus ‘Opinio Hostiensis.’ A Proposal concerning the rights of infidel peoples and the authority of the pope . . .,” in Sacrum Poloniae Millennium 3 (1956): 385–431, and in Paulus Vladimiri, 2, 864–884; and by Ehrlich, Pisma wybrane, 1, 113–138. Quotations below are from Ehrlich’s version. More recently, Brennan, “Just War, Sovereignty, and Canon Law,” 400–421, provides, as Appendix Four of his dissertation, a slightly revised translation with effective analysis in his notes. 111  “Et pro faciliori extirpacione istius erroris ego facio quinquaginta duas conclusiones.” 1, 114. In order that the substance of his conclusions be considered rather than any possible sinister, partisan motivation on his part, Paul indicated he presented these not as an ambassador of the King of Poland, but as a scholar: “Et ut penitus cesset de me sinistra suspicio, licet revera sum computatus inter dominos meos pro Ambasiatore . . . Regis Poloniae, non tamquam Ambasiator hoc facio, sed tamquam doctor. . . .” 1, 115. For three conflicting interpretations of this statement, see Antoni Prochaska, “Na soborze w Konstancji,” Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności: wydział Historyczno-filozoficzny, Series 2, 10 (1898): 1–100, here 19, who suggests that Paul’s theories were so radical the other members of the Polish delegation disassociated themselves from him; Eberhard Schulz,

434

CHAPTER 8

these he referred readers to his previous work. Thus, although these treatises are closely connected, they are really of two different kinds. Paul began with an introduction which summarized the position of Hostiensis, then presented a Thema that in large part duplicated the beginning of Saevientibus. His conclusions then followed. Infidels are sheep of Christ, just as members of the church are (1). Thus the pope should feed (i.e., defend) them, unless their punishment is demanded by a reasonable cause (2). Correspondingly, Christian princes should neither expel nor despoil them without just cause (3). The law of nations (i.e., natural and human law) prohibits anyone from violating infidel rights (4); and the dominions of infidels may not be taken from them, since they possess them without sin and from God (5). The Holy Land is an exception (6). Even infidel dominions which were once part of the Roman empire may not be taken back, because there could have been gained legally (7). Possession of dominions by the church is legal, even though these jurisdictions were gained by the Roman emperors through violence (8). Heretics and schismatics may be deprived of their goods only by lawful means or when authorized by a judge (9). The theoretical jurisdiction of the pope is over both Christians and infidels, but his authority is paternal in nature (10). The pope may punish infidels for breaking natural law (which is their only law), as for example in the case of sodomy (11), idolatry (12), or immorality and heresy against Mosaic law by Jews (13). In exercising his jurisdiction, the pope may sometimes remit penalties, but this does not impair his theoretical powers (14). The pope may order that infidel rulers do not unjustly molest their Christian subjects (15), and when a great cause requires it he may deprive infidels of their dominion and jurisdiction over Christians (16). Infidels should not be compelled to accept Christianity, but the pope may order that Christian missionaries be admitted into infidel lands (17); if rulers of such lands refuse, the secular arm may force their obedience (18). Only the pope may declare a just war on infidels, unless some prince is struggling to maintain his rights (19). At this point in the treatise, Paul drew together his reasoning and conclusions to present one of his central tenets (20): papal letters which allow another’s rights to be infringed without a legitimate cause are null and void. Specifically, this is the case with the letter of Pope Clement “Paulus Vladimiri und das jagiellonische Polen. Eine Untersuchung ze den Wirkungen der italienischen Rechtswissenschaft auf den jagiellonischen Staat” (Unpublished dissertation, Göttingen, 1951), 107, who argues that this was merely a political ploy; and Tadeusz Silnicki, Arcybiskup Mikołaj Trąba (Warsaw: PAX, 1954), 157, who asserts that despite his identification with the Polish delegation, Paul had higher motives than mere partisanship. With some qualifications, I lean toward Silnicki’s interpretation.

Medicine And Law

435

by which the Knights of the Teutonic Order justified their actions in Prussia and neighboring lands.112 Having reviewed the power of the pope, Paul turned to a consideration of the power of the emperor. His power, he asserts, is inferior to that of the pope, who has both spiritual and temporal jurisdiction (21), for imperial power was acquired by force over the nations (22); and despite what is said in civil law, the only power laymen have over other laymen was acquired by usurpation (23). Nevertheless, in temporal matters one may not appeal an imperial decision to the pope (24), for in civil matters the church has delegated these powers to emperors and kings (25). The emperor has no power over infidels outside the empire (26), therefore he has no authority to authorize the seizing of lands which do not recognize the empire. (27). Neither imperial nor papal grants to occupy lands of the infidels are valid, for this is contrary to natural and divine law (28), and as a consequence the actions of the Teutonic Knights against peaceful infidels is unjust (29). (Here Paul cited extensively from natural, divine, canon, and civil law.) Infidels and the faithful are equal to one another in their humanity (30). It is not legal to convert either infidels or Jews by force (31); therefore the Knights’ practice of warfare for the ostensible purpose of spreading the faith is illegal (32), although crusades to recover Spain from the Saracens are licet (33). Those who participate in unjust crusades (such as those of the Knights), sin thereby (34). One who investigates the justness of a cause thoroughly and participates in that cause, even though still in doubt about the matter, is excused from responsibility (35); but if one is sure of its unjustness and participates nevertheless, this is not an excuse (36). The next seven conclusions (37–43) deal with the justifications for a just war, but add to the traditional five conditions of the canonists a sixth: that of time, for there are— according to Paul—times in which otherwise just wars are prohibited. This is particularly true, he argued, of the Knights’ pattern of mounting their Reisen on 112  “Ex quibus supradictis colligitur quod littere Romani pontificis concesse alicui homini vel ordini super occupandis terris infidelium iuris interpretacionem recipiunt ut nulli in suo iure preiudicent quam interpretacionem si natura verborum non patitur quoniam per ipsas leditur alicuius iusticia, de falsitate sunt suspecte. Et si alias per eas ius tollitur alienum sine causa legitime sunt nulle ipso iure maxime ubi de certa pape sciencia non apparet. . . . Et talis est litera pape Clementis inter omnes alias literas precipua quam se domini Cruciferi de Prussia habere asserunt, que non solum caret certa sciencia pape sed nec in ea ponitur causa sufficiens et legitima quare infideles per eos debeant spoliari ut patet ex tenore copiarum.” 1, 124–125. See also Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 2, 857–858: “The pope’s authority over infidels is limited by law; he cannot exercise it unjustly; his ordinances concerning infidels are subject to legal interpretation, of which the most important is the law of nature upon which infidel rights rest and which the pope cannot violate.”

436

CHAPTER 8

the feasts of St. Mary; this is unjust. Thus participants should resist the Order and not take part in these expeditions (44). One who attacks justly cannot be resisted by the attacked without sin (45). In an unjust war, certain rules govern the restitution of goods and the payments of indemnities (46–49). Paul concluded the treatise with three conclusions which are, like the twentieth, central to his thought. A Christian prince may legally make alliances with infidels (whether they are his subject or beyond his jurisdiction) in order to defend himself and his land against unjust attack (50); infidels as much as Christians are part of human society and are capable of dominion (51); and this dominion was not taken from them with the advent of Christ (52).113 There is a two-fold thrust in this treatise. On the one hand, infidels are part of the human community and therefore possess the same human rights as Christians. On the other hand, only the pope possesses jurisdiction over infidels (though this is limited by their natural rights) and neither the pope nor emperor may legally author­ ize anyone to harm the rights of infidels. These same themes were explored in Paul’s other treatises. Among all of Paul’s writings, his treatise Ad aperiendam, which was published at Constance in mid-summer 1416,114 is “the longest, most thorough, learned and powerful. It is also the fullest expression of his doctrine.” It “should be regarded as the definition and detailed description of Prussianism, called by the author haeresis or secta Prussiana.”115 Although its content was polemical and its purpose was immediate and practical, it is also characterized by the same theoretical formulations and discussions of fundamental policies which mark the best of Paul’s work. The treatise is divided into two parts. The first deals with three main points: whether the papal and imperial grants made to the Teutonic Order are legally valid in and of themselves; whether the theory 113  “Princeps Christianus necessitate imminente sine peccato ad sui defensionem et sue terre uti potest auxilio infidelium non solum sibi subiectorum sed eciam aliorum, intelligendo de infidelibus pacificis non habentibus nobiscum guerram active vel passive. . . . Impium est asserere et absurdum quod infideles alicuius iurisdiccionis honoris potestatis vel dominij essent hodie penitus incapaces . . . Non enim negandum est infidelibus generaliter quod eis humane societatis ius concedit. . . . Non est asserendum ymmo negandum tamquam erroneum scilicet quod omnis honor dominium et iurisdiccio omni infideli fuit abstracta in adventu Christi, nam dicit beatus Thomas. . . .” 1, 134–135, 135, 136. 114  A nineteenth century edition was based upon a single manuscript. For his edition, Ehrlich, Pisma wybrane, 1, 144–259 and 2, 2–167, was able to use multiple manuscripts. For the redactions of the texts and the problems of the edition, see Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 169–174. The work is summarized in detail by Schulz, “Paulus Vladimiri,” 13–23; and Brennan, “Just War, Sovereignty, and Canon Law,” 218–228. 115  Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 173.

Medicine And Law

437

contained in the letters is valid and the application of it by the Knights commends their continued maintenance and approval; and whether by these grants and letters the Order was allowed to make conquest, acquire wealth, and establish a state.116 The second part, which is not described here, is a detailed glossation and analysis of key words in some of the paper and imperial privileges adduced by the Order to support its own position and policies. Paul argues that the original grants to the Order were as a hospital order in Jerusalem, but the Knights are not now identical with what had been originally instituted.117 Thus if the cause for which they were established no longer obtains, the effect of their creation should also cease.118 In other words, whatever privileges they were originally given are now null and void, because They manifestly imply a contradiction, namely that they are brothers of a hospital and yet of no hospital, since it is notorious that they are not bound by their profession to any hospital, or also on account of this, that in such letters a notoriously false cause is expressed, for they falsely assert that they are such as above, and falseness of the cause vitiates any disposition.119

116  “. . . tria dubia. Primum concernit dictas litteras in se: An scilicet possent de iure sustineri ut argui non valeant vicio falsitatis. Secundum dubium surgit ex theorica earundem litterarum et practica militandi que tangitur in predictis articulis et hoc respicit in se ordinem fratrum predictorum: An scilicet huic eorum ordini racione sue religionis vel milicie favor vel defensio tanquam censeri debeant iure publico aut conservacio vel approbacio in Dei ecclesia debeatur. Tercium dubium tangit ipsorum dominia, videlicet an aliqua aut alicuius rei possessio vel dominium possit vel potuit acquiri de iure huic ordini: et ibi examinabitur an donaciones iste valere aliquomodo potuerunt.” 1, 146–147. 117  “Isti non solum non sunt fratres hospitalis Iherosolimitani iam destructi secundum exigenciam predicti privilegij sed nec alterius cuiuscunque hospitalis.” 1, 149. 118  “Quia cessante sic causa hospitalium hospitalarij esse desierunt quia relativa posita se ponunt et perempta se perimunt; nam ad posicionem cause ponitur effectus et ad remocionem removetur.” 1, 156. 119  “Tunc sequitur quod non solum iste littere de quibus hic apparet sed alie omnes ipsorum littere quarumcunque libertatum donacionum confirmacionum et quecunque concessiones vel privilegia de quibus non apparet, concesse eis vel concessa sub nomine vel titulo fratrum hospitalis Iherosolimitani sunt notorie false irrite ipso iure atque nulle.” 1, 162. The text of the quote translated above: “manifeste contradiccionem implicant scilicet ipsos esse fratres hospitalis et tamen nullius hospitalis, quia notorium est quod nulli hospitali sua professione obligantur vel ex eo eciam quia in talibus litteris notorie falsa causa exprimitur, falso enim se tales asserunt ut supra, falsitas autem causa omnem disposicionem viciat.” 1, 162–163.

438

CHAPTER 8

For this reason they should not be exempt from paying tithes, neither should they be privileged by indulgences, immunities, etc.; they should not be allowed to claim they have indulgences to undertake crusades against infidels; they should be excommunicated for illegally using these letters until they give satisfaction; and they should be punished. Having shown that the Order was not what it claimed to be and was operating under false pretenses, Paul then moved to a discussion of its true nature. It claims to be a military-religious order, he observes. But this claim should be rejected, for waging war is not an act of religion, but of splendor or boasting, and is a secular pursuit. Religion instead directs man more closely to God. Upon examination, the Knights are revealed in Paul’s analysis to esteem military virtues above love, and consequently they cannot be a religious order of any kind.120 In view of this, the church cannot tolerate such a group. Since it cannot reform them (for the original aim in Prussia was illegal in that it consisted of an unjust war against infidels), it has no other course than to dissolve the Knights so that the Order is destroyed.121 If this seems an extreme solution, Paul nevertheless maintains it, arguing that the Order represents a grave danger to the church. It is nothing less than a heresy, a pestiferous sect, and the status of the Knights is not one of religion but of error.122 To conclude this ­section, 120  “Iste ordo non est religiosus sed pocius secularis quia milicia non est actus religionis sed pocius magnificencie que est inferior virtus moralis et est pars fortitudinis dirigens hominem circa nogocia bellica. . . . Religio auatem est pars iusticie habens preeminenciam inter virtutes morales in eo quod magis de propinquo ordinat et dirigit hominem ad Deum quam alie virtutes morales.” 1, 173. 121  “Non potest nec potuit hec ipsorum professio sive status per ecclesiam approbari tacite vel expresse, ymmo nec debet neque potest aliqua dissimulacione tolerari . . .; quam eciam ex parte milicie eorum non cessabit dicta simulacio, nam dato quod rectificaretur hec ipsorum milicia ut scilicet non nisi causa iusta exigente pugnare deberent cum infidelibus et quia talis causa militandi in istis fratribus numquam erat, ut videntur probare eorum iste littere, et forte talis causa iuste bellandi numquam accidet, saltem in illis partibus ubi ipsi sunt et ubi possent utiles . . .; evidentissime non solum iure canonico et civili sed eciam iure naturali et divino ipsorum collegia huismodi esse prohibita et dampnata. Et ideo auctoritate huius sacri concilij necessario penitus destruenda.” 1, 181, 182, 189. 122  “Sed quia evidenter constat ex productis dictorum fratrum in iudicio et ipsorum articulis in quibus expresse confitentur quod ipsorum ordo ad exterminandum infideles et ad occupandum ipsorum bona et dominia est institutus . . . quod est nimis erroneum in religione Christiana et repugnans dileccioni Dei et proximi ac ipsi Ewangelice veritati. Igitur est evidens statum ipsorum non esse alicuius religionis sed erroris . . .; Sequitur quod iste orde sive status est eciam contra fidem . . .; Iste modus militandi non solum paganicus sed potest de iure dupliciter heresis nuncupari . . .; Ex quibus sequitur istum ordinem nedum non esse statum ad perfeccionem caritatis prout requirit religio ut supra dictum est sed

Medicine And Law

439

Paul sets forth eight conclusions as to what the council (i.e., the church) should do about the Teutonic Order.123 In his three-fold consideration of the final point in the first part, Paul began by citing canon law and the Bible to show that imperial donations of lands to be conquered and rights to be exercised by the Knights were legally null, for the emperor had no power to make such grants. Although imperial power is from God, it is by indirect delegation from the vicar of Christ, who had both spiritual and temporal power; the empire derives its power only from canon or civil law; infidels are bound only by natural law and are subject solely to the pope.124 Neither, however, could papal donations be valid, for that would have been contrary to both divine and natural law. The former, which commands the pope to “feed Christ’s sheep” would not, in Paul’s vivid, Biblically-based imagery, allow him to deliver them to rapacious wolves in order that they be torn apart. The latter allows infidels dominion, and this may not be taken from them without just cause, which the pope—despite his plenitudo potestatis— did not have.125 Thus, Paul concludes, all the donations made to the Knights “could not and can not be valid by law.”126 On a second consideration, Paul says that not only were the donors impotent in law to do what it was claimed they had done, the things which were donated were illegally given. Natural law forbids anyone from taking possessions and dominions away from infidels, since verius esse abissum peccatorum atque sectam profundissime impietatis. . . .” 1, 191, 192, 196, 198–199. 123  The letters are false and erroneous; the Knights’ invasions are unlawful; the council should declare against them, compel them to reform, and to return what they have seized; subjects should not obey the Knights; sanctions should be imposed upon them; other Christian rulers should act to implement these, and those who support the Order should be declared guilty of error also. 1, 208–225. 124  “Quod licet imperalis potestas a Deo est . . . tamen non immediate est a Deo sed per subalternam emanacionem a vicario Ihesu Christi apud quem est utraque iurisdiccio . . .; Cum igitur imperium sumpsit vires iure positivo et iure canonico approbatum . . . et predicti infideles iure positivo non stringuntur canonico videlicet vel civili sed tantummodo naturali . . . sequitur quod non imperatori sed soli Christi vicario immediate et temporaliter de iure sunt subiecti . . .; non est ergo dubitum quod nulla ipso iure est ista imperialis donacio in nostro proposito tamquam deficiens in radice potestatis.” 1, 227, 228, 229. 125  “Repugnat enim iuri divino quo dicitur: ‘Pasce oves meas’ ipsas exponere prede vel rapine sine iusta causa. Hoc utique contradicit pastorali officio oves Christi lupis rapacibus committere lacerandas . . .; Sed nec plenitudo potestatis in papa posset hoc operari . . . dominia eorum non posse ab eis auferri sine causa quia sunt de iuri naturali gencium ut supra.” 1, 229, 233. 126  “Patet igitur evidenter ex predictis omnes istas donaciones factas dictis Cruciferis de iure non potuisse valere neque posse.” 1, 234.

440

CHAPTER 8

they possess these without sin and by God’s authority. Such things exist not only for Christians, but for the sake of any human creature. Thus the permissions to conquer were illegal, the lands occupied by the Knights are unlawfully held, the order should be required to relinquish them, and the church should force them to do this, if necessary, by calling upon the secular arm.127 The final consideration is the Teutonic Order as grantee. They are shown anew to be brothers of no hospital, and therefore anything which they hold they have acquired illegally (through grants) or unjustly (through the wars of conquest they have waged). Paul concludes this part of the treatise with the summation: It is evident by what has been said that nothing . . . occupied by the Crossbearers belongs legally to them for many reasons: because they are entirely incapable of possession; and because the letters mentioned by them contain a false cause of acquisition; furthermore, because they keep these lands and goods for the benefit of hospitals which do not exist (as all know); finally because they obtained all this by notorious robbery. Unlawfulness is therefore evident. The consequence is also manifest: they have no right to defend these possessions in the court nor make exceptions; they should rather be compelled by this sacred Synod to quit them really and in effect.128 After the Council of Constance, the arena of Paul’s literary activity shifted to the several hearings and suits which were prosecuted either before the emperor or in Rome. His next major treatise, Ad vivendum,129 was prepared in 1421 as one of a series of papers presented by both Poland and the order to the papal representative who was to report on them to the pope. Stylistically, this work is divided into twenty-three capitula, each beginning with a letter of the alphabet in consecutive order, A to Z.130 Structurally, it was to have consisted of three sections: an analysis of the facts of the Order’s articles and privileges, a presentation of what the law was concerning them, and a discussion of “­certain note127  “Non licet infidelibus suas possessiones et dominia auferre quia sine peccato et Deo auctore ea possident que non solum propter Christianos sed pro qualibet humana creatura sunt facta.” 1, 236; see also his four conclusions, 1, 237–246. 128  Quoted by Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 225, based on the nineteenth century edition; compare Ehrlich, Pisma wybrane, 1, 259. 129  The modern critical edition is in Ehrlich, Pisma wybrane, 3, 91–202. 130  The (English) letters J, U, and W are lacking. In order to utilize K and X, which are not in the Latin alphabet, Paul had recourse to unusual spellings: “Karissime” and “Xpi” (the nomen sacrum for “Christi”).

Medicine And Law

441

worthy things which pertain to the matter of faith.”131 We have, however, only the part of the treatise which deals with the second major point.132 In it, Paul presented material whose broad outlines had been sketched in previous works. He argued that the documents by which the Order justified its case were false and void because they were issued to hospitalers and the Knights were not such an order. Moreover, these documents had authorized them to obtain lands only in compensation for their efforts against the Prussians, but the historical record of their action was, Paul asserted, far different.133 Neither are the grants which the emperors made valid, for they did not have the power to do this; in particular those of Frederick II are suspect, for at the time he made them he was excommunicate and his acts therefore were against the church and the faith.134 Even more than this, Frederick’s acts were by their very nature not valid in law, and the consequent wars were unjust. This Paul demonstrated by a logical analysis modeled upon Aristotle’s four causes.135 131  Paul states that the first section is to be omitted from the beginning and added to the end: “Quantum ad primum, obmissis in hoc loco dictis articulis et privilegijs ne ipsorum leccio tediosa et diffusa legentem retrahat a sequentibus, infra de eis in fine subicitur et ibi videas et hic tanquam factum ex quo ius oritur presupponas.” 3, 92. They are, however, missing in all manuscripts, as is part three. 132  On this point, see Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 194, for a different interpretation. 133  “Quia vel ordo capitur pro illo corpore singulari hospitalis Iherosolimitani quod ibi esse desijt et sic ordo eciam evanuit, vel capitur in genere pro quolibet collegio dicti hospitalis et sic posito sine preiudicio veritatis quod aliquod tale genus esset ordo nunquam dicitur vacare nec habere caput quia genera non mensurantur tempore necque loco sed species . . .; sunt ergo magis verisimilia que habentur in Cronicis et in libris Polonorum ymo in scriptis ipsorum autenticis . . . supplicarunt dicto duci ut totam terram poneret in eorum potestate . . . possent dictos Pruthenos subiugare, obligantes se dicto duci eandem terram restituere sine aliqua contradiccione Pruthenis debellatis et devictis. . . . Postmodum per prefatum ducem requisiti ut terram suam sibi restituerent minime facere curaverunt et sic eam adhuc tenent. . . . Et ista est facti veritas que colligitur ex predictis libris et instrumentis publicis sive ex deposicionibus testium qui tunc examinati errant per iudices dum adhuc recens erat nogocium.” 3, 96, 104, 105. 134  “Ex quibus clare videtur constare dictas donaciones factas tempore persecucionis ecclesie et per consequens dictos fratres eidem Frederico sic ut dictum est excommunicato et notato de heresi etc. contra ecclesiam adhesisse dictasque donaciones Christiane religioni et divine legi contrarias. . . .” 3, 149. 135  “Quantum ad ius pertinet probantur dicte donaciones de iure non valere et per consequens iniusta bella etc. Et ut mayor claritas in hoc habeatur extendo calamum examinando materiam penes quodlibet genus cause quia secondum Aristotelem in primo libro Phisicorum tunc unum quodque scire arbitramur cum ipsius causas cognoscimus usque ad elementa.” 3, 153.

442

CHAPTER 8

Paul then moved directly to consideration of the final cause, which appeared to him to have been the intent of the emperor, which was the propagation of the faith. But this, he asserts, is not something which lies within the competency of the emperor.136 The efficient cause was Frederick himself, who pretended to have an ancient right to the lands he donated dating to the time of the Romans. But the power of Rome did not pass to the medieval emperor, who derives his power instead from the vicar of Christ. Thus Frederick’s donations were reckless, for he was usurping some old right of the Roman emperor over lands of infidels, and this is against the power of Christ and his vicar. Consequently his donations were of no consequence because they lack an efficient cause.137 Consideration of the material cause, i.e., the law on such donations, leads Paul to the same conclusion. He shows that in natural law the lands of the infidels are not under imperial jurisdiction, and lands which are legitimately in the power of infidels can not be donated. Thus Frederick’s acts (and those of others) were invalid, for they are contrary to natural and divine law. A donation made to the prejudice of the true owner is not legal.138 In discussing the formal cause, Paul also drew upon natural law, but added an important implied element, that of an international system of justice to deal with international disputes. In order to deprive one of something, the jurisdiction of the individual who makes such a grant has to be demonstrated. The emperor did not have this authority, Paul believed, as he had shown before. Moreover, one who is to be deprived must be shown to be subject to the individual who 136  “Ex parte cause finalis que est potissima causarum . . . est fidei Catholice et divini cultus ampliacio seu eiusdem fidei propagacio . . .; hec autem causa scilicet fidei ampliande quamvis concernat utilitatem publicam, tamen ista utilitas non est temporalis sed mere spiritualis, ad officium Imperatoris non pertinens, non ergo potuit Imperator ex hac causa privare aliquem suo dominio et per consequens non valuit eius donacio.” 3, 153, 154. 137  “Nunc de ipso Imperatore agente et donante est videndum qui in dictis terris pretendebat se habere vetus ius quod videtur referendum ad tempus Romanorum. . . . Ex quibus infertur dictas donaciones fuisse temerarias Fredrici prelibati nitentis sibi usurpare vetus ius Imperij seu vetus dominium generaliter in terris infidelium contra potestatem Christi et sui vicarij. . . . Patet ergo dictas donaciones Fredrici memorati pro subiugandis in genere barbaris nacionibus etc. racione defectus cause efficientis nullius esse robaris vel monenti.” 3, 158, 165, 175. 138  “Racione materie quid iuris de talibus donacionibus . . .; pagani sua dominia iure naturali gencium possident et ideo iuste. . . . Istud autem naturale ius et divinum est immutabile et sic indispensabile. . . . Tu dic quod terre que sunt sub potestate infidelium donari non possunt . . .; racione materie dictas donaciones minime valuisse et esse contrarias iuri naturali et divino nam donacio facta in preiudicium veri domini non valet.” 3, 175, 177, 179. 181, 182.

Medicine And Law

443

acts. Again, this was not the case with Frederick’s grants. Finally a legitimate reason and due procedure is required, otherwise the act is contrary to natural law; and neither of those conditions were observed in the emperor’s grants. It follows, therefore, that for lack of a formal cause and for lack of demonstrated built, the donations were invalid.139 Clearly, in Paul’s thought, imperial authority was of insufficient competency to deal with the kinds of problems which arise between states, whether Christian or pagan. He returned to this question publically in his “last word”140 on the issue of Polish-Teutonic Order conflict. Written against the triplex background of papal tergiversation over executing the findings and recommendation of its own representatives, of the PolishOrder war of 1422 and subsequent “everlasting” peace, and of a renewed attack by the Knights against Poland in 1431, Paul’s Epistola ad Reverendum in Christo Patrem Sbigneum Episcopum Cracoviensem,141 was sent from Padua in March 1432. His immediate aim was to counsel Oleśnicki not to retaliate against the Order by waging war but instead to take the issue to a court of justice. In reviewing the merits of the Polish case he sums up the arguments and ideals of a lifetime. Pervaded by a pastoral rather than a polemical tone, it is his most personal work.142 It is more than a letter; it is a political, and even a spiritual, testament.143 139  “Pro quo advertendum quod ad hoc privacio valeat requiritur non solum iurisdiccio in privante et debita subieccio in privato sed eciam causa privandi legittima et debita forma seu modus legittimus privacionis et uno eorum deficiente actus naturaliter est invalidus et contra substanciam rei. . . . Patet ergo dictas privaciones et per consequens donaciones esse nullas ex defectu forme atque culpe. 3, 182, 184. 140  This work has been known as such from the study published serially by Jan Fijałek, “Ostatnie słowo Pawła Włodkowica o zakonie krzyżackim. Ustęp z dziejów reformy i polityki kościelnej w wieku XV.,” Przegląd Kościelny 1 (1902): 1–13, 92–104, 180–189, 258–273, 343–353. 141  Edited by Karol Górski, “ ‘Ostatnie słowo’ Pawła Włodkowica o zakonie krzyżackim z roku 1432,” Zapiski Historyczne 29, 2 (1964): 158–170; Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 2, 1091–1103 (1064– 1090 for a helpful introductory note on the background); and Ehrlich, Pisma wybrane, 3, 203–226, from which quotations below are drawn. 142  “Heu cor meum ingemiscit dolore intimo sauciatum super desolacione patrie mee. . . . Quodque Regnum Polonie pacificum falsa securitate deceptum tam horribilem plagam divina permissione nunc excepit.” 3, 203. 143  See the comments to this effect, representing a broad consensus by, among others, the following: Andrzej Niesiołowski, “Testament Pawła Włodkowica (W pięćsetlecie śmierci pierwszego ideologa i myśliciela katolickiego Polski),” Verbum 4 (1935): 771–807; Tihomil Drezga, “Włodkowic’s ‘Epistola ad Sbigneum episcopum Cracoviensem’ (A Letter of Rare Relevance,” The Polish Review 20, 4 (1975): 43–65; Helena Chłopocka, “Uwagi o tzw. ‘Ostatnim słowie’ Pawła Włodkowica o zakonie krzyżackim,” Zapiski Historyczne 58, 2–3

444

CHAPTER 8

According to Paul, there are three viae to resolve the issue at hand (he has prefaced this with a sermonette to the bishop on Christ as the only true via, quoting John 14:6). These are the way of agreement, that of war, and that of adjudication. The first he rejects. The Knights are rapacious wolves, dressed up in sheep’s clothing, a cruel sect hostile to Christianity, which must be altogether destroyed. Their deeds, documents, and the declarations of witnesses, all of which he reviews, reveal that no just and lasting agreement with them is possible.144 Neither is the way of war acceptable, though he expresses confidence that the Poles would be victorious. In rejecting this, he reaffirms that all previous wars of the Knights had been unjust, and points out the dangers inherent in war.145 The via he accepts, recommends, and argues for is that of adjudication. The effect of this would be that the sin is mended, the thing disputed restored, and the wronged person indemnified. While it is the responsibility of prelates and bishops to denounce injustice, Paul fears that the error of silence has deeply infected many in Poland and in neighboring countries, and they cannot be fully relied upon. The only recourse, then, is to the pope, whose ultimate office it is to resolve this matter.146 Without summarizing his previous (1993): 7–25; and Lech Krzywiak, “ ‘ Via concordiae’ czy ‘via iustitiae’—jeszcze w sprawie ‘ostatniego słowa’ Pawła Włodkowica o Zakonie krzyżackim,” in Waldemar Bukowski, et al., eds. Cracovia—Polonia—Europa. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane Jerzemu Wyrozumskiemu w sześćdziesiątą piątą rocznicę urodzin i czterdziestolecie pracy naukowej (Cracow: “Secesja,” 1995), 323–327; and Thomas Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen. Personen, Politik und Programme aus Polen zur Verfassungsfrage der Kirche in der Zeit der mittelalterlichen Reformkonzilien (Paderborn, Munich, Vienna, and Zürich: Schöningh, 1998), 57 (“sein geistiges Testament”). 144  “In vestimentis ovium appareant et lupum rapacem in se realiter exhibeant . . . hoc hominum genus esse pestiferum . . ., esse insuper crudelem sectam. Ecclesie Christi ac religionis Christiane inimicam, prout ex ipsorum operibus constat clare. Et per consequens ab ecclesia Dei penitus destruendam. . . . Ex premissis concluditur nullam posse fieri concordiam Polonis Lituanis et alijs Christianis cum predictis Cruciferis in preiudicium tocius ecclesie militantis necnon religionis et fidei Christiane . . .; secundo concluditur hanc sectam tamquam notorie pestiferam non esse per Ecclesiam tollerandam sed penitus destruendam . . ., dampnato igitur auctore successio dampnatur heredis.” 3, 208, 219, 220. 145  “Patet viam gwerre esse difficilem atque insecuram. Numquam enim iure permittitur gwerram posse fieri auctoritate propria nisi vim vi repellendo cum moderamine inculpate tutele. . . . Ex quibus concluditur predictos Cruciferos numquam habuisse iustum bellum sed semper iniustum omnibus dictis modis.” 3, 221. 146  “Cuius effectus est ut peccatum corrigatur, res restituatur et lesus indemnis conservetur. . . . Unde quemadmodum iste error infecit partes Polonie et alias vicinas consequenter per negligenciam prelatorum seu episcoporum . . . et de quanto morbus magis cernitur radicatus tanto maiori solicitudine. . . . Demum dicatur Ecclesie cuius caput est Christi

Medicine And Law

445

arguments regarding papal power and jurisdiction, Paul affirms the pontiff as the appropriate supranational authority for all international disputes. This was Paul Vladimiri’s final contribution to the political thought associated with the University of Cracow in this period. After completing his duties in Padua, he contemplated taking monastic vows in Rome, then returned to the Polish capital, where he died sometime prior to 14 April 1436.147 His appeal to the middle road of adjudication was unsuccessful. Only thirteen years of war between Poland and the Knights resolved immediate issues; at the same time, the dragon’s teeth of future conflicts were sown. The Themes Several important themes are revealed in Paul’s writings. Chief among these are his ideas on natural and divine law, on the character of the just war, the foundations of a ruler’s power over individuals, the authority of both spiritual and temporal rulers, and the settlement of international disputes. None of these was combined into a comprehensive system, and all were sometimes obscured by the immediate political issues of the moment; but they represent nevertheless coherent views and are some of the most distinctive characteristics of his thought. We shall examine each in turn before attempting to evaluate his originality and put his contributions into perspective. Law was the foundation of Paul’s thought, and—apart from his piety as a profoundly religious Christian and in important ways separate from his role as political polemicist on behalf of the king of Poland—he was first and foremost a jurist.148 He did not, however, limit himself only to canon and civil law, for his concern was more fundamental than that. To him, natural and divine law took precedence over the statutes of the church and the traditions of Roman jurisvicarius qui sicut non potest sic non debet oppressiones et errores huiusmodi predictos tollerare . . . strictam Domino racionem redditurus de premissis.” 3, 224, 225, 226. 147  For the date of his death, compare Kurt Forstreuter, “Aus den letzten Jahren des Paulus Wladimiri,” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 19 (1970): 467–478, here 473 (the date in the text); Ehrlich, Pisma wybrane, 1, XIV (“after 9 October 1435’); LTCP / SPTK, 3, 304 (“fall 1435 or later”); and FwP, 307–308 (“about 1435–1443”); and PSB, 25, -377–381. 148  Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 237, sees Paul as “basically and by temperament a theorist—a philosopher and a theologian,” and argues that his approach “was primarily philosophical” (see also 1, 132). Similar views have been expressed by others. This understanding leads in part to an unrealistic evaluation of Paul’s importance and contribution (see below). It is more accurate to say, as does Schulz, “Paulus Vladimiri,” 106, that “Paulus war weder Theologe noch Philosoph—Paulus war Jurist.” See also Ehrlich, Pisma wybrane, 1, XL (“The papers of Paul Vladimiri are juridical”); and Jan W. Woś, “Paulus Wladimiri aus Brudzeń—Vorläufer oder Fortsetzer?,” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 25 (1976): 438–461.

446

CHAPTER 8

prudence, both of which he regarded as human, man-made law. It is important therefore to see how he understood the former two. Unlike the antique concept of ius naturae, whose ontological character was such that it was viewed as part of the very warp and weft of the universe, natural law for Paul (as for his medieval predecessors) arose from the nature of humanity.149 It consisted of those inherent rights and laws common to, and derived rationally from, the human condition. All individuals possess this law in common,150 and it is something which guarantees to all individuals certain rights.151 This should not be interpreted to mean that natural law was in any way opposed to divine law and God. For Paul, there was no doubt that natural law was of divine origin, for God is the creator of man and consequently of his nature. Nevertheless, divine and natural law were not the same thing; derived from God, natural law was emphasized by Paul as an autonomous, specific human order having a natural character. Thus it was independent of revealed law and was applicable to every society and state, without regard to whether the inhabitants thereof were believers or pagans.152 Since all men have the same nature, they all enjoy the right to be treated in accord with that humanity. This imposes certain responsibilities, and for Paul one of the fundamental moral precepts of natural law is that one should not do to another that which one would not wish to have done to oneself.153 Although this principle is one which is found in scripture, it is also one which may be arrived at by human reason; and this is also a charac149  For the development of the medieval canonical tradition of natural law upon which Paul drew, see Brian Tierney, The Idea of Natural Rights. Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Church Law, 1150–1625 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997), 43–77 especially. 150  This is argued by Paul in several instances; see, for one example, Ad Aperiendam, 2, 71: “Si peccant contra legem nature quo omnibus gentibus est communis. . . .” Compare this with Stanisław of Skarbimierz’s sermon De bello iustis, in Ehrlich, Polski wykład, 130: “Ius naturale idem est apud omnes.” 151  In his analysis of the rights derived from ius gentium, and following the treatment of Jasudowicz, Śladami Ludwika Ehrlicha, 89–149, Wielgus, Polska średniowieczna doktryna Ius Gentium, 71–76, and The Medieval Polish Doctrine of the Law of Nations, 95–101 identifies the following as these rights: life and its protection, freedom, property, and just process. 152  “Distinccio autem fidelium et infidelium est ex iure divino ius autem divinum quod est ex gracia non tollit ius humanum quod est ex naturali racione. . . .” Ad vivendum, 3, 178. 153  This is repeated, in slightly different wording, in many places. See Ad Aperiendam for two instances: “Et lege naturali eciam erat prohibitum ne quis alteri faciat quod sibi non vult fieri”( 2, 69), and “naturale enim est quod tibi non vis fieri alteri non facias” (2, 74; and in Saevientibus: “Et lege naturali erat prohibitum ne quis alteri faciat quod sibi non vult fieri.” (1, 12). See the comments of Wielgus, Polska średniowieczna doktryna Ius Gentium, 62, and The Medieval Polish Doctrine of the Law of Nations, 85.

Medicine And Law

447

teristic of natural law. It is rationally apprehensible, and it may be determined from the fact or nature of individuals.154 All further precepts may be derived in this way from that foundation.155 From natural law, Paul derives the law of nations.156 God gave all human creatures dominion over the earth, but although in the beginning usage was held in common, eventually it was determined that some would possess some things and others, other things. And for this reason, by the law of nations dominions were distinguished and kingdoms divided.157 It is from this that Paul concludes infidels may justify and legally have possessions and dominions just as Christians. The “right” is an immutable one,158 and allows them to defend themselves against unjust attack. At the same time, it prohibits both the emperor (in all cases) and the pope (except for grave reasons) from seizing their lands. This prohibition also comes from the fundamental moral principle defined above.159 The law of nations thus defines inviolable rights and

154  “Et quia ex facto ius oritur. . . .” Ad Aperiendam, 1, 147. 155  One example of Paul’s own use of this approach is in his treatise Quoniam error, edited by Ehrlich, Pisma wybrane, 2 216–315, 325–398. (For the context of this treatise, see above Chapter Five.) He proceeds (2, 390–392) from the principle that infidels are human beings. On this basis he concludes their human rights (and rights according to the law of nations) should be respected. From here he continues to an analysis of the mutual obligations all men own to one another. His final observation is about the common friendship and sociability of all men as men. “Et per hoc omnia alia sunt solute.” (2, 390–392) 156  This point is developed by Wielgus, Polska średniowieczna doktryna Ius Gentium, 62, and The Medieval Polish Doctrine of the Law of Nations, 85. See also the treatment of this point by Władysław Seńko, “Z badań nad historią myśli społeczno-politycznej w Polsce w XV wieku,” in Palacz, ed., Filozofia polska XV wieku, 20–57, here 30–33; Stefan Swieżowski, U źródeł nowożytnej etyki. Filozofia moralna w Europie XV wieku (Cracow: Znak, 1987), 143–148, and Jasudowicz, Śladami Ludwika Ehrlicha, 49–67. 157  “Et fuerunt ista a principio omnibus communia quousque usibus primorum parentum inductum est quod aliqui aliqua alij alia possiderent et appropriarent sibi . . ., et ideo iure gencium distincta sunt dominia et regna divisa.” Saevientibus, 1, 12. 158  Asserted many times; see Quoniam error, 2, 367–368: “Sed defensio est de iure naturali et iura naturalia sunt immutabilia eciam per principem.” 159  “Ideo preoccupata ab uno iam non licet alteri occupare lege naturali prohibente, scilicet ‘Quod tibi non vis fieri alteri non facias.’ ” Opinio Ostiensis, 1, 121.This same point is made by Charles J. Reid, “Paulus Vladimiri, the Tractatus, Opinio Hostiensis, and the Rights of Infidels,” in Pavel Krafl, ed., Sacri canones servandi sunt. Ius canonicum et status ecclesiae saeculis XIII–XV (Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR, 2008), 418–423, here 421–422.

448

CHAPTER 8

e­ stablishes norms of justice which are evident to human reason, and in fact may be grasped by even a simple and undeveloped mind.160 Divine law is related to natural law. With his predecessors, Paul indentified the former as the revealed law of God, given by grace, received by faith, and found in the scriptures and the writings of the early fathers of the church. Because both laws derive from a common source, they are in harmony with one another. Generally Paul places divine law after natural when he speaks of different kinds of law.161 This he does because with respect to the issues he discusses, divine law tends to reinforce and supplements the precepts of natural law. For examples, as Stanislaus Belch pointed out, “while the equity of natural law is based on the fundamental precept of the law: ‘Do unto others . . .,’ the equity of divine law is more specific in its application; for instance, in regard to the property of others it forbids stealing and even the inner desire to take our neighbor’s goods; the precept: ‘thou shalt not steal . . .,’ is made even more specific by tradition.”162 Natural and divine law thus reinforce one another and provide a standard by which the willful acts of fallible men may be judged. All the more reason, therefore, in Paul’s thought, to provide means in international disputes by which God’s precepts, as reflected in natural and divine law, may be followed to bring true peace and justice to humanity. This he proposed against the background of the second and third themes mentioned above. To Paul it was evident that the original common usage of dominion over the earth had long since been superseded by a variety of states and kingdoms. He was forced therefore to deal with the question of how one’s power over other individuals had developed. To answer this, he provided a three-fold schema. On many occasions he argued that government on earth arose either by the will of God revealed in some way to men, or by the consent of those who are governed. He also recognized that it came about by a third way, by violence.163 160  This is reflected in a statement in the Propositio Samagitarum, presented by the Polish delegation to the council which Paul either helped write or prepared himself, quoted by Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 262, note 129: “. . . praedicti fratres, quos a Deo missos sperabamus, ad gubernationem terrae nostrae concurrerunt, nostra rudi et simplici ratione . . . comperimus, eosdem non alia, nisi mundane, sapere.” 161  As, for example, in Opinio Ostiensis, 1, 128: “Omne ius resistit scilicet naturale divinum canonicum et civile;” and Ad Aperiendam, 2, 74: “tam iure naturali quam divino canonico et civili caveatur quod infidelibus non est inferenda molestia sine causa.” 162  Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 269–270. 163  “Quod regnum in terris surgit tribus modis: primo per voluntatem Dei revelatam aliquo modo hominibus; 2° modo per consensum eorum qui reguntur; 3° modo per violenciam.” Saevientibus, 1, 56–57. See also Opinio Ostiensis, 1, 127; Ad aperiendam, 2, 140; Quoniam

Medicine And Law

449

The first way is reflected in the power God gave to the leaders and kings of the Old Testament. This was later transferred by Christ to Peter and his successors in the command “Feed my sheep.” In this process, control is just. The second way is also just, for it arises out of natural law. The inhabitants of an area agreed for the preservation of peace and order to be ruled by someone and consented to accept this governance. This act, however, carried with it certain implications. The ruler, for example, may not donate or alienate anything of which he has been given dominion unless the people consent to this also.164 Paul had clear ideas on how consent in such a case should be expressed. It should come from all groups in society, from the highest to the lowest, including both men and women; it should be expressed publically and not privately; and it should not be obtained under duress, but be given freely and s­pontaneously.165 If these conditions were not fulfilled, then the donation would be invalid; and in the case of certain territories which the Teutonic Order claimed to have been given by local rulers, Paul demonstrated that by these criteria their claims were unjustified. Another conclusion follows from this particular justification of governance. A ruler may not give that which is not his; that is, if the p ­ opulace Error, 2, 362; and Ad vivendum. 3, 160 for similar statements. It has been observed by Thomas E. Morrissey, “Natural Rights, Natural Law and the Canonist: Franciscus Zabarella, 1360–1417,” in Kenneth Pennington, et al., eds., Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, Syracuse, NY. 13–18 August 1996 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2001 [reprinted as article ten with original pagination in Morrissey, Conciliarism and Church Law in the Fifteenth Century. Studies on Franciscus Zabarella and the Council of Constance (Farnham, England and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014)]), 727– 750, here 734–746, that Paul is here following closely Francesco Zabarella, his teacher at Padua. See especially his comment (734–735) “What I would like to explore is the probable derivation of Vladimir’s ideas and how these sources are rooted in a tradition of rights based on natural law.” Morrissey’s analysis leads him to conclude there is, in fact, a very broad based reliance by Paul upon his mentor. 164   Ad videndum, 3, 142: “Quarto, quia non apparet de consensu civium sive incolarum qui consensus est necessarius ad hoc ut talis donacio teneat nam nec dominus civitatis potest ipsam civitatem alienare sine consense populi. . . .” 165  The best description of his views comes in a short work (entitled Impugnatio A and B by Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 189, originally printed in Ignacy Zakrzewski and Jadwiga Karwasińska, eds. Lites ac res gestae inter Polonos Ordinemque Cruciferorum, editio altera, 3 vols. (Poznań and Warsaw: Nakładem Biblioteki Kórniskiej, 1890–1935), 3, 1–38: “ac etiam simul omnes et universi, pro consensu aliquot ad praemissa habendo;” (19) “. . . aut aliquorum prelatorum aut baronum aut aliquorum Civitatum Regni predicti . . . tam procerum quam nobelium personarum utriusque sexus quam popularium et eciam spiritualium . . .;” (21) “Quod talis pretensa Concordia non fuit libera vel libere et spontanee facta nec processit de consensus dicti Regni. . . .” (22)

450

CHAPTER 8

did not consent in the first place to his dominion, he has no power over them.166 Thus imperial grants of lands not subject to the empire are invalid. Before discussing briefly Paul’s attitude to the third way in which government arose, some additional comments are necessary regarding his theory of consent. Paul was not an advocate avant la lettre of representative government; neither was he a philosopher of the “social contract” in the modern sense. The only regime he wrote about, and the one he considered as both natural and inherent in the order of things, was a monarchy. The best government is one where there is only one supreme ruler,167 and there should be therefore only one king in the kingdom.168 But the power of the ruler is not absolute. The king must serve the common good, and may not take actions which harm the kingdom. For example, he may not alienate territories. The monarch must be guided by the counsel of others, but it is he alone who rules. Thus when describing consent, Paul places no constitutional restrictions upon the governor. The only curb upon his authority are those which arise from natural law. Paul nowhere speaks explicitly of a social contract by which individuals covenant to give up their rights or delegate them to a ruler. But it is clear that he posited a vague process by which subjects naturally created states and recognized rulers over them.169 In this he relied chiefly upon Aristotle’s Politics and upon Aquinas. His idea of consent was also derived from the legal heritage of which his intellectual outlook was a product. His most frequently cited principle in this regard was the traditional maxim that “what concerns all must be 166  See above in this chapter, notes 101 and 137. 167   Opinio Ostiensis, 1, 126: “Naturali iure patet quod optimus principatus est ubi unum principaliter principatur.” In the context of this specific argument, Paul concludes that this justifies the supremacy of the pope, for the emperor has no power over spiritualities. This usage, however, does not alter his general idea about the importance of monarchy. An overview of Paul’s views about the nature of rule in the state, with several striking insights (especially with respect to a work of Paul’s not otherwise treated in this study, Oculi— printed in Ehrlich, Pisma wybrana, 3, 2–90), is provided by Oźóg, Uczeni, 92–100. 168  Reflected in Paul’s treatise Allegationes pro parte Regis Poloniae coram Sigismundo Imperatore A.D. 1420, in Lites, 3, 192–215: “Constituuntur duo reges sive domini in eodem regno, quorum unum non vult subesse alteri. Et sic duo capita in eodem corpore tamquam monstrum: cum tamen unus debet esse rex in regno. . . .” (207–208, with emendation based on the manuscript by Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 290, note 85.) 169  In describing Paul’s views, see the comment by Wielgus, Polska średniowieczna doktryna Ius Gentium, 59, and The Medieval Polish Doctrine of the Law of Nations, 81: “The state arises as an effect of the consent of its inhabitants; otherwise, we would be dealing with a tyranny. The state thus emerges on the basis of a human right. It is similar to a natural organism and functions like that organism.” See also Jasudowicz, Śladami Ludwika Ehrlicha, 71–72.

Medicine And Law

451

approved by all.”170 This, of course, is one of the legal precedents that could be used to justify limitations upon rulers by the ruled, although in practice its application was very complex. In Paul’s works, however, it is chiefly used as an argument to nullify grants of Poland and pagan territory to the Knights. “Consent” in Paul’s thought was, therefore, not directly applied to any contractual theory of popular sovereignty or limited monarchy. Violence as a means of establishing dominion was a process which Paul recognized as all too common. He rejected it as a just alternative. His reasoning was simply that it was de facto rather than de jure.171 From the foregoing he concluded that any claims the empire had over infidels in general could not be justified in either of the first two ways, but only by the third. Therefore any privilege which allowed dominion to be established by conquest and violence, whether issued by the emperor or the pope, was invalid. Violence respected neither the natural rights of peoples nor the law of nations. In discussing the authority of spiritual and temporal rulers, Paul followed a medieval legal tradition which argued the supremacy of spiritualities over temporalities and which consequently ascribed full power to the pope as representative of both of these. This he justified by reference to both divine and natural law.172 In explaining this, Paul utilized most of the sword, sun, and selene symbolism and analogy which had served the canonists from the beginning of this tradition. He rejected the independent authority of the emperor as reflected in the thinking of the pro-imperial legists and cited such recent writers as Marsiglio of Padua only to reject their conclusions. The universal authority of the pope, however, is only in principle and not in usu et actu, for papal jurisdiction in temporal affairs has been delegated to the emperor and to kings. Nevertheless, because of the papal fullness of authority, the pope has jurisdiction, subject to the limitations of natural law, over the lands of the infidels. The emperor does not.173 170  “Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus approbari debuit.” For instances of Paul’s use of this, see the explicit citations in Impugnatio (19), and in Articuli accusationis contra Cruciferos ex parte Polonorum Sigismundo Imperatori Romanorum missi circa 1413, in Lites, 3, 52–55, here 54; and implied discussion in Ad videndum, 3, 142. The classic treatment of this rule is by Gaines Post, “A Romano-canonical maxim, ‘Quod omnes tangit’ in Bracton,” Traditio 4 (1946): 197–251. More briefly, see Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, 106–108. 171   Saevientibus, 1, 57: “De 3° modo non est opus prosequi cum sit de facto pocius quam de iure.” 172  On this point see the comments of Wielgus, Polska średniowieczna doktryna Ius Gentium, 61, and The Medieval Polish Doctrine of the Law of Nations, 84. 173  Paul’s arguments, described above, are found in their most straightforward form in Saevientibus and Opinio Ostiensis, and developed more systematically in Ad Aperiendam,

452

CHAPTER 8

Before tracing some of the implications of these views, it is worthwhile examining Paul’s position on a related issue, that of the authority of the pope within the church, particularly in relation to the council. Some scholars have seen in his writings and career a conciliarist position.174 As a professor and rector of the university, where from the time of Pisa to the demise of Basle this tradition was one of the most important intellectual currents within the faculty (as we shall see in the next chapter), this would not have been an exceptional stance for Paul to have taken. Moreover, his friendship and association with such conciliarists as Francesco Zabarella, his mentor from Padua, his attacks upon the papacy in De annatis, and his part in the Polish appeal to a future council when Martin V refunded to consider the condemnation of Falkenberg further at Constance, all lend credence to this assertion. But a careful analysis of the Vladimiran literary corpus and a close investigation of his politico-­ ecclesiastical policy do not ultimately support this conclusion. Paul’s relation to conciliarist associates nowhere reflects an approval of conciliarism, and to conclude that because his mentor was a leading figure at Constance, he was in agreement with him is simplistic. In the first place Zabarella’s own position was considerably more subtle and traditional than would appear from some of simplistic presentations of his leadership at Constance.175 He sought reform, the papal title was contested, and the Ad videndum, and Quoniam Error. In the view of Reid, “Paulus Vladimiri, the Tractatus, Opinio Hostiensis, and the Rights of Infidels,” 421–422, this theme represents one of three central strands of Paul’s thought on this principle. 174  See particularly Prochaska, “Na soborze,” 19, 91; Morawski, Historya, 1, 130–132; Fijałek, “Ostatnie słowo,” 2; Niesiołowski, “Testament Pawła Włodkowica,” 782; Tadeusz Brzostowski, Paweł Włodkowic (Warsaw: PAX, 1954), 59; FwP, 303; LTCP / SPTK, 3, 303 (with qualifications); and Woś, “Paulus Wladimiri,” 443. Although Ehrlich, Paweł Włodkowic, 53, places Paul in the conciliarist camp, he does not suggest this at all in his introduction to Pisma wybrana. A significant element in the argument that Paul held conciliarist views is based in his treatise De annatis, a stinging critique of papal ecclesiastical policy. Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 121, note 313, cites an unpublished 1999 M.A. thesis from the University of Cracow by Elżbieta Knapek dealing specifically with Paul’s views on annates, which I have not seen. More generally on this topic, see Jan Dudziak, “Kontrowersja wokół annat papieskich w Polsce,” Analecta Cracoviensia 20 (1988): 401–429, here 403–410. 175  Zabarella’s own status as a conciliarist is carefully assessed by Morrissey, “The Decree ‘Haec Sancta’ and Cardinal Zabarella. His role in its formulation and interpretation,” Annuarium Historiae Concilorum 10 (1978): 145–176; “Cardinal Zabarella on Papal and Episcopal Authority,” in Guy Fitch Lytle, ed., Proceedings of the First Patristic, Medieval and Renaissance Conference, Villanova University 1976 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1976), 39–52; and “Franciscus Zabarella (1360–1417): papacy,

Medicine And Law

453

­ edieval canonist tradition he represented provided for conciliar action in m ­emergencies.176 In addition, conciliarism, especially before the passage of the decree Haec sancta in 1415, was less radical than it later became.177 Neither does Paul’s critique of the papal system of administering benefices, which was based upon abuses and exactions and was made in a spirit of reform, reflect any attack upon the principle of the authority within the church of the pope. Even when Paul refers to the necessity of convening a council when the pope is negligent, his statements fall within the bounds of traditional medieval practice with respect to the need for and role of councils. His outlook does not reflect Parisian formulations of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries by such individual as D’Ailly and Gerson. Where he did criticize papal actions, as in the case of bulls purporting to donate infidel territories, this was on the basis of his understanding of natural law and the rights of nations and was not within the context of the subordination of a pope to a council. In general, as we have seen, he viewed the papacy in monarchial terms and regarded the pope as the true vicar of Christ and head of the church.178

c­ ommunity and limitations upon authority,” in Guy Fitch Lytle, ed., Reform and Authority in the Medieval and Reformation Church (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1981), 37–54. All three are reprinted with original pagination as items five, thirteen, and fourteen in Morrisey, Conciliarism and Church Law. He shows Zabarella’s conciliarist outlook to be traditional and moderate. 176  Whatever conciliarism owed to the political theory of Ockham and Marsiglio of Padua, it was deeply rooted in the tradition of the medieval canonists, as has been shown by Brian Tierney, Foundations of the Conciliar Theory. The Contributions of the Medieval Canonists from Gratian to the Great Schism, enlarged new [3rd] ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1998; original edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955). 177  The classic introduction in English to conciliarism remains the entry by Francis Oakley, “Conciliar Theory,” in Dictionary of the Middle Ages, 13 vols., Joseph R. Strayer, Editor-inChief (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1982–1989), 3, 510–523. His overview is complemented by two treatments of conciliarism by Antony Black, the first in his “The Conciliar Movement,” in J.H. Burns, ed., The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350–c. 1450 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 573–587, and the second in Black, Political Thought in Europe 1250–1450 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 169–178. 178  Not even his presence at Constance, which has been adduced by some as evidence of his support for the council, can be regarded as an argument for his as part of the conciliar tradition. He was arguing the Polish case before the only possible tribunal at the time, just as he presented it to both emperor and pope after the council. Moreover, when he called for the council to act, this was because it was considering the conflicting claims of the Poles and the Order, and at that time there was still no newly elected pope.

454

CHAPTER 8

There is also no ground for regarding Paul, in the spirit of the conciliar decree Frequens, as a conciliarist just because at Constance he eventually appealed from the new pope, Martin V, to a future council. It should be noted that the thrust of the Polish Appellatio179 was first to move the council and pope to immediate action on a specific issue. Paul considered that failure to act would be tantamount to tacit approval of the charges of Falkenberg. This was in accord with the principle which he frequently cited: “An error which is not resisted is approved.”180 Moreover the tenor of the appeal is suffused with respect for the pope as supreme head of the church and there is no mention of his subordination to the council. In the final analysis, the act is one of defiance, of respectful disobedience, which was justified on the basis that the pope was, in Paul’s eyes, unwilling to defend the faith in the terms which Paul thought necessary. It was an act of desperation, but it neither assumes nor argues that the council was superior to a pope.181 Thus the view of Paul as conciliarist seems to be unjustified, and so current scholarship has generally concluded. The pope was supreme in the church, just as he was in the world.182 From this understanding, Paul drew several conclusions. Papal authority was, for example, limited by the considerations of natural and divine law. Thus any order by a pope contrary to that law, such as granting the Order permission to wage war on pagans, would not be legal. On this basis Paul was able to formulate a rule of evidence and argue that even if the documents which 179  The Appellatio is published in Codex diplomaticus cathedralis Cracoviensis, 2 vols., Franciszek Piekosiński, ed. (Cracow: Nakładem Akademii Umiejętności, 1874–1883 [Monumenta Medii Aevi Historica Res Gestas Poloniae Illustrantia 1 and 8]), 2, 432–440, no. 581. On Paul as author, or at least involved in the drafting of the appeal, see Fijałek, “Dwaj Dominikanie Krakowscy: Jan Biskupiec i Jan Falkenberg,” in Księga pamiątkowa ku czci Oswalda Balzera, 2 vols. (Lwów: Księgarnia Gubrynowicza, 1925), 271–348, here 312 and 319; Brzostowski, Paweł Włodkowic, 140; Ehrlich, Paweł Włodkowic, 109–110; and Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 181. 180  Most conveniently in the opening sentence of Quoniam error, 2, 215: “Quoniam error cui non resistitur approbatur et veritas que minime defensatur opprimitur,” citing, as Erhlich notes, Gratian’s Decretum, c. 3, dist. 83. 181  Marian Rechowicz, “Po założeniu wydziału teologicznego w Krakowie (wiek XV),” in Rechowicz, ed., Dzieje Teologii Katolickiej, 1, 132, has accurately described this step “not as a doctrinal conciliarism, but rather procedural in nature.” 182  Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 335–340 (but see the review essays devoted to Belch’s work in Zapiski Historyczne 33 [1968]: 573–584 and 37 [1972]: 501–509, both by Andrzej Grabski); Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen, 143–144 (“Bei keinem Autor aus dem polnischen Raum vor der Zeit des Basler Konzils sind konziliaristische, auf eine ekklesiologische Neuorientierung hindeutende Gedanken auszumachen.”); Oźóg, Uczeni, 92 (implicitly) and The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Poland, 118 (explicitly).

Medicine And Law

455

the Knights produced in their own defense were authentic and neither forged nor tampered with (though he clearly believed them to have been altered as they were cited in transcripts) they would be invalid, for the pope may not prejudice anyone’s rights.183 In addition, by showing that imperial power is inferior and subordinate to papal power, he concluded that if the pope does not have the right to authorize occupation of the lands of the infidels, certainly the emperor does not have that right. Thus all imperial grants to the Order are equally invalid.184 Paul extended his arguments about the limitation of the authority of secular rulers to monarchs in their own kingdom. Not even these have the right to alienate the territory of the regnum. Even if they should properly consult with, and receive the consent of, all in the kingdom on such an issue, they would be prevented by natural law from making a valid grant. This is because the dominion of the kingdom is a public, not a private thing (res publica non privata). The king does not own the properties and their rights, but is merely their administrator. A donation of territory, to the Order for example, would infringe upon the natural rights of the kingdom and would as a result be invalid.185 There is, therefore, no way by which any of the grants to the Order may be judged legal. In the face of this reasoning and citing of legal precedent, Paul was nevertheless confronted with the reality of the Order’s actions. He was compelled to make suggestions as to how these infractions of the law as he understood it should be dealt with and how to provide a framework for settling future disputes. Paul’s understanding of human nature and of the principles of natural and divine law led him to conclude that the natural tendency of humanity was peaceful and inclined toward the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Human beings love one another, wishing themselves to live in peace and desiring the same for others in accord with the moral principle of doing unto

183  For examples of this reasoning, see Opinio Ostiensis, 1, 124–125; and Quoniam error, 2, 226, 238, and 381. 184  Among numerous instances, see Savientibus, 1, 57; Opinio Ostiensis, 1, 127–128; and Ad Aperiendam, 1, 228–229. 185   Ad videndum, 3, 141: “Rex non est dominus bonorum et iurium Regni sed administrator. Alia enim sunt bona pertinencia ad personam Regis et alia pertinencia ad Regnum.” Paul approached this matter in another work, In causa Serenissimi domini Regis Poloniae: circa praescriptionem appositam dicitur illam non abstare evidentissimis rationibus, in Lites, 3, 338–342: “. . . etiam si consensu hominum dictarum terrarium intervenisset, non potuerunt reges dictas terras alienare in enorme praeiudicium regni.” (339, as emended by Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 305, note 173.)

456

CHAPTER 8

others what you would have done to you.186 The example of love comes from God through Christ, and this love argues all men to peace, which is the greatest good on earth. When the peace is broken, however, there remain only the three alternatives which Paul outlined in his letter of 1432 to Bishop Oleśnicki; agreement, war, and adjudication. The first two he rejected, accepting the third. In order to achieve this, two steps are necessary. One is the processus doctrinalis, by which principles of the law are determined; the other is processus iudicalis, by which evidence is gathered bearing on the truth of allegations and claims and by which facts are established.187 In discussing the first process, Paul makes certain principles clear. Defense is permissible and war is admissible as a means of defense; the normal means of defense is the use of protection by law, and one may not be deprived of rights without a judicial procedure in which those rights may be defended; it is illegal to take away, or to authorize the taking away of, rights without establishing the legal basis for this; and whoever wages war in a just cause must establish this in a legitimate investigation and may not simply declare one’s self to be in the right.188 These principles raise a problem, however, when it comes to a consideration of the processus iudicalis. Before whom and in what way may such a process be carried out? Ideally for Paul, there is only one answer to this question: God is the supreme judge, who governs and orders everything well, and He alone knows how to handle the depraved will of wicked individuals.189 But that all persons would follow God’s direction in matters of international dispute was unrealistic, for Paul recognized that people are often perverted from the natural good by their unnatural selves. Therefore, since differences between individuals were both inevitable and, in the experience of Paul and the nation, a fact of life, he proposed a more tangible alternative. In doing so he 186  See the treatment above and, for Paul’s treatment of it, citing Aristotle and Aquinas, in Quoniam Error, 2, 390–391. Wielgus, Polska średniowieczna doktryna Ius Gentium, 63–66, and The Medieval Polish Doctrine of the Law of Nations, 86–89, develops Paul’s analysis of the nature of man more fully. 187   Iste Tractatus, 2, 182–183: “per processum doctrinalem quo proceditur non ex singularibus sed ex universalibus et nocioribus, non per experienciam sed in naturali lumine intellectus . . . per alium processum, videlicet iudiccialem indaginem et probare per testes legitimos quibus nota sunt ad sensum talia facta singularia iustificancia ipsum bellum.” In the larger context of this passage, Paul is arguing that only the second way is able to determine in a specific instance whether a war is just. 188  For these arguments, see Quoniam Error, 2, 225; 2, 309; 2, 309 and 310; and 2, 367. 189   Epistola ad Episcopum Cracoviensem, 3, 213–214: “Sed Deus cui tempora cuncta sub­ servient regens et ordinans bene universa . . .; qui solus malignancium hominum volountatibus pravis novit bene uti.”

Medicine And Law

457

discussed in detail rules of evidence which provided the mechanical foundations for implementing the judicial process. Several kinds of tribunals or courts existed which might serve Paul’s purpose. One was reflected in the arbitration which Sigismund attempted to effect between Poland and the Order in 1412. It had a certain usefulness, but in the final analysis failed to accomplish its goals because its jurisdiction and the binding force of its decisions arose only from the willingness of each of the parties to submit the matter to it. Something more fundamental then this was required. Another possibility was an ecumenical council of the church, such as Constance. Paul clearly placed more confidence in it, for it contained within its assembly representatives of every natio, participants from secular governments, the universities, and the several organs of the church, and was moreover in contact with pagan and schismatic peoples. For this reason he directed to it not only theoretical arguments and detailed statements of fact on behalf of the Poles, but also proposed certain specific acts which it should undertake, especially in regard to the Knights. His understanding of its competency and responsibilities is reflected in his appeal to it “to correct errors, to give relief to oppressed justice, to put an end to doubts, and to remove efficiently from the church of God those things which hamper or offend, so that falsehood or fallacious opinion may not prejudice truth or iniquity prevail over equity.”190 Despite its representative character, however, the shortcomings of the council were only too apparent to him. Factionalism within it and its status as only an occasional gathering (even with the decree Frequens) meant that it could only serve Paul’s ideal sporadically (though he would have been satisfied had it acted decisively in the spirit which he recommended). But its greatest weakness was that it was not the unified head, analogous to a monarchy, that was necessary for a true international authority. Paul’s answer lay therefore in the only office endowed with universal jurisdiction, in matters temporal as well as spiritual: that of the vicar of Christ, the pope. It was not only that he has the requisite competent jurisdiction; he is also a just person because he personifies the justness of Christ. In light of what has been said before regarding Paul’s thought, this is not a surprising conclusion. That it is also an idealistic conclusion is also clear, for Paul was never able to define adequately the coercive means by which the judgments of this court would be enforced. Moreover, as Frederick Russell has observed, “his failure illustrates the folly of attempting to resolve disputes according to commonly 190   Ad Aperiendam, 1, 144: “cuius est errata corrigere oppressam iusticiam relevare finem dubijs imponere et que officiunt vel offendunt ab ecclesia Dei efficaciter removere ne falsitas aut fallax opinio veritati preiudicet et iniquitas prevaleat equitati.”

458

CHAPTER 8

accepted principles.”191 But his concern for an international rule of law and justice in the world is nevertheless admirable. That he never fully solved the problem inherent in his aspiration is not an indictment of him; it is rather a judgment upon humanity that it has yet to find the means to achieve the reign of peace and justice he sought. Old problems are with us still. The Contribution: An Assessment In the historiography of international law and the law of nations, some scholars have seen Paul Vladimiri as a precursor of Francisco Vitoria and Hugo Grotius and have attributed to him a role in the development of these laws. They see him as the leading representative of the Cracow school of international relations. This judgment has been most commonly made by Polish scholars (both in Poland and abroad),192 but it is has also been found among western ­historians.193 Although there are some elements of Paul’s contribution which do indeed bear upon the tradition which culminated in Grotius, on balance it must be said that such an interpretation is not demonstrable and in fact misrepresents the true nature of Paul’s importance. We shall examine briefly the bases upon which these conclusions rest. As the founders of modern international law (though the term was not coined until much later, by Jeremy Bentham), Vitoria and Grotius owed no direct debt to Paul. They neither cited nor knew his works. But beyond this, he 191  Russell, “Paulus Vladimiri’s Attack on the Just War,” 254. He also goes on to observe in the following sentence that “the attempt to transfer Poland’s dispute from battlefield to court failed testifies to the practical limitations of late scholastic dialectic.” 192  In particular by Ehrich, Paweł Włodkowic and Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, both of whom review the substantial older literature. Other Polish scholarship supporting this interpretation and conclusion include Konstanty Grzybowski, “Paweł Włodkowic a współczesna mu Kanonistyka,” Państwo i Prawo 10 (1955): 799–814, and his “Rozwój myśli państwowej na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w pierwszej połowie w. XV,” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ 141–144; Paweł Czartoryski, “Średniowiecze,” in Czartoryski and Paweł Rybicki, Historia Nauki Polskiej, vol. 1: Średniowiecze i Odrodzenie, Bogdan Suchodolski, ed. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970), 142–144 (treating what he describes as the “Polish doctrine of the law of nations”); and Zenon Kałuża, “Paweł Włodkowic i problem jego doktryny,“ Zeszyty Naukowe KUL 21 (1978): 85–92. Among the more recent supporters of this position, sometimes with qualifications, are Jasudowicz, Śladami Ludwika Ehrlicha, especially 19–21; Wielgus, Polska średniowieczna doktryna Ius Gentium, 7–10 especially, and The Medieval Polish Doctrine of the Law of Nations, 7–10 especially; and Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe in the Middle Ages, 111–119. 193  For example Jean Moreau-Reibel, “Le droit de société interhumaine et le ‘Jus Gentium.’ Essai sur les origins et le developpement des notions jusqu’a Grotius,” Recueil des Cours de l’Academie de Droit International 77 (1950), 481–598, here 523–536.

Medicine And Law

459

exercised no indirect influence upon their thought. Although Vitoria in particular drew upon some aspects of the canonical tradition which influenced Paul, the Spanish theorist did not use works which bore any imprint of Paul’s thought and writing. Efforts such as those by Stanislaus Belch to demonstrate that Paul Vladimiri “influenced his colleagues, the Italian canonists and civil lawyers of renown” and that he was “not without influence upon the tradition common to European Christianity”194 rest upon very tenuous foundations which emphasize similarities in sources and treatments rather than specific lines of influence. Moreover, there are significant differences between the two. It is not possible to provide a systematic comparative study of the thought of the two men in this context, but it should be pointed out that on such issues as the authority of the pope, emperor, and sovereign monarch, the legitimacy of Christian dominions over pagans (Vladimiri) or barbarians (Vitoria), and the criteria and conditions of waging just war, the two reach different conclusions. There is no suggestion that the later scholar was influenced by or had direct knowledge of the earlier’s views.195 The same is even more true with regard to Grotius. Whereas Paul’s intellectual milieu was the world of late scholasticism and the medieval tradition of natural law and the ius gentium, Grotius 194  Belch, Paulus Vladimiri, 1, 744. 195  Vitoria’s thought is best approached through the study by Bernice M. Hamilton, Political Thought in Sixteenth Century Spain. A study of the political ideas of Vitoria, De Soto, Suárez, and Molina (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1963), 11–29 (an examination of natural law— theory and implications), 98–109 (where she deals with the ‘Jus Gentium’ or Law of Nations), 135–157 (where her topic is war and the laws of war); see also her conclusion (166–167 on the ‘Jus Gentium,’ 169–170 on war and its law[s], and 171–176, a short biography of Vitoria). That the issue is not quite as clear-cut as stated in the text is shown by Woś, “Un débat ouvert: Paulus Wladimiri et Francisco de Vitoria,” MPP 21 (1975):85–88, who suggests that recent research in the libraries and archives of Salamanca has revealed manuscript evidence that may show a connection between the two. Similar suggestions about such a possible connection were early made by Bohdan Winiarski, “Vitoria i Włodkowic,” Sprawozdania z Czynności i Posiedzeń Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności 40 (1935): 341–345. More recently the same views have been argued by Angel Rodriguez-Bachiller, “Paulus Wladimiri, precursor de Francisco de Vitoria,” in Christian Wenin, ed., L’homme et son universe au Moyen Age. Actes du Septieme Congres International de Philosophie Médiévale (30 aout–4 septembre 1982), 2 vols. (Louvain-la-Neuve : Ed. de l’Institut supérieur de philosophie, 1986), 2, 863–868. Kałuża, “Paweł Włodkowic i problem jego doktryny,” 91–92, has also suggested a potential relationship because the latter was interested in issues before the Council of Constance in which the Poles were engaged. But, as Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 119, has, perhaps reluctantly, observed “Nevertheless, this issues requires further study and a more detailed analysis.” See also the comments of Świeboda, Innowiercy, 184, n. 371.

460

CHAPTER 8

wrote from a tradition which had been transformed by religious, philosophical, political, and commercial developments in the intervening two centuries. His sources and his conclusions were far different from Paul’s. It is doubtful, therefore, that Paul played a role in contributing to the development of modern international law, whether in the context of native rights in colonial lands or with regard to the issues that engaged Grotius.196 It is equally doubtful that Paul may be called a precursor of later developments. Although his fundamental problem was the same as that faced by later writers, and there is scarcely an issue related to international order that he did not touch upon at one point of another, Paul proposed no solutions or interpretations that went beyond the medieval tradition upon which he drew. To be sure, he sharpened the focus on some issues, as in discussing the rights of nonChristians and attributing to them a legitimate autonomy in their natural rights and dominions. But none of his conclusions ran counter to canonical lore. If they had, his proposals would have been opposed by the legal establishment of the church rather than merely being attacked by the political propagandists of the Teutonic Order. In his reliance upon the unity (real or hypothetical) of medieval Christianitas, Paul represented a tradition far different from that of the writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, who achieved a new level in the development of international law. Even the arguments that he relied upon such authors as Marsiglio of Padua and Ockham,197 whose thought indeed represented a powerful critique of many common assumptions within Christendom, is not justified. Paul cited them either indirectly, or on points which were germane to his own theses but peripheral to their critical thrust, or on issues where he disagreed with them.198 As a result, Paul’s involvement with the basic issues that such later writers as Victoria treated resulted in conclusions which were neither original nor influential beyond the immediate issue to which they were directed. Paul did not foreshadow the future approach to these issues; he recapitulated and synthesized the existing tradition.199 The 196  As Brennan, “Just War, Sovereignty, and Canon Law,” 296, has pointedly observed “There is no concrete evidence, for instance, that Wlodkowic’s consilia were ever used in the debate over shaping policy for the conquest of the New World beginning later within the same century as the Council of Constance.” 197  See the discussion of this issue by Grzybowski, “Paweł Włodkowic,” 803 and 806. 198  Woś, “Paulus Wladimiri,” 458–459. 199  Among the critics of the interpretation that Paul was influential upon the development of modern international law are Boockmann, Johannes Falkenberg, 229–234; Woś, “Paulus Wladimiri,” 438–439 and 458–461; and, carefully qualified, Russell, “”Paulus Vladimiri’s Attack on the Just War,” 253: “The problems Paulus addressed would soon resurface with the European conquest of America. Though no direct influence of his thought has been

Medicine And Law

461

assessment of Timothy Brennan thus rings particularly true: “Wlodkowic was more a scholar in line with a growing body of canonical thought than a radical or innovative thinker or even a forerunner of modern law.”200 There is more justice to the assertion that he was a representative of a Cracow school of international relations, although that description implies a more systematic and cohesive approach then seems warranted from the nature of Paul’s writings and the characteristics of teaching within the university. The particular political issues of the day did stimulate discussion on the rights of pagans, the proper relations between states, and questions of peace and order. This is reflected not only in Paul’s writings, but those of Stanisław of Skarbimierz, the author of Revocatur, and a number of other discussions in sermons, speeches, and commentaries by other faculty at Cracow in this period.201 Moreover, though Paul was the leading figure, he was not an isolated one; he was part of a learned community based within the university that was actively involved in the prosecution and support of Polish political policy.202 That this “school” of thought had little influence was due to several factors. Poland’s position on the periphery of Latin Europe and the resolution of the immediate political issues between Poland and the Teutonic Knights after the Thirteen Years War allowed the work of these scholars to fall into obscurity, at least as far as the rest of western civilization was concerned. In addition, one should not underestimate the important of the absence of printing at this point. Hand written manuscripts simply did not circulate in the way printed shown, Paulus adumbrated the doctrines of early modern international law and historical jurisprudence.” 200  Brennan, “Just War, Sovereignty, and Canon Law,” 310. 201  On this latter group, see the discussion of Wielgus, Polska średniowieczna doktryna Ius Gentium, 15–18, and The Medieval Polish Doctrine of the Law of Nations, 17–20. Several of these are derived, not from the law faculty, but from the theology, as for example, some of the questions taken up by Benedict Hesse of Cracow in his extensive commentary on Matthew. In his treatment of views by Cracovian intellectuals on the nature of the state and of authority, Oźóg, Uczeni, 74–146, necessarily treats some of these same matters, as does Świeboda, Innowiercy, 243–268, in his treatment of Benedict Hesse and 269–288, on James of Paradyż and some others. 202  This point is made by both Oźóg, “Die Krakauer Universität und ihre Teilnahme am öffentlichen Leben des jagiellonischen Königreiches,” in Ritualisierung politischer Willensbildung. Polen und Deutschland im hohen und späten Mittelalter, Wojciech Fałkowski, Bernd Schneidmüller, and Stefan Weinfurter, eds. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010), 163–181, here 174–176; and my own “Working for the King (and Queen): Krakovian Scholars in Royal Service in Late Medieval Poland,” The Polish Review 59 (2014): 3–18, here specially 9–14.

462

CHAPTER 8

works ­eventually did. Finally, the work of Constance, which was the arena in which the contribution of the Cracow scholars on these matters was chiefly made, was only incidentally concerned with the Polish-Order conflict. It was the issues of ending the Great Western Schism, of extirpating heresy (i.e., that of John Hus), and of reforming the church in capite et in membris (and also, perhaps, of self-justification) which were the paramount concerns of the council. If Paul was not influential upon the modern tradition of international law, and if the achievement of the Cracovian school which he represented was ephemeral, this does not mean he made no contribution and was u ­ nimportant.203 On the contrary, he stands as a major figure, who, despite the attention already paid to him by scholars, deserves further study. Paul is one of the most striking examples of the activist intellectual in the European tradition. His command of the legal heritage of the middle ages marks him as a man of great learning; his skill in arguing the Polish case in a variety of forums and on a wide array of specific issues reveals a powerful intellect able to direct abstract theory to immediate goals; and his willingness to exercise his juristic and academic knowledge on behalf of the Polish policy stamps him as a responsible subject and servant at a time when it was not yet possible to be the same as a citizen.204 But more than this, Paul’s writings reveal the culmination of an important aspect of medieval civilization. One who would learn more about medieval ideals of unity and order, about the spirit of Christendom as a sanctified society in which Christ has transformed culture, about the potential for toleration which lay within what is often regarded as an intolerant age,205 and about the practice of politics and the behavior of men in the world will find in the thought of Paul Vladimiri an unparalleled treasury of the best and the worst in a millennium of the human venture. Political and legal philosophy at the University of Cracow in the period of this study flourished only in the first half of the century. During the second half, the creative energies of the faculty were directed toward different

203  In addition to literature cited above in this chapter and in Chapter Five dealing with Paul and his writings, the following older studies are still useful: Giorgio Agosti, “Bezpośrednie źródło ‘Tractatus de potestate Papae respectu infidelium’ Pawła Włodkowica, Roczniki Historyczne 12 (1936): 300–317; and Hans-Dietrich Kahl, “Die völkerrechtliche Lösung der ‘Heidenfrage’ bei Paulus Vladimiri von Krakau (†1435) und ihre problemgeschichtliche Einordnung,” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 7 (1958): 161–209. 204  Swieżawski, U źródeł nowożytnej etyki, 243–256. 205  Jerzy Wyrozumski, “L’idée de tolerance à l’Université de Cracovie dans la première moitié du X[V]e siècle,” in Sophie [Zofia] Włodek, ed., Société et Église. Textes et discussions dans les universités d’Europe centrale pendant le Moyen Âge tardif (Turnhout: Brepols, 1995), 133–143, here 138–142.

Medicine And Law

463

­problems.206 In addition, in these early decades there were other intellectual avenues which were explored, including conciliar thought and, as seen in Chapter Six, the problems connected with the interpretation and teaching of Aristotle’s Politics. Although the latter clearly border upon the topics treated in this present chapter, those connected with conciliarism will be discussed below in Chapter Eight. Within the scope of this chapter’s focus, however, a sufficient body of material was produced so that it is possible to draw some general conclusions about the distinguishing characteristics of that thought.

Summary Overview

One of these is the generally antispeculative nature of Paul’s and others’ writings. To the extent he was able, Vladimiri based his conclusions in international affairs upon actual facts, and indeed there is a historical dimension to his arguments that some have seen as exercising a degree of influence upon the later fifteenth century historian John Długosz.207 As a result he did not write a large 206  Outside the university, though developed by university trained individuals (not all of them having studied in Poland), there continued to be a tradition of political philosophy in the second half of the century. This is chiefly represented by the work of John Ostroróg (ca. 1436–1501), Monumentum pro Reipublicae ordinatione (the shorter title by which this treatise is traditionally known), dated variously between 1447 and 1475. See the comments of Świeboda, Innowiercy, 333–337. Representing a centralized theory of state and society based upon ius commune, the Monumentum represents a line of development that culminated in the De republica emendanda of Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski in the sixteenth century. For Ostroróg, see Domański, Początki humanizmu (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1982 [Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 9]), and, in slightly revised form Scholastyka i początki humanizmu w myśli polskiej XV wieku (Warsaw: Instytut Tomistyczny, 2011), 230– 234; and Harold B. Segel, Political Thought in Renaissance Poland. An Anthology in English (New York: PIASA Books, 2003), 18–24 and, for an English translation of the Monumentum, 72–86. A different direction of thought is represented by Stanisław Zaborowski (†1530) at the turn of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. His Tractatus de natura iurium et bonorum Regis de reformatione regni emphasized the supremacy of divine law over natural law and of canon law over ius commune and reveals aspects of the curialist ideology promoted by the papacy since the pontificate of Nicholas V. On his thought, see Seńko, “Z badań nad historią myśli społecno-politycznej w Polsce w XV wieku,” in Palacz, ed., Filozofia Polska, 36; and the comments of Lech Szczucki in Filozofia i myśl społeczna XVI wieku, Szczucki, ed. (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1978 [700 lat myśl polskiej]), 36, together with a Polish translation of part of his treatise, 36–42. 207  This point is made by Russell, “Paulus Vladimiri’s Attack on the Just War,” 250, but developed more systematically by Belch “Paweł Włodkowic jako historyk i jego wpływ na Długosza,” Teki Historyczne 10 (1959): 75–101.

464

CHAPTER 8

systematic treatise. He was always concerned with establishing principles and applying them to concrete situations. The same was true of Stanisław’s Sermo de bellis iustis. Though it was couched in abstract terms, it was meant to be applied to the specific issue of the composition of the Polish-Lithuanian army that fought the Knights at Grunwald and elsewhere. A second characteristic of Cracovian thought is related to the first. This was its utilitarian and practical tenor. Its emphasis was upon the reality of the human condition and how to live in society. (As we have seen, and shall see below also, this utilitarian character is strongly reflect in other intellectual currents within the university.) Both Paul and Stanisław emphasized there the elements of natural law which provide for the peaceful and harmonious ordering of life.208 From these two characteristics follow both an understanding of what the best society should be and the nature of the university as a model of that society. Stanisław spoke to this first of these in another of his many sermons. In his De republica, as it is usually known,209 he describes society as an organism in which all the elements must work together as a unit for the common good.210 If they do not, the society is destroyed, just as in a body all the parts must function in harmony for the good of the whole.211 He recognized that the analogy does not hold true completely, for in a disordered body one may call upon a physician. In a disordered state, however, one is forced to rely upon suitable laws. These are derived from the reason of man. That state is best which functions under laws that are reasonable, evident, useful, and honest. Such laws

208  Seńko, “Myśli społeczno-polityczna,” 27–30; and Jerzy Rebeta, Początki nauk społeczynych. Podstawy metodologiczne (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1988 [Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 11]), 100–101 and 220. 209  Discussed by Seńko, “Z badań nad historią myśli społecno-politycznej w Polsce w XV wieku,” in Palacz, ed., Filozofia Polska, Palacz; quotations in the notes below are from his treatment. 210  As Oźóg, Uczeni, 80, has noted, with references to the literature, this organic analogy was an ancient one, derived from classical antiquity and the bible. It appears in a number of faculty speeches and sermons, especially those which focus—as here—on the studium and upon the ideal state. See also the discussion of some of these issues in Chapter Six. 211  “Sicut signum est patens dissolutionis corporis naturalis, si membra frigescunt, facies palescit, nasus nigrescit, oculi decidunt, pectus palpitat, vox ramescit, venae rumpuntur, cor torquetur—ita signum est destructionis regni, si rigiditas aut frigiditas est inter membra, si unum membrum usurpat alterius officium, si partialitas, si specialitas pro magna parte inspicitur, si veritas et iustitia locum non habebit, sed tyrranides, si rectores civitatum aut policiarum sint socii furum, si iudices habent participium traditorum. Ex quibus patet quod nephas est quod unum membrum aliud confundat et feriat sine lege.” (38–39)

Medicine And Law

465

defend the health of a state more surely than the greatest army.212 To this formulation, John of Ludzisko—a physician with a doctoral degree from Italy but also an early adherent of Renaissance rhetoric—added a corollary in mid-century when, as university orator, he welcomed King Casimir the Jagiellonian on behalf of the school. At that time he urged the monarch to consider the welfare of all his subjects, for unless all received the benefits of justice and order, none would. He was speaking specifically about the plight of the peasantry (from which he had probably come) and urged the king to ameliorate their condition since all men are by nature born free and equal.213 That society is best, in his view, which serves the welfare of all. Finally, there were some who saw the university itself as an organism similar to the state and praised its statutes as a microcosm of the whole society. It was a corporate whole which, in their eyes, made it into a kind of ideal for that larger society.214 In his speech Unum corpus multi sumus,215 Thomas Strzempiński, doctor of law, rector, and eventual chancellor as Bishop of Cracow, described the studium as a corpus of many parts, each with its own function. The rector is like the head who presides over the body as the representative of God. The heart is represented by the professors of theology; the eyes, ears, and tongue are the doctors of law; and the hands are the masters, bachelors, and students who assist the rector. All these work together for the advance of knowledge both practical and speculative. As a single body the university was governed by statutes just as society was governed by laws. In the view of Nicholas Kozłowski, theologian, rector, book collector, and renowned preacher, these 212  “Lex autem, perquam debet salubriter dirigi Respublica, debet esse rationalis, evidens, utilis, et honesta. . . . Ex quibus patet quod Respublica magis virtutibus quam armis adornatur.” (39–40) 213  “Omnes homines natura genuit liberos et aequales. . . .” Johannis de Ludzisko Orationes, Jacek S. Bojarski, ed. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1971), 65. This speech has been studied in detail by Feliks Koneczny, “Wiadomość z r. 1447 o stanie ludu wiejskiego w Polsce czy na Litwie,” Ateneum Wileńskie 6 (1929): 8–15; and Franciszek Bujak, “Mowa Jana z Ludziska do króla Kazimierza Jagiellończyka z r. 1447 i zagadnienie niewoli w Polsce ówczesnej,” in Przemysław Dąbrowski, ed., Księga pamiąkowa ku czci Władysława Abrahama, 2 vols. (Lwów: Gubrynowicz, 1930–1931), 2, 217–233. 214  This is the interpretation presented by Jerzy Drewnowski, Uczony w świadomości polskiego środowiska naukowego pierwszej połowy XV wieku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1987), 25–85. He presents the faculty as possessing a sense of their own identity that privileged them as models, with a special value and moral dignity. Some of these same points are developed by Oźóg, Uczeni, 137–146. 215  See Maria Kowalczyk, Krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie z pierwszej połowy XV w. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970), 46, 51, 62 for a partially edited text.

466

CHAPTER 8

statutes ­provide the best protection for the fulfillment of the goals of learning, just as laws in society provide for the welfare of the citizens.216 Thus the university in this period produced a variety of contributions to legal and political philosophy. They ranged from the occasional to the formal, from passing reference to detailed analyses of principles and problems. In sum they represented an intellectual vitality of the same high level that is found in other parts of the studium. One of these, to which we now turn, was theology.

216   “Statuta ipsius Universitatis non sunt statuta regalia . . . civilia . . . legibus artificiorum . . . legibus vendentibus et ementibus. . . . Unde statuta nostra tendunt ad hoc, ut homo studiosus dimitteret occupationes, quae sunt scientiis inimice. . . . Merito ergo et quilibet studentium vitam suam debet formare secundum ea . . . universitatis statuta etiam sun quaedam sacramenta, ex quo servari sub iuramento sunt promissa.” Ibid., 65, n. 59.

CHAPTER 9

Theology Theology was, both intellectually and institutionally, the capstone of the medieval university, especially in the north. Though its status as the “queen of sciences” has recently been problematized by Bernard McGinn,1 this discipline nevertheless represented the ultimate knowledge in the context of medieval learning and schooling. In A.B. Cobban’s words, it “assumed in the hierarchy of medieval education the crowning position.”2 It dealt with those matters which impinged directly upon the foundations of the faith at a time when belief was a more immediate and relevant issue than can perhaps be imagined today. Theology occupied an equally high position in the academic structure of the university. Particularly in such studia as Paris, it was the best endowed faculty, and professors in this area regularly took precedence over their colleagues in the arts, medicine, and law. Although never more than the pursuit of a minority of both faculty and students, it nevertheless occupied both in place and prestige a preeminent position. The emergence of scholastic theology and its organization in a specific faculty had been a slow and often contentious process in the middle ages. By the late medieval period, however, its development had been so far stabilized that with the restoration of Cracow in 1400 it was possible for this subject to be pursued within a broadly accepted European framework.3 Thus in his act of foundation, King Władysław Jagiełło gave to the theological faculty the primary responsibility for the completion of Lithuania’s Christianization and for raising the level of civilization in Poland to equal that

1  Bernard McGinn, “Regina quondam . . .,” Speculum 83 (2008): 817–839. 2  A.B. Cobban, The Medieval Universities, their development and organization (London: Methuen, 1975), 12. 3  The evolution, drawing upon and synthesizing previous scholarship, is discussed by Monika Asztalos, “The Faculty of Theology,” in Hilda de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992 [A History of the University in Europe, Walter Rüegg, General Editor, 1]), 409–441, here 409–414. For the name of this faculty and the terminology used to designate instruction in it, see Mariken Teeuwen, The Vocabulary of Intellectual Life in the Middle Ages (Turnhout: Brepols, 2003 [Études sur le vocabulaire intellectuel du moyen age 10]), 379–381, discussing particularly the terms divina scientia, sacra doctrina, theologia, and theologus.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004326019_011

468

CHAPTER 9

of the neighbors which surrounded it.4 In addition, Jagiełło’s first detailed regulation of endowed benefices for the university insured that the theologians would not suffer material constraints. Even Stanisław of Skarbimierz, despite his preference for the study of canon law, granted theology the chief place within the university in his inaugural address as the first rector. Recognizing that it dealt with matters of the soul, he compared it to the head of a person which directs all the other parts of the body. In his words, it was theology which brought the university its greatest honor.5 This chapter examines the thought and writings of the members of that ­faculty. To a much greater extent than in law, this contribution came within the context of the teaching and writing associated with the academic life of the school, although one major element of the Cracovian tradition was formulated as a result of the university’s participation in the wider ecclesiastical world of the fifteenth century church councils. In order to understand the intellectual context within which the theologians at Cracow worked, we begin with some background and with an analysis of the relationship between philosophy and theology in the thought of the Cracovian professoriate. In turn we shall then deal with doctrinal currents in commentaries upon the Sentences of Peter Lombard, with the tradition of biblical exegesis among the faculty, with the ecclesiology of the school as revealed in the several conciliar treatises written in mid-century and related materials, and finally with a range of lesser theological problems to which professors devoted attention. This will provide a basis by way of conclusion for some general observations about the chief characteristics of Cracovian theology in the fifteenth century.

4  C DUC, 1, no. 16, 25–26: “ut hos terrarum nostrarum Lythuaniae indigenas et subditos. . . . in lucis filios convertamus, horum tamen ope pariter et opera, quorum animos sapientiae et doctrinae plenitudo decoravit, videlicet in fundamentis et profunditatibus scripturarum expertorum, quorum etiam consilio thronus roboratur regius ut eorum virtutis actibus reipublicae stabilitas semper salubribus proficit incrementis. . . . Profecto ad hoc summi dispositione praesidii plurimarum terrarum obtinuimus principatum et regni Poloniae recepimus dyadema, ut ipsum regnum claritate doctarum personarum illustremus, quarum doctrinis defectus et umbras eius possemus evellere, ipsumque caeteris regionibus coaequare.” 5  The text of his speech is in Juliusz Domański, “Discours d’inauguration fait per Stanislas de Skarbimierz à l’occasion du renouveau de l’Université de Cracovie,” MPP 24 (1979): 123–132; reprinted in Stanisław ze Skarbimierza Mowy wybrane o mądrości, Mirosław Korolko, ed. (Cracow: Arcana, 2000), 236–257. As noted in the previous chapter, however, Stanisław accords law, particularly canon law, a particularly elevated status, even while granting theology pride of place.

Theology



469

The Relationship Between Philosophy and Theology: General Observations

The scholastic culture of the high middle ages confronted anew the issue of the place of reason in faith. This was particularly a question as efforts were made to integrate, to the degree possible, the expanded corpus of Aristotelian thought that became available in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The accomplishment of Aquinas at Paris was to accept Aristotle’s natural philosophy and Christianize his metaphysics. He moved philosophy into areas of revelation and found it both useful to, and compatible with, faith. But Thomas’ achievement was a fragile one that was already being challenged at his death. After the condemnations of 1270 and 1277, the effort to harmonize faith and natural reason in a single, coherent system withered quickly. Henceforth, there was a progressive disengagement between theology and philosophy, and the heritage of the fourteenth century was one of critique, controversy, and ­confusion.6 It is against this background that the theological tradition of Cracow in the ­fifteenth century must be seen. The interests of the professoriate were directed away from speculative issues and toward moral and practical problems. As reflected in lectures on the Sentences and in sermons, in biblical commentary and exegesis, and in ecclesiological treatises, one common theme was a careful distinction made by Cracovian faculty between human reason (i.e., philosophy) and divine revelation. Some individuals grant a greater potential to the former than others, but all gave precedence to the latter. Another characteristic of the Cracovian outlook was that the concept of theology as a metaphysical, speculative approach was generally shunned. Neither its method nor its goal was regarded as being knowledge for itself; instead knowledge was important only as it led to the practical ends of eternal happiness, love of God, and true wisdom. While all would grant philosophy a legitimate role in the natural world, most tend to circumscribe that role in regard to matters of the faith. One may not independently demonstrate these matters through philosophy; one may only reach some degree of understanding of them after the fact of revelation. Thus for the Cracow theologians, particularly those in the first half of the century who have been generally better studied, the ruling conception of theology was far different from that of the system builders of the thirteenth century. One reflection 6  A good, reliable and up-to-date treatment of these developments is provided by Anthony Kenny, Medieval Philosophy (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 2005 [A New History of Western Philosophy 2]), 54–105. See also Marcia L. Colish, Medieval Foundations of the Western Intellectual Tradition 400–1400 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997), 265–315.

470

CHAPTER 9

of this was the apparent almost complete absence of quodlibetical disputations within the studium, including in theology.7 These had earlier been at Paris and elsewhere the prime opportunity to open questions of philosophical theology. But these concerns were of little interest at Cracow. The general point, therefore, is that the chief orientation of theology within the university was practical, non-metaphysical, and non-speculative. These currents are revealed in a broad range of doctrinal writings based upon magisterial lectures on the Sentences, in biblical commentary and exegesis, and in ecclesiological treatises. To the first of these we now turn.

Sentence Commentaries and Lectures

Background Although the bible was both the starting point of theological instruction and the ultimate text of reference in all debate over disputed questions, and although it was read and taught much more widely in the middle ages than used to be imagined,8 it alone was not regarded as a sufficient foundation for teaching and thought. In the early universities several other works, such as the 7  See the comments of Zofia Włodek, “Filozofia a teologia w ujęciu mistrzów krakowskich,” in Ryszard Palacz, ed., Filozofia Polska XV wieku (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972), 58–93, here 93: “It should also be remembered that the theology faculty in Cracow, in contrast to similar faculties in other universities, did not conduct disputations de quodlibet, which were the terrain of weighty philosophical statements by theologians.” This contrast is particularly sharp when one notes the comment of Erich Kleineidam quoted by John F. Wippel, “Quodlibetal Questions Chiefly in Theology Faculties,” in Bernardo C. Bazán, Wippel, Gérard Fransen, and Danielle Jacquart, Les questions disputées et les questions quodlibétiques dans les facultés de théologie, de droit et de medicine (Turnhout: Brepols, 1985 [Typologie des sources du moyen âge occidental 44–45]), 151–222, here 222, n. 151, that quodlibetical questions at Erfurt are particularly important for understanding the development of modern theology and philosophy. 8  As one example of this, see the Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, Heinrich Denifle and Emile Chatelain, eds. 4 vols. (Paris: Delalain, 1889–1897), 2, 698, no. 1189, by which students were required to carry a copy of the bible to all lectures during their first four years. A glossed bible, along with a copy of Peter Comestor’s Historia scholastica and the Sentences, was also required of Dominican students in a studium generale according to a 1228 constitution of the order; see Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, 1, 112, no. 57. The now classic study on the bible in the middle ages is Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952); see also her “The Bible in the Medieval Schools,” in G.W. Lampe, et al., eds., The Cambridge History of the Bible, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963–1970), 2, 197–220.

Theology

471

Historia Scholastica of Peter Comestor, were widely used in the theological faculty. Eventually, however, the organization and comprehensive approach of Peter Lombard’s Sentences were found so useful that this book gradually assumed the position of a fundamental text along with the bible. Its four books—on God, Creation, the Church, and the Sacraments—systematized the main theological questions and provided a vehicle by which the major tenets of the faith could be presented.9 Gradually there developed an extensive literature of commentaries and questions on the Sentences which dominated a significant portion of a student’s training in theology and his further teaching in the faculty. Required to lecture either cursorily or systematically as Sententiarius upon this text, one who pursed a theological education was able to explore a vast intellectual field, dealing on the one hand with questions that were commonly agreed upon and therefore part of the tradition to be preserved and transmitted, and on the other hand with issues that were yet open and required further investigation. In treating the first book, a teacher or commentator could explore the concept of theology as scientia, its relationship to faith, and the consequent problem of the relationship of reason and revelation. This was the opportunity to discuss the philosophical conception of God and the Holy Trinity and the issue of universals. In the second book, such matters as the eternity or creation of the world engaged the attention of the commentator, along with the relationship of God to the world, the structure of material and spiritual beings, and the problems of the philosophy of man. The third book provided the opportunity to discuss not only salvation but ethical problems, and treatment of these issues often included a return to the problem of faith and knowledge. In dealing with the fourth book, commentators found that the sacraments led not only to such obvious issues as substance and accidents, but also to questions of natural philosophy that were derived from assumptions underlying the explanation of grace and its efficacy in the sacraments. Thus the teaching of the Sentences provided a bewildering potential of topics and approaches.10

9  For Peter, see Colish, Peter Lombard, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1994); and Philip W. Rosemann, Peter Lombard (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). 10  For the Sentences, see now Giulio Silano, trans., The Sentences of Peter Lombard, 4 vols. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2007–2010 [Medieval Sources in Translation 42–43, 45, 48]). A sense of the range and character of the potential in teaching the Sentences can be gotten from the introduction to Friedrich Stegmüller, Repertorium Commentariorum in ‘Sententias’ Petri Lombardi (Würzburg: Schöning, 1947), xi, in particular.

472

CHAPTER 9

After the passing of the golden age of Sentence commentaries when the most creative work had been done, it became increasingly common to rely upon standard handbooks which provided a uniform framework for the teaching of the Sentences. These involved an abandonment of a systematic treatment of all the dialectical or dogmatic elements of the work and instead focused upon specific questions and distinctions derived from it that were chosen by the lecturer. One of these handbooks at Cracow was a work known from its incipit as Utrum Deus Gloriosus. Utrum Deus Gloriosus This commentary was composed in the late fifteenth century in theological circles at the University of Prague, and is similar in both character and content to the communis lectura Pragensis in use there.11 Although the author of Utrum Deus Gloriosus remains anonymous, he was clearly in contact with, if not a member of, the group of theologians who eventually left Prague and went to Cracow. It was they who brought this work to Poland, where it was used throughout the fifteenth century. Its first and second books were ­especially popular, but all four were utilized. Several Cracovian scholars based their teaching in the Sentences upon it, often adding questions and glosses of their own. In some cases they wrote their own commentaries upon it, thus continuing the tradition. As the equivalent of a lectura communis Cracoviensis, it serves therefore as an important point of reference to determine the doctrinal character of the theology faculty in this period. We shall examine its contents from that standpoint, dealing primarily with its positions on the relationship between 11   Konstanty Michalski, “Tekst, osobistość, szkoła i prąd w filozofji średniowiecznej,” Pamiątnik IV Wszechnego Zjazdu Historyków Polskich w Poznaniu (Poznań, 1925), 1–13, here 10–12, first called attention to Utrum Deus Gloriosus as an important text for the history of fifteenth century Polish thought. He at first identified it as identical with the Prague lectura communis and, consequently, both from a single author. Andrzej Półtawski, “Communis Lectura Pragensis,” MPP 1 (1958): 11–27, analyzed both works, however, and showed they are separate and independent, do not form a whole, and undoubtedly come from two different authors. Additional data supplied by Włodek, “Krakowski Komentarz z XV wieku do Sentencji Piotra Lombarda. Część pierwsza: Wstęp historyczny i edycja tekstu Księgi I i II,” St. Med 7 (1966): 125–355, here 130 and 158 confirm that judgment, as does the further analysis by Zenon Kałuża, “Un manuel de théologie en usage à l’Université de Cracovie: Le commentaire des Sentences dit Utrum Deus Gloriosus,” in L’Église et le peuple chrétien dans les pays de l’Europe du Centre-est et du Nord (XIV–XVe siècles) (Rome: École Française de Rome, 1990), 107–124, here 108–111; this same study, in a slightly reworked form, appears as “Podręcznik teologii używany na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim: Komentarz do Sentencji, zwany Utrum Deus Gloriosus,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 17 (2011), 235–254.

Theology

473

faith and reason, problems of the philosophy of man, and the question of the moral good.12 Then we shall analyze more briefly what later Cracovian masters added to it. As with much of the Sentence commentary literature after the mid-­fourteenth century, the author does not devote a great deal of explicit attention to the question of faith and reason; the issue of knowledge, however, is clearly there. It is treated both with regard to its relationship to the philosophy of Aristotle and with regard to the truth of revelation. Following the distinction of John Buridan and his successors, whose thought was influential at both Prague and Cracow, the author distinguished between ratio philosophica and ratio naturalis. By the former he means the authority of Aristotle.13 This authority is not without challenge from natural reason. For example, the author arrives at a different view from Aristotle on the matter of motion, accepting the theory of impetus.14 He also rejects Aristotle’s teaching on the eternity of the world, 12  For the text of Utrum Deus Gloriosus, from which citations below will be given, see Włodek, “Krakowski Komentarz. Część pierwsza: “Edycja,” 166–355. Errata in that edition are listed in her “Krakowski Komentarz z XV wieku do ‘Sentencji’ Piotra Lombarda. W poszukiwaniu tendencji doktrynalnych na wydziale teologicznym Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XV wieku. Cz. 2: Tendencje doktrynalne komentarza,” St. Med. 9 (1968): 245–291, here 245, note 1. A brief introduction to, and survey of, the philosophical problems treated in this commentary is provided by Stefan Swieżawski, “Filozofia w średniowiecznym Uniwersytecie Krakowskim,” in Aleksander Gieysztor, ed., Historia kultury średniowiecznej w Polsce (Warsaw: Polskie Towarzystwo Historyczne, 1963), 129–159, and his “Note sur le contenu philosophique des questions anonyms ‘Utrum Deus gloriosus’,” MPP 12 (1967): 8–15. The second part of Włodek’s study of this commentary provides a fuller analysis, and on some points (250–252) modifies Swieżawski’s conclusions. For the most part the analysis in the text above follows Włodek’s treatment. 13  “Sed hic circa dicta sunt magna dubia, nam circa simplicitatem angelorum est dubium utrum etiam in re, in uno et eodem angelo sit compositio gradualis; et multi negant hoc, maxime philosophice loquentes, plures tamen solemnes doctores tenent quod sic, . . . (258, lines 15–17); “. . . quod etiam citra hoc sunt diversae positiones. Quidam enim pure viam philosophicam sequentes dicunt, quod etiam impossibile sit materiam esse sine forma, eo quod de natura materiae sit quod sit altera pars compositi, quia de ratione eius est subesse, vel inesse, ut patet 1° Physicorum . . . (275, lines 25–28). 14  “Secundo notandum, quod aliquid effective concurrere sive habere causalitatem super aliquid potest intelligi dupliciter, vel causando, vel prohibendo. Causando tripliciter, quia vel ut generans, aut sicut imprimens, vel sicut disponens. Primo modo dicitur habere causalitatem super motum gravis illud quod generat gravitatem. Secundo modo imprimens impetum, ut patet in proiecto. Tertio modo agentia disponentia materiam dicuntur habere aliquam causalitatem respectu formae generandae, licet non simpliciter dependeat ab eis. Prohibendo dicitur aliquid habere causalitatem, sive effective concurrere dupliciter,

474

CHAPTER 9

arguing that far from being an inconceivable notion that the world had been created, it is instead plausible, just as the idea of its annihilation is also possible.15 Thus for him the views of the “philosophers” do not always agree with natural reason. In his mind, ratio naturalis is able to arrive at valid conclusions on the basis of inferences from prime principles and from propositions that are self-evident in themselves. Natural reason becomes therefore another criterion of truth. The relationship of natural reason and the truths of the faith and theology is more complicated. On the one hand the author stresses their agreement; on the other, he emphasizes the insufficiency of the former to comprehend without aid the full content of the latter. A good example of this is his understanding of what natural reason may know of the Holy Trinity and of God. It is able to accept the possibility of a multiplicity of being in God by analogy with his attributes. In addition such a conclusion is more probable than arguments to the contrary.16 There are for the author of the Cracow commentary two kinds of knowledge of God. One is a type of special insight which allows an understanding of His essential nature; the other is a general insight which gives vague and uncertain concepts of things. It is derived through observation of traces of His activity and allows an understanding of His external nature.17 vel per se, vel per accidens. Primo modo frigidum effective prohibit ­actionem sui contrarii, secondo modo removens ligna dicitur impedire actionem ignis.” (281, lines 13–21) 15  “Quarta conclusio: a primordio conditionis res inceperunt per creationem. Probatur: quia simpliciter ex nihilo; nihil enim praecessit primam productionem primae rei, nisi Deus in situ ponens omnia causaliter fieri et ad nullum finem ordinare. Et quia creatio videtur quo ad rationem philosophicam impossibilis, arguitur quod sit possibilis sic: non est magis impossibile creare, quam anihilare philosophice loquendo, sed anihilare est possibile, igitur etc. Antecedens pro prima parte notum est, pro secunda parte patet, quia Deus libere conservat et agit omnia quae conservat, vel agit ad extra, igitur potest non conservare et si hoc, tunc simpliciter vertentur in nihilum, igitur, etc.” (254, lines 11–18) 16  “Aliquo modo est ratione (probabile) in unitate divinae essentiae esse pluralitatem personarum. Probatur: quia magis verisimiliter rationes arguunt, quam aliae possunt oppositum ostendere, ergo correlarium verum. Consequentia tenet ex notabili praemisso, et antecedens patet per conclusiones deductas.” (170, lines 19–22) 17  “Praemitto quod pertingere ad cognitionem alicuius rei potest multis modis intelligi, primo quia est, alio modo quid est, alio modo quanta est, alio modo qualis est, seu qualiter se habeat. Sic possumus recipere in Deo, quod uno modo potest considerari eius cognitio, quia aliquis Deus est, alio modo quid ille sit, vel qualis, aut quantus, et hoc adhuc potest esse dupliciter: uno modo quid, qualis vel quantus sit in seipso, alio modo quid, qualis aut quantus in aliis, scilicet quo ad operationem et dependentiam. Secundo praemitto quod adhuc cognitio de aliquo est duplex, una generalis, sicut quando res universaliter intelligitur vel cognoscitur, alia specialis quando videlicet speciali et propria ratione

Theology

475

The former is possible through natural reason, but only when it is aided by grace; the latter is a capability of unaided human reason and enables one to say not only that God exists but to describe some of His attributes.18 A corollary of this is that an evil individual, or one of bad intentions who had not received grace, is never capable of more than an intellectual knowledge of God. For such an individual, a comprehension of God’s essential nature is impossible.19 At first glance, it appears that the view of the author of this commentary may not be far different from the Aristotelian-Thomistic position of the midthirteenth century. But there are some significant differences which point to other sources of his thought. By opposing ratio naturalis and ratio philo­ sophica, he accents the independence of natural reason from Aristotle and his commentators, who are reliable only when they do not contradict the faith.20 Even though he accepts natural reason as consistent with revealed truth, when he distinguished degrees of knowledge of God (i.e., that cognitio per vestigium is imperfect, though not incorrect, knowledge), he emphasizes the importance of revelation and the necessity of grace in order adequately to contemplate God’s nature. He stands therefore firmly in the Augustinian tradition of the middle ages, particularly as reflected in Richard of St. Victor and Bonaventure. a­ pprehenditur.” (171, lines 14–22) “Talis cognitio habetur per rationem ex sensibilibus in ordine ad suam causam. Probatur, quia talis cognitio non est pure essentialis cognitio rei, talis enim non repraesentaret nisi ipsammet rem et igitur relinquitur quod sit per rationem captam a re in ordine ad primam causam et illam vocant doctores cognitionem per vestigium. . . . Et ideo hic contrahitur hoc nomen pro communi et confusa notitia, qua creatura tamquam effectus repraesentat creatorem tamquam suam causam.” (171, lines 42–172, line 8) 18  “Loquendo de cognitione sicut dicit praecedens conclusio, aliquis homo per gratiam potest in hac vita cognoscrere, quid vel qualis in se [vel alia creatura] Deus est. Probatur, quia potest per gratiam et experiri dulcedinem Dei et bonitatem et multos effectus divinae pietatis et specialiter cognoscere Deum non solum communiter per intellectum, sed etiam specialiter in effectu.” (172, lines 25–29) “Omnis effectus aliquo modo ducit in notitiam suae causae. Patet illa, quia eo ipso quo effectus est, ostendit quia vel est, vel fuit aliquid quod ipsum potuit in esse producere, et sic ducit in cognitionem potentiae ipsius causae operantis seu efficientis; quia pulcher est, ducit in cognitionem sapientiae exemplaris, quod sic scivit disponere et eo quod ordinatur in aliquam utilitatem, ostendit bonitatem et intentionem tamquam causae finalis.” (171, lines 23–28) 19  “Ex illa sequitur quod nullus malus determinata et speciali cognitione noscat Deum. Patet ex praecendentibus quia non per affectum, licet noscat per intellectum.” (172, lines 29–31) 20  “Sed philosophi principaliter denominant ignem a caliditate, quae actualiter in coelo non est, cum non sit susceptivum contrariorum, et igitur dixerunt coelum non esse de natura ignis. Et quo ad hoc verum dixerunt et sanctis doctoribus non contradixerunt.” (279, lines 27–30)

476

CHAPTER 9

Although he does not cite them directly, it is their tradition upon which he relies.21 Thus although his treatment of the relationship between faith and reason is couched in philosophical terms, he really represents the non-speculative theology of the high middle ages. At the same time, his emphasis upon grace and the internal religious life22 reflects elements of the “new theology” of the late middle ages. Those same tendencies are revealed in his treatment of the philosophy of man. Three problems in particular received his attention in this area: the soul and its authority, man as a microcosm of the Trinity, and the problem of freedom in relation to the intellect and the will. He accepts the soul as a substantial form of the body, but he avoids the traditional Latin Averroist interpretation by saying that it is not derived from the material form of the body, but is instead independent of it.23 In discussing the relation of the soul to the body, he accepts the orthodox view that all souls, including that of Adam as the first man, were created only in the act of creating the individual body and united with it at that time.24 These issues he treats very cursorily, however, devoting 21  These influences are discussed by Włodek, “Krakowski Komentarz. Cz. 2: Tendencje doktrynalne,” 256–258, and in her “Tendencje doktrynalne na wydziale teologicznym Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XV wieku,” in Teresa Michałowska, ed., Literatura i kultura późnego średniowiecza w Polsce (Warsaw: Instytut Badań Literackich, 1993), 17–27, here 23–24; reprinted in a collection of her works, Z dziejów filozofii i teologii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim x XV wieku. Sylwetki, teksty, studia (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2011 [Historia et Monumenta Universitatis Jagellonicae 2]), 361–371, here 367–368). See also Swieżawski, “Filozofia w Uniwersytecie Krakowskim,” 134–138. 22  “Intentio namque praecepti est quod homo voluntatem suam conformaret sic divinae voluntati, ut fiat acceptus Deo et finaliter salvetur, sicut patet inductive per singula praecepta, principalius enim intendit praeceptum, quod homo per caritatem soli Deo per mentis devotionem vacet, quam quod de corporalibus solum in sabbato abstineat et sic de aliis.” (315, lines 12–16) 23  “Ad secundum (et tertiam) dicendum, quod peccatum non est in carne, nisi causaliter, sed verum est, quod subiective et formaliter, nisi in ipsa anima; sed quod obicitur quod caro non posit inficere spiritum negatur hoc, et non (est) simile de radio, quia illa non unitur luto per unionem substantialem et colligationem, qua mutuo communicent in suis proprietatibus, sicut caro et spiritus et per hoc patet similiter ad quartam.” (322, line 40–323, line 3) 24  “Sed quantum ad tertium articulum de anima hominis, quo ad praesens est duplex dificultas: prima de ipsa quo ad naturam in se, secunda de ipsa in comparatione ad corpus. Circa primum fuerunt diversae opiniones: una . . . fuit error Manichaeorum. Alia . . . fuit error Averrois. Tercia . . . fuit multorum aliorum philosophorum naturalium. Quarta est opinio quod anima humana de nihilo immediate a Deo creatur et creando infunditur. Et pro illa sit conclusio sexta: anima primi hominis fuit de nihilo creata et corpori infusa. Illa

Theology

477

more analysis to the soul and what governs it. He finds three sources of authority: the intellect, memory, and will: these are collectively called the mind (mens).25 These are not elements which are separate from the soul. They are rather aspects of it. Having said this, he was consequently led to explain how they govern the soul while being part of it. This he solves by arguing that the activity of the intellect comes from the soul as a primary emanation and that of the will as a secondary emanation. They thus have an independent status, but are not different from the soul.26 In adopting this solution, the author follows the general Augustinian tradition, particularly as it is reflected in Bonaventure. This triune analysis of the soul is closely related to the author’s view of man as a reflection of the Trinity. Just as all creation possesses a similarity to God, so also does rational man have this same character; and just as God is manifest in three persons, so also man possesses intellect, memory, and will in the substance of the soul. Traces of the Trinity are found in man’s natural disposition, that is in his modus, species, and ordo. But this disposition is only fully realized if one submits to the will of God as his ground of being, conforms to it as the model of direction in life, and achieves union with it as the goal of existence, which is the only true peace.27 Here the author not only shows an affinity to Bonaventure, but in some instances repeats him verbatim. patet primo per textum dicentem: spiravit in faciem eius spiraculum vitae. Et etiam quia nulla aliarum opinionum habet veritatem, sed omnes sunt erroneae et illa sola catholica, igitur (etc.).” (287, line 33–288, line 2) 25  “Antecedens patet, cum conveniat ei ratione trium potentiarum, intelligentiae videlicet, memoriae et voluntatis.” (283, lines 32–33; see also 284, lines 33–34; 331, lines 38–40; 340, lines 32–33) “Et sic in mente rationali corrumpitur per deturpationem illud, in quo specialiter prae aliis creaturis consistit vestigium Trinitatis, quia iam non conformatur divinae voluntati, ut principio modificandi, nec ut recte dirigenti, nec communiter ut fini quietanti.” (331, lines 35–38) 26  “Quia in imagine creata, quae attenditur secundum potentias et actus naturae intellectualis, prima emanatio est per intellectum, alia est sequens, in qua terminatur emanatio manens infra naturam intellectualem, quae est emanatio peritinens ad voluntatem.” (180, lines 7–10) 27  “Tertio notandum quod creatura rationalis, praeter hoc quod cum aliis communiter ordinatur in Deum, specialiter habet ordinari ex hoc, quod ipsa est libere operans per voluntatem. Unde in ipsa possumus dupliciter considerari vestigium Trinitatis, primo in universali cum aliis, quia habet comparari ad Deum, secundum triplex genus causae, scilicet ad efficientem et in hoc attenditur modus, secundo ut ad exemplarem et in hoc attenditur species, et ut ad finalem et in hoc attenditur ordo. Secundo, secundum hoc, quod est libere operans per voluntatem, specialiter attenditur in ea vestigium Trinitatis, quia ad quod, ipsa sit bona quo ad operationem requiritur quod habeat modum, speciem et ordinem. Tunc autem est bona, quando in movendo vel operando continuatur divinae

478

CHAPTER 9

In discussing the problem of human freedom, the anonymous author of this commentary follows the voluntarist tradition of the middle ages. That is, he rejects the intellect as the governing element in one’s action and instead emphasizes the will.28 For example, in choosing between two good acts, he says the intellect is different and it is the will which guides the choice, even being able to choose the lesser good.29 He does not, however, exclude the intellect from exercising influence, even if the will is the judge of reason. Thus he distinguishes, somewhat artificially (citing Bradwardine) between arbitrium liberum as a rational act of judgment and liberum arbitrium in which reason is subordinate to the will, even though both act.30 This attempt to ride both horses creates some problems for the author, and as a consequence his pres­ entation is often imprecise. On a related issue, that of whether a free decision serves equally all rational nature, including God and His creations, the author argues that it does, because God has absolute free choice, and therefore one

voluntati, ut principio modificanti et conformatur ei ut regulae dirigenti et unitur ei sicut fini quietanti. In primo attenditur modus, in secundo species et in tertio ordo, secundum triplex genus causae efficientis, scilicet exemplaris et finalis.” (330, line 33–331, line 4) 28  It should also be noted in passing that the author minimizes the influence of heavenly bodies upon man’s freedom. According to him, their effect is only upon man’s intellect because its basis for action is external, but they have no effect upon will, which is the basis for freedom and which, moreover, is internal. “Tertio conclusio: mutationes, quae simpliciter et pure respiciunt intellectum, prout distinguitur contra voluntatem, aliquo modo a coelestibus dependent effective, capiendo effective dependere sive concurrere primo modo et secundum omnes suas partes. . . . Quarta conclusio: corpora coelestia ad operationes sive mutationes voluntatis, sibi proprie et ad intra convenientes, non concurrunt effective, capiendo eodem modo effective concurrere, nisi secundum tertiam eius partem, videlicit dispositive. Probatur: corpora coelestia non sufficiunt generare volitionem, vel nolitionem. . . .” (282, lines 10–12 and 19–22) 29  “Sit conclusio prima ista: propositis duobus bonis sub ratione boni, intellectum sive rationem plus versari circa unum quam circa alterum radicaliter et causaliter est ex imperio volutatis. Patet illa, quia cum intellectus de se quo ad investigandum sit indifferens de uno vel reliquo, non videtur causa nisi libertas et imperium voluntatis.” (259, lines 22–25) 30  “Notandum quod liberum arbitrium, prout patuit distinctione praecedenti complectitur, secundum aliquas proprietates, tam rationem, quam voluntatem. Arbitrium enim dicitur ad arbitrando, et igitur importat iudicium, seu potentiam iudicativam rationis et ideo potius deberet dici arbitrium liberum, quam liberum arbitrium, quia oportet iudicium rationis praecedere. Unde arbitrium liberum potest sic describe secundum Thomam Bradwardin: arbitrium liberum est potentia rationalis recte iudicandi et libere exsequendi.” (306, lines 21–27)

Theology

479

is able to act with the freedom from constraints which He has allowed.31 His answer in this respect is again similar to that of Bonaventure. In order for the author of the Cracow commentary to discuss the nature of moral good, he had to confront a basic issue which had absorbed the attention of theologians in the fourteenth century and which continued to be debated in the fifteenth. None denied that God was the ultimate Good and that from His omnipotence came natural good. But His power came to be understood from two standpoints. On the one hand, it was potentia absoluta; on the other, potentia ordinata. The latter concept focused upon the order which God had established in creation; and the question was asked whether God in His absolute power might absolutely change that order or whether there were certain immutable elements in it which potentia absoluta was incapable of altering. In discussing God’s absolute power, this author emphasized that He was omnipotent, not because He could do everything which He chose to do, but because He could do everything which was possible. This thus excluded the creation of imperfection. God, though omnipotent, could not do anything evil or anything logically impossible.32 This solution approaches the position adopted on this issue by Gregory of Rimini and, to a lesser extent, by Bradwardine. In considering God’s potentia ordinata, the author viewed the issue from two standpoints. One was that this power was appropriate to, and conformed with, right reason (recte ratio). God could therefore do only that which accorded with His absolute power and which agreed with His will.33 The other was that this power 31  “Secunda conclusio: quia capiendo cogi secundo modo, nulla voluntas potest cogi, quantum ad actum interiorem, sive elicitum, licet aliqua voluntas posit cogi, quo ad actum exteriorem et imperatum. . . . Ex illa sequitur tertia conclusio: quod attendendo libertatem, prout simpliciter dicit privationem coactionis, ut dicit praecedens conclusio, omnibus rationalibus aequaliter convenit libertas voluntatis et notanter dico: si capitur prout simpliciter dicit privationem coactionis, quia si libertas attenditur penes aliquod positivum, hoc non posset aequaliter convenire Deo et creaturae. Et patet tunc conclusio, cum aeque conveniat non posse cogi.” (307, lines, 16–18 and 26–31) 32  “Deus non dicitur omnipotens, quia potest facere male, vel simpliciter impossibile. Probatur: respectu illorum non est potentia, sed impotentia.” “Deus non ideo dicitur omnipotens, potest quidquid vult se posse, aut quia potest quidquid vult facere, aut quidquid vult fieri, sed ideo, quis potest omne possibile, non includens imperfectionem” (241, lines 36–40 ) “Quod ideo dicitur omnipotens, quia potest omne possibile et specialiter quia potest omne possibile non includens imperfectionem.” (242, lines 5–7) 33  “De primo notandum, quod potentia ordinata potest dici dupliciter, quia ordinatum capitur dupliciter. Uno modo ordinatum capitur, prout distinguitur contra inordinatum, et sic ordinatum dicitur quod est decens et rectae rationi consentaneum; et per oppositum inordinatum quod est indecens et recte rationi contrarium, et sic potentia ordinata capitur prout extendit se ad omne, quod divinae voluntati potest esse condecens et

480

CHAPTER 9

was something which was defined by what He had already created and that He acted in accord with its structure. Thus He could not do anything within that creation to bring about logical contradictions.34 From this, the author draws the conclusion that God’s will is the fundamental basis for understanding all moral rectitude for man.35 Upon this foundation he then discusses the problem of the natural moral good. His point of departure is an analysis of intention, which carries with it an element of the intellect (for it considers the purpose of the act) and an element of the will (for it applies itself to the goal of the act). An act whose intention is just is an act of moral good, and the intention is just when the will is in accord with the intellect with respect to a particular purpose or goal.36 It is thus the goal which becomes the criterion upon which one may judge whether an act is morally good. The author points out that some thinkers believe an intention directed to an immediate goal (propinquus) is sufficient to judge the act; but he adopts the position that the worth of a moral act is dependent upon whether it is intended toward a final goal (ultimus).37 He goes even further than this, c­ onsentaneum. . . . . Tunc sit prima conclusio ista: capiendo potentiam ordinantam primo modo nihil potest Deus facere de potentia aboluta quin illud posset facere de potentia ordinata. Probatur: quidquid Deus potest facere hoc cadit sub potentia ordinata, sic capiendo potentiam ordinatam, igitur conclusio vera. Antecedens patet quia nihil potest facere, nisi quod est vel esse potest decens et rectae rationi consentaneum, igitur (etc.). Consequentia tenet ex notabili et antecedens patet, cum non posit mala facere.” (243, lines 10–15 and 21–26) 34  “Alio modo ordinatum dicitur determinatum, sicut dicitur: ille est ordinatus ad illud officium, et sic non ordinatum dicitur, quod ad nihil est determinatum et sic potentia ordinata est potentia considerata secundum aliquam certam determinationem, ut potentia Dei dicitur ordinat inquantum refertur ad res sub certa mensura perfectionis secundum quam rem aliquam in esse producendam disponere voluit, ita quod nec aliter, nec maiorem sibi dare disposuit.” (243, lines 15–20) 35  “Tunc sit prima conclusio ista: voluntas divina est regula totius rectitudinis moralis in voluntate creata.” (252, lines 1–2) 36  “His praemissis sit prima conclusio ista: intentio proprie capta non solum consistit in actu rationis, sive intellectus practici, sed etiam voluntatis. Probatur: quia intentio importat cognitionem et considerationem finis cum conversione quadam ad quiescendum in fine, igitur conclusio vera.” (338, lines 18–21) 37  “Notandum quod continue fuerunt et adhuc sunt opiniones contrariae circa illam materiam, quidam enim dicunt etiam non habentes fidem posse facere opera moraliter bona, sed non meritoria, et igitur dicunt quod fides non requiratur, et ideo dicunt quod non requiritur fides, sed sufficit intentio recta ad finem propinquum et non requiritur intentio ad finem ultimum. Alia autem opinio dicit oppositum, videlicet, quod sine directione intentionis in ultimum finem, qui est Deus, non sit opus moraliter bonum et igitur dicunt,

Theology

481

­ owever, and argues that not simply any general final goal is sufficient, but h that this goal must be God and the life eternal.38 As a consequence, faith is a necessary element in any act judged to be morally good, and one may achieve such an act only to the extent that one loves God.39 An unbeliever therefore is incapable of a truly good moral act. In passing, it should be noted that the author argues the individual, on his own, may not will to achieve a moral act. Even though the will is free, it has been compromised by original sin and only when God’s grace is bestowed upon the will can it effectively achieve a good act.40 For the author, then, by way of summary, God’s power, whether absolute quod fides requiratur. Et igitur de hoc, cum nulla sit demonstratio et etiam quodammodo sit in terminis, intendo solum probabiliter ponere conclusiones persuasibiles ad unam illarum, et igitur praemitto quod intentio, prout ex prius dictis patet, importat motum voluntatis, quo per media sibi iudicio rationis ostensa movetur in finem per affectum et quandam quietationem in illo.” (345, lines 13–23) 38  “Quarta conclusio: ad moralem bonitatem non sufficit intentio finis ultimi et optimi, secundum rationem universalem vel communem. Probatur quia tunc quilibet esset moraliter bonus, sicut arguitum est in argumento secundo ad quaestionem, ante oppositum. Quilibet enim appetit esse sine defectu in summa delectatione et sicut universaliter cognoscit talem finem esse bonum, ita in universali per voluntatem consentit appetendo, igitur (etc.). Quinta conclusio: ad hoc (quod) voluntas vere sit moraliter bona requiritur intentio finis ultimi et optimi secundum rationem specificam. Et intelligo per vere moraliter bonum quod opera sua sint meritoria. Probatur, quia si non intendit Deum secundum rationem simpliciter specialem et vitam aeternam, non est vere moraliter bona, igitur (etc.). Consequentia tenet de se et antecedens patet cum non posit esse meritum, nisi quod fit propter vitam aeternam, quae esssentialiter Deus est, cum sine ea non possit habere intentionem specialem de fine, ut loquitur conclusio, nisi habeat caritatem, per quam Deum prae omnibus diligat et omnia propter (Deum) operetur quaecumque operatur.” (339, lines 3–16) 39  “Nullus potest in actu aliquo habitualiter intendere Deum finaliter et in eo tamquam in fine requiescere, sine habitu caritatis ipsum ad hoc elevantem et inclinantem. Patet illa cum dilectio Dei super omnia sit omnino supra naturam humanam. . . . ad hoc quod aliquis intendat finaliter Deum tamquam finem, reequiritur fides dirgens intentionem. Probatur, quia requiritur caritas movens voluntatem sed voluntas non movet, nisi quantum cognoscit in ratione et cum ratio etiam ex naturalibus ad hoc non sufficiat, necessario etiam requiritur lumen rationem ad illa, quae supra ipsam sunt, illuminans et dirigens, igitur (etc.).” (345, line 37–346, line 3) 40  “Quod de homine in libero arbitrio possumus loqui, quo ad duplicem statum hominis. Uno modo, quo ad statum naturae integrae quam habuisset, si non peccasset in paradiso, alio modo secundum statum naturae corruptae post peccatum.” (314, lines 6–8) “Sequitur tertio, quod licet voluntas hominis de natura sua sit libera, tamen propter peccatum eius libertas quo ad electionem boni et electi persecutionem ita depressa est, quod sine speciali amminiculo nec bene velle, nec bonam voluntatem perficere potest.” (310, lines 3–5)

482

CHAPTER 9

or ordered, is the source from which all good flows; and only to the extent that humanity directs itself to that Good may any action be judged to be morally good. In this position, many affinities to Gregory of Rimini may be observed. Utrum Deus Gloriosus reflects several characteristics of the Cracovian school of theology, which in one way or another can be observed throughout the fifteenth century.41 One of these is its own rather eclectic character. Drawing upon the Augustinian tradition, particularly as reflected in Bonaventure, it also utilizes the writings and views of a variety of fourteenth century thinkers who can not necessarily be included in that tradition. In addition to those already mentioned, there are, for example, traces of Scotist and Ockhamist thought in it, while Durand of Saint Porcain, Holcot, Woodham, Gerson, and others also contributed directly or indirectly to the views the author expressed. On many points the author utilized arguments which were widely accepted and which he characterized as the via communis. These were for him interpretations which held the greatest probability. In other instances he referred to issues on which there were divergent opinions, but generally followed views which had some significant support. These he recognized as less certain and referred to them as via media.42 But there is little original about this work, although Marian Rechowicz has observed that one of its sharpest departures from an important dimension of medieval thought lies in its anti-Aristotelian character.43 This characteristic is clearly related to the author’s Augustinian orientation. “Ad hoc quod aliquis fiat de non grato gratus, sive de non caro carus Deo, requiritur in eo gratia creata libero arbitrio condistincta.” (309, lines 27–28) 41  The basic analysis of this treatise remains that of Włodek, “Krakowski Komentarz. Cz. 2: Tendencje doktrynalne,” 245–291, and much of what follows is based on her conclusions 280–289. See particularly, however, 288, n. 146, where she identifies those elements which deal with problems that fall within the category of via communis. See also her comments in “Tendencje doktrynalne na wydziale teologicznym,” in Michałowska, ed., Literatura i kultura późnego średniowiecza w Polsce, 21–22, and in her collected works, Z dziejów filozofii i teologii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim, 365–366, referring particularly to the extended discussion of the communis opinio by Stefan Swieżawski, Dzieje filozofii europejskiej XV w., 6 vols. (Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1974–1983), 4: Bóg, 78–130. In English the comments by Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe in the Middle Ages (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2009 [Krakow Historical Monographs 1]), 104, are brief but insightful. 42  For examples of this see the text of Utrum Deus Gloriosus, 181, lines 23–24; 194, lines 4–11; 204, lines 18–21; 256, lines 12–15; 271, lines 40–41; 309, lines 12–24; 325, lines 24–35; 350, lines 29–34. These are chosen almost at random from a great number of instances. 43  Marian Rechowicz, “Po założeniu Wydziału Teologicznego w Krakowie (wiek XV),” in Rechowicz, ed., Dzieje Teologii Katolickiego w Polsce, vol. 1: Średniowiecze (Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1974), 113.

Theology

483

Another feature, closely related to this eclectic character, is the “text-­ bookish” nature of the work. It was neither designed to be, nor was it used as, the systematic presentation of a cohesive interpretation of Catholic thought. It was instead a presentation of the major issues, a survey of the possible avenues of understanding, and a compilation of existing contributions. For this reason the author frequently noted his points as scolastice probabiliter, and therefore useful with the context of university teaching. It is for this reason, as Mieczysław Markowski has noted, that it served so successfully as a common lecture for the theological faculty for nearly two centuries.44 It is thus not dissimilar in function from other works by Cracovian faculty, especially those in arts that served for extended periods as the basis upon which lectures were presented.45 It also is not dissimilar in character to academic texts used in later times in other universities; it possesses coverage, balance, and is frequently a little boring. Although most of the work deals with issues that are purely theological and there are only a few instances when strictly philosophical questions are treated, this commentary has nevertheless a more speculative character than much of the rest of the theological thought in the faculty that we shall treat below. This is to be expected, for it is part of the rational tradition of the middle ages and dealt moreover with the rational explication of the faith and its doctrine. As such it served an important role in the theological education provided by the university. In particular, it provided a foundation upon which other professors, when lecturing on the Sentences, could insert their own contributions into their teaching. It is appropriate therefore to turn now to an examination of who it was that used Utrum Deus Gloriosus, what they added to it, and what other Sentence commentaries at Cracow in this period contributed to the intellectual picture of the university. Other Cracovian Sentence Commentaries The first faculty members to provide instruction in theology at Cracow were themselves largely educated at Prague, where they would have followed a curriculum that required them to offer lectures on the Sentences. It is almost certain that they would have done so also at Cracow, but except for the ­requirements in the statutes of the theology faculty—which are themselves

44  Mieczysław Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w latach 1397– 1525 (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej w Krakowie, 1996 [Studia do dziejów Wydziału Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 2]), 120. 45  Representative of this type are treatises discussed above in Chapter Six and Seven by, for example, Paul of Worczyn, Benedict Hesse, John of Głogów, and others.

484

CHAPTER 9

known only from a copy from 152146—we know virtually nothing about the details of this early teaching. John Isner’s body of writings includes, among other items, sermons, quaestiones touching theology, an interesting exposition on the mass, and only a few minor glosses upon the Sentences based on the Prague Communis lectura.47 Other faculty members who taught theology were Poles educated at Prague, such as Nicholas of Pyzdry and Nicholas Wigand of Cracow, or Czechs, such as John Štěkna, Jerome (Jan Sylvan) of Prague, and Maurice (Mařik) Rvačka. For them, also, we have little information about what they might have taught when lecturing on the Sentences. Even for significant figures like Francis of Krzyżowice near Brzeg we know little about his probable teaching on the Sentences. He was of considerable importance in the organization and early implementation of theological studies and otherwise contributed in significant ways to the intellectual life of the studium, including teaching some of the more influential theologians of the first half of the fifteenth century at Cracow.48 Whether he prepared a full commentary on the Sentences is unknown, but Maria Kowalczyk has suggested that he did develop some quaestiones based upon this work and that some of these are

46  Józef Szujski, “Statuta i matrykuły wydziału teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego,” Archiwum do dziejów literatury i oświaty w Polsce 1 (1878): 71–94; see also Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 96. 47  Only the work on the mass has been edited: Ioannis Isneri Expositio missae, Roman Zawadzki, ed. in Marek Tomasz Zahajkiewicz, Msza święta w Polsce przed soborem trydenckim w świetle rodzimych komentarzy (Expositiones missae): Studium historycznoliturgiczne (Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1971 [Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia Excultae Spectantia 1]), 9–140; for the other works, see Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 102, and note 31, where Markowski notes that in the manuscript containing the Sentence glosses there appears in Isner’s hand “Ego liber sum magistri Jo[annis] Ysneri,” and “In isto libro, qui est m[agistri] Johannis Ysneri continetur scriptum super quatuor libros ‘Sententiarum.’ ” 48  Francis’ importance has long been known for the university; see Jan Fijałek, Studia do dziejów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego i jego wydziału teologicznego w XV wieku (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1898), 91–94; but Maria Kowalczyk, “Franciszek z Brzegu,” Acta Mediaevalia 12 (1999): 99–142, reprinted in her collected works Colligite fragmenta ne pereant . . . Studia z dziejów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w średniowieczu (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2010 [Historia et Monumenta Universitatis Jagellonicae 1]), 329–374, has greatly expanded the manuscript basis upon which a fuller picture of his theological views can be studied. See also Markowski, “Franciszek z Brzegu (ok. 1370–1432),” in Stanisław Piech, ed., Złota Księga papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej w Krakowie, 2000), 89–97.

Theology

485

preserved in manuscripts held by other Cracovian masters and reflected in treatises prepared by at least one of his students.49 It is not until the beginning of the third decade of the century that we have a better picture of Sentence commentaries and lecturing at Cracow. At present, given the current state of research on this topic, it is not possible to do more than be indicative of developments, singling out a few of the more significant accomplishments. As Krzysztof Oźóg has commented, “As an indepth contrastive analysis of all those commentaries on Sentences has not been made so far, it is difficult to state precisely both doctrinal inclinations of particular scholars and their theological views.”50 Probably the first to utilize the anonymous Utrum Deus Gloriosus was Nicholas Kozłowski. Beginning about 1420 he lectured on one of the books in each of the following years.51 Paul of Worczyn began his lectures on it in 1421 or 1422, completing all four books by 1423;52 Benedict Hesse of Cracow used the Utrum Deus Gloriosus as a base for his lectures on the Sentences in 1428/1429 and again in 1429/1430;53 and Thomas Strzempiński, the later Bishop of Cracow and an important contributor in the field of ecclesiology, used the first and second books in 1441 and the third and fourth in 1442, reflecting in his lectures, according to Mieczysław Markowski, an Augustianian fideism combined with the fourteenth century nominalism of Gregory of Rimini.54 Paul of Pyskowice, not previously mentioned in this study, matriculated at Cracow in arts in 1412, though it took him 49  Kowalczyk, “Franciszek z Brzegu,” 116–120 and in her Colligite fragmenta ne pereant, 346–350. 50  Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 105. 51  His lectures on Book One have been studied and edited by Kazimierz Wójcik, “Wykład wstępny Mikołaja Kozłowskiego do I Księgi ‘Sentencji’ Piotra Lombarda w rękopisie BJ 1525,” Materiały 1(12) (1970): 115–123 (Introduction) and 123–159 (edition). The manuscript sources for Nicholas’ lectures on the other books are noted by Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 130, n. 98–101. The content of these lectures has not been systematically studied, 52  Jerzy Rebeta, Komentarz Pawła z Worczyna do Etyki Nikomachejskiej z 1424 roku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970), 70–71; and his entry on Paul in PSB, 25, 398–400. 53  Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 139; and in more detail in his “Wykłady wstępne i komentarz do ‘Sentencji’ Benedykta Hessego z Krakowa,” Materiały 4 (1965): 334–340, which, however, concentrates more on manuscript analysis than upon content. Włodek, “Filozofia a teologia. Wybór tekstów z krakowskich wykładów wstępnych do ‘Sentencji’ Piotra Lombarda z XV wieku,” Materiały 1 (12) (1970): 71–73, has edited a fragment from Benedict’s lecture. 54  Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 149, and note 266, noting that Thomas acknowledged his indebtedness to Benedict Hesse in the text of his commentary by saying “Specialissime tamen gracias ago [. . .] magistro Benedicto Hesse [. . .] qui me prius ad gradum baccalariatus et ex post ad magisterium in artibus promovit, nunc vero ad ­legendum

486

CHAPTER 9

until 1422 to incept as a master in arts. He lectured thereafter in arts and about 1430 began the study of theology. Between the fall of 1442 and the spring of 1444 he lectured on the Sentences, using the Cracovian Utrum Deus Gloriosus. His resultant commentary reflects the strong influence of Benedict Hesse. Paul eventually gained the doctorate in theology (early 1445). His later career as a member of the faculty was often full of contention: he blocked the promotion of one individual and quarreled with another, necessitating the intervention of the university chancellor, Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki of Cracow, who had previously been his patron and supporter. For a while he was canon of the church of St. Florian and ended his life (†ca. 1470) as a canon of the cathedral, leaving behind him an as yet unstudied body of works both pastoral and theological, among them an extensive commentary on the office of the mass.55 There were others in the fifteenth century whose Sentence lectures and commentaries relied upon the tradition of Utrum Deus Gloriosus. They included Stanisław of Górka Srebna and James of Gostynin. The first, whose university career has not previous been discussed, earned his final arts degree in 1472, then studied theology in the 1480s. His cursory lectures on the first book of the Sentences took place in 1495 and were based upon the work of Benedict Hesse and the Utrum Deus Glorious. He subsequently lectured on books two and three, again using the same sources, but apparently did not treat the fourth book, perhaps due to illness (he died in 1501). His work is characterized by the same Augustinian nominalism that was reflected in Benedict Hesse’s lectures and commentary.56 James of Gostynin, whose career and contributions in arts have been treated above in Chapters Six and Seven, began his study of theology in the early 1490s. His bachelor of theology degree came in 1494 and his doctorate in 1500. Prior to his death in 1506, he was twice elected rector. His lectures on the Sentences came in 1498 and 1499, when he apparently treated all four books. As with those who have been mentioned previously, one of his major sources and influences was the Utrum Deus Gloriosus. He also wrote notes and commentaries on Psalm 38, the first part of Isaiah, and the Sentencias presentavit.” Włodek, “Filozofia a teologia. Wybór tekstów,” 73–78, has edited a fragment of the Strzempiński text. 55  Three works by Włodek treat his career and writings: “Paweł z Pyskowic,” Materiały 5 (1965): 142–168; “Pawła z Pyskowic kwestia ‘Utrum Deus sit nominabilis’,” in Munera philologica et historica Mariano Plezia oblata, Jan Safarewicz, et al., eds. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1988), 205–215 (reprinted in her collected works, Z dziejów filozofii i teologii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim, 323–333); and “Paweł z Pyskowic († ok. 1470),” in Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 159–164. See also FwP, 307 (entry by Włodek); and LTCP / SPTK, 3, 308–309. 56  Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 195–196.

Theology

487

New Testament, though these are not substantial works. In addition to the outlook reflected in his use of the Cracovian Sentence commentary that has been the focus of this section, his philosophical stance was closely related to the Albertism of fifteenth century Cologne.57 There were other important theologians who lectured and wrote commentaries upon the Sentences, especially in the early fifteenth century, whose work is understandably less obviously indebted to the Utrum Deus Gloriosus because it had not yet become dominant within the studium. The following cursory examination of five of them, selected from a larger number of possibilities, is followed by some concluding comments about work on this subject at Cracow in this period. John of Kluczbork (ca. 1370–ca. 1436), whose university education began at Prague and whose career in arts at Cracow and other activity there has been treated in previous chapters, was the twelfth individual promoted to doctor of theology at Cracow (1423).58 In the course of his studies for this degree he lectured in 1413 and 1414 on the Sentences. His views reflected in these lectures appear to reflect the influence in general of Augustinian realism and more particularly of Thomas of Strasbourg.59 James of Nowy Sącz, who died between 1431 and 1434, also had begun his university studies at Prague before being promoted to degrees in arts at Cracow in the first decade of its renewed functioning. In the second decade he began the study of theology, and while it is not clear when and if he obtained the doctoral degree, he lectured as professor in this faculty until at least 1428. The date of his lectures on the Sentences can not be determined precisely, but they apparently fell sometime between 1415 and 1419 (probably 1418) and reflect a conception of theology that is derived from Aquinas, mixed with the Augustinianism of Bonaventure.60 Nicholas 57   P SB, 10, 352; Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 201–202. 58  On this point, compare Fijałek, Studia do dziejów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego i jego Wydziału Teologicznego, 95, with Kazimierz Wójcik, Jan z Kluczborka. Filozof i teolog Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1995), 26, and Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 127. 59  Wójcik, Jan z Kluczborka, 137–172, has edited John’s principium on the first book of the Sentences; there is, however, some disagreement between Wójcik and Markowski about the character of John’s theological views and the sources upon which he drew. See the latter’s treatment of John’s career “Jan z Kluczborka (ok. 1370-ok. 1436),” in Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 99–104, especially 103–104. 60  Part of his lecture on the Sentences, the quaestio “Utrum scientia theologica viatorum subalternata theologiae beatorum sit realiter ab habitu fidei distincta ac praerequirens, ut mens scientis eandem, sit a Deo specialiter praeillustrata,” is edited by Włodek, “Filozofia a teologia. Wybór tekstów,” 39–114, here 45–54, and reprinted in her volume

488

CHAPTER 9

Budziszyn of Cracow (ca. 1382-ca. 1424) was one of the original matriculants at Cracow in 1400. Following his arts study, he earned degrees in theology, eventually obtaining the doctorate either late in 1422 or early 1423, before which time he had already served (1416) as rector of the university. His lectures on the Sentences were held in 1419 (they contain references to the lectures of James of Nowy Sącz, whom he refers to as magister mei). As with others of these early treatments of various questions touching the first book of the Sentences, he discusses the problem of the relationship between philosophy and theology and reflects the Augustinian outlook of Thomas of Strasbourg.61 Andrew of Kokorzyn (ca. 1379–1435) is the fourth individual whose Sentence commentary is noted here. (His other activities within the studium are treated elsewhere.) Having studied arts at Prague and begun work in theology by 1409 at Cracow as a student of Nicholas of Pyzdry, Andrew was recognized as an outstanding philosopher even as he worked in the arenas of ecclesiastical and secular politics. His study of theology, interrupted between 1414 and the early 1420s, eventually earned him his doctoral degree by the spring of 1426. His lectures on the Sentences came sometime early in the 1420s, and in them he represented a position that placed him in the nominalist tradition (often associated with John Buridan at Prague and Cracow). In fact his lectures represented an explicit polemical engagement with the Augustinian realism of John of Kluczbork, and—by extension—with Thomas of Strasbourg and Giles of Rome. His own position owed much to Henry Totting of Oyta and Gregory of Rimini.62 Sigismund of Pyzdry (ca. 1393–1428) matriculated at Cracow in (with assistance from Ryszard Tatarzyński) Scripta Manent. Textus ad theologiam spectantes in Universitate Cracoviensi saeculo XV conscripti (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej w Krakowie, 2000 [Studia do dziejów wydziału teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 12]), 5–11. See also Markowski, “Jakub z Nowego Sącza,” Materiały 3 (1964): 3–29 and Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 122–123; FwP, 135–136 (entry by Markowski); and PSB, 10, 361. 61  Włodek, “Filozofia a teologia. Wybór tekstów,” 54–63, and her Scripta Manent, 12–19, prints an edition of part of his lecture, the quaestio “Utrum theologia militantium, subalternata theologiae triumphantium, Deum sub ratione abyssai habeat in subiectum.” See also Markowski, “Mikołaj Budissen,” Materiały 3 (1964: 92–119, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 123–124, and “Mikołaj Bawdysen z Krakowa (ok. 1383-ok. 1424), in Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 125–130. The entry on Nicholas in FwP, 271, is also by Markowski. 62  His philosophical views have been studied by Markowski, “Pogłądy filozoficzne Andrzeja z Kokorzyna,” St. Med. 6 (1964): 55–136. Markowski has also provided an edition of the Sentence lectures in “Wykład wstępny Andrzeja z Kokorzyna,” Materiały 2 (1962): 3–51; see also Markowski, “La réplique d’André de Kokorzyn au ‘Principium’ de Jean de Kluczbork,”

Theology

489

1411, was promoted to bachelor in arts the next year and to the master’s degree in 1417. By the time he served as university rector in 1423 he was already a bachelor in theology. His cursory lectures on books one, two, and four of the Sentences came in the period from 1426 to 1428 (the latter the year of his death). His views seem to have been eclectic, drawing upon Aquinas, the Augustinian tradition of Peter of Tarantasia, and other elements, including some of the outlook expressed in the Communis lectura Pragensis, which by this time was being supplanted at Cracow by Utrum Deus Gloriosus.63 In general, the sententiarii who used Utrum Deus Gloriosus were apparently content to follow the arguments presented in it. There are, however, a few interesting additions. For example, Benedict Hesse followed a separate tradition in his commentary on the third and fourth books of the Sentences and tended to emphasize the practical implications of theological principles rather than simply discussing the range of opinion on particular questions. His additions were later utilized by lecturers until late in the second half of the sixteenth century.64 Another important departure from Utrum Deus Gloriosus is found in the commentary on the Sentences by John of Dąbrówka, whose role within the university has been seen in a number of contexts. Although he used this commentary to a certain extent, he compiled his own questions about 1439, and the resultant work enjoyed great popularity at Cracow in the second half of the century. As Zofia Włodek has noted, his work is significantly different from that of the commentators earlier in the century. He acknowledged the common work of theology and philosophy, but also emphasized the fallibility of the latter and the weakness of its knowledge in comparison with the revealed knowledge of theology. John also points out that theology, like philosophy, deals with the intellect, but that unlike philosophy it also deals with emotions.65 Theology is thus the more perfect road to wisdom, but in addition he emphasized the practical morality derived from true wisdom. MPP 10 (1961): 50–54. See also on this point the discussion of Wójcik, Jan z Kluczborka, 93–97. 63  One of his quaestiones on Book One of the Sentences, “Utrum per studium sacrae scripturae acquiratur habitus alius a fide,” has been edited by Włodek, “Filozofia a teologia. Wybór tekstów,” 64–71; See also Markowski, “Zygmunt z Pyzdr,” Materiały 5 (1965): 169– 205, and his Dzieje wydziału teologii, 134–136. 64  See Włodek, “Krakowski Komentarz. Część pierwsza: Edycja,” 145, 146, 149. It was Markowski, “Wykłady wstępne i komentarz do ‘Sentencji’ Benedykta Hessego z Krakowa,” 334–340, who first established the fact that Benedict had written a commentary on his own. 65  Włodek, Scripta Manent, x; in this volume she provides an edition (20–28) of one of the questions John addressed in his lecture on the first book of the Sentences, namely “Utrum

490

CHAPTER 9

The position John took in this respect was pushed even further by Matthew of Łabiszyn (ca. 1400–1453). He completed his work in arts under the direction of Benedict Hesse by 1425, after which he eventually began the study of theology. His first lectures on the Sentences were begun in 1443, and he eventually completed treatment of all four books, after which he wrote a very extensive, full commentary upon them. More aggressively than John, he accented the limits and errors of philosophy and emphasized that theology was fundamental to salvation.66 It is not clear how indebted Matthew was to his contemporary John of Dąbrówka, but another theologian did reflect the great popularity of John’s work at Cracow in the second half of the century. It was particularly influential upon Matthew of Sąspów (ca. 1408–1472) and his approach to the Sentences. He had matriculated in arts at Cracow in 1426, was promoted to bachelor in 1432 and to master in 1437, but did not begin the study of theology until 1445. It was a decade later before he completed his lectures upon the Sentences, following John’s views closely but using also an anonymous set of quaestiones on the Sentences which had been brought to Cracow from Leipzig.67 The foregoing has been intended to be indicative, rather than in any way a full survey. Many important figures have not been mentioned (James of praeter scientias philosophicas, sapientiae divinae aminiculativas, ponenda sit sacra theologia, pro consequenda beatitudine viatori necessaria.” See also her edition, in this same work, of another five questions John raised with respect to Book One: 60–62, 63–64, 65–66, 65–69, and 70–72. She also provides (306–318) a list of the 187 (or 188) quaestiones John treated in his commentary upon all four books of the Sentences. 66  For Matthew’s career and writings, see Bożena Chmielowska and Włodek, “Maciej z Łabiszyna,” Materiały 3 (14) (1971): 3–55, especially 5–7; Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 155–158; Roman Zawadzki, “Maciej z Łabiszyna (1400–1453),” in Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 173–177. Włodek, Scripta Manent, 29–41, has edited one of Matthew’s quaestiones from his lecture on Book One of the Sentences: “Utrum sacra theologia supernaturaliter tradita sit cuilibet homini in via ad salutem necessaria?” Matthew’s full commentary takes up over 400 manuscript folia; the manuscript also includes some annotated personal information in Matthew’s hand that is revealing; see Lucyna Nowak, “Zapiski Macieja z Łabiszyna w rękopisie Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 1456. Edycja wybranych fragmentów,” Acta Mediaevalia 22 (2009): 490–499. 67  Stanisław Bafia, “Maciej ze Sąspowa (ok. 1408–1472),” in Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 187–193, has treated his biography and accomplishments, citing also previous literature. See also the comments about Matthew of Sąspów’s views by Włodek, Scripta Manent, xi–xviii (where she also discusses the views of John of Dąbrówka); her edition of five of Matthew’s quaestiones on Book One of the Sentences is to be found on 73–78, 79–85, 86–91, 92–97, and 98–102. She also provides (319–329) a list of the quaestiones Matthew addressed in his commentary on the Sentences.

Theology

491

Paradyż, John Kanty, and John of Słupca among them, though the first of these will be treated later in this chapter). Between the papal authorization of the theology faculty at Cracow in 1397 until the early sixteenth century more than three score doctors of theology were admitted to lecture there, most of whom had earned their degrees at Cracow and would have lectured on the Sentences as part of their studies. Many of their works are extant and have not been edited. Many of these are, of course, mechanical and workmanlike and had little influence. Many also followed the model of Utrum Deus Gloriosus rather unimaginatively. They were intended to demonstrate the student’s expertise and competency to teach, transmit, and—in a few instances—transmute (in sometimes interesting ways) one of the central works of the medieval Christian tradition. Much that is written by university faculty in all times and places is uninspiring and derivative. By the end of the fifteenth century the Sentence tradition at Cracow (and perhaps at other universities) had been largely worked out. Although Peter Lombard’s treatise continued to be taught at Cracow until it was formally replaced as an “official” statement of doctrine in the early modern period and although the lectura communis as well as works of other Cracovian theologians continued to be used as the basis for teaching, little that was significantly new was added.68 An indication of this dying tradition was that no printed copies of this Cracow commentary on the Sentences, the Utrum Deus Gloriosus, were published in Poland, although Cracow masters owned incunabula containing earlier, western commentaries.69 Systematic theology, never strong within the university, was complemented by the scriptural concerns to which we now turn.

Biblical Studies

Every individual who studied theology at Cracow, as in other universities, was required, as we have seen, to hear lectures upon the Bible given by more advanced students. Eventually, as a scholar progressed through the degrees offered in this faculty, he himself lectured on scripture, first in a cursory manner, then magistraliter. Upon the basis of the sixteenth century lists of those admitted to lecture in theology at Cracow, it is possible to identify at least 148 bachelors authorized prior to 1503 (approximately 137 in the fifteenth century proper) and seventy-eight individuals who had obtained the doctorate prior 68  This development is traced by Rechowicz, “Po założeniu Wydziału Teologicznego,” 114. 69  See Włodek, “Krakowski Komentarz, Cześć pierwsza: “Edycja,” 133–134.

492

CHAPTER 9

to 1517 (some sixty-three in our period).70 All of these provided instruction at one time or another in sacra pagina, but except when they eventually wrote commentaries derived from their teaching, the details of lectures have for the most part been lost. Undoubtedly the majority of those who lectured on the bible, especially in the cursory lectures, were content to read the biblical text, repeat the views of earlier medieval commentators, and perhaps add a few observations of their own. Manuscript evidence, particularly from the Biblioteka Jagiellońska, reflects the most common works utilized in this process. Of the volumes in this library which can be traced to the Cracow professoriate in the fifteenth century, some twenty-nine codices are extant which contain all or parts of the work of Nicholas Gorran, the thirteenth century Parisian Dominican. The second most authoritative source was the commentaries of Nicholas of Lyra, of which twenty copies remain. Another popular source was the Glossa ordinaria, represented today by twelve manuscripts. Other authors whose biblical commentaries were frequently used include Robert Holcot, Henry of Langenstein, Augustinus Triumphus of Ancona, and Aquinas, as well as such standard early medieval exegetical authors as Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory the Great. All told there are in the library approximately 180 codices containing biblical commentaries which were apparently used in the first century of the university’s functioning.71 In addition to these Cracovian materials, commentaries and

70  Markowski has made three significant contributions to this topic: “Spis osób dopusz­ czonych do wykładów i do katedry na Wydziale Teologii Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XV w.,” Materiały 4 (1965): 127–275; Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 245–266; and “Pierwsi bakalarze i doktorzy teologii Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 6–7 (1997): 233–314. 71  These observations and numbers are based in the discussion of Rechowicz, “Po założeniu Wydziału Teologicznego,” 117, who has analyzed the nineteenth century catalogue of the Jagiellonian library prepared by Władysław Wisłocki. It does not take into account copies of biblical materials held in other Polish libraries, particularly that of the University of Wrocław, which is rich with materials related to the medieval history of the university. Neither does it reflect the actual figure that might have been generated by Cracovian faculty and have been part of the university’s collection; there were significant manuscript losses in subsequent centuries, particularly during the Swedish invasions of the seventeenth century. See also Jerzy Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” in Zathey, Anna Lewicka-Kamińska, and Lech Hajdukiewicz, Historia Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej, vol. 1: 1364–1775, Ignacy Zarębski, ed. (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1966), passim. (particularly the index under specific authors).

Theology

493

biblical studies utilized by the faculty of the university can be found in a number of other locations.72 Some Cracow professors, however, were not content with simply recapitulating the views of previous authors. They composed greater or lesser commentaries of their own, even though these too were heavily dependent upon earlier authorities. Although none of these ever assumed the role of a lectura communis or became standard like the Glossa ordinaria73 more than three score of the theological faculty wrote works which are extant and which consequently provide some basis for sketching the scriptural interests taught at Cracow in this period.74 It is neither possible nor appropriate in this chapter to discuss seriatim each of these individuals; rather what follows focuses upon the most important authors. Their activity spanned nearly the whole century. Their work was in many respects far different from the biblical commentaries of the early middle ages and reflected the intervening development of the scholastic tradition. The original emphasis upon lectio had gradually given way to a concentration upon quaestio that by the twelfth century assumed an almost autonomous status. Although scripture continued to be interpreted in the traditional four senses (literal, spiritual, symbolic, and allegorical), the commentator increasingly used the quaestio to elaborate religious issues which had social, economic, and politico-ecclesiological implications. These were increasing approached through literal interpretation and an emphasis upon practical spiritual concerns. Issues that were largely excluded from these new style commentaries, which largely held the field by the fourteenth century, were those of philosophical abstractions and speculation. The first great late medieval example of this was the commentary upon the book of Matthew by Augustinus Triumphus about 1321. The biblical commentaries of authors a­ ssociated with the University of Cracow reveal some of these same characteristics. 72  Evidence of this can be seen in the notes provided for the location of works produced by Cracovian scholars in this period by Stanisław Wielgus, Średniowieczna łacińskojęzyczna biblistyka polska (Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1992); see, for example, his bibliography for the entry on Nicholas Tempelfeld of Brzeg, 82–83. 73  See the comment of Włodek, “Filozofia a teologia w ujęciu mistrzów krakowskich,” 79: “There has not yet [as of 1972] been found a common [Cracovian] lecture among the biblical commentaries.” This is still true today. 74  Wielgus, Średniowieczna łacińskojęzyczna biblistyka polska, 175–177, lists in his table of contents the names of those educated at Prague who taught at Cracow as well as those who were educated at Cracow; the figure given in the text does not include his list of individuals whose biblical studies were undertaken outside the university context.

494

CHAPTER 9

Biblical studies at Cracow following the refoundation of the university were heavily influenced by traditions from Prague. Whether Matthew of Cracow ever taught theology and lectured on the bible there is doubtful, for after his second return to Cracow in 1397 he returned to Heidelberg, where he had already served as rector.75 His younger contemporary, Bartholomew of Jasło, who was otherwise important in the reestablishment of the studium, was responsible for a brief Recommendatio Sacrae Scripturae, but whether it was written at Prague or at Cracow it apparently had little influence at the ­university.76 While other faculty from Prague made early contributions to theological study at Cracow— for example, John Štěkna and Nicholas Wigand of Cracow—they were not especially significant in comparison to the individuals to whom we now turn. John Isner, also educated at Prague and whose institutional activity has been traced in a previous chapter and whose other work has been dealt with briefly above, was the first important figure active in the studium whose body of scriptural commentaries is significant and extant. He was greatly indebted to his Prague masters, such as Matthew of Cracow, and as a result his theology emphasizes practical and ascetic elements in particular. He represented above all the tradition of theologia affectiva. Although his literary accomplishments were slight,77 in our present context he left two biblical works of interest. His Glossa super Matthaeum Evangelistam was almost completely derived from the exposition of Nicholas Gorran. His Glossa Super Novum Testamentum was more original. In it the dominance of quaestio over lectio is clearly reflected, for the latter is brief and narrowly derivative, while the former included 75  Wielgus, Średniowieczna łacińskojęzyczna biblistyka polska, 12–18 discusses Matthew’s writings, with special attention, 15–17 to his biblical writings; but more recently Matthias Nuding, Matthäus von Krakau. Theologe, Politiker, Kirchenreformer in Krakau, Prag und Heidelberg zur Zeit des Großen Abendländischen Schismas (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 31–47 has discussed his theological works, with particular attention (44–45) to his treatise on the passion. 76  Wielgus, Średniowieczna łacińskojęzyczna biblistyka polska, 34; but see Adam Gogacz, Koncepcja uniwersytetu według Bartłomieja z Jasła (Łódź: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Humanistyczno-Ekonomicznej w Łodzi, 2008), 48, who describes this merely as an introductory lecture in theology. Neither of them is precise about the date when this was delivered. 77  Jerzy Zathey has remarked that Isner was a better organizer of both books and educational program (and one might add, as a patron) than an important contributor to theological literature. See his comments in FwP, 143. For John’s role in cataloguing manuscripts and his influence upon the early structure of the university library, see below, Chapter Eleven.

Theology

495

questions upon all the books of the New Testament. In large part Isner drew upon the authorities who preceded him, quoting from such varied sources as, among others, John Cassian, Gregory the Great, Ganifred, St. Bernard, Peter of Ravenna, Hugh and Richard of St. Victor, Peter Lombard, and Matthew of Cracow. In addition, however, he also included questions of his own which gave the work an individual character and reflect his own interests.78 His emphasis in these questions was upon such issues as the perfect life, the status of the priesthood, poverty, chastity and virginity, penance, the value of contemplation, liberality, sobriety, and work. In other words, he emphasized chiefly immediate moral issues of the Christian life. He was particularly interested in the responsibilities of the clergy and the relationship of superiors to inferiors in ecclesiastical organization. In the spirit of pastoral reproof, he condemned the sins of society, in particular greed, vanity, and ambitions for fame on the part of nobles. In the spirit of pastoral approval, he praised love of one’s fellow man, justice, and charity. Much of the commentary is imbued with the spirit, and even the symbolism, of the Victorine tradition. Isner praises contemplation, the life of the mystic, and frequent communion. To the extent that he dealt with specific elements of reforms in the church, he does so within the context of the problem of the perfection of Christian life. The questions which he discusses reflect no trace of logical analysis or of abstract speculation. They are rather moralistic, moderately reformist, and spiritual. They conform in this respect to Isner’s other works, particularly his liturgical and pastoral tracts. Moreover, they reflect the kind of theology which was dominant at Cracow at the beginning of the century. This was a religious approach which corresponded well with the reformist spirit from Prague, the piety of Queen Jadwiga, and the zeal of Jagiełło to complete the Christianization of Lithuania and support the renewal of the church.79 Far more important than the work of Isner was the contribution of Benedict Hesse of Cracow. His previously noted involvement in the political and institutional affairs of the university was matched by the range of his intellectual and scholarly activity. As seen in Chapters Six and Seven, his writings on subjects lectured in the arts faculty mark him as one of the leading representatives at 78  The first serious student of Isner’s material was Fijałek, Studya, 61, who described his written works as chiefly homiletical. While this may accurately reflect the tone, it does less justice to the structure, for these two treatises are typically biblical commentaries. 79   Isner’s unedited biblical commentaries are analyzed by Rechowicz, “Po założeniu Wydziału Teologicznego,” 117–119; and Wielgus, Średniowieczna łacińskojęzyczna biblistyka polska, 19–23.

496

CHAPTER 9

Cracow of the philosophy of John Buridan. On theological matters, however, his thought reflects other currents. In the present context, his most significant creation was a monumental commentary upon the book of Matthew written probably between 1439 and 1449.80 The subsequent history of this work is nearly as interesting as its contents. After Hesse’s death, this theological and exegetical treatise was recopied by one of his students, John Kanty, and the original manuscript was confused with John’s own library. Eventually, the work was attributed to John himself and served as one of the elements in the corpus of evidence gathered to support the campaign in the seventeenth century for his canonization, a process which was finally completed in 1767. Not until 1955 was it established that the commentary was in reality the work of Benedict.81 With this correct attribution, the important role within the studium that Benedict was previously recognized to have played has been further enhanced.82

80  Benedict quite appropriately receives more attention (with one exception) than any other fifteenth century Cracovian writer on biblical matters in Wielgus, Średniowieczna łacińskojęzyczna biblistyka polska, 65–72. 81  Polish historiography traditionally accepts 1958 as the date of which this correct attribution was made; see, for example, FwP, 18 (“until 1958 this work [i.e., the commentary on Matthew]) was attributed to John Wacięga of Kanty”). This conclusion is based upon the fact that it was this year that saw the publication of Rechowicz, Św. Jan Kanty i Benedykt Hesse w świetle krakowskiej kompilacji teologicznej z XV wieku (Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowego Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1958.). His essential arguments had, however, appeared three years earlier in “St. Jean Kanty a-t-il été l’auteur du commentaire conciliariste sur l’Evangile de St. Mathieu,” Collectanea Theologica 26 (1955): 13–45. It should be noted that the Matthew commentary was only one part of the evidence produced to support John Kanty’s canonization; see Stanisław Piech, “Święty Jan z Kąt (1390– 1473),” in Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 139–158, especially his section on the canonization process, 155–158. A fuller treatment of this process is found in Rechowicz, Św. Jan Kanty i Benedykt Hesse, 11–34. 82  The traditional, somewhat deprecatory, view of Benedict is reflected by the treatment of him by Fijałek, Studya, 134–151. Despite very substantial scholarship devoted to him in the past six decades (summarized by Mieczysław Ozorowski, Benedykta Hessego nauka o małźeństwie [Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego, 2002], 19–31, and Wanda Bajor, ed., Benedicti Hesse Quaestiones disputatae super tres libros ‘De anima’ Aristotelis [Libri II et III] [Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2011], 25*–31*), Benedict has still not been the subject of a complete biography which analyzes both his career and his thought.

Theology

497

Hesse’s commentary on Matthew is a vast work of 2711 manuscript folia83 which is based upon the structural framework of three previous authorities.84 For Matthew 1–3 he generally followed Aquinas’ divisio; for chapters 4–25 he was dependent upon Nicholas Gorran; and in the final three chapters he uses the framework of Augustinus Triumphus.85 But this external organization is less important than the internal relation of expositio and quaestio. For the former, he followed in large measure the text of Gorran, in many instances quoting extensively from him. This is particularly true of his comments upon liturgical matters, the texts of hymns and prayers, aphorisms and proverbs, the lives of saints, and historical observations. This exposition does not, however, follow Gorran slavishly. Benedict quotes frequently from Aquinas in particular as well as from other medieval authorities. There is, however, a total absence of reference to Duns Scotus and Ockham. In addition, unlike Gorran, Benedict cites frequently from classical authors: Plato, Plutarch, Livy, Pliny, Tacitus, and quite a number of others. These he would have been familiar with as a result of his lectures in arts, but it is probable that he know them only indirectly through scholastic compilations; his citations in the commentary, for example, 83  The four Cracovian manuscripts, BJ 1364, 1365, 1366 and 1368, total this number of folia. The copy that John Kanty made and was eventually sent to Rome as part of his canonization process was discovered in 1972 in four Vatican manuscripts (Vat. Lat. 14641, 14644, 14646, and 14648) by Jerzy Zathey, at that time Director of the Manuscript Division of the Jagiellonian Library; see Zawadzki, “Jagiellońskie rękopisów Jana z Kęt w zbiorach watykańskich,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 26, no. 1/2 (1976): 23–35. 84  A partial edition in eight volumes of Benedict’s text may be found in Benedicti Hesse Lectura super Evangelium Matthaei, Wacław Bucichowski, ed. (Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1979–1990 [Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia Excultae Spectantia 8, 13, 16, 18, 21, 24, 26, and 27]). Bucichowski had finished editing the commentary through Matthew 23 before his premature death; the edition has not yet been completed. The fullest analysis of the commentary is provided by Rechowicz, Św. Jan Kanty i Benedykt Hesse, who provides (231–268) a list of the quaestiones used by Benedict in each chapter of Matthew. The quaestiones cited in the discussion below, unless otherwise noted, are from the Rechowicz list and the discussion is based upon that author. Quotations from the text of the commentary are from the Bucichowski edition, with the volume in the Textus et Studia series specified. Latin spellings by Rechowicz are treated differently by Bucichowski, so there is some inconsistency in spelling in the citations below. 85  Zenon Kałuża, “Lex vetus i Lex nova w komentarzu Benedykta Hessego do Ewangelii św. Mateusza,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 14 (2008): 135–151, here 136–140, discusses other aspects of the structural organization of this commentary, including the absence of any kind of introduction to the work.

498

CHAPTER 9

are drawn from florilegia available in Cracow. Benedict also drew upon more recent works. For example, his near contemporary, Matthew of Cracow, was the author of a source he used in treating several topics in Matthew 3–4, 9, and 12–14.86 It is in the use of quaestiones that the most distinctive character of Hesse’s work is revealed. His commentary consists of 1059 of these, providing an opportunity for discourses upon a variety of topics related only tangentially to the strict interpretation of the text provided in the exposition. Benedict was by no means an innovator in this usage, as we have seen; his utilization of the quaestio, however, was more extensive and free-ranging than heretofore. He depended to a great extent upon his predecessors, particularly Augustinus Triumphus. At least 627 of his questions were taken directly and verbatim from him, with some of these having been in turn derived from Augustinus’ own model, Thomas Aquinas. In this dependency, an interesting pattern is revealed which shows some of the distinguishing features of Benedict’s thought. For example, he uses none of his predecessor’s comments about St. Joseph and scrupulously avoids any discussion of the cult of Jesus’ father. Whether this reflects indifference or hostility on his part is difficult to say. In addition, Benedict disregards all of Augustinus’ points about the plenitude of papal power, preferring instead to discuss ecclesiological questions within the context of the conciliar tradition which he was part of at Cracow (see below). Among the other themes which are contained in Hesse’s quaestiones are discussions of heresy (particularly the Hussite problem), and a variety of social and moral issues such as property, commerce, usury, and marriage. In this last category, the influence of, and in some cases literal dependency upon, the views of Aquinas are particularly evident. Against the background of the contents of Hesse’s commentary, let us examine briefly his approach to three issues: that of conciliarism, that of the Hussites, and that of social-moral questions.87 Many of Benedict’s conciliar views as expressed in the treatise to be discussed below in the section of this chapter devoted to ecclesiological issues were repeated and refined in his commentary upon Matthew.88 His work is full 86  Bożena Chmielowska, “Traktat Mateusza z Krakowa jako źródło w Komentarzu Benedykta Hessego do Ewangelii św. Mateusza,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 14 (2008): 169–185. 87  One of the themes that run through Benedict’s commentary is the distinction between the “old” law and the “new,” a topic which is not further discussed below. But see, Kałuża, “Lex vetus i Lex nova w komentarzu Benedykta Hessego,” 140–150. 88  This emphasis upon conciliar ideals in the commentary created problems for those who sought the canonization of John Kanty when this work was attributed to him. At the least it delayed the process; at the most, it may have prevented his being designated one of the

Theology

499

of references to contemporary issues (thus facilitating the dating of its composition); and within a conciliar context the problems with which he deals may be grouped into two categories: the power of the pope and the nature of the church. The first is discussed in conjunction with the quaestiones Benedict posed on such classical exegetical issues as those contained in Matthew 16:18– 19: “And I tell you, you are Peter . . . [etc.]. . . .” In treating this problem, Benedict dealt with three specific aspects: the relation of the pope to the council; the power of the keys as an expression of the strength of the church; and the transfer of the power of the keys to the church in general and to the pope. In regard to the first aspect he asks whether Peter (and by extension, the pope) was established as the head of the whole church.89 His discussion treats the church as both the mystical body of Christ and as a political body.90 Peter is rightfully recognized as the caput of the latter according to him, but only as vicarius et minister capitis of the former. Since the council represents the church in its former character, the pope as Peter’s successor has therefore no power over it. In regard to the second aspect, Benedict asks whether the church has the intrinsic power to defend itself against all enemies.91 He argues that it does by virtue of having been given the keys, but that in this process the church received the keys in actuality and Peter received them only figuratively.92 The authorities he cites in this argument include St. Augustine, Hrabanus Maurus, and even Leo the Great. The third aspect of this first problem is treated by discussing the question of whether the power of the keys was given principally to the universal church.93 He concludes that it was, rather than having been given to

doctors of the church as his supporters wished; see the comment of Piech, “Święty Jan z Kęt,” in Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 155–156. 89  “Utrum Petrus sit caput totius Ecclesie?” (16, 9) 90  On this point, see Wacław Bucichowski, “Koncepcja ‘corpus politicum’ w eklezjologii Benedykta Hesse,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 1 (1984): 193–203. 91  “Utrum Ecclesia habeat aliquam potestatem intrinsecam, per quam possit se conservare ab omnibus adversitatibus?” (16, 10) 92  “Quod haec plenitudo potestatis papalis non fuit data Petro ut Petro, sed fuit data universali ecclesiae, quae erat per significationem tota in Petro.” “Quod cum Petrus claves accepit, sanctam ecclesiam significavit, quaeque ecclesia est, quae a Christo accepit claves proprie, Petrus autem figurative.” Lectura super Evangelium Matthaei (capitula XIV–XVII), Bucichowski, ed., 199, lines 1–3; 200, lines 6–8 [Textus et Studia 24]. 93  “Utrum potestas clavium sit data principaliter soli Petro, an principaliter Ecclesiae universali?” (16, 11)

500

CHAPTER 9

Peter alone. Therefore only that which the pope as Peter’s successor does at the request of the whole church (i.e., the council) is valid.94 Benedict’s second problem, the nature of the church, is obviously related to the first and is discussed in conjunction with crucial sections of chapters 17 and 18 in Matthew.95 His understanding of these passages led him to conclude that the council of Basle truly represented the church, particularly when understood as the mystical body of Christ, and that it is therefore incumbent upon all to follow the council and the pope it has elected, Felix V. In recapitulating these arguments, Hesse drew not only upon his own earlier conciliar treatise (see below) but also upon those of his contemporaries at Cracow. His biblical commentary thus represents the full spectrum of Cracovian conciliar thought. In his discussion of heresy, Benedict shows himself to be firmly in the Cracovian tradition of opposition to the Hussites. This hostility, reflected in the theological encounters of the 1420s and 1430s as well as in the aggressively negative attitude of Bishop Oleśnicki, focused chiefly upon the issue of communion in both kinds and ecclesiological questions. Benedict treated both in passing in his commentary, although he devoted more attention to them elsewhere (in a separate treatise on the eucharist96 and in his conciliar quaestiones and treatise of 1440). In one quaestio in the commentary he argues that communion in 94  “Huiusmodi ergo potestas, quae dicitur esse unica in ecclesia sive in concilio et in papa differenter consideratur inesse ipsis in respectu sive habitudine ad actum.” Lectura super Evangelium Matthaei (capitula XIV–XVII), Bucichowski, ed. 207, lines 22–24 [Textus et Studia 24]. Connected with this issue are four corollary questions: “Utrum potestas in papa et in Ecclesia sit una vel plures?” “Quomodo poterit in utroque tota et in solidum existere?” Quomodo respectu unius et eiusdem in Ecclesia superioritas et papae inferioritas annotetur?” “Queritur do modo essendi in utroque scilicet tam in papa, quam in Ecclesia?” (16, 22–25). In treating the question of Peter as head of the church, Benedict also discusses a series of questions relating to his sacerdotal powers (16, 12–21). 95  Benedict’s two most important questions here are “Utrum testium induccio debeat precedere publicam denunciacionem?” and “Utrum quilibet homo cuiuscumque status extiterit teneatur de necessitate salutis obedire sacrosancto concilio Basiliensi universam Ecclesiam representanti?” (18, 36–37) For Benedict’s discussion of these issues, see particularly Lectura super Evangelium Matthaei (capitula XVIII–XX), Bucichowski, ed. 87–95 [Textus et Studia 26]. 96  This is an unedited treatise in Cracow MS BJ 1368, f. 310v-344v. The treatise attributed to him, Utrum Eucharistiae sacramentum sit dandum laycali populo sub utraque specie, by Rechowicz, Św. Jan Kanty i Benedykt Hesse, 149, and, after him, Ozorowski, Benedykta Hessego Nauka o małżeństwie, 28, is actually a work by Benedict’s mentor, Francis of Brzeg; see Kowalczyk, “Franciszek z Brzegu,” 120–121, 133, and 137, and in her Colligite fragmenta ne pereant, 350–353, 363, and 367.

Theology

501

both kinds is against the will of Christ, contrary to the custom of the church, unscriptural, and shows a lack of reverence for the holy sacrament.97 Other questions are posed in his discussion of Matthew 26 which are answered in the same anti-Hussite spirit.98 On dealing with Hussite ecclesiology, Benedict attacks particularly their understanding of the ecclesia ­militans99 and their subjective interpretation of the church, by which they deny efficacy to the acts of a rightly consecrated priest who ministers without being in a state of grace.100 In many of these ecclesiological arguments, Hesse draws heavily upon the work of his contemporary and colleague, John Elgot.101 Social and moral questions were a third major focus in Benedict’s commentary on Matthew. He praised private property and approved of the commercial character of contemporary city life, suggesting that trade is prohibited by neither natural nor divine law. But the making of money as an end in itself is strongly condemned.102 These views are almost entirely dependent upon Aquinas and Augustinus Triumphus. Benedict is more creative, if nevertheless traditional, in treating questions related to tithes in Poland and elsewhere. As an important element of clerical income at a time when the laity, particularly 97  “Contra voluntatem Christi et contra consuetudinem Romane Ecclesie, contra intellecctum sacre Scripture, contra revenciam tanti Sacramenti.” 98  “Quare sub diversis speciebus sit consecracio?” “Utrum sacramentum Eucharistiae posit material confici varia quam in pane et vino?” (26, 37 and 43) 99  “Utrum Ecclesia militans comparata sagenae contineatur in se bonos et malos?” (13, 27) His argument follows: “Respondetur, quod dimissum acceptionibus ecclesiae, ecclesia militans dicitur esse corpus organicum, mysticum, fide Christi animatum.” “Conclusio: ecclesia militans habet in se bonos et malos. Et probatur duplici via: primo ratione capitis, secundo ratione membrorum” Lectura super Evangelium Matthaei (capitula IX–XIII), Bucichowski, ed., 401, lines 3–6 and 35–37 [Textus et Studia 21]. 100  See above, note 98. 101  See the discussion of this point in Rechowicz, Św. Jan Kanty i Benedykt Hesse, 167–174. 102  “Utrum divicias et paupertates conveniat homini habere ex natura?” “Utrum habere possessiones proprias et proprios thezauros sit contra ius naturale?” “Utrum esset melius temporalia bona esse communia quam propria?” (6, 61–63) For his discussion of these topics, see Lectura super Evangelium Matthaei (capitula VI–VIII), Bucichowski, ed., 144, line 9–146, line 38 [Textus et Studia 18]. “Utrum negociari sit licitum? Quare Christus ementes et vendentes de templo expulit?” (21, 12) See Benedict’s treatment in Lectura super Evangelium Matthaei (capitula XXI–XXIII), Bucichowski, ed., 68, line 1–83, line 39 [Textus et Studia 27]. One of the most interesting reflections of the penetration of a business mentality into the traditional morality of the middle ages is found in Benedict’s treatment of the quaestio “Utrum die dominica sine peccato possit fieri forum empcionis et vendicionis?” (12, 7). He answers this in the affirmative with the condition that if the merchant did not undertake such business he would otherwise suffer a great loss.

502

CHAPTER 9

the lesser knights, were aggressively seeking to control an ever larger share of the revenues of the land, the tithe was a sensitive and controversial issue, and Benedict’s views had an immediate relevancy.103 In several quaestiones he argued that the principle of the tithe was supported in both natural and divine law and was a positive responsibility of all.104 While his attitude reflects the general position of the Polish clergy, the reality was that the privileges of the church were being steadily undermined by the growth of the secularized territorial state. Another important question was directed toward the issue of work, which, in a manner that almost sanctifies labor, Benedict justified by reference to scripture, natural reason, and the opinions of previous authorities.105 Finally, in this general category, were a series of excursions upon nobility and wealth, the status of the Jews, the morality of the clergy, the virtues of the active versus the contemplative life,106 and—in a subject that has now been 103  There is a large literature on the tithe in Poland and conflict over it in the fifteenth century, but unfortunately no satisfactory overall treatment. See, for the earlier medieval background and as an introduction, Piotr Górecki, Parishes, Tithes and Society in Earlier Medieval Poland c 100–c. 1250 (Philadelphia, PA: The American Philosophical Society, 1993 [Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 83, 2]), 115–119. 104  “Utrum institucio decimarum sit a iure naturali?” “Queritur de tempore institucionis decimarum?” “Utrum decime sint in precepto vel in consilio?” “Utrum preceptum de decimis sit mortale vel ceremoniale?” “Utrum decime sint pure elemosine?” (22, 12–16) Benedict’s extended discussion of these issues has the following points: “Respondetur ergo, quod secundum modum accipiendi decimam simpliciter decima est a iure naturali.” Lectura super Evangelium Matthaei (capitula XXI–XXIII), Bucichowski, ed., 220, lines 15–16 [Textus et Studia 27]. “Ad tertiam est dicendum, quod cum sine fide Salvatoris implicita vel explicita nulli homini post peccatum poterit esse salus, ut dicit beatus Augustinus et beatus Petrus.” Lectura, 221, lines 20–23. “Ad quartum respondetur: cum distinguantur tempora ante legem, in lege et post legem in gratis Evangelii, dicendum, quod secundum indeterminationem, et scilicet aliquota pars substantiae daretur ad sustentationem ministrorum Dei, semper fuit in praecepto et de iure naturae.” Lectura, 222, lines 10–14. “Ad quintam respondetur, quod decimae in Veteri Lege dabantur ad sustentationem ministrorum.” Lectura, 222, lines 28–29. “Ad sextum . . . elemosynae sunt pure voluntariae.” Lectura, 223, line 40 and 224, line 5. 105  “Utrum in vinea ista homines positi teneantur in ea laborare et non ociosi?” (20, 2). The scope of Benedict’s commentary at this point is reflected in the fact that his discussion of the first sixteen verses of Matthew 20 require forty-seven manuscript pages and, in Bucichowski’s edition, 60 pages (Lectura, 223–282 [Textus et Studia 26]). 106  For example, “Utrum melius sit esse nobilem, quam divitem?” (1, 28) and “Utrum ritus Judeorum sit tolerandus?” (13, 19). Some of Benedict’s comments are particularly sharp and critical of ostensibly learned university scholars who have knowledge without wisdom and whom he called the new Pharisees.

Theology

503

systematically studied—marriage.107 His treatment of this last subject is not orderly; rather it is scattered throughout his text, though it is strongest and most explicit when dealing with, for example, some of the classic statements of Jesus dealing with marriage and divorce (Matthew 5:31–32). Sometimes the treatment is biblical—significant Old Testament marriages, their merits and weaknesses, and from the New Testament a focus in one way or another on the marriage of Mary and Joseph. Benedict also takes up a number of themes, among them the indissolubility of marriage, its purity, and the eschatological dimension of such a union (especially with reference to the symbolism of the marriage of the church with Christ and questions about the status of marriage in the afterlife). Such topics are treated within a tradition of biblical commentary that reflects particularly the influence of Augustine and the Victorines. At other points, however, Benedict delves deeply into the practices of the medieval church with respect to such matters as impediments and obstacles to marriage, the understanding of marriage as a sacrament and its contractual nature, and considerations of virginity and conjugal chastity. Altogether, Benedict’s approach to and handling of this subject of marriage constitutes a kind of methodological microcosm for the larger picture of the commentary as a whole. It is comprehensive, broadly derivative, and, if not especially original in most of its outlook and interpretations, it represents a synthesis of the medieval tradition. To conclude his commentary Benedict devoted nearly a fifth of his whole work to the passion of Christ. This treatment is suffused with a spirit of mysticism and asceticism and of deep piety which accents and complements his earlier moralizing. His work is in few respects original (though some of his treatment of ecclesiological issues are striking), being in both quantity and quality dependent upon the great church fathers, plus Aquinas, Nicholas Gorran, and Augustinus Triumphus. By its attention to and emphasis upon practical and moral concerns, it represents clearly the character of Cracovian theology in this period. Although Benedict’s commentary on Matthew constitutes the most important contribution from faculty at the University of Cracow to biblical studies, there were others who followed him. Five in particular deserve brief mention. James of Paradyż was, along with Benedict Hesse, the leading theologian of the university in the middle of the century. That he was active in teaching in the theology faculty is clear, but among his many writings, none of his several commentaries on sections of the bible may be attributed with surety to the period 107  The following treatment is based on Ozorowski, Benedykta Hessego Nauka o małżeństwie.

504

CHAPTER 9

of his professorship in Cracow.108 Nevertheless the views in them are derived from his theological education and teaching there. James was interested above all in moral and practical questions and was a sharp critic of the contemporary church life of the religious orders.109 In his biblical writings he used scriptural passages as point of departure for critical comments upon papal power and the quality of religious life within the church.110 His writings are not typically scholastic in form and therefore were probably, with some notable exceptions, not composed for a university audience of either students or colleagues. He spoke instead to a wider circle of clergy within society. Among the most notable influences upon him, apart from his teachers in Cracow, were the writings of Aquinas, Buridan, Gerson, Matthew of Cracow, Henry of Langenstein, and Stephen Paleč of Prague (and later at Cracow). His biblical works included a polemic upon Revelation (De septem statibus ecclesiae in Apocalypsi mystice descriptis) and a Passio Domini secundum quattuor Evangelistas. The first work attempted to show the history of the church by analogy with each of the four horses depicted in the apocalyptic vision. The white horse represented to him the primitive, apostolic church in all its purity. The red horse symbolized the martyred church beset by persecution. The blackness of the third horse was 108  The works of James are catalogued by Ludger E. Meier, Die Werke des Erfurter Karthäusers Jakob von Jüterbog in ihrer handschriftlichen Überlieferung (Münster: Aschendorff, 1955 [Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters 37, 5]), with an overview 8–12; see also the supplement to Meier’s work by Dieter Mertens, Iacobus Carthusiensis. Untersuchungen zur Rezeption der Werke des Kartäusers Jakob von Paradies (1381–1465) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 276–285. 109  The older standard treatment of James’ biography is Fijałek, Mistrz Jakób, 1, 3–11 for an overview. This is, however, outdated and should be complemented by Markowski, “Jakub z Paradyża (ok. 1380–1464),” in Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 117–123; and Paul W. Knoll, “Iacobus Carthusiensis [James of Paradise] and Ecclesiastical Reform in Fifteenth Century Cracow and Erfurt,” in Nancy van Deusen, ed., Procession, Performance, Liturgy, and Ritual. Essays in Honor of Bryan R. Gillingham (Ottawa, Canada: The Institute of Medieval Music, 2007 [Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen / Musicological Studies 62, 8]), 191–201, here 191–194. 110  “Quam pro nunc cernimus in toto orbe per Romanum pontificem servari hoc in reservationibus, collationibus, provisionibus amatis, gratis exspectantis beneficiisque pro summarum pecuniis conferendis, revocationibus non obstantiis praecipereque potestatem eligendi et providendi his, quibus ex iure competit et ex fundatione secundum canonicas sanctiones.” “Sed heu!—novorum iurium aetas viam apperuit ad has difformitates annorum artis.” James of Paradyż, Avisamentum ad papam pro reformatione ecclesiae, in Jakub z Paradyża, Wybór tekstów dotyczących reformy kościoła, Stanisław Andrzej Porębski, ed. (Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1978 [Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia Excultae Spectantia 6]) 13, lines 33–39 and 14, lines 13–14.

Theology

505

a depiction of a church darkened and confused by heresy. Finally the pale horse (which in Revelation was ridden by one whose name was Death) was interpreted by James as symbolizing a church sick unto death that had lost its vitality through immorality and schism.111 The Passio is a more traditional, reflective work, with far less of the aggressive polemicism that characterized much else of James’ work.112 We shall examine his conciliar views expressed in his Determinacio below. Paul of Pyskowice (ca. 1394–ca. 1470), whose career at Cracow and lectures on the Sentences has been discussed above, gathered a substantial theological library during his lifetime which, as we shall see in Chapter Eleven, eventually became part of the university’s library. Following the death of Benedict Hesse in 1456, Paul was appointed a canon of the Cracow cathedral. His theological outlook included support for two controversial issues of the fifteenth century: frequent communion (a position held by many in the Hussite movement and hence tinged with suspicions of potential heresy) and the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary. His association with what has come to be known in Polish historiography as the Devotio moderna in Poland and the surrounding region is reflected in a number of his writings.113 Sometime before 1445 Paul wrote a short commentary on Psalm 118 (119) in which he focused upon the several ways of interpreting Holy Scripture. He tended to follow the literal approach used by Nicholas of Lyra, upon whom he depended for matters of content, although he drew upon a number of other, traditional, sources. 111  In Jakub z Paradyża, Wybór tekstów dotyczących reformy kościoła, Porębski, ed., 19–31; see also Knoll, “Iacobus Carthusiensis,” 196–197. 112  An overview of his work, with special attention to the elements derived from biblical studies is provided by Wielgus, Średniowieczna łacińskojęzyczna biblistyka polska, 73–78. 113  Włodek, “Paul de Pyskowice († vers 1468). Témoin inconnu de la ‘Devotio moderna’ a l’Université de Cracovie,” in her Z dziejów filozofii i teologii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim, 289–298, originally published in Theodore Wolfram. Köhler, ed. Sapientiae procerum amore: Mélanges médiévistes offerts à Dom Jean-Pierre Müller O.S.B. à l’occasion de son 70ème anniversaire (24 février 1974) (Rome: Editrice Anselmiana, 1974 [Studia Anselmiana 63]), 457–466 (which I have not seen directly). This article contains an edition of a section of Paul’s commentary on the Sentences devoted to the question “Utrum Christi fidelibus venerabile sacramentum Eucaristiae magis expediat interpelatim quam cottidie sumere.” On the question of Paul’s support for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, see Włodek, “Paweł z Pyskowic († ok. 1470),” in Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 159–164, here 163–164. The 1438 decree of the Council of Basle proclaiming the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not accepted by the church following the end of the conciliar movement; it was not until 1854 that the Catholic church did accept this teaching as an article of the faith. See also below in this chapter, where the question of the Immaculate Conception at Cracow is discussed further.

506

CHAPTER 9

Paul’s importance in the context of biblical studies at Cracow is that he also reflects an emphasis upon practical matters, rather than speculative issues.114 One of Paul’s contemporaries, Matthew of Łabiszyn, whose commentary on the Sentences was noted above, was also productive in biblical studies. Among his more than sixty works were an introductory lecture to the bible, marginal glosses on both the Old and New Testaments, and a very substantial commentary on the first eight chapters of the gospel of John, which was his most important work. In two parts, it extends to over 900 manuscript pages. He too was influenced by Nicholas of Lyra’s biblical commentary, but he held less closely to a literal interpretation. Indeed his approach is rather more philosophical than is characteristic of other biblical work at Cracow in this period. The influence of Augustinian Neo-Platonism is evident, but the author upon whom Matthew drew most was Alexander of Hales. This is particularly evident in his treatment of the highly theologized opening verses of the gospel, though for latter parts of the commentary the influence of Alexander is less evident.115 In the second half of the fifteenth century, two individual in particular added to the Cracovian corpus of biblical commentary. Matthew of Sąspów produced a lecture and glosses on the letters of St. Paul; a set of marginal and interlinear glosses on the book of Acts; another set of glosses on the seven canonical books of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, and Jude; glosses on Revelation and on the gospel of John; a lecture and glosses on St. Bonaventure’s exposition on Ecclesiastes, and prior to his death had begun a major commentary on the Song of Solomon.116 The glosses are generally regarded as of little interest, but the treatment of the Song of Solomon is of more importance. It adopts a highly allegorical treatment (understandable, given the nature of this book), but for content he was particularly dependent upon Gregory the Great, Nicholas of Lyra, Gerson, Honorius of Autun, and the writings of Bernard. Among the central questions he addresses in his treatment are the relationship between the active and the contemplative life (a standard topos, but well handled), a moralizing consideration on the mystical body of Christ, and issues connected with 114  Wielgus, Średniowieczna łacińskojęzyczna biblistyka polska, 86–88; see also Włodek, “Krakowska kwestia z XV wieku o interpretacji Pisma Św.,” St. Med 30 (1993): 73–81. 115  Wielgus, Średniowieczna łacińskojęzyczna biblistyka polska, 94–98; see also Wielgus, “Komentarz Macieja z Łabiszyna do ośmiu początkowych rozdziałów z Ewangelii św. Jana (BJ 1273, BJ 1455),” Acta Mediaevalia 3 (1978): 71–107, which includes a list of the quaestiones Matthew addressed. 116  Wielgus, Średniowieczna łacińskojęzyczna biblistyka polska, 110–113. Some other works attributed to him are not his; see Włodek, “Maciej z Sąspowa,” Materiały 3 (1964): 44–91, here 56–57.

Theology

507

reform that had been at the heart of clerical concerns in Cracow and at the university since early in the century (simony, luxury, and the plurality of benefices are singled out especially).117 Stanisław of Zawada, one of numerous Silesians at Cracow in the fifteenth century, matriculated at the university in 1436 and was promoted to degrees in arts in 1440 and 1444. Thereafter he studied theology and began lectures apparently in 1451. He was admitted to the theological faculty in 1467 and the next year is noted as being a professor. He died in 1491, leaving behind a significant body of biblical commentary.118 Stanisław’s lectures and writings were devoted chiefly to general problems of biblical commentary and to the book of Genesis. In what he wrote on the latter, before he began the actual commentary, he analyzed Jerome’s letter De studiis Scripturarum, providing a rather traditional division of the sciences and the role of theology. But he also discussed the usefulness of the literature of pagan antiquity, the medieval artes liberales, and philosophy for biblical study. In the actual commentary on Genesis he depended heavily upon the approach to interpretation of Nicholas of Lyra and the views of Henry of Langenstein, whose Super Prologum Bibliae he used extensively. He probably also used the critique of Lyra by Paul of Burgos († 1435) and a later defense written by Matthew Döring († 1469) which were contained in the library of John of Dąbrówka and to which he had access as the executor of Dąbrówka’s will. This massive work (over 600 folia in two manuscripts) is unevenly distributed with respect to the attention it pays to the contents of Genesis. His general observations, treatment of the first five days of creation, and the first four chapters of the book take up about three-quarters of the text; the final forty-six chapters are treated in the remainder. While Stanisław’s commentary was in many ways eclectic, its general approach to literal exegesis marked it as moving in the direction of biblical commentaries that were to come, in Poland and elsewhere in Europe. As Mieczysław Markowski has commented, this longtime [długoletni] professor exercised great influence upon the theological orientation of Cracow in the second half of the century.119 117  See two treatments of his biblical work: that by Rechowicz, “Po założeniu Wydziału Teologicznego,” 121–122, and Bafia, “Maciej ze Sąspowa,” in Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 191–192. There are some subtle differences between them with respect to the character of Matthew’s work. 118  For his biography, see Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 177–178; and LTCP / SPTK, 4, 182–183. 119  Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 178. For a fuller treatment of Stanisław’s work, see Wielgus, Średniowieczna łacińskojęzyczna biblistyka polska, 114–124, which subsumes much of his previous scholarship on this individual. While obviously not every Cracow theologian could receive an individual chapter in the Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii

508

CHAPTER 9

Biblical commentary and exegesis at Cracow in the fifteenth century, a “golden age” in the estimation of Stanisław Piech,120 reached its high point with Benedict Hesse of Cracow. Those who followed him were less original and creative, and their work was marked to an even greater degree by the eclecticism which characterized much of the century.121 Perhaps it was the absence of major theological crises and great dramatic events within the larger society of Christendom which accounts in part for their failure to bring anything new to biblical commentary. Only to the extent that they depended upon the stricter, literal approach to interpretation of Nicholas of Lyra do they suggest the embryonic spirit of the new epoch in biblical studies which the sixteenth century was to provide. In the meantime the Cracow community and the faculty of the University of Cracow had been witness to, and participants in, some of the most important religious developments of the late middle ages, calls for church reform and the conciliar movement and its accompanying ecclesiological formulations in response to the Great Schism. In order to see another hue in the spectrum of theological thought within the school, let us turn to a discussion of the faculty’s contribution in this issue.

Church Reform and Conciliarism

Throughout the history of the Christian church, there have been alternating cycles of reform and relapse, of renewal and retrogression. In the latter middle ages there were again anguished voices declaring the need for reform. Francis Oakley has summarized some of these in an eloquent survey of reform sentiment in the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, concluding with reference to the institutional church and especially the papacy that “more or less everyone who wrote on ecclesiastical matters does indeed appear to have become convinced that reform of some sort was vital.”122 Teologicznej, it is interesting to note that there is nothing in this celebratory volume devoted to Stanisław. 120  Piech, “Theology at Kraków Academy,” in Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 50. 121  For some general observations on this theme, see the comments, with respect to Cracovian theology, of Oźóg, “Uniwersytet Krakowski: przykład późnośredniowiecznego eklektyzmu,” in Teresa Wolińska and Mirosław Leszka, eds., Średniowieczna wizja świata. Jedność czy różnorodność. Idee i Teksty (Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2009), 235–250, here 244–247. 122  Francis Oakley, The Western Church in the Later Middle Ages (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1979), 214; later he details the range of “evils” that were criticized:

Theology

509

Certainly in the region of east central Europe, there was no shortage of criticism of existing religious structures and practice. In addition to developments in Bohemia that emerged in the Hussite movement, individuals associated with Cracow were also not passive in raising their own voices.123 Matthew of Cracow, who had already achieved an impressive academic and clerical career in Prague, who was a crucial figure in reestablishing the University of Cracow, and whose later career marked him as both a reformer and ecclesiastical statesman, was a shrewd observer of the weakness and shortcomings of the church. Eventually he gave voice to these in his treatise De praxi [or squaloribus] Romanae Curiae, a scathing indictment of the papacy’s leadership.124 Written in 1405, probably in cooperation with Bishop Peter Wysz of Cracow, the work laid the decline of the church squarely at the feet of the papacy, seeing its centralizing and simonical practices as the root of the Great Schism. While Matthew was not himself a conciliarist in the later sense of the word, he thought a council would help ameliorate the problems which plagued the larger church, including the issue of the schism. A learned theologian and a scholar of some importance whose writings still will repay study, Matthew’s voice calling for reform proved not to be an isolated one.125 pluralism, nonresidence, clerical ignorance, simony, pastoral neglect, clerical concubinage and venality, corruption, temporal ambitions and profligacy of bishops and popes, and so on. He notes further, however, that one must be careful, to avoid seeing this as universal and evidence of a “metaphysics” of progressive decline. 123  The range of these materials is surveyed by Edward Potkowski, “Krytyka i Reforma. Teksty publicystyki kościelnej w Polsce XV wieku,” in Teresa Michałowska, ed., Litertura i kultura późnego średniowiecza w Polsce (Warsaw: Instytut Badań Literackich, 1993), 177–196. He touches upon most of the items discussed in detail below. 124   Mateusza z Krakowa De praxi Romane Curiae, Władysław Seńko, ed. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1969), 72–122 for the edited Latin text. There is a Polish translation, Mateusz z Krakowa, O praktykach kurii rzymskiej, Seńko transl. (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1970). This work has been one of the most controversial to emerge from this era and region; see Nuding, Matthäus von Krakau, 146–173; and, more briefly, Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 78–79 (see 72–79 for his full treatment of Matthew in this context). There is a very large Polish-language literature on Matthew and this work. 125  See particularly Nuding, Matthäus von Krakau, 217–222, which provides a balanced and insightful summation of the three elements in the full title of his study. Other important work on Matthew include Kałuża, “Eklezjologia Mateusza z Krakowa. (Uwagi o De praxi Romanae Curiae), St. Med. 18, 1 (1977): 51–174; Mateusz z Krakowa Opuscula theologica dotyczące spowiedzki i komunii, Seńko and Adam Ludwik Szafrański, eds. (Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1974 [Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia Excultae Spectantia 2, 1]), which includes their introduction on Matthew and

510

CHAPTER 9

His possible collaborator and Bishop of Cracow, Peter Wysz, whose relationship with the court and the university has been treated in a previous chapter, was also a reformer. A year before the appearance of De praxi, Peter prepared a treatise that has now been authoritatively attributed to him, Speculum aureum de titulis beneficiorum ecclesiasticorum.126 It is not a subtle critique. In it he attacks the system of papal reservations and provisions that had become so characteristic of the Avignonese papacy. He attacked what he called papal simony (though he did not stigmatize it as heresy, merely a practice that was ruining the church). His review of the church’s problems led him to discuss possible limitations upon papal power, though he did not proceed to a conclusion that therefore a council should be convened to control and possibly limit papal power. As he put it, limitation of papal authority derived from divine law, natural law, possible conciliar resolutions, and the general welfare of the church.127 Most specifically, he saw that the effective rejection of simony would be the key to solving these problems.128 Wysz’s treatise was widely distributed his works; Szafrański, “Mateusz z Krakowa. Wstęp do badań nad życiem i twórczością naukową,” Materiały 8 (1967): 25–92; Miroslav Danys, Master Matthew of Cracow (Warsaw: Semper, 1995); Olivier Marin, L’archevêque, le maître et le dévot. Genèse du movement réformateur pragois. Années 1360–1419 (Paris: Champion, 2005). Nuding has also edited Matthew’s important treatise, De contractibus (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 2000), with a useful introduction. 126  Seńko. Piotr Wysz z Radolina i jego dzieło ‘Speculum Aureum’ (Warsaw: Instytut Tomistyczny, 1995). Previously scholars—which included at one point Seńko himself—had attributed it to Paul Vladimiri. The research of Kałuża, “Autor ‘Speculum aureum’,” Roczniki Filozoficzne 28 (1980): 203–232, and Markowski, “Peter Wyschs Traktate über die Reform der Kirche des beginnenden 15. Jahrhunderts,” St. Med. 31 (1994): 71–89, demonstrated conclusively that Peter Wysz was the author, and Seńko in his edition agrees (62–67). This conclusion is now the consensus in Polish scholarship and elsewhere; see Oźog, “Praskie studia prałatów i kanoników katedralnych metropolii gnieźnieński w drugiej połowie XIV i na początku XV wieku,” in Andrzej Radzimiński, ed., Duchowieństwo kapitulne w Polsce średniowiecznej i wczesnonowożytnej. Studia nad pochodzeniem i funkcjonowaniem elity kościelnej (Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2000), 133–162, here 158, and Thomas Wünsch, “Das Reformprogramm des Krakauer Bischofs Petrus Wysz 1392–1412, Mit Neuedition der 22-Punkte-Liste ‘De Reformatione Ecclesie’,” in Winfried Eberhard and Franz Machilek, eds., Kirchliche Reformimpulse des 14./15. Jahrhunderts in Ostmitteleuropa (Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 2006), 157–178, here 161. 127  He addresses this in his third chapter of the Speculum aureum, “in quo probatur idem quod supra ex iure canoncio et auctoritate generalis concilii principaliter.” Speculum aureum,” Seńko, ed., 128–129. 128  Chapter Five of Part One of Speculum aureum addresses the topic “In quo diversi errores Romanae curiae circa provisiones et assecutiones beneficiorum et indulgentiarum deteguntur.” Speculum aureum,” Seńko, ed., 93–95.

Theology

511

in Europe and positively received.129 This was not the only point at which Wysz addressed the problems of church structure and practice. Either because he had direct contact with the program for reform of the Council of Pisa in 1409 or because he was merely generally familiar with some of its points proposing change, he was prepared to put reform principles into practice. He developed a twenty-two point comprehensive program, with the formal title De reformatione ecclesie tam in membris, quam in capite, which was intended to address the weaknesses he had delineated in his Speculum aureum.130 Thus the idea of reform was one which had a high profile in the Cracovian environment. Other versions of it are reflected in the critique by Paul Vladimiri of the church’s annate program and the implications of Stanisław of Skarbimierz’s anti-Hussite treatises which, in the aftermath of the Council of Constance, raised the question of the proper relationship between the papacy and a church council.131 Neither of these individuals can be called conciliarists in the sense to be discussed below, though they both saw the need for a council that could support reform even though it could not, and should not try to, limit the plenitudo potestatis of the pope. But the trends of Cracovian ecclesiology were changing as ideas about reform and the role of a council in this process were themselves evolving.132 Conciliar thought, rooted in the teaching of the canonists and the formulations of Parisian theologians in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century, was by no means a fully developed and coherent theory when the Council of Constance convened in 1414. Only with the events there, particularly in the 129  See the observation of Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 120, and further details about the distribution of manuscripts of the work by Seńko, Piotr Wysz z Radolina, 11–32. 130  The text of the points of this program is given in the new edition by Wünsch “Das Reformprogramm des Krakauer Bischofs Petrus Wysz,” 174–178. 131  For Paul’s treatise on annates, see Chapter Eight, note 174. Stanisław’s treatises have been edited for the first time by Włodek, Scripta Manent, 105–163; see her discussion of some of the implications contained in them in “Eklezjologia krakowska w pierwszej połowie XV wieku,” in Adam Kubiś, ed., Jubileusz Sześćsetlecia Wydziału Teologicznego w Krakowie 20 X 1996–20 X 1997 (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 1998 [Studia do dziejów Wydziału Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 10]), 247–282, here 250–252, reprinted in her Z dziejów filozofii i teologii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim, 383–418, here 386–387. 132  It was not only in Cracow that conciliar ideas began to take root. As shown by Jan Drabina, Idee koncyliaryzmu na Śląsku. Wykład miejscowych środowisk intelektualnych w ich upowszechnianie (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1984), the clergy there accepted conciliar ideas to a degree because they felt they constituted a better approach to reform that that provided by those who had strayed into heresy (i.e., the Hussites).

512

CHAPTER 9

decrees Haec Sancta (6 April 1415) and Frequens (9 October 1417), were some of the specific implications and aspirations of earlier proposals elaborated. Even after Constance, however, there were still general issues which remained open. The relationship of a council to the pope and its role within the church, which was still to a great degree dominated by the hierarchical and monarchial conception supported by the papalists, were still unclear. As a result, with the crisis between Eugene and the Council of Basle, there was evoked a new round of conciliar debate which sought to refine these issues.133 In order to defend its position, and consistent with the reality that, as in the words of Antony Black, “the role of universities in the affairs of the Latin Church [had] assumed unprecedented proportions,”134 Basle appealed to these studia for justification. As we have seen in Chapter Five, the council found an especially warm response at Cracow. The Cracovian contribution to ecclesiological thought in the mid-fifteenth century is found in five treatises written by Benedict Hesse of Cracow, Laurence of Racibórz, John Elgot, James of Paradyż, and Thomas Strzempiński. The context of their preparation has been discussed above in Chapter Five. The treatment here provides a brief summary of their public careers and an analysis of each of their works, the themes they developed, and an evaluation of their contribution. Benedict Hesse is one of the major figures in the institutional and intellectual life of the university in the fifteenth century, and without his contributions the achievements of the studium would have been much reduced. He had matriculated at Cracow in 1407 and lived eventually in the Bursa pauperum founded by John Isner, of which he was later the procurator (1417–1421). He was promoted to bachelor in arts in 1411, incepted as a master in 1415, and served as dean of the arts faculty in 1421 and 1424. Although he was closely connected with the group of theology professors who had come from Prague, his 133  The best brief treatments of couciliar thought and action are those by Francis Oakley, “Conciliar Theory,” in Dictionary of the Middle Ages, Joseph R. Strayer, Editor in Chief, 13 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1982–1989), 3, 510–523; and three works by Antony J. Black: “The conciliar movement,” in J.H. Burns, ed., The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350–c. 1450 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 573–587; Black, Political Thought in Europe 1250–1450 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.), 169–178; and “Popes and Councils,” in New Cambridge Medieval History, 7 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995–2005), vol. 7: c. 1415–1500, Christopher Allemand, ed. (1998), 65–86. 134  Black, “The Universities and the Council of Basle: Collegium and Concilium,” in Jacques Paquet and Jozef IJsewijn, eds., Les universités à la fin du moyen âge (Louvain: Institut d’Études Médiévales U.C.L., 1978) 511–523, here 511.

Theology

513

later writings reflect a philosophical eclecticism. He studied theology under Francis of Brzeg, earned his doctorate in 1431, and participated in the disputation with the Hussites in that year. During his long university career (he died in 1456) he was six times elected rector, and his most famous student was James of Paradyż. He was also a canon of the church of St. Florian and eventually of the cathedral. Toward the end of his life he also lectured in canon law.135 Benedict’s short conciliar treatise (Tractatus brevior) was written in 1440, prior to the other Cracovian works. It deals with a single proposition: whether it is necessary for the sake of one’s salvation to obey the Council of Basle and the pope (Felix V) whom it has elected.136 In discussing this he presents three conclusions, each of which has several corollaries attached to it. His first conclusion is that it is necessary for all to render obedience to the council. In this context he argues that papal prerogatives in relation to the council are limited to receiving, approving, conserving, and defending its statues and decrees; that the pope may not alter these; and that he may not dissolve the council without its own consent. His second conclusion is that it is equally necessary to adhere to Felix. From this certain corollaries are drawn. He who does not believe that after the deposition of Eugene, Felix is the true pope is guilty of a mortal sin; it is an article of the faith, necessary to salvation, that the acts of Felix are valid; and submission to the supreme pontiff is equally necessary to salvation. His final conclusion touches upon the relationship of pope and council: that between the two, greater obedience to the latter is required for salvation. From this it follows that although the pope may convene a council, his power is not greater that its; that the power of the council is superior to the pope in auctoritate, iurisdictione et executione; and that declarations of articles of the faith are a right which pertains not to the person of the pope, but only to the council. These conclusions, which stand sharply opposed to the papalist views of such theorists as Giles of Rome and Augustinus Triumphus, rest upon an 135  Markowski, “Benedykt Hesse z Krakowa (ok. 1389–1456),” in Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 131–138, provides the most recent and reliable overview of his biography. 136  “Utrum sacrosanctae Basiliensi synodo et sanctissimo domino nostro domino Felici papae quinto ab eadem rite electo et instituto a quolibet salvari volenti oboediendum sit necessarie.” Benedicti Hesse de Cracovia Tractatus Brevior, Wacław Bucichowski, ed., in Polskie Traktaty Koncyliarystyczne z połowy XV wieku, Bucichowski, ed. (Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1987 [Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia Excultae Spectantia 23]), 29–42, here 29, lines 1–4. Bucichowski’s edition now supersedes the previously partially edited text of this—along with fragments of the other Cracovian treatises—provided by Fijałek, Mistrz Jakób, although his discussion and analyses remain useful even though there has been much subsequent scholarship.

514

CHAPTER 9

ecclesiology which rejects the view of the church as a theocratic monarchy. Presented in one form or another by earlier conciliarists, this view finds expression in Benedict’s treatise in a definition of the church on earth as “the body of Christ, animated by faith in Christ and composed out of many members of the faithful as a society of the sacraments of the church.”137 By this he makes a fundamental distinction between the church as a corpus mysticum Christi and as a corpus politicum. The greater authority belongs to the former, and it is this which is represented in the council. Papal power is derived from the former and constitutes only a part of this mystical body; it is therefore subordinate to the council. Benedict does not deny that the pope is the head of the corpus politicum, but he rejects the tradition that the pope is the caput ecclesiae and vicarius Christi. The church has only one true caput, and that is Christ. The functions of the pope within the church as corpus politicum are those of a minister or servant of the true head, and thus Hesse speaks of the pope as minister capitis. In practical matters this translates into a distinction between the power of the pope in actu primo and in actu secundo. The first is that period when the council is in session, during which time the pope retains all of his ministerial powers but does not exercise them; the second occurs whenever there is no council assembled, at which time the pope is the caput of the church and may act within the limits of his power. In the case of conflict between the pope and the council, the authority of the later is superior, and all are required to follow its leadership, for it represents the higher power of the church as corpus mysticum. Benedict’s treatise represents views which were similar to those at other universities, particularly Erfurt. It is somewhat more radical, if only because its ideas were elaborated in a formal treatise, than the views which were dominant at Constance. Within the Cracovian context, he occupied a moderate, middle ground. But, as shown above, Hesse’s position was further developed in this commentary on Matthew, by which time he drew upon and quoted from the writings of his colleagues. Born about 1393, Laurence of Racibórz matriculated at Cracow in 1411. He was promoted to bachelor in 1414, and to master in 1416. By 1424 at the latest he had begun to study theology. Before that he lectured in arts and, as we have seen above, made important contributions there, especially in astronomy. He served as dean of the arts faculty in 1421 and 1426, then was twice elected rector (spring 1428 and winter 1428/1429). The student of Andrew of Kokorzyn and Nicholas Kozłowski, he was promoted to doctor of theology in 1433. With the 137  “Sed ecclesia universalis est corpus Christi, fide Christi animatum, ex multis membris fidelibus in una societate sacramentorum ecclesiae congregatum.” Ibid., 41, lines 32–34.

Theology

515

exception of his conciliarist treatise, Laurence gained no great reputation in theology, although he was known as an outstanding preacher. He died sometime between 1446 and 1450.138 Laurence cast his treatise in a classic scholastic form. He put forward nine theses, or conclusiones, examined the arguments for and against each, then summed up with a resolution for each.139 His main points in order were (1) that the Council of Basle, rightfully representing the universal church, has been instituted by the Holy Spirit; (2) that by virtue of this it is legitimately convened; (3) that it obtains full power for its decrees and acts immediately from God; (4) that this gives it power and authority which is superior to that of the pope and all popes; (5) that Eugene, “once pope” has no power to dissolve the council; (6) that all it decrees and enacts is valid and efficacious; (7) that it rightfully and legitimately deposed Eugene and (8) rightfully and legitimately elected Felix; and finally (9) that it is altogether necessary for the salvation of the faithful in Christ to be obedient to and submit to the council and to Felix. In elaborating these conclusions, Laurence develops several lines of thought. For example, in discussing the authority of the church (represented in the council) and of the pope, he argues that both derived their power and justification directly from Christ, who is the true head of the church. Thus he does not subordinate the pope to the council in quite the same way as Benedict had and adopts instead a position which is in many respects similar to that defended by Pierre d’Ailly. One of the implications of this is that when the council is not in session, Laurence attributed to the pope and the College of Cardinals the power to exercise authority for the church. In other words, in such an instance, they represent the universal church. This interpretation is based upon Laurence’s understanding of the power of the keys. This was given by Christ to both the universal church and to Peter (and by extension to his successors). He does not, however, conclude from this that the power and authority of the council, when convened as the representative of the church, 138  Older Polish treatments of his biography and career have now been superseded by Katherine Walsh, “Das wissenschaftliche Umfeld des Laurentius von Ratibor: Astronom, Mathematiker, Theologe,” in Die Anfänge des Schrifttums in Oberschlesiens bis zum Frühhumanismus, Gerhardt Kosellek, ed. (Frankfurt am Main and New York: Peter Lang, 1997), 59–84; the treatment of Laurence by Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 144–145, is limited. 139  “Hae sunt conclusiones pro honore et sanctitate sacrosanctae generalis synodi Basiliensis in Spiritu Sancto legitime congregatae, ecclesiam universalem repraesentatis, per universitatem studii Cracoviensis in opusculo sequenti deductae.” Laurentii de Raciborz Determinatio Basiliensis, Bucichowski, ed., in Polskie Traktaty Koncyliarystyczne, 116–166, here 116, lines 1–5.

516

CHAPTER 9

and of the pope are equal. The former is always maius et dignus in auctoritate et potestate, and therefore the Council of Constance rightly and legitimately limited the power of the pope within the council. This point is developed most clearly in Laurence’s fourth conclusion where he discusses the plenitudo potestatis of the Council of Basle. The distinction which he drew between papal and conciliar power rests upon his resolutio in the conclusion that the auctoritas of the church (and the council) is eternal and direct; that of the pope, temporary and indirect.140 During the meeting of the council, its authority and power are superior to the pope’s, and in case of disagreement or conflict, the council should always be followed. Among the arguments Laurence utilized to demonstrate this, some are theological (the pope may sin, but the church as a whole remains unblemished) and biblical (the example of Peter in Acts 8:14 being sent with John to Samaria by the council to share the Holy Spirit); some are historical (the conciliar appointment of Anacletus as pope instead of Clement) and logical (the whole is greater than each of its parts and the pope is only a part of the body of Christ, the church). While clearly conciliarist, Laurence’s treatise accepts a theoretical justification for papal power which does not represent an advance over previous formulations and is consequently moderate in tone (thus perhaps making it unacceptable within the faculty, which generally had favored a stronger statement). This same characteristic is found in the more complex treatise of his colleague, John Elgot. In addition, it should be noted that as with all the Cracovian treatises, Laurence’s is eclectic in nature, drawing upon a variety of previous writings and quoting especially Conrad Gelnhausen.141 John Elgot was one of the many Silesians at the university in the fifteenth century. He matriculated in 1416, was promoted to bachelor the next year and to master in 1420. He subsequently studied canon law under Stanisław of Skarbimierz and was promoted to doctor of decretals in 1427. From the beginning of his career he was involved in the larger political and religious issues of his day, and he came into very close contact with Bishop Oleśnicki, whom he served as vicarius in spiritualibus. Twice elected rector (1427 and 1437), he 140  “Ecclesia habet auctoritatem illam modo nobiliori et magis digno, scilicet auctoritative sive potestative, summus vero pontifex solum officialiter, ministerialiter et dispensative. Ad sensum dictum habet eam ecclesia sempiternaliter et indeviabiliter, summus autem pontifex temporaliter et deviabiliter.” Ibid., 140, lines 9–14. 141  Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen. Personen, Politik und Programme aus Polen zur Verfassungsfrage der Kirche in der Zeit der mittelalterlichen Reformkonzilien (Paderborn, Munich, Vienna, Zürich: Schöningh, 1998), 157–163, provides a good summary of Laurence’s treatise and its character.

Theology

517

was esteemed by his contemporaries as an excellent Latinist. After the discussions of 1440–1441, he was incorporated as a member of the council of Basle (between October 1441 and February 1442), then traveled, via Vienna (where he got to know the imperial secretary, Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini) to Rome and the Holy Land. He died in 1452.142 Elgot’s treatise consisted of two parts. In the first, he discusses schematically the general character of the ecclesia; in the second, he treats in six detailed theses the issues of the council of Basle and its relationship to the pope. The church in Elgot’s schematic approach consists of two parts, the material (i.e., the building and possessions) and the spiritual. The latter is in turn divided into the unfaithful, which included schismatics, heretics, and apostates (the civitas mundi of Augustine), and the faithful. This latter group also has a double character. The first is particular, i.e., individual metropolitan, cathedral, collegiate, and parish organizations; the second is universal. The universal church is discussed in three different aspects. The ecclesia praedestinatorum is composed of those who have been chosen and shall be saved. (While Elgot draws heavily upon Augustine in this discussion, his predestinarianism is not rigid and corresponds roughly to the post-Tridentine position on this issue.) The ecclesia militans is defined in a conciliar sense as a mystical, organic body, united in and animated by faith in Christ. The ecclesia representative, which exercises power and authority on earth, is the visible, structural manifestation of the universal church. In discussing the second of these aspects, Elgot attacks John Hus’ conception of the church in three conclusions. In these he excluded the Hussites from the universal church as he had defined it and consigns them to the category of the unfaithful.143 He also shows by an analogy familiar to his immediate audience how the church militant can take many forms but remain 142   P SB, 6, 227–228; LTCP / SPTK, 1, 444–445; Katarzyna Niemczycka, “Jan Elgot—życie i twórczość,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 5 (1992): 9–38; Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen, 87–89. 143  “Ex hac conclusione sequitur primo, quod Huss et sui complices errant ponentes solum unicam ecclesiam, videlicet praedestinatorum, prout hoc continetur in tractatu suo De ecclesia. Patet veritas huius corrolarii de praescitis, bonis et malis christianis, qui sunt in ecclesia, non tamen in ecclesia praedestinatorum, ut deductum est. Sequitur secundo dictum Huss graviter errasse in eo, quod dicebat praescitos, etiam pro illo tempore, quo sunt in gratia, non esse partes aut membra ecclesiae catholicae.” “Sequitur tertio dictum Huss errasse in eo, quod dicebat, quod si papa est praescitus, non potest esse caput ecclesiae, quia si non est membrum ecclesiae praedestinatorum, nititur concludere, quod non est pars aut membrum ecclesiae catholicae.” Ioannis Elgot Determinatio Basiliensis, Henryk Anzulewicz, ed., in Polskie Traktaty Koncyliarystyczne, Bucichowski, ed., 43–82, here 54, lines 3–11 and 18–22.

518

CHAPTER 9

a unity tied by bonds of faith, hope, and love to its one true head, Christ: the river Vistula, which is always one river, nevertheless has many parts.144 It is his discussion of the third aspect of the universal church which brings Elgot to the crux of his ecclesiology. He divides the representative church into a general council, which he defines by citing Gerson and Gratian, and the Roman curia, which is composed of the pope and the College of Cardinals.145 Elgot derives the authority of each directly from Christ, not making the latter’s power derivative from the former’s, but he grants the council superiority over the pope while it is functioning. The council does not err, because it is led by the Holy Spirit, and, as he elaborated later in the treatise, its actions are therefore legitimate and binding upon the faithful. As had Laurence before him, he grants the Roman curia a high degree of autonomy and authority. When the council is not in session, the pope and the cardinals represent the church (i.e., they are the ecclesia representative). Together they are the mother and teacher of all the faithful and all the particular churches, they may be appealed to by all, may judge all, and may not be judged by any of these particular parts. Moreover, Elgot grants to the Roman church the right and responsibility to execute the powers of the church on behalf of the council when it is not in session. Nevertheless, he takes great pains in three arguments to show that the council and the Roman curia are not two churches; they are representatives of the one universal church.146 Thus Elgot’s position is a moderate one which, despite different emphases, is closely related to the views of Pierre d’Ailly. 144  “Exemplum ad rem familiare apparet in flumine Wisla, qui semper idem in numero hic manet quoad formam, quamvis partes materiales illius fluvii cottidie varientur sibi invicem succedentes.” Ibid., 55, lines 12–14. 145  “Est autem concilium generale congregatio legitima auctoritate facta ad aliquem locum ex omni statu hierarchico totius ecclesiae catholicae nulla fideli persona, quae audire requirat, exclusa ad tractandum et ordinandum salubriter ea, quae debitum regimen eiusdem ecclesiae in fide et in moribus respiciunt. . . .” “Generale enim concilium universalem ecclesiam repraesentans de qua iam dictum est in articulo praecedenti, est regula a Spiritu Sancto directa et a Christo tradita. . . .” “Verum, quia concilium generale non semper durat nec pro omni tempore potest esse congregatum . . . etiam Romanae ecclesiae, quae constat ex papa ut capite et collegio cardinalium et universorum Christifidelium, ideo necesse fuit dari aliquod suppositum seu corpus mysticum ad quod concilio dissoluto recurrendum esset in materia catholica et ecclesiastica, ut semper haberetur certum refugium permanens et visibile in humanis, ad quod in eiusmodi materia esset recurrendum. Ibid., 56, lines 30–35 and 37–39; 62,, lines 25–26 and 29–35. 146  “Item et hoc sequitur ex praemissis, quod concilium generale universalem ecclesiam repraesentans et ecclesia Romana non sunt duae ecclesiae, sed pro una computantur sicut subalternans et subalternata; sicut enim ecclesia, universalis et concilium eam

Theology

519

In the rest of his treatise, Elgot explores in six articles, and within the context of the immediate issues of the day, the application of the principles outlined above as they touch the Council of Basle and its affairs.147 His points are that the authority of a general council, correctly assembled and convened, is representative of the universal church and is superior over all men, including the pope (etiam supra papam). The Council of Basle is truly such a general council. Eugene had no authority to dissolve the council, and his efforts to do so were legally null and void. The Council of Basle may not be dissolved by anyone, only by its own decision. The council’s deposition of Eugene and election of Felix were within the competency of the council and were legitimate acts. All the faithful ought, under threat of the loss of salvation, to obey Felix as rightful pope. Elgot’s carefully reasoned treatise, while perhaps more moderate than was the general opinion at Cracow, was nevertheless influential. Strzempiński’s later compilation drew upon it, and Benedict Hesse incorporated many of its arguments in his later commentary upon Matthew.148 James of Paradyż was born about 1380 and by 1402 had entered the Cistercian monastery in Paradyż in Great Poland. After his order was authorized to study at Cracow in 1417,149 he matriculated there in 1420, transferring his religious affiliation to the cloister in nearby Mogiła (Clara Tumba). He was promoted to bachelor in 1421, incepted as a master in 1423, then began the study of theology. By 1432 he had completed his doctoral degree and begun to lecture in theology. Until his departure from the university, he was recognized as the leading theologian of the studium. He never served in any administrative capacity, but he became widely recognized as a powerful influence on others and as a strong advocate of reform, particularly of the monastic life. He left Cracow in 1441 and may have spent time at the Council of Basle before arriving in Erfurt, where in 1443 he became a Carthusian monk in the monastery of St. Peter on Saviour Hill. Before he died in 1464 or 1465, he had become widely repraesentant non sunt duae ecclesiae, sed una repraesentative, sic concilium generale et ecclesia Romana a simili.” Ibid., 63, lines 16–21. 147  “Hic autem taliter pro fundamento praemissis et deductis exaotis de testimonio veritatis perhibendo responsionem nostrum, quo magis perfecta haberetur, scenario numero, qui solus inter monadicos numeros perfectus est, perstringimus.” Ibid., 63, lines 38–41. There follow six brief statement (63, line 42–64, line 17) which are then responded to in extenso in the following pages. 148  See the discussion of this in Rechowicz, Św. Jan Kanty i Benedykt Hesse, 167–174. The analysis of, and assessment of influence, of Elgot’s treatise by Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen, 144–157, is particularly insightful. 149  On this point see the treatment of Krzysztof Kaczmarek, Studia uniwersyteckie cystersów z ziem polskich w okresie średniowiecza (Poznań: Instytut Historii UAM, 2002), 88–94.

520

CHAPTER 9

known in Europe. He left behind an extraordinarily broad corpus of writings which may be classified into the following groups: reform treatises, moral and mystic theology, current religious issues, and sermons. He is one of the most important intellectual figures to have been associated with the university in the fifteenth century.150 James’ Determinatio consists of an introduction, twelve propositions, and a brief conclusion or epilogue.151 It is by far the most innovative and radical version of Cracovian conciliarism in the fifteenth century. His first proposition, which he regards “as the foundation of all subsequent” ones, is that it is necessary for salvation to confess belief in “one holy catholic church.” To support this, he cites both scripture and such early fathers as Augustine, taking care to point out that he does not distinguish in his present discussion between the ecclesia triumphans and militans. Next he treats the leadership of the church, which he here defines as the corpus mysticum Christi. It has only one immediate head, Christ, as he shows in a variety of biblical passages. The authority of this caput is exercised on behalf of the ecclesia by the pope, not as vicarius or caput himself, but as minister. In the third proposition, he shows that the church as a whole is preserved free from error in matters of the faith by the Holy Spirit. From this he draws the conclusion that the general or universal church, including those gathered as its representatives, is superior to any single individual, including the pope. An isolated person can not be said to represent the whole church. Again, scripture is the source for his arguments in support of those propositions. A related point is discussed next, namely that any individual member of the church, including the pope, is necessarily sub­ ordinate to the ecclesia universale. 150  For James’ works, see above, note 108. A brief biographical study is provided by Jarosław Stoś, Jakub z Paradyża (Cracow: WAM, 2004). See also my “Iacobus Carthusiensis and Religious Reform,” 191, n. 4, which addresses some of the complicated issues connected with his name. The older study by Fijałek, Mistrz Jakób, is still the starting point for work on James, even if much in it has been modified by subsequent scholarship. One area where there is considerable scholarly debate is the issue of whether James may be associated with the tradition of the devotio moderna; Stoś, Mistrz Jakub z Paradyża i devotio moderna. Główne problemy refleksji filozoficzno-teologicznej Jakuba a Paradyża i ich związek z devotio moderna (Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Akademii Teologii Katolickiej, 1997), has been the leading proponent of associating him with this tradition; for a brief English-language treatment of this issue, see Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 131–133. I have been less willing to see him placed in this category; see my “Iacobus Carthusiensis and Religious Reform,” 200, note 33, and below in this chapter. 151   Iacobi de Paradiso Determinatio Basiliensis, Anzulewicz, ed., in Polskie Traktaty Koncyliarystyczne, Bucichowski, ed., 83–115.

Theology

521

In his sixth proposition, James argued that humano modo loquendo it is impossible for the whole church, actually composed of all its members, to be gathered in one place at one time. This necessitates the convening of representatives. From this, his discussion proceeds to a demonstration that the decrees of a general council which truly represents the church are to be observed as inviolable by all members of the church, including the pope. A corollary point is that anyone who does not accept these decrees (especially on matters of the faith, the extirpation of heresy, and general reform in capite et membris) should be condemned by the church and the council. These points were treated by James in a general, theoretical manner; his last four propositions deal more specifically with issues of immediate concern. He argues that the Council of Basle is truly a general council; that no one, not even the pope, may dissolve or transfer a legitimately convened council which represents the universal church; that the deposition of Eugene by Basle was valid; and that Felix as a canonically elected pope should be adhered to by all. There are several distinctive characteristics of James’ treatise which should be emphasized here. One is the relatively extreme position he took with regard to the pope. He rejected any attribution to him of plena potestas, viewing him instead as simply the principle member of the church, but deriving his power and authority only indirectly from Christ. Thus he emphasized, as had Benedict before him, the status of the pope as a minister or an instrument of the whole church and, by extension, of the representative church in the council. James saw the incident of the keys in Matthew 16 as a symbolic act in which Christ gave authority to the church, with Peter as its servant. Above all, in his view, the pope had in no way been given full or total power by Christ, and James viewed him as peccabilis, fallibilis et obliquabilis.152 Another important characteristic is that this is a theological treatise. In his introduction, James states his intent to base his propositions upon scripture and the early fathers and to argue from the standpoint of theology only.153 There is a complete lack of canon law and 152  “Et per hoc, quod dico Romanum pontificem esse caput ministeriale singularum ecclesiarum, praefero ipsum super quemlibet seorsum dignitate, auctoritate, praeeminentis, statu et potestate, sed submitto eum et subicio toti seu universali ecclesiae, aut aliquibus ipsam representatibus dignitate, auctoritate, praeeminentia, potestate, sapientia, statu, conditione ponoque ipsum Romanum pontificem inter membra eiusdem ecclesiae, cum extra ipsam non sit salus ex prima propositione.” “Quod utique Romanus pontifex solus facere non potest, cum sit peccabilis, fallibilis et obliquabilis Ibid., 87, lines 24–31 and 88, lines 12–14. 153  “Pro mentis igitur meae conceptus explanatione et explicatione succincte quibusdam utar propositionibus tamquam conclusionibus, pro quarum probatione, etsi pauce intercurrerint humanae rationes tamquam fidei persuasibiles, tamen fidei fundamentum

522

CHAPTER 9

even the philosophical arguments which James would have been familiar with in the arts faculty. Finally, in his emphasis upon the representative character of the council and in his designation of the pope as minister, James reflects an element in Polish political theory which was later developed by the secular philosophers of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century, as they sought to define the relationship between the governor and the governed within the kingdom.154 Of all the formal documents to emerge from the conciliar period, this is one of the most imaginative and creative.155 None of the aforementioned treatises satisfied the faculty as properly stating their position on the issues regarding the council before them. As noted above in Chapter Five, it fell to Thomas Strzempiński, peritus as both a theologian and canonist, to compile a document which would be presented as the university’s position. Strzempiński, a member of the szlachta, was born in 1398 and matriculated at Cracow in 1419, where he completed the bachelor’s curriculum in 1421 and incepted as a master in 1427. He soon began to study canon law, in which faculty he gained the doctorate as early as 1431; he then lectured in decretals while further studying theology. He represented Archbishop Wojciech Jastrzębski of Gniezno at the Council of Basle between 1433 and 1436, and during his academic career served three terms as rector of the university. After 1440 he taught only in the faculty of theology and was promoted to doctor in 1443. He was appointed royal vice-chancellor by Casimir the Jagiellonian in 1454, then, following the death of Zbigniew Oleśnicki in May 1455, he succeeded him as Bishop of Cracow in 1456, the first graduate of the university to

cautius iacetur in theologiae auctoritatibus, quae irrefragabilibus innituntur columnis, tamquam a Spiritu Sancto contra fidei hostes erectis.” “. . . nisi quis contra sacram scripturam aut communem animi conceptionem pertinaciter arma assumere vellet, contra quem nescio, an disputatio esset habenda, tamquam contra principia communis negantem, cum fides catholica sua fundat principia in sacra scriptura.” Ibid., 84, lines 17–22 and 25–29. 154  See the comments of Seńko. “Z badań nad historią myśli społeczno-politycznej w Polsce w XV wieku,” in Palacz, ed., Filozofia Polska XV wieku, 20–57, here 46–48; Konstanty Grzybowski, “Rozwój myśli państwowej na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w pierwszej połowie XV w., in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 139–149, here 148–149; and, most recently and most fully developed, Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen, 372–386, especially 381–386 (a short chapter entitled “Ausblick: Fernwirkungen des Konziliarismus in Polen”). 155  The fullest analysis of the view of James is now Porębski, Jakub z Paradyża. Poglądy i teksty (Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Akademii Teologii Katolickiej, 1994), though, as noted above, the scholarship of Fijałek, Mistrz Jakób, is still useful.

Theology

523

be elevated to this office.156 As we have seen, he provided substantial benefactions for the studium at his death in 1460.157 Thomas had the unenviable task of preparing a compilation of the treatises of Benedict Hesse, Laurence of Racibórz, John Elgot, and James of Paradyż which would be acceptable to the community of scholars and ecclesiastics in Cracow. His effort, while reflecting his own views and formulations, is therefore a highly derivative one. It consists of an introduction, which defines the problem and reviews the background of the treatise; a central part of multiple conclusions, which treats the Council of Basle specifically; and a short summation.158 In the introduction, Thomas relied heavily upon Elgot’s preface and first part, quoting him at length in some places, summarizing his arguments in others. He excluded the polemics against the Hussites that Elgot had included in his discussion of the ecclesia militans, but does include sections from Laurence of Racibórz’s ninth article. In his first conclusion, Thomas unremarkably affirms the unity and inerrancy of the church and the necessity for the sake of salvation to believe and confess one holy, catholic church.159 He quotes liberally from James of Paradyż’s first and third propositions and includes most of the patristic citations and comments made by Laurence in his sixth conclusion. He also draws upon Elgot’s first article. His second conclusion discusses the issue of the caput of the church and is devoted to a long exposition on the power of the pope. According to him, the true and immediate head of the church is Christ, while the pontifex Romanus serves the church and all of its members as minister and vicar. Christ’s position is described in the words of James’ second proposition, while the description of that of the pope is based upon Elgot’s 156  Oźóg, “Wpływ środowiska uniwersyteckiego na kształtowanie i rozwój kultury religijnej w Polsce średniowiecznej,” in Halina Manikowska and Wojciech Brojer, eds. Animarum cultura. Studia nad kulturą religijną na ziemiach polskich w średniowieczu (Warsaw: Instytut Historii PAN, 2008), 407–439, here 427–431. 157  For basic information about his biography, Markowski, “Tomasz ze Strzempina (1398– 1460),” in Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 165–172, with reference to previous literature. 158   Thomae de Strzempino Determinatio Basiliensis, Włodek, ed., in her Scripta Manent, 229– 292; her edition represents an emended version of that by Bucichowski in Polskie Traktaty Koncyliarystyczne, 167–230. In one form or another, the treatise had been printed, either completely or fragmentarily, four times previously. 159  “His sic in genere de Ecclesia praemissis, ut ad ulteriora progrediamur, sit ista ad nostrum propositum conclusio prima: Unam sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, quae in his, quae fidei sunt et salutis, errare non potest, confiteri cuilibet homini viatori est de necessitate sallutis.” Thomae de Strzempino Determinatio Basiliensis, 237, lines 278–281.

524

CHAPTER 9

f­ ormulation in his first article, Laurence’s position as found in his ninth conclusion, and parts of James’ fourth proposition.160 As a result, Thomas’ treatment of papal power stands somewhere between the moderate and more radical Cracovian formulations. Further on, drawing upon Benedict Hesse (according to Zofia Włodek) he makes the fundamental—and crucial—distinction of two different ways of considering the church: either as a corpus mysticum or as a corpus politicum, an important element of conciliar theory.161 In his third conclusion, Thomas discusses in more detail the power of the council and its character as representative of the whole church. Here he quotes extensively from James’ sixth proposition and Elgot’s third article.162 Thomas’ fourth conclusion is fundamental to his whole argument and is correspondingly the longest section of the treatise, constituting approximately a third of the whole. It treats the supreme authority of the council within the church and its superiority to the power of the pope. To support this position in a general sense, he quotes long sections of James’ fourth and fifth propositions, adopts Elgot’s first article’s citations from writings of the doctors of the church, and draws heavily upon an exegesis of the names of the church in the Old and New Testaments. He also provides a philosophical argument which analyzes the church’s delegation of authority from the standpoint of causality: final, instrumental, formal, and material. This is not found explicitly in any of the other treatises and may represent an original formulation by Thomas. To the extent that he draws upon sources in canon law in this discussion, he relies upon Elgot’s similar approach. Thomas’ fifth conclusion deals with the necessity of observing the decrees of a general council and rests upon the seventh and eighth propositions of James’ treatise. This compilation ends with two 160  “Haec conclusio duo dicit, dicit enim primo, quod Christus est caput principale, verum et immediatum totius Ecclesiae; secundo dicit, quod pontifex Romanus est caput eiusdem Ecclesiae ministeriale et vicarium.” Ibid., 243, lines 470–472. Further on he makes the fundamental distinction between two ways of considering the church. 161  “Unde considerandum, quod Ecclesia universalis consideratur dupliciter. Uno modo, ut est corpus mysticum . . . et isto modo proprie caput Ecclesiae est Christus iuxta regulam Apostoli Ad. Eph. 1. Alio modo consideratur, ut est corpus politicum, secundum quod consideratur sicut alia communitas aut societas politica, . . . potest debite regi humana aut divina lege. Isto modo posset dici, quod papae competeret dici caput Ecclesiae. Sed prout Ecclesia est corpus mysticum, non proprie sibi competit esse caput Ecclesiae, sed posset dici vicarius et minister capitis.” Ibid., 245, lines 546–547, 551–554, and 556–559. See also Włodek, “Eklezjologia krakowska w pierwszej połowie XV wieku,” 278–280. 162  “Et ideo ad hoc propositum sit haec conclusion tertia: Quodlibet concilium generale in Spirtu Sancto legitime congregatum repraesentat universalem Ecclesiam et habet potestatem immediate a Christo.” Ibid., 250, lines 727–729.

Theology

525

conclusions touching directly upon the Council of Basle. In the sixth, depending upon James’ ninth and tenth propositions, its legitimacy and indissolubility are affirmed. Thomas also draws upon Elgot in his discussion of this point. In the seventh, the deposition of Eugene, election of Felix, and the necessity of obedience to him and to Basle are defended at length from James’ eleventh and twelfth propositions. To conclude the treatise, Thomas repeats Elgot’s general closing remarks and adds some formulations of his own. By its very nature, Strzempiński’s work is a microcosm of the larger arena of ecclesiological, and particularly, conciliar thought at Cracow. By its eclectic character, it reveals the generally derivative approach of the other ecclesiologues and symbolizes the same characteristic of the whole of Cracovian theology in this period. By its understandable emphasis upon the pressing issues connected with the council, it represents the overriding concern of theologians at the university with practical, rather than speculative, questions. Finally, by its honest effort to support the conciliar reform within the church, it reflects the active sentiment of the theological faculty and others for moral renewal. There is no doubt, as Włodek observed in her masterful summation of this subject, that “medieval Cracovian ecclesiological thought was rich, varied, and that it played an important role, not only in Poland, but also in Europe, particularly in the period of the great councils of the fifteenth century.”163 In one rather narrow context, the subsequent history of Strzempiński’s treatise reflects this. It was adopted by the university, sent to the council in Basle, where it was warmly received. Later, in the aftermath of Eugene having issued in 1441 his bull Etsi non dubitemus, which condemned the interpretation of the Council of Constance given by those incorporated at Basle,164 the council immediately adopted the Cracovian treatise as its formal response to the pope. Antony Black has concluded that it represented “the most complete . . . defense of Basle conciliarism ever produced outside Basle itself.”165 As Krzysztof Oźóg has commented, it was discussed by leading individuals in the conciliar movement, including such conservative conciliarists as Panormitanus and papalists like Torquemada; copies of it were disseminated in Europe (at least to judge by the number of extant manuscripts—over forty and widely distributed); and it was printed in the seventeenth century by the first great historian of the

163  Włodek, “Eklezjologia krakowska w pierwszej połowie XV wieku,” 281. 164  This development is treated by Joseph Gill, Constance et Bale-Florence (Paris: Éditions de l’Orante, 1965 [Histoire des conciles oecuméniques 9]), 275–277. 165  Black, Council and Commune, 112.

526

CHAPTER 9

university of Paris in his treatment of that university’s participation in the conciliar movement.166 In a broader sense, however, there were implications in the Cracovian treatises that Thomas Wünsch has now carefully analyzed.167 He has shown that the Polish theorists did not merely support Basle conciliarism; they provided a more richly textured conception of the church and developed innovative approaches as to how to the superiority of the council and the limitations of the power of the pope could be justified. With respect to corporation theory, issues about the role of the cardinals and the status of conciliar superiority when the council was not in session were serious addressed. The fundamental distinction between corpus mysticum and corpus politicum was treated in a more fully developed way by the Cracovians, especially Benedict Hesse and James of Paradyż, and to a degree their views were taken over into Strzempiński’s treatise.168 The importance of synods and their role in the larger functioning of the church was also an area where aspects of the Cracovian approach had important significance. More than this, what these writers had to say about the competency of the council to address the deposition of a pope was able to be further developed by the Poles in the welter of ecclesiastical politics that characterized the conciliar period. Indeed, the very idea of reform, in capite et membris, which had been one of the reasons Constance had been convened, was pursued in these writings in ways that raised the potential for innovation in later times. This was particularly to be an issue for Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski in Poland in the sixteenth century. For all of these reasons, it is important that voices beyond the usual suspects traditionally associated with the conciliar movement be considered when looking at ecclesiastical and even political 166  Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 129–130, with citations to further literature; he provides a good overview of all the Cracovian treatises, 122–130. The first printed edition was by Caesar Bulaeus [César Egasse du Boulay], Historia Universitatis Parisiensis, 6 vols. (Paris: apud P. Noel et P. de Bresche, 1665–1673), 5, 479–517. 167  What follows is based upon the much more detailed treatment by Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen, 128–371; see, especially, his overview 377–380. 168  The importance, and character, of this distinction for the conciliar tradition is treated by Black, Monarchy and Community. Political Ideas in the Later Conciliar Controversy 1430–1450 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 13–15 (who cites the Cracovian contribution by Strzempiński—though with reference also to Escobar, Segovia, and Panormitanus—as “the essence of Baslean Conciliarism”; see also Black, Council and Commune, 112); and Oakley, “Natural Law, the Corpus Mysticum, and Consent in Conciliar Thought from John of Paris to Matthias Ugonius,” Speculum 56 (1981): 786–810, here 802–806, reprinted, with the same pagination as article fourteen in his Natural Law, Conciliarism and Consent in the Late Middle Ages (London: Variorum, 1984).

Theology

527

developments in fifteenth century Europe and beyond. The Polish treatises did not stand alone. But they stood solidly within a European tradition to which they contributed in significant ways.

Other Issues

Some of the same practical, moral, and pastoral concerns reflected—explicitly or implicitly—in the conciliar treatises may be seen also in a range of the university’s contributions in the religious life of Poland. In this section we address some of these within the context of the general relationship of the university faculty to the religious life in Poland. Most of the masters and doctors at Cracow were members of the clergy (those in medicine were sometimes an exception) and thus absorbed not only in strictly academic affairs, but also with the ongoing program of the church. Particularly because the studium was not an isolated, “ivory-towered” institution and also because of the mandate given especially to the theological faculty by King Jagiełło, the school and its scholars were involved as both leaders and participants in this wider world.169 Their activity in this regard found expression in such matters as popular piety, religious education, pastoral care, and preaching. Popular Piety As a reflection of popular piety, with its concomitant sociological implications, the cult of the Virgin Mary is one of the most important phenomena of the high middle ages. In Poland it grew to such an extent following the twelfth century that this country was one of the leading center of the Marian tradition in Europe. Mary eventually came to be regarded as Regina coronae Poloniae.170 As part of this tradition there ultimately evolved the cult of the Immaculate Conception, which, drawing upon earlier western developments, 169   This involvement goes beyond the university’s participation in royal service and national—or state—policy treated above in Chapter Five. The treatment in that chapter of matters relating to the religious life of Poland—the work of Nicholas of Błonie, for example—was considered in the context of the way the new university justified itself to the larger society. Here the focus is upon the content of Cracovian contributions. 170  On the cult of Mary in general, see Fijałek, “Królowa Korony Polskiej,” Przegląd Kościelny 1 (1902): 409–418; and three studies by Józef Wojtkowski: “Początki kultu Matki Boskiej w Polsce w świetle najstarszych rękopisów,” Studia Warmińskie 1 (1964): 215–257; “Przedmiot liturgicznego kultu Matki Boskiej w Polsce XIII w.,” Studia Warmińskie 2 (1965), 205–259; and “Kult Matki Boskiej w polskim piśmiennictwie do końca XV w., Studia Warmińskie 3 (1966): 221–299. More generally the comments of Jerzy Kłoczowski, A History of Polish

528

CHAPTER 9

became particularly popular after the late thirteenth century. In the Cracovian university tradition, several professors are clearly identified with support of this cult, which has been mentioned in a different context previously in this chapter. Matthew of Cracow was the author of a famous sermon on the subject, while Lucas of Wielki Koźmin and Nicholas of Błonie both praised it in their own sermons. Their works were popular throughout Poland, and from at least 1406 a feast-day of Mary’s conception was celebrated as part of the university calendar in Cracow.171 A decree of the Council of Basle supporting this cult (17 September 1439) and its advocacy by legate Marco Bonfili (whose other activity in Poland has been described in a previous chapter) further reinforced its popularity. Although Benedict Hesse said nothing about this issue in the quaestiones in his commentary on Matthew that were devoted to Marian matters,172 his student John Kanty and Paul of Pyskowice both supported it. The former’s views173 were less well developed than the latter’s, and Paul went so far as to choose the theme De conceptione benedicte Virginis Marie for the disputation in 1447 which marked his promotion to doctor of theology.174 Well into the sixteenth century, theologians at Cracow—such as Michael Falkener of Wrocław—continued to be engaged in the question of the immaculate conception.175 While Cracovian professors added nothing new to the theological content of this cult, their support for it was important in ensuring its continued influence in popular religion.176 Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 78–81, are particularly revealing of this tradition. 171  For these sermons and the university’s celebration of the cult, see Fijałek, “Nasza nauka krakowska o Niepokalanym Poczęciu NP Maryi w wiekach średnich,” Przegląd Polski, 34 (1900): 442–443; and Wojtkowski, Wiara w Niepokalane Poczęcie Najświętszej Maryi Panny w Polsce w świetle średniowiecznych zabytków liturgicznych (Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowego Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1958) 45–47. The feast day, one of several dedicated to Mary, was 8 December, but the text noting it says nothing about immaculacy; Księga promocji, 5 and Najstarsza księga promocji, 192. 172  See the list of these quaestiones in Rechowicz, Św. Jan Kanty i Benedykt Hesse, 232–233. 173  Zawadzki, Spuścizna rękopiśmienna św. Jana Kantego, 157, discusses the manuscript evidence for aspects of John’s views. 174  So Fijałek, “Nasza nauka krakowska,” 474, but see the more restrained treatment by Włodek, “Paweł z Pyskowice,” in Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 161; the manuscript material related to this is discussed in more detail by Włodek, “Krakowska kwestia z XV wieku o interpretacji Pisma św.,” 73–75. 175  His position is discussed by Krzysztof Bochenek, “Filozoficzny kontekst rozważań Michała Falkenera o niepokalanym poczęciu Maryi,” Acta Mediaevalia 20 (2007): 57–73. 176  For the actual popular perception of this cult, especially in the countryside, there is the treatment of Stanisław Bylina, Chrystianizacja wsi polskiej u schyłku średniowiecza (Warsaw: Instytut Historii PAN, 2002), 83–84 and 101–102.

Theology

529

Religious Education Another important part of the university’s engagement with the religious life of Poland came in the instruction which it provided clergy. Particularly in such crucial areas as the catechism and the basic elements of religious instruction, the faculty members made contributions. Some of these may be sketched here. Prior to 1415 Francis of Brzeg lectured on the seven mortal sins and wrote a set of quaestiones on indulgences. This latter work was apparently used as the basis for lectures by one of his students, a certain Master Conrad, in 1423. Francis also delivered lectures upon the commandments, perhaps using as a text a treatise which he composed himself, sometime before 1429.177 This teaching was done in the theology faculty, but similar lectures on basis elements of the catechism were presented in other parts of the studium. For example, Nicholas Wigand, who had studied law at Prague and taught in both law and theology at Cracow prior to his death about 1414,178 apparently delivered his Dicta super decem praecepta and lectures on indulgences in the law faculty. This formal instruction was complemented by writings of the professoriate on these subjects. The numerous sermons of Stanisław of Skarbimierz include many which were designed to be of use to parish clergy and which bear upon penance, parts of the creed, fundamental prayers in the catechism (i.e., the Pater noster), and the like.179 Other examples of this type of writing include John Isner’s treatise on conscience, Bartholomew of Jasło’s work De ignorantia, Peter Wolfram’s exposition of the Ave Maria, John of Kluczbork’s study of the Decalogue, Matthew of Łabiszyn’s Sermo de Septem peccatis capitalibus, and John Kanty’s exposition of the Lord’s Supper.180 Finally, it should be noted that the libraries of the professors at Cracow contained numerous works from the medieval heritage of catechetical literature which supported both the i­ nstructors and the literary 177  Jerzy Wolny, “Z dziejów katechezy,” in Rechowicz, ed., Dzieje Teologii Katolickiej w Polsce, vol. 1, 197–198, for the foregoing; see also Kowalczyk, “Franciszek z Brzegu,” 108. 178  Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 110–112. 179  His works of this character are discussed by Bafia, “Stanisław ze Skalbmierza (ok. 1360– 1431),” in Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 83–88, here 85–86; there is some irony that Stanisław is included in this volume, since he was, of course, the leading canonist at Cracow and never taught in the theology faculty. The full range of his works, against which these minor theological elements may be measured, is discussed by Celina Zawodzińska, “Pisma Stanisława ze Skarbimierza, pierwszego rektora UJ, w kodeksach Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej,” Roczniki Biblioteczne 4 (1960): 299–327; see also the catalogue of his works by Bożena Chmielowska, “Stanislas de Skarbimierz—le premier recteur de l’Université de Cracovie après le renouveau de celle-ci,” MPP 24 (1979): 73–112, here 103–112. 180  Wolny, “Z dziejów katechezy,” in Rechowicz, ed., Dzieje Teologii Katolickiej w Polsce, vol. 1, 198–199.

530

CHAPTER 9

production of the theological faculty. Some of these will be mentioned in passing in Chapter Eleven. Pastoral Care In a different, thought closely related, area of religious instruction, the university also made contributions. The principles of pastoral care in the medieval church had been laid down by the apostles and the early fathers, but additions and modifications continued to be made in following centuries. In fifteenth century Poland, the specific needs of local clergy were met in part by works on the mass and in part in the area of discussion on the responsibilities of cura animarum written by Cracovian professors. One specific aspect of this latter area, the casus pulchri, will be treated.181 Bartholomew of Jasło wrote an introductory Ad celebrantes missam and devoted several questions of his lectures on Peter Lombard’s Sentences to liturgical and pastoral matters. John Isner prepared a more fully developed Expositio misse, and also wrote a briefer Tractatus de abusionibus missarum.182 The first is closely related to Guillelmus Durandus’ Rationale divinorum officiorum, while the second is dependent in large measure upon Henry of Langenstein’s Secreta Sacerdotum. John of Kluczbork’s De officio misse reveals some of the shortcoming of the Polish clergy at this time. He comments that close examination shows great ignorance of both procedure and correct understanding of the mass among parish priests, and his work aims explicitly at reform and education of the clergy in this respect.183 A similar motive may be observed in the Expositio canonis misse of Andrew of Kokorzyn, which is the only extant portion of his larger treatise Speculum sacerdotum. He wrote, as he said, “in a simple and brief style to inform priests,” many of whom he considered “simple and ignorant.”184 To accomplish his goal, he drew particularly upon Durandus’ Rationale and the works of Honorius of Autun. In adapting their writings to 181  With the exception of the casus pulchri, much of what follows is based upon three works by Marek Tomasz Zahajkiewicz: Msza święta w Polsce przed soborem trydenckim, 141– 332; “Polskie traktaty teologiczno-duszpasterskie okresu przedtrydenckiego,” Archiwa, Biblioteki, i Muzea Kościelne 21 (1970): 199–210; and, more briefly, “Teoria duszpasterstwa,” in Rechowicz, ed., Dzieje Teologii Katolickiej w Polsce, vol. 1, 225–235. 182  The first is edited in the Textus et Studia volume cited in the preceding note (see also note 46 above in this chapter); the second has been edited by Zahajkiewicz in Acta Mediaevalia 2 (1974): 198–210. 183  Performance of the mass is discussed by Bylina, Chrystianizacja wsi polskiej, 195–199, passim. 184  “. . . stilo breui ac facile pro informacione dictorum sacerdotum . . . simplices et ignoras. . . .” cited from Zahajkiewicz, “Teoria duszpasterstwa,” 231.

Theology

531

Polish needs, however, he made significant modifications, particularly in some of the prayers and responses. The most important figure in this present context, particularly when judged by the criterion of popularity, was Nicholas of Błonie whose career at the university was relatively brief, but whose contribution—discussed again here— was briefly treated in Chapter Five. His Tractatus sacerdotalis de sacramentis was a comprehensive guide to pastoral care and the sacraments. Extant in more than a dozen manuscript of both Polish and foreign provenance, it was one of the first books printed in Cracow and eventually appeared in more than forty editions. His work, perhaps more than any other single contribution by the university faculty, served to improve the level of pastoral practice among the Polish clergy and helped to fulfill the ideal expressed by Jagiełło in 1400.185 One final example in this area serves to illustrate the range of activity by Cracow theologians in this aspect of religious instruction. Paul of Pyskowice wrote an extensive Commentum in officium misse which is slightly different in character from the works mentioned above. These had been largely designed for parish clergy and as a result concentrated primarily upon the practical needs of pastoral care. Paul’s work is a scholarly treatise whose application lay more in academic circles. In discussing the mass, he treats both philosophical and theological issues in a variety of quaestiones and takes up the views of both ancient and contemporary authorities. In the more than 550 folia of his work, Paul presents a panorama of late medieval teaching on the mass whose full content has yet to be adequately analyzed.186 One distinct category of pastoral literature was related to the practice of auricular confession and the penitential system. When one completed confession, an appropriate penance was administered by the priest confessor. What should be given and how it should be supervised was an issue that had, during the course of Christian antiquity and the middle ages, developed a substantial body of literature to provide guidance to the clergy when making ­judgments

185  In addition to the entry on Nicholas in PSB, 21, 102–104, and the treatment of him by Zahajkiewicz, “Teoria duszpasterstwa,” 232–234, and his “Liturgia mszy świetle ‘Tractatus sacerdotalis de sacramentis’ Mikołaja z Błonia,” in Marian Rechowicz and Wacław Schenk, eds., Studia z dziejów liturgii w Polsce (Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1973), 33–91, see the still valuable study by Bolesław Ulanowski, “Mikołaj z Błonia, kanonista polski z pierwszej połowy XV,” Rozprawy Akademji Umiejętności: Wydział historyczno-filozoficzny 23 (1888): 1–60. 186  The content has been analyzed briefly by Włodek, “Pawel z Pyskowic,” Materiały 5 (1965): 142–168, here 148–152.

532

CHAPTER 9

regarding penance,187 The church in Poland was no exception to this tradition, using material from elsewhere at times, but also developing its own approaches. By the beginning of the fifteenth century, with the functioning of the University of Cracow—especially its faculties of theology and canon law— there evolved a body of opinions and counsel regarding judicial rulings that bore the hallmark of the studium and represented judicial rulings concerning a broad range of pastoral issues. Some of the most important of these, derived from writings and teachings of the faculty members, constituted a source, known as the Casus pulchri for short, that has now been reedited.188 The materials it contains—ninety separate resolutions—reflect a broad range of topics and Cracovian faculty who contributed to them. These materials deal with the sacrament of penance in a theological and judicial manner, but were clearly designed to be practical rather than theoretical. Collectively they constituted a manual for preachers and, especially, for priests hearing confessions. Among the names of individuals who contributed are faculty who have been central to this study of the university’s history and contribution. They include Nicholas Kozłowski, John Kanty, and Andrew of Kokorzyn among the theologians and Stanisław of Skarbimierz, Dziersław of Borzymów, James Zaborowski, and John Elgot among the canonists. Some of the subjects treated in the Casus pulchri related to such penitential issues as confession and penance: how penance should be administered, how performed; what, if any, payment should be required; how and when its conditions could be changed or terminated; penalties for breaking vows; and a broad range of other matters in this category. Other subjects focused upon ministerial and pastoral functions of the clergy: abuses and errors in such matters as celebrating sacraments; moral topics, usually involving women; the form and timing of reciting prayers and keeping the liturgical hours; and more. Additional subjects included much about sexual matters, the care of children, and forms of procedure for marriage. Then there were topics relating to the liturgy and fostering the piety of 187  On this see the taxonomy developed by Leonard E. Boyle, “Summae confessorum,” in Pierre Hadot, et al., eds., Les genres littéraires dans les sources théologiques et philosophiques médiévales. Définition, critique, et exploitation (Louvain: Institut d’É tudes Médiévales de l’Université Catholique de Louvain, 1981, 227–237. Though the focus is on an earlier period than that treated in this book, the work of Joseph Goering is also valuable; see his “The Internal Forum and the Literature of Penance and Confession,” in Willifried Hartmann and Kenneth Pennington, eds., The History of Medieval Canon Law in the Classical Period, 1140–1234: from Gratian to the Decretales of Pope Gregory IX (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of American Press, 2008), 379–428. 188  Krzysztof Bracha, Casus pulchri de vitandis erroribus conscientiae purae. Orzeczenia kazuistyczne kanonistów i teologów krakowskich z XV wieku (Warsaw: DiG, 2013).

Theology

533

the laity through the sacraments, pilgrimages, giving of tithes (or donations or alms), the granting of indulgences and the keeping of fasts, and more. There were also economic issues treated, such as usury, commerce, theft, and even regulations about beer—its contents and purity. Finally the various rulings touched upon issues such as how to behave in taverns and elsewhere, matters touching gambling and manslaughter, how to deal with superstitions, and even the mechanics of how legal courts should function.189 Collectively these materials reveal at least two things. One is that the professors of the university— those in theology, who have been the primary focus of this chapter, and the canonists—were not isolated from the actual workings of Polish society in this period. Second, it emphasizes anew the character of the outlook seen within the university in the fifteenth century; it was oriented toward practical and not speculative matters. Indeed, Krzysztof Bracha asserts, with good reason, that what this product of the masters and doctors of the studium reveals is its place in the larger context of the theologia practica which was a hallmark of the university.190 It is thus, not surprising, in light of these efforts and contributions, that there should have been an improvement in pastoral care by the clergy in Polish society. It was apparent to the historian John Długosz, who commented that after the foundation of the university, the quality of what the clergy was able to provide improved, and that this was especially evident in terms of preaching.191 The judgment of modern historians, such as Jerzy Kłoczowski, is much the same.192 Preaching and New Devotion Preaching by the faculty at Cracow represents a fourth area of involvement in and contribution to the religious life of Poland. Here it is possible to note 189  The foregoing is an overview of what Bracha treats in his extended introduction to the edition; confession and communion (47–50), marital and family morality (51–53), pilgrimages (53–55) and matters of everyday life (55–57); see also his very well-done Englishlanguage summary, on which I have drawn, 170–171. 190  Bracha, Casus pulchri, 12–16. 191   Joannis Dlugossi Liber beneficiorum diocese Cracoviensis, 3 vols., Alexander Przeździecki, ed. (Cracow: E typographia ephemeridum “Czas:” Fr. Kluczycki & Soc., 1863–1864 [Opera Omnia, Przeździecki, ed. 7–9]), 1, 261.; see also the comments of Bylina, Chrystianizacja wsi, 47. 192  Kłoczowski, A History of Polish Christianity, 70: “In the fifteenth century there was a significant increase in the standard of educational works and activities undertaken by the Church, largely due to the University of Krakow which constituted a fundamental instrument of its reform.”

534

CHAPTER 9

only some of the more important figures, for the great bulk of fifteenth century sermons has not been studied in detail. This activity falls into two categories: those sermons preached within the studium as part of its own academic and religious life (at university masses, collations, and promotions, recommendations, and burials);193 and sermons preached outside the community or intended for use in extra-university contexts. Many in this latter category are associated with the role played by faculty in fulfilling the responsibilities associated with the benefices they held and were delivered in both Latin and the two vernacular languages which served the contemporary population. Others were delivered at the ecumenical councils of the period and include sermons by such noted professor as Nicholas Kozłowski, John Elgot, Dziersław of Borzymów, and Thomas Strzempiński.194 In addition, many faculty members were involved in presenting sermons for the royal court and on state occasions. Finally, several individuals were noted particularly for collections of sermons which were designed as preaching handbooks to be used by clergy throughout the kingdom in fulfilling their pastoral responsibilities. These include several groups of sermons by Stanisław of Skarbimierz (Sermones de tempore, de sanctis, quadragesimales, de sapencia Dei, etc.), Nicholas of Błonie (de sanctis), Lucas of Wielki Koźmin, Paul of Zator, and others. Many of these sermons have been individually noted previously in this study. While in general the theological content of these sermons was distinctly secondary to their spiritual and religious concerns, they do reflect some important general aspects of Cracovian thought in this period.195 This can be best summarized by placing them within the larger context of the general trends of theological thought at the university in the fifteenth century. It has often been noted in this chapter that the theological interests of the Cracow professoriate in this period were predominantly oriented to practical and moral concerns. In the topics which were chosen for discussion, in the treatment given these, and in the tenor of faculty members’ participation in the broader religious life of the church in general and of Poland in particular, 193   This framework was adopted by Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Najdawniejsze krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie,” Sprawozdania z czynności i posiedzeń Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności 52 (1951): 570–574, and has traditionally been followed since. Many of the university sermons and speeches have been analyzed by Maria Kowalczyk, Krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie z pierwszej połowy XV w. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970). 194  For a convenient register of these, including citations to manuscripts and editions (as of that point), see Wolny, “Kaznodziejstwo,” in Rechowicz, ed., Dzieje Teologii Katolickiej w Polsce, vol. 1, 288, n. 16–19. 195   Ibid., 292–294.

Theology

535

they showed a general lack of interest in the more speculative problems which had dominated the thirteenth century. Out of this came an outlook which corresponds in many ways to the “new theology” that characterized the west in the generations immediately preceding the Reformation. This theology emphasized piety, moral renewal, and spiritual—even mystical—rather than philosophical approaches. Beginning in the years after the Second World War,196 and more strongly in recent decades, Polish historiography has begun to emphasize the affinities of these characteristics to the Devotio moderna of later medieval religion in the west.197 In some important respects this is an accurate observation, but it must be understood in a particular context. The Devotio moderna of the Brethren of the Common Life and the School of the Interior Life associated specifically with Gerard Groote and the Windesheim congregation, despite some ties with Prague, exercised little direct influence in Poland. Neither were works connected with it particularly popular there.198 Thus the use of the term Devotio moderna, strictu sensu, should not, I think, be legitimately applied to the theological and religious scene in late medieval Poland.199 In a broader sense, however, the spirit of clerical and popular piety, renewal of the moral life, concern with moral and ethical matters rather than philosophical and speculative ones which may be said to characterize the Devotio moderna does indeed also characterize the Polish scene.200 Within the university, 196  The views of Karol Górski, Od religijności do mistyki. Zaryz dziejów życia wewnętrznego w Polsce 966–1795 (Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1962) were influential on this development; see his comments in “L’histoire de la spiritualité polonaise,” in Rechowicz, ed., Le millénaire du Catholicisme en Pologne (Lublin: Société des lettres et des science de l’Université Catholique de Lublin, 1969), 279–355, here 290. 197  See, for example, Stefan Swieżawski, “Filozofia w Europie XV wieku,” in Palacz, ed., Filozofia polska XV w., 435–490, here 478–490 (a section on “Nowa teologia”), especially 488; and Włodek, “Krakowski komentarz, cz. 2: Tendencje doktrynalne,” 281. 198   This point is made by Rechowicz, “Polska myśl teologiczna w średniowieczu,” in Rechowicz, et al., eds., Księga Tysiąclecie Katolicyzmu w Polsce, 3 vols. (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Naukowego Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1969), 1, 238 and 240. 199  My understanding of the Devotio moderna is grounded in R.R. Post, The Modern Devotion: Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism (Leiden: Brill, 1968), and John Van Engen, Sisters and Brothers of the Common Life. The Devotio Moderna and the World of the Later Middle Ages (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008). See also my comments in “Iacobus Carthusiensis,” 200, and n. 33. 200  There is a good overview of these issues touching the Devotio moderna by Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 131–132, with special emphasis upon the mysticism of James of Paradyż. The strongest proponent of associating the Devotio moderna with Poland and particularly with James of Paradyż is Jarosław Stoś, Mistrz Jakub

536

CHAPTER 9

such dominant figures as Benedict Hesse and James of Paradyż,201 plus numerous lesser individuals represent these points of emphasis. Thus in the eclectic, moral, and practical hallmarks of the Cracow theologians it is possible to see the pursuit of holiness which both the spirit of late medieval religion and some of the currents of the sixteenth century reflected. An Isolated Exception One figure stands outside the framework of almost all the preceding discussion of theology in fifteenth century Cracow and must therefore be accorded special mention here.202 Andrew Gałka of Dobczyn in Great Poland (Polonia maior) was born about 1400 and matriculated at Cracow in 1420. He was promoted to bachelor in 1424 and incepted as a master the following year. If he had not been ordained during the time of his studies, he probably was soon thereafter, since it is widely accepted that he returned to his family circle and

z Paradyża i devotio moderna, who points out (51) that the chronicler of Windesheim, Johannes Busch, made an explicit association of James’ view as expressed in his works with the Brethren of the Common Life. This issue needs further analysis. 201  A balanced view of James’ outlook, particular with respect to the issue of mysticism, is provided by Wünsch, “Between conciliar thought and mystical theology: The development of ideas for church reform by James of Paradyż (1380/1–1464/5),” in Piotr Górecki and Nancy van Deusen, eds., Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages. A Cultural History. Essays in Honour of Paul W. Knoll (London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2009), 161–175. 202  The following is adapted from my article “ ‘The Worst Heretic:’ Andrzej Gałka of Dobczyn in the Academic and Ecclesiastical Context of mid-15th Century Kraków and Poland,” The Polish Review 54, 1 (2009): 3–25, which contains full documentation, most of which is omitted from the next paragraphs. The most important sources are the letters by Andrew and the Bishop of Cracow and his circle in CDUC, 2, nos. 151–159, 103–118. Among the most important items in recent secondary literature are PSB, 7, 255–258; Wünsch, “ ‘Ne pestifera doctrina corrumpat gregem dominicum.’ Zur Konfrontation zwischen Wycliffismus und Konziliarismus im Umkreis der Universität Krakau in der ersten Hälfte des 15. Jahrhunderts,” Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa Forschung 44, 1 (1995); 5–26; Paweł Kras, “Wyclif’s Tradition in Fifteenth Century Poland. The Heresy of Andrzej Gałka of Dobczyn,” in Zdeněk V. David and David Holeton, eds., The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice, 5, no. 1 (Prague: Czech Academy of Sciences, 2004), 191–210; and Jerzy Strzelczyk, “Andrzej [Jędrzej, Andreas] Gałka von Dobczyn—ein polnischer WyclifAnhänger um die Mitte des 15. Jahrhunderts,” in Joachim Bahlcke, Karen Lambrecht, and Hans-Christian Maner, eds. Konfessionelle Pluralität als Herausforderung. Koexistenz und Konflikt in Spätmittelalter und Früher Neuzeit [Winfried Eberhard zum 65. Geburtstag] (Leipzig: University of Leipzig Press, 2006), 71–83.

Theology

537

apparently served a parish in Great Poland for the next four years.203 In 1429 he was back in Cracow, and there he lectured in arts for the next twenty years. Though he may have sought a higher degree, probably in theology, he gained none, and his academic career was limited to the arts faculty. That he was successful and respected by his colleagues is shown by his election as Dean of Arts in 1436 and again in 1441. In addition, confirming the impression of his good standing in the university community, during the 1430s and 1440s he represented the studium in legal matters and served as a witness for several prominent faculty members.204 From a later letter by Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki, we learn that Gałka had been regarded as an “honest man of good faith.”205 An even more significant indication of his status is the fact that in 1439 he was appointed to one of the canonries at St. Florian’s church. All of this is evidence of the success that Gałka had achieved within the academic and ecclesiastical culture of Cracow. There was to his contemporaries virtually no evidence at this point that his career had been any different from that of numerous other clerics in Cracow or faculty members at the university. In 1449, things changed dramatically. In that year he became engaged in a heated controversy with academic and ecclesiastical authorities in Cracow. The matter escalated to the point where Gałka was cited by the bishop and interrogated regarding matters concerning the faith. Eventually Oleśnicki, acting not only as bishop but also, by virtue of that position, as chancellor of the university, sentenced Gałka to six months penance at the Cistercian monastery of Mogiła. During Andrew’s absence, one of his colleagues found a suspicious manuscript with Gałka’s own notes containing observations that raised further questions about Gałka’s religious views. It was taken to the vicar-general of the cathedral chapter, John Elgot, who was also Bishop Oleśnicki’s vicarius in spiritualibus. A search was made of Gałka’s quarters (in the home of a private citizen of Cracow) and works were found there by John Wycliffe (opera eiusdem Wyklleph) glossed in Gałka’s hand, along with works by an English follower of Wycliffe (et illius Anglici, complicis eiusdem), whom most scholars believe to

203  Morawski, Historya, 1, 458, suggests he went to Prague for further study, but there is no evidence to support this; his assertion may in part derive from his very negative assessment of Gałka and from an effort to associate him with heresy in Bohenia. 204  Paweł Kras, “Kariera uniwersytecka Andrzeja Gałki,” Roczniki Humanistyczne 48, 2 (2000): 245–262, here 251. 205  In his letter to the dukes of Silesia in 1449, CDUC, 2, no. 152, 104–105: “quamvis communi et Magistorum et Doctorum reputatione pro homine honesto et fidei rectae habebatur.”

538

CHAPTER 9

have been Peter Payne.206 In addition, those who searched Gałka’s quarters found and transmitted to Elgot verses in Polish by Gałka praising the Oxford reformer/heretic, the so-called Cantilena vulgaris. (Written in the vernacular, they are of some significance in understanding the development of the Polish language.) The central point made in the first verse was that: Lachowie, Niemczowie / fschiczi iązikowie / wąticzelli w mowie / y faschego pisma slowie / Wikleph prawdą powie [Poles, Germans / All nationalities / If you doubt the account of Christian faith / And all written works / Wycliffe will tell the truth.]207 In the uproar which followed, an effort was made to bring Gałka back to Cracow from Mogiła, but he escaped and fled for safety to the court of Duke Bolko of Głogów-Opole in Upper Silesia, a well-known supporter of the Hussites. Letters by Oleśnicki and by Gałka were exchanged, with Andrew explaining that he had been reading Wycliffe’s works for years, how he had obtained these forbidden items, and arguing that Wycliffe was correct in his philosophical views and in his Eucharistic teaching, but that there was no one at Cracow intelligent enough to understand him. In Andrew’s judgment, even the best among the faculty (he specifically mentioned Andrew of Kokorzyn, who had died in 1435) had no idea of what a “universal” was and could not solve simple syllogisms. In another letter to a Polish noble he adopted Wycliffe’s argument on dominion and appealed to the nobility and king to protect him against Oleśnicki, since only the monarch (and not the pope) had authority over the bishops and clergy within the kingdom. The bishop never was successful in bringing Andrew under church jurisdiction and subjecting him to a trial, which almost surely would have meant not only condemnation but perhaps also death. Andrew apparently spent the rest of his life in Silesia and probably died about 1451. Sometime after these events, an unknown hand added a gloss to the entry of Andrew’s name in the Liber promotionum: “hereticus pessimus, cum quo disputabant cuncti.” Gałka thus gained a status of equality with Hus and eventually

206  Payne’s regional influence has recently been emphasized by Marcela K. Perett, “A Neglected Eucharist Controversy. The Afterlife of John Wyclif’s Eucharistic Thought in Bohemia in the Early Fifteenth Century,” Church History 84 (2015): 64–89. 207  This text is drawn from CDUC, 2, no. 159, 116–118; the English translation is by Michael J. Mikos, Medieval Literature of Poland: An Anthology (New York and London: Garland, 1992), 143–145.

Theology

539

Luther, who are identified in the oath all students took upon enrollment as heretici dampnati.208 Andrew Gałka’s political, philosophical, and theological views are an isolated example in fifteenth century Poland. As shown in the previous chapter, Polish political thought was directed toward other problems and tended toward other solutions. And, as is clear from the chapters dealing with the arts and this chapter, both the via moderna and the via antiqua were present in Cracovian philosophy and theology, but the radical realism of Wycliffe which Andrew represented played no role. Thus Gałka was as isolated intellectually as he eventually was in his personal history. 208   Księga promocji, 21 and Najstarsza księga promocji, 203; Metryka, 1, 3.

CHAPTER 10

Humanism Humanism at the University of Cracow in the fifteenth century was only one of the currents of thought which can be observed among the intellectual interests of the faculty members and students. It did not, by any means, dominate, but it nevertheless eventually represented a significant dimension in the lives of some professors and those who studied with them. In addition, it may, to a lesser extent, be observed in the institutional activity of the school itself. While it has been traditional to see humanism and university scholasticism as two hostile, even antithetical, things, scholarship in recent decades has shown that the relation between them is more complex than antagonism, pure and simple. Humanistic interests may be found mixed with other attitudes in the thought of many in this period, and to a certain extent formal humanistic activity eventually entered the curriculum of the schools.1 This chapter first seeks to provide a workable definition of humanism so that it is clear what is being discussed when subsequent descriptions and analyses of developments at Cracow are addressed. Second, the chapter seeks to trace and evaluate the influence of humanism at Cracow during this century and to show its role in the beginnings of a transformation of this late 1  Literature prior to 1960 is discussed by Sven Stelling-Michaud, “L’histoire des universités au moyen âge et à la Renaissance au cours des vingt-cinq dernieres années,” in XI Congrès International des Sciences Historiques. Rapports 1 (Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1960), 97–143, here 104–107. For works that reflect subsequent outlooks on this issue, see the comments and notes in Laetitia Boehm, “Humanistische Bildungsbewegung und Mittelalterliche Universitätsverfassung: Aspekte zur frühneuzeitlichen Reformgeschichte der deutschen Universitäten,” in Jacques Paquet and Jozef IJsewijn eds., Les Universités a la fin du moyen âge (Louvain: Institut d’Études médiévales U.C.L., 1978), 315–346, especially 332–333; and the general overview by Walter Rüegg, “The Rise of Humanism,” in Universities in the Middle Ages, Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992 [A History of the University in Europe, Walter Rüegg, General Editor 1]), 442–468, especially 452–459. A close study of the relationship between humanism and scholasticism in German universities is provided by James H. Overfield, Humanism and Scholasticism in Late Medieval Germany (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986), who shows the “antagonism” to have been due more to academic politics than cultural or intellectual differences. A more detailed picture of the process by which humanism was adopted in one specific institution is given in Maximillian Schuh, Aneignungen des Humanismus. Institutionelle und individuelle Praktiken an der Universität Ingolstadt im 15. Jahrhundert (Leiden: Brill, 2013 [Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 47]).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004326019_012

Humanism

541

medieval studium. The approach here will be chronological and, for the most part, focused upon individuals. The period under consideration may, for convenience, be divided roughly into three unequal eras. The first extends from the refoundation to the death of John of Dąbrówka in 1472; the second covers the next two decades until the visit of Conrad Celtis in the early 1490s; and the third takes the story into the next century. By way of conclusion, it will be possible to discuss some of the themes related to this question of humanism and the university.

Humanism and the University Context

To define briefly what is meant by the term humanism, is in many ways, more difficult than to say what is not meant by this term. The Renaissance humanism which may be observed at Cracow in ever greater degree as the century passed was not an exultant paganism which rejected all which had passed since antiquity. Still less was it the rationalist and humanitarian humanism of the European Enlightenment. Above all, it was not the anthropocentric secularism of contemporary non-theistic humanism. Rather, it was an intellectual attitude, primarily literary and philological, which had its roots in classical literature and ideals as transmitted and transmuted through the Christian middle ages. It found expression in a variety of specific academic disciplines, such as grammar, rhetoric, history, poetry, and morel philosophy.2 The individuals 2  This is not the place to provide a full historgraphical description of the words “humanist” and “humanism;” I have done this briefly in “The European Context of Prussian Humanism,” Journal of Baltic Studies 22, 1 (1991): 5–28, here 6–15. Others have done so more fully and effectively; see the classic study by Augusto Campana, “The Origins of the Word Humanist,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 9 (1946): 60–73, and Charles G. Nauert, Humanism and the Culture of Renaissance Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 8–51. The implied definition given in the text is based in the minimalist approach of Paul Oskar Kristeller expressed in a variety of works, now most conveniently available in his Renaissance Thought and Its Sources, Michael Mooney, ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979), especially 22, and his article “Humanism,” in Charles B. Schmitt, general editor, and Quentin Skinner and Eckhard Kessler, eds. The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 113–137. A range of broader approaches and definitions is treated—sometimes implicitly, at other times explicitly—in Albert Rabil, Jr., ed. Renaissance Humanism. Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, 3 vols. (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988). The distinction between the narrow and broad definitions is succinctly put by Peter Burke, “The Spread of Italian Humanism,” in Anthony Goodman and Angus MacKay, eds. The Impact of Humanism on Western Europe (London: Longman, 1990),

542

CHAPTER 10

at Cracow, whether local or from abroad, who may be said to have been influenced by this humanism were concerned with the kinds of humane studies (the studia humanitatis or studia humaniora) which were, in their judgment, best suited to perfect and ornament humanity. They were all deeply and, in many respects, traditionally Christian. If they did not contribute in any major way to the content of Renaissance humanism and numbered among their company no one of the stature of an Erasmus, they were nevertheless important in the European-wide dissemination of this new cultural movement. In addition, they were important because as a group they were associated with a studium generale. This was an institution which, since its development in the high middle ages, had traditionally been either indifferent to humanistic concerns as defined above, or else had treated these interests in rather different ways (for example, in the approach to rhetoric). Thus these individuals whose thought and activity reflected humanistic concerns represented a cultural thrust which was new and in some ways unsettling to the community of scholars and students. Both their approach to learning and their defense of this approach carried the potential for institutional and personal disturbance. By the end of the fifteenth century, humanism at Cracow, as well as in other universities,3 was beginning to be a significant phenomenon, and the number 1–22, here 1–2: “The problem with ‘humanism’ . . . is that it is commonly employed in two very different ways, one of them precise and narrow and the other rather wide and vague. Humanism in the wide sense is associated with the belief in the dignity of man, and, more widely with human or secular (as opposed to otherworldly) values.” “Reacting against the wider definition . . . historians tend nowadays to use the term “humanism” in a rather narrow sense, to refer to the men known in fifteenth-century Italy as humanistae, in other words the teachers of the studia humanitatis.” 3  For the Italian universities, beyond the classic statement by Kristeller, Die Italienischen Universitäten der Renaissance (Krefeld: Scherpe, 1953), there is now the magisterial study by Paul F. Grendler, The Universities of the Italian Renaissance (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), especially 199–248. For France, there is relatively little beyond some of the studies cited in Chapter One. In England, the penetration of humanism at Oxford is reflected in Jeremy I. Catto, “Scholars and Studies in Renaissance Oxford,” in The History of the University of Oxford, vol. 2: Late Medieval Oxford, Catto and T.A.R. Evans, eds. (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1992), 769–783, and John M. Fletcher, “The Faculty of Arts,” in The History of the University of Oxford, vol. 3: The Collegiate University, James McConica, ed., 157–199, especially 158–160; for early humanism at Cambridge, see Damian Riehl Leader, The History of the University of Cambridge, vol. 1: The University to 1546 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 235–242. For the German studia, there are several early studies. They include four works by Gustav Bauch, Geschichte der Leipziger Frühhumanismus (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1899); Die Anfänge des Humanismus in Ingolstadt (Munich and Leipzig: Oldenbourg, 1901) (but, see now Schuh, Aneignungen des Humanismus, who puts developments earlier than Bauch); Die Rezeption des Humanismus in Wien (Wrocław [Breslau]: M. & H. Marcus,

Humanism

543

of individuals who could in one way or another be said to reflect humanistic interests was growing. If their role in the Polish studium was not so great as some have traditionally—and rather triumphantly—pictured it and if their flourishing came later than has been suggested by others,4 their presence and achievement were nevertheless sufficient to have begun to reshape the institution which the Welsh humanist, Leonard Coxe, praised in 1518 as being the equal of Athens in its devotion to literature and poetry.5 In order to see the beginnings of this phenomenon and to weigh the views of these scholars noted above, it is necessary to go back to the earliest decades of the refounded university’s existence.

The Early Period to 1472

Humanistic interests came to Poland and its university in three different ways. Sometimes those native to Poland who traveled to Italy returned to their homeland with a taste for the studia humaniora; in some instances Italian 1903); and Die Universität Erfurt im Zeitalter des Frühhumanismus (Wrocław [Breslau]: M. & H. Marcus, 1904). The picture presented by Lewis W. Spitz, The Religious Renaissance of the German Humanists (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963) is also relevant. See also Alfred A. Strnad, “Die Rezeption des Humanismus und Renaissance in Wien,” in Winfried Eberhard and Strnad, eds., Humanismus und Renaissance in Ostmitteleuropa vor der Reformation (Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 1996), 71–135. Much of this humanistic penetration and development is against the backdrop of the coming of the Reformation; for this, Spitz, “The Importance of the Reformation for the Universities: Culture and Confessions in the Critical Years,” in James M. Kittelson and Pamela J. Transue, eds., Rebirth, Reform, and Resilience. Universities in Transition 1300–1700 (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1984), 42–67, here 48–50 and 65, notes 10–14; and Overfield, “University Studies and the Clergy in pre-Reformation Germany,” in Kittelson and Transue, eds., Rebirth, Reform, and Resilience, 254–292. 4  Their role is over-emphasized, I believe, by Morawski, Historya, 2, 127–292, and their flourishing is placed much too early by Ignacy Zarębski, “Okres wczesnego humanizmu,” in Lepszy, Dzieje UJ, Lepszy, ed. 157–187. Much of what follows in this chapter bears implicitly upon their interpretations of the growth of humanism at Cracow. 5  Leonard Coxe’s oration, De laudibus Cracoviensis Academiae, was delivered before the faculty members (and probably some distinguished guests) on 6 December 1518 and subsequently printed. On him, see Henryk Zins, “A British Humanist and the University of Kraków at the Beginning of the Sixteenth Century: A Chapter in Anglo-Polish Relations in the Age of the Renaissance,” Renaissance Studies 8 (1994): 13–39; PSB, 4, 98–99; and Jacqueline Glomski, Patronage and Humanist Literature in the Age of the Jagiellons. Court and Career in the Writings of Rudolf Agricola Junior, Valentine Eck, and Leonard Cox (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), 30.

544

CHAPTER 10

influences penetrated the country directly; finally, the cultural concerns of Italian humanism were mediated to Poland through such neighboring territories as the German lands and Hungary. With regard to the first of these, it is clear that there were many in Poland who studied in cisalpine universities in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries.6 That many of them were aware of and involved with humanistic currents and circles is less certain. Italian universities at this time reflect little concern for humanism, and as Paul Grendler has shown, before 1425 humanists generally avoided the university.7 Moreover, it is difficult in most instances to determine what specific contacts those from Poland had with literary and cultural circles outside these schools. It has been a temptation, which some scholars have been unable to resist, to identify any important Italian scholar as in one way or another a humanist. By extension, those in contact with him may be said to have been influenced by him. Thus, for example, the relationship between Francis Cardinal Zabarella and his student Paul Vladimiri has been seen as bearing upon the history of humanism at the university.8 Upon closer examination, however, this type of argument and this specific application of it is revealed to be largely circumstantial and of doubtful reliability. The cardinal was no humanist (see below),9 6  The earlier overview of this process by Jan Fijałek, Polonia apud Italos scholastica saeculum XV (Cracow: Typis Universitatis Jagellonicae, 1900) should now be supplemented with the coverage provided by Tadeusz Ulewicz, Iter Romano-Italicum Polonorum, czyli o związkach umysłowo-kulturalnych w wiekach średnich i renesansie (Cracow: Universitas, 1999), 60–75 for the period up to ca. 1400. 7  Grendler, Universities of the Italian Renaissance, 205–209. One partial exception was Florence and its university, but the studia Poles were for the most part drawn to were Padua and Bologna. Kristeller, “The Curriculum of the Italian Renaissance Universities from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance,” Proceedings of the PMR Conference 9 (Villanova, PA: Villanova University Press, 1985), 5–6, 8–10 shows the relatively small role antique literature played in this period. 8  Zarębski, “Okres wczesnego humanizmu,” 154–155, is an example of this kind of argument being made. 9  It is certainly true that Zabarella knew and was often in the company of many who were humanists—not least among them Salutati, Poggio Bracciolini (who delivered a eulogy upon his death at the Council of Constance), Pier Paolo Vergerio, Gasparino Barzizza, and others. But his education was as a lawyer, his teaching was as a canonist, and his writings reflect nothing that would have been the concern for the studia humanitatis characteristic of a humanist.; on his education, teaching and the learning of law, see Thomas E. Morrissey, “The Art of Teaching and Learning Law: A Late Medieval Tract,” History of Universities 8 (1989): 27–74, particularly 27–29, reprinted with original pagination as item fifteen in his collected works Conciliarism and Church Law in the Fifteenth Century. Studies on Franciscus Zabarella and the Council of Constance (Farnham, England and Burlington, VT: Ashgate Variorum, 2014.

Humanism

545

and the Polish political theorist reflects no humanistic attitudes in his writings. With other figures at the early university, however, it is possible to see more concrete evidence of humanistic tastes and interests. Constance Peter Wolfram of Lwów, a professor of law and a diplomat whose role at the Council of Constance was important, was an avowed enthusiast for the eloquence of antiquity.10 After his studies at Prague, he had gone to Padua and Bologna for legal training. There, his literary tastes had been awakened. While at the council, he wrote several letters to Poland, including a long, informative one to the Bishop of Cracow. These provided opportunities for him to reveal his learning, and he cited a variety of antique authors, including Cicero, Quintilian, Ovid, and Epicurus. He recommended the study of the historians of classical civilization (though it is questionable how well he knew them directly), and held up Socrates as a model of wisdom. But his most extravagant praise was reserved for Petrarch, whom he quoted often and whom he in one place termed laureatissimus poetarum. In this instance, he made a graceful play on the name of his hero, identifying him as Patriarcha.11 That Peter was a proponent of the Latinity of antiquity and the ideals of the early Italian humanistic movement is clear.12 After his return to Poland, however, there is no direct evidence that he furthered these within the university. His teaching in the law faculty did not provide opportunity for this, and his careerist ambitions soon removed him from academic circles. One additional aspect of Peter’s activity deserves further mention here. He was responsible for bringing back to Poland a number of codices from Italy and the council, and these soon found their way into the community of the university. Many were, of course, legal works. But among the extant books which may be attributed to him, one is the Compendium moralium notabilium of Geremia da Montagnone, the noted

10  His biography and career is outlined by Thomas Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen. Personen, Politik und Programme aus Polen zur Verfassungsfrage der Kirche in der Zeit der mittelalterlichen Reformkonzilien (Paderborn, Munich, Vienna, and Zürich: Schöningh, 1998), 57–58. See also PSB, 26, 403–406; LTCP / SPTK, 3, 362–365. 11  For his letters, Cod. epist., 2, 90–92, 97–98, 100–101, and 112. His knowledge of Petrarch is discussed by Nice Contieri, “La fortuna del Petrarca in Polonia nei secoli XIV e XV,” Annali dell’Instituto Universitario Orientale: Sezione Slava 4 (1961): 139–166, here 148–150. 12  Peter was an ambitious careerist, whose interests in and appreciation of antique literature and classical Latinity may be traceable to the fact that he hoped to obtain a position in the papal chancery. Such an appointment would require precisely the skills he was demonstrating in these letters. For his biography, see PSB, 26, 404.

546

CHAPTER 10

pre-Petrarchen humanist from Padua.13 Peter also had in his possession, probably obtained at Constance, a now lost copy of some of the works of Cicero.14 It is impossible to determine fully the range of other works he, or others in the Polish delegation, may have brought back to Poland, but it is clear from analyses of their libraries and their disposition that the example of Wolfram is only one of a number that can be demonstrated.15 While at the Council of Constance, the Poles would undoubtedly have been aware of the humanist movement. The news of Poggio Bracciolini’s sensational discoveries and some knowledge of the tastes of the numerous Italian humanists who attended this gathering would have been available to them. In addition, we know that at least some academic members of the Polish delegation had contact with noted humanists. Pier Paolo Vergerio, who had studied at Padua with Zabarella, later commented in a letter that all of the cardinal’s students (which of course included himself and Paul Vladimiri) had gathered there “from all the lands of the globe.”16 In these meetings, it is reasonable to expect that Vergerio and the Poles would have discussed issues which touched the concerns of the humanists. Despite this scattered evidence of contacts and probable (but unprovable) inferences, one should not overestimate either the degree or depth of appreciation among the Poles for Italian humanism at this point. The faculty who were at Constance were still fundamentally oriented toward the scholastic traditions of the university. Thus in the early years of the 13  This volume is discussed by Jerzy B. Korolec, “Jeremiasza de Montagnone ‘Compendium moralium notabilium’,” Materiały 5 (16) (1972): 13–21. 14  See the comments of Jerzy Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” in Zathey, Anna Lewicka-Kamińska, and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, Historia Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 1364– 1775, Ignacy Zarębski, ed. (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1966), 81 and note 152, which refers to the Cicero manuscript. 15  Thus the comments—and conclusions—of Zarębski, “Okres wczesnego humanizmu,” 156–157, in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, who designates Peter as “prohumanist.” Part of his argument for the early incidence of and degree of interest in humanism at the university is based upon that assumption that, for example, Peter and the other Poles “probably” brought back other manuscripts and that these “may” have included works from antiquity and of fourteenth century Italian writers. A particularly striking example of this come when he suggests that the Poles “perhaps” took back to their home university a copy of Vergerio’s De ingenuis moribus et liberalibus studiis which eventually was used as the basis for John of Dąbrówka’s copy of this work (see below in this chapter). While this is not impossible, there is no evidence for it, and the author’s utilization of this type of reasoning contributes to the unrealistically positive picture he gives of early humanistic influences at the university. 16  “Vidit uno tempore tot discipulos suos ex toto orbe terrarium in unum locum congregatos,” cited by Contieri, “La fortuna del Petrarca,” 147, n. 1.

Humanism

547

fifteenth century, the growth of humanistic interests in university circles as the result of Poles in contact with the movement abroad was slow. Contacts and Speeches There was some contact between Italians abroad with Cracow in this period, and this may have spread some of the seeds of the flowers which were to bloom later in the century. Foremost among these occasions was the visit to the Polish capital of Paul of Venice, an important philosopher from the University of Padua and a diplomat sent by his home city in conjunction with issues of the church schism. He was most probably in Cracow during January through March 1412. His fame was sufficient for his visit to be remembered years later in the university, for someone saw fit to obtain a copy (made in the 1430s) of the funeral oration given at Paul’s death by the Italian orator and rhetorician Gasparino Barzizza.17 While Paul would have brought little of humanistic culture directly, he would nevertheless have heightened Polish awareness of Italian interests. The clearest measure by which one may judge whether and to what degree the university community had felt the influence of humanistic concerns is provided by an analysis of the academic addresses (and to a lesser extent sermons) given by professors recommending students for degrees and in the inaugural speeches given by new licentiates or bachelors. During the first three decades of the century, one finds numerous quotations from antique authors in these speeches, and they contain frequent appeals to the authorities of the classical world. On the whole, however, these citations are quite traditional in nature and do not much differ from earlier medieval traditions. In addition many of these are probably from handbooks of quotations to be drawn 17  Paul’s visit is discussed and the text of the Cracow manuscript containing the copy of the funeral oration is printed by Józef Garbacik, “Paolo Veneto, filozof-dyplomata i jego pobyt w Polsce w r. 1412,” Prace Historyczne 4 (1960): 17–31, and, more briefly but with reference to more recent Italian scholarship, treated by Ulewicz, Iter Romano-Italicum Polonorum, 80–82. Although Garbacik suggests (17) that the manuscript containing this speech includes important material touching the history of early humanism in Poland (to some extent this is accurate, although much of the manuscript is devoted to university sermons and letters connected with the Council of Basle), the speech itself contains no reference to any humanistic character of Paul’s activity. His reputation as a philosopher was primarily based in his contributions in logic; see Norman Kretzmann, “Syncategoremata, exponibilia, sophismata,” in Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 211–245, here 224–230 and 234–241; see also the Index nominum of this volume, s.v. Paul of Venice.

548

CHAPTER 10

upon for such occasions. Only occasionally are there reflections of a growing emphasis upon the humane arts as opposed to more practical and mechanical concerns. Especially in the quotations from Ovid by Lucas of Wielki Koźmin in 1412 and in the appeal to Lucian in 1420 and to Quintilian in 1429 by Nicholas Kozłowski is the use of classical material sharply reminiscent of the ars oratoria of fifteenth century Italy.18 Kozłowski and Basle With this last named figure, we enter a new stage in the early history of humanistic interests at the University of Cracow. Nicholas was an individual in whom much more explicit interests in antiquity may be observed. It is no coincidence to note in this context that he was one of the members of the Polish delegation to the Council of Basle, for unlike the earlier gathering at Constance, this assembly of Christendom was to be very important in stimulating humanistic interests in Poland. Nicholas’s education gives no hint that he was exposed to humanistic and literary pursuits. He appears to have been a typical product of the logicdominated arts course at Prague and the theology faculty at Cracow. In many respects, this is of course true.19 In addition, however, he somewhere developed a rich knowledge of antiquity and a rhetorical flair which marked him as one of the more prominent speakers at Basle. He was particularly eloquent and effective in his speech praising the achievements of King Władysław Jagiełło, whose death in 1434 he memorialized at the council on 31 July 1434 in Basle. This eulogy20 is filled with allusions both to biblical and religious writings and 18  These speeches are discussed and analyzed by Maria Kowalczyk, Krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie z pierwszej połowy XV w. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970; see especially 80, where she evaluates the general character of the speeches in the arts faculty: “The speeches delivered in the arts faculty as a whole are not original.” I have modified somewhat the views of these speeches expressed in my article “The Arts Faculty at the University of Cracow at the End of the Fifteenth Century,” in Robert Westman, ed., The Copernican Achievement, 1473–1973 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1975), 137–156, here 152. 19  In his short entry on Nicholas, Mieczysław Markowski, “Mikołaj z Kozłowa (ok. 1378–1443),” in Stanisław Piech, ed., Złota księga papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej (Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie, 2000), 105–109, focuses upon his philosophical and theological views, with no mention of his knowledge and appreciation of classical material. 20   Cod. epist., 2, 323–330, no. 221. Compare this with the presentation of the vita, mores et vitia Wladislai Iagellonis regis by Długosz, Annales, 9, 123–128 (Liber undecimus, sub anno 1434). Kozłowski’s sermon is also analyzed by Juliusz Domański, Początki humanizmu (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1982 [Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 9]), 57–60,

Humanism

549

to the writings of antiquity. Most, though not all, of the later would have been available from easily accessible florilegia, but that he saw fit to include them is in itself interesting. While at Basle, Nicholas had the opportunity to meet many individuals there who may be termed humanists. One of the fruits of this contact was his purchase of a copy of Petrarch’s Epistolarum familiarum rerum libri XII–XXIV, one of the few extant volumes from his library, which may have numbered 150 items. Kozłowski also had close relations at the council with the Koyer scriptorium, which produced many fine manuscripts of classical and Christian authors. One of these, apparently prepared at the request of Nicholas, contained the works of Lactantius, called the “Christian Cicero,” in part because his approach to rhetoric was more nearly akin to the antique tradition than to the medieval. He was widely read and appreciated by the Italian humanists. Nicholas also was fond of Lactantius and quoted him often in his speeches. The distinctive bindings of these manuscripts and the characteristic hand of Koyer have enabled scholars to identify several additional manuscripts bought in Basle by Kozłowski or other members of the Polish delegation. Thus it is legitimate to see the council as important in the intellectual history of the Cracovian professoriate in this period.21 In the case of Kozłowski, however, the experience at Basle simply reinforced that dimension of his wide interests which was already attuned to humanism. As early as 1430 he had obtained a manuscript of Petrarch’s Liber de remediis utriusque fortunae and Seneca’s Epistolae ad Lucilium and Liber de remediis fortuitorum. These had been prepared expressly for him by a certain Peter of Telcz, a Pole who may have learned his book hand abroad, but who prepared this manuscript in Poland, perhaps in Cracow.22 That such a copy had to have reprinted in his Scholastyka i początki humanizmu w myśli polskiej XV wieku (Warsaw: Instytut Tomistyczny, 2011), 79–83. Another important Basle sermon of Nicholas, also preached at Basle and as yet unedited, is devoted to St. Stanisław on the theme “Ego sum pastor bonus;” see Stanislava Kuzmová, Preaching Saint Stanislaus. Medieval Sermons on Saint Stanislaus of Cracow, His Image and Cult (Warsaw: DiG, 2013), 251–252 and 342–343. 21  This last sentence paraphrases the title of the important study by Zarębski, “Zur Bedeutung des Aufenthaltes von Krakauer Univesitätsprofessoren auf dem Basler Konzil für die Geistesgeschichte Polens,” Vierteljahresschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaft und Technik, 5: Sonderheft 2 (1960): 7–23; while the foregoing paragraph draws heavily upon his arguments and conclusions. A dissent to some of Zarębski’s views may be found in Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 74, n. 132 especially. 22  The following note by the copyist, which includes a cryptic identification, underlined below, of both the seller and the buyer, provides the basis for the conclusions in the case of this manuscript:

550

CHAPTER 10

been made from an existing manuscript and that Nicholas had it four years before going to Basle attests to the penetration into academic Poland of some elements of the humanistic tradition.23 These elements were to become even stronger by about 1450. Several individuals are of particular importance to consider in this respect. In one way or another they reflect specific aspects of a phenomenon which, if it may not yet be called a movement within the Cracovian context, nevertheless suggests the broadened spectrum of intellectual currents within the university. Let us discuss in turn the figures of Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki, John Długosz, Gregory of Sanok, John of Ludzisko, and John of Dąbrówka. Bishop Oleśnicki Poland’s eventual first cardinal matriculated at the university in 1406. There, history and Latin style seemed to interest him most. After he left the school— without a degree—but while he was still in his youth, Oleśnicki apparently wrote some now-lost historical works. His interest in history and his deep historical knowledge was one of the hallmarks of his intellectual profile.24  Anno milleno quadrigenteno triceno.  Explicit hic liber post Lucie feria sexta.  Nomen si queris scriptantis has pretabellas.  Pe recipe primo trus demum sitque labellas.  Hic loco nativo sat amenoque est opido Thelcz.  Koz Nicolae pie benigne humilis quoque lowsky.  Fi domine ac doctor venerabilis optoque nales.  Qui comparasti presens opus in dei doxam. Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 75. See also Wacława Szelińska, Bbiblioteki profesorów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XV i początkach XVI wieku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1966), 48–50. 23  This penetration was not only into the academic environment. The figure of Nicholas Lasocki falls technically outside the scope of this chapter, since he was not formally part of the university. He deserves, however, some mention within the context of a discussion of the importance of Basle. Lasocki was a canon of the cathedral in Cracow and had close contacts with the university. Active at Basle, he became close friends with Guarino da Verona, with whom he later corresponded and to whom he eventually sent his nephew for education. See Henryk Barycz, Polacy na studiach w Rzymie w epoce Odrodzenie (1440–1600 (Cracow: Nakładem Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności, 1938), 24–26; Domański, Początki humanizmu, 54 and his Scholastyka i początki humanizmu, 74–75; and Ulewicz, Iter Romano-Italicum Polonorum, 102–103. 24   Jadwiga Krzyżaniakowa, “Erudycja historyczna Zbigniewa Oleśnickiego w świetle jego zeznań na procesie w 1422,” in Benon Miśkiewicz, et al., eds. Ars Historica. Prace z dziejów powszechnych i Polski (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama

Humanism

551

During his long and brilliant career as an ecclesiastical and political statesman, he was a faithful patron of learning and of promising students. His benefactions for the university in particular were of considerable importance. As chancellor during his thirty-two years as the Bishop of Cracow, Oleśnicki had a close and influential relationship with the academic community whose titular head he was. In his personal circle and at his court there were a number of individuals (such as Nicholas Lasocki and Stanisław Ciołek) who reflected humanistic interests. In addition he carried on a lively correspondence with Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini. On one occasion the Italian humanist described Oleśnicki’s writings as litterae et ornatissimae et humanissimae. He flattered him in another place by saying that the letters seemed to come “not from Poland, but from Athens itself.”25 All of these factors can lead one to evaluate Oleśnicki as a humanist, and this is the conclusion that some have reached.26 Others have been more qualified in their views, seeing him rather as sympathetically included to humanism.27 This comes closer to the truth I think. The bishop was not fully a humanist; his values were too traditional to esteem the antique (except in the way the middle ages appreciated it) or to sympathize with much of the content of the concerns of the Italian humanists. He did admire good Latinity—though he indicated to Mickiewicza, 1976), 475–484, begins her study (475) by quoting John Długosz’s estimation of Oleśnicki: “Neque Ruthenicas, neque hebraeas literas scivit, neque graecas sed tantummodo Latinas, raro aliis studiis, quam historiarum, interdum divinarum, interdum humanarum, utebatur . . .” 25  See the treatment of these expressions by Zarębski, “Stosunki Eneasza Sylwiusza z Polską i Polakami,” Rozprawy Akademia Umiejętności: wydział Historyczno-filozoficzny 70 (1939): 283–437, here 340; the section 333–357 treats Aeneas’ relations with Oleśnicki. 26   For example, Ulewicz, “Polish Humanism and its Italian Sources: Beginnings and Historical Development,” in Samuel Fiszman, ed., The Polish Renaissance in its European Context (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1988), 215–235, here 219: “As regards the people of the early Polish Renaissance . . . one finds that virtually all of them were in one way or another connected with the great humanist personality, Zbigniew Oleśnicki. . . . Though he never personally studied in Italy, he did visite [sic.] Rome and in his style, followed the classics, (especially Cicero) and the humanists;” and virtually identical wording in Polish in his Iter Romano-Italicum Polonorum, 101. More directly, see Oscar Halecki, A History of Poland (Chicago: H. Regnery of Logos, 1966), 86: “In the first place, Oleśnicki was a distinguished humanist, admired by the future Pius II.” 27  In this category, I would include Zarębski, “Stosunki Eneasza Sylwiusza z Polską i Polakami,” 333–357; Domański, Początki humanizmu, 113–115 and his Scholastyka i początki humanizmu, 148–151; and Janusz Smołucha, “Kontakty Zbigniewa Oleśnickiego z Eneaszem Sylwiuszem Piccolominim,” in Feliks Kiryk and Zdzisław Noga, eds., Zbigniew Oleśnicki książę kościoła i mąż stanu (Cracow: Secesja, 2006), 205–210.

552

CHAPTER 10

Aeneas Sylvius in one of his letters that chancery style need not be elegantly classical, that it was sufficient for it to be clear and useful—and he regarded Aeneas himself as a “new Cicero.”28 It is also true, as noted above, that he promoted and served as a patron of a number of individuals—not all of them involved with the university—who can more legitimately be called humanists. Thus Oleśnicki was important in subtly influencing and altering the intellectual climate in Cracow. John Długosz John Długosz is a somewhat more complicated figure to treat in this context. His career and accomplishments contain, often in fragile equilibrium, much that is characteristic of both the middle ages and of Renaissance humanism. This is not the appropriate place to discuss in detail his career as diplomat, historian, cathedral canon and patron.29 But to a certain degree, the character of his historical writings was shaped by his early education, and so some mention of it must be made. Długosz matriculated at Cracow in 1428 (paying four grossi more than the normal registration fee). For the following three years he studied in arts, then—like so many others—left the university without taking a degree. One of his masters was John of Dąbrówka, who was at that time developing his own historical commentary upon the Chronicle of Vincent Kadłubek. It may be that it was from the teacher that the student developed some of his historical interests and gained a knowledge of antique literature.30 Why Długosz did not continue his study remains a question whose answer is obscure. His anonymous biographer31 indicated that he did not like the

28  On this point see the text cited by Domański, Początki humanizmu, 114 and 131, n. 46, and which is quoted in extenso in his Scholastyka i początki humanizmu, 150, n. 46. 29  There is a very substantial body of scholarly literature on Długosz which I reviewed briefly in my “Jan Długosz, 1480–1980,” The Polish Review 27, no. 1–2 (1982): 3–28, reprinted in Charles S. Kraszewski, ed., Fifty Years of Polish Scholarship” The Polish Review 1956–2006 (New York: PIASA Books, 2006), 259–295; and in “Working for the King (and the Queen): Krakovian Scholars in Royal Service in Late Medieval Poland,” The Polish Review 59 (2014): 3–18, here 11–13, especially 11, n. 25. Reference is made to Polish and other scholarship in these articles. 30  This is the suggestion of Krystyna Pieradzka, Związki Długosza z Krakowem (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literacki, 1975), 34–35. 31  The latest to seek to identify him is Maria Koczerska, “Kto jest autorem Żywotu Długosza?” in Andrzej Radzimiński, et al., eds., Venerabiles, Nobiles et Honesti. Studia z dziejów społeczeństwa Polski średniowiecznej (Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 1997), 507–520.

Humanism

553

severity of his preceptor and that he wanted to “live in freedom.”32 If so, the routine and regimen of the university would not have been rewarding, even if he did live in the Bursa divitum, the Rich Man’s hostel. More than this, however, Długosz, according to his biographer, placed more value upon being truly learned rather than merely being thought to be,33 and so he left to continue his study on his own (sine rhetore). This dissatisfaction with the scholastic character of the arts faculty has suggested to some that Długosz was already inclined to the literature of antiquity that he draws upon so heavily in shaping and styling his own historical works.34 That antiquity did influence these writings is clear from an analysis of his use of Seneca, Livy, Caesar, Hirtius, Tacitus, Quintilian, and many others.35 Moreover it is not simply by appropriation of phrases and descriptions that Długosz shows his appreciation of antiquity. His sensitivity to the classical world is reflected in his general historical conception that the events he traced were the result of the play of human passions and political motives and in his general literary style. Despite Georg Voigt’s assertion more than a century and a half ago that Długosz was practically a stylistic barbarian,36 closer—and more recent--analysis shows him to stand stylistically somewhere between the rhetorical traditions of medieval chronicles and the

32  “Cum itaque in dies severitas et rigor praeceptoris cresceret, iste inconsulto patre illum deseruit, timensque, ne in difficiliorum magisque severum incurreret, si alteri cuipiam se crederet, libere instituit vitam agere. Ac proinde Collegium Divitum intravit, in quo fere per triennium dialecticae ac philosophiae invigilavit.” Vita Ioannis Dlugosch Senioris Canonici Cracoviensis, Mieczysław Brożek, ed. (Warsaw: 1961), 30. 33  “Sed adeo etiam puer doctus esse maluit quam videri, quod nunquam aliquot titulo, cum per doctrinam posset, insigniri volluit.” Ibid. 34  So Zarębski, “Okres wczesnego humanizmu,” 161–162. 35  This point is central to Władysław Madyda, “Wzory klasyczne w ‘Historii Polski’ Długosza,” Eos 49 (1957/1958): 177–201, and, more briefly, his “Johannes Longinus Długosz als Vorläufer des Humanismus in Polen,” in Johannes Irmscher, ed., Renaissance und Humanismus in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Eine Sammlung von Materialien, (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1962), 185–191. See also the commentary by the editor[s] in Długosz, Annales, 1, 329: “Dlugossius multis operis sui locis Titi Livii, rerum Romanorum scriptoris, scribendi modum, pugnarum descriptions et similis secutus est.” Długosz had a first hand knowledge of the Roman history of Livy (Ab urbe conditia) as he owned one manuscript, once in the hands of Petrarch who had annotated it, that contained Books 21–30 (i.e., the Third Decade) and had access to another volume containing Books 31–32 and 34–40. 36  Georg Voigt, Die Wiederbelebung des classischen Alterthums, oder das erste Jahrhundert des Humanismus, 3rd ed., 2 vols. (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1893; original edition 1859), 2, 329: “Allerdings gehört seine Bildung und Latinität noch merklich der älteren Zeit an.”

554

CHAPTER 10

accomplishments of Renaissance historiography.37 His historical outlook may tend toward that of the medieval, but his style suggests elements that reflect currents from Italy. This is particularly true with respect to his dedicatory letter and his introductions, which were almost the last part of his great history that he wrote. By then, as Urszula Borkowska pointed out in the scholarly celebrations that marked the 500th anniversary of Długosz’s death, he was already an experienced historian and much more familiar with the body of classical and Renaissance material than he was when he began.38 Długosz was not a humanist, but the influence of that outlook can be seen in his works, and he is part of the mosaic of evidence that reflects humanistic tastes in university circles during the first half of the century.39

37  See the discussions of Tadeusz Sinko, “De Dlugosii praefatione Historiae Polonorum,” in Henryk Barycz and Jan Hulewicz, eds., Studia z Dziejów Kultury Polskiej. Książka zbiorowa (Warsaw: Gebethner & Wolff, 1949), 105–143; and Wanda Semkowicz-Zarembina, “Elementy humanistyczne redakcji Annalium Jana Długosza,” in Józef Garbacik, et al., eds., Mediaevalia. W 50 rocznicę pracy naukowej Jana Dąbrowskiego (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1960), 235–253. See, however, the more cautious comments of Jan Dąbrowski, Dawne Dziejopisarstwo polskie (do roku 1480) (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1964), 239: “Our historian belongs, however, despite all this to a different world than the world of the humanists. His work is the last great historical work in Europe which is written in an ecclesiastical spirit, and Długosz himself, despite some familiar new tendencies, stands like a pillar on the boundary between two epochs.” 38  Urszula Borkowska, “Historiograficzne poglądy Jana Długosza,” in Stanisław Gawęda, ed., Dlugossiana. Studia historyczne w pięćsetlecie śmierci Jana Długosza, część 2 (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1985 [Prace historyczne 76]), 45–71, here 71 (in her English-language summary). A related aspect of Długosz’s outlook is treated by Borkowska, “The Merging of Religious Elements with National Consciousness in the Historical Works of Jan Długosz,” in David Loades and Katherine Walsh, eds., Faith and Identity. Christian Political Experience (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), 69–80. The conclusion of Domański, Początki humanizmu, 146–149 and his Scholastyka i początki humanizmu, 191–203, that Długosz reflects a humanistic outlook because he emancipates history from moral philosophy, seems to me to go too far. The view of Ulewicz, “Polish Humanism and its Italian Sources,” 221, seems more balanced: “He was a diligent reader of the Latin classics and humanists, especially all the historical works. . . . But at this point his contact with humanism stopped, for it is not so much a scholar’s method or bibliography, but rather his own attitude and mentality that decide as to which intellectual ideology he espouses. And here there can no longer be any doubts as to Długosz: he was steadfast in his traditional medieval attitude . . . though he set himself Livy as his guiding example . . . Długosz provides us with a most interesting image of a man of transition.” 39  There are some insightful comments made on the question of Długosz’s relationship to humanism and the historiography of the issue in the brief overview of Długosz’s life

Humanism

555

Gregory of Sanok In the same year in which Długosz matriculated at Cracow, there entered the university another individual whose name is much more closely associated with the humanistic movement in Poland. This was Gregory of Sanok, whose archiepiscopal court at Lwów after 1451 was to become one of the leading centers of Renaissance letters in east central Europe. Gregory, who was born about 1407, left home as a youth and wandered from city to city. About the age of fourteen, he arrived in Cracow, where (according to his later biographer Filippo Buonaccorsi, known as Callimachus) “he spent a short time in study.”40 Attracted by the possibility of an eventual career in the affairs of the city, but hampered by his lack of knowledge of German, the language of the urban elite, he left the city and went “beyond the Elbe” (ultra Albim) into Germany. After five years of further wandering, he returned, having pursued both formal and informal education. In the meantime he had achieved such a mastery of the language there, that it was difficult to know whether German or Polish was his original tongue. One of the fruits of this stay in Germany may have been an interest in rhetoric and literature, for when he enrolled at the university in 1428, he was, according to Callimachus, “naturally drawn to rhetoric and poetry.”41 In contrast to his earlier plans, he now decided to pursue a career, first in medicine, eventually in the church. He successfully completed the bachelor’s curriculum in arts and was promoted, then was named as tutor to the children of one of the important civil officials of rural Poland, John Tarnowski. Residence in the country did not agree with him, for “with difficulty he endured being without the company of learned men.”42 So he brought his charges back to Cracow, where he continued his study at the university.

and contribution by Stanisław Grzybowski, Jan Długosz (Cracow: Wydawnictwo WAM, 2003), 35–44. 40   Philippi Callimachi Vita et mores Gregorii Sanocei, Irmina Lichońska, ed. (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1963), 16: “Ibi aliquamdiu substitis litterisque operam dedit.” 41  “Sed circa rhetoricam et poesim, cui naturaliter affectus erat.” Ibid., 18. Callimachus sets this statement in the context of Gregory’s lectures on Virgil, which he has him deliver upon his first return to Cracow, i.e., in 1428, though he was not promoted to bachelor of arts until 1433. For the problems with this chronology, see Lichońska’s notes to 18, line 6 and 22, line 18. Harold B. Segel, Renaissance Culture in Poland. The Rise of Humanism, 1470–1543 (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1989), 20, suggests these lectures did not come until after Gregory had received his master’s degree in 1439, graduating first in his class (see below, note 51, however, for the question of the degree). 42  “Cum aegre pateretur abesse a consuetudine doctorum hominum.” Ibid., 20.

556

CHAPTER 10

During this time he obtained a copy of the satires of Juvenal. This provided the basis for him to dispute an interpretation given by John of Dąbrówka, one of his teachers, in the latter’s historical commentary upon Kadłubek.43 For reasons which may have been based in his growing literary interests, but which owed a greater debt to his hope of obtaining an ecclesiastical appointment, Gregory went to Italy and the papal court of Eugene IV. There he spent about a year and a half, before returning to Cracow in 1439. It was in these years that his enthusiasm for the humanistic movement matured and his mastery of eloquent Latin was perfected.44 Two things are evidence of this. One was the manuscripts he brought back from Italy with him. The most important of these was a copy of Giovanni Boccaccio’s Genealogia deorum gentilum, which is well-known as work that had given impetus and depth to the classicism of the trecento. This particular manuscript had previously been the property of the French humanist Gontier Col.45 There can be little doubt that this work, particularly chapters fourteen and fifteen, exercised considerable influence upon Gregory’s conception of the importance of poetry. The second item of evidence is an event which took place near the end of the year. He began a series of lectures upon the Buccolics of Vergil, “the title of which and whose author,” according to Callimachus, “had until those days been completely unknown in the region.”46 These lectures, which his biographer insisted were the first to bring the practice and the splendor of antique oratory to Cracow, created a sensation in learned circles. As a result, “against not only his expectation but his hope,” Gregory was awarded the degree Master in Arts, “even though in truth he had not yet finished the work by which one gets such a title.”47 43  “Eodem tempore casu ad manus eisu deuenere satyrae Iuuenalis, quas cum studiose legeret . . . Ex quibus ingeniosus iuuenis illico animaduertit doctorem Dambrowka, qui tunc in Polonorum historias commentaria scribebat, statim in prooemio ipso, ubi do Codro mentio est, errasse.” Ibid., 20 and 22. 44  On the importance of this stay, see Sinko, “De gregorii Sanocei studiis humanioribus,” Eos 6 (1900): 241–270, here 248: “amorem renascentium litterarum hausisse.” 45  The importance of this manuscript is treated in two articles by Zarębski, “Problemy wczesnego odrodzenia w Polsce: Grzegorz z Sanoka, Boccaccio, Długsoz,” Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce 2 (1957): 5–52, here 33–39, and “Kodeks BJ Nr 413: Giovanni Boccaccio, Genealogia Deorum a Gontier Col, Humanista francuski wczesnego odrodzenia,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 15, no. 1–2 (1963): 39–48. 46  “Coepit enim Bucolicon carmen Vergilii publicitus interpretari, cuius et nomen et auctor ad eam diem extra omnium notitiam ea in regione fuerat.” Vita Gregorii, 18. On the problem of the date of these lectures, see above, note 41. 47  “Primus itaque sordem ac squalorem, quem recentiores grammatici discentium ingeniis offuderant, detergere orsus cultum ac splendorem antiquae orationis Cracouiam induxit

Humanism

557

After this, Gregory began to prepare lectures on the Georgics, but other things intervened. He was named shortly thereafter to a benefice in nearby Wieliczka, from where he was able to maintain close contact with Cracovian intellectual circles. Eventually he went to Hungary where he became close friends with Pier Paolo Vergerio, the poet Philip Podacatharo, and the members of the humanist circle which was gathered around the court of Bishop John Vitéz of Várad.48 Following his return to Poland after 1451, Gregory was named Archbishop of Lwów,49 where the literary circle he formed was one of the brightest achievements of the early Polish Renaissance. His relations with the University of Cracow were, however, virtually nonexistent, except when he sent the exiled Italian humanist Callimachus to the school and the capital in 1472. His importance for the topic of this chapter ends after his Vergil lectures. What is one to make of the evidence regarding Gregory at Cracow that is derived from Callimachus? Some have seen it as one of the most significant events of early Polish humanism, a phenomenon reflecting the vitality of humanistic interests within the university.50 Upon examination, however, these events appear to be considerably less significant. They are relevant more to Gregory’s life and career than to the history of the university. In the first place, there is no evidence that the lectures were given within the university framework. There is, of course, the possibility they could have been given in conjunction with extraordinary lectures in rhetoric. But Gregory was not yet a master, and even though it was not unknown for advanced bachelors to teach, it is unlikely he would have been formally appointed to give ordinary lectures. Moreover, these lectures did not really fit within the curricular framework of the university at this time. These works bore neither upon the substance of grammar and rhetoric nor did they constitute an acceptable set of substitutes for books which were required to be lectured. It is probably, therefore, that these were extra-curricular lectures which Gregory chose to tanto omnium fauore, ut non modo praeter spem, sed etiam praeter uoluntatem suam fuerit mox in disciplinis liberalibus magister declaratus, cum re uera nondum eas artes attingisset, per quas ad id tituli peruenitus . . .” Ibid. 48  See L.S. Domonkos, “Ecclesiastical Patrons as a Factor in the Hungarian Renaissance,” New Review of East-European History 14 (1974): 102–104, and, in more detail, “Archbishop Vitéz, The Father of Hungarian Humanism (1408–1472),” The New Hungarian Quarterly 20, no. 74 (1979): 142–150. 49  It is revealing that Segel, Renaissance Culture in Poland, 23, describes this appointment with reference to Bishop Oleśnicki’s views by commenting “The appointment . . . was made over the strenuous objections of the powerful Zbigniew Cardinal Oleśnicki, who did not share Gregory’s enthusiasm for humanism and regarded the former parish priest of Wieliczka as too worldly in his tastes.” 50  So Zarębski, “Okres wczesnego humanizmu,” 163.

558

CHAPTER 10

give on his own initiative. It is also important to recognize that it is extremely improbable Gregory was awarded the master of arts degree because of these lectures, despite what Callimachus seeks to tell us. Gregory did obtain that degree,51 but in order to do so, he would have had to fulfill the formal academic requirements provided for in the statutes and enforced by the corporation (universitas) of masters who would have examined him. Thus Callimachus’ narrative is undoubtedly an exaggerated record of Gregory’s involvement at the university. One is left, therefore, with the conclusion that Gregory’s presence and activity at Cracow represents merely an incident which cannot be used to support an interpretation that there were strong humanistic influences at work within the studium at this time. Gregory may have found other individuals whose tastes were similar to his (though perhaps not so well-developed in the humanist movement), but he himself recognized that the scholastic character of the university itself was ill-suited to meet his literary concerns. According to Callimachus, he spoke disparagingly of the education there, saying it was full of “non-sense.”52 Although Gregory’s role was largely outside the university, one of his contemporaries was the first to bring a more developed humanistic career within the studium. John of Ludzisko John of Ludzisko was born in social obscurity, possibly of peasant background, in Kujavia about 1400. After schooling in his home parish, he attended the cathedral school in either nearby Włocławek or, more probably, in Płock. He matriculated at the University of Cracow in 1418, was promoted to bachelor in 1419 and incepted as a master in 1422. Following this, he lectured in the arts faculty for some years beyond the required two, emphasizing particularly astron51   Księga promocji, 32, and Najstarsza ksieęga promocji, 211: “anno 1439, circa festum Nativitatis Christi, ad gradum magisterii infrascripti sunt promoti . . . Gregorius de Sanok [then, barely visible, in another hand] archiepiscopus Leopoliensis.” 52  Actually “nihil enim in se continere nisi uigilantium insomnia.” Vita Gregorii, 24. The editor of this Vita, Lichońska, notes that this phrase is a reference to Cicero, De natura deorum [De Deorum natura], 1, 8. The issue of the nature of Callimachus’ biography of Gregory (fiction or not) and the reciprocal role played by the two in the development of Callimachus’ philosophical outlook is treated by Domański, “Grzegorz z Sanoka i poglądy filozo­ ficzne Filipa Kallimacha. Epizod z dziejów humanizmu w polskiej filozofii XV wieku,” in Ryszard Palacz, ed., Filozofia Polska XV wieku (Warsaw: Państwo Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972), 369–434; this article is reprinted in Domański, Philosophica. Paraphilosophica. Metaphilosophica. Studia i szkice z dziejów myśli dawnej (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2008), 312–350.

Humanism

559

omy and probably holding the chair in that field founded earlier in the century by the Cracow citizen Stobner.53 During this third decade of the century, he also served as a notary and as rector of the parish school in nearby Kazimierz. In addition, he may have begun the study of medicine under the Pavian John de Saccis, for he went eventually to Padua to complete his education in that field. On 9 March 1433 he received the doctor’s degree in medicine.54 For the next few years there is no trace of his activity, though it is probable he remained in Italy for some time. No later than the fall of 1440 he returned to Poland and received an appointment as a member of the medical faculty. The last mention of his activity there came in a letter of Andrew Gałka of Dobczyn in 1449. By 1460 he was dead.55 As a professor in medicine, John apparently made little impact upon the university community. In other respects, however, he has been seen as an important figure in the history of humanism at the studium and as a representative of antique rhetorical traditions and Renaissance eloquence at Cracow.56 To a significant degree, this interpretation is justified. John returned to Poland from Italy having learned more than medical matters. He had also come under humanist literary influences. Whether he had formally studied rhetoric while at Padua or not is unknown, and whether he remained in Italy after his doctoral studies for the purpose of further immersing himself in the humanistic culture is difficult to determine. It is probable, however, that he had personal contact with such individuals as the rhetorician Gasparino Barzizza and the educator Guarino Guarini.57 It is even possible that it was he who sent a copy of Guarino’s translation of Plutarch’s De assentatoris et 53  For his role there, see above, Chapter Seven, n. 115. 54  His diploma is printed in Fijałek, Polonia apud Italos scholastica, 79–80. John appears in other Paduan documents as “Iohannes de Cracovia arcium doctor, in medicinis scolaris” on 31 October 1430 (thus serving as proof of his presence in Padua by that time), on 5 and 21 June and on 4 July 1432; see Barycz, Polacy na studiach, 23, n. 2. 55  The analysis of his biography and work given by Jacek Stanisław Bojarski, “Jan z Ludziska,” Materiały 8 (1967): 5–24 and “Jan z Ludziska i przypisywane mu mowy uniwersyteckie,” St. Med. 14 (1973): 3–85, here 11–38, has superseded all older accounts, particularly that of Fijałek, Mistrz Jakób, 1, 197–249, and, to a lesser extent, Bronisław Nadolski, “Rola Jana z Ludziska w polskim Odrodzeniu,” Pamiętnik Literacki 26 (1929): 198–211; see, however, the entry (by Nadolski) in PSB, 10, 461–462. 56  Zarębski, “Okres wczesnego humanizmu,” 167–174; Domański, Początki humanizmu, 106–110 and 194–201, and his Scholastyka i początki humanizmu, 135–141 and 265–269; and, most recently, Krzysztof Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe in the Middle Ages (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2009 [Krakow Historical Monographs 1]), 122 (who, however, incorrectly identifies John as a professor in theology). 57  For this, Fijałek, Polonia apud Italos scholastica, 83.

560

CHAPTER 10

amici differentia as a gift to the Polish king Władysław Warneńczyk.58 Moreover he delved deeply enough into the rhetorical traditions of quattrocento Italy to become completely familiar with, and sympathetic to, them. He made an especial effort to gather as many examples as possible of Renaissance rhetoric, including them in a notebook upon which he drew heavily after his return to Poland. Once there he applied his newly developed interests in a series of orations prepared between the years 1440 and probably 1447. Whether there was actually an office of university orator, as has been suggested, and whether John held this position is doubtful.59 Nevertheless, some of his speeches contain references to the fact that he had been invited to prepare them, and this at the very least suggests that John enjoyed a considerable reputation as a speaker. All of his orations60 are contained in a single manuscript, together with supporting material from speeches by earlier individuals upon which John drew. An analysis of these addresses will enable us to evaluate the contribution which he made to the humanistic tradition at Cracow. Sometime during the summer semester of 1440 John prepared his Oratio de laudibus et dignitate eloquencie et oratorie sciencie.61 At about the same time, he was responsible for writing two speeches Ad concilii Basiliensis delegatos Cracoviam advenientes.62 A fourth oration, Pro susceptione Regis Wladislai de Ungaria venire volentis,63 was intended to welcome Władysław back from the crusade he had led in mid-decade against the Ottomans and in which he had been killed. Three speeches date from 1447. One was addressed to Grand Duke Casimir of Lithuania upon his arrival in Cracow to be crowned his brother’s successor as King of Poland; a second was addressed to Archbishop Vincent Kot of Gniezno, who was in Cracow for the coronation; and the third honored

58  This is the suggestion made by Nadolski, “Rola Jana z Ludziska,” 200; see, however, the more cautious approach taken by Bojarski, “Jan z Ludziska i przypisywane mu mowy,” 26–27. 59  See Nadolski, “Rola Jana z Ludziska,” 202; Bojarski, “Jan z Ludziska i przypisywane mu mowy,” 35–36 is dubious about this. Ulewicz, “Polish Humanism and Its Italian Sources,” 230, and Iter Romano- Italicum Polonorum, 105, is in no such doubt, terming John the university’s representative and official orator. 60   Ioannis de Ludzisko Orationes, Bojarski, ed. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1971) now replaces all previous texts for this set of material. 61   Ibid., 31–47. 62   Ibid., 79–88 and 89–102. These speeches were discussed above in Chapter Five, notes 123 and 124. 63   Ibid., 48–59.

Humanism

561

the Bishop of Płock, who was there for the same reason.64 Only an eighth speech, Oratio de laudibus et dignitate philosophie65 can not be dated with certainty, though it probably falls within the period defined above. All of these speeches are suffused with an admiration for the literature of antiquity and follow the rhetorical patterns current in Italy. Particularly in the first and eighth orations noted above and in the first Basle-delegate oration are the references to ancient and Renaissance authorities common.66 Two of John’s speeches are, however, of slightly different character. The second Basle address, which has been shown to be a reworked, expanded version of the first,67 emphasizes less of the studia humaniora and concentrates more upon the immediate issues of church reform which confronted the council. This is usually the basis upon which John in included in the conciliarist camp.68 The speech for Casimir the Jagiellonian also is concerned less with the humanities; instead it focuses upon humanity, particularly the plight of the peasantry in Poland and the responsibility of the king to rule justly for the benefit of all his subjects.69 Even these 64   Oratio pro domino Kazymiro . . ., Ibid., 60–66; Oratio pro . . . domini Vincentii Koth . . ., Ibid., 67–73; and Oratio pro . . . reverendissimi antistitis Plocensis ecclesiae, Ibid., 74–78. 65   Ibid., 103–132. This oration had also been previously edited and analyzed by Bojarski, “Joannis de Ludzisko ‘De laudibus philosophiae oratio’,” MPP 13 (1968): 33–81. 66  The following, for example, are cited in the last oration: Alexander, Aristotle, Augustine, Boethius, Cassiodorus, Chrysostom, Cicero, Hermes, Homer, Martial, Pamphilus, Philo, Plato, Plutarch, Ptolemy, Seneca, Socrates, Vergil, and Varro. Among Italian humanist writers are several citations from Pier Paolo Vergerio’s De ingenuis moribus et studiis liberalibus adolescentiae. 67  On this point, see Bojarski, “Jan z Ludziska i przypisywane mu mowy,” 72–73. Since the time of Fijałek, Mistrz Jakób, 1, 210–225, this “second” Basle delegation address had routinely been attributed to James of Paradyż; see, for example, Pieradzka, “Uniwersytet Krakowski w służbie państwa i wobec soborów w Konstancji i Bazylei,” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 121–122. 68  Domański, “Wieki XIII–XV,” in Domański, Zbigniew Ogonowski, and Lech Szczucki, Zarys dziejów filozofii w Polsce wieki XIII–XVII, Ogonowski, ed. (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1989), 7–219, here 81–82, with the distinction that John’s interests, at least as expressed in his speech, are seen to be more focused on reform in membris than addressing the question of papal power and competence of the conciliarists discussed in Chapter Nine; Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen, 81, also includes John among the maßgebliche Personen he treats for the Council of Basle and explores his conciliar views elsewhere, especially in his treatment of representation in the church (248–249). John is not, however, normally treated by Polish scholarship as being one of the individuals who contributed to conciliar theory. 69  This speech has been often discussed in Polish historiography. See Feliks Koneczny, “Wiadomość z r. 1447 o stanie ludu wiejskiego w Polsce czy na Litwie, Ateneum

562

CHAPTER 10

speeches, however, are constructed according to the standards current in Italy and reflect therefore the humanistic tenor of John’s rhetoric. It is thus clear that John of Ludzisko may be regarded as a representative of Italian Renaissance humanism.70 But there must be asked the further questions of how original he was (i.e., did he make any contribution of his own) and what influence he had in university circles. The first is answered in part by comparing the materials John gathered, undoubtedly in Italy, with his orations themselves. This shows that in many instances he simply took large sections of speeches by and to such authors as Guarino, Poggio Bracciolini, and others, changing words and phrases where appropriate and necessary.71 While this Wileńskie 6 (1929): 8–15; Franciszek Bujak, “Mowa Jana z Ludziska do króla Kazimierza Jagiellończyka z r. 1447 i zagadnienie niewoli w Polsce ówczesnej,” in Księga Pamiątkowa ku czci Władysława Abrahama, 2 vols. (Lwów: Gubrynowicz, 1930–1931), 2, 217–233; and Kazimierz Tymieniecki, “Zagadnienie niewoli w Polsce u schyłku wieków średnich,” Prace Komisji Historii Poznańskiego Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk 7 (1933): 498–537. The tenor of John’s concerns may be gathered from some of his statements: “Verum agricoloni in ea servitute gravissimi sunt oppressi, plus quam olim filii Israel in Egipto a pharone, plus quam empticii vel in prelio capti et in servitutem abducti.” (Orationes, 63) “. . . cum semper eorum, quibus prefuisti, commodis utilitatique servisti incolarumque terre illius servituti et illibertati christianorum compassus fuisti.” (Ibid., 64) Similar ideas are expressed in John’s address prepared for Władysław Warneńczyk’s return: “Eya, illustrissimi princeps, procul ante omnes pelle tristicias pauperum, procul ante omnes mitte afflicciones et illibertates christicolarum, cum nichil gravius ac tetrius hac pestifera illibertate oppressioneque pauperum incolarum, regni furtis validorumque mendicitate in terris istis dumtaxat aspeximus.” (Ibid., 58) 70  Domański, “Wieki XIII–XV,” in Domański, Ogonowski, and Szczucki, Zarys dziejów filozofii w Polsce, 204–206, begins his section on the reception of humanism in Poland and its presence in university circles with a discussion of John as the first real humanist that could be considered in this context. 71  This may be shown in two examples. In his speech praising oratory, John says: “Quam igitur per hos annos civitatem in maiori parte Germanie doctorum vel auctoritate vel sciencia vel multitudine aut copia hac, quam colimus, famosissima Cracovia clariorem aut illustriorem esse putatis, que mater studiorum et veluti alumpna virtutum tocius Germanie extitisse videatur?” Ibid., 43. This whole section is taken directly from an oration De oratorie facultatis laudibus by Parides Cipriensis, which John had copied in its entirety into his note book and which had been later recopied into the manuscript containing all of his speeches. The words in bold above appear as “in orbe terrarium” and “sanctissima Bononia” in the original speech. Other parts of this speech are similarly derived verbatim from other orations that John had copied. In his speech prepared for Władysław Warneńczyk, John says: “Verum inter tot milia hominum, qui vel fidelius laudes tuas enarrabunt vel melius describent, sunt ipsi Cracovie in urbe incolentes, in qua sunt domestici philosophi totam Germaniam omnimodis scienciis irrigantes.” Ibid., 52.

Humanism

563

heavy dependence upon his models reduces the degree of originality in John’s work—and of course reflects a traditional medieval tendency to avoid originality if possible—it should not be allowed to obscure the reality that each of his orations is in fact tied to a concrete situation in the life of Poland and the university. They represent a celebration of or statement about that situation in terms which reflect new cultural currents. Evaluating the influence of John’s orations and his attitudes is more difficult. Some of the speeches, which are noted only as collecta and not pronunciata, may not actually have been declaimed, only circulated in written form. Certainly the one addressed to a monarch upon the occasion of his return from a crusade from which he did not in fact return can not have been delivered. Similarly the oratio to Casimir may not have been given in the presence of the king, but rather only within the community of the university, if indeed it was given at all.72 The speeches praising eloquence, oratory, and philosophy would have fit more conventionally into the routine of university life, and internal evidence suggests actual delivery. In these, John’s views would have been clear to all and the contrast with older styles sharp indeed. Further, these orations may have had a general influence in the discussion surrounding the reorganization of the Collegium minus, which we shall evaluate below. But they were not part of the official instructional program and cannot therefore be said to have played a role in giving a humanistic cast to the formal functioning of the academic program of the school. Nevertheless, in contrast to the outsider Gregory of Sanok, John of Ludzisko was a member of the faculty, and one may see in his activity the first unambiguous evidence of an attempt to introduce the traditions of humanistic rhetoric inside the walls of the studium.73

This speech is drawn from one entitled Demoscenis orracio ad Alexandrum . . . traducta e Greco in Latinum, which John included in his notebook. In it, Cracow has been substituted for Athens in the original and “Germania” for “orbis.” For these, and other examples, see Bojarski, “Jan z Ludziska i przypisywane mu mowy,” 31–33. 72  This question is discussed in detail by Bojarski, “Jan z Ludziska i przypisywane mu mowy,” 73–76. 73  This conclusion is a tradition that has long been present in Polish historiography. Fijałek, Polonia apud Italos scholastica, 77, argued “hic est enim, ad quem laudes a Philippo Callimacho Gregorio Sanocensi ob cultum ac splendorem antiquae orationis Cracoviam primum inductum ascriptae referantur necesse est.” Others have followed this tradition; in addition to previous references to Zarębski, Domański, and Ulewicz, (and there could have been others), see the comment about John of Ludzisko by Władysław Seńko, Les tendances préhumanistes dans la philosophie polonaise au XVe siècle (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1973), 28: he regards him as “comme premier penseur polonaise qui ait pratiqué la lecture

564

CHAPTER 10

John of Dąbrówka and the Collegium minus With the person and career of the poly-math John of Dąbrówka we come to the end of the first period of humanist activity and interest at the university. His roles as teacher, scholar, and administrator were central to the life of the university for half a century. In our present context, it is crucial to evaluate two aspects of his career with regard to the question of his importance for, and influence on, the humanistic tradition at Cracow. The first of these is the nature and extent of any humanistic tastes and concerns which may be attributed to him; the second is related to the significance of his reorganization of the studium in 1449 and the creation of the Collegium minus. John’s library, which included more than a hundred codices, is one of the clearest indications of his intellectual interests. He held several works of classical antiquity and the humanist movement in Italy. Of the former he had Vergil’s Aeneid, Plato’s Timeus, Valerius Maximus’ Dictorum factorumque memorabilium, Cicero’s De officiis and Tusculan Questions, and the third book of Curtius Rufus’ De gestis Alexandrii. The latter group included Petrarch’s De vita solitaria and De remediis utriusque fortunae and Vergerio’s De ingenuis moribus.74 These works are sufficiently differentiated from the kinds of books which characterized earlier libraries that taken together they suggest some of the literary interests of the humanistic movement. But one should be careful not to attribute too much to John in this respect, as an analysis of the way he used these materials shows. The writings noted above, as well as many others deriving from the historiographical tradition of the Polish middle ages,75 were on the whole gathered for and utilized in John’s historical commentary upon Vincent Kadłubek’s Chronicle of the Poles discussed above in Chapter Six. These works are not primarily belles lettres, and there is little evidence to indicate that he was interested in these classical and Renaissance materials for their literary value. de la littérature antique et l’art de la rhétorique: cultum ac splendorum [etc.—he goes on to quote Callimachus on Gregory].” 74  These parts of the library are discussed by Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 65–67. 75   This tradition, and the types of material characterizing it, is discussed by Jacek Wiesiołowski, Kolekcje historyczne w Polsce średniowiecznej XIV–XV wieku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1967), 52–55 and 66–91; and by Marian Zwiercan, Komentarz Jana z Dąbrówki do Kroniki mistrza Wincentego zwanego Kadłubkiem (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1969), 114– 157. See also the editors’ comments about the difficulty of identifying the sources used by John in his commentary while preparing their edition of this work: Ioannes de Dąbrówka Commentum in Chronicam Polonorum Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek, Zwiercan, ed., with the cooperation of Anna Zofia Kozłowska and Michał Rzepiela, in Monumenta Poloniae Historica, nova Series 14 (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2008), XXI–XXII.

Humanism

565

Rather, they served the pragmatic purpose of supporting his historical commentary, and they shaped his approach to the treatment of historical materials. It is true that John had one of the most important educational treatises from the Renaissance (that by Vergerio). But the concern he manifested for education in his commentary was a national and patriotic one, which— although it emphasized the civic virtues and edifying exampla that history can teach—was nevertheless not quite the same kind of instruction in letters which lay at the heart of humanist educational programs.76 It is also true that John emphasized some of the values which ancient Rome prized, particularly love of patria and a concern for true nobilitas. But these are couched within the context of Polish history, and John drew more heavily upon Polish material than upon classical writings to comment upon Kadłubek. Thus, from a brief examination of his utilization of the antique and humanistic literary materials which he had, it is difficult to attribute to John a very deep commitment to the newer cultural currents of the Renaissance. He sought no understanding of antiquity on its own terms, he betrays no classicism in his writings, and his commentary is not imbued with the spirit of antique civilization. John’s other writings, largely done within the context of his teaching in the theology faculty, are of a distinctly scholastic character.77 Let us now turn to the second aspect of John’s career mentioned above. Late in the fifth decade of the century, the faculty members of the university, particularly the masters in the arts, began to discuss some organizational changes in the studium.78 In 1449, while John was provost of the Collegium artistarum, the faculty approved a conclusio which established a Collegium minus for eight 76  For example, John cites Vergerio only one time in his commentary; see Zwiercan, Komentarz Jana z Dąbrówki, 180, where he also discusses other citations from Italian humanist writers. Zwiercan’s edition contains an index to John’s biblical citations, but not one to his classical, medieval, and Renaissance sources. 77  It is noteworthy that in his most recent work on John (apart from his as yet unpublished comments in a 2013 conference devoted to Dąbrówka), Zwiercan, “Jan z Dąbrówki (ok. 1400–1472),” in Piech, ed., Złota księga papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 179–185, makes no comment about John having any possible humanistic outlook. 78  Sponsorship of this change has been attributed by some to the initiative of Bishop Oleśnicki; see, for example, Ulewicz, “Polish Humanism and Its Italian Sources,” 221 (“To close the early stage of Polish-Italian humanist relations, in Oleśnicki’s times, a word must be said about the change of the academic syllabus in the 1449 reform which he sponsored.”), and more strongly in Iter Romano-Italicum Polonorum, 107 (“pod koniec jego życia oraz przy jego przede wszystkim poparciu wprowadzone już jednak zostało programowo w zajęciach naszej Akademii [reforma z r. 1449] studiowanie czołowych autorów starożytnych Rzymu.”)

566

CHAPTER 10

younger members of the arts faculty. Our knowledge of this is derived from a document issued by the university in 1476, in which reference is made to a note describing the earlier action prepared by John of Dąbrówka.79 Included in the composition of the new collegium, the details of which are treated below, were the masters who held the Nowko, Mężykowa, and Brzeźnica chairs.80 The circumstances surrounding this decision, the role played by John in particular, and the character of the way the new collegium functioned have been seen by some as marking a major development in the history of humanism at the university.81 The thrust of these scholars’ arguments may be summarized as follows. They suggest that at least two kinds of student discontent precipitated this event in 1449. One was the specific dissatisfaction with the nature of the educational program at the university. This is reflected in the attitude of specific individuals. For example, Długosz left the university because he would rather be truly learned than simply be thought to be. Gregory of Sanok was in no hurry to complete his studies and was critical of the course of instruction. John of Ludzisko spent his years on the faculty proposing—one may infer from his speeches—a new approach to rhetoric. In addition, the views of Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini about university education were well known in Poland, through both his correspondence with Bishop Oleśnicki and his treatise on education, which was plagiarized some years later for use in Poland by an anonymous Pole.82 A more 79   C DUC, 3, no. 250, 45–48, dated 26 April 1476 on the basis of the note recording it made earlier by John of Dąbrówka; internal reference in this document is made to the agreement of 18 October 1449. 80  See above, Chapter Three, and Knoll, “The Arts Faculty,” 153–154. 81  See especially Morawski, Historya, 1, 440–443; Karbowiak Dzieje wychowania, 3, 306–308; and, most explicitly, Zarębski, “Okres wczesnego humanizmu,” 173–177. 82  On this point, see Zarębski, “Z dziejów recepcji humanizmu w Polsce. Pierwszy w literaturze polskiej traktat pedagogiczny,” in Barycz and Hulewicz, eds., Studia z dziejów kultury, 147–171. Aeneas was later to send Oleśnicki a copy of his treatise De poesi dedicated to the bishop; see Smołucha, “Kontaky Zbigniewa Oleśnickiego z Eneaszem,” 209. Aeneas Sylvius’ views are summed up in his statement “Nec te vana titulorum ambitio fallat. Non enim propterea doctior est aliquis quod magisterii nomen aut Parisiis est aut Athenis sortitus. Ille autem peritus est, qui naturali preditus ingenio vigili cura perscrutatus magistros artium auctores, qui cum multa viderit atque legerit librorum volumina, tum memorie plurima commendaverit, qui non solum divinis litteris sed etiam secularibus sit imbutus.” Cited from Zarębski, “Pierwsze [Najwcześniejszy] humanistyczny polski traktak pedagogiczny (około 1467),” in Wincenty Danek, Władysław Szyszkowski, et al., eds. Dziesięciolecie Wyższej Szkoły Pedagogicznej w Krakowie, 1946–1956. Zbiór rozpraw i artykułów (Cracow: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1957), 151–178, here 166; and see also Zarębski, “Okres wczesnego humanizmu,” 176.

Humanism

567

generalized type of dissatisfaction, according to this argument, is reflected in the matriculation statistics for the studium. The years prior to 1449 seem to show a decline which is attributed to the unpopularity of the scholastic character of the course of studies. After the reform, as the result of which a more humanistic tenor prevailed in the arts course, enrollment rose and the percentage of graduations increased.83 The crucial figure in all of this is said to have been John of Dąbrówka. His humanistic and literary concerns, as reflected in his library, his attraction to history, and his experience in teaching rhetoric in the Nowko Chair led him to implement the reform of 1449 and follow its fortunes closely until his death in 1472, making modifications where appropriate. As a result, an expanded body of literary interests was introduced into the curriculum; and from this point forth, humanistic concerns and approaches may be observed in ever greater degree within the studium. Without denying that humanism became a stronger influence in university circles in the years after 1472, it is possible to see the developments of 1449 in a different light and to attribute to the Collegium minus a less explicitly humanistic character and influence than is suggested in the foregoing paragraph, which represents one strand of previous scholarship on this topic. In the first place there is no real evidence, despite the impressionistic data regarding Długosz and the others noted above, that the “scholastic” character of the curriculum was an impediment to perspective students. Training in grammar and logic and, to a lesser extent rhetoric, was still the preferred route to a career as a notary or as a school teacher. While Oleśnicki’s court may have prized fine Latinity, the regional and local chanceries were by and large untouched as yet by these currents. Moreover, admission into one of the higher university faculties presupposed the completion of an arts course which was “scholastic” in character. Thus if there was a decline in enrollment prior to 1449— and the data do not conclusively suggest such an interpretation, particularly after 1438/1439 (except for the plague year of 1439/1440)—it was due to other factors. Indeed, with the exception of the decade from 1431 to 1440, the average 83  Zarębski, “Okres wczesnego humanizmu,” 179, relying upon statistics presented by Karbowiak, “Studia statystyczne,” 77–81, points out that in the twenty-two years prior to the reform, 3084 students matriculated at Cracow, of whom 19.61% were promoted to the BA and 4.83% to the MA. In the twenty-two years following the establishment of the Collegium minus, 4161 students matriculated, of whom 24.68% were promoted to bachelor and 6.63% incepted as masters. The more accurate figures provided in the study by Krzysztof Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w późnym średniowieczu (Cracow: Avalon, 2010), show some variances from these numbers and percentages, but the general pattern is largely the same. For fuller discussion of numbers and graduations, see above, Chapter Four.

568

CHAPTER 10

annual enrollment increased in every decade of the first half of the century, as it did in every decade thereafter. In the second place, John of Dąbrówka’s role must be clarified. As shown above, he was himself no humanist, and even the degree of his humanistic interests was not very great. His teaching of rhetoric in the Nowko Chair did indeed convince him that additional tools needed to be employed other than those which were in common use. But he was drawn to the Chronicle of Kadłubek for this purpose, and its rhetorical thrust is grandiloquent and florid, which is one reason it was not highly esteemed by the humanists.84 The patriotic and moralizing thrust of John’s commentary is more important than its celebration of humanistic values. In addition, John’s crucial role in the reform of 1449 and its aftermath stemmed less from any intellectual concerns he might have had than from the administrative responsibilities he bore then and later. He was provost in 1449, rector eight times more during the next twenty-two years, and Vice-chancellor from 1458 to 1465. He was indeed central, but not because he was pursuing a humanist pedagogy. Thus one is led to conclude that it was considerations of space and responsibility for existing curriculum which prompted the university to divide the arts faculty when it enacted the reform.85 This becomes even clearer when we evaluate the content of instruction proposed and see whether it contributed to the humanistic tradition at Cracow. By the terms of the conclusio of the arts faculty that established the Collegium minus, four young masters were assigned concrete and continuing curricular responsibilities.86 In some cases, this merely confirmed previous practice. The two who held the chairs endowed in 1448 by James Zaborowski and in 1444 from the legacy of Nicholas Brzeźnica were mandated to teach grammar. The specific books on which the former master was to lecture were not mentioned, but the latter was required to use Priscian for lectures, Donatus for recitation exercises, and the second part of Alexander of Villa Dei’s Doctrinale for either lectures or disputations. With the exception of the addition of Priscian, whose work may have been occasionally used in minor ways earlier in the century (see above, Chapter Six) and whose handbook was indeed, with its complex 84  For the kind of critique which Renaissance humanists brought against the various medieval traditions, see the overview by Brian Vickers, “Rhetoric and Poetics,” in Schmitt, general editor, and Skinner and Kessler, eds., The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy, 715–745, especially his discussion of the medieval inheritance, 724–726. 85  This point is made by Pieradzka, “Uniwersytet w służbie państwa,” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 128–129. 86   For the formal statutes: Józef Szujski, “Statuta Collegii Minoris Studii Generalis Cracoviensis,” Archiwum do Dziejów Literatury i Oświaty w Polsce 1 (1878): 95–118, here 97.

Humanism

569

constructions and references to Greek authorities, more advanced than the elementary text of Donatus, this represents no change from what a prospective bachelor would have been exposed to prior to this. But even this change is difficult to evaluate, for there is no evidence by which the extent to which Priscian was actually lectured prior to the formal record of classes begins with the Liber diligentiarum in 1487 can actually be determined. It should be noted, however, that after that date, this text was not taught regularly at Cracow in the remaining years of the century.87 In addition, the Doctrinale was the standard scholastic grammar book after about 1200, and its subtle and intricate character symbolized for the humanists the essence of obscurantism. Nevertheless, it continued to be taught at Cracow well into the sixteenth century.88 Thus the reform of 1449 appears to have had a minimal impact in the area of grammar, in particular because modist approaches, which humanists found deeply objectionable, remained part of the intellectual spectrum in this subject. This conclusio also touched the subject of rhetoric. It required the Nowko master to provide exercises “for oratorical education” (pro oratoria Institutione exercitat) as well as to lecture on the following books: the Poetria nova of Geoffrey of Vinsauf, the Labirintus of Eberhard of Bethune, the rhetoric of Cicero, and the Chronicle of the Poles of Vincent Kadłubek (presumably with the commentary which John had earlier begun as the Nowko incumbent).89 The master who held the Mężykowa chair was to be responsible for Boethius’ De consolatione, Alanus de Insulis’ De planctu naturae, Valerius Maximus 87  Priscian was part of the curriculum at Paris described in the legislation of 1215 and 1255. By 1366, however, it had been dropped in favor of the Grecismus of Eberhard of Bethune and the Doctrinale. See Hastings Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, 3 vols., F.M. Powicke and A.B. Emden, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936), 1, 440–443. For developments at Oxford see James A. Weisheipl, “Curriculum of the Faculty of Arts at Oxford in the Early Fourteenth Century,” Mediaeval Studies 26 (1964): 143–185, here 169; and J.M. Fletcher, “Developments in the Faculty of Arts 1370–1520,” in Catto and Evans, eds., Late Medieval Oxford, 315–345, here 323 and 330. For Cambridge, Leader, A History of the University of Cambridge, 1, 114. 88  On the survival of the Doctrinale at Cracow, compare Barycz, Historja Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskeigo w epoce humanizmu (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1935), 17–18, and Garbacik, “Ognisko nauki i kultury renesansowej (1470–1520),” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 189–220, here 208. 89  “Collegiatus domini Nowkonis iuxta dispositionem sui privilegii pro oratoria Institutione exercitet Rhetorica, aut legat libros infrascriptos videlicet Novam poetriam Ganifredi, Labirintum, Rethoricas Tullii, Cronicam Vincencii.” Cited from Zarębski, “Okres wczesnego humanizmu,” 175, note 35, who is basing his text upon MS Archiwum U.J. 63, p. 17. The phrase “pro oratoria Institutione” (perhaps a reference to Quintilian) is discussed below and appears in different form in the document issued in 1476.

570

CHAPTER 10

(presumably the Dictorum factorumque memorabilium), and the books of Vergil, Ovid, Horace, Terence, and Stacius. A little more than a quarter of a century later, in 1475/1476, the responsibilities of these masters were altered slightly, but maybe significantly.90 For the Nowko chair, the old and new rhetoric of Cicero was specified (i.e., the De inventione and the pseudo-Cicero Ad Herennium, respectively, but surely not the De oratore, which was not yet known in Poland). At this time, the Labirintus and Kadłubek’s chronicle were not mentioned, and Quintilian was specifically included,91 as well as “other works which pertain to oratory.” The Mężykowa master had the list of his authors expanded by the inclusion of Marital, Propertius, Tibullus, and a comedy of Plautus, “or another poet.” Sometime later, perhaps in the sixteenth century, the names of the three poets were crossed out, probably because there were few lectures being given on them.92 With the exception of the Doctrinale, Donatus, and the Poetria nova, these works all marked an addition to, and a programmatic restructuring of, the grammatical and the rhetorical remnants of the trivium within the university. Taken as a whole the thrust of this reform was to provide a more literary approach to the arts, and as such it was consonant with the interests of the humanists. But one should not over-estimate this impact. Many of these works were new only to Cracow, for they had long been a part of education in the west. In addition, grammatical and rhetorical instruction continued after 1449 (or 1475/1476), as it had before, to take up only a small portion of the time spent in earning a BA. There is no evidence that the approximately twelve weeks allowed in the statues of 1406 for these subjects was lengthened. It should also be noted that while there might have been greater attention to the auctores (and even this can not be determined with any degree of reliability prior to the point at which the Liber diligentiarum begins), the actual approach to rhetoric was not altered 90   C DUC, 3, no. 250, here 47; see also Szujski, “Statuta Colegii Minoris,” 97–99. 91  There is some question as to whether Quintilian was specifically intended in the 1449 reform. The form of the title of his work is commonly given differently from that used in the Cracow records (both 1449 and 1475/1476), and, as seen above in note 89, is not mentioned by name in 1449. Morawski, Historya 1, 217, and Karbowiak, Dzieje wychowania, 3, 309–310, do not assume he was intended then. Zarębski, “Okres wczesnego humanizmu,” 175 (and after him a number of popular discussions by others), assumes he was. Ulewicz, “Polish Humanism and Its Italian Sources,” 221 and Iter Romano-Italicum Polonorum, 107– 108 expressly states that he was, including the assertion that this was the full text that Poggio Broacciolini had discovered during the Council of Constance. 92  Morawski, Historya, 1, 441, points out that according to the Liber diligentiarum from 1487 to 1563 Stacius was lectured only three times; the authors added in 1475/1476 were never taught.

Humanism

571

a great deal. It is almost certain that the full text of Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria was not lectured at Cracow before Leonard Coxe taught it in 1526.93 The explicit reference to Quintilian in 1475/1476 (and the more ambiguous statement of 1449, which may have intended his writing) undoubtedly referred to the so-called textus mutilatus, which was the only form in which Quintilian was known during the middle ages after perhaps the ninth century and before Bracciolini’s discovery during the Council of Constance. Without this full text, and the De oratore of Cicero, students and masters at Cracow, even if they had indirect knowledge of it from individuals who had used it in the west, were at a disadvantage. They could not fully appreciate how fragmented the rhetorical traditions of the middle ages were in relation to the coherent program of literary education, with its public and civic applications, which lay at the heart of the antique tradition and which formed the basis of the humanistic educational program in Italy. All students in Cracow after mid-century were thus potentially influenced by broadened literary interests, and this eventually facilitated the flowering of humanistic activity among the academic community. But the creation of the Collegium minus did not bring this about overnight, and its contribution was more modest than has traditionally thought. Other Figures in the Early Period Before death came to John of Dąbrówka early in 1472, there had been several elements in the life of the university which should be noted to round out the picture of humanistic interests there in this period. Two native individuals and a foreigner represent these. Andrew Grzymała of Poznań and Peter Gaszowiec were both active in all aspects of the institutional life of the studium (the former was twice rector), as we have seen in previous chapters. Andrew, whom we have considered above in the context of astronomy and as a holder of the Stobner chair, was also interested in poetry and rhetoric. One of the books he 93  See Barycz, Historja, 47. See also his comments in this regard, in direct response to Zarębski’s interpretation, in “Nowa synteza dziejów Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego,” Przegląd Historyczno-Oświatowy 9 (1966), 283–331; this is an extended review of Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, by the then master of the Renaissance history of the university. On the question of Quintilian at Cracow, compare my comments in “The University Context of Kochanowski’s Era: Humanism and the Academic Culture of the Early Renaissance in Poland,” in Fiszman, ed., The Polish Renaissance in its European Context, Fiszman, 189–212, here 200, with those in my “Italian Humanism in Poland: The Role of the University of Kraków in the Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries,” in Jean R. Brink and William F. Gentrup, eds., Renaissance Culture in Context. Theory and Practice (Aldershot, England: Scolar Press and Brookfield, VT: Ashgate, 1993), 164–175, here 168 and especially 175, notes 32 and 34.

572

CHAPTER 10

had in his large library continued copies of the poetria nova and the Labirintus, and it has been reasonably suggested that he participated in the reform of the arts faculty.94 His interests, however, were not limited to these medieval authors. Perhaps during his years of study and teaching at Cracow, but more probably as the result of his time in Italy, during which he earned the doctoral degree in medicine (before November 1461), Andrew became acquainted with and interested in the literature of antiquity and the writings of the humanists. His library included one manuscript with selections from Seneca, Terence, Juvenal, Persius, and Vergil; another volume held Florus’ Epitome of Livy’s Ab urbe condita with marginal notes by Petrarch and a copy of Boccaccio’s De casibus virorum illustrium. Andrew also possessed copies of two comedies by Leonardo Bruni Aretino.95 We have little information about the actual content of Andrew’s teaching as it touched literature and antiquity96 and his medical teaching would of course have been little influenced by any humanistic tastes. But it is clear that he should be numbered among those who after midcentury in Cracow reflected these new cultural currents. Peter Gaszowiec may be included in this category also. Another astronomer, physician, and university administrator (three times rector), he studied medicine in Italy for two years and at Cologne for another two. As a layman, he played an active role in the life of Cracow after his return to Poland and the university. Although he was regarded as a scholar and a bibliophile, his library has been largely dispersed with few traces. From the comments of 94  Aleksander Birkenmajer, “Andrzej Grzymała z Poznania, astronom i lekarz z XV wieku,” Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki 3 (1958): 409–421, here 413; also in French, “Andrzej Grzymała de Poznań, astronome et médecin du XVe siècle,” in his Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1972 [Studia Copernicana 4]), 515–526, here 519. 95  For his library, see Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 114–117, 127–129; and Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 107–109 and 289–291. 96  A manuscript in the Czartoryski Library cited by Morawski, Historya, 1, 435, suggests that in 1451 one of Andrew’s students had transcribed a commentary upon Leonardo Bruni’s comedy Poliscene as part of his instructional program; this student lauded the approach being followed in “our university:” “Maximam animi laudem modernis temporibus consecuta est universitas nostra, quae vim [?] elegantissimorum studiorum, quam disertissimi auctores posteritati fabricarunt, legere, ruminare atque docere opportune praevidit [?].” Morawski’s insight has now been followed up by a fuller analysis of this transcription and its academic and literary context by Julian Lewański, “Wykład o teatrze w krakowskiej Akademii w 1451 roku,” in Teresa Michałowska, ed., Pogranicza i konteksty literatury polskiego średniowiecza. Praca zbiorowa (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1989), 319–337. While by no means a common phenomenon, such lectures do indicate the growing understanding and appreciation of Renaissance Neo-Latin literature within the university environment.

Humanism

573

his contemporaries, however, we know that in several speeches welcoming distinguished visitors on behalf of the city council, Peter displayed an eloquence which was admired by all. The text of these speeches, delivered between 1470 and 1472 and reflecting clear humanistic elements in both their rhetorical construction and their appeal to the authors of antiquity, are contained in the same manuscript that preserves the orations of John of Ludzisko. It came into Peter’s hands after John’s death and he copied five of his own orations into it. It is quite probable that Peter was influenced by him and may even have been his student and, if there was a university orator, his successor.97 Finally, there should be mentioned one of the Wandervögel of the Renaissance scene, Jacobus Publicius, who came to Cracow about 1470. This Spanish humanist and professor of rhetoric, who has often been identified as a Florentine, visited the university cities of Louvain, Cologne, Cracow, Vienna, and Basle between 1464 and 1470. He died two years later in the Austrian capital. During his lifetime he wrote several rhetorical treatises which had a short published life later in the century.98 His stay in Cracow was short, but he may have lectured in some capacity at the university. He was undoubtedly the most sophisticated proponent of humanistic rhetoric which Cracow had yet seen. He can not have failed to present these ideals to all who were interested.99 By the early 1470s the character of intellectual life in Cracow had begun to reflect the traditions associated with humanism. It was not, therefore, surprising, that Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, who had earlier in the century held 97   P SB, 7, 294–295 (entry by Birkenmajer) and, in French, in Birkenmajer, “Piotr Gaszowiec,” in Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne, 527–529. Peter’s speeches have been analyzed by Nadolski, “Humanistyczne mowy lekarza Piotra Gaszowca,” Pamiętnik Literacki 28 (1931): 454–472. His place in the context of Cracovian humanism has also been treated by Domański, Początki humanizmu, 88–89, and in his Scholastyka i początki humanizmu, 113–116. 98  These include Ars Tulliano more epistolandi, Ars oratoria seu artis rhetoricae, Ars memorative, and Suprascriptiones epistolarum. These titles suggest the range of his interests: epistolography, rhetoric, and, particularly the art of memory. 99  For work on Jacobus, see Agostino Sottili, “Note biografiche sui petrarchisti Giocomo Publicio e Guiniforte Barzizza e sull’umanista valenziano Giovanni Serra,” in Fritz Schalk, ed., Petrarch 1304–1374. Beiträge zu Werk und Wirkung (Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1975), 270–273. Among recent work on Jacobus’ approach to memory see, among a number of his published and unpublished papers, Rafał Wójcik, “The Art of Memory at Cracow Academy at the Turn of the Sixteenth Century,” Humanities in New Europe 2 (2007): 145– 155, and “The Staging of Memory: Ars memorativa and the Spectacle of Imagination in Late Medieval Preaching in Poland,” in Lucie Doležalová, ed., The Making of Memory in the Middle Ages (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010 [Later Medieval Europe 4]), 79–94.

574

CHAPTER 10

a somewhat negative view of Poland—and of the Poles (although he had admired Zbigniew Oleśnicki)—was able to write in his chapter on Poland (de Polonia) in his great survey of European history and culture that “Cracow is the principle city of the kingdom, in which the study of the liberal arts flourishes.” Elsewhere, in a letter, he remarked that Cracow “was a city adorned with the study of letters.”100 These characteristics were to be strengthened in subsequent decades.

The Middle Period: 1472 to the Early 1490s

In the year that John of Dąbrówka (and Jacobus Publicius) died, there arrived in Cracow an individual whose presence on the Polish scene initiated the second stage in the history of humanism at the University. Filippo Buonaccorsi, called Callimachus Experiens, did much to deepen the humanistic movement, but he and his contemporaries, both inside and outside the studium, were able to build upon the tradition whose component parts have been sketched to this point, and he arrived in Cracow at an auspicious moment for the further development of humanism. Callimachus, as he is traditionally known in Polish scholarship, came to Cracow at the end of a long period of wandering. Born in San Gimignano and the product of the studia humaniora in Sienna and Venice, he had led an active scholarly and political life prior to 1468. Then, however, he had been implicated with a group of humanists in Rome (part of the Roman academy of Pomponius Laetus), who were accused of undermining the Christian faith and plotting against the person of Pope Paul II. He had fled to Naples, then to the east: from Crete to Cyprus and finally to the Ottoman Empire and Constantinople. Even there, however, he had not been beyond the reach of papal influence, so he turned north and eventually found refuge at the archiepiscopal court of Gregory of Sanok in Lwów. After a year and a half, he had left there and come to Cracow, where in the fall of 1472 he matriculated at the university.101

100  Oft quoted, these statements come from De Europa (1458) and from a letter to Martin Mayer; see Zarębski, “Stosunki Eneasza z Polską,” 359. For a larger treatment of this theme, see Rafał Ojszyński, Obraz Polski i Polaków w pismach Eneasza Sylwiusza Piccolominiego (Papież Pius II) (Warsaw: DiG, 2014). 101   Metryka, 1, 354: “Philippus Calimacus de Thedaldis poeta de Florencia;” he was the second to register that summer term. Callimachus’ biography up to this point, in particular the details of his route from Italy to Cracow, is traced by Segel, Renaissance Culture in Poland, 36–52.

Humanism

575

During the next two and one-half decades, Callimachus presided over a humanistic circle at the university and the royal court. His influence was felt in all areas of Polish intellectual and cultural life. His epigrams, letters, and rhetorical works represented the standards of antique Latinity as over against the scholastic tradition, and he produced both prose and poetry whose style and content influenced his contemporaries. In addition, his historical works, such as Historia de rege Wladislao (1485), brought to Poland the traditions of Italian humanistic historiography. In the area of biography, he produced important and still useful studies on the lives of Gregory of Sanok, Zbigniew Oleśnicki, and (perhaps) Długosz. In other areas, his vita active civilis was equally influential. He was a vigorous and successful diplomat for the Jagiellonian dynasty, carrying out embassies to Italy (in 1476/1477 and 1486), to Hungary (1485), to Emperor Frederick III (1483/1484), to Bohemia (1485), and to the Ottoman Empire (1487). His position as tutor to the royal princes, Casimir and John Albert, which he obtained soon after his arrival in Cracow, enabled him to influence and shape their interests along humanistic lines. Finally, his concern for issues of statecraft and the problems of society, which was derived in equal measure from his interest in the values of antiquity and from his practical political experience in Poland, found expression late in his life in a treatise on the affairs of state which is both secular and national in tone.102 Throughout his career, Callimachus maintained close contact with the university. Although he never obtained the chair he may have been seeking when he originally matriculated, and he never had a formal share in the functioning of the school, his ties were sufficiently close that the faculty marked his passing as if one of their own had died. Callimachus remembered the studium in his will with a handsome bequest. The years of his career in Poland coincide almost exactly with the second period of humanism at the university.103 102  It has long been disputed whether the Consilium Callimachi ad regem Albertum datum is a genuine work of Callimachus. Segel, Renaissance Culture in Poland, 66–72, discusses some of the issues connected with this work; see also the comments of Krzysztof Baczkowski, Dzieje Polski późnośredniowiecznej (1370–1506) (Cracow: Fogra, 1999 [Wielka Historia Polski 3]), 174 and 176, drawing upon his “Rady Kallimacha,” Dzieje narodu i państwa polskiego 1 (1989): 26–32 [?], which I have not seen. 103  Jadwiga Kotarska, “Poeta i historyk—Filip Kallimach,” in Stanisław Grzeszczuk, ed., Pisarze staropolscy sylwetki (Warsaw: Wiedza Powszechna, 1991), 174–207, and Baczkowski, “Kallimachs Stelle in der Kulturgeschichte Polens,” in Stephan Füssel and Jan Pirożyński, eds., Der polnische Humanismus und die europäischen Sodalitäten (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1997), 73–90, provide a good overview of the range of his contributions; see also Ulewicz, Iter Romano-Italicum Polonorum, 123–135. The entry by Garbacik in PSB, 11, 493–499 is still useful; it includes the quotation from a contemporary that “tutti i dottori della terra in ogni fachulta choi Rettore dello Studio” participated in his funeral.

576

CHAPTER 10

This period saw two parallel developments. One was the continued growth of humanistic and literary concerns among the individuals who composed the academic community; these students and faculty pursued these interests outside the formal structure of the university. The other development was the process by which these same tastes were incorporated into the instructional program of the school.104 An important measure of the former development was the increasing frequency with which the writings of antique authors, particularly those who had been little appreciated and read during earlier medieval centuries, and the works of Italian humanists were represented in the libraries of the professoriate and others associated closely with the university. The full details of this would require, at least, a separate chapter or a longer study. Here there may be noted only a few works which, for one reason or another, are of particular significance. For example, John Długosz purchased copies of Boccaccio’s De casibus virorum illustrium and De praeclaris mulieribus, both printed in Strasbourg about 1475, and gave them to the university in 1479.105 Other manuscripts cannot be attributed to the holdings of a specific professor, but derive nevertheless from this period. One, for example, contains a dialogue between Leonardo Bruni and Vergerio, the Latin translation of the eighth Philippic of Demosthenes, and works by Xenophon and Cicero. A second includes parts of Petrarch’s De remediis; while a third has a selection of such ancient writers as Xenophon, Seneca, and Cicero, and of such Renaissance authors as Bruni and Guarino.106 Thus in this period the corpus of literature by which humanist tastes were nourished was greatly augmented. A second measure of the degree of these interests is reflected by the informal lectures and cultural circles in which those in and around the university were involved. Just as Gregory of Sanok had earlier lectured privately on Vergil, so others in these years presented their praise of antique authors and the values of poetry in similar circumstances.107 The most important of these came in the years around 1490 and marked the culmination of the second period. 104  Rainer A. Müller, “Humanismus und Universität im östlichen Mitteleuropa,” in Eberhard and Strnad, eds., Humanismus und Renaissance in Ostmitteleuropa vor der Reformation, 245–272, here 257–268, provides a good overview of these developments. 105  Zarębski, “Problemy wczesnego odrodzenia,” 42–43. 106  Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 291; see also Contieri, “La fortuna del Petrarca in Polonia,” 157. 107  Bauch, Deutsche Scholaren in Krakau in der Zeit der Renaissance, 1460 bis 1520 (Wrocław [Breslau]: M. & H. Marcus, 1901), 14, discusses an oration by John Ber Ursinus (De laudibus eloquentiae) on Sallust’s Coniuratio Catilinae, which he sets in Cracow in the year 1486. Such a date, however, is impossible, for at this time Ursinus was still in Italy; see below.

Humanism

577

Within the university, the sustained attention given to antiquity in formal instruction may be traced in the Liber diligentiarum once its extant record is available. One may reasonably assume that this teaching represents the continuation of a tradition whose origin is hidden from us rather than something whose inception came only in that year. A few examples must suffice. In the winter semester of 1487 John Sacranus of Oświęcim lectured on Cicero, James of Gostynin on “Poetica,” Stanisław Biel taught Vergil’s Buccolics, and John Sommerfeld Aesticampianus presented the Volumen maius of Priscian. (This is the first concrete evidence we have that the Priscian taught after the reform of 1449 was not simply the Volumen minus or ars minor, i.e., only the seventeenth and eighteenth books of the Institutionum grammaticae, which was the more typical form used in many medieval universities.) In the summer semester of 1488 Stanisław Biel lectured on the Aeneid, John Thurzo on Ovid, James of Gostynin commented on Statius’ Achilleis and on Horace’s Odes, while Stanisław Selig of Cracow taught Vergil’s Georgics. In the winter semester Selig lectured on Juvenal, Biel on the Aeneid, George Schmed of Nysa taught Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, and Adam of Vilnius presented Horace. The frequency with which Vergil was taught was not atypical, for well into the sixteenth century, an average of slightly more than one course per semester was devoted to his writings.108 For a while, at least, the number of lectures on classical authors increased, For example, in 1492 there were nine given. James of Szadek presented three on Cicero in the two semesters, Adam of Łowicz taught Ovid, Erasmus of Cracow lectured on Ovid’s letters, Stanisław Selig treated Valerius Maximus and the Buccolics of Vergil, Paul of Zakliczew lectured on the Aeneid, and Martin of Głogów took the Georgics for his ­presentation.109 In addition to these masters there were others whose humanistic interests were reflected in their teaching and activity. Several will engage us below. It was they in particular who formed the core of the group which was involved in the high Whatever the year, this oration would have been an example of the type of extra-university presentation noted in the text. The question of Callimachus’ place in the philosophical context of late fifteenth century Poland is nicely treated by Domański, “Filip Buonaccorsi i kultura filozoficzna XV wieku w Polsce,” in Domański, Philosophica. Paraphilosophica. Metaphilosophica, 350–369 (originally published as “I Philippo Buonaccorsi e la cultura filosofica del’400 in Polonia,” in Callimaco Esperiente, poeta e politico del’400, Gian Carlo Garfagnini, ed. [Florence: Olschki, 1987], 25–43). 108  See the standard analysis of this by Kazimierz F. Kumaniecki, “De studiis Vergilianis in Universitate Jagellonica priore sec. XVI parte florentibus,” in Commentationes Vergilianae (Cracow: Sumptibus Academiae Polonae Litterarum et Scientiarum, 1930), 193–205. 109   Liber diligentiarum, sub annis 1487, 1488, 1492. The presentation in Garbacik, “Ognisko nauki i kultury renesansowej,” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 204, seems confused.

578

CHAPTER 10

point of this period of humanism at the university: the visit of Conrad Celtis to Cracow. Crowned poet laureate by Emperor Frederick III in Nuremberg in the spring of 1487 and having the title Doctor of Philosophy conferred upon him, Celtis had soon thereafter begun a decade of restless wandering which took him to many places, none of them for very long. A writer of both good verse and striking prose and an ardent defender of humanist concerns whose Ars versificandi et carminum had established his fame, Celtis studied first grammar and rhetoric in several Italian centers, then spent some time with Pomponius Laetus in Rome. There he developed an interest in mathematics and natural science, particularly astronomy and astrology. It may have been in Rome, through Pomponius’ knowledge of Callimachus’ experiences in Poland, that he learned of the reputation of Cracow in this field.110 He left suddenly, and by Easter 1489 had arrived at the university. There, despite his previous MA from Heidelberg, he matriculated as an arts student.111 Although he was to make an important contribution in humanist circles, it was ironically as a student of mathematics and the stars that he came to the studium.112 Celtis spent two years in Cracow, broken only by trips outside the city. He went to Gdańsk (Danzig) and to the Tartarus-like depths of the salt-mines in Wieliczka; he hunted the wild żubr (the European bison) on the plains of eastern Poland, and he explored the beauties of the Carpathian mountains. It was during this time that he had a vision of his life’s work. On one of the prehistoric mounds outside Cracow, while he stood entranced with the panorama of the walls and towers beneath him, he recalled that Phoebus appeared and commanded him to “rise and let his members seize their ancient vigor so that he might sing of the four corners of his fatherland.”113 Within the university he apparently tried to obtain a faculty appointment, but was not granted the 110  This is suggested by Lewis W. Spitz, Conrad Celtis, The German Arch-Humanist (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957), 15. 111   Metryka, 1, 476: “Conradus Celtis Protacius Johannis de Herbipoli;” he was the thirtyeighth to register in the summer term. 112  The brief Vita, which Celtis prefixed to an edition of the Odes, includes the statement: “Ibique astrorum studio vacauit. . . .” Conradus Celtis Protucius, Libri Odarum Quattuor, Felix Pindter, ed. (Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1937), 2. Barycz, Historja, 259, asserts that he came to study mathematics, and he is followed by most Polish scholars; see, for example, Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 147 and 149. 113  See this statement in Conradus Celtis Protucius Quattuor Libri Amorum secundum quattuor latera Germaniae, Pindter, ed. (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1934), Book I, 3, lines 61f., cited from Spitz, The Religious Renaissance of the German Humanists, 84. Celtis used four of his love relationships (with Hasilina in Cracow, Elsula in Regensburg, Ursula from the

Humanism

579

right to teach, except as an extraneus non de facultate. It was in this capacity that in the summer semester 1490 he lectured on the traditional scholastic subject Parvus philosophiae.114 While it has been suggested that he may have been required to do this as some kind of concession to the elder masters,115 this would not necessarily have been the case. The topic accords well enough with his interests in natural science and is not intrinsically opposed to his literary and humanistic tastes. It was in other ways that he was able to further these latter concerns. On at least one occasion he was able to lecture on poetry.116 On another, in 1489, he announced that on 23 July in aula Hungarorum (i.e., the Hungarian students’ hostel), he would lecture on ars epistolandi. From the text of this announcement, it is clear that he intended a presentation which was humanistic in character.117 On the basis of other epigrams which Celtis wrote, it is possible to conclude that he apparently gave other such lectures while in Cracow. It should be emphasized, however, that this activity stood, by and large, in the tradition of informal and extra-mural teaching which has been noted above. In this role, Celtis became the focus for the aforementioned group of like-minded individuals at the university. With them he had close, cordial relations. To many he eventually dedicated individual poems that he included in his collection of Odes. One went to Callimachus, another to John Sommerfeld; Stanisław Selig was honored by one, as was John Ursinus.118 In addition, Celtis was greatly influential upon Laurence Rabe Corvinus and John Rhagius Aesticampianus,119 so that his impact upon the humanistic tradition at Cracow continued long

Rhineland, and Barbara, whose symbolic geographical identify is obscure) to symbolize and celebrate the four parts of Germany. 114   Liber diligentiarum, 13. In that same semester, Stanisław Selig lectured on Terence, Laurence Rabe taught the Bucolics, and Sigismund Grossinger commented on the Georgics. 115  See the comments by Morawski, Historya, 2, 180. Morawski is also incorrect (2, 175 and 179) in his implication that Celtis had no university degree. 116  This is inferred by Morawski, Historya, 2, 188 from one of his epigrams; see Fünf Bücher Epigramme Konrad Celtis, Karl Hartfelder, ed. (Berlin: S. Calvary & Co., 1881, reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1963), 21: “Ad gymnasium Cracoviense, dum orare vellet,” (Epigram 1, 90), which includes the lines: “Cum dicturus ero Cracovina forte palaestra, / Cuius fama omni docta sub orbe volat. . . .” 117  This announcement was discovered in one of Celtis’ poems by Fijałek, Studya, 24; see also Morawski, Historya, 2, 188. 118  See the following Odes: 1, 7; 1, 17; 1, 23; 1, 8. 119  Bauch, Deutsche Scholaren in Krakau, 39.

580

CHAPTER 10

after he left. We shall look below at some of the accomplishments of this group, but two additional points need to be made here. In later years, Celtis referred affectionately to these friends and common spirits as the Sodalitas litteraria Vistulana,120 and he eventually organized more or less cohesive sodalitates in several parts of Germany and central Europe.121 The Cracovian sodality included individuals from the university, such as Adalbert of Brudzewo (whose expertise in astronomy was part of what had originally attracted Celtis to Cracow) and the faculty members mentioned above, persons associated with both the studium and the courts such as Callimachus, and a number of the city’s elite such as the town councilor George Morsztyn and the notarius John Heydecke, known by his Latinized name Mirica. These individuals were encouraged and spurred in their humanistic concerns by Celtis’ leadership; and even if the formal functioning of the Sodality of the Vistula did not long endure after Celtis left Cracow in 1491, its importance should not be underestimated.122 There is another aspect to Celtis’ stay in Cracow which should be mentioned, for it was an important stimulus to his literary creations. This was his love affair with Hasilina, the young wife of a nobleman living in Cracow, which formed the central focus of Book One of his collection of love poems, the Amores. With Hasilina he spoke both the few stumbling word of Polish he had learned123 and a more intimate language. When she eventually spurned his love, he promised in revenge that Phoebus would spread her name throughout the earth. He was successful in this, and Hasilina later wrote him of her embarrassment when the record of his passion for her had been read aloud 120  Epigram, 1, 1: “Ad quatuor sodalitates litterarias Germaniae, ut sub tutela illarum libri sui evolent.” 121  This development has now been effectively studied by Franz Machilek, “Konrad Celtis und die Gelehrtensodalitäten, insbesondere in Ostmitteleuropa,” in Eberhard and Strnad, eds., Humanismus und Renaissance in Ostmitteleuropa vor der Reformation, 137–155. See also Segel, Renaissance Culture in Poland, 83–106, especially 91–97; Segel has also suggested (194) that the sodality established by Celtis may have been an inspiration for a more earthy and less intellectual group known as the “Bibones et Commedones,” of which Andrew Cricius (see below) was a member and whose title he translates rather colloquially as “Guzzlers and Gobblers”. 122  A flavor of some of the discussions in the Sodality of the Vistula with Callimachus can be gained from Andrzej Kempfi, “Z dyskusji filozoficznich w kręgu Sodalitatis Litterariae Vistulanae,” Materiały 4 (15) (1971): 151–182, which includes an edition, with Polish translation, of Callimachus’ Praefatio in Somniarium Leonis Tusci (156–179). 123  That he learned some Polish is shown in his poem (Amores, 1,4) to Bernard Wilczek, later Archbishop of Lwów: “Tunc ego condidici te praeceptore puellae/Sarmaticae linguae barbara verba loqui,” quoted by Segel, Renaissance Culture in Poland, 103; on the affair with Hassilina, see Segel’s treatment 97–103.

Humanism

581

when she was present. Celtis’ eroticism is one example of an important literary strain which runs through Renaissance humanism.124 There is, however, little evidence of this dimension in the interests of university humanists at Cracow. Celtis’ departure from Cracow in 1491 marked the end of the second period of humanism at the university. In the third period, the school was dominated by those who had been influenced by him. Let us examine the careers of some of the most important of these.

The Third Period: Into the Sixteenth Century

James of Boksyce was one of the older members, and one of the most peripherally involved, of the informal grouping of like-minded academics who found the intellectual tastes and values of humanistic attitudes appealing. Born about 1440, he matriculated at Cracow in 1456 and incepted as a master in arts in 1462. He thereafter taught in arts and twice served as dean of that faculty. At the same time, he was also studying theology and medicine, and after having exhausted the offerings of the university in that latter faculty, he was allowed in 1474 to travel to Italy on condition he obtain the doctorate in medicinis.125 Eventually the university required him to return and fulfill his teaching obligations. That he had developed literary and humanistic interests, perhaps through contact with Callimachus and certainly as a result of his Italian venture, is reflected in a story told by Callimachus. The two, along with others, accepted the hospitality of a Cracow citizen, the aforementioned John Mirica, and would sit in his garden to read the Venetian history of Sabellicus and discuss the histories and affairs of the western nations.126 James was also a

124  For this character of Celtis’ poetry, see Spitz, The Religious Renaissance of the German Humanists, 83, and his Conrad Celtis, 87–88. 125  “. . . quod magister Iacobus Boxicza . . . habeat licenciam visitandi curiam Romanem et terram sanctam Ierusalem per spacium, quo revenire posset, et interim in reventu suo Italie recipient insignia doctoralia in medicinis.” Conclusiones, 37–38. In fact, he did not visit the Holy Land at this point, going there only later. While in Italy James apparently also earned a doctorate in both decretals and theology. See Markowski, Dzieje wydziału teologii Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w latach 1397–1525 (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej w Krakowie, 1996 [Studia do Dziejów Wydziału Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 2]), 186–188. 126  “Apud Ioannem Miricam in horto una cum Nicolao Mergo Nissensi ac Boscziza Iacobo, quorum utrius doctrina et eloquentia insignior sit an admirabilior, non facile quis dixerit, mirati sumus inter legendum res gestas Venetorum de Persis propemodum dissimulanter, de Tartaris uero nullam esse omino in historiis Sabellici expressam mentionem.” Philippi

582

CHAPTER 10

participant in the activities connected with Celtis’ visit. He died relatively soon thereafter, about 1497.127 John Sacranus of Oświęcim was a slightly younger contemporary of James, although he outlived him by three decades, dying in 1527. (His contributions in the university in respects other than those discussed here were treated briefly in Chapter Six.) John matriculated at Cracow in 1459 and was promoted to master in arts a decade later. Then, perhaps influenced by the visit to Cracow of Jacobus Publicius,128 he decided to study in Italy. In Rome he was in contact with Francesco Filelfo and perhaps with John Argyropoulos. After five years, he returned to Cracow in 1475, where until 1492 he lectured in the arts faculty, being two times elected its dean. Unlike many Cracovian academics who went to Italy, he apparently did not earn an advanced degree there, and it was only in Poland that he did so, eventually gaining at least the license in theology. By 1493, in which year he held the position of rector for the first of six times,129 he was teaching as a professor of theology. He came to be regarded as one of the leading figures in the circle of those who reflected humanistic interests at Cracow.130 Three things in particular reflect this. One is the character of his teaching in arts, where even as one of the royal masters in the Collegium maius, he consistently (though not exclusively) lectured on rhetorical and literary works from antiquity, especially Cicero, and on such academic rarities as the hymns of Prudentius. One of his students later commented that there was no one Callimachi De his quae a Venetis tentata sunt Persis ac Tartaris contra Turcos movendis, Andrzej Kempfi, ed. (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1962), 22. 127  For his biography, in addition to the details provided by Markowski (note 125 above), see Morawski, Historya, 2, 112–114; and, more systematically, PSB, 2, 244–245. (entry by Birkenmajer, with the assistance of Leon Wachholz), and “Jakub Boksica,”, in Birkenmajer, Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne, 530–532. 128  Suggested by Barycz in his entry on John in PSB, 10, 467, but not mentioned in his Historja. 129  It is traditional in Polish scholarship to attribute to John only five terms as rector; see PSB, 10, 467, and , most recently, Wiesław Franciszek Murawiec, “Jan z Oświęcimia zwany Sakranem (1443–1527), in Złota księga papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, Piech, ed., 201– 206, here 203. From the recently reedited texts of the university’s matriculum, however, it is clear that he was rector in the following semesters: winter 1493, spring 1493, winter 1494 (Metryka, 1, LVI), winter 1512, spring 1513, and spring 1521 (Metryka czyli album Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego z lat 1509–1551, Antoni Gąsiorowski, Tomasz Jurek, Izabela Skierska, eds., with the assistance of Ryszard Grzesik [Warsaw: Neriton, 2010], LII). 130  The brief treatment of his biography by Murawiec, “Jan z Oświęcimia,” in Złota księga papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, Piech, ed., 201–206, focuses primarily upon his activities as a theologian, with little attention to other dimensions of his university career.

Humanism

583

else at the university who so successfully developed in those who studied with him a knowledge and appreciation of Cicero and other famous orators.131 A second humanistic orientation to John’s interests and outlook can be seen in his role as orator. On several occasions he represented the university as official speaker. One of these was the welcome extended by the studium to King John Albert when he came to Cracow for his coronation in 1492. A year later John was chosen to congratulate Fryderyk Jagiellonian, already simultaneously both Bishop of Cracow and Archbishop of Gniezno, upon the occasion of his elevation to the cardinalate and consecration in Cracow. These speeches were models of Ciceronian oratory, and Stanisław of Łowicz, a sixteenth century humanist who was a student and protégé of John, later wrote that he was the “standard bearer and leader of the muses, superior in verse, perfect in prose.” Andrew Cricius (Krzycki), one of the two best neo-Latin humanist poets in Poland in the sixteenth century (after Clemens Ianicius [Janicki]) and himself eventually Archbishop of Gniezno, praised the speeches John pronounced as characterized by “sweet eloquence.”132 The third aspect was John’s interest in epistolography, which was discussed above in Chapter Six. While the art of dictamen in the middle ages had always utilized letter collections as models to depend upon, the humanists’ concern for letter writing was a somewhat different matter. John’s modest Modus epistolandi was printed first in 1505 and reprinted three times thereafter.133 Of John’s later role in the humanistic tradition at Cracow, we shall say more below. John Sommerfeld, from the town of the same name in Lower Lusatia, Latinized his name to Aesticampianus before his death in 1501 in accordance with the humanistic mode of the day. The broad outlines of his career, especially with regard to the arts faculty, were treated above in Chapter Six. Although his arts lectures were generally on Aristotelian books, there were aspects of his interests which reveal humanistic tastes. His very large library contained a broad sampling of classical and Renaissance writers, and one of his own writings was a commentary upon the rhetoric and orations of Libanius in the Latin translation prepared earlier by Francesco Zambeccari.134 Some of his teaching was also in this same vein. In 1492 he lectured on Cicero’s Laelius and Augustine Date of Sienna’s De conficiendis epistolis; in 1493, 1499, and 1501 on the letters of the Venetian humanist Franciscus Niger (whom he used as 131  See Barycz, Historja, 177–179. 132  Sacranus’ speeches are printed and discussed by Fijałek, Studya, 42–52. See also the treatment by Barycz, Historja, 177, quoting from one of Cricius’ Carmina. 133  See above, Chapter Six, note 74. 134  Morawski, Historya, 2, 206.

584

CHAPTER 10

a basis for his own Modus epistolandi, as noted above in Chapter Six); and in 1493 on the pseudo-Senecan Epistolae ad Lucilium. The humanist interests of Sommerfeld made him an obvious participant in the circle around Celtis, who honored him with a flattering mention in his Amores and devoted one of his epigrams to praise of him.135 Sommerfeld later defended Celtis against some of the complaints raised by Callimachus and corresponded with him at least two times after his stay in Cracow. Posterity praised Sommerfeld as an educator and protector of youth136 and Heinrich Bebel, the humanist reformer at Tübingen, who had studied at Cracow in Sommerfeld’s time, was extravagant in his praise of this important representative of humanistic interests within the studium.137 Another John Sommerfeld Aesticampianus, known commonly as Rhagius to distinguish him, was also part of Celtis’ circle. This “bird-of-passage” is best remembered as the teacher of Ulrich von Hutten and the source of that militant critic’s concern with history and with patristics. Born in 1457, he came to Cracow sometime prior to 1491, before Celtis’ arrival, and apparently the Arch-humanist was instrumental in converting him to love of the muses. In the aftermath of Celtis’ visit, he matriculated at the university in 1491, though he did not earn a degree. He left the city prior to 1499 and spent time wandering in Italy, Switzerland, and Germany prior to his death in Wittenberg in 1520, following three years of study with Luther and Melanchthon. While he was at Cracow, however, Rhagius became an ardent and zealous defender of the humanistic movement.138 In this enthusiasm, he is typical of some of the remaining individuals who constitute part of the group under discussion in this context. Stanisław Biel of Nowe Miasto in Ruthenia, who was born about 1457 and was known among the humanists as Albinus, was promoted to bachelor in arts at Cracow in 1481 and incepted as a master in 1485. His earliest teaching was 135   Amores, Elegy 6; Epigram, 2, 3: “Ad Ianum Terinum,” in Fünf Bücher Epigramme, Hartfelder, ed., 23. 136  By Leonard Coxe in his 1518 oration De laudibus celeberrimae Cracoviensis academiae; see Morawski, Historya, 2, 204. 137  “Vir in omni genere disciplinarum clarissimus, orator et poeta pariterque et philosophus et astronomus nostra tempestate omnium si non primus, tamen nulli secundus.” Quoted from the Cosmographia of Laurence Rabe Corvinus by Bauch, Deutsche Scholaren in Krakau, 27. 138  On Rhagius Aesticampianus, see the biographical treatment by Bauch, “Johannes Rhagius Aesticampianus in Krakau, seine erste Reise nach Italien und sein Aufenthalt in Mainz,” Archiv für Literatur-Geschichte 12 (1884): 321–370, and, more briefly, in his Deutsche Scholaren in Krakau, 41–43.

Humanism

585

done from the Mężykowa chair in the Collegium minus, and he taught chiefly the writings of Vergil and Ovid, noting himself as magister in poesi.139 After 1491 he was a member of the Collegium maius. He had become, in part as a result of Celtis’ visit, a fervent devotee of humanistic interests. He was dean of the arts faculty in 1492/1493 while he studied theology. In later 1499 or early 1500 he was promoted to bachelor, then left for travel and further study in Germany and Italy.140 He had returned to Cracow by 1503, when he was promoted to doctor of theology. His career after that lay largely in that faculty and in university affairs, for prior to his death in 1541 he was ten times rector. Nevertheless, his early humanistic tastes remained with him. His orations welcoming King Sigismund I back to Cracow after a military expedition in 1509 and celebrating the arrival of Queen Bona Sforza in the capital in 1518 were models of humanistic rhetoric.141 As with other members of this group under discussion, Stanisław wrote a treatise on epistolography, Exordia epistolarum (1512), which stands firmly in the Renaissance tradition of this genre.142 John Ber Ursinus, some of whose work was discussed above in Chapter Six, was a slightly younger contemporary of Stanisław’s, having been born about 1460, but he died prematurely shortly after 1500. This untimely demise cut short a humanistic career which surpassed all but a very few within the studium. Ursinus matriculated in arts in 1473 and incepted as a master five years later. Thereafter he began the study of law. Between 1478 and 1488 he was in Italy, perhaps returning briefly to Poland at some point in this period. In Italy, he studied both law and medicine. He became particularly interested in civil law, and he was one of the first at Cracow to advocate its inclusion in the curriculum. His oration of 7 February 1495 honoring the election of John Sacranus as rector was devoted to praise of Roman law, in which he had gained the license in Italy.143 He had also studied medicine at Padua, where on 12 March 1487 he had earned the doctor’s degree. But these were not his only interests south of the Alps. The muses proved as seductive to him as they had been to countless other students from northern Europe who went to Italy for law or medicine. 139   Acta Rectoralia, no. 1381. 140  Barycz, Polacy na studiach w Rzymie, 72. 141  But as Barycz, Historja, 180, note 5, has noted, this second speech was sharply criticized by a contemporary humanist because of its style: “Nec apprime tamen miror cum magis artistas, quos vocant, quam Latinos auctores lectitet.” 142  This work is mentioned only in passing by Lidia Winniczuk, Epistolografia. Łacińskie podręczniki epistolograficzne w Polsce w XV–XVI wieku (Warsaw: Ministerstwo Szkolnictwa Wyższego, 1952), 54. For his biography, see PSB, 2, 32. 143  Barycz, Historja, 209.

586

CHAPTER 10

In Rome he studied with Pomponius Laetus and John Argyropoulos, from whom he perhaps learned some Greek. When he retuned to Cracow after 1488, although he taught formally in the medical faculty, his enthusiasm for the humanist movement was revealed in his speeches and writings. On one occasion, he lectured on the Coniuratio Catilinae of Sallust,144 on another, he eloquently welcomed the king to the university when John Albert came to visit the Collegium maius in the aftermath of a disastrous fire in 1492.145 His other orations were devoted to praise of other humanists at Cracow. Ursinus was an active participant in the group around Celtis, who honored him in the aforementioned Ode. His most important work was his Modus epistolandi, discussed above in Chapter Six. As a layman, Ursinus was able to marry, and he was survived by a wife and two sons after his death about 1503.146 Laurence Rabe Corvinus (ca. 1462–1527) was one of the most widely known members of Celtis’ circle, in part because he was the teacher of the aforementioned Heinrich Bebel, in part because he was a friend of Copernicus, and in part because he was an important leader of the Reformation in Wrocław.147 His career at Cracow was relatively short. One of the numerous Silesians at the university in this period, he matriculated at Cracow in 1484 (BA in 1486 and MA in 1489). He was early imbued with an enthusiasm for antique literature, and was closely associated with Celtis, with whom he corresponded and whom he regarded as the one who had awakened his humanistic interests. From 1489 to 1494 he lectured as an extraneus non de facultate on a variety of logical, philosophical, and literary topics, in particular Vergil’s Bucolics. The most important literary fruits of the interests he developed in Cracow were first a comprehensive world geography, Cosmographia dans manuductionem in tabulas Ptolomei,

144  This topic was prefaced by a lecture praising eloquence in which John had the following to say about Cracow: “Non possum igitur vos, gymnasii Cracoviensis gubernatore, maiorem in modum non laudare, quod facile et aequo animo humanitatis studia legere permittitis. Nullam enim aliam ob rem vestrum gymnasium toto terrarium orbe quam maximis effertur laudibus, quam quod tot praeclarissimis astrologiae, poetica oratoriaeque professoribus sit refertum.” See Bauch, Deutsche Scholaren in Krakau, 15. 145  For the fire, see above, Chapter Two, note 82. 146  On Ursinus, see Morawski, Historya, 2, 222. 147   The older biographical treatment by Bauch, “Laurentius Corvinus, der Breslauer Stadtschreiber und Humanist. Sein Leben und seine Schriften,” Zeitschrift des Vereins für Geschichte und Altherthum Schlesiens 17 (1883): 230–302, should now be supplemented by the material in PSB, 4, 96–98, and Segel, Renaissance Culture in Poland, 107–109 and 127–130, where he emphasizes the Copernican connection.

Humanism

587

which Bebel saw through the press for him in Basle prior to 1496;148 and second a handbook on Latin versification, Carminum structura, which was published in Cracow in 1496 and dedicated to the students of the university. Then he left the university to become the rector of a parish school, first in Świdnica, then in Wrocław, where he organized performances of the Eunuchus of Terence and the Aulularia of Plautus (the same plays Celtis later chose to present in Vienna). Subsequently, after a period in Toruń, he became the municipal secretary (notarius, Stadtschreiber) for Wrocław and played an important role in the cultural and religious life of the city. Despite his absence from the Polish capital (though he returned at least once, as a member of a delegation attending the marriage in 1518 of Bona Sforza and Sigismund I, during which time he participated in a poetry tournament),149 he always thought fondly of Cracow and its influences upon him.150 But, for all of that, as Harold Segel has concluded, “Corvinus . . . was not in Cracow long enough after the passing of Celtis and Callimachus to have more than a marginal role in the effort to continue the Literary Society of the Vistula and maintain the momentum of literary humanism in Cracow.”151 By extension it may be said that the individuals discussed in this section were those who, nurtured in the native tradition of the earlier part of the century and given inspiration by Celtis and support by Callimachus, brought humanistic interests within the university to their highest level in this third period. The chief thrust of their activity came in the decade of the 1490s. After that the force of the movement seems to have been somewhat dissipated. Some scholars152 have seen in the third period a conscious reaction by the traditionalists and scholastics within the university against what is termed the “radical 148  As Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 150, notes, with appropriate bibliography, “At this time, geography [at Cracow] was another discipline which reached quite a high level;” he goes on to discuss other specific contributions, including the Tractatus de duabus Sarmatiis of Matthew of Miechów (a comprehensive geography of the territory between the Vistula and the Don River and Caspian Sea) and the well-known and innovative map-making of Bernard Wapowski. 149  On this point, see Glomski, Patronage and Humanist Literature in the Age of the Jagiellons, 281, n. 4. 150  The Cosmographia contains the following lines about the university: “Alma meum rude . . . pectus mater alebas . . ., hic sibi pulchrum Jove nata sedem/Pallas elegit;” and “Educat pulchras Venus hic puellas/In Jovis summi thalamus ituras/Poma quae solae teneant Atlantis/Aurea dignae.” Quoted from Morawski, Historya, 2, 171. 151  Segel, Humanist Culture in Poland, 109. 152  Morawski, Historya, 2, 192, and, after him, many other scholars, particularly Garbacik, “Ognisko nauki i kultury renesansowej,” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 207.

588

CHAPTER 10

humanism” of some of the individuals described above. They cite several disciplinary measures in the 1490s as evidence of this conservative resurgence within the studium. For example, the resumptiones communes were regulated and restricted.153 Students were required to live in university approved housing, particularly the bursae, rather than choosing the more relaxed arrangements which had apparently prevailed hitherto.154 There were several instances of student misconduct that involved disrespect for the faculty and which required review by the rectoral court. These, it is suggested, were due somehow to the corrosive influences of humanism upon manners and morals.155 Finally, several lesser humanists on the faculty found themselves brought before the episcopal court and disciplined for a series of unidentified excesses, quarrels, and injurious disputes.156 This evidence is largely circumstantial and the arguments are inferential. The tightening up of discipline is a frequent occurrence in any institution and often takes place without regard to any substantive or systemic issue. Nowhere in the examples cited is there a direct attack upon the literary and classical tastes of the faculty and students. Neither did humanistic interests cease during this third period. The recession which is noted below is as much due to the fluctuation of personnel and the natural ebb and flow of a movement as it is to direct, conscious action by those who were not humanists. Nevertheless, it is true that the humanists were less active in the last years of the fifteenth century and the opening years of the new century. For example, the number of lectures in the arts faculty on literary topics declined to fewer than half-a-dozen in some years. Only later in the sixteenth century did it reach the level of the time of Celtis. In addition, many of those associated with the Arch-humanist’s circle left the university or died in the late 1490s and the dawn of the new century. It is not surprising, therefore, that John Sommerfeld should write Celtis

153   Conclusiones, 63: “In eadem conclusum est, quod resumpciones communes non fiant per quoscumque magistros sub lectionibus et exerciciis ac actibus ordinariis.” (AD 1491) 154   Conclusiones, 63: “In super conclusum est, quod hospiciati studentes baccalarii cogantur ad intrandum moramque habendum in domibus Universitatis vel scolis particularibus.” See also Statuta . . . Lib. Prom., XLII–XLIV: “Statutum quod baccalarii et studentes peramplius in bursis stare tenentur.” On this point, see Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, 173–210 (where students lived), particularly 208–209 (discussion of the 1491 decision requiring living in university approved housing). 155  See Acta Rectoralia, nos. 1388, 1457, 1459. 156  See the sources cited in Morawski, Historya, 2, 196, and the discussion of these events above, Chapter Four.

Humanism

589

in 1499 and remark that the University of Cracow (“our school”) was no longer flourishing the way it had before.157 To counter this somewhat bleak picture, it should be remembered that many other humanists continued to be active in Cracow. They were typified by John Sacranus. He clearly prized fine Latinity and was familiar with the oratorical tradition of the Renaissance. If his administrative activity drew him more directly into questions of the reform of the theology faculty,158 he nevertheless continued to be an important intellectual influence in the academic community, as the repeated editions of his Modus epistolandi suggests.159 He and a few others in this third period were the bridge to the more fully developed humanism of the next decades. Within the university, if there was not the spectacular activity of the time of Celtis, as Henry Barycz wrote eight decades ago,160 humanistic progress was gradual and proceeded step by step. Eventually new grammatical and rhetorical textbooks and manuals were introduced as the basis for lectures, new subjects were formally inserted into the required curriculum, Greek became a part of university instruction, and in the early sixteenth century the studia humaniora became prized by individuals, particularly (for a short while) those among the szlachta (the Polish nobility), as an educational 157  “Vereor, non in tanto stat flore gymnasium ut olim tu ipse aderas.” For this letter, and its implications, see the discussion of Morawski, Historya, 2, 201–202. 158  On this compare the treatments of Barycz, Historja, 177–179 and Murawiec, “Jan z Oświęcimia zwany Sakranem,” in Piech, ed., Złota księga papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 204–206; much of this discussion took place against the backdrop of controversy over the question of rebaptism for Orthodox Ruthenians and involved the Cardinal Archbishop of Gniezno, Fryderyk Jagiellonian, who was also Bishop of Cracow and therefore the chancellor of the university. See the discussion by Natalia Nowakowska, Church, State and Dynasty in Renaissance Poland. The Career of Cardinal Fryderyk Jagiellon (1468– 1503) (Aldershot, England and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007), 134–137; her treatments of Frederick’s relations with the university touching matters related to humanism is at 90–93. 159  Morawski, Historya, 2, 224, regards this work as standing in the tradition of medieval speculative grammars, particularly in a Scotist mold. Morawski was himself a classicist, not a historian, and served for years as the official orator of the Jagiellonian University. His Ciceronian rhetoric and eloquent speeches marked him as an outstanding representative of the ideals of classical paideia. This virtue, however, sometimes caused him to read “humanism” into everything from the fifteenth century university which reflected the slightest literary and classical interests and to suspect the worst obscurantism of those who betrayed a “medieval” outlook. For a sensitive appreciation of him and his work, see Tadeusz Sinko, “Kazimierz Morawski (1852–1925),” Przegląd Współczesny 4, no. 14 (1925): 465–468. 160  Barycz, Historja, 16.

590

CHAPTER 10

adornment which would enable them to play their proper role in society. They, too, came to regard Jagiełło’s “pearl of powerful learning” as a gem worth seeking. This future is clearly foreshadowed in the interests and activities of the fifteenth century university community, but the culmination did not come in that time. Conclusions This is the appropriate place to draw together some brief general observations about the problem of humanism and the university, recapitulating and making explicit some of the points touched upon in previous pages. First, there should be emphasized the fundamental distinction between the extent to which, on the one hand, the interests of the faculty members (and, to a lesser degree, the students) may be said to be humanistic in character and, on the other hand, the extent to which humanism made an impact upon the institutional structure and intellectual content of the curriculum of the university. It is generally clear that the former was greater than the latter in the fifteenth century. But this statement needs to be further refined. Many individuals, particularly earlier in the century, may be said to have been familiar with, and to varying degrees interested in, Renaissance humanism. This does not, of course, make them humanists. By the end of the century, there are many individuals who would indeed fit in this category, but their humanism is not reflected in all areas of their activity. They had professional obligations and responsibilities which precluded them from pursuing or elaborating their interests. When one comments on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, lectures on the Decretum of Gratian, or teaches the Aphorisms of Hippocrates, little that is humanistic will be evident. This is true in part because the university was not only a center of education; it was also a professional school. At this point in the development of Polish society, the skills and literary tastes which characterized the humanist were not necessarily appropriate to the professions. It was not until much later in Poland, just as in other parts of Europe (first in Italy—as Paul Grendler has so successfully shown—then eventually in the north) that the cultural tradition became so suffused with the values of a “classical education” (which is what one dimension of humanism was to become) that all areas of learning and schooling were affected. The incorporation of humanistic interests into the institutional structure and the intellectual content of the university’s life came in at least two ways: in unofficial lectures and public orations and in specific courses taught in the arts curriculum. With some notable exceptions, such as the activity of Gregory

Humanism

591

of Sanok and John of Ludzisko, these phenomena were relatively late. At the end of the fifteenth century, the formal institutional impact of humanism was only beginning. Its fruits were to be garnered in the following century. This chapter has, in many respects, discounted the enthusiastic evaluations of the early incidence and importance of humanism posited by one important Polish historiographical tradition. Others have done so also. For example, in his study of the beginnings of humanism, Julius Domański has expressed a view that “humanist ideas were most frequently expressed in personal correspondence between Italian humanists and the masters of the University of Krakow [sic.] or Polish diplomats; outside this channel, humanism had narrow influence, and Polish scholars limited themselves [to] collecting humanists’ works and imitating their literary style.”161 Jacqueline Glomski has also expressed caution about the impact of humanism in the university, noting that “humanism was penetrating university life only very gradually,” and as a result, “the poetae were not welcomed into the university fellowship with permanent lectureships, but were kept at a distance with the status extraneus non de facultate.”162 She further associated the weakness of the humanist impact in the university with the question of patronage, which was to be found to be more central in the context of the court and certain strands of the nobility and social elite. Thus the university was at a disadvantage in trying to attract and support humanists, even should it have wanted to do so.163 Nevertheless, when all of this caution has been expressed, it is still true that Cracow came to be a center of humanistic interests and activity as early as (and in some important cases earlier than) any other European university. Even the nineteenth century historian of humanism at the German universities, Georg Bauch, saw and commented upon Cracow’s openness to new developments.164 Much more recently Rainer A. Müller has concluded that by the end of the fifteenth century the 161  Domański, Początki humanizmu, 250, and in his Scholastyka i początki humanizmu, 322; I have used the text in the English summary for this later edition (324), which quotes the passages from the Polish original. 162  Glomski, Patronage and Humanist Literature in the Age of the Jagiellons, 26 and 27. 163   Ibid., 26–33. 164  Bauch, Deutsche Scholaren in Krakau, 6: “sie [the University of Cracow] kam, ohne den scholastischen Traditionen der mittelalterlichen Universitäten untreu zu werden, den wissenschaftlichen Neigungen der Zeit wie keine andere entgegen und pflegte sie mit Bewusstsein und Ausdauer und entging so der Einseitigkeit, die ihre deutschen Schwestern, die zäher am Alten festhingen und sich nur schwer und langsam entscholssen, dem Zeitgeit Concessionen zu machen, ihr gegenüber als zurückbleibend, wohl gar als Hochburgen des Rückschrittes erscheinen liess; sie war eine wirkliche Universitat studiorum im Zeitsinne.”

592

CHAPTER 10

philological studia humanitatis which is so characteristic of one important dimension of Renaissance humanism was fully present at the university. More than this he suggests that what he terms the “humanistic natural sciences” was also a characteristic of the studium and that this is not without significance for understanding the milieu in which Copernicus studied.165 This is one of the elements which makes the spectrum of the university’s intellectual development in the century so interesting. A second point is that when one evaluates the thrust of humanism at Cracow, it is apparent that the range of interests was relatively narrow. One of the central concerns of Italian humanism was a new kind of historical writing. With the historical interests of Długosz and, to a much lesser extent, John of Dąbrówka, there is little of this, except for matters of style. In other respects it was antique literature, classical Latinity, rhetoric, and epistolography which were the main emphases. Technical philological matters, critical editorial accomplishments, and the issues of a new, civic and lay moral philosophy were all concerns which were little in evidence in the fifteenth century at the university and which only became a characteristic of the academic scene to a limited degree thereafter. A third point is related to the question of who the chief representatives of humanistic interests within the university community were. For the most part they were clerics, and there developed at Cracow little of the lay character that was a feature of the Italian cultural scene. Also, in contrast to other European studia, there were very few in the law faculty who had highly developed humanistic interests. Probably this was due to the weakness of civil law at Cracow, for elsewhere the relationship between jurisprudence and humanism has been shown to be very close.166 By way of contrast, the medical faculty at Cracow stands out as a home for humanistic interests. From the time of 165  Müller, “Humanismus und Universität,” 267. For the question of Copernicus, see also below, Appendix D and the more fully developed argument about the influence of humanism upon the natural sciences by André Goddu, Copernicus and the Aristotelian Tradition: Education, Reading, and Philosophy in Copernicus’s Path to Heliocentrism (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 137–167, especially 142: “Throughout the fifteenth century, then, we find evidence that Renaissance humanism influenced the culture of Cracow by means of which university faculty imbibed its characteristics. . . . The cultural environment stimulated developments not only in philosophy and theology but also in the mathematical disciplines, especially geography and astronomy.” 166  On this point, see the essay by Richard J. Schoeck, “Humanism and Jurisprudence,” in Rabil, ed., Renaissance Humanism, Rabil, 3, 310–326; and, with particular reference to France, Donald Kelley, Foundations of Modern Historical Scholarship: Language, Law, and History in the French Renaissance (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970).

Humanism

593

John of Ludzisko to the end of the century, a high percentage of the professors in this faculty were engaged in the support of humanism at Cracow. Their concerns are in part traceable to the time which many of them spent in Italy and their contacts with the humanistic movement there, but they are also derived from the continuing association there of arts and medicine in the late medieval universities.167 If it was not as strong at Cracow as in the Italian studia (and to a lesser extent in France), it was nevertheless present. But the greatest impact of humanistic interests was felt in the arts faculty, especially in the subjects traditionally associated with the trivium. By the end of the century, the presence of attention to classical literature in this faculty was conspicuous, especially after the point where, with reference to assignments listed in the Liber diligentiarum, it is possible to know how much attention was being paid to these kinds of topics. As the understanding of this part of the medieval artes changed gradually in the late decades of the fifteenth century, it is not surprising that the presence of the studia humaniora eventually began to be felt throughout the studium and its community. Finally, there is the troublesome question of the scope of Polish humanism. The fifteenth century was a period of considerable intellectual vitality at the university. In previous chapters we have traced the pattern of this achievement and shown its implications in such disparate areas as political philosophy, practical theology, natural science, moral philosophy, and other disciplines. The sum total of these developments was to prepare the way for a modification of some of the assumptions which had defined medieval civilization. While some would thus see in humanism a challenge to the “system” of scholasticism and identify all in fifteenth century Poland who raised such challenges as a kind of humanist,168 this would be a mistake, for, as Lewis W. Spitz once commented, 167  See the discussion of this by Pearl Kibre, “Arts and Medicine in the Universities of the Later Middle Ages,” in Paquet and IJsewijn, eds., Les universités a la fin du moyen âge, 213–227; Siraisi, “The Faculty of Medicine,” in de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 360–387, here 374–377, and more directly in her classic Arts and Sciences at Padua. The “Studium” of Padua before 1350 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1973). 168  A particularly clear statement of this position is given by Seńko, Les tendances prehumanistes, 28: “Mais à l’époque, l’humanisme n’apparaissait pas seulement dans cette forme de l’évocation des modèles littéraires des maîtres anciens; il se définissait également par une attitude philosophique, et ses partisans visaient à l’imitation de certains modèles pratique, modèles humains fort différents de ceux qui fonctionnaient au Moyen Age: ils concevaient d’une autre manière les relations humaines ou, plus généralement, les rapports sociaux ainsi que la nature profonde et la fonction de la science, ce qui, à son tour, déterminait la difference des formes respectives qu’ils choisis-saient pour exprimer

594

CHAPTER 10

the humanists sought no “philosophical payment in kind.”169 At Cracow in the fifteenth century, the humanists made a start on the literary and aesthetic elements that was further elaborated in the following century. But one should not see the scope of humanism within the university as a broad one. The minimalist approach which this chapter has attempted to utilize thus helps to explain why these humanists and those who had humanistic interests could also be active and productive members of a dynamic and vital university community.

leur réflexions et leur idées établies. Cette dernier difference n’est guère négligeable; tout au contraire, loin d’être purement formelle, elle a trait à l’essence meme des attitudes anciennes et nouvelles et elle correspond à une difference respective entre la logique et la grammaire, c’est-à-dire entre les deux manières de penser: métaphysique et historique. Nous reprendrons cette question en parlant de l’aspect de l’humanisme dans le milieu cracovien au XVe siècle.” 169  This phrase is used in an interesting discussion of the relationship between humanism and scholasticism by Spitz, Religious Renaissance of the German Humanists, 7–8. Similar conclusions have been reached for other universities, especially those in Germany, by Overfield, Humanism and Scholasticism in Late Medieval Germany, 222–241 (with reference to Leipzig). See also the overview provided by Rüegg, “The Rise of Humanism,” in de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 452–456, and his treatment of developments at Cracow, 460–461; also, see above in this chapter, notes 1 and 3.

CHAPTER 11

Libraries and the Library Books are central to the educational venture of a university. Without them, the tradition to be transmitted to future generations is at risk of being lost. Without that tradition, the possibility of transmuting the inheritance of the past into something new is made much more difficult. Thus in all times, even in our own when the experimental and research laboratory and the digitally preserved contents of the cloud have been added to the life of our schools, books serve a function which is central within the intellectual life of the university. The literary production of books in the context of the studium thus leaves us “not the half-lost echoes of an oral tradition but the rich resources of written record.”1 Beyond this, however, because such treasurers are material as well as mental in character, the places where books are kept are also important in understanding the life of a school. Medieval studia generalia were not, of course, the first to understand the importance of books, either single copies or in the aggregate. But the schools of the middle ages and the faculty and students in them were keenly aware of the necessity of books. Satisfying that need was, as M.B. Parkes remarked in the context of Oxford, “the personal initiative of the masters and students; a scholar bought books, borrowed them, or borrowed an exemplar and copied a text for himself.”2 Gradually there grew up collections by both individuals and institutions which served to nourish the teaching and learning of the academic community. At Paris, for example, the college founded by Robert de Sorbon ca. 1257 had organized its own libraria magna or communis within three decades, while the College of Navarre eventually possessed a book collection of considerable size and importance.3 At Oxford, individual 1  The quotation is from the last line of my “Literary Production at the University of Cracow in the Fifteenth Century,” in Anna Adamska and Marco Mostert, eds., The Development of Literate Mentalities in East Central Europe (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004 [Utrecht Studies in Medieval Literacy 9]), 217–246, here 246, but the consciously implied reference in it acknowledges the important contribution in this respect made by Michael T. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record. England 1066–1307, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993). 2  M.B. Parkes, “The Provision of Books,” in The History of the University of Oxford, vol. 2: Late Medieval Oxford, J.I. Catto and T.A.R. Evans, eds. (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1992), 407– 483, here 407. 3  Berthold L. Ullman, “The Library of the Sorbonne in the XIVth century,” in The Septicentennial Celebration of the Founding of the Sorbonne College in the University of Paris (Chapel Hill, NC:

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004326019_013

596

CHAPTER 11

masters had their own books, but the college in which they lived also had its own collection. This was kept in two parts. One was retained in a room for the common use of the faculty; the other was distributed among the fellows of the college at yearly or longer intervals. In addition to the books owned by the colleges and the faculty, there was a university library (which, however, came to an end in the sixteenth century) and some few books were held by residence halls.4 At Prague, the core of a university library was formed early by a gift of some 114 books from Emperor Charles IV in 1370. These had come from the library of Wilhelm of Hasenburg, and were first housed in a building in the old town before being moved to the eventual Clementinum Library.5 Despite the importance of books within the medieval university and the role which libraries played, our knowledge of these matters is unfortunately limited.6 Not surprisingly the book collections and libraries at Oxford have been relatively well studied,7 and there are extant isolated materials which

University of North Carolina Press, 1953), 33–34. See also the comments about libraries in colleges by Jacques Verger, “ Patterns,” in Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992 [Walter Rüegg, General Editor, A History of the University in Europe 1]), 61–62, and by Rainer Christoph Schwinges, “Student Education, Student Life,” in de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 234. 4  These comments are based upon Neil R. Kerr, “Oxford College Libraries Before 1500,” in Jacques Paquet and Jozef IJsewijn, eds., Les universités a la fin du moyen âge. (Louvain: Institut d’Études médiévales U.C.L., 1978), 293–311, especially 293–294. 5  Josef Bečka and Emma Urbánková, Katalogy knihoven koleji Karlovy university (Prague: Národní a univerzitní knihovna v Praze, 1948), 3–5. For a fuller picture of this collection, see František Šmahel, “Knihovní katology koleje Národa českého a koleje Rečkovy,” Acta Universitatis Carolinae—Historia Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis 2–1 (1961): 59–85, which I have used in the German translation “Die Bücherkataloge des Collegium Nationis Bohemicae und das Collegium Reczkonis,” in Šmahel, Die Prager Universität im Mittelalter / The Charles University in the Middle Ages. Gesammelte Aufsätze / Selected Studies (Leiden: Brill, 2007 [Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 28]), 405–439, here 405–406 in particular. 6  For the terminology associated with book collections see the analyses of bibliotheca, bibliothecarius and librarius, librarium, libraria in Mariken Teeuwen, The Vocabulary of Intellectual Life in the Middle Ages (Turnhout: Brepols, 2003 [Études sur le vocabulaire intellectual du moyen âge 10]), 159–160 and 180–182 respectively. 7  See the bibliography listed by Kerr, “”Oxford College Libraries Before 1500,” in Paquet and IJsewijn, eds., Les universités à la fin du moyen âge, at the bottom of 293; and the comments, in passing, in Parkes, “The Provision of Books,” in The History of the University of Oxford, vol. 2: Late Medieval Oxford, Catto and Evans, eds., 459–562 and 470–482.

Libraries And The Library

597

bear upon university libraries in later periods;8 but in general the understanding of the development and role of book collections is still inadequate.9 Fortunately, the extant records which touch upon the history of Cracow and the manuscript studies, especially in the decades since the end of the Second World War, allow a reasonably complete picture of the development of the Jagiellonian Library there. This chapter deals with two separate, but closely related, aspects of this topic. One is the emergence of the library as an aspect of the institutional history of the studium. The other is an analysis of the growth and contents of that library as a reflection of the intellectual and academic interests of the professoriate.

Institutional Matters: The Formation of the Library and Libraries

Almost all the books which eventually constituted the library of the university were obtained as the result of bequests from deceased professors or other patrons. (With few exceptions—noted below and most from late in the fifteenth century—the school rarely bought volumes for its collection.) These manuscripts, as we shall see, sometimes passed through several professorial hands before coming to the university. While they were still in the owner’s hands, they were undoubtedly kept in his quarters. There the servants or students whom the professors were allowed to have live in their rooms might be charged with the care of them.10 Eventually, however, the studium obtained some of these books, but in the early part of the century they were apparently 8  Some of these have been conveniently gathered in English translation in Lynn Thorndike, ed., University Records and Life in the Middle Ages (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), 315–321. 9  What was valid in the first six decades of the last century remains generally accurate today. For the former status, see Sven Stelling-Michaud, “L’histoire des universités au moyen âge et à la Renaissance au cours des vingt-cinq dernièrs années,” XIe Congrès International des Sciences Historiques, Rapports, 1 (Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1960), 97–143, here 125– 126; for a recent assessment, see the comments on sixteenth century Italian university libraries by Paul F. Grendler, The Universities of the Italian Renaissance (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press, 2002), 505: “Renaissance universities lacked libraries, leaving students to plead for access to the collections of students nations, ecclesiastical institutions, professors, and bibliophiles.” 10  On this point, see Anna Lewicka-Kamińska, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1492–1665,” in Jerzy Zathey, Anna Lewicka-Kamińska, and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, Historia Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej, vol. 1: 1364–1775, Igancy Zarębski, ed. (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1966), 271, drawing upon information in a sixteenth century source.

598

CHAPTER 11

simply left in the living quarters of the Collegium maius and other university buildings to be consulted in situ by other faculty members. In such cases, the professorial successor to these rooms was given responsibility for the care of the books.11 At a relatively early time, however, this informal method of housing the university’s books was apparently superseded. Sometime during the first half of the fifteenth century, a cataloguing system was developed. Books were given a letter designation which probably referred to the cupboard, chest, or bookcase in which they were stored. Several traces of this system are extant. For example, a volume from the library of John Isner was marked with the signature “C,” one from Nicholas of Gorzków with “K,” and the letter “D” is visible on a volume which once belonged to Nicholas of Głogów. That these letters refer to the place of storage rather than identifying the person from whom they were received is shown by the fact that the signature “E” is on manuscripts from two separate individuals, while in other instances the same individual may be identified as having owned volumes which were later given two or more different signatures. This system of cataloguing is found only on manuscripts derived from the earliest period of the university’s history and was apparently discontinued after about mid-century.12 Important as this system of cataloguing is for understanding the management of the library, more significant is what one may infer from it: the existence of cataloguers or librarians. This inference is confirmed by several sources. Two of these demonstrate that from the beginning there was a university book collection distinct from the holdings of individual professors and that someone was assigned to oversee the control of these books. On the eve of the Jagiellonian foundation in 1400, master Nicholas Wigand is noted as purchasing books from moneys provided by one of the early benefactors of the studium, John Kalderberg. In 1403 master Matthew of Koło, later a doctor of decretals and of theology and in the winter semester 1423 rector of the university, in his function as the university librarian (he is designated pater librorum) expended four Prague marks for the purchase of books for the school.13 11  This conclusion is drawn by Jerzy Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” in Zathey, Lewicka-Kamińska, and Hajdukiewicz, Historia Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej, Zarębski, ed., 1, 23–24, on the basis of information contained in the sixteenth century record of borrowings. 12  This system of signatures and cataloguing, which was unknown to Wanda Konczyńska, Zarys historii Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej (Cracow: Księgarnia Jagiellońska, 1923), is discussed by Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 26–28. 13  For him, see PSB, 19, 20–21, and FwP, 244–245.

Libraries And The Library

599

In addition, there are other isolated notations in manuscripts which suggest strongly that such well-known early faculty members as Bartholomew of Jasło may have played similar roles within the studium.14 These fragmentary data do not, however, tell very much about the library or those responsible for the books. More information is available for the period after 1429. In that year, the members of the Collegium maius approved a statute De libraria custodienda which called for the annual selection from among their own number of two curators (custodes).15 It was the responsibility of these to oversee the care of the library (libraria) and the books which it contained. They were to insure that all books which had been loaned in the course of a year were returned at the end of that time. They were to perform these duties as part of their professorial responsibilities, receiving no extra pay. Although the statute does not say so explicitly, inferences from other materials allow us to conclude that anyone of the faculty members might serve as curator. Some were young masters; others, senior professors. Some had served before; other served while also filling the office of rector or dean. By the end of the century, their responsibilities had been expanded to include oversight of the privileges of the university and the task of providing faculty members with information touching these rights.16 That two curators were to be selected each year suggests the possibility that one was to serve in the winter term, the other in the summer. This would follow the precedent which had been established in 1419 when, as we have seen, the studium decided to elect separate rectors for each semester. There is, however, no evidence to confirm that this was indeed how the curators served. It is more probable that each was given responsibility over specific collections within the book collection as a whole. (As shown below, there were at least two such major divisions in the Collegium maius.) Thus in a given year, the two would serve concurrently rather than consecutively. No list of those who served as curator for the fifteenth century is extant.17 Nevertheless we know from other material not only the names of some 14  Problems related to these early patres librorum and the manuscripts upon which our information is based are discussed by Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364– 1492,” 25–26, especially 26, note 52, where a variant interpretation of the role of Matthew of Koło is evaluated. 15  Józef Szujski, ed., “Statuta Antiqua Collegii Majoris,” Archiwum do dziejów Literatury i Oświaty w Polsce 1 (1878): 1–20, here 11–12. 16  Lewicka-Kamińska, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1492–1665,” 211, n. 249, has noted the following entry in an incunabulum: “. . . altarista habeat copiam littere emptionis predicti census a libraristis universitatis. . . .” 17  Our knowledge for the following century is considerably fuller. See Henryk Barycz, Historja Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w epoce humanizmu (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu

600

CHAPTER 11

who held this position but also the identity of individuals who were closely involved with the workings of the library. In addition, these materials provide an insight as to how the library functioned. For instance, Matthew of Łabiszyn18 served as librarian at least five times in the decade after 1432. He noted in one of his manuscripts whenever he was selected for this position,19 and provided a record of the disposition of books. Thus, to cite two examples from 1433 (which was apparently the year of his first tenure of the position), he lent master Nicholas de Freynstad several books, including the text of Ganifred, and lent a commentary of Albert[us Magnus?] cum aphorismis to Bernard of Cracow. In 1434 he lent, among other books, a copy of Master Laurence’s disputations on Aristotle’s De anima to a certain Nicholas, and in 1437 he lent a copy of his own metaphysical disputations to Peter of Dzwonowo. In 1442 he recorded more than a score of borrowings. In many instances, his notations have been neatly lined through, suggesting that he was thereby noting that the book had been returned. A second name of an individual who served as the university’s librarian comes from the late fifteenth century. A notation from 1496 indicated that master John of Staniszewice had lent books in his capacity as librarian.20 But these and a very few others are the only individuals from this century who can be directly associated with the functioning of the library. It is reasonable to assume, however, that the provost of the Collegium maius also exercised some authority over the book collection. He was responsible for the orderly functioning and administration of the building which not only housed professors and hosted classes but which was also the home for the books of the library. The list generated by Jerzy Zathey in his study of the medieval library of the university shows some of the incumbents in that position from 1457 to 1522 Jagiellońskiego, 1935), 663–772, particularly 663–669 for an overview of developments he treats in more depth in subsequent pages. A brief treatment of sixteenth century developments is provided by Lewicka-Kamińska, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1492–1665,” 211–215. The university was finally successful in establishing a permanent paid librarian in the 1530s. 18  His career and contributions have been dealt with above in Chapter Nine; for his biography, see PSB, 19, 27, and, slightly more fully, Roman Zawadzki, “Maciej z Łabiszyna (1400– 1453),” in Stanisław Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej (Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie, 2000), 173–177, with reference to other bibliography. 19  “Auctoritas est mihi data ad annum. . . .” These notations have been assembled in chronological order by Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 38–41. 20  “1496 Mercury XX July libri septem recepti a Staniszewycze tunc librarista, qui omnes sunt hic cum alijs libris Universitatis.” Cited by Lewicka-Kamińska, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1492–1665,” 211, n. 250.

Libraries And The Library

601

and enriches our understanding of who was involved with the library.21 This list includes the names of many of the most important scholars and administrators associated with the studium in the second half of the fifteenth century. It is not surprising that the familiar figures of John of Dąbrówka and John of Głogów should be noted here. To this point, our discussion has been of the library of the Collegium maius as if it were a single, unitary collection. This was apparently not the case, and a distinction must now be made. In addition, it should be pointed out that not all the books of the studium were in that building. As in the modern university, there were libraries in multiple locations. Let us briefly examine each of these points. Two kinds of evidence suggest a dispersion of the collection in the Collegium maius. One is a notation in 1467 authorizing the payment of one and one-half grossi for the cleaning of what was termed the “upper” library.22 By inference therefore one may conclude that the books were stored in at least two locations. Such a division is suggested also by the inscription within those books which may be traced to this period. Some have the notation Liber Collegii ­artistarum23 or are designated as belonging in or to the Libraria ­artistarum.24 Other books bear the marking Liber collegii theologorum or Libraria ­theologorum.25 This apparent division into two physically separate libraries is misleading, however, for not all the books were designated so exclusively. Some bear such notations as pro libraria theologorum Maioris Collegii artistarum, thus fusing the two faculties of the school.26 Others simply indicate pro Universitate or Liber Universitatis.27 From such evidence it is possible to conclude only that there may have been several places where books were kept, but that in the early decades of the history of the studium, there was no systematic division into separate, independent collections. By the late fifteenth century, when the holdings of the university had grown considerably and the administration of the library had become more complex, one may legitimately speak of independent collections, separately housed, and—as we have seen in Chapter Two—the 21  Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 41–42. 22  Contained in MS BJ 2219, noted by Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 22. Except where noted, the information below is derived from and based upon Zathey’s study, which is the result of his long years as curator of the manuscript division of the Jagiellonian Library. 23  For example, MSS BJ 642, 1187, 1199, 1251, 1259 among others. 24  For example, MSS BJ 369, 529, 541, 813, 946, 1949, 1954 among others. 25  For example, MSS BJ 372, 691, 784, 1176, 1439, 1713 among others. 26  For example, MSS BJ 350, 357, 376, 1530, 2184, 2187 among others. 27  For example, MSS BJ 334–337, 416, 1412, 2295 among others.

602

CHAPTER 11

explicit designation of a locus in the Collegium maius as the libraria.28 Even before this formal division, the existence of two chief components in the book collection in the Collegium maius undoubtedly accounts for the double selection of custodes after 1429. Other component parts of the university apparently had their own book collections.29 The Collegium minus, after its establishment in 1449, received some books from deceased professors. These were usually designated pro Collegio minori, pro domo minoris Collegii, pro libraria minoris Collegii or something similar. Eventually, these volumes were incorporated into the main university collections. From the Collegium iuridicum, despite the fire of 1455 and the more disastrous blaze of the eighteenth century, there are books extant which show the existence of a library collection there. These bear such notations as Collegium iuristarum Universitatis Cracoviensis or Bibliothecae Collegii iuridici. Some books indicate by their inscriptions that they were designated pro collegio canonistarum or pro domo Canonistarum or pro libraria domus Canonistarum. Later inventories from the university library indicate that most of these volumes did not come to the Collegium maius and the university until the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. As to the care of these books, there are no fifteenth century sources which shed any light. It is probable, however, that a decree of 1527, which allowed the dean and ordinary professor of law to 28   This is the description provided by Władysław Wisłocki, Incunabula typographica Bibliothecae Universitatis Jagellonicae Cracoviensis (Cracow: Typis sumptibus Universitatis Jagellonicae, 1900), ix. It was his contention that by the end of the fifteenth century the library of the theologians was in a room on the first (i.e., second) floor and that of the arts faculty was on the ground (i.e., first) floor. Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 23, n. 47, raised the question as to whether, both from the standpoint of frequency of usage and of the physical vigor of the older theologians, it might not have been more probable that the location was reversed. The point becomes moot with the building of the library in the early sixteenth century. 29  The medical faculty is an apparent exception. There is no mention of a library in the medical statutes of 1433, and books dealing with medicine are more commonly found in association with the book collections of individual faculty members and with masters in the arts faculty. For example, the large collection of medical books held by John of Dobra was given at his death in 1447 not to a library of the medical faculty, but rather to the Collegium maius; see Maria Kowalczyk, “Lekarz krakowski Jan z Dobrej,” St. Med. 34–35 (2000): 259–282, here 278, and reprinted in her collected works Colligite fragmenta ne pereant . . . Studia z dziejów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w średniowieczu (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2010 [Historia et monumenta Universitatis Jagellonicae 1]), 375–398, here 394. Given the institutional weakness of this faculty in the fifteenth century and the fact that the Collegium medicum (as differentiated from the faculty of medicine) never really functioned after the fire of 1455, the absence of a library is not surprising.

Libraries And The Library

603

have a key to the library, and the statutes of 1719, which provide for the election of the librarian from among the members of the law faculty, undoubtedly reflect some of the earlier practices.30 Not only the collegia, but also the hostels of the university had their own book collections. Manuscripts may be traced to the Bursa pauperum, established by John Isner, to the Jerusalem hostel, which Bishop Oleśnicki founded and endowed, and to the Bursa canonistarum, established by John Długosz. The second of these was in many respects the archetype for the use of books within the university, for it housed the single largest grouping of students. Its statutes provide in detail for the care and keeping of its books. The senior of the hostel was chiefly responsible for the use of the library and for ensuring that an inventory was kept and a record of borrowings and returns made.31 It is safe to assume that in the matter of books, as in other aspects of student life, the Jerusalem hostel set the pattern for the university. During the course of the fifteenth century, the number of books in the collection of the Collegium maius, and by extension the university as a whole, grew significantly. As noted before, most of this growth was derived from professorial bequests. For example, when Nicholas Kozłowski died in 1443, he willed his library, valued at 1000 marks in the testament he had made four years before, to the school.32 This may have represented a collection of some 150 books.33 It has been estimated that the university may have obtained more than 1500 volumes from the faculty members associated with the years immediately after the founding in 1400. From those who matriculated prior to midcentury and who would have been active as professors in the decades following their studies, approximately 1500 to 2000 more may have been obtained. By the end of the century, individual libraries had begun to grow, especially after the development of printed made books less expensive and bequests at this time were often substantial. For example, John Sommerfeld the Elder (known as Aesticampianus), who died in 1501, had a library of more than 250 volumes, 30  For these matters see Lewicka-Kamińska, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1492–1665,” 262–263, and Barycz, Historja UJ, 665. 31  The functioning of the library is reflected in the statues of this hostel in Antoni Karbowiak, ed., “Ustawy bursy krakowskiej ‘Jerusalem’ 1453–1841,” Archiwum do Dziejów Literatury i Oświaty w Polsce 6 (1890): 86–163, here 116–120 and 140–143; see also Conclusiones, 85–87. 32   C DUC, 1, no. 101, 190–194, here 191: “quosque valoris mille marcarum inpraesentiarum minori extimatione dixit existere. . . .” 33  Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 76–77, has revised downward considerably the estimates which might be reached on the basis of previous discussions of the price of books in Poland. The comments about the overall size of the collection which follow are derived from Zathey’s discussion, though it should be noted that the only specific figure he provides is that of about 1500 to 1700 for the earliest professors.

604

CHAPTER 11

at least 230 of which were printed books. The bulk of his collection went to the university. Not all books which were willed to the school came from faculty members. This is shown in the testament of John Stolle of Głogów.34 He had studied at Prague, where he was promoted to bachelor in 1407, and at Vienna, where he matriculated in 1413. He left there without gaining a degree and came to Cracow, where he was enrolled during the year 1414/1415. By 1419 he had obtained employment as a municipal notary (though he apparently took no further degree at the university), and in 1427 he was appointed as an altarist in St. Mary’s church. Before his death in late 1450, he provided for the disposition of his rather large library. His books in artibus, except for two or three which he indicated his vice notary might retain, were designated ad Collegium hic in Cracowia. There are at least ten of these books extant today in the collections of the Jagiellonian Library. His theological books, “magnos et parwos, nullo excepto,” were given to the library of St. Mary’s. There were at least fifteen of these. In addition to books obtained by bequest, the studium by the end of the century was beginning to purchase books de fisco communi and from moneys specifically designated for such purposes. Early examples of this had been the aforementioned transactions by Nicholas Wigand and Matthew of Koło. Another was the purchase in mid-century of a fourteenth century manuscript containing, among other items, commentaries upon works by Lucan, Vergil, and Cicero. Purchased for the Libraria Collegii artistarum, it was bought with a gift of two marks from Peter of Dzwonowo and one mark provided de fisco by the dean of the arts faculty.35 By the early sixteenth century, such purchases were becoming more common.36 Thus by both these means the library of the Collegium maius was enriched and increased. It may have contained as many as 4000 volumes by the end of the century. 34  Known from a copy made in 1454 in Codex diplomaticus Civitatis Cracoviensis, 4 parts in 2 vols., Franciszek Piekosiński, ed. (Cracow: Nakładem Akademii Umiejętności, 1879–1882 [Monumenta Medii Aevi Historica Res Gestas Poloniae Illustrantia 5 and 7]), part 3, no. 439, 574–576. The contents of his library are discussed by Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 82–84. 35  This manuscript (BJ 1198) is discussed by Wacława Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XV w. i początkach XVI wieku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1966), 87 and n. 130. Some of the more important materials in it are treated by Ignacy Zarębski, “Nieznany komentarz do ‘Bukolik’ Wergiliusza w rękopisie BJ 1198 (Spory o wczesny humanizm w Polsce ciąg dalszy),” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 19 (1969): 5–24, especially 10–19. 36  Lewicka-Kamińska, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1492–1665,” 177–178.

Libraries And The Library

605

That it did not contain more was due in part to the disastrous effects of fires in the course of the century, particularly that of July 1492 which so severely damaged the properties of the university. It is impossible to determine how many volumes were lost, although professor Adalbert of Brudzewo, writing to Conrad Celtis in Ingolstadt in the aftermath of that conflagration, implied that his own losses had been substantial.37 Nevertheless, the holdings were large enough that specific provisions had to be made for the housing of the books. In the continuing reconstruction of the Collegium maius after the fire of 1492, the arts library was located in the gallery near the stuba communis. At the same time, modifications were made in the facilities for the library of the theologians.38 But these were at best interim measures. Among the faculty there grew up the idea of a newly constructed library which would serve not only the professors but would also be accessible to a broader circle of readers. This effort to establish a place pro libraria publica, as the discussions had it,39 eventually was realized in the construction of the library described above in an earlier chapter. Although books continued to be stored on the floor below, this room was the focus of usage within the university. It is possible to determine some of the intellectual and academic content of that usage by examining the libraries of the faculty in the fifteenth century which went into the composition of the university library. In them are reflected the interests of the professoriate, and it to these libraries we now turn.

Libraries of Individuals

Those who taught at Cracow in the fifteenth century may be divided, for purposes of convenient discussion, into four groups. This division is somewhat arbitrary, but it bears an approximate relationship as to when these individuals 37  “. . . Jani Tolophi . . . gratissime accepimus; quem efficias benivolum posseque me quidpiam ex eo librorum in astrologiam consequi. Nonnulli enim ex hi speciales in collegii nostri conflagratione mihi ablate sunt. . . .” In Hans Rupprich, ed., Der Briefwechsel des Konrad Celtis (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1934), 92–93, no. 56. 38  Lewicka-Kamińska, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1492–1665,” 134–136. 39  The fullest discussion of the issue of a “public library” as well as the best description of the construction of the library is given by Barycz, Historja UJ, 669–676; Lewicka-Kamińska, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1492–1665,” 134–140; and Andrzej Włodarek, Architektura średniowiecznych kolegiów i burs Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego (Cracow: Universitas, 2000), 93–95, who corrects and modifies the analyses of Karol Estreicher, Collegium Maius— Dzieje Gmachu (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1968), 103–109. See also above, Chapter Two, notes 91 and 92.

606

CHAPTER 11

were active at the school and when their libraries would have come to the studium. The first group is the earliest cadre of scholars, all of them trained abroad (chiefly Prague) and some of them having taught elsewhere before their arrival in Cracow. The second group is composed of the earliest Cracow generations, beginning with those whose studies and careers were initiated in Poland early in the century and including individuals whose activity extended even in the third quarter of the century. The third group contains faculty members of the later Cracow generations whose academic flourishing came in the second half of the century and who died about the end of our period. Finally, there is a group who were mature teachers and productive scholars in about 1500 and who may be said to represent an important aspect of the life of the school at that point, but whose careers extended well into the sixteenth century. Not all the professoriate is included in the discussion of specific individuals below; neither are all the books which may be traced to this period mentioned. Rather, this section of the chapter attempts first to identify and analyze some of the more important professorial libraries from this period before proceeding, second, to some brief concluding remarks about what these books reflect of the intellectual currents that animated the school. The First Group In this first group, the earliest figure is that of John Isner. His activity and contributions have figured prominently in previous chapters of this study. Near the end of his life, in his last will and testament, he specified that his library should be given to the Bursa pauperum which he had founded.40 In this document, there is no reference to the number of volumes involved, but modern scholarship has identified at least twenty-two manuscripts which he possessed that are now extant in the Jagiellonian Library. Nine are works commenting upon various parts of the Bible. There include copies of the Postilla of Nicholas of Lyra, Bonaventure’s treatise on John, Robert Holcot’s book Super librum Sapiencia, Thomas Eychsted’s commentary on Proverbs, as well as works by Bernard of Clairvaux, and Hugh and Richard of St. Victor. Ten of these manuscripts contain commentaries on the Sentences of Peter Lombard by such authors as Bonaventure, Francis de Mayronis, Thomas of Strasbourg, John Duns Scotus, Henry Totting de Oyta, and the aforementioned anonymous Lectura communis Pragensis. In a third category in his library were two manuscripts containing collections of sermons. The majority of these books was obtained during Isner’s years in Prague and reflects the predominantly theological focus of his intellectual concerns. Additional manuscripts, two of them 40   C DUC, 1, no. 45, 82–84.

Libraries And The Library

607

in Cracow, are extant which contain copies of Isner’s own religious writings, and these further reinforce this impression of his interests.41 Another important library was derived from the Czech professor John Štěkna, who taught at Cracow from the opening of the theological faculty until shortly before his death in 1407 (?). From what may well have been a much larger collection in his lifetime, more than twenty manuscripts are extant today in the Jagiellonian Library. Three of these are biblical commentaries: Nicholas of Gorran’s Postilla on Paul’s letters, Gregory the Great’s Moralia, and Aquinas’ Glossa super Lucam. Ten are commentaries on the Sentences by such authors as Giles of Rome, Durand of St. Pourçain (Doctor modernus to his contemporaries), Conrad of Soltau, Aquinas, Thomas of Strasbourg, and others. Four manuscripts contain collections of sermons (some of John’s own reformist preaching from Bethlehem Chapel in Prague is included here), and six contain polemical and other theological treatises, including one which is a compendium of Muslim moral philosophy.42 The predominance of theological and religious literature in this library also is an indication of John’s general interests. Bartholomew of Jasło was also, as we have seen, an important figure in the early history of the university. He was the author of nearly fifty minor works— speeches, sermons, brief theological essays, hymns—and these were included in his library, at least fifteen volumes of which are extant today. Three contain biblical commentaries, five are Sentence commentaries of greater or lesser length, four are theological in nature, and three contain commentaries upon works of Aristotle. In this last category are Aquinas’ commentary on the Ethics and the works of several lesser writers touching logical treatises.43 That not all of these books came immediately to the university is shown by the fact that

41  His library is analyzed by Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 23–28; and, in more detail, by Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 50–60. On the possibility, subsequently confirmed, that several other manuscripts in Cracow belonged to Isner, see the discussion by Kowalczyk, “Łukasz z Wielkiego Koźmina,” Materiały 4 (15) (1971): 3–40, here 36, n. 42, and in her Colligite fragmenta ne pereant, 143–180, here 176, n. 42. Copies of Isner’s own works treating biblical topics that are in Cracow are discussed also by Stanisław Wielgus, Średniowieczna łacińskojęzyczna biblistyka polska (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1992), 20–23. 42  His library is discussed by Zofia Siemiątkowska, “Jan Sczekna,” Materiały 5 (1965): 34–75, here 68–71; see, however, the comments of Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364– 1492,” 62, n. 108. 43  See Kowalczyk, “Bartłomiej z Jasła,” Materiały 5 (1965): 3–23, here 14–19, and in her Colligite fragmenta ne pereant, 111–131, here 122–127; and Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 65–66.

608

CHAPTER 11

many were the later property of Lucas of Wielki Koźmin (see below) and other fifteenth century professors. By the criterion of the number of extant copies which can be attributed to an individual library, one of the largest book collections among the professors of the Prague cadre was that owned by Lucas of Wielki Koźmin.44 There are extant today at least forty-three manuscripts, all but one of them in the university library, which derive from him. Many of these contain sermons and the numerous speeches which he delivered at the university.45 There are also numerous theological works, including all the parts of Aquinas’ Summae and his commentary on the Sentences, Thomas of Strasbourg’s commentary on the same work, treatises by Bonaventure and Bernard of Clairvaux, and a number of polemical and moral works by such authors as Benedict de Massilia, Alanus de Insulis, and William Peraldus. Naturally enough for a theology professor, some of his codices were biblical commentaries by, among others, Nicholas of Lyra, Nicholas Gorran, Peter of Tarantazio, Peter Lombard, and Bonaventure. But he also had four manuscripts containing biblical texts without the apparatus of later commentary. There are very few texts outside these categories which would reflect Lucas’ arts education. One exception is a manuscript containing works by John Buridan on Aristotle’s Physics, De generatione, and De anima. Another is a copy of Isidore of Seville’s Etymologies. It is interesting to note that, unlike the libraries discussed thus far, his books were chiefly copied in Poland; many of the texts are in his own hand. At his death, Lucas willed his library to the parish school near Częstochowa where he had been rector for a short time. Eventually much of this bequest returned to Cracow. A rather different type of book collection was owned by Nicholas Wiśliczka, a sometime master in the law faculty, who served also as a judge in the German law court at the royal castle from 1406 until his death nine years later. Nicholas left his wife some unspecified books in his will which was prepared on the eve of his death, but the remaining sixteen items recorded in the will were listed 44  Kowalczyk, “Łukasz z Wielkiego Koźmina,” 16–32, and in her Colligite fragmenta ne pereant, 156–172, remains authoritative. The information provided by Jerzy Wolny, “Łaciński zbiór kazań Peregryna z Opola i ich związek z tzw. ‘Kazaniami Gnieźnieńskimi’,” Średniowiecze. Studia o Kulturze 1 (1961): 171–238, here 215–218, is useful in tracing the fortunes of his library before it came to the university. 45  These works are discussed by Kowalczyk, “Mowy i kazania uniwersyteckie Łukasza z Wielkiego Koźmina,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 12, 2 (1960): 7–20 and in her Colligite fragmenta ne pereant, 67–80, and addressed, in a larger context, in her Krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie z pierwszej połowy XV w. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970), sermons number 10–13, 45, 47, 49–53, 186, and 187, with textual analyses passim. For his biography, see FwP, 241.

Libraries And The Library

609

by title and went chiefly to the friary of the Augustinian Eremites in Kazimierz. These included books deal with both civil and canon law, such as Guido of Baysi’s Rosarium, a copy of the Digestum vetus, books by William Durandus and John Andreas, and copies of the Liber Sixtus and the Clementinae. He also had religious works—a bible and a collection of sermons—and books dealing with subjects in the arts curriculum, such as Alanus’ Algorismi. Some of these books were quite expensive (one of Paul of Lignano’s works was valued at forty marks), but despite this his library may be taken as characteristic of that of a lawyer in this period.46 Each of the faculty members mentioned thus far died prior to the end of 1415. A slightly younger generation, though one still trained abroad and constituting part of this first group of professors at the university, was active during the next two decades. John of Kluczbork had a library from which at least eleven codices are today extant. Only one of these remains in Cracow; the others are held by libraries in Wrocław and Erfurt. Most of his books contained religious works, particularly sermons and short theological treatises. For example, the one which he designated pro Collegio Artistarum includes three works by Cesarius of Heisterbach on miracles, religious temptation, and the seven deadly sins, along with works by John Wallensis on the ten commandments, penance, and similar topics. At least two volumes from his library, however, reflect interests associated with his career in arts. In the first, there are two groupings of works. Stacius, Ovid, Prudentius, and Theodolus are included in the first; Bernard Gestensis, John of Garland, Walther Anglicus, and Werner of Basle, among others, are in the latter. The second manuscript includes a series of commentaries upon Aristotelian works, of which the most important are on the Ethics, the Economics, and one by Henry Totting de Oyta on the Politics. This last treatise was apparently the copy used by Paul of Worczyn in his lectures on this topic. This manuscript also contains an extensive sampling of quotes from philosophical authorities, many of which are specifically designated Auctoritates Ethycorum. These works in the arts give a decidedly different cast to the character of John’s library, which has traditionally been thought to reflect the typical pastoral and homiletic interests of a theology professor.47 46  This will was partially printed and discussed for the first time by Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 66–67. Most of this bequest did not come to the Jagiellonian Library until the 1950s. 47  John’s library has now been carefully analyzed by Kazimierz Wójcik, Jan z Kluczborka. Filozof i teolog Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1995), 70–85, which revises somewhat his earlier treatment of the library in “Jan z Kluczborka,” Materiały 4 (15) (1971): 73–150, here 108–121. Paul of Worczyn’s

610

CHAPTER 11

The extant library of Pełka Segney of Wiślica, who matriculated at Cracow in 1409 after being promoted to bachelor in 1399 and incepting as a master in 1402 at Prague, falls into two separate parts. Four volumes, which he apparently brought with him from Bohemia, contain works that pertain to the arts curriculum. One is mathematical and astronomical (including Sacrobosco’s De sphaera materiali), two are logical, and one deals with metaphysics. The remainder of his library, three manuscripts which were copied in Poland, reflects his religious interests. It contains sermons collections, treatises on the ten commandments, vices, and virtue, and such pastoral works as Benedict Massiliensis’ De trinitate ac fide catholica.48 Paul of Worczyn, who joined the Cracow studium in 1416 after schooling and teaching in Prague and Leipzig, had a library which reflected both his specific interests in practical philosophy and his general theological concerns as an eventual professor in that faculty. Perhaps as many as eleven of his books are extant, all of them in the university library. One contains John Buridan’s commentary on Aristotle’s Physics. Two have commentaries on the Ethics (one by Paul himself and one by Buridan), plus texts of the Politics, Economics, and other minor Aristotelian works. Another includes such varied treatises as Marsilius of Inghen’s commentary on some of Aristotle’s logical works, an anonymous commentary on the Pseudo-Aristotelian De regimini principum, and some works of Seneca. The rest of his library is theological and religious in character. There are sermon collections, selections from the writings of the fathers, and a commentary of Thomas of Strasbourg upon all four books of the Sentences.49 Francis Krzysowicz of Brzeg remained an important figure at the university from the time of his arrival ca. 1402 until his death in 1432.50 He bequeathed his books, carefully noting in each what its disposition should be, to his use of John’s books is discussed by Paweł Czartoryski, Wczesna recepcja ‘Polityki’ Arystotelesa na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1963), 52 and 55. An older, incomplete analysis of John’s library is given in Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 33–38. 48  On his library, see Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 78. 49  Paul’s books have been discussed by Jerzy Rebeta, “Paweł z Worczyna,” Materiały 3 (1964): 120–156, here 150–153. See also Rebeta’s study Komentarz Paweł z Worczyna do Etyki Nikomachejskiej Arystotelesa z 1424 roku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970), 84–93, where a slightly more complete discussion of the library is provided., 50  The most recent treatments of his biography are Kowalczyk, “Franciszek z Brzegu,” Acta Mediaevalia 12 (1999): 99–144, here 99–107 and in her Colligite fragmenta ne pereant, 329– 374, here 329–337; and Markowski, “Franciszek z Brzegu (ok. 1370–1432),” in Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 89–97, which, however, adds little to previous scholarship, especially that by Kowalczyk.

Libraries And The Library

611

former student and close friend, Nicholas Tempelfeld, and to the university. There are thirteen of these extant today in the Jagiellonian collection. They contain chiefly religious and theological works. These include sermon collections, commentaries by Aquinas and Adam Woodeham (the latter as abbreviated by Henry Totting of Oyta) upon the Sentences, moral treatises by Gregory the Great and others, and commentaries on one part of the bible or another. One of these may be Francis’ own work.51 There are also writings by both Bernard of Clairvaux and Richard of St. Victor. One volume in his library reflects the arts curriculum. It contains an anonymous commentary and one by Albert Rickmersdorf of Saxony, both upon Aristotle’s Meteora.52 Smaller remnants of professorial libraries may be traced to three additional figures in this first generation of faculty members. Andrew of Kokorzyn, who eventually became a noted figure in the theology faculty,53 possessed a library of which only three manuscripts are extant, all in the Jagiellonian Library. All are theological and religious in nature. One contains commentaries on various parts of the Bible, another has the complete text of Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae II-II, while the third is a miscellany of fifteen theological and philosophical treatises, including works by Anselm, Bernard, Richard and Hugh of St. Victor, as well as several attributed to Augustine. Andrew’s own theological works are contained in other manuscripts which were the property of later Cracow masters.54 The library of Peter Wolfram, whose career at Cracow included both university teaching and ecclesiastical office, reflects both legal 51  On this point, compare Fijałek, Studya, 90–94 and Kowalczyk, “Franciszek z Brzegu,” 108 (338 in her Colligite fragmenta ne pereant). 52  His library is best treated by Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 69–70; and Kowalczyk, “Franciszek z Brzegu,” 122–129 (352–359 in her Colligite fragmenta ne pereant). The masterful paleographical skills of Maria Kowalczyk enabled her to identify Francis’ handwritings in at least eighty-nine manuscripts in the Jagiellonian Library; for the significance of this skill, see my comment in “In Search of Alma Mater Cracoviensis. Recent Publications,” The Polish Review 57 (2012): 101–117, here 109–110: “as a paleographer, she has had few equals in any time and place.” Much the same appreciation is expressed by Krzysztof Oźóg in his Introduction (in both Polish and English) to the collection of Kowalczyk’s most significant articles, Colligite fragmenta ne pereant, 24 (Polish) and 42 (English): “Her meticulousness and outstanding palaeographical abilities contributed to the exemplary deciphering of . . . [and he lists a number of these contributions].” 53  A convenient overview of his life and accomplishments is provided by Markowski, “Andrzej z Kokorzyna (ok. 1379–1433),” in Piech, Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 111–116. 54  His works and his library are discussed by Markowski, “Poglądy filozoficzne Andrzeja z Kokorzyna,” St. Med. 6 (1964): 55–136, here 70–83 and 83–88 respectively.

612

CHAPTER 11

and religious interests. Only five of the books he designated for the Collegium Iuridicum are extant. One contains a collection of legal treatises by both civil and canon lawyers. Another is the text of Baldus of Perusio’s Repertorium, while a third contains Geremia da Montagnone’s Compendium moralium notabilium. As noted in the previous chapter, Peter purchased this work by one of the more important pre-Petrarchan humanists while at the Council of Constance. Two final codices contain parts one and two of Gregory the Great’s Liber Moralium. Peter was also the owner as late as 1423 of a manuscript containing some of Cicero’s works, but it is now lost. John Wyllysz of Cracow, who matriculated at Cracow in 1405 and incepted as a master in arts that same year, had previously studied at Prague. He later served (1411) as dean of the arts faculty. Five of his books, all dealing with subjects in this faculty, remain today in the university’s library. Two touch upon logic, including one with treatises by Marsilius of Inghen. Another two contain works of Aristotle, including John Buridan’s commentary on the Physics. The fifth is a collection of minor astronomical treatises.55 In the foregoing description of the libraries of those in the first, foreign educated generation at Cracow, several important names are missing. This is because their collections, which were undoubtedly large and important, have either been largely lost or dispersed without traces of their former owners. On the basis of very fragmentary remnants, it is possible here only to hint at the riches which might have been in their possessions. Nicholas of Gorzków, professor, second rector, and eventual Bishop of Vilnius, has left only two manuscripts, but both are of particular interest. One contains commentaries by Buridan on Aristotle’s Physics, by Albert Rickmersdorf of Saxony on the Meteora, by Rudolf of Erfurt on the De anima, and a variety of anonymous philosophical questions. The other book is a collection of sermons ad clerum Pragae of Milič of Kroměříž, a predecessor of John Hus in the Bohemian reform movement. The library of the first rector, Stanisław of Skarbimierz, has with one exception, disappeared completely. His own writings, chiefly sermons and speeches, are of course extant, but none of his law books (with three possible exceptions) or any of his books in arts can be identified. From his undoubtedly large collection of religious and theological books, only a commentary by Duns Scotus upon the first two books of the Sentences may be attributed to his possession. The situation is somewhat better with regard to Paul Vladimiri. There are four books from his library held by the university now. Three are by Aquinas: his

55  Peter and John’s libraries are treated by Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364– 1492,” 81 and 78–79 respectively.

Libraries And The Library

613

commentary upon Aristotle’s Metaphysics, which Paul bought in Constance in 1415 for five florins; the first part of the Summa Theologiae; and the Summa contra gentiles, which Paul bought at the council in 1416, paying fourteen florins. The last extant volume from his library was also purchased at Constance. It is a copy of the aforementioned Compendium by Geremia da Montagnone, obtained about the same time Peter Wolfram bought his copy. Ironically, none of these books reveal anything of the milieu of Paul’s university career. All were either obtained too late for him to have used them at Prague, when he studied there, or they fall outside the area of his academic focus in canon law. From his large law library, whose existence is known from a mention made by Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki in a letter of 1435, there is nothing extant. Thus our picture of the interests of the faculty members as revealed by their books is less complete for this early generation than we might like.56 When we shift our focus to the first generation of those educated and active at Cracow, the picture of professorial collections becomes somewhat fuller. The Second Group The figure of Nicholas Kozłowski may serve as an appropriate transition to this group. Educated at Prague, Nicholas joined the faculty at Cracow during the first decade of its revived functioning, but his career there extended into the fifth decade of the century. As noted above, his library, part of which was in Cracow and part in the small town of Wlina (or Ulina), was judged to be worth 1000 marks and probably contained at least 150 books. Of these, most have passed anonymously to other owners or been lost, for only fifteen codices may with certainty be attributed to his library.57 Many of these contain his own writings. Others are sermon collections and commentaries on books of the Bible by such writers as Augustine Triumphus and Aquinas. The range of Nicholas’ interests which is revealed in his richly allusive literary and rhetorical style is suggested by other extant books from his library. Two manuscripts reflect some of his humanistic and classical concerns, which were discussed in the preceding chapter. One of these is a book containing a copy of 56  The libraries of the faculty discussed in this paragraph are treated by Zathey, Ibid., 60–61, 64, and 68–69 respectively. 57  Another five volumes have been proposed for inclusion in his library. See Maria Hornowska and Halina Zdzitowiecka-Jasieńska, Zbióry rękopiśmienne w Polsce średniowiecznej (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Kasy im. Mianowskiego, 1947) 117; and Ignacy Zarębski, “Zur Bedeutung des Aufenthaltes von Krakauer Universitätsprofessoren auf dem Basler Konzil für die Geistesgeschichte Polens,” Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki 5 (1960): Sonderheft 2, 7–23, here 19–23. These suggestions have not generally been accepted.

614

CHAPTER 11

Petrarch’s Familiarium rerum libri XII–XXIV. The other is the text of Petrarch’s De remediis utriusque fortunae and Seneca’s Epistolae ad Lucilium. Another two volumes reflect his background in arts. These contain commentaries and disputed questions on logical, physical, and metaphysical works.58 John of Radochonice († 1450) matriculated at the university in 1405 but left to study at Prague, where he was promoted to bachelor in arts in 1407. He then returned to Cracow and incepted as a master in 1408. He may have begun his theological study elsewhere, but sometime between 1433 and 1436 he completed requirements for the doctoral degree in this faculty at Cracow and subsequently taught as a professor there. He eventually became a canon of the church of St. Florian, then in 1439 a canon of the Cracow cathedral.59 The thirteen volumes of his library that can today be identified include works in the arts, religion, and theology. In the first category are commentaries by Buridan on several Aristotelian works, Ockham’s Summulae on the Physics, and anonymous treatises on physical, metaphysical, and logical topics. Biblical commentaries include works by Henry of Langenstein; theological works are represented by the Sentence commentaries of Scotus and John Monsterberg and by John of Segovia’s treatise on the immaculate conception. In addition, there are a variety of homiletical and pastoral books, including a collection of twelve Hussite treatises. Finally, one of the books he designated pro libraria artistarum was Vincent of Beauvais’ Speculum historiale.60 A near contemporary of John was Benedict Hesse of Cracow, often discussed in this study. His extant library is small, only eleven volumes, but it reflects a wide variety of interests and accomplishments. One of his books contained Buridan’s commentary on the Physics, another has the Quaestiones super Elenchorum of Marsilius of Inghen. He also had a codex with two treatises by Laurence of Lindores, one on the Physics, the other on De anima. As befitted a professor of theology, Benedict’s library included five volumes of biblical commentary, one by Nicholas Gorran, the others his own massive Lectura super Evangelium Matthaei. Among his other books were three volumes containing

58  His library is discussed at length by Markowski, “Mikołaj z Kozłowa,” Materiały 5 (1965): 76–141, here 130–136; and Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 44–50. 59  For his biography see LTCP / SPTK, 2, 143–144; and Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w latach 1397–1525 (Cracow: 1996 [Studia do dziejów Wydziału Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 2]), 146. 60  Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 38–43, and Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364– 1492,” 90–91, analyze the contents of this library.

Libraries And The Library

615

speeches and treatises connected with the Hussite movement and with the Council of Basle.61 Three book collections, belong respectively to Nicholas Tempelfeld from Brzeg (prior to 1400–ca. 1474), James of Piotrków, and Paul of Pyskowice, each reflect different aspects of the university’s life in this period. The first of these incepted as a master at Cracow in 1421 and had close ties to Francis of Brzeg. Though he eventually completed the doctoral degree in theology (sometime prior to 1439) and taught in that faculty, he played no great role at Cracow; after 1455 he was more closely connected with Wrocław. Of the seven volumes in the Jagiellonian Library today which may be traced to Nicholas, four had previously been in the possession of Francis of Brzeg. The other three contain sermon collections (including an Easter series on the passion by John Capistrano), questions and conclusions on the Sentences by Thomas of Strasbourg and Aquinas, and lesser theological works. An additional sixteen of his books are extant in Wrocław. All are theological and religious in nature, with the exception of one which contains literary works by Lucan and Bernard Silvestris.62 James of Piotrków was the older brother of Paul of Piotrków, who matriculated at Cracow in 1405, incepted as a master in 1415, and was rector of the studium in 1441. James also studied, first at Prague, then at Cracow, matriculating in 1411, but never attained a degree. He eventually became a canon at Płock, where he died in either 1445 or 1447. Despite having tenuous ties to the studium, he eventually accumulated a substantial library (Jan Fijałek termed him a passionate bibliophile),63 which he designated pro libraria Collegii Artistarum. Eighteen of these survive today, and his predominantly ecclesiastical concerns are reflected in the fact that ten of them are bible commentaries, two contains commentaries on the Sentences, and there is a two-volume copy of Aquinas’ Secunda Secundae. This library reveals, therefore, not simply pastoral concerns; it shows also an academic character which contrasts with the failure of its owner to complete requirements for a degree (or perhaps his conscious choice not to do so).64 Paul of Pyskowice († ca. 1470) matriculated at Cracow in 61  The best treatment of this collection remains Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 91–93. 62  For his biography: PSB, 21, 107–109; LTCP / SPTK, 4, 321–322; and Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 148. Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 55–65, discusses his library. Citing the work of Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa, Szelińska notes that Nicholas’ works reflect a high degree of hostility to Hussitism and also reflect his interest in the history of Silesia. 63  Fijałek, Mistrz Jakób, 1, 387 and note 1. 64  Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 93–94; one of James’ manuscripts contains the text of Thomas Strzempiński’s Determinatio circa Concilium Basiliense, with marginal notations in James’ own hand.

616

CHAPTER 11

1412, was promoted to bachelor in 1417 and incepted as a master in 1423. Seven years later he served as dean of the arts faculty, by which time he was already studying theology. He was eventually promoted to doctor in 1445, but, as we have seen in previous chapters, he was involved in an acrimonious dispute, along with Matthew of Łabiszyn, over the promotion in theology of Nicholas Bylina of Leszczyny. The thirteen volumes of his library which can now be identified were chiefly theological. They included a complete set of the Summa Theologiae of Aquinas and his own aforementioned extensive commentaries on the mass, on Psalm 118, and on all four books of the Sentences. For such a prolific author, his library is surprisingly small and suggests either that others of his books have disappeared or that he made effective use of the volumes available to him in the studium.65 John Kanty at one time had a very large library, much of it, if one may judge from the remains extant in Cracow and the Vatican, copied in his own hand. This activity was useful, for it undoubtedly provided him with texts for his university lectures, but it was also something which he apparently did as an end in itself.66 Thirty volumes in his own hand have been identified, twenty of them still in the Jagiellonian collection. Another ten were taken at a later time to Rome as part of the process leading to his canonization. In addition to items he copied he held others. Some of these manuscripts contain his own lectures in arts on grammar, logic, and the Physics. In the last work, he is particularly dependent upon the Buridanism of his mentor, Benedict Hesse. Four of his manuscripts bear upon the church councils of the fifteenth century, a rather surprising subject, since he was not apparently active in the conciliar debate at Cracow in the 1430s and 1440s. The remainder of his manuscripts are theological treatises and collections of sermons. The authors most heavily represented in this last group are Augustine and Aquinas.67 65  His library is discussed by Zofia Włodek, “Paweł z Pyskowic,” Materiały 5 (1965): 142–168, here 154–156, and reprinted in the collection of her works, Z dziejów filozofii i teologii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku. Sylwetki, teksty, studia (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2012 [Historia et Monumenta Universitatis Jagellonicae 2]), 155–181, here 167–169. For Paul’s biography, see PSB, 25, 394; and Włodek, “Paweł z Psykowic († ok. 1470),” in Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 159–164. 66  This intellectual characteristic—seen by some as a spiritual hallmark—is noted by Stanisław Piech, “Święty Jan z Kęt (1390–1473),” in Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 139–158, here 143–147; he terms him “an untiring copiest, infatuated with books.” (143) 67  All previous treatments of his library (for example Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 95–96) have now been superseded by Roman M. Zawadzki, Spuścizna rękopiśmienna świętego Jana Kantego (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej

Libraries And The Library

617

Few members of the mid-fifteenth century faculty had libraries which in size matched that owned by Thomas Strzempiński († 1460). Perhaps as many as one hundred volumes were in his possession at one time or another, of which about fifty have survived to today. Thirty-nine of these are in the university library, the remainder are in the cathedral library in Gniezno, where he had been a canon in the 1430s before rejoining the academic environment in Cracow and becoming further involved in ecclesiastical and national politics before succeeding Zbigniew Oleśnicki as Bishop of Cracow in 1456. Many of these books were mentioned in a revealing inventory which Strzempiński prepared listing the location of his books. He noted which were kept on shelves (in pultu), which lay on the floor in the open (in terra), and which had been packed in chests (in cista).68 Strzempiński’s library may be grouped into several categories. The great majority of his books were traditional biblical commentaries, but he also had several law books, including a copy of the Digestum vetus as well as works in canon law. At least seven items in his library were Sentence commentaries, including the text of his own Principum. He also had several works by patristic authors, collections of sermons, miscellaneous works such as Peter Comestor’s Historia scholastica, and other theological treatises such as Aquinas’ Summa theologiae. It is interesting to note that a great many of these works, particularly the biblical commentaries, were purchased by Strzempiński during the time he was at the Council of Basle.69 None of his extant library contains texts which reflect his arts background.70 Far smaller, both originally and in its remnants today, was the collection which belonged to Matthew of Łabiszyn. At least seventeen of his books are extant in the university library. Two are his reports on disputations dealing with Aristotle’s Ethics and Physics. Six are sermon collections and biblical commentaries, including his own long glosses on John. Two volumes may be classified as pastoral in character, for they contain works on the virtues, vices, Ten Commandments, and original sin. The rest are theological works and glosses and commentaries on the Sentences by Conrad of Soltau, Bonaventure, and Matthew himself. As noted above, Matthew’s library is an important source of

Akademii Teologicznej w Krakowie, 1995 [Studia do dziejów Wydziału Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 3]), 85–209 especially. 68  This inventory, in MS B.J. 2131, f. 157, is printed by Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 97–98. 69  See Zarębski, “Zur Bedeutung,” 13 and 20–21. 70  The library as a whole is discussed by Hornowska and Zdzitowiecka-Jasieńska, Zbiory rękopiśmienne, 144–152, and Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 96–100.

618

CHAPTER 11

information about the functioning of the library and the circulation of books in this period.71 Among the libraries which reveal the intellectual and academic currents within the university, few can match the importance of that which belonged to John of Dąbrówka (ca. 1400–1472). His library, which today is represented by about ninety volumes,72 originally contained perhaps as many as 150 books. We are fortunate to possess information about the contents of that library from the two wills which John wrote, one about 1445, the other near the time of his death. In each of these he listed the works which he was including in specific bequests. As a result, the titles of some books which have since disappeared are known.73 The thirty-four books (eighteen of them extant) which were in his library at the time of his first will reflect the interests of a young scholar. They include the Nova logica of Aristotle, the Nova poetica of Geoffrey of Vinsauf, the Chronicle of the Poles by Vincent Kadłubek, for which Dąbrówka had already written his commentary, and a commentary by Albert the Great upon an unidentified work of Aristotle. John also had a half dozen legal manuscripts, three of which were standard texts, another three commentaries and critical apparatuses. Ten of his books were religious and theological in nature, including Sentence commentaries and the Secunda secundae of Aquinas. Of this group, however, one manuscript reflected a different aspect of John’s interests, for it contained treatises by John Damascenus and Gregory Nazianzus, which had been recently translated from the Greek as part of the patristic revival in fifteenth century Italy. Other works which John had in his library at this time show his interest in, if not necessarily his intellectual commitment to, the literature of antiquity and the humanistic Renaissance. He had a copy of Vergil’s Aeneid and of Plato’s Timaeus (which, of course had been for centuries the only Platonic work known in medieval Europe—and also, in some ways the least “Platonic” work of this student of Socrates). He owned Valerius Maximus’ Dictorum factorumque memorabilium libri IX, Cicero’s De officiis and Tusculan Questions, and the text of the third book of Curtius Rufus’ De gestis Alexandrii

71  His library is analyzed by Bożena Chmielowska and Włodek, “Maciej z Łabiszyna,” Materiały 3 (14) (1971): 3–55, here 29–33 and reprinted in Włodek, Z dziejów filozofii i teologii, 183–235 and 209–213 for his books. 72  According to Marian Zwiercan, ”Jan z Dąbrówki (ok. 1400–1472),” in Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 179–185, here 184. 73  These are analyses by Szelińska, “Dwa testamenty Jana Dąbrówki,” Studia i Materiały z Dziejów Nauki Polskiej, Series A 5 (1962): 1–40, and in her Biblioteki profesorów, 61–77.

Libraries And The Library

619

Macedonii.74 Among the Italian writers, he owned Petrarch’s De vita solitaria and De remediis utriusque fortunae and the aforementioned (in Chapter Ten) De ingenius moribus of Pier Paolo Vergerio. In addition there were a number of works reflecting more traditional philosophical and moral interests. These included John of Salisbury’s Policraticus, Conrad of Halles’ Tripartitus moralium, and several other works of the same type. Throughout his life, John continued to add to his library. The books of the later period, however, reflect his professional interests rather than the concerns of his early career. They are technical legal works, such as the Digestum vetus and the Infortiatum as well as seven of the works of Bartholus de Saxoferrato. In canon law, his purchases were chiefly critical apparatuses to the standard texts. On the side of theology, his later books fall roughly into three groups. One was dogmatic theology, represented by numerous Sentence commentaries and additional works of Aquinas. A second group was the area of homiletics and other pastoral treatises; which the third was represented by a miscellanea of scriptural and moral works. Thus John’s library presented nearly the full spectrum of intellectual interests in the faculty in this time. In the remainder of this early Cracow generation, we shall find only a few variations and elaborations upon the themes reflected in his collection.75 One of these new elements may be observed in the libraries of the Cracow professoriate by the mid-fifteenth century, where increasingly copies of works written by earlier Cracow masters are to be found. For example, among the sixteen volumes extant from the library of Matthew of Sąspów, one was the commentary by Benedict Hesse upon Aristotle’s De anima. The remaining books in his collection include two astrological treatises, four volumes of sermons, six biblical commentaries, and Sentence commentaries by Bonaventure, John

74  A fragment of Lucan’s Pharsalia, which is contained in another of his manuscripts, was probably not known by John, for it was attached to the cover prior to the time John obtained it and would not have been in usable form during the time he held the codex; see Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 64. 75  Now that a critical edition of John’s commentary upon Vincent’s chronicle has been published, it is possible to see the full range of the historical and moral material he drew upon; see Ioannes de Dąbrówka Commentum in Chronicam Polonorum Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek, Zwiercan, ed., with the assistance of Anna Zofia Kozłowska and Michał Rzepiela (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2008 [Monumenta Poloniae Historica, nova Series 14]), XXXI–XLIII for the sources John cited. See also Zwiercan, Komentarz Jana z Dąbrówki do Kroniki mistrza Wincentego zwanego Kadłubkiem (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1969), 114–157 for a discussion of his sources.

620

CHAPTER 11

Gerson, and Matthew himself.76 Another new element is that for faculty whose careers extended into the era of printing, the presence of printed books may be noted. For example, James of Szadek gave two incunabula containing Aquinas’ works to the Collegium maius and one containing sermons to the Collegium minus at his death in 1487. The remaining volumes of his library included five manuscripts of Aquinas’ writings, a copy of John of Salisbury’s Policraticus (which had earlier been owned in succession by two other Cracow masters, Henry of Radom and Stanisław of Szadek), two volumes of sermons, including some by Nicholas Kozłowski, and a copy of Augustine’s City of God. The religious and theological character of this library contrasts with James’ legal career, noted in a previous chapter, which involved him in administration and diplomacy. The absence of legal books suggested to Jerzy Zathey that much of his library has probably been lost.77 The library of Peter of Dzwanowo was a rich and varied one, of which seventeen volumes are today extant. Four constitute a complete commentary upon the Sentences by Peter of Tarantazio. In addition, he had works by Augustine, Gregory the Great, Ambrose, and Cassiodorus. This Latin patristic cast was complemented by the works of such Greek fathers as Gregory Nazianzus and John Chrysostom. Peter also had several sermons collections and copies of works by Aquinas. Less common was his possession of Robert Kilwardby’s De ortu et divisione scienciarum. Peter, who lectured on astronomy at Cracow as we have seen previously, may also have possessed copies of Gerard of Cremona and of the Alphonsine tables, as well as a codex which contains commentaries upon medieval authors such as Alanus de Insulis and antique writes such as Lucan (De bello civili), Vergil (Aeneid and the Bucolics) and Cicero (De amicicia).78 Many of the books extant from the library of John of Słupca (1408–1488) were of his own writings. These included sermons, biblical commentaries, Quaestiones and his Principium upon the Sentences, and a commentary on Aristotle’ Metaphysics. In addition, however, he had works by Augustine, Gregory the Great, Isidore of Seville, Bernard of Clairvaux, Peter of 76  His library is treated by Włodek, “Maciej ze Sąspowa,” Materiały 3 (1964): 44–91, here 57–60, and in her Z dziejów filozofii i teologii, 85–132, here 98–101. His biography and accomplishments are treated in PSB, 19, 36 (entry by Włodek), and Stanisław Bafia, “Maciej ze Sąspowa (ok. 1408–1472), in Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 187–193. 77  Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 102–103. 78  His library is analyzed by Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 83–88; both she and Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 103, note it is unusual, given Peter’s apparent extended teaching in the Stobner chair, that his library reflects little (Szelińska) or nothing (Zathey) of an astronomical nature.

Libraries And The Library

621

Tarantazio, and Aquinas. One of his manuscripts was a compendium of short theological works by various authors from both Poland and abroad. He also owned a printed copy of Augustine’s Confessions.79 One of the more difficult professorial libraries to identify is that gathered by John Beber of Oświęcim, the son of Nicholas, who matriculated at Cracow in 1440, incepted as a master in 1449, and thereafter studied theology. Prior to 1476 he is noted as a doctor of theology, and his premature death in 1482 came during a plague outbreak.80 He and his books have often been confused with two other Cracovian masters named John who came from the same town.81 In addition some of his books belonged previously to other faculty members at Cracow, in particular his contemporaries Andrew Grzymała and Peter Gaszowiec, both of whom died before him. Thanks to the analyses of Jerzy Zathey and Wacława Szelińska, however, it is possible now to speak with reasonable confidence about his library.82 Among John’s books are four which he bought following Grzymała’s death and three obtained after that of Gaszowiec. All are medical manuscripts, thus revealing an aspect of his interests which had hitherto not been known. His legal concerns are reflected in three manuscripts which contain Justinian’s Digestum vetus, Gratian’s Decretum, and the Decretalium liber sextus. From the extant other volumes in his library, it would be difficult to tell that he had had a career in the theological faculty, for only one or two volumes may be classified in this area. Most of his books relate to the subject of the arts curriculum. Four contain commentaries upon various Aristotelian works by such authors as Albert Rickmersdorf, Richard Killington, Rudolf of Erfurt, John Buridan, and others in that tradition. Some of his books were reference works, such as Papias’ dictionary De exposicione vocabulorum and Hugucio of Pisa’s Vocabularium. Others had a general humanistic character to them, such as Guarino da Verona’s Dictionarius. Then there was a 79  The complicated issues connected with both John’s library and his writings are discussed by Zdzisław Kuksiewicz, “Jan ze Słupczy. Stan badań,” Materiały 1 (1961): 85–117; PSB, 10, 476–478 (entry by Zofia Siemiątkowa); and Jerzy Rebeta, “Nieznane pisma i fragment biblioteki Jana ze Słupczy,” Materiały 8 (1967): 125–148, especially 131–132. There is a good, recent, overview of his life career by Roman Zawadzki, “Jan ze Słupczy (1408–1488), in Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, Piech, ed., 195–199. 80  Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 184. 81  He is not to be confused with two other individuals with the same name from the same place: John, son of Peter, who matriculated in 1443 and later studied law, and the theologian John Sacranus († 1527). On this problem, see the comments by Henryk Barycz in PSB, 10, 467–468 and the discussion of Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 101, note 23. 82  Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 105–108; and Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 101–114.

622

CHAPTER 11

broad range of traditional medieval works. Among these is Dionigi of San Borgo’s commentary on Valerius Maximus’ Dictorum factorumque memorabilium libri. John’s interest in classical authors includes his copying of a collection of Cicero’s treatises (the Topics, Rhetoric, and De officiis), Prudentius’ Psychomachia, and Guido de Colonna’s Historia Troiana. Finally, John had in his library copies of his own lectures. All together, some twenty four manuscripts and two incunabula may be traced to him. The library which belonged to Martin Król of Żórawica was undoubtedly very large. Unfortunately much of it has today disappeared. Only four, and perhaps five, manuscript in the Jagiellonian library may be attributed to his possession. These include Herman of Erfurt’s Quaestiones on the De generatione, a commentary on Ptolemy’s Quadripartitum, Peter of Argillata’s Libri de chirurgia, and a horoscope for the year 1451 which he himself prepared. This listing does not include the numerous works of Martin Król which are extant today in copies, although each would in its autograph stage have been in his library.83 In all probability, John of Olkusz the Elder, also owned a large number of books, but only eleven can be identified today. Most are volumes on religious, theological, or legal topics, but some reflect his interests in astronomy and classical literature. Among the latter are copies of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Seneca’s Letters, and Peter Nazardi’s Lamentationes de matrimonio.84 Another library of which only remnants remain is that which belonged to John of Inowrocław. Most of his thirteen extant manuscripts are related to instruction in the arts faculty. These include commentaries upon the logical, physical, and metaphysical works of Aristotle (several of them by authors standing in the Buridanical tradition), as well as texts of and commentaries to Euclid and John Peckham. Perhaps the most interesting book from his library is one containing the letters and speeches of Poggio Bracciolini and other quattrocento humanists.85 The final library to be considered in this survey of the first Cracow generation is that owned by Andrew Grzymała. There are some twenty-three codices 83  Martin’s works, and the problem of his autograph, were first discussed in depth by Ludwik A. Birkenmajer, “Marcin Bylica z Olkusza oraz narzędzia astronomiczne, który zapisał Uniwersytetowi Jagiellońskiemu w r. 1493,” Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności: wydział Matematyczno-Przyrodniczy 25 (1893): 1–164, here 24–25 and 118, n. 82. His error in respect to the manuscripts discussed in the second reference was corrected by Kuksiewicz, “Marcin Król z Żurawicy alias z Przemyśla,” Materiały 1 (1961): 118–137, here 135–137; and Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 108–111. 84  Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 112–114. 85  Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 88–93.

Libraries And The Library

623

extant today (not including Andrew’s own works) which may be attributed to his collection. His medical background is emphasized by the presence of six codices containing works in this area. He also had a number of books which related to religious and theological topics, as well as several legal manuscripts which reflect the fact that he was also a licentiate in decretis. Although Andrew made an important contribution to the study and teaching of astronomy at Cracow, few of the books attributed to his library deal with this subject. He did, however, have a number of volumes which are related to other subject taught in the arts curriculum. His appreciation of humanistic interests, discussed in the preceding chapter, is shown by his possession of Boccaccio’s De casibus virorum illustrium, Florus’ eipitome of Livy’s history of Rome, and Guido de Colonna’s Trojan History. His literary interests are shown by manuscripts containing works by such ancient writers as Seneca, Terrance, Juvenal, Persius, and Vergil; medieval authors, such as Geoffrey of Vinsauf (his Poetria nova) and Everhard Bethune (the Laborinthus); and the Renaissance writer Leonardo Bruni Aretino. This broad range of interests was enhanced by other volumes in Grzymała’s library, some sixty in number, which are now lost but which we know about from a brief catalogue contained in another manuscript. Twenty of these books were biblical commentaries, collections of sermons, or theological treatises. Thirty were related to subjects taught in the arts curriculum. The remainder were legal and medical books.86 The Third Group Andrew’s large, complex library serves as an appropriate transition to the collections of the later generations of the Cracow professoriate, those who flourished in the second half of the century and who died about 1500. In discussing them, we shall single out only the most significant collections from scholars whose overall numbers were much larger than the size of the professoriate 86  Beyond the discussion of Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 114–117 (who also prints, 127–129, a catalogue listing the content of his library), and of Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 107–109 and 289–291, there is now an interesting treatment of his books by Benedek Láng, Unlocked Books. Manuscripts of Learned Magic in the Medieval Libraries of Central Europe (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008), 252–255. He places these medical treatises in the context of linking [learned] magic, medicine, and astrology, and he includes Andrew in “a group of university individual related in one way or another to handbooks also containing magical practices.” (254) He goes on, however, to qualify the implications of this by noted that “the evidence at hand enables us neither to determine to what extent they were interested in natural and image magic, nor to decide whether they simply read or even practiced any branch of magic.” This is, in effect, an argument from silence.

624

CHAPTER 11

in earlier decades. Thus the number of professors to be mentioned below is slightly smaller than that which constituted the foregoing group. Matthew of Kobylin the Elder (ca. 1425–ante 1492), who matriculated at Cracow in 1441 and eventually was promoted to doctor of theology in 1472, wrote a number of philosophical and theological works which apparently have not survived. It is also possible that much of his library has disappeared, for there are extant only fifteen manuscripts and five printed books which can be attributed to it. His pre-eminent position within the university as five-time dean of arts and nine-time rector suggests that his book collection may have been considerably larger than this. Nevertheless, these remaining volumes are sufficient to suggest the range of his interests. He had medical works, such as Bartholomew of Verona’s Praecepta medicinae; legal works, such as the Decretales of Boniface VIII and Guido of Baysio’s Apparatus; works in arts, such as a set of anonymous Quaestiones disputabiles on Aristotelian treatises and some questions derived from the grammatical work of Priscian; and such miscellaneous books as Isidore of Seville’s Etymologiae. But the predominant interest reflected in his library was, not surprisingly, religious and theological. More than half of his books fall into this area, including three of the incunabula, which were copies of Sentence commentaries that he eventually gave to his younger colleague and namesake ad usum vitae.87 Among the ten codices and five incunabula extant in the Jagiellonian Library from the collection of Arnolf of Mirzyniec, a doctor of decretals and professor of theology who died in 1491, there are three works by Bonaventure, the first part of Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae, and writings by both Stanisław of Skarbimierz and Matthew of Cracow. These theological works are complemented by two legal treatises containing commentaries on the Decretals. The remaining volumes, both written and printed, are a miscellany of liturgical, theological, and legal treatises. Other books which Arnolf owned, in what was apparently a substantial library, were given to the cathedral chapter in Cracow, in which library they remain today. These were also chiefly theological and legal in character, and, as has been noted, the library was quite typical of the average clerical collection of this time.88 Much the same description may be given of the extant library of Arnolf’s contemporary, John of Latoszyn, whose small library was also divided between the studium and the cathedral chapter. There are, however, some interesting 87  Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 96–101; and Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 111–112. 88  Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 118; see also Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 114–122.

Libraries And The Library

625

variations from the typical holding in this area. One manuscript, for example, contains selections from the works of such Greek and Latin fathers as John Damascene, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Isidore, and Anselm. In addition, John’s library also contained three volumes which included work of Seneca and Cicero (the De amicicia and De officiis), the Chronicle of Vincent Kadłubek, letters written by and to Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, a satire by Persius, speeches by Demosthenes and Poggio Bracciolini, and letters by Guarino da Verona and Poggio.89 This combination of interests, particularly the literary and humanistic, may be found also in the library of yet another contemporary of Arnolf’s, John Stanko, who was treated above in Chapter Eight. He had a library which included at least forty-six volumes, of which only nine are extant. Two of these contain medical treatises, one is theological (part of Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae), and six are legal, including works in both civil and canon law. Among the lost volumes, which were described only generally in his will, there were theological, religious, legal, medical, and literary works.90 The remnants of the library of Błażej of Kazimierz († 1505) which are extant in the Jagiellonian holdings are limited to ten manuscripts and one printed book. Although he was a bachelor of theology, seven of the former are medical or quasi-astronomical in nature. Among these are a copy of Ptolemy’s Quadripartitum. His three theological books included Robert Holcot’s Postilla super librum Sapienciae, Nicholas Gorran’s commentary on Matthew, and a volume containing sermons and short treatises by a variety of authors.91 Błażej’s slightly younger contemporary (who, however, died a decade and a half before him) was Bernard Crotinphul of Nysa, whose library contained twenty-seven volumes extant today, of which twelve were manuscripts. He had two codices of biblical commentaries, one by Peter Lombard on the letters of Paul, the other by Augustinus Triumphus. Three of his manuscripts were collections of sermons; another contained a commentary upon the Sentences. The rest of his library was composed of works related to the arts curriculum and the literary writings of authors from antiquity, the middle ages, and the Renaissance. For example, he had copies of Cicero’s De officiis, Paradoxa, and De oratore, of Cassiodorus’ Variarum libri XII, of John of Salisbury’s Policraticus, of Petrarch’s Compendium breve libri augustalis, Poggio Bracciolini’s Prohemium to Xenophon’s history, and Poggio’s own De miseria condicionis humane. 89  One of his manuscripts, noted by Fijałek, Studya, 104, also contained a collection of the oldest privileges of the University of Cracow. In general on John’s library, see Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 122–124. 90  Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 124–132. 91  Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 118–119.

626

CHAPTER 11

His incunabula were predominantly the works of patristic and medieval writers on biblical, religious, and theological topics.92 The predominance of printed books over manuscripts in Bernard’s library may also be seen in the collection of John Wels of Poznań († 1498). There are seven of his codices extant in the Jagiellonian Library, but there are thirteen incunabula. The latter include two biblical and homiletical collections, three legal books, two of which bear on rhetoric, one commentary on works of Aristotle, two dictionaries, and books on cosmography, history, and medicine. His manuscripts are chiefly medical, including works by Arnold of Villanova, Dini of Florence, and others. There are, however, also copies of Cassiodorus’ Variarum and a series of astronomical treatises. By far the most important book which John left to the university is a copy of a work by Paul Paulirini (also known as Paul of Prague or Paul the Jew), Liber viginti artium, a collection of contemporary wisdom largely astrological and alchemical in nature. Paul had been awarded a doctoral degree in medicine at Padua and lectured in mid-century at Cracow. He had compiled this work while he was imprisoned in the jail of the Bishop of Cracow (though the original contains later emendations from the 1460s when he may have been in the service of King George of Poděbrady in Bohemia). The stories surrounding this volume are connected with elements of black magic and the black arts, and this copy of the book eventually came to be associated with a legendary, but fictional, Cracovian professor named Twardowski, whose success in these “twenty arts” convinced later generations that he had sold his soul to the devil. Twardowski thus has become a Polish prototype of the Faust legend.93 (It is interesting to note that the historical Dr. Faustus was said to have had connections with Cracow in the early sixteenth century.)94 92  Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 132–139. 93   The classic treatment in Polish scholarship of the “Twardowski Book” is Józef Muczkowski, De Pauli Paulirini viginti artium libro (Cracow: [s.n.], 1835; see also Josef Reiss, “Das Twardowski-Buch: Opus magicum des polnischen Faust,” Germanoslavica 2 (1933): 90–101. I have seen neither of these items. The most current treatment of this book is Láng, Unlocked Books, 220–222. John’s exemplar of the Liber viginti artium was not the original text, but a copy. On John’s library in general, see Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 121–122. The question of secret learning (including magic of one kind or another) is treated by Roman Bugaj, Nauki tajemne w Polsce w dobie odrodzenia (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1976), 210–222 in particular for the “Twardowski Book.” 94  See the story repeated by the sixteenth century author Johannes Manlius in a book of anecdotes: “I knew a certain man by the name of Faustus. . . . When he was a student at Cracow, he studied magic, for this art was much practiced in this city. In fact, public lectures on magic were common.” Cited by Frank Baron, “The Historical Doctor Faustus

Libraries And The Library

627

Other professorial libraries late in the fifteenth century were more prosaic in their contents, but are nevertheless important and interesting in the context of this chapter. James of Boksyce at one time had a very large library. At this death, his will provided that some twenty-six titles in thirty-seven volumes be given to the cathedral chapter in Gniezno, where he had been a canon. In addition, it is possible to identify another four volumes which belonged to him. Only thirteen codices remain from that collection, nine of them now in the Jagiellonian Library. A few of James’ books were theological, but most were legal in character. The latter represent almost the full range of major texts in both canon and civil law, as well as many of the more important commentaries and critical apparatuses. James’ collection was, in fact, one of the better legal libraries of his day in Poland. In addition, he had a copy of Albert the Great’s commentary Aristotle’s Metaphysics and a manuscript which contained Nicholas Oresme’s treatise on Meteors, John Buridan’s commentary on the De anima, and his work on De generatione. Another of James’ books was Giles of Rome’s De regimine principum, while the remainder were scattered among medicine and astrology. Although the Italian diplomat Callimachus later praised James for his humanistic interests (see above, Chapter Ten), there is no trace of this in his library.95 Andrew of Łabiszyn († ante 10 June 1498) was promoted to bachelor of arts in 1466 and incepted as a master in 1469 at Cracow, then lectured in arts while beginning the study of theology. He was dean of that faculty as only a bachelor in theology in 1477, then left Poland for Italy where he gained the doctoral degree in theology in 1478. For some reason this degree was never accepted as valid in Cracow, and when he returned there his teaching remained in arts, in which faculty he served as dean in 1487. He continued theological studies, however, and eventually was promoted to doctor of theology in 1489. Prior to his death he served one term as rector—winter semester 1496. His library is interesting for what it does not contain. Despite his long years of teaching in arts, there are no books in this area extant which can today be attributed to his collections. It is difficult to believe, however, that he had none at all, and it at the University of Heidelberg,” in Paquet and IJsewijn, eds., Les universités a la fin du moyen âge, 381–395, here 382. This story forms the point of departure for the study on learned magic in late medieval central Europe by Láng, Unlocked Books, 1–3, at the end of which he poses the rhetorical question “Did Kraków really possess a particularly magical milieu?” Apart from the possibility of that reputation, the reality is that the historical Dr. Faust was never in Poland; see Frank, Doctor Faustus: From History to Legend (Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1978), 11–16 and 84. 95  Hornowska and Zdzitowiecka-Jasieńska, Zbiory ręropiśmienne, 238–240; and Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 139–147.

628

CHAPTER 11

is probably therefore that these have perished. All that remains of his library are eighteen volumes—both manuscripts and printed books—dealing with religious and theological matters, six which contain legal treatises, and one medical incunabulum. All of the authors and works represented in these books were in common use at Cracow.96 The library of Adalbert of Brudzewo, mathematician, astronomer, and secretary to the Grand Duke of Lithuania, is difficult to determine. That it was at one time very large is probable. Much of it, however, perished in the fire of 1492, and he probably did not rebuild it to any great extent before he died three years later. Efforts to attribute to him, on the basis of his lecture topics within the university that are recorded in the Liber diligentiarum, possession of such works as the writings of Gerson, Macrobius, Livy, various Aristotelian works with commentaries, and mathematical-astronomical treatises remain problematical, though plausible.97 It is almost certain, however, that he had one of the most important astronomical works of the pre-Copernican era. This was the Theoricae novae planetarum of the Viennese Georg Peuerbach, for Adalbert wrote his own Commentariolum on it in 1482–1483. In other respects, it is not too much to say that Adalbert possessed at one time an excellent selection of books on astronomy and mathematics, but it is impossible to be specific. Near the turn of the century, the collections of professors show signs of change. They are larger, increasingly varied reflecting classical and Italianate interests, and show a high percentage of printed books. For example, Peter Świętopełk of Zambrzecz, a professor of theology who had matriculated in arts in 1446, eventually was promoted to both degrees in arts, subsequently studied theology, and completed the doctoral degree in that faculty only three years before his death in 1497.98 He had only three manuscripts in his library, one of them a collection of fifteenth century sermons. But in addition he had two hundred and two incunabula which he willed to the university. Many of these were scholastic and theological in character, but a substantial number included the works of Plato, Seneca, Cicero, Quintilian, and Aeneas Sylvius

96  For his biography, PSB, 1, 107–108; and Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 193–194. For his library, Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 147–152. 97  In addition to the general overview of his life and activity provided by Ryszard Palacz, “Wojciech Blar z Brudzewa,” Materiały 1 (1961): 172–198, see Palacz’s more focused study, including the question of Adalbert’s library, “Wojciech z Brudzewa jako astronom i filozof,” Materiały 7 (18) (1974): 53–91, especially 67–72. 98  Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 197–198, notes that during his long tenure teaching in arts Peter served on a commission charged with reforming the arts faculty.

Libraries And The Library

629

Piccolomini, thus foreshadowing the fully developed Renaissance collections that were to come.99 The same tendencies are revealed even more clearly in the library of John Sommerfeld, the Elder, Aesticampianus. He had only five manuscripts, but more than two hundred thirty printed books. Approximately one hundred fifty of his books were printed in Italy, more than half of them in Venice. Because he was a bachelor of theology (though most of his teaching at Cracow was in arts),100 it is not surprising that about one-third of his library was religious and theological in nature. Many of these books were standard works which were included in most Cracovian theological collections, but some were not. His possession of works by Gregory of Rimini was unusual in his time. In general, however, books reflecting the theological tradition of Thomas or Scotus were the most common items in his library. In the area of law, he had thirty-six books, while such topics as medicine, astrology, and geography were each represented by two to four volumes. His remaining books fall into two large categories, each represented by about fifty items. The first is philosophy and contains commentaries upon the works of Aristotle by those who represent the Thomistic tradition (such as Aquinas himself), John Versor, Giles of Rome, the Scotist approach, and the Albertist tradition. But his library also contained in this category a significant number of items by authors in the moderni tradition. In addition, his library included copies of works by both Averroes and some of the Latin Averroists of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Finally in this philosophical category are such varied works as Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, Marsilio Ficino’s Commentaria in Platonem, and Cardinal Bessarion’s attack upon George of Trebizond, Defensorium adversus calumniatorum Platonis. The second category is literary and humanistic. Among ancient authors, John had copies of Hesiod’s Liber georgicorum and Theoginis, Theocritus’ Bucolics (these in translation, for he knew no Greek), works by Ovid, Lucan, Seneca, Apuleius, Cicero, Varro, and others. His interest in history was reflected by the presence of copies of Thucydides, Polybius, Dionisius of Halicarnassus, Appian, Tacitus, and Suetonius. Despite his clear interest in rhetoric, he did not have a copy of Cicero’s De oratore or anything by Quintilian. Among humanist 99   Lewicka-Kamińska, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1492–1665,” 150–151. See also Lewicka-Kamińska, Inkunabuły Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1962), 266. 100  He did not begin theological studies until the 1490s and was promoted to baccalaurius biblicus only in 1497; thereafter, until his death in 1501, he lectured cursorily upon the bible (apparently emphasizing Latin patristics). See Markowski, Dzieje Wydziału Teologii, 201.

630

CHAPTER 11

authors, his holdings included, among others, works by Boccaccio, Pontanus, Flavio Biondo, Pomponio Leto, Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, Politian, George of Trebizond, and Aretino. In sum, then, Sommerfeld’s library was the largest single bequest the university had received to that point. In its range it reflects the extent to which new interests had come into focus at Cracow. With him we stand on the edge of a new stage in the history of professorial libraries and the library.101 (The magnitude of his bequest, along with several others at about this time, was one of the important factors which led the studium to construct a specific room, a libraria, to house its book collection.) Two final professors, both of whom died six years after John, will serve as transitional figures to the group which was flourishing at the turn of the century, but whose demise came later. These two are John of Głogów and Martin Łysy (the Bald) of Cracow. John’s importance for the intellectual and institutional history of the university in the last third of the century can scarcely be overestimated, as we have seen. His extant library, however, hardly reflects this, for the bulk of it has disappeared (some of it apparently into the hands of Michael Falkener of Wrocław—see below—where it is largely indistinguishable from his own collection). Fewer than a score of volumes, both manuscripts and incunabula, may be attributed to this collection, but these few fall into most of the categories in which he made a contribution: grammar, astronomy, geography, logic, and natural science. John apparently had no interest in the literary and humanistic currents of his day, and books in these areas are completely absent from the fragments of his library which we possess.102 Most of the books which Martin of Cracow owned have also perished, for only three can be identified today. Fortunately for our knowledge of the history of book collections in this period, however, Martin prepared a catalogue of the sixtyeight volumes which he was bequeathing from his library to the university; this has survived and it is possible to reconstruct what he owned.103 Most of his books—more than fifty—were theological and canonical in character. He also had some astrological treatises, and—a bit surprisingly—some works from antiquity and quattrocento Italy such as Ovid’s Metamorphoses and the Liber facaetiae of Poggio Bracciolini.104 In general, however, his library bears 101  Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 152–175.; see also the comments of Barycz, Historja UJ, 693. 102  On his writings, some of which may be regarded as items in his library, see Władysław Seńko, “Wstęp do studium nad Janem z Głogowa,” Materiały 1 (1961): 9–59, and Seńko, “Wstęp do studium nad Janem z Głogowa, część II: Katalog dzieł astrologicznych i astronomicznych,” Materiały 3 (1964): 30–38. His library is more explicitly the focus of Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 178–181. 103   C DUC, 4, no. 314, 1–7, here 3–4. 104  Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 181–187.

Libraries And The Library

631

more similarity to those earlier in the century than to the type gathered by John Sommerfeld Aesticampianus. It is John’s precedent that is fully confirmed by the libraries owned by faculty in the early sixteenth century. The Fourth Group In ever greater volume the university obtained books for a collection that was to continue to grow until the Swedish depredations of the mid-seventeenth century. In part, this growth was traceable to increased numbers of faculty; in part, to the generally more common availability of printed books over manuscripts; and in part, to the development of a conscious acquisitions program which, for reasons of chronology, lies outside the scope of this study. All of these factors were becoming evident by the time of death of those younger faculty members whose careers were already flourishing about 1500. To conclude this section of the chapter, we briefly review a small sample of five individuals from this fourth and final group of fifteenth century faculty to see the types of collections being utilized on the eve of the sixteenth century, the era Henryk Barycz termed “the epoch of Humanism.”105 Nicholas Czepel of Poznań, whose brief university career has not hitherto been noted, matriculated in arts at Cracow in 1470, was promoted to bachelor in 1472, and incepted as a master three years later. He undertook further studies in Italy and in 1488 was promoted to doctor of canon law there. Upon his eventual return to Poland, he taught at the university and served the Jagiellonians as diplomat and advisor. In 1504 he was ennobled. His career, prior to his death in 1518, provides excellent examples of the political, social, and intellectual currents in early Renaissance Poland. During his stay in Italy, Nicholas developed a taste for book collecting and eventually left to the university a library containing two manuscripts and 193 printed books, only thirty-eight of them from the sixteenth century. These include legal, theological, philological, philosophical, and medical books. Among the first group was an excellent selection of the Bolognese glossators of the middle ages and quattrocento, including several works by Bartolus de Saxoferrato and his student Baldo de Ubaldis. For the first time in the intellectual history of Poland, a large selection of Greek books may be noted in his library. Many of these came from the Aldine Press in Venice. There are such varied items as the works of Aristotle in Greek, the speeches of Demosthenes, and the writings of Herodotus, Homer, and Xenophon. Both the literary and editorial work of such scholars as Lascaris, Mazuros, and Chalcondylas are found in his collection. Thus by its size and its range, Czepel’s 105  The fifth section (containing nine chapters) of Barycz, Historja UJ, 661–732, is devoted to the library in this period; chapter two (669–676) treats efforts to achieve the “public library” originally envisioned in the late fifteenth century.

632

CHAPTER 11

library reflects both the continuing older interests of the faculty and the newer tastes of the period.106 An even more important collection from this period was that of Matthew of Miechów, historian, geographer, physician, many-time rector, and reformer of the curriculum, who died in 1523 and who has been briefly treated in a previous chapter. His library, which must unfortunately be passed over very briefly here because of its vastness, contained as many as 1000 volumes. It was a microcosm of the world of learning at that time. If it had a less extensive literary and humanistic component to it than the libraries of Sommerfeld and Czepel (though this element was by no means lacking), this was because Matthew’s interests were more historical and medico-scientific.107 Nicholas Mikosz, who died in 1528 after many years of teaching at the university, had a library of more than 200 volumes. His collection included Strabo’s Geography, Ptolemy’s Cosmographia, works by Cicero, collections of Latin poetry, and the more traditional works of medieval authors.108 The books which Michael Falkener of Wrocław eventually collected in his library (some originally held by John of Głogów, as noted above), if not so numerous as some of the other early sixteenth century collections, were nevertheless for in excess of those held by most professors when he matriculated at the university in 1479. Prior to his death in 1534, he collected a library which emphasized philosophy, astronomy, natural science, and theology. More than eight volumes of it, one-third of them manuscripts, are extant today. None of them reflect literary and humanistic interests, but they do contain an element which has not appeared in previous collections discussed here. For the first time, works of the Reformation (chiefly anti-Luther treatises) and the Catholic Reformation appear.109

106  Barycz, Historja UJ, 29–31; and Lewicka-Kamińska, Renesansowy księgozbiór Mikołaja Czepla w Bibliotece Jagiellońskiej (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1956), 3–18, for his life, 18–29 for an analysis of the library, and 51–114 for a complete catalogue of his library. See also her brief treatment of this collection’s Greek items in Lewicka-Kamińska, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1492–1665,” 230. 107  Matthew’s library has been thoroughly discussed by Lech Hajdukiewicz, Biblioteka Macieja z Miechowa (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1960). See also Hajdukiewicz’s discussion of Matthew’s intellectual interests as reflected in his books in “Zainteresowania naukowe Macieja z Miechowa w świetle jego księgozbioru,” in Henryk Barycz, ed., Maciej z Miechowa 1457–1523. Historyk, geograf, lekarz, organizator nauki (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1960), 205–254. 108  Lewicka-Kamińska, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1492–1665,” 153. 109  His library is discussed by Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 201–218. Additional material about his library, together with a discussion of his extensive writings, is provided by

Libraries And The Library

633

Finally from this period comes the relatively large library of Martin Biem of Olkusz. He matriculated at Cracow in 1486 and incepted as a master in arts in 1491. Thereafter he taught in arts and, after earning his doctorate in theology, in that faculty also. He died in 1540. From his library there are extant today eight manuscripts (most of them commentaries on various works of Aristotle), fifty-eight incunabula, and sixty-seven works printed in the sixteenth century. Mentions of other works he once owned, but which are now lost, bring the total number of volumes in his library to over 150. The chief categories into which these fall are astronomical, including a great deal of literature on calendar reform along with his own work on this subject;110 and theologicalphilosophical, especially works dealing with some of the controversies of the Reformation.111 Martin also had works by Erasmus in his library, and while he was by no means the first in Poland to be involved in Erasmian studies, he was nevertheless part of an important intellectual current.112 With this review of four different groups of professorial libraries during this period, the range of interests on the faculty and, to a certain extent, the depth of these intellectual concerns within the university may be seen.113 The important Ryszard Palacz, “Michał Falkener z Wrocławia. Stan badań,” Materiały 6 (1966): 35–91, especially 88. 110  For his role in this field, see the comments of Krzysztof Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe in the Middle Ages (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2009 [Krakow Historical Monographs 1]), 146. 111  Szelińska, Biblioteki profesorów, 226–243. 112  The Erasmian tradition in Poland has been recently reexamined by Howard Louthan, “A Model for Christendom? Erasmus, Poland, and the Reformation,” Church History 83 (2014): 18–37. He updates—and in some significant ways revises—a historiographical strand which includes such important work as Henryk Zins, “Leonard Coxe i erazmiańskie koła w Polsce i Anglii,” Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce 17 (1972): 27–60; George Hunston Williams, “Erasmianism in Poland,” The Polish Review 22, 3 (1977): 3–50 (including the older literature he cites 9, n. 13); and Jacqueline Glomski, “Erasmus and Cracow (1510– 1530),” Erasmus of Rotterdam Yearbook 17 (1997): 1–18. 113  An interesting description of a student library may be found in Zathey, “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492,” 129–130. This collection, which belonged to Clement of Myslenice, included twenty-nine separate items. Clement’s university career, which did not lead to any degree at all, dates to the middle of the fifteenth century. Building upon her earlier Biblioteki profesorów, Wacława Szelińska, Ślązacy w Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV i XVI wieku w świetle ich książek i księgozbiorów (Katowice: Wojewódzka Biblioteka Publiczna w Katowicach, 1997) revisits the book collections of eight-nine Silesians at the university in this period. Her profile of these (some of whom have been treated upon the basis of her earlier work in preceding pages here) seems to me to add little to what she—and others, particularly Zathey and Lewicka-Kamińska—had already found.

634

CHAPTER 11

related topic of the development of printing—especially in Poland—and a closer analysis of the role of printed books in shaping the outlook of faculty members had not been treated in this chapter. They are, however, topics which deserve further attention beyond that which Polish scholarship has already devoted to them.114 To conclude this chapter, it is appropriate to discuss briefly, in overview and with reference to some of the points made in previous chapters, the character and significance of these libraries as they relate to the intellectual and academic life of the University of Cracow in the fifteenth century. Conclusion The earliest professorial collections tended to be relatively simple in their composition. They contained a few works relating to the arts curriculum, but were predominantly professional. They specialized in theology or, less commonly, law. The weakness of medicine within the institution is reflected in the limited number of medical treatises which derive from this period. By mid-century, however, it is possible to see evidence of new intellectual interests, particularly humanistic, which were not formally tied to the curriculum. By the end of the century, the libraries of some professors, while continuing to contain materials in their academic specialties, also were more broadly representative of all areas of learning. It was not simply that literary and humanistic concerns were reflected in them; these were book collections of a Renaissance type which showed, not only the professional dimension of the life of the university, but also revealed a concern with the full spectrum of intellectual accomplishment.115 Another aspect of the life of the university which these books show was the variety of philosophical and theological interests and orientations of the 114  The Polish printing scene was dominated by a number of important printers, among them Johannes Haller and Hieronymus Vietor. An older overview of the development of printing in this period can be found in Alodia Kawecka-Gryczowa, Rola drukarstwa polskiego w dobie odrodzenia (Warsaw: PIW, 1954); more recent studies are reflected in her edited volume, Drukarze dawnej Polski od XV do XVIII wieku, v. 1: Małopolska, part 1: Wiek XV–XVI (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1983). See also the section, with further bibliography on printing, in Jerzy Ziomek, Renesans (Warsaw: PWN, 2002 [Wielka Historia Literatury polskie]), 45–54. I have not seen Helena Gierasimowitz, “Early Printing in Poland. Its development during the golden age in Cracow,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, 1966. 115  For the nature of these “Renaissance” collections in a Polish context, see the comments of Lewicka-Kamińska, Renesansowy księgozbiór Mikołaja Czepla, v–viii.

Libraries And The Library

635

faculty members. One could not say for the full century that Cracow was an exclusive locus for either the via antiqua or the via moderna. Instead many intellectual currents were to be found there. While Buridan and the moderni may have been popular and influential earlier in the century, the traditions of Albert, Thomas, and Scotus may be seen also. Even in the latter part of the century when the approaches of the antiqui came to the fore, the new currents that the fourteenth century had produced continued to be found in academic libraries. More than this, the Cracovian professors, as shown in their libraries and writings, often sought to arrive at a middle ground, the via communis or via media, looking for a solution that was academically probabilior, giving to the Cracow environment the eclectic character that has been so often remarked upon by Polish scholarship, most particularly by Krzysztof Oźóg, in his recent overview of these developments.116 This variety found its greatest elaboration in the arts faculty and was not matched by an equal diversity in the theological faculty. There the pragmatic and non-speculative orientation of the Cracow school saw, as we have noted above, an emphasis upon Sentence and biblical commentaries which was supported by books representing the more traditional aspects of high medieval theology. In one respect the professoriate was not traditional. This was in its growing openness to humanistic concerns, leading some European studia, trailing others. As early as the third decade of the century, the literary interests of quattrocento Italy, whether in works of antique origins or of Renaissance writers, began to be represented in faculty libraries. Whether they had any concomitant impact on the curriculum at this time, a problem which has been examined in the previous chapter, it is true that this current continued to grow through the century. By the early 1500s, it was increasingly a central focus for a growing body of scholars, especially—though not only—those teaching in the arts faculty. An equally important development was the concern for the natural and exact sciences, particularly mathematics and astronomy, that is reflected in the libraries of the professoriate. By the end of the century, Cracovian expertise in this area was considerable, and the reputation of the studium was international in scope. It is important to recognize a fundamental methodological matter here. Not all the books that came to the university derived from faculty libraries, so this source cannot be regarded as a fully sufficient explanation for the intellectual content of the academic environment. For example, this chapter has not 116   Oźóg, “Uniwersytet Krakowski: przykład późnośredniowiecznego eklektyzmu,” in Teresa Wolińska and Mirosław J. Leszka, eds., Średniowieczna wizja świata. Jedność czy różnorodność. Idee i teksty (Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2009), 235–250.

636

CHAPTER 11

touched upon the library of John Długosz—who never taught at the studium but was nevertheless an important influence for the institution—and how items in his possession came eventually to be part of the Jagiellonian collection.117 Nor has there been any discussion, beyond implication, of how other items of importance (such as the university’s copy of Boccaccio’s Genealogia deorum),118 which were not part of faculty members’ holdings came to the library. Neither are all the views of the professoriate reflected in the books and collections discussed in this chapter. For example, one dimension of their interests—that which included the astrological and even the peripheries of learned and image magic—has been largely ignored here.119 Thus the sample treated in this chapter has necessarily been an incomplete one which has emphasized relatively large, identifiable or extant collections. Moreover, this sample, even if it were to include every book owned by every faculty member would still be an imperfect reflection of the interests of the professoriate. In the final analysis, details of those views can be determined only by reference to the work written by scholars in this period. Nevertheless, the review attempted in this chapter does support the general conclusions drawn above. Moreover, it is sufficient to enable us to point out that the vitality of the intellectual life at Cracow was enriched by the conflicting and competing cross-currents represented by the books of the faculty members. In sum, the review shows that the interests of the professoriate, as they should properly be in any university, were dynamic and not static.

117  See the comments of Krystyna Pieradzka, Związki Długosza z Krakowem (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackii, 1975 [Biblioteka Krakowska 115]), 53–59. 118  Zarębski, “Problemy wczesnego Odrodzenia w Polsce. Grzegorz z Sanoka—Boccaccio— Długosz,” Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce 2 (1957): 5–52, particularly 33–39. 119  These matters have been the focus of Lang, Unlocked Books, 242–262, especially 250–255. One specific volume of the Jagiellonian collection which he discusses in depth is MS BJ 793, which contains a good deal of astrological material and a finely illustrated text of the Picatrix, a work long associated with aspects of image and learned magic. This manuscript had once belonged, probably, to Peter Gaszowiec, who had apparently brought it back to Poland from Italy in 1456, and Lang sees this as evidence for a tradition of this type of magic in Cracow. The manuscript is among a number of these kinds of materials which were at one time or another in the possession of Cracovian faculty. For Lang’s discussion of Picatrix specifically, see 96–106 and particularly 103: “To sum up, BJ 793 can be seen as a representative handbook of image magic, a good starting point for anyone wishing to familiarize himself with the science of talismans.”

Conclusion By the early sixteenth century the University of Cracow had achieved varying degrees of maturity. Its institutional structure had been developed to serve its needs while conforming in significant degree to the larger European tradition of which it was a part. Its academic program, while reflecting some local distinctions in terms of requirements and procedures, was one which any similar institution in Europe would find recognizable. The patterns of attendance and social structure which characterized its students and the profiles of its faculty members had, in the course of preceding decades, come to be clear and consistent. Its physical presence within the city was effectively stable, with few changes to come in the near-term. From a practical standpoint its contribution to the life of the country in which it was located had been substantial: clergy had been educated, teachers had been trained, chancery officials had learned the tools needed to pursue a good career in courts both secular and ecclesiastical, and the service which its masters and students—whether graduates or not—had rendered to the larger society proved to be valuable. Moreover, the members of the studium had proved themselves to be abreast of academic and intellectual developments elsewhere on the continent. In some respects what had been achieved at Cracow was not only of high quality but represented distinctive contributions on a European scale. Nevertheless, there were to be significant developments in the course of the sixteenth century and into the next century. During the first part of this period the university reached the apogee of its achievements following the successful refounding by King Władysław Jagiełło in 1400. It is worth describing these developments briefly here before turning to some final observations about what Cracow achieved and contributed and the ways in which its fifteenth century history helps inform our understanding of late medieval universities.

Transformation and Gradual Decline

The growth of humanist interests within the university that had begun to make themselves present in the last decades of the fifteenth century continued in the early sixteenth. Instruction in Greek, and eventually in Hebrew, was introduced, and the patronage of such leading Erasmian humanists as Bishop of Cracow Peter Tomicki as university chancellor ensured that this aspect of the university’s growth continued to prosper. His death in 1535, however, and a subsequent curriculum reform in the arts faculty that reverted to older, medieval, © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004326019_014

638

Conclusion

scholastic traditions marked the beginning of a gradual decline and, in the judgment of some, stagnation. Certainly in the areas in which it had achieved high prominence in the late fifteenth century—for example, instruction in science, particularly astronomy—it failed to sustain this level in subsequent generations. Not until the era of its renowned seventeenth-century rector and internationally recognized astronomer John Brożek (Joannes Broscius † 1652) did it again achieve the level of the Copernican years. The Protestant reformation also had a negative impact within the studium. Students from outside the Polish kingdom, especially in Silesia, were drawn to new Protestant universities. The university itself remained solidly Catholic, which lost it many students from the noble families in the kingdom, where the growth of Protestant sentiment, especially the Reformed tradition, was strong by mid-century. Even the burgeoning Catholic revival later in the sixteenth century did not improve the fortunes of Cracow. The Jesuits were powerfully instrumental in that revival and developed their own institutions elsewhere in Poland. They also sought at one point to have the University of Cracow transformed into a Jesuit school. Eventually this possibility was foreclosed, but in the process, the university itself was transformed. It established its own network of schools as part of a program derived from the legacy of a noble from Pomerania, Bartholomew Nowodworski. Unfortunately the education these schools provided varied in quality, and the level that had been achieved in the fifteenth and early sixteenth century was not fully recovered until much later. The reduction in matriculations from abroad was most marked from the Hungarian kingdom. The number of students from there declined sharply after the effective conquest of large parts of the Hungarian kingdom following the Turkish victory at Mohács in 1526. Thus the student body at Cracow became more and more drawn from a catchment base that was a steadily narrowing region. As a result it increasingly resembled many of the late medieval studia in the west and the Holy Roman Empire. Changing socio-political developments within the Polish-Lithuanian state and, after the Union of Lublin in 1569 and the death of the last Jagiellonian ruler, in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth also served eventually to weaken the University of Cracow. By the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Polish nobility (the szlachta) had secured virtual control of all public offices and positions in the ecclesiastical hierarchy for themselves by virtue of birth and noble status alone. Eventually the necessity of education for advancement in society was badly diminished as a result. It was to be many generations, and not until state and society had gone through the profound transformations of the eighteenth century partitions, before the University of Cracow recovered. When it did, the 500th anniversary celebrations in 1900, the 600th anniversary in 1964,

Conclusion

639

and the 600th again in 2000 were, indeed, events in which all associated with the university took great pride.1

Cracow as a Late Medieval University

When there were just the two so-called archetypal institutions at Bologna and Paris, it was a more straightforward matter to talk about what medieval universities were. By the end of the middle ages, however, the multiplication of such institutions makes this effort much more difficult. Their variety and diversity was one of the factors that led A.B. Cobban to conclude that “the history of the later medieval universities . . . has yet to be written,” and described this topic as “an area of study which forms an uncertain mosaic wherein broad generalizations co-exist uneasily with the finding of monographic research.”2 This statement, now more than four decades old, came without the depth of knowledge we now have of the role and place of Cracow in the mix. In many ways, the picture of Cracow’s status presented in this study does little to simplify the task of achieving an understanding of late medieval universities. It was less regional and more cosmopolitan than many, for reasons that had something to do with the decline of Prague, whose previous importance in the fourteenth century corresponded to the ways in which Charles IV had made this city a kind of European capital—both politically and even intellectually.3 It was also less riven by intellectual contention than some of the studia elsewhere, especially in the Empire, where the phenomenon of Wegestreite sometimes created a Hobbesian state of academic nature 1  The foregoing comments in the text summarize—very inadequately—developments that are much more fully treated by Henryk Barycz, Historja Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w epoce humanizmu (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1935); and the well-done chapters in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ (by Andrzej Wyczański, Wacław Urban, Adam Przyboś, and Emanuel Rostworowski). In English, see the brief comments by Krzysztof Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe in the Middle Ages (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2009 [Krakow Historical Monographs 1]), 151–152 and 156; and the somewhat fuller discussion by Krzysztof Stopka, “From Foundation to the Late 18th Century,” in Stopka, Andrzej Kazimierz Banach, and Julian Dybiec, The History of the Jagiellonian University, Teresa Bałuch-Ulewiczowa, trans. (Cracow: Jagiellonian University Press, 2000), 23–27 and 76–88. 2  A.B. Cobban, The Medieval Universities, their development and organization (London: Methuen, 1975), 116. 3  On this latter point, the picture painted by S. Harrison Thomson, “Learning at the Court of Charles IV,” Speculum 25 (1950): 1–20, still deserves consideration.

640

Conclusion

and at other times made institutions one dimensional in what approach was even allowed.4 Cracow was, as shown above, generally dominated by the via moderna in the early parts of the fifteenth century and the via antiqua in the latter parts, but throughout the period treated in this study it was also an institution, as Krzysztof Oźóg has shown, where faculty tended to seek the via media if a broad consensus could not be reached.5 Cracow was also, in the fifteenth century, much less dominated by either ecclesiastical or secular controls than many other institutions of this period. While it was generally supportive of royal policy and while the formal control of the university was in episcopal hands, intellectual and administrative matters were usually controlled by the officers and faculty members themselves. Indeed, there were times, as in the conciliar movement, where the university was able to pursue an independent course long after both the Polish church and state had conformed to accord with Rome. In the larger picture of late medieval university history, Cracow’s relatively small size with respect to enrollment prevented it from equaling the dominance of such major institutions as Paris or even, in its own region, Vienna and some of the larger studia in the German lands proper. Nevertheless, it is clear that those who taught at Cracow were current in their command of intellectual and academic developments elsewhere in Europe and even, in some areas— ecclesiology, political theory about relations between states and peoples, and the exact sciences—were creative and made contributions that enriched the European tradition. In other contexts Cracow’s developments in the fifteenth 4  A general overview of this phenomenon is provided by the articles in Albert Zimmermann, ed., Antiqui und Moderni. Traditionsbewusstsein und Fortschrittsbewusstsein im späten Mittelalter (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1974); and, more briefly, Monika Asztalos, “The Faculty of Theology,” in Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992 [Walter Rüegg, General Editor, A History of the University in Europe 1]), 409–441, here 438–440. For developments at Paris see Zenon Kałuza, Les querelles doctrinales à Paris. Nominalistes et realists aux confines du XIVe et du XVe siècle (Bergamo: P. Lubrina, 1988 [Quodlibet 2]). Developments in Germany were classically treated by Gerhard Ritter, Via antiqua und via moderna auf den deutschen Universitäten des XV. Jahrhunderts (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1922). A more recent analysis of the Wegestreit at Tübingen in particular is provided by Heiko Oberman, Masters of the Reformation. The Emergence of a New Intellectual Climate in Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), a revised version of his Werden und Wertung der Reformation. Vom Wegestreit zum Glaubenskampf (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1977). 5  Oźóg, “Uniwersytet Krakowski: przykład późnośredniowiecznego eklektyzmu,” in Teresa Wolińska and Mirosław Leszka, eds., Średniowieczna wizja świata. Jedność czy różnorodność. Idee i teksty (Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2009), 235–250.

Conclusion

641

century help us refine our understanding of some issues that have been wrongly or poorly understood in the past. This is particularly true with respect to the way in which humanism became part of the scholastic environment of the university. At Cracow, as at several other universities in northern Europe,6 rather than the traditional stereotype of antagonism between scholasticism and humanism, there was instead a growing presence and involvement within the studium. Humanistic interests were understood to complement in certain ways older attitudes and approaches. If there was conflict, it was often as much over institutional questions of teaching possibilities rather than that of the substance of content. Indeed, in a number of ways, progress toward the inclusion of humanism within the Cracovian studium was more rapid than in some institutions elsewhere. Nearly twelve decades after the last fully rounded picture of the university in the fifteenth century, that by Kazimierz Morawski in 1900, much more is now known about the character, content, and contribution of Cracow in this period. There are, however, significant areas where much remains to be done. Some important university records have yet to be edited,7 and there are numerous works by faculty which, at best, have been studied only cursorily and, at worst, remain themselves to be edited. In general the first half of the fifteenth century has been far better studied than the second half. It may be that the best that Cracow produced has already been treated and that what remains will be merely workmanlike, similar to what is written by university faculty in all times and places—uninspiring and derivative. But this can not be known until the research is done. Some questions about the significance and nature of the Cracovian studium will be difficult to answer. The historiographical trend noted in the Introduction to this study—issues of social origins, mobility, career paths, patronage networks, and the like—may not be possible to pursue as completely and effectively for Cracow as it has been done for other universities. The thick layers of documentation available for other such institutions—in Italy, France, 6  I single out here only as representative contributions James H. Overfield, Humanism and Scholasticism in Late Medieval Germany (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986), and Maximilian Schuh, Aneignungen des Humanismus. Institutionelle und individuelle Praktiken an der Universität Ingolstadt im 15. Jahrhundert (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013 [Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 47]). Other could be mentioned; see the discussion, with bibliography, by Walter Rüegg, “The Rise of Humanism,” in Hilde de RidderSymoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 442–468. 7  See my comments in “In Search of Alma Mater Cracoviensis: Recent Publications,” The Polish Review 57 (2012): 101–117, especially 113, n. 37.

642

Conclusion

England, and Germany, for example—are not as fully present in Poland as one would wish. Urban records are more limited, administrative documents from chanceries both ecclesiastical and secular are less rich than one would like, and the vicissitudes of history in this region have resulted in losses that compromise the opportunities to develop, on the model of the profile of Ambroży Pampowski, a collective prosopography for the fifteenth century university. Despite these barriers, however, the existence now of a fully modern edition of the matricula, the growing body of other material, newly edited or edited for the first time, and the very high quality of current Polish scholarship provides hope for the possibilities of the future. While historians seek, by the very nature of their discipline, to achieve an understanding and an acceptable representation of the past, they always know that those in the future—to return to the medieval trope quoted in the Preface of this book—will be able to “see more and further” than we do. Those of us in the present generation derive deep satisfaction in serving as part of the foundation upon which they will stand.

Appendices

∵

Appendix A

The Rectors of the University 1400–1508 From the refoundation in 1400 through 1418 the rector was elected for a full year, with tenure probably from April to April. After that (with three exceptions in the fifteenth century) elections were held twice a year, with tenure lasting for one term. The summer term, for which elections were held on the festival of St. George (23 April), lasted from April to October; and the winter term, for which elections were held on the festival of St. Gall (16 October), lasted from October to April.1 The list of rectors for the fifteenth century which follows in based, with minor modifications, upon that included in the new edition of the matricula in MS Cracow BJ 258.2 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415

Stanisław of Skarbimierz Prince John of Drohyczyn Nicholas of Gorzków Otto Marciszowic of Tochołów John Szafraniec John Rzeszowski Nicholas of Pyzdry Francis Krzyżowiec of Brzeg Andrew of Kokorzyn Elias of Wąwolnica Nicholas Kozłowski Lucas of [Wielki] Koźmin Nicholas Hinczowic of Kazimierz Stanisław of Skarbimierz (second term) Paul Vladimiri Paul Vladimiri (second term ?)

1  The original list of rectors, which has now been superseded by information in the Metryka edition cited in note 2, was established by Antoni Karkowiak, “O rektorach uniwersytetu Kazimierzowskiego i Jagiellońskiego w Krakowie wraz ze spisem wszystkich rektorów od roku 1400 do obecnej chwili,” in Kronika Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego od r. 1486 do r. 1887 (Cracow: Gebethner, 1877), i–lxiii. Karbowiak prints a short poem found in the university archives which touches the election of the rector: “Sicut Anna aestivalis / Ita Prisca hiemalis / Dimidiuym est totalis / Magistratus rectoralis.” (vii) Whatever his source, the actual text in the MS of the matricula reads (in a sixteenth century hand) “Uti Anna aestivalis, ita Prisca hyemalis, est dimidium officii cuiusque rectoralis.” Metryka, 1, 11. 2  Metryka, 1, liii–lvi. The editors of this list note previous versions of rectoral lists.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004326019_015

646 1416 1417 1418 1419 summer 1419 winter 1420 summer 1420 winter 1421 summer 1421 winter 1422 1423 summer 1423 winter 1424 summer 1424 winter 1425 1426 1427 summer 1427 winter 1428 summer 1428 winter 1429 summer 1429 winter 1430 summer 1430 winter 1431 summer 1431 winter 1432 summer 1432 winter 1433 summer 1433 winter 1434 summer 1434 winter 1435 summer 1435 winter 1436 summer 1436 winter 1437 summer 1437 winter 1438 summer 1438 winter

Appendix A Nicholas Budziszyn of Cracow Nicholas Sołtysowic of Konradswaldau John of Fałków Pełka of Borzykowa John Cro of Cottbus James of Nowy Sącz James Zaborowski Michael Goldberg of Nysa Thomas of Chroberz Duke Alexander of Mazovia Sigismund of Pyzdry Mathew of Koło John of Radochońce James Zaborowski (second term) John of Pavia Andrew of Kokorzyn (second term) John Elgot Benedict Hesse of Cracow Laurence of Racibórz Laurence of Racibórz (second term) Andrew of Kokorzyn (third term) Francis of Brzeg (second term) John of Wieluń Andrew of Buk John of Radochońce Dziersław of Borzymów Thomas Strzempiński Thomas Strzempiński (second term) Nicholas Tempelfeld of Brzeg Thomas of Bodzentyn Stanisław of Uście John Puszka of Cracow Michael of Szydłów Andrew of Buk (second term) John of Jastrzębie John of Jastrzębie (second term) James Zaborowski (third term) John Elgot (second term) Dziersław of Borzymów (second term) Nicholas Spicymir of Cracow

The Rectors Of The University 1400–1508 1439 summer 1440 summer 1440 winter 1441 summer 1441 winter 1442 summer 1442 winter 1443 summer 1443 winter 1444 summer 1444 winter 1445 summer 1445 winter 1446 summer 1446 winter 1447 summer 1447 winter 1448 summer 1448 winter 1449 summer 1449 winter 1450 summer 1450 winter 1451 summer 1451 winter 1452 summer 1452 winter 1453 summer 1453 winter 1454 summer 1454 winter 1455 summer 1455 winter 1456 summer 1456 winter 1457 summer

647

James Parkoszowic of Żórawica3 John of Dobra James Parkoszowic of Żórawica (second term) James Parkoszowic of Żórawica (third term) Paul of Piotrków Stanisław Cielątko of Liszyno Stanisław Cielątko of Liszyno (second term) Stanisław Cielątko of Liszyno (third term) Thomas Strzempiński (third term) James Zaborowski (fourth term) Bartholomew of Radom Bartholomew of Radom (second term) Stanisław Cielątko of Liszyno (fourth term) Stanisław of Sobniów John of Dąbrówka James Zaborowski (fifth term) James of Cracow James of Cracow (second term) Nicholas Bylina of Leszczyny Matthew of Łabiszyn Benedict Hesse of Cracow (second term) Benedict Hesse of Cracow (third term) Andrew of Sadowie Benedict Hesse of Cracow (fourth term) John of Dąbrówka (second term) John of Pniów John of Słupca Nicholas of Kalisz John of Dąbrówka (third term) Benedict Hesse of Cracow (fifth term) Nicholas Bylina of Leszczyny (second term) Nicholas Bylina of Leszczyny (third term) Benedict Hesse of Cracow (sixth term) John of Pniów (second term) John of Pniów (third term) Casper Rokenberg of Cracow

3  There was no rectoral election for the winter semester of 1439; a note in Metryka, 1, 183, comments “Fuit autem per illam totam commutacionem in civitate Cracouiensi et circumcirca grandis pestilencia.”

648 1457 winter 1458 summer 1458 winter 1459 summer 1459 winter 1460 summer 1460 winter 1461 summer 1461 winter 1462 summer 1462 winter 1463 summer 1463 winter 1464 summer 1464 winter 1465 summer 1465 winter 1466 summer 1466 winter 1467 summer 1467 winter 1468 summer 1468 winter 1469 summer 1469 winter 1470 summer 1470 winter 1471 summer 1471 winter 1472 summer 1472 winter 1473 summer 1473 winter 1474 summer 1474 winter 1475 summer

Appendix A Casper Rokenberg of Cracow (second term) John of Dąbrówka (fourth term) John of Dąbrówka (fifth term) Kasper Rokenberg of Cracow (third term) Kasper Rokenberg of Cracow (fourth term) Wojciech of Lisiec Sędziwój Tęczyński Nicholas Bylina of Leszczyny (fourth term) Nicholas Bylina of Leszczyny (fifth term) Arnolf of Mierzyniec Arnolf of Mierzyniec (second term) Paul of Kłobuck Nicholas of Kalisz (second term) Nicholas of Kalisz (third term) Peter Gaszowiec of Loźmierza Peter Gaszowiec of Loźmierza (second term) Andrew Grzymała of Poznań Andrew Grzymała of Poznań (second term) Paul of Kłobuck (second term) John of Dąbrówka (sixth term) John of Dąbrówka (seventh term) John of Latoszyn John of Latoszyn (second term) Stanisław of Szadek Nicholas Bylina of Leszczyny (sixth term) Peter Gaszowiec of Loźmierza (third term) Arnolf of Mierzyniec (third term) John of Dąbrówka (eighth term John of Dąbrówka (ninth term);4 Clement of Górka Clement of Górka (second term) Matthew of Kościan Matthew of Kościan (second term) Matthew of Błędów Stanisław of Szadek (second term) Matthew of Błędów (second term) James of Szadek

4  John died during his term of office (11 January 1472); an election to replace him apparently took place immediately.

The Rectors Of The University 1400–1508 1475 winter 1476 summer 1476 winter 1477 summer 1477 winter 1478 summer 1478 winter 1479 summer 1479 winter 1480 summer 1480 winter 1481 summer 1481 winter 1482 summer 1482 winter 1483 summer 1483 winter 1484 summer 1484 winter 1485 summer 1485 winter 1486 summer 1486 winter 1487 summer 1487 winter 1488 summer 1488 winter

649

James of Szadek (second term) John of Słupca (second term) John of Słupca (third term) Matthew of Kobylin Matthew of Kobylin (second term) Stanisław of Zawada Stanisław of Zawada (second term) George Laudamus of Cracow;5 John Beber of Oświęcim John Beber of Oświęcim (second term) John Beber of Oświęcim (third term) Arnolf of Mierzyniec (fourth term) Clement of Górka (third term) Stanisław of Brzeziny6 Matthew of Kościan (third term) Matthew of Kościan (fourth term) John of Latoszyn (third term) John of Latoszyn (fourth term) Matthew of Kobylin (third term) Matthew of Kobylin (fourth term) Matthew of Kościan (fifth term) John Baruchowski John Baruchowski (second term) John Baruchowski (third term) Nicholas of Cracow Nicholas of Cracow (second term) Matthew of Kobylin (fifth term) Matthew of Kobylin (sixth term)

5  George died during his term of office; an election to replace him apparently took place immediately. 6  In other contexts, particularly in previous editions of the Liber promotionum, Stanisław has been identified as “Stanisław called Konicz of Brzeziny.” This was based on a misreading of the text of the promotion book (MS Cracow BJ 263), which has now been corrected in the most recent edition. Compare Księga promocji, 34 and 36 with Najstarsza księga promocji, 213 and 214; see, more fully, Antoni Gąsiorowski, “Nazwisko rektora Stanisława z Brzezin (zm. 1492), czyli o lapsusie Józefa Muczkowskiego (i moim),” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 16 (2011): 5–11. The correct reading of the manuscript has now been established by Gąsiorowski (and his editorial team) as “fuit professor s[acre] theologie et canonicus Cracouiensis [Mlinkoni(s)].”

650 1489 summer 1489 winter 1490 summer 1490 winter 1491 summer 1491 winter 1492 summer 1492 winter 1493 summer 1493 winter 1494 summer 1494 winter 1495 summer 1495 winter 1496 summer 1496 winter 1497 summer 1497 winter 1498 summer 1498 winter 1499 summer 1499 winter 1500 summer 1500 winter 1501 summer 1501 winter 1502 summer 1502 winter 1503 summer 1503 winter 1504 summer 1504 winter 1505 summer 1505 winter

Appendix A Stanisław of Kobylin;7 Matthew of Kobylin (seventh term) Bernard of Nysa;8 Stanisław of Brzeziny (second term) Matthew of Kobylin (eighth term) John of Pilica John of Pilica (second term) Matthew of Kobylin (ninth term) John of Latoszyn (fifth term) John of Latoszyn (sixth term) John of Staniszewice John Sacranus of Oświęcim John Sacranus of Oświęcim (second term) John Sacranus of Oświęcim (third term) Matthew of Szydłów Valentine of Olkusz Andrew of Łabiszyn Andrew of Łabiszyn (second term) Andrew of Łabiszyn (third term) John of Wysoka John Turzo of Cracow John Turzo of Cracow (second term) John of Strzechowice Valentine of Olkusz (second term) John of Reguły Wojciech of Pniewy Nicholas of Pilica Matthew of Miechów John of Reguły (second term) Martin of Cracow Martin of Cracow (second term) James of Gostynin James of Gostynin (second term) John Przyjaciel of Cracow John Przyjaciel of Cracow (second term) Matthew of Miechów (second term)

7  Stanisław died during his term of office; in the subsequent election to replace him, his immediate predecessor was chosen. 8  Bernard died during his term of office and Stanisław of Brzeziny was elected to complete that semester.

The Rectors Of The University 1400–1508 1506 summer 1506 winter 1507 summer 1507 winter 1508 summer 1508 winter

651

Bernard of Biskupie of Cracow Bernard of Biskupie of Cracow (second term) John of Reguły (third term) Matthew of Miechów (third term) John of Reguły (fourth term) Stanisław Skawinka of Cracow9

9  Of those who had held the office of rector prior to 1508 noted in the list above, the following were elected for further terms after 1508: Matthew of Miechów (five additional terms), John Sacranus of Oświęcim (three additional terms), John Przyjaciel of Cracow (three additional terms), and Bernard of Biskupie of Cracow (three additional terms). Among individuals mentioned in the text of this volume who were eventually elected rectors after 1508, particular mention should be made of Stanisław Biel of Nowe Miasto (elected ten or eleven times) and Martin Biem of Olkusz (elected nine times). See Metryka czyli album Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego z lat 1509–1551, Antoni Gąsiorowski, Tomasz Jurek, and Izabela Skierska, eds., with the cooperation of Ryszard Grzesik (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Neriton, 2010), lii–liv.

Appendix B

The Deans of the Arts Faculty 1400–1510 Deans of the faculty of arts functioned ostensibly for one-semester terms. Fragmentary data, primarily obtained from the Liber promotionum, does not, however, fully provide information for each semester during this period, especially for the early period of the university’s revived functioning. Dates for elections of deans were established in the original statutes of 1406 and conformed to the academic year of the university and its rectoral elections. The list of individuals below is based on the new edition of the Liber promotionum.1 1400 winter 1401 winter 1402 summer 1402 winter 1403 summer 1403 winter 1404 summer 1404 winter 1405 summer 1405 winter 1406 summer 1406 winter 1407 summer 1407 winter 1408 summer 1408 winter 1409 summer 1409 winter

John Štěkna [?] ? ? Francis of Brzeg John of Fałków Andrew of Malbork John of Kluczbork Peter Brandys Nicholas Sculteti of Konradswaldau Erasmus of Nysa Antoni Tempelfeld of Cracow Andrew of Kokorzyn Wilhelm Kesinger Nicholas Sculteti of Konradswaldau Francis of Brzeg Henry of Klobuck Francis of Brzeg ? [perhaps Henry of Klobuck]

1  Najstarsza księga promocji, 416–418. Some of the data for individuals in the early years of the fifteenth century are accepted—with reservations in many instances—by the editors of this edition of the Liber promotionum on the basis of conclusions drawn by Zofia KozłowskaBudkowa, “Odnowienie Jagiellońskie Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego (1390–1414),” in Lepszy, ed., Dzieje UJ, 37–89, especially 56–87. See also, on the question of the deans of this faculty, Antoni Gąsiorowski, “Bylini i inni. Dziekani Wydziału Sztuk krakowskiego uniwersytetu w XV wieku,” in Jacek Banaszkiewicz, et al., eds., Ludzie—Kościół—Wierzenia. Studia z dziejów kultury i społeczeństwa (Warsaw: DiG, 2001), 523–537.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004326019_016

The Deans Of The Arts Faculty 1400–1510 1410 summer 1410 winter 1411 summer 1411 winter 1412 summer 1412 winter 1413 summer 1413 winter 1414 summer 1414 winter 1415 summer 1415 winter 1416 summer 1416 winter 1417 summer 1417 winter 1418 summer 1418 winter 1419 summer 1419 winter 1420 summer 1420 winter 1421 summer 1421 winter 1422 summer 1422 winter 1423 summer 1423 winter 1424 summer 1424 winter 1425 summer 1425 winter 1426 summer 1426 winter 1427 summer 1427 winter 1428 summer 1428 winter 1429 summer 1429 winter

? Pełka of Borzykowa John Wilusz of Cracow John Wilusz of Cracow Andrew of Malbork Andrew of Malbork Pełka of Borzykowa Pełka of Borzykowa Peter Brandys Nicholas Budziszyn of Cracow Nicholas Budziszyn of Cracow James of Jasło John of Radochońce Peter of Sienno Augustine of Ziębice Nicholas of Piątek Olaf of Uppsala Olaf of Uppsala Paul of Worczyn Stanisław of Sobniów Stanisław of Piotrków Stanisław of Piotrków Benedict Hesse of Cracow Laurence of Racibórz Laurence of Racibórz Peter Brandys Nicholas of Oszkowice Andrew of Buk Andrew of Buk Benedict Hesse of Cracow Nicholas of Oszkowice Andrew of Buk Sigismund of Pyzdry Laurence of Racibórz Laurence of Racibórz John Orient of Cracow Nicholas Tempelfeld of Brzeg John of Jastrzębie John Czelp of Wieluń John Czelp of Wieluń

653

654 1430 summer 1430 winter 1431 summer 1431 winter 1432 summer 1432 winter 1433 summer 1433 winter 1434 summer 1434 winter 1435 summer 1435 winter 1436 summer 1436 winter 1437 summer 1437 winter 1438 summer 1438 winter 1439 summer 1439 winter 1440 summer 1440 winter 1441 summer 1441 winter 1442 summer 1442 winter 1443 summer 1443 winter 1444 summer 1444 winter 1445 summer 1445 winter 1446 summer 1446 winter 1447 summer 1447 winter 1448 summer 1448 winter 1449 summer 1449 winter

Appendix B Paul Warmutowski of Pyskowice Stanisław of Przechowo Nicholas of Głubczyce Matthew of Łabiszyn Thomas of Bodzentyn John of Kanty John Puszek of Cracow John of Dąbrówka John of Dąbrówka John of Szadek Clement of Brzeg Andrew Gałka of Dobczyn Andrew Gałka of Dobczyn Bartholomew of Radom Bartholomew of Radom John of Kanty John of Kanty John Orient of Cracow John of Słupca ? John Orient of Cracow Andrew Gałka of Dobczyn Andrew Gałka of Dobczyn Paul of Kłobuck Paul of Kłobuck Nicholas Bylina of Leszczyny Peter of Dzwonowo John of Racibórz John of Racibórz Andrew of Piotrowice [?] Matthew of Sąspów Stanisław of Kobylin Andrew of Koźle Peter of Liptów James of Lisowo [?] Wojciech of Parlin Martin of Wojnicz Nicholas of Łęka Stanisław of Goździków John of Słupca

The Deans Of The Arts Faculty 1400–1510 1450 summer 1450 winter 1451 summer 1451 winter 1452 summer 1452 winter 1453 summer 1453 winter 1454 summer 1454 winter 1455 summer 1455 winter 1456 summer 1456 winter 1457 summer 1457 winter 1458 summer 1458 winter 1459 summer 1459 winter 1460 summer 1460 winter 1461 summer 1461 winter 1462 summer 1462 winter 1463 summer 1463 winter 1464 summer 1464 winter 1465 summer 1465 winter 1466 summer 1466 winter 1467 summer 1467 winter 1468 summer 1468 winter 1469 summer 1469 winter

Peter of Liptów Stanisław of Zawada James of Lisowo Wojciech of Parlin Wojciech of Opatów Nicholas Ligatoris of Cracow Wojciech of Opatów Andrew Grzymała of Poznań Stanisław of Szadek Matthew of Słupca Stanisław of Brzeziny Matthew of Kobylin John of Olkusz John of Oświęcim Andrew of Koźle Wojciech of Opatów Andrew Grzymała of Poznań Matthew of Sąspów Clement of Górka John of Olkusz Andrew of Starograd Stanisław of Zawada Matthew of Słupca John of Inowrocław Stanisław of Pleszew Nicholas of Łęka Nicholas of Staw Stanisław of Szadek John of Olkusz Matthew of Kobylin John of Toszek John of Łowicz James of Lisowo John of Oświęcim John of Oświęcim Dominic of Cielmowo Nicholas of Košice Stanisław of Pleszew James of Boksyce Nicholas of Staw

655

656 1470 summer 1470 winter 1471 summer 1471 winter 1472 summer 1472 winter 1473 summer 1473 winter 1474 summer 1474 winter 1475 summer 1475 winter 1476 summer 1476 winter 1477 summer 1477 winter 1478 summer 1478 winter 1479 summer 1479 winter 1480 summer 1480 winter 1481 summer 1481 winter 1482 summer 1482 winter 1483 summer 1483 winter 1484 summer 1484 winter 1485 summer 1485 winter 1486 summer 1486 winter 1487 summer 1487 winter

Appendix B Matthew of Służewiec Bernard of Nysa Clement of Gębice Matthew of Kobylin Peter Świętopłk of Ząbrzec Andrew of Starograd John of Łowicz James of Boksyce Nicholas of Cracow John of Oświęcim John of Staniszewice John of Pilica Matthew of Szydłów Nicholas of Latowicz Andrew of Łabiszyn Nicholas of Staw John of Głogów Clement of Gębice John of Oświęcim John of Łowicz Bartholomew of Żnin Michael of Wieluń Martin of Ośnica Martin of Cracow Vincent of Lwów [No dean elected due to plague2] Stanisław of Korzybie primus decanus post pestum3 Martin of Krajewice Martin of Kobylin John of Pilica Stanisław of Srebna Górka Wojciech [Adalbert] Blar of Brudzewo Stanisław S[elig?] of Cracow John of Staniszewice Nicholas of Pilica Andrew of Łabiszyn

2  “Isto anno pestis generalis magna Cracouie, et incepit circa festa Corporis Cristi [about 6 June 1482].” Najstarsza księga promocji, 244. 3  Ibid.

The Deans Of The Arts Faculty 1400–1510 1488 summer 1488 winter 1489 summer 1489 winter 1490 summer 1490 winter 1491 summer 1491 winter 1492 summer 1492 winter 1493 summer 1493 winter 1494 summer 1494 winter 1495 summer 1495 winter 1496 summer 1496 winter 1497 summer 1497 winter 1498 summer 1498 winter 1499 summer 1499 winter 1500 summer 1500 winter 1501 summer 1501 winter 1502 summer 1502 winter 1503 summer 1503 winter 1504 summer 1504 winter 1505 summer 1505 winter 1506 summer 1506 winter 1507 summer 1507 winter

John of Słup Peter of Ząbrzec Wojciech of Pniewy John of Głogów John of Michałowo James of Gostynin John of Szadek John Sacranus of Oświęcim Bernard of Biskupie Stanisław Biel of Nowe Miasto Paul of Zakliczewo Matthew of Kobylin James of Szydłów John [of] Sommerfeld Stanisław [Bylica] of Olkusz Michael Paryski [of Biestrzyków] John of Leśnica James of Gostynin Thomas of Obidzino Bernard of Biskupie Nicholas Mikosz of Cracow Wojciech of Szamotuły Michael of Wrocław Paul of Zakliczew Stanisław of Kleparz Martin [Biem] of Olkusz Leonard of Dobczyce Michael Paryski [of Biestrzyków] Martin of Tarnowiec Stanisław Biel of Nowe Miasto John of Nagold John of Leśnica Wojciech of Swodziszowice Nicholas Mikosz of Cracow Simon of Sieprc [Sierpe] Michael of Wrocław Peter of Cracow Leonard of Dobczyce Stanisław of Kazimierz John of Stobnica

657

658 1508 summer 1508 winter 1509 summer 1509 winter 1510 summer 1510 winter

Appendix B James of Iłża John of Lwów Martin of Wolborz Michael Sternberg of Lgota [Elgot] Leonard of Wistka Martin of Tarnowiec4

4  The manuscript (BJ 263) which contains the Liber promotionum and which is edited as Najstarsza księga promocji, continues to 1540. Because the focus of this study has been primarily upon the fifteenth—and in a few instances on the very early sixteenth—century, I do not list the deans for the following decades. The first version of this new edition, the Księga promocji, included material only from the fifteenth century, i.e. through 1500.

APPENDIX C

Matriculation at the University of Cracow 1400–1509 Year

Kingdom Poland

Silesia

Hungary

Prussia

German Lands

Bohemia with Moravia

1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 For decade

166 28 64 53 69 93 90 63 28 42 696

20 4 8 9 13 17 14 7 2 3 97

1 3 3 3 5 5 15 15 4 4 58

2 0 6 5 4 2 0 2 0 2 23

3 3 4 3 1 4 1 1 0 2 22

3 2 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 12

1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 For decade

66 126 93 92 107 107 58 67 86 111 913

11 13 13 12 14 14 21 24 18 28 168

3 2 1 6 2 2 4 4 11 8 43

0 1 1 4 1 0 5 4 3 2 21

0 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 0 2 15

1 0 1 0 2 1 3 3 0 0 11

1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426

172 131 56 63 102 58 131

34 34 4 25 30 24 18

10 11 3 1 14 21 27

2 1 2 1 2 2 2

3 1 2 0 1 1 3

3 5 2 2 3 5 2

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004326019_017

661

Matriculation At The University Of Cracow 1400–1509

West Pomeran., New March & Lubusz

Lithuania & Podlas.

Others

Unident.

Annual totals

1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

10 2 7 3 6 6 4 5 1 3 47

206 43 97 80 99 130 124 93 35 56

0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 3

0 0 2 4 1 1 0 0 0 7 15

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

6 3 7 2 4 5 5 4 4 12 52

87 147 119 123 134 132 98 109 123 171

1 1 1 0 1 0 0

6 0 2 1 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 4 0

8 6 1 6 8 7 8

239 190 73 99 161 122 192

Decade totals

963

1243

662

APPENDIX C

(cont.) Year

Kingdom Poland

Silesia

Hungary

Prussia

1427 1428 1429 For decade

122 97 82 1014

26 33 12 240

34 20 6 147

6 6 4 28

5 5 2 23

4 3 4 33

1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 For decade

170 87 75 69 81 66 113 55 59 8 783

16 10 11 13 15 10 19 13 3 0 110

22 12 14 2 15 17 45 16 6 0 149

5 4 1 1 1 0 7 8 2 0 29

1 2 1 1 0 1 4 4 3 0 17

5 0 6 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 16

1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 For decade

153 123 118 99 96 71 64 91 116 112 1043

13 5 10 12 18 10 15 13 10 25 131

9 16 13 16 23 12 20 19 22 35 185

1 5 3 14 2 6 4 3 13 27 78

1 0 0 2 4 0 0 5 3 2 17

4 0 2 3 2 4 3 9 1 1 29

97 83 65 90 97

14 25 9 11 43

26 37 21 26 43

13 13 5 5 16

8 2 4 1 5

10 5 3 3 3

1450 1451 1452 1453 1454

German Lands

Bohemia with Moravia

663

Matriculation At The University Of Cracow 1400–1509

West Pomeran., New March & Lubusz

Lithuania & Podlas.

Others

Unident.

Annual totals

1 1 0 6

2 1 0 13

2 0 0 6

13 10 5 72

215 176 115

0 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 5

1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 4

0 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 5

7 2 3 4 5 5 10 5 2 0 43

227 118 112 91 119 99 205 107 75 8

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3

1 0 5 6 2 3 0 1 1 0 19

0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 4

2 6 6 7 10 3 1 9 15 12 71

184 156 158 159 157 110 108 151 182 215

2 2 1 0 1

1 1 0 2 0

1 0 0 1 0

12 7 4 1 16

184 175 112 140 224

Decade totals

1582

1161

1580

664

APPENDIX C

(cont.) Year

Kingdom Poland

Silesia

Hungary

Prussia

1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 For decade

114 99 120 126 160 1051

16 19 19 31 25 212

32 28 33 36 40 322

5 3 3 5 6 74

5 3 4 1 3 36

2 4 4 1 3 38

1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 For decade

113 88 71 86 86 91 55 94 121 104 909

28 30 29 27 40 15 7 28 23 37 264

38 43 49 67 41 54 34 58 60 30 474

4 4 6 5 6 7 3 11 2 8 56

10 2 5 10 8 5 4 9 5 20 78

2 0 7 6 7 4 6 9 9 5 55

1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 For decade

131 101 67 224 198 128 106 114 86 89 1244

41 33 12 31 30 44 35 23 26 32 307

49 20 6 27 50 41 45 43 60 53 394

6 9 8 7 10 9 13 9 8 5 84

22 11 3 16 6 12 18 9 17 17 131

8 9 4 8 0 5 8 7 2 4 55

65 74 51 149

32 17 22 69

51 22 28 85

7 5 1 19

13 14 19 27

5 6 6 20

1480 1481 1482 1483

German Lands

Bohemia with Moravia

665

Matriculation At The University Of Cracow 1400–1509

West Pomeran., New March & Lubusz

Lithuania & Podlas.

Others

Unident.

Annual totals

0 0 0 0 0 6

2 0 2 3 2 13

1 0 0 0 1 4

7 2 6 3 6 64

184 158 191 206 246

0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 6

1 2 3 2 3 1 1 0 5 2 20

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3

4 3 7 11 8 10 5 8 20 10 86

200 173 178 215 200 187 115 217 247 219

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 4

4 5 4 3 9 5 4 6 1 1 42

0 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 5

13 6 0 8 13 7 8 7 13 2 77

274 194 106 324 318 252 238 220 213 204

0 0 0 3

0 1 0 1

0 0 0 0

2 7 3 4

175 146 130 377

Decade totals

1820

1951

2343

666

APPENDIX C

(cont.) Year

Kingdom Poland

Silesia

Hungary

1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 For decade

117 97 102 126 126 107 1014

48 37 38 32 29 39 363

96 80 77 62 50 52 603

17 22 11 30 17 9 138

33 30 25 22 13 28 224

14 12 13 26 11 11 124

1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 For decade

107 95 123 164 139 64 34 71 117 207 1121

50 35 42 39 33 32 6 10 67 44 358

27 19 47 81 80 36 16 12 59 74 451

7 17 18 13 12 3 11 4 7 20 112

33 32 57 48 36 34 17 14 35 44 350

15 7 4 11 12 10 2 4 39 20 124

1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 For decade

232 163 150 100 124 111 159 126 35 190 1390

72 69 46 60 38 31 50 41 31 39 477

65 73 57 51 60 47 69 47 20 49 538

32 23 14 22 41 16 8 20 6 14 196

53 28 41 51 30 22 36 27 5 21 314

23 12 10 18 22 9 17 23 9 28 171

11178

2727

3364

839

1227

668

TOTALS

Prussia

German Lands

Bohemia with Moravia

Data in this appendix are taken from Krzysztof Boroda, Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w późnym

667

Matriculation At The University Of Cracow 1400–1509

West Pomeran., New March & Lubusz

Lithuania & Podlas.

Others

Unident.

Annual totals

3 2 0 1 0 5 14

5 6 2 4 5 6 30

0 1 0 1 1 3 6

17 9 7 4 12 6 71

350 296 275 308 264 266

0 1 1 6 6 0 2 0 1 1 18

7 1 2 7 3 4 1 0 3 9 37

2 3 4 5 0 0 1 1 1 2 19

8 7 4 2 7 4 3 2 10 14 61

256 217 302 376 328 187 93 118 339 435

4 3 0 2 3 2 1 3 1 1 20

7 4 4 2 9 0 4 3 1 7 41

1 0 0 3 2 1 2 1 0 2 12

17 7 15 24 20 6 15 19 8 33 164

506 382 337 333 349 245 361 310 116 384

91

235

67

808

21204

średniiowieczu (Cracow: Avalon, 2010), 325–329 [Appendix 1]

Decade totals

2587

2651

3323

668

APPENDIX C

180

Kingdom Poland Silesia Hungary Prussia German Lands Bohemia with Moravia West Pomeran., New March & Lubusz Lithuania & Podlas. Others Unident.

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

1400

1401

1402

1403

1404

1405

1406

1407

1408

1409

chart 1

140

Kingdom Poland Silesia Hungary Prussia German Lands Bohemia with Moravia West Pomeran., New March & Lubusz Lithuania & Podlas. Others Unident.

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

1410

chart 2

1411

1412

1413

1414

1415

1416

1417

1418

1419

Matriculation At The University Of Cracow 1400–1509 200

669

Kingdom Poland Silesia Hungary Prussia German Lands Bohemia with Moravia West Pomeran., New March & Lubusz Lithuania & Podlas. Others Unident.

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

1420

1421

1422

1423

1424

1425

1426

1427

1428

1429

chart 3

180 Kingdom Poland Silesia Hungary Prussia German Lands Bohemia with Moravia West Pomeran., New March & Lubusz Lithuania & Podlas. Others Unident.

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

1430 1431 1432

chart 4

1433

1434

1435

1436

1437

1438 1439

670

APPENDIX C

180 160

Kingdom Poland Silesia Hungary Prussia German Lands Bohemia with Moravia West Pomeran., New March & Lubusz Lithuania & Podlas. Others Unident.

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449

chart 5

180 Kingdom Poland Silesia Hungary Prussia German Lands Bohemia with Moravia West Pomeran., New March & Lubusz Lithuania & Podlas. Others Unident.

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459

chart 6

Matriculation At The University Of Cracow 1400–1509

671

140 Kingdom Poland Silesia Hungary Prussia German Lands Bohemia with Moravia West Pomeran., New March & Lubusz Lithuania & Podlas. Others Unident.

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469

chart 7

250 Kingdom Poland Silesia Hungary Prussia German Lands Bohemia with Moravia West Pomeran., New March & Lubusz Lithuania & Podlas. Others Unident.

200

150

100

50

0

1470

chart 8

1471

1472

1473

1474

1475

1476

1477 1478

1479

672

APPENDIX C

160 Kingdom Poland Silesia Hungary Prussia German Lands Bohemia with Moravia West Pomeran., New March & Lubusz Lithuania & Podlas. Others Unident.

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489

chart 9

250 Kingdom Poland Silesia Hungary Prussia German Lands Bohemia with Moravia West Pomeran., New March & Lubusz Lithuania & Podlas. Others Unident.

200

150

100

50

0

1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499

chart 10

Matriculation At The University Of Cracow 1400–1509

673

250 Kingdom Poland Silesia Hungary Prussia German Lands Bohemia with Moravia West Pomeran., New March & Lubusz Lithuania & Podlas. Others Unident.

200

150

100

50

0

1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509

chart 11

Appendix D

Copernicus and the University of Cracow No one who was associated with the university in the fifteenth century is more widely known today than Copernicus. As “Nicholas, the son of Nicholas of Toruń” he matriculated there in the winter (i.e., the fall) semester of 1491 during the ninth rectorship of Master Matthew of Kobylin, Professor of Theology.1 His later fame as canon of Warmia, economist, physician, humanist and—above all—astronomer and creator of what has traditionally been called “the Copernican Revolution,” has understandably raised many questions about what was responsible for his accomplishments.2 It has been 1  Metryka, 1, 498. The editors note that the manuscript page on which his registration is found has been badly damaged and is difficult to read. Due to Copernicus’ later fame, it has been opened, examined, and displayed many times. 2  There is an enormous bibliography on Copernicus. The most reliable English treatment of his biography is still, I believe, that by Edward Rosen in his Three Copernican Treatises, 3rd ed., (New York: Octogan Books, 1973), 313–408 (see also 197–312 for an excellent bibliography covering material to the early 1970s). More recent bibliography is cited in subsequent notes. In Polish, a short, authoritative biography is provided by Jerzy Dobrzycki and Leszek Hajdukiewicz in PSB, 14, 3–16. For additional materials, published during or in association with the “Rok Kopernika” of 1973 (i.e., the 500th anniversary of his birth), see Nicholas Steneck, ed., Science and Society, Past, Present, and Future (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1973); Robert S. Westman, ed., The Copernican Achievement (Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1975); and my review comments upon several Polish publications in Slavic Review 33 (1974): 791–792. The Polish series, Studia Copernicana, has published several very important contributions, including volumes 7 and 8 (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1973), the Polish and English versions respectively of Marian Biskup, ed., Regesta Copernicana, a complete calendar of Copernicus’ papers. References to the most recent literature may be found in the following (with an emphasis, for the most part, on non-Polish language materials): Owen Gingerich, The Book Nobody Read: Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus (New York: Walker and Co., 2004); André Goddu, Copernicus and the Aristotelian Tradition: Education, Reading, and Philosophy in Copernicus’ Path to Heliocentrism (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010); Westman, The Copernican Question. Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order (Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 2011); Pietro Daniel Omodeo, Copernicus in the Cultural Debates of the Renaissance—Reception, Legacy, Transformation (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2014); and Wolfgang Neuber, Thomas Rahn, and Claus Zittel, eds., The Making of Copernicus. Early Modern Transformations of a Scientist and His Science (Leiden and Boston: Brill: 2015). The last three of these are concerned primarily with issues related to the acceptance of what might be termed “Copernicanism” in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. They devote little or no attention to the Cracovian scene when Copernicus was there and the nature of its impact upon Copernicus. The best Polish

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004326019_018

Copernicus And The University Of Cracow

675

traditional in Polish historiography to attribute as much as possible to his training and education at Cracow.3 Apart from the understandable motivation of national pride, there appears to be some basis for this interpretation in an observation attributed by a later sixteenth century source to Copernicus himself. In a letter of 27 September 1542 (i.e., before the publication in Nuremberg of the De revolutionibus orbium coelestium), Albert Caprinus of Bukowo wrote to the Bishop of Płock, who was also Vice-Chancellor of the crown, and commented: The wonderful things he has written in the field of mathematics, as well as the additional things he had undertaken to publish, he first acquired at our university [Cracow] as his source. Not only does he not deny this (in agreement with Pliny’s judgment that to name those from whom we have benefited is an act of courtesy and thoroughly honest modesty), but whatever the benefit, he says that he received it all from our university.4 Since one of the chapters above deals explicitly with astronomy at the university in the period Copernicus was there and elements of other chapters impinge upon the broader intellectual environment he would have experienced, it is appropriate here to evaluate what it is that Copernicus did owe to the University of Cracow. Copernicus did not graduate from the university. He probably stayed only three years, though there are some scholars suggest that he may have been there until 1495.5 work and other scholarship is summarized and critiqued in Michał Kokowski, Copernicus’ Originality. Towards Integration of Contemporary Copernican Studies (Warsaw: Wydawnictwa IHN PAN, 2004). His interest is chiefly in philosophical matters and the philosophy of science, though he deals in some ways with issues in geo- and astro-physics but without systematically developing and analyzing them in the way that, for example, Goddu does. Perhaps the clearest brief treatment of the Polish scene during Copernicus’ time at Cracow is that by Krzysztof Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe in the Middle Ages (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2009), 145–147. It is interesting that neither Westman nor Oźóg cite Kokowski; Goddu does so, but primarily in disagreement on some central issues. 3  See, for example, the comments by Jerzy Dobrzycki, “Mikołaj Kopernik,” in Dobrzycki, Mieczysław Markowski, and Tadeusz Przypkowski, Historia Astronomii w Polsce, vol. 1, Eugeniusz Rybka, ed. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1975), 127–156, especially 130, where Dobrzycki quotes the letter cited in the following note. 4  Quoted from the translation by Rosen, Three Copernican Treatises, 316. For details and bibliography, see Biskup, Regesta Copernicana, 214, no. 488 (Studia Copernicana 7) and 207, no. 488 (Studia Copernicana 8). 5  See Ludwik A. Birkenmajer, Stromata Copernicana. Studia, poszukiwania i materiały biograficzne (Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1924), 54–55; and, after him, many others; see, for example, Oźóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe, 145; and, by implication, Westman, The Copernican Question, 55.

676

Appendix D

By examining the Liber diligentiarum for that period, it is possible to know which masters were teaching in the arts faculty and what courses they were offering. From this it is clear that Adalbert of Brudzewo could not formally have taught Copernicus astronomy. He lectured only on the Parva naturalia, on De caelo et mundo, and on De generatione et corruptione, and held exercises on the Logica nova and Meteora in these years. Thus if John Brożek’s notation in the early seventeenth century that Adalbert was Copernicus’ professor is true,6 it must mean either that Copernicus took one of the aforementioned courses—none devoted formally to astronomy (although De caelo contains material related to astronomy, especially Aristotle’s rejection of Pythagorean conclusions about the center of the universe) or that Adalbert provided some kind of unofficial and unrecorded instruction in astronomy which Copernicus attended and about which Brożek knew.7 Even if the latter interpretation is rejected—and it can not be proven correct given our present data—this does not necessarily exclude the possibility that Copernicus knew Adalbert’s work. Adalbert’s commentary on Georg Peuerbach’s Theoricae novae planetarum (see above Chapter Seven for these works) was used as a text for the lectures on Theorica planetarum taught by Simon of Sierpiec in the summer (i.e., spring) semester of 1493, and Copernicus could have taken this class.8 There may have been other ways in which Copernicus became familiar with Adalbert’s work. Paweł Czartoryski has shown that the contents of Copernicus’ library included the 1492 Venetian edition of the Alphonsine Tables and the 1490 edition of Regiomontanus’ Tabulae directionum, that these came from the period of Copernicus’s study in Cracow, and that he had them with him when he arrived in Italy.9 These would have reflected to some degree Adalbert’s approach. This possession, however, would not in and of itself have indicated usage or influence, and Robert Westman has noted that “owning such early editions shows only the possibility, not proof that Copernicus acquired them at or near the time of publication.”10 He thus seems to cast doubt upon Czartoryski’s conclusion that Copernicus had them and might have used them by the time he arrived in Italy.

6  The text of this notation in Cracow, MS BJ 560 (a set of astronomical tables) was first printed by L.A. Birkenmajer, Stomata Copernicana, 89, n. 1. 7  This latter assumption has often been made by Polish scholars; see, for example, Mieczysław Markowski, “Szczyt rozkwitu i międzynarodowego promieniowania krakowskiej szkoły astronomicznej,” in Dobrzycki, Markowski, and Przypkowski, Historia Astronomii w Polsce, vol. 1, 112–114. 8  See above, Chapter Seven, n. 176. 9   Paweł Czartoryski, “The Library of Copernicus,” in Science and History. Studies in Honor of Edward Rosen (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1978 [Studia Copernicana 16]), 355–396, here 364. 10  Westman, The Copernican Question, 523, n. 178.

Copernicus And The University Of Cracow

677

A more important point is that whether Copernicus knew Adalbert’s work directly or indirectly, he would not have learned the heliocentric, or geokinetic, approach from him. Adalbert did not teach it; he raised doubts about the Ptolemaic universe, but did not replace it with a different system. In fact, as Edward Rosen pointed out long ago, there is no evidence (despite some efforts by Polish scholars to the contrary) to indicate that the heliocentric system was in any way discussed at Cracow in this period. Rosen’s statement is unqualified and unambiguous: “Not so much as an inkling of that concept [that the earth is a planet in motion], which is Copernicus’ chief contribution to our understanding of the physical universe, has been found in the publications and lectures of the Kraków professors.”11 Since Copernicus did eventually develop such a system, conceptualized sometime before 1514, written down in a preliminary form in the Commentariolus sometime after 1508,12 and printed in a final version in 1543 in the De revolutionibus orbium c­ oelestium13 we must ask further questions. First, if he was not taught it at Cracow, did he develop it at Cracow? There is no evidence that he did so and then left for further studies in Italy with a heliostatic paradigm already in embryo. In fact, there is considerable evidence to suggest that as late as 1508, he still held to the traditional view.14 Second, if he did not develop it at Cracow, was he prepared to develop it by what he learned there? In a general, but significant, sense, yes. He was given the fundamental tools and knowledge of a journeyman astronomer. He also was taught in an intellectual climate which was abreast of the best of natural science and philosophy and which was, moreover, enlivened to a degree with the growing critical spirit of humanism. An open, inquiring climate is essential to investigation and reflection, and it can stimulate innovation. This is why the spirit of a university at its best is not confined only to what is known and to the transmission of a given, defined heritage. Its spirit ranges beyond these limitations to ask the new and solve the previously unsolved. This was, in general, the dynamic spirit which was present at Cracow in Copernicus’ time. 11  Rosen, Three Copernican Treatises, 316. 12  English translation in Rosen, Three Copernican Treatises, 55–90 (see also 6–7 and 343– 346) and in Nicholas Copernicus Complete Works, 3 vols. (London, Warsaw, and Cracow: Macmillan and Polish Scientific Publishers, 1972–1985), 3: Nicholas Copernicus Minor Works (1985), 81–90. The second of these translations represents an improved version in a number of ways; see the comments by Goddu, Copernicus and the Aristotelian Tradition, xxvi. Goddu argues for a date about 1510 for the composition of the Commentariolus. (243–272) 13  A facsimile of the Copernican autograph of the De revolutionibus, with introduction by Jerzy Zathey, was published in multiple languages in Nicholas Copernicus Complete Works, 1 (1972), after 55 (unpaginated). A translation, with commentary, was done by Edward Rosen in vol. 2 (1978). 14  Rosen, Three Copernican Treatises, 343–346.

678

Appendix D

In addition, in what has been a stimulating recent innovation in historical scholarship, the issue of what influence astrological practice at Cracow might have been a factor in Copernicus’ approach has become a focus of study. This was early a part of the contribution of Ludwik and Aleksander Birkenmajer, and was further developed in the context of the extended celebrations that found printed expression in the various volumes of the Studia Copernicana.15 Now Robert Westman has made this consideration a significant element of his own recent volume on Copernicus, although his conclusions on the importance of the time in Cracow are rather tenuous.16 More specifically, André Goddu has now argued in some detail—successfully, I think—that the way in which natural philosophy was being taught in Copernicus’ time at Cracow opened the way to him to make further advances (though not before his time in Italy and after his return to Poland). Goddu makes the argument that the teaching Copernicus received in Cracow showed him “how to adapt Aristotelian principles to ideas different from those held explicitly by Aristotle,” that this teaching “alerted him to problems with Ptolemy and to the objections of natural philosophers,” and that he left Cracow in possession of “tools and ideas . . . in logic, . . . natural philosophy, . . . [and] astronomy” that prepared him for advanced work in Italy. Copernicus did not develop a new cosmological theory while at Cracow but he was prepared, with further study and experience, “to take advantage of the works of his predecessors and contemporaries to address those problems” which had been identified in the course of his study.17 All of the foregoing contributed generally to make Copernicus’ contribution in the De revolutionibus a kind of revolution, or—as Thomas Kuhn put it—something which was “revolution making.”18 But others spent time with Copernicus at Cracow in 15  This background is reviewed and further developed by Richard Lemay, “The Late Medieval Astrological School at Cracow and the Copernican System,” in Erna Hilfstein, Paweł Czartoryski, and Frank D. G­­rande, eds., Science and History. Studies in Honor of Edward Rosen (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1978 [Studia Copernicana 16]), 337–354. 16  Westman, The Copernican Question, 25–105 especially, but elsewhere in his book also. 17  Goddu, Copernicus and the Aristotelian Tradition, 133, 166, and 171–172. Goddu fleshes out his own understanding of the content of these tools by noting (1) that logic led Copernicus to understand “it was not possible for a true conclusion to follow validly from a false premise” and that the “relevance between a hypothesis and conclusion could be used as a criterion to prefer one hypothesis over another” (this is something that all who study logic learn); (2) that in natural philosophy “scholastic authors and schools had modified Aristotelian principles, and adapted them to problems and questions that were, as best, peripheral to Aristotle’s project;” and (3) that in astronomy he had “developed sufficient competence and received sufficient training to work with tables, and to use observational instruments.” 18  Thomas Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957), here 230.

Copernicus And The University Of Cracow

679

the same environment, and they did not make the breakthrough he did. Thus one is led to the conclusion that however much the context of Copernicus’ background and schooling at Cracow helps us to understand some things of what Copernicus owed to the University of Cracow,19 we should also conclude that what has been traditionally known as the Copernican revolution owed most to Nicholas Copernicus.20

19  “Context provides the backdrop against which ideas can and must be judged if their significance in time is to be properly understood. It provides the one true and directly proximate measure that we have of the traditional or innovative nature of certain specific ideas that seem to move man’s intellectual development in new directions.” Nicholas H. Steneck, “In Defense of Context,” in Westman, ed., The Copernican Achievement, 158. Steneck is here responding implicitly to the insightful and welcome commentary by David C. Lindberg in Steneck, ed., Science and Society, 44–51. This had been directed to my article “The World of the Young Copernicus: Society, Science, and the University,” in Steneck, ed., Science and Society, 19–51. 20  The recent magisterial volume by Westman, The Copernican Question, begins with a statement of what it was that Copernicus was trying to do: “. . . what, after all, was the question that Copernicus was trying to answer? This book is as much about that question—and the problems it generated and left unresolved—as it is about the kinds of answers offered by Copernicus and those who followed him.” (xv) In this study, he understandably pays relatively little attention to the details of Copernicus’ time at Cracow (see 48–55 particularly). Work subsequent to Westman by Omodeo and the authors of the articles in Neuber, Rahn, and Zittel’s edited volume cited in n. 1 above are also focused on developments that are only tenuously related to the question addressed in this appendix.

Bibliography Sources Acta iudiciorum ecclesiasticorum dioecesum Gneznensis et Poznaniensis (a. 1403– 1530). Bolesław Ulanowski, ed. Cracow: Nakładem Akademii Umiejętności, 1902 (Monumenta Medii Aevi historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia 16). Acta Rectoralia Almae Universitatis studii Cracoviensis inde ab anno 1469. Władysław Wisłocki, ed. Vol. 1. Continens annos 1469–1537. Cracow: Sumptibus Academiae Literarum Cracoviensis, 1893–1897. Albertus de Brudzewo. Commentariolum super theoricas novas planetarum Georgii Purbachii. L.A. Birkenmajer, ed. Cracow: Typis et Sumptibus Universitatis Jagellonicae, 1900. Album studiosorum Universitatis Cracoviensis. Żegota Pauli, Bolesław Ulanowski, and Adam Chmiel, eds. vols. 1 and 2. Cracow: Sumptibus Universitatis Jagellonica, 1883–1892. Bajor, Wanda, ed. Benedicti Hesse Quaestiones disputatae super tres libros ‘De Anima’ Aristotelis (Libri II et III). Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2011. ―――. “Edycja wybranych kwestii komentarza do pierwszej księgi ‘De anima’ Arystotelesa według Benedykta Hessego.” Acta Mediaevalia 12 (1999): 381–428. ―――. “Quaestiones Cracovienses in II–III libros De anima Aristotelis (Editio Critica),” Studia Antyczne i Mediewistyczne 5 (40) (2007): 225–268. Bełch, Stanisław, ed. “Tractatus ‘Opinio Hostiensis.’ A Proposal concerning the rights of infidel peoples and the authority of the pope. . . .” Sacrum Poloniae Millennium 3 (1956): 385–431. Benedicti Hesse de Cracovia Tractatus Brevior. Wacław Bucichowski, ed. In Bucichowski, ed., Polskie Traktaty Koncyliarystyczne z połowy XV wieku, 29–42. Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1987 (Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Poloniae excultae spectantia 23). Benedicti Hesse Lectura super Evangelium Matthaei. Wacław Bucichowski, ed. 8 vols. Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1979–1990 (Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia excultae spectantia 8, 13, 16, 18, 21, 24, 26, 27). Benedictus Hesse Quaestiones super octo libros ‘Physicorum’ Aristotelis. Stanisław Wielgus, ed. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1984. Beneficia Universitatis Jagellonicae saec. XV–XVIII. Jerzy Michalewicz and Maria Michalewiczowa, eds. Cracow: Archiwum Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1991 (Liber beneficiorum et benefactorum Universitatis Jagellonicae in saeculis XV–XVIII 5). Birkenmajer, Ludwik Antoni, ed. Mistrza Marcina z Żórawicy inaczej Marcinem Królem z Przemyśla zwanego Geometrya praktyczna, czyli Traktat sztuki mierniczej. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Redakcyi Prac Matematyczno-Fizycznych, 1895.

Bibliography

681

Biskup, Marian, ed. Regesta Copernicana. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1973 (Studia Copernicana 7). ―――. ed. Regesta Copernicana. (Calendar of Copernicus’ Papers). Wrocław: Ossolineum: 1973 (Studia Copernicana 8). Bojarski, Jacek Stanisław, ed.  Joannis de Ludzisko ‘De laudibus et dignitate philosophiae oratio,’ Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 13 (1968): 33–82. Der Briefwechsel des Konrad Celtis. Hans Rüpprich, ed. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1934. Bucikowski, Wacław, ed. Polskie traktaty koncyliarystyczne w połowie XV wieku. Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1987 (Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia excultae spectantia 23). Bulaeus, Caesar [V. Égasse Du Boulay]. Historia Universitatis Parisiensis. 6 vols. Paris: apud P. Noel and P. de Bresche, 1665–1673. Bullarium Poloniae. Irena Sułkowska-Kuraś and Stanisław Kuraś, eds. 7 vols. [to 1471] Rome: École Française de Rome and Lublin: Instytut Historii Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski, 1982–2006. Burzyński, Piotr. “Statuta Bursae Longini seu Canonistarum ex a. 1485,” Czasopismo Poświęcone Prawu i Umiejętnościom Politycznym 2 (1864): LXIX–XCV. Chartularium universitatis Parisiensis. Heinrich Denifle, Emile Chatelian, et al. eds. 4 vols. Paris: Delalain, 1889–1897. Codex diplomaticus cathedralis Cracoviensis. Franciszek Piekosiński, ed. 2 vols. Cracow: Nakładem Akademii Umiejętności, 1874–1883 (Monumenta Medii Aevi Historica Res Gestas Poloniae Illustrantia 1 and 8). Codex diplomaticus Civitatis Cracoviensis. Franciszek Piekosiński, ed. 4 parts in 2 vols. Cracow: Nakładem Akademii Umiejętności, 1879–1882 (Monumenta Medii Aevi Historica Res Gestas Poloniae Illustrantia 5 and 7). Codex diplomaticus Universitatis Studii Generalis Cracoviensis. Żegota Pauli and Frantiszek Piekosiński, eds. 5 vols. Cracow: Sumptibus et Typis Universitatis, 1870–1900. Codex epistolaris saeculi decimi quinti. August Sokołowski, Józef Szujski, and Anatol Lewicki, eds. 3 vols. Cracow: Sumptibus Academiae Literarum Cracoviensis, 1876–1894 (Monumenta Medii Aevi Historica Res Gestas Poloniae Illustrantia 2, 12, and 14). Codex epistolaris Vitoldi magni ducis Lithuaniae 1376–1430. Antoni Prochaska, ed. Cracow: Sumptibus Academiae literarum Cracoviensis, 1882 (Monumenta Medii Aevi Historica Res Gestas Poloniae Illustrantia 6). Commentum in Chronicam Polonorum Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek. Marian Zwiercan ed., with the assistance of Anna Zofia Kozłowska and Michał Rzepiela. Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2008 (Monumenta Poloniae Historica, Nova Series 14). Conclusiones Universitatis Cracoviensis ab anno 1441 ad annum 1589. Henryk Barycz, ed. Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1933.

682

Bibliography

Conradus Celtis Protucius. Libri Odorum Quattuor. Felix Pindter, ed. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1937. Conradus Celtis Protucius Quattuor Libri Amorum secundum quattuor latera Germaniae. Felix Pindter, ed. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1934. Cracovia artificum 1300–1500. Jan Ptaśnik, ed. Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1917. Cracovia artificum. Supplementa. Bolesław Przybyszewski, ed. 5 vols. Wrocław and Cracow: Ossolineum and Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1985–2001. De Beneficiorum Universitatis Iagellonicae decimis, columbationibus, missalibus, mensalibus clericaturisque XV–XVIII saec. Jerzy Michalewicz and Maria Michalewiczowa, eds. Cracow: Archiwum Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1999 (Liber Beneficiorum et benefactorum Universitatis Iagellonicae in saeculis XV–XVIII 2). Ehrlich, Ludwik, ed. Pisma Wybrana Pawła Włodkowica: Works of Paul Wladimiri (A Selection). 3 vols. Warsaw: Instytut Wydawniczy PAX, 1966–1969. Filozofia i myśl społeczna XIII–XV wieku. Juliusz Domański, ed. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1978 (700-lat Myśli Polski 1). Filozofia i myśl społeczna XVI wieku. Lech Szczucki, ed. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1978 (700-lat Myśli Polski 2). Fïnf Bücher Epigramme Konrad Celtis. Karl Hartfelder, ed. Berlin: S. Calvary & Co., 1881. Finke, Heinrich, et al., eds. Acta concilii Constanciensis. 4 vols. Münster: Regensbergsche Buchhandlung, 1896–1928. Forstreuter, Kurt and Hans Koeppen, eds. Die Berichte der Generalprokuratoren des Deutschen Ordens an der Kurie. 3 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1960–1971. Fundationes pecuniariae Universitatis Iagellonicae in saeculis XV–XVIII. Jerzy Michalewicz and Maria Michalewiczowa, eds. Cracow: Archiwum Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1999 (Liber beneficiorum et benefactorum Universitatis Iagellonicae in saeculis XV–XVIII 1). Gansiniec, Ryszard, ed. Metrificale Marka z Opatowca i traktaty gramatyczne XIV i XV wieku. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1960 (Studia Staropolskie 6). Gesta principum Polonorum / The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles. Trans. and annotated Paul W. Knoll and Frank Schaer. Preface by Thomas N. Bisson. 2nd revised printing. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2007 (Central European Medieval Texts 3). Górski, Karol, ed. Formularz Jerzego pisarza grodzkiego krakowskiego ok. 1399–1415. Toruń: Towarzystwo Naukowe w Toruniu, 1950. ―――. ed. “ ‘Ostatnie słowo’ Pawła Włodkowica o zakonie krzyżackim z roku 1432,” Zapiski Historyczne 29, no. 2 (1964): 158–170. Grant, Edward, ed. A Source Book in Medieval Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974.

Bibliography

683

Heck, Roman and Ewa Maleczyńska, eds. Ruch husycki w Polsce. Wybór tekstów źródłowych. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1963. Henricus Bitterfeld de Brega OP Tractatus De vita contemplative et Activa. Bruno Mazur, Władysław Seńko, and Ryszard Tatarzyński, eds. Warsaw: Instytut Tomistyczny, 2003 (Studia Przeglądu Tomistycznego 4). J. Ursinus Modus epistolandi. Lidia Winniczuk, editor and transl. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1957. Iacobi de Paradiso Determinatio Basiliensis. Henryk Anzulewicz, ed. In Wacław Bucichowski, ed., Polskie Traktaty Koncyliarystyczne z połowy XV wieku, 83–115. Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1987 (Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Poloniae excultae spectantia 23). Jakub z Paradyża. Wybór tekstów dotyczących reformy kościoła. Stanisław Andrzej Porębski, ed. Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1978 (Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia excultae spectantia 6). Jakuba Parkosza Traktat o ortografii polskiej. Marian Kucała, ed. Warsaw: Państwowe Naukowe, 1985. [James of Paradyż] Avisamentum ad papam pro reformatione ecclesiae. In Jakub z Paradyża. Wybór tekstów dotyczących reformy kościoła. Stanisław Andrzej Porębski, ed. 9–17. Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1978 (Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia excultae spectantia 6). Ioannis de Ludzisko Orationes. Jacek Bojarski, ed. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1971. Ioannis Dlugossii Annales seu Cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae. Jan Dąbrowski, et al., eds. 12 vols. Warsaw and Cracow: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe and Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1964–2005. Ioannis Elgot Determinatio Basiliensis. Henryk Anzulewicz, ed. In Wacław Bucichowski, ed., Polskie Traktaty Koncyliarystyczne z połowy XV wieku, 43–82. Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1987 (Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Poloniae excultae spectantia 23). Ioannis Isneri Expositio missae. Roman Zawadzki, ed. In Marek Tomasz Zahajkiewicz, ed. Msza święta w Polsce przed soborem trydenckim w świetle rodzimych komentarzy (Expositiones missae). Studium historyczno-liturgiczne, 9–140. Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1971 (Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia excultae spectantia 1). Joannis de Czarnków. Chronicon Polonorum. Jan Szlachtowski, ed., In Monumenta Poloniae Historica, 2, 619–756. Lwów: Nakładem Własnym, 1872. Joannis Długossii Senioris Canonici Cracoviensis Opera Omnia. Alexander Przeździecki, ed. 15 vols. Cracow: E typographia ephemeridum “Czas:” Fr. Kluczycki & Soc., 1863–1887. ―――. Joannis Długossii Senioris Canonici Cracoviensis Liber Beneficiorum dioecesis Cracoviensis. 3 vols. Cracow: E typographia ephemeridum “Czas:” Fr. Kluczycki & Soc., 1863–1864 (Opera Omnia. Alexander Przeździecki, ed., 7–9).

684

Bibliography

Kalendarz Katedry Krakowskiej, Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa, ed. In Monumenta Poloniae Historica, Nova Series. Vol. 5, 107–195. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1978. Kalendarz Krakowski. In Monumenta Poloniae Historica, 2, 905–941. Lwów” Nakładem własnym, 1872. Karbowiak, Antoni. “Ustawy bursy krakowskiej ‘Jeruzalem’ (1453–1841).” Archiwum do Dziejów Literatury i Oświaty w Polsce 6 (1890): 86–169. Kętrzyński, Wojciech, ed. “Varia e variis codicibus,” Monumenta Poloniae Historica 5 (1888), 955–1012. Księga dochodów beneficjów diecezji krakowskiej z roku 1529. Zofia LeszczyńskaSkrętowa, ed. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1968. Księga promocji Wydziału Sztuk Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego z XV wieku. Antoni Gąsiorowski, ed., with the assistance of Tomasz Jurek, Izabela Skierska, and Wincenty Swoboda. Cracow: Nakładem Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności, 2000. Kuksiewicz, Zdzisław, ed. “Komentarz Pawła z Worczyna do ‘De anima’,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii 10 (1969): 3–221. Laurentii de Raciborz Determinatio Basiliensis. Wacław Bucichowski, ed. In Bucichowski, ed., Polskie Traktaty Koncyliarystyczne z połowy XV wieku, 116–166. Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1987 (Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Poloniae excultae spectantia 23). Liber diligentiarum Facultatis Artisticae Universitatis Cracoviensis. Pars 1: 1487–1563. Władysław Wisłocki, ed. Cracow: Sumptibus Academiae Litteratum Cracoviensis, 1886 (Archiwum do dziejów literatury i oświaty w Polsce 4). Libri Antiquissimi civitatis Cracoviensis 1300–1400 / Najstarsze księgi i rachunki miasta Krakowa od r. 1300 do 1400. Franciszek Piekosiński and Józef Szujski, eds. Two parts. Cracow: Nakładem Akademii Umiejętności, 1878 (Monumenta Medii Aevi Historica Res Gestas Poloniae Illustrantia 4). Libri formularum saeculi XVI. Bolesław Ulanowski, ed. Cracow: Sumptibus Academiae Litterarum, 1888 (Starodawne Prawa Polskiego Pomniki 10). Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek Chronica Polonorum. Marian Plezia, ed. Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1994 (Monumenta Poloniae Historica, nova Series 11). Majer, Józef. “Ustawy Wydziału Lekarskiego w Uniwersytecie Krakowskim za dziekaństwa Jana de Saccis z Pawii w r. 1433,” Rocznik Lekarski 1 (1838): 55–61. Mateusz z Krakowa. O praktykach kurii rzymskiej. Władysław Seńko, trans. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1970. ―――. Opuscula theologica dotyczące spowiedzi i komunii. Władysław Seńko and Adam Ludwik Szafrański, eds. Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1974 (Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia excultae spectantia 2, part 1).

Bibliography

685

―――. De contractibus. Matthew Nuding, ed. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 2000. Mateusza z Krakowa De praxi Romane Curiae. Władysław Seńko, ed. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1969. Die Matrikel der Universität Wien. Franz Gall and W. Szaivert, eds. 2 vols. Vienna: Böhlau, 1954–1967. Metryka czyli album Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego z lat 1509–1551. Antoni Gąsiorowski, Tomasz Jurek, and Izabela Skierska, eds., with the collaboration of Ryszard Grzesik. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Neriton, 2010. Metryka Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego z lat 1400–1508. Antoni Gąsiorowski, Tomasz Jurek, and Izabela Skierska, eds., with the collaboration of Ryszard Grzesik. 2 vols. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2004. Michael Falkener de Vratislavia, Explanatio super Aristotelis librum ‘Posteriorum analyticorum.’ Ludwik Nowak, ed. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Akademii Teologii Katolickiej, 1988 (Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia excultae spectantia 25). Michaelis de Marbasio Summa de modis significandi. L.G. Kelly, ed. Stuttgart and Bad Cannstadt: Friedrich Frommann Verlag, 1995 (Grammatica speculativa. Sprachtheorie und Logik des Mittelalters 5). Mikos, Michael J., ed. and trans. Medieval Literature of Poland. An Anthology. New York and London, Garland, 1992. Mistrz Wincenty (tzw. Kadłubek) Kronika Polska. Brygida Kürbis, trans. 2nd ed. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1996 (Biblioteka Narodowa). Monumenta Conciliorum Generalium saeculi XV. Concilium Basiliense. Scriptores. 4 vols. František Palacký, Ernst Birk, et al., eds. Vienna: Typis C.R. Officinae typographicae aulae et status, 1857–1935. Monumenta Poloniae Historica. August Bielowski, et al., eds. 6 vols. Lwów and Cracow: Nakładem Własnym, Ossolineum, and Nakładem Akademii Umiejętności, 1864–1893. Mühle, Eduard, ed. and trans., with commentary. Die Chronik der Polen des Magisters Vincentius. Darmstadt: WBG, 2014. Najstarsza księga promocji Wydziału Sztuk Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego z lat 1402–1541. Antoni Gąsiorowski, Tomasz Jurek, and Izabela Skierska, eds. Warsaw: Instytut Historii PAN, 2011. Najstarsze przywileje Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego / The Oldest Charters of the University of Cracow. Edited with an introduction by Bożena Wyrozumska. Cracow: Biuro Jubileuszowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2000. Najstarzy zbiór przywilejów i wilkierzy miasta Krakowa. Stanisław Estreicher, ed. Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1936. Nicholas Copernicus Complete Works. 3 vols. London, Warsaw, and Cracow: Macmillan and Polish Scientific Publishers, 1972–1985. Palacký, Franz [František], ed. Unkundliche Beiträge zur Geschichte des Hussitenkrieges. 2 vols. Prague: B.F. Temský, 1873.

686

Bibliography

Palacz, Ryszard, ed. “Quaestiones Cracoviensis super octo libros ‘Physicorum’ Aristotelis,” Studia Mediewistyczne 10 (1969): v–xxviii and 1–265. Philippi Callimachi De his quae a Venetis tentata sunt Persis ac Tartaris contra Turcos movendis. Andrzej Kempfi, ed. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1962. Philippi Callimachi Vita et mores Gregorii Sanocei. Irmina Lichońska, ed. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1963. [Aeneas Sylvius] Piccolominus. De gestis concilii Basiliensis Commentariorum, Libri II. Denys Hay and W.K. Smith, eds. and trans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967 (Oxford Medieval Texts ). Prima verba. Krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie. Elżbieta Jung-Palczewska, ed. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2000. Quaestiones disputate super octo libros ‘Physicorum’ Aristotelis cum glossis Ioannis Isneri. Lucyna Nowak, ed. Acta Mediaevalia 9 (1996): 1–284. Quaestiones Super Duodecim Libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis Joannis de Raciborsko. Jacek Litwin, ed. Acta Mediaevalia 19 (2006): VII–L and 1–164. Quaestiones super primum librum De interpretatione Aristotelis secundum Bene­ dictum Hesse (Editio critica). Michał Maciołek, ed. Acta Mediaevalia 23 (2011): vii–li, 1–198. Regestrum Bursae Hungarorum Cracoviensis (1493–1558). Karl [Károly] Schrauf, ed. Vienna: A Hölder and Budapest: A.M. Tud. Akadémia kiadványa, 1893. Rostfiński, Józef. ed. [John Stanko] Symbola ad historiam naturalem medii aevi. Cracow: Munera saecularia Universitatis Cracoviensis, 1900. Segel, Harold B. Political Thought in Renaissance Poland. An Anthology in English. New York: PIASA Books, 2003. Seńko, Władysław, ed. “Johannes Falkenberg De Monarchia Mundi,” Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 9 (20) (1975): v–lvi and 1–289. ―――. ed. Krakowska redakcja Jana Falkenberga De monarchia mundi. Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1986 (Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia excultae spectantia 20). Silano, Giulio, trans. The Sentences of Peter Lombard. 4 vols. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2007–2010. Stanisław ze Skarbimierza Mowy wybrane o mądrości. Mirosław Korolko, ed. Cracow: Arcana, 2000. Stanisław ze Skarbimierza. Sermones Sapientiales. Bożena Chmielowska, ed. 3 parts. Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1979 (Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia excultae spectantia 4, parts 1–3). Statuta antiqua Universitatis Oxoniensis. Strickland Gibson, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1931.

Bibliography

687

Statuta nec non liber Promotionum Philosophorum Ordinis in Universitate Studiorum Jagellonica ab a. 1402 ad a. 1849. Józef Muczkowski, ed. Cracow: Typis Universitatis, 1849. Szujski, “Józef. “Statuta Antiqua Colegii Maioris,” Archiwum do Dziejów Literatury i Oświaty w Polsce 1 (1878): 1–20. ―――. “Statuta Collegii Minoris Studii Generalis Cracoviensis,” Archiwum do Dziejów Literatury i Oświaty w Polsce 1 (1878)95–118. ―――. “Statuta i matrykuły wydziału teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego z XVI-ego wieku,” Archiwum do Dziejów Literatury i Oświaty w Polsce 1 (1878): 71–94. ―――. “Statuta Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego (z lat 1604 i 1724),” Archiwum do Dziejów Literatury i Oświaty w Polsce 2 (1882): 359–408. Tatarzyński, Ryszard, ed. Jana z Głogowa komentarz do ‘Metafizyki.’ 2 vols. Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1984 (Opera Philosophorum Medii Aevi. Textus et Studia 7 in two fascicles. ―――. “Stanisława ze Skarbimierza trzy mowy rekomendacyne—na rektoraty: Jana Wajduta, Mikołaja Gorzkowskiego, Ottona Marcinowica.” Przegląd Tomistyczny 6–7 (1997): 349–384. Theiner, Augustine, ed. Vetera Monumenta Poloniae et Lithunaiae gentiumque finitimarum historiam illustrantia. . . . 4 vols. Rome: Typis Vaticanis, 1860–1864. Thorndike, Lynn, ed. University Records and Life in the Middle Ages. New York: Columbia University Press, 1944. Toć jest dziwne a nowe. Antologia literatury polskiego średniowiecza. Antonia Jelicz, trans. Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1987. Thomae de Strzempino Determinatio Basiliensis. In Zofia Włodek, ed. with the cooperation of Ryszard Tatarzyński, Scripta manent. Textus ad theologiam spectantes in Universitate Cracoviensi saeculo XV conscripti, 227–292. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 2000 (Studia do dziejów Wydziału Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 12). University of Cracow. Documents Concerning Its Origins, with An Introduction by Leon Koczy. Dundee, Scotland: Millennium Poloniae Christianae, 1966. Vita Ioannis Dlugosch senioris canonici cracoviensis. Mieczysław Brożek, ed. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1961. Vladimiri, Paulus. Allegationes pro parte Regis Poloniae coram Sigismundo Imperatore A.D. 1420. In Igancy Zakrzewski and Jadwiga Karwasińska, eds. Lites ac res gestae inter Polonos Ordinemque Cruciferorum, editio altera. 3 vols. 3, 192–215. Poznań and Warsaw: Biblioteka Kórnickiej, 1890–1935. ―――. Appellatio contra papam Martinum V. ad concilium generale proxime celebrandum. In Codex diplomaticus cathedralis Cracoviensis. Franciszek Piekosiński,

688

Bibliography

ed. 2 vols. 1, 432–440. Cracow: Nakładem Akademii Umiejętności, 1874–1883 (Monumenta Medii Aevi Historica Res Gestas Poloniae Illustrantia 1 and 8). ―――. Articuli accusationis contra Cruciferos ex parte Polonorum Sigismundo Imperatori Romanorum missi circa 1413, in Igancy Zakrzewski and Jadwiga Karwasińska, eds. Lites ac res gestae inter Polonos Ordinemque Cruciferorum, editio altera. 3 vols. 3, 52–55. Poznań and Warsaw: Biblioteka Kórnickiej, 1890–1935. ―――. Tractatus de annatis camerae apostolicae solvendis, ed. Michał Bobrzyński. In Starodawne Prawa Polskiego Pomniki. Antoni Helcel, et al., eds. 12 vols. Cracow and Warsaw: Polska Akademia Umiejętności and G. Sennenwald, 1856–1921. Vol. 5 (1878), 299–314. Włodek, Zofia, ed. With the cooperation of Ryszard Tatarzyński. Scripta manent. Textus ad theologiam spectantes in Universitate Cracoviensi saeculo XV conscripti. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 2000 (Studia do dziejów Wydziału Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 12). [Peter] Wysz. Speculum aureum. De titulis beneficiorum ecclesiasticorum. In Władysław Seńko, Piotr Wysz z Radolina i jego dzieło ‘Speculum aureum,’ 73–169. Warsaw: Instytut Tomistyczny, 1995. Zahajkiewicz, Marek Tomasz, ed. Msza święta w Polsce przed soborem trydenckim w świetle rodzimych komentarzy (Expositiones missae). Studium historyczno-liturgiczne. Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1971 (Textus et Studia Historiam Theologiae in Polonia excultae spectantia 1). Zakrzewski, Ignacy and Jadwiga Karwasińska, eds. Lites ac res gestae inter Polonos Ordinemque Cruciferorum, editio altera. 3 vols. Poznań and Warsaw: Biblioteka Kórnickiej, 1890–1935.



Secondary Works

Abraham, Władysław. “Udział polski w soborze pizańskim 1409,” Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętnosci: wydział Historyczno-filozoficzny 47 (1905): 120–157. Adamska, Anna and Marco Mostert, eds. The Development of Literate Mentalities in East Central Europe. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004. Agosti, Giorgio. “Bezpośrednie źródło ‘Tractatus de potestate Papae respectu infidelium’ Pawła Włodkowica,” Roczniki Historyczne 12 (1936): 300–317. Ambrożewicz, Danuta and Grażyna Fallowa, eds. Kolegia uniwersyteckie średniowiecznej Europy / University Colleges of Medieval Europe. Cracow: Muzeum Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2007 (Exhibition Catalogue, Jagiellonian University Museum). Ameisenowa, Zofia. The Globe of Martin Bylica of Olkusz and Celestial Maps in the East and the West. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1959.

Bibliography

689

―――. Globus Marcina Bylicy z Olkusza i mapy nieba na Wschodzie i Zachodzie. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1959. ―――. Kodeks Baltazara Behema. Warsaw: Auriga, 1961. Arnold, Stanisław, et al., eds. Odrodzenie w Polsce. 5 vols. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1955–1960. Arnold, Udo. 800 Jahre Deutscher Orden. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Lexikon Verlag, 1990. Ashworth, E.J. “The Eclipse of Traditional Logic.” In Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, 788–796. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. ―――. “Traditional Logic.” In Charles B. Schmitt, general editor and Quentin Skinner and Eckhard Kessler, eds., The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy, 143– 172. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Asztalos, Monica. “The Faculty of Theology.” In Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 409–441. Cambridge University Press, 1992 (vol. 1 of Walter Rüegg, General Editor, A History of the University in Europe). Baczkowska, Wanda. “Die internationalen Beziehungen der Krakauer Akademie in der Zeit vom 15. bis zum Anfang des 16. Jahrhunderts.” In Lászlo Szőgi and Júlia Varga, eds., Universitas Budensis 1395–1995, 79–87. Budapest: Bak-Fisch KFT, 1997. Baczkowski, Krzysztof. Dzieje Polski późnośredniowiecznej (1370–1506). Cracow: Fogra, 1999 (Wielka Historia Polski 3). ―――. “Kallimachs Stelle in der Kulturgeschichte Polens.” In Stephan Füssel and Jan Pirożyński, eds., Der polnische Humanismus und die europäischen Sodalitäten, 73–99. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1997. ―――. “Die ungarischen Studenten an der krakauer Akademie im 15. Jahrhundert.” In László Szőgi and Julia Varga, eds. Universitas Budensis, 1395–1995, 117–128. Budapest: Bak-Fisch KFT, 1997. ―――. “Związki intelektualne Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego z Węgrami w dobie Kopernika,” Prace historyczne 40: Międzynarodowe powiązania Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w dobie Kopernika (1973): 9–42. Bafia, Stanisław. “Maciej ze Sąspowa (ok. 1408–1472).” In Stanisław Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 187–193. Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie, 2000. ―――. “Stanisław ze Skalbmierza (ok. 1360–1431).” In Stanisław Piech, ed. Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 83–88. Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie, 2000. Bahlcke, Joachim, Karen Lambrecht, and Hans-Christian Maner, eds. Konfessionelle Pluralität als Herausforderung Koexistenz und Konflikt in Spätmittelalter und Früher Neuzeit (Winfried Eberhard zum 65. Geburtstag). Leipzig: Leipzig University Press, 2006.

690

Bibliography

Bajor, Wanda. “De praedicationibus abstractorum de Ioannes de Stobnica,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 37 (3) (2008): 7–19. ―――. “Quaestiones Cracovienses in II–III libros De anima Aristotelis (Editio Critica),” Studia Antyczne i Mediewistyczne 5 (40) (2007): 225–268. ―――. “Wawrzyńca Londoriusza kwestia relacji duszy i jej władz,” Acta Mediaevalia 22 (2009): 415–429. Bąkowski, Klemens. Dawne cechy Krakowskie. Cracow: Czas (Biblioteka Krakowska 22). ―――. “Dawne kierunki rzek pod Krakowem,” Rocznik Krakowski 5 (1902): 138–172. Bałaban, Majer. Historja Żydów w Krakowie i na Kazimierzu 1304–1868. 2 vols. Cracow: Nadzieja, 1931–1936. ―――. Przewodnik po żydowskich zabytkach Krakowa. Cracow: Nakład Stowarzyszenia “Solidarność-B’Nei B’rith”, 1935. Banaszkiewicz, Jacek, et al., eds. Ludzie. Kościół. Wierzenia. Studia z dziejów kultury i społeczeństwa Europy Środkowej (średniowiecze—wczesna epoka nowożytna). Warsaw: DiG, 2001. Banaszkiewicz, Jacek, Jacek Maciejewski, and Joanna Sobiesiak, eds. Persona. Gestus Habitusque. Insignium. Zachowania i atrybuty jako wyznaczniki tożsamości społecznej jednostki w średniowieczu. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curii-Skłodowskiej, 2009. Bardach, Juliusz, et al., eds. Europa—Słowiańszczyna—Polska. Studia ku uczczenia Profesora Kazimierza Tymienieckiego. Poznań: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewiecza, 1970. Barnes, Jonathan. “The Just War.” In Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny and Jan Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, 771–784. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Baron, Frank. Doctor Faustus: From History of Legend. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1978. ―――. “The Historical Doctor Faustus at the University of Heidelberg.” In Jacques Paquet and Jozef IJsewijn, eds., Les universités a la fin du moyen âge, 381–395. Louvain: Institut d’Études médiévales U.C.L. Barycz, Henryk. Alma Mater Jagellonica. Studia i szkice z przeszłości Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1958. ―――. “Dwie syntezy dziejów narodowych przed sądem potomności. Losy ‘Historii’ Jana Długosza i Marcina Kromera w XVI i pierwszej połowie XVII wieku,” Pamiętnik Literacki 43 (1952): 194–251. ―――. “Dziejowe związki Polski z Uniwersytetem Karola w Pradze,” Przegląd Zachodni 4 (1948): 253–269 and 337–355. ―――. Historja Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w epoce Humanizmu. Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1935.

Bibliography

691

―――. “Nowa synteza dziejów Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego,” Przegląd Historyczno— Oświaty 9 (1966): 283–311. ―――. Polacy na studiach w Rzymie w epoce Odrodzenie (1440–1600). Cracow: Nakładem Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności, 1938. ―――. Ślązcy na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim od XV–XVIII w. Katowice: Kasa im. Mianowskiego, 1935. ―――. Spojrzenie w przeszłość polsko-włoską. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1965. ―――. “Życie i twórczość Macieja z Miechowa.” In Barycz, ed., Maciej z Miechowa 1457–1523, 7–74. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1960. ―――. “Z zagadek uniwersytetu Kazimierzowskiego w Krakowie,” Przegład Zachodni 8 (1952): 113–125. Barycz, Henryk, ed. Maciej z Miechowa 1457–1523. Historyk, geograf, lekarz, organizator nauki . Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1960. Barycz, Henryk and Jan Hulewicz, eds. Studia z dziejów kultury polskiej. Książka zbiorowa. Warsaw: Gebethner and Wolff, 1949. Bauch, Gustav. Die Anfänge des Humanismus in Ingolstadt. Munich and Leipzig: Oldenbourg, 1901. ―――. Deutsche Scholaren in Krakau in der Zeit der Renaissance 1460-bis 1520. Wrocław [Breslau]: Commissions-Verlag von M. & H. Marcus, 1901. ―――. Geschichte der Leipziger Frühhumanismus. Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1899. ―――. “Johannes Rhagius Aesticampianus in Krakau, seine erste Reise nach Italien und sein Aufenthalt in Mainz,” Archiv für Literatur Geschichte 12 (1894): 321–370. ―――. “Laurentius Corvinus, der Breslauer Stadtschreiber und Humanist. Sein Leben und seine Schriften,” Zeitschrift des Vereins für Geschichte und Altherthum Schlesiens 17 (1883): 230–302. ―――. Die Rezeption des Humanismus in Wien. Wrocław [Breslau]: M. & H. Marcus, 1903. ―――. “Schlesien und die Universität Krakow im XV. und XVI. Jahrhundert,” Zeitschrift des Vereins für Geschichte Schlesiens 41 (1907): 99–180. ―――. Die Universität Erfurt im Zeitalter des Frühhumanismus. Wrocław [Breslau]: M. & H. Marcus, 1904. Bazàn, Bernardo C., Gérard Fransen, John W. Wippel, and Danielle Jaccquart. Les questions disputées et les questions quodlibétique dans les facultés de théologie, de droit et de médicine. Turnhout: Brepols, 1985 (Typologie des sources du moyen âge occidental 44–45). Bečka, Josef and Emma Urbánková. Katalogy knihoven kolejí Karlovy University. Prague: Národni a univerzitní knihovna v Praze, 1948. Bednarski, Adam. “Materiały do dziejów medycyny polskiej w XIV i XV stulecie,” Prace Komisji Historii Medycyny i Nauk Przyrodniczo-Matematycznych 1 (1939): 25–107.

692

Bibliography

Beestermöller, Gerhard. Thomas von Aquin und der gerechte Krieg. Friedenethik im theologischen Kontext der Summa Theologiae. Cologne: J.P. Bachem Verlag, 1990. Belch, Stanislaus F. Paulus Vladimiri and His Doctrine Concerning International Law and Politics. 2 vols. The Hague: Mouton, 1965. ―――. “Paweł Włodkowic jako historyk i jego wpływ na Długosza,” Teki Historyczne 10 (1959): 75–101. Bennett, Judith M. History Matters. Patriarchy and the Challenge of Feminism. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. ―――. ed. Sisters and Workers in the Middle Ages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989. Bieniak, Janusz, “Jan (Janek) von Czarnków. Unvollendete polnische Chronik aus dem 14. Jahrhundert,” Quaestiones Medii Aevi novae 14 (2009): 123–184. Bierzanek, Ryszard. “Les conceptions de la paix chez les auteurs Polonais de la fin du moyen âge et de la renaissance,” Recueils de la société Jean Bodin 15 (1961): 171–197. Bilderback, Loy. “The Membership of the Council of Basle.” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 1966). Bilikiewicz, Tadeusz. “Maciej z Miechowa Karpiga (1457–1523),” in Leon Tochowicz, et al., eds., Nauki medyczne w sześćsetlecie Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiej. Sześćsetlecie medycyny Krakowskiej, 1, 9–24. Cracow: Akademia Medyczna w Krakowie, 1963–1964. ―――. “Maciej z Miechowa na tle medycyny Odrodzenia.” In Henryk Barycz, ed., Maciej z Miechowa 1457–1523, 167–203. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1960. Biliński, Wojciech, ed. Dzieło Jadwigi i Jagiełło. W sześćsetlecie chrztu Litwy i jej związków z Polską. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Archidiecezji Warszawskiej, 1989. Birkenmajer, Aleksander. “Andrzej Grzymała de Poznań, astronome et médécin du XVe siècle.” In A. Birkenmajer, Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne, 515–526. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1972 (Studia Copernicana 4). ―――. “Andrzej Grzymała z Poznania astronom i lekarz z XV wieku,” Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki 3 (1958): 409–422. ―――. “Les astronomes et les astrologues silésiens au Moyen Age.” In A. Birkenmajer, Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne, 437–468.Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1972 (Studia Copernicana 4). ―――. Astronomowie i astrologowie śląscy w wiekach średnich. Katowice: Nasza Księgarnia. 1937. ―――. Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1972 (Studia Copernicana 4). ―――. Études d’histoire des sciences et de la philosophie du Moyen Age. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970 (Studia Copernicana 1). ―――. “Jan de Bossis Polonus.” In A. Birkenmajer, Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne, 548–549. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1972 (Studia Copernicana 4).

Bibliography

693

―――. “Jan de Saccis.” In A. Birkenmajer, Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne, 499–504. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1972 (Studia Copernicana 4). ―――. “Jan d’Olkusz.” In A. Birkenmajer, Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne, 512–514. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1972 (Studia Copernicana 4). ―――. “Jerzy de Drohobycz.” In A. Birkenmajer, Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne, 550–552. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1972 (Studia Copernicana 4). ―――. “Marcin Biem.” In A. Birkenmajer, Études d’histoire des science en Pologne, 717–720. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1972 (Studia Copernicana 4). ―――. “Marcin Bylica.” In A. Birkenmajer, Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne, 533–536. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1972 (Studia Copernicana 4). ―――. “Piotr Gaszowiec.” In A. Birkenmajer, Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne, 527–529. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1972 (Studia Copernicana 4). ―――. “Une polémique entre deux astronomes médiévaux peu connus, l’un Espagnol et l’autre Polonaise.” In A. Birkenmajer, Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne, 545–547. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1972 (Studia Copernicana 4). ―――. “Le role joué par les médecins et les naturalists dans la reception d’Aristote au XIIe et XIIIe siècles.” In La Pologne au Vie Congrès International des Sciences Historiques, Oslo 1928, 1–15. Warsaw: Société polonaise d’histoire, 1930. Reprinted in A. Birkenmajer, Études d’histoire des sciences et de la philosophie du Moyen Age, 73–87. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970 (Studia Copernicana 1). ―――. “Sprawa magistra Henryka Czecha,” Collectanea Theologica 17 (1936): 207–224. ―――. “L’Université de Cracovie, centre international d’enseignement astronomique à la fin du moyen âge.” In Birkenmajer, Études d’histoire des sciences en Pologne, 483– 495. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1972 (Studia Copernicana 4). ―――. “Uniwersytet Krakowski jako międzynarodowy ośrodek studiów astronomiczny na przełomie XV i XVI stulecie.” In Stanisław Arnold, et al., eds., Odrodzenie w Polsce, 5 vols. 2, part 2, 363–373. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1955–1960. Birkenmajer, Ludwik A. “Krakowskie tablice syzygiów dla r. 1379 i 1380. Przyczynek do dziejów astronomii w Polsce w XIV-tym wieku,” Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności: wydział Matematyczno-Przyrodniczy, Series 2, 1 (1891): 261–285. ―――. “Marcin Bylica z Olkusza oraz narzędzia astronomiczne, które zapisał Uniwersytetowi Jagiellońskiemu w roku 1493,” Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności: wydział Matematyczno-Przyrodniczny 25 (1893): 1–164. ―――. Mikołaj Kopernik, część pierwsza. Studya nad pracami Kopernika, oraz materiały biograficzny. Cracow: Skład główny w Księgarni Spółko wydawniczej Polski, 1900. ―――. “Mikołaj Wodka z Kwidzyna zwany Abstemius, lekarz i astronom polski XV-ego stulecie,” Roczniki Towarzystwa naukowego w Toruniu 23 (1926): 110–265.

694

Bibliography

―――. Stromata Copernicana. Studia, poszukiwania i materiały biograficzne. Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1924. Bishop, Ian. Pearl in Its Setting. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1968. Biskup, Marian. Trzynastoletnia wojna z Zakonem Krzyżackim 1454–1466. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Misterstwa Obrony Narodowego, 1967. Biskup, Marian, ed. Historia dyplomacji polskiej. Vol. 1. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1980. Biskup, Marian and Gerard Labuda. Dzieje Zakonu Krzyżackiego w Prusach: Gospodarka—Społeczeństwo—Państwo—Ideologia. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Morskie, 1986. Black, Antony J. “The conciliar movement.” In J.H. Burns, ed., The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350–c. 1450, 573–587. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. ―――. Council and Commune. The Conciliar Movement and the Council of Basle. London: Burns and Oates, 1979. ―――. Monarchy and Community. Political Ideas in the Later Conciliar Controversy 1430–1450. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. ―――. Political Thought in Europe 1250–1450. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. ―――. “Popes and Councils.” In Christopher Allemand, ed., The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 7: 1415–1455, 65–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. ―――. “The Universities and the Council of Basle: Collegium and Concilium.” In Jacques Paquet and Jozef IJsewijn, eds., Les universités à la fin du moyen âge, 511–523. Louvain: Institut d’Études médiévales U.C.L., 1978. Blanch, Robert J. “Pearl.” In Dictionary of the Middle Ages, Joseph R. Strayer, Editor-inChief, 9 (1987), 476–477. New York: Scribners, 1982–1989. Błaszczyk, Gregorz. Burza koronacyjna Polska-Litwa 1429–1430. Dramatycznych fragment stosunków polsko-litewskich w XV wieku. Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, 1998. Bochenek, Krzysztof. “Filozoficzny kontekst rozważań Michała Falkenera o niepokalanym poczęciu Maryi,” Acta Mediaevalia 20 (2007): 57–73. Bochnak, Adam. Les insignes de l’Université Jagellonne. Cracow: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1962. Boehm, Laetitia. “Humanistische Bildungsbewegung und Mittelalterliche Universitätsverfassung: Aspekte zur frühneuzeitlichen Reformgeschichte der deutschen Universitäten.” In Jacques Paquet and Jozef IJsewijn, eds., Les Universités a la fin du moyen âge, 315–346. Louvain: Institut d’Études médiévales U.C.L., 1978. ―――. “Libertas Scholastica und Negotium Scholare: Entstehung und Sozialprestige des Akademischen Standes im Mittelalter.” In Helmut Rössler and Günther Franz,

Bibliography

695

eds. Universität und Gelehrtenstand 1400–1800, 15–61. Limburg/Lahn: C.A. Starke, 1970. Bogdanos, Theodore. Pearl, Image of the Ineffable: A Study in Medieval Poetic Symbolism. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1983. Bogucka, Maria. “Polish Towns Between the Sixteenth and Eighteenth Century.” In J.K. Fedorowicz, ed., A Republic of Nobles. Studies in Polish History to 1864, 135–152. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Bogucka, Maria and Henryk Samsonowicz. Dzieje miast i mieszczaństwa w Polsce przedrozbiorowej. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1986. Bojarski, Jacek S. “Jan z Ludziska,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 8 (1967): 5–24. ―――. “Jan z Ludziska i przypisywane mu mowy uniwersyteckie,” Studia Mediewistyczne 14 (1973): 3–85. Boockmann, Hartmut. “Aus den Handakten des Kanonisten Johannes Urbach. Die Satire des Johannes Falkenberg und andere Funde zur Geschichte des Konstanzer Konzils,” Deutsches Archiv 28 (1972): 497–532. ―――. Der Deutsche Orden. Zwölf Capital aus seiner Geschichte. Munich: Beck, 1981. ―――. “Jan Falkenberg i jego obrona Zakonu Krzyżackiego,” Zapiski Historyczne 41 (1976): 669–683. ―――. Johannes Falkenberg, der Deutsche Orden und die polnische Politik. Untersuchungen zur politischen Theorie des späteren Mittelalters. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1975 (Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte 45). Borkowska, Urszula. “Historiograficzne poglądy Jana Długosza.” In Stanisław Gawęda, ed., Dlugossiana. Studia historyczne w pięćsetlecie śmierci Jana Długosza, cześć 2, 45–71. Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1985 (Prace historyczne 76). ―――. Dynastia Jagiellonów w Polsce. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 2011. ―――. “The Merging of Religious Elements with National Consciousness in the Historical Works of Jan Długosz.” In David Loades and Katherine Walsh, eds., Faith and Identity. Christian Political Experience, 69–80. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990. Borkowska, Urszula and Markus Hörsch, eds. Hofkultur der Jagiellonendynastie und verwandter Fürstenhäuser / The Culture of the Jagellonian and Related Courts. Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke, 2010 (Studia Jagellonica Lipsiensia 6). Boroda, Krzysztof. “Ipse est ignarus gracie et in omnibus ydyota, czyli o tożsamości grupowej śrdniowiecznych studentów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego.” In Jacek Banaszkiewicz, Jacek Maciejewski, and Joanna Sobiesiak, eds., Persona. Gestus Habitusque. Insignium. Zachowania i atrybuty jako wyznaczniki tożsamości społecznej jednostki w średniowieczu, 91–102. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curii-Skłodowskiej, 2009.

696

Bibliography

―――. “Książka w życiu studentów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XV i początkach XVI stulecia.” In Cezary Kukla, ed., with the assistance of Piotr Guzowski, Cała historia to dzieje ludzi. Studia z historii społecznej ofiarowane profesorowi Andrzejowi Wyczańskiemu w 80-tą rocznicę i 55-lecie pracy naukowej, 39–54. Białystok: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, 2004. ―――. Studenci Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w późnym średniowieczu. Cracow: Avalon, 2010. Borowiejska-Birkenmajerowa. Kształt średniowiecznego Krakowa. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1975. Boyle, Leonard F. “Summae confessorum.” In Pierre Hadot, et al., eds., Les genres littéraires dans les sources théologiques et philosophiques médiévales. Définition, crititque, et exploitation, 227–237. Louvain: Institut d’Études Médiévales de l’Université Catholique de Louvain, 1981. Bracha, Krzysztof. Casus pulchri de vitandis erroribus conscientiae purae. Orzeczenia kazuistyczne kanonistów i teologów krakowskich z XV w. Warsaw: DiG, 2013. Bracha, Krzysztof and Paweł Kras, eds. Przestrzeń religijna Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej w średniowieczu. Religious space of East-Central Europe in the Middle Ages. Warsaw: DiG, 2010. Brennan, Timothy M. “Just War, Sovereignty, and Canon Law: Legal Arguments Over the Lithuanian Crusade and the Rights of Unbelievers at the Council of Constance (1414–1418).” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas, 2006.) Bressler, Heinrich. Die Stellung der deutschen Universitäten zum Basler Konzil, zum Schisma und zur deutschen Neutralität. Leipzig: G. Fock, 1885. Brink, Jean R. and William F. Gentrup, eds. Renaissance Culture in Context: Theory and Practice. Aldershot, England and Brookfield, VT: The Scolar Press, 1993. Brückner, Aleksander. “Traktat Parkoszów ortograficzny,” Prace Filologiczne 6 (1907/1908): 644–650. Brundage, James A. Medieval Canon Law. London and New York: Longmans, 1995. Brzostowski, Tadeusz. Paweł Włodkowic. Warsaw: PAX. Bucichowski, Wacław. “Koncepcja ‘corpus politicum’ w eklezjologii Benedykta Hesse,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 1 (1984): 193–203. Bugai, Roman. Nauki tajemne w Polsce w dobie odrodzenia. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1976. Bujak, Franciszek. “Mowa Jana z Ludziska do króla Kazimierza Jagiellończyka z r. 1447 i zagadnienie niewoli w Polsce ówczesnej.” In Przemysław Dąbrowski, ed., Księga pamiątkowa du czci Władysława Abrahama, 2 vols., 2, 217–233. Lwów: Gubrynowicz, 1930–1931. ―――. Studia geograficzna-historyczne. Warsaw: Gebethner and Wolff, 1925. Buko, Andrzej. The Archaeology of Early Medieval Poland. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008.

Bibliography

697

Bukowski, Waldemar. “Z najstarszych dziejów skarbowości Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego. Rachunki dziekanów Wydziału Sztuk z lat 1458–1470.” In Tomasz Jurek and Izabela Skierska, eds., Fontes et Historia. Prace dedykowane Antoniemu Gąsiorowskiemu, 7–29. Poznań: Instytut Historii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2007. ―――. “Z najstarszych dziejów skarbowości Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego. Rachunki prokuratorów generalnych za lata 1458–1490.” In Zenon Piech, ed., Miasta. Ludzie. Instytucje. Znaki. Ksiega jubileuszowa ofiarowana Profesor Bożenie Wyrozumskiej w 75. rocznicę urodzin, 653–713. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2008. Bukowski, Waldemar, et al., eds. Cracovia—Polonia—Europa. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane Jerzemu Wyrozumskiemu w sześćeziesiątą piątą rocznicę urodzin i czterdziestolecie pracy naukowej. Cracow: Drukarnia “Secesja,” 1995. Bullough, Vern I. “Achievement, Professionalization, and the University.” In Jacques Pacquet and Jozef IJsewijn, eds., Les Universités a la fin du moyen âge, 497–510. Louvain: Institut d’Études médiévales U.C.L., 1978. ―――. The Development of Medicine as a Profession. The Contribution of the Medieval University to Modern Medicine. Basle: Karger, 1966. Bultot-Verleysen. Les matricules universitaires. Turnhout: Brepols, 2003 (Typologie des sources du moyen âge occidental 65: mise à jour du fascicule n° 6). Burke, Peter. “The Spread of Italian Humanism.” In Anthony Goodman and Angus MacKay, eds., The Impact of Humanism on Western Europe, 1–22. London: Longman, 1990. Burns, J.H., ed. The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350-c. 1450. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Bylina, Stanisław. Chrystianizacja wsi polskiej u schyłku średniowiecza. Warsaw: Instytut Historii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2002. Bylina, Stanisław and Ryszard Gładkiewicz, eds. Polskie echa Husytyzmu. Warsaw: Instytut Historii PAN, 1999. Camargo, Martin. “Rhetoric.” In David L. Wagner, ed., The Seven Liberal Arts in the Middle Ages, 96–124. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1983. Campana, Augusto. “The Origins of the Word Humanist,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 9 (1946): 60–73. Caproş, Iulia. “Košicki studenti na universite v Krakove v 15. a na začiatku 16. storočia,” Historický časopis 55 (2007): 249–266. Carter, F.W. Trade and urban development in Poland. An economic geography of Cracow, from its origins to 1795. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Catto, Jeremy I. “Scholars and Studies in Renaissance Oxford.” In The History of the University of Oxford, vol. 3: The Collegiate University, James McConica, ed., 769–783. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1992. Chłopcka, Helena. “Uwagi o tzw. ‘Ostatnim słowie’ Pawła Włodkowica o zakonie krzyżackim,” Zapiski Historyczne 58, no. 2/3 (1993): 7–25.

698

Bibliography

Chmiel, Adam. Pieczęcie Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w Krakowie. Zenon Piech, ed. Cracow: Universitas, 1996 (original edition 1917). Chmielowska, Bożena. “Notatka Revocatur w rękopisie Biblioteki Uniwersyteckiej w Gandawie,” Studia Mediewistyczne 30 (1993): 33–39. ―――. “Przywilej fundacyny kolegium królowej Jadwigi przy uniwersytecie Karola w Pradze.” In Wojciech Biliński, ed. Dzieło Jadwigi i Jagiełło. W sześćsetlecie chrztu Litwy i jej związków z Polską, 273–279. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Archidiecezji Warszawskiej, 1989. ―――. “Stanisława ze Skarbimierza rozmyślania o umieraniu królowej Jadwigi.” In Wojciech Biliński, ed. Dzieło Jadwigi i Jagiełło. W sześćsetlecie chrztu Litwy i jej związków z Polską, 280–290. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Archidiecezji Warszawskiej, 1989. ―――. Stanislas de Skarbimierz—le premier recteur de l’Université de Cracovie après le renouveau de celle-ci,” Medievalia Philosophica Polonorum 24 (1979): 73–112. ―――. “Traité de Stanislas de Skarbimierz ‘De contractu reemptionis’ retrouvé dans le manuscript G. 14838 de la Bibliothèque Universitaire de Gand,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 31 (1992): 119–146. ―――. “Traktat Mateusza z Krakowa jako źródło w Komentarzu Benedykta Hessego do Ewangelii św. Mateusza,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 14 (2008): 169–185. Chmielowska, Bożena and Zofia Włodek. “Maciej z Łabiszyna,” Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 3 (14) (1971): 3–55. Clagett, Marshall. The Science of Mechanics in the Middle Ages. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1959. Clanchy, Michael T. From Memory to Written Record. England 1066–1307. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993. Classen, Peter. Studium und Gesellschaft im Mittelalter, Johannes Fried, ed. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1983. Cobban, A.B. The Medieval Universities: their development and organization. London: Methuen, 1975. Colish, Marcia L. Medieval Foundations of the Western Tradition 400–1400. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997. ―――. Peter Lombard. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Conley, John, ed. The Middle English Pearl, Critical Essays. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1970. Contamine, Philip. War in the Middle Ages. Michael Jones, trans. Oxford: Blackwell, 1983 (French original 1980). Contieri, Nice. “La fortuna del Petrarca in Polonia nei secoli XIV e XV,” Annali dell’Instituto Universitario Orientale, Sezione Slava 4 (1961): 139–166. Courtenay, William J. Parisian Scholars in the Early Fourteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Bibliography

699

Courtenay, William J. and Jürgen Miethke, eds. Universities and Schooling in Medieval Society. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2000 (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 32). Czapliński, Władysław and Bogusław Gediga, eds. Atlas historyczny Polski. 14th ed. Warsaw: Polskie Przedsiębiorstwo Wydawnictwo Kartograficznych, 1998. Czartoryski, Paweł. “Glosses et commentaires inconnus sur la Politique d’Aristote d’après les mss de la Bibliothèque Jagellonne de Cracovie,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 5 (1960): 3–44. ―――. “The Library of Copernicus.” In Erna Hilfstein, Czartoryski, and Frank D. Grand, eds., Science and History. Studies in Honor of Edward Rosen, 355–396. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1978 (Studia Copernicana 16). ―――. “Idea uniwersytewtu i koncepcja nauki na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w pierwszej połowie XV wieku—program i jego realizacja,” Studia i Materiały z Dziejów Nauki Polskiej, Series A 12 (1968): 55–69. ―――. “La notion d’université et l’idée de la science à l’Université de Cracovie dans la première moitié du XVe siècle,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 14 (1970): 23–39. ―――. “Średniowiecze.” In Czartoryski and Paweł Rybicki, Historia Nauki Polskiej, vol. 1: Średniowiecze i Odrodzenie, Bogdan Suchodolski, ed., 3–194. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970. ―――. Wczesna recepcja ‘Polityki’ Arystotelesa na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1963. Czartoryski, Paweł and Paweł Rybicki. Historia Nauka Polskiej. Vol. 1: Średniowiecze i Odrozenie. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970. Czyżak, Marta. “Studia Uniwersyteckie kanoników gnieżnieńskich w I połowie XV wieku w świetle metryki kapitulnej.” In Tomasz Ratajczak, with Jacek Kowalski, eds., Księga, nauka, wiara w średniowiecznej Europie, 103–113. Poznań: PTPN, 2004. Dąbrowski, Jan. “Czasy Kazimierza Wielkiego,” in Kazimierz Lepszy, ed., Dzieje Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w latach 1364–1764, vol. 1, 20–33. Cracow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński Wydawnictwo Jubileuszowe, 1964. ―――. Dawne dziejopisarstwo polskie (do roku 1480). Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1964. Dąbrowski, Jan, ed. Kraków. Studia nad rozwojem miasta. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1957. Dales, Richard C. The Intellectual Life of Western Europe in the Middle Ages. Leiden, New York, Cologne: Brill, 1992. Danys, Miroslav. Master Matthew of Cracow. Warsaw: Semper, 1995. David, Pierre. Étudiants Polonais dans les Universités française du Moyen-Âge XIIIe– XVe siècles. Grenoble: J. Aubert, 1965. Davis, Norman. God’s Playground. 2 vols. New York: Columbia University Press, 1982.

700

Bibliography

Decaluwé, Michiel. “Das Dekret Haec sancta und sein gedanklicher Kontext auf dem Konzil von Konstanz und auf dem Konzil von Basel,” Annuarium historiae conciliorum 41 (2009): 313–340. Demand, Alexander, ed. Stätten des Geistes. Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 1999. Dembińska, Maria. Food and Drink in Medieval Poland. Rediscovering a Cuisine of the Past. Revised and adapted by William Woys Weaver. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999 (Polish original Konsumcja żywnościowa w Polsce średniowiecznej. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1963). Denifle, Heinrich. Die Entstehung der Universitäten des Mittelalters bis 1400. Berlin: Weidmann, 1885. Deresiewicz, Bogdan, ed. St. Stanisław Bishop of Cracow. Santa Barbara, CA: Polish American Historical Association California Chapter, 1979. Derwich, Marek and Anna Pobóg-Lenartowicz, eds., Klasztor w państwie średniowiecznym i nowożytnym, 3341–350. Wrocław, Opole, Warsaw: DiG, 2005. Dianni, Jadwiga, “Pierwszy znany traktat rękopiśmienny w literaturze matematycznej w Polsce. Algorismun minutiarum Martini Regis de Premislia,” Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki 12 (1967): 273–283. ―――. Studium Matematyki na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim do połowy XIX wieku. Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersyteckiego Jagiellońskiego, 1963 (Wydawnictwa Jubileuszowe 7). Dickerhof, Harald, ed. Bildungs- und schulgeschichtliche Studien zu Spätmittelalter, Reformation und konfessionellem Zeitalter. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1994 (Wissensliteratur im Mittelalter 19). Dictionary of the Middle Ages. Joseph R. Strayer, editor in chief. 13 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1982–1989. Dobrowolski, Tadeusz. Życie, twórczość i znaczenie społeczne artystów polskich i w Polsce pracujących w okresie póżnego gotyku (1440–1520). Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1966. Dobrzycki, Jerzy. “Mikołaj Kopernik.” In Dobrzycki, Mieczysław Markowski, and Tadeusz Przypkowski. Historia Astronomii w Polsce. vol. 1. Eugeniusz Rybka, ed., 127–156. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1975. ―――. “Tablice astrologiczne Jana Regiomontana w Krakowie,” Studia Mediewistyczne 26, no. 1 (1989): 85–92. Dobrzycki, Jerzy, Mieczysław Markowski, and Tadeusz Przypkowski. Historia Astronomii w Polsce. vol. 1. Eugeniusz Rybka, ed. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1975. Domański, Juliusz. “Discours d’inauguration fait par Stanislas de Skarbimierz à l’occasion du renouveau de l’Université de Cracovie,” Medievalia Philosophica Polonorum 24 (1979): 113–132. ―――. “Filip Buonaccorsi i kultura filozoficzna XV wieku w Polsce.” In Domański, Philosophica. Paraphilosophica. Metaphilosophica, 350–369. Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2008.

Bibliography

701

―――. Grzegorz z Sanoka i poglądy filozoficzne Filipa Kallimacha. Epizod z dziejów humanizmu w polskiej filozofii XV wieku.” In Ryszard Palacz, ed., Filozofia Polska XV wieku, 369–434. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972. ―――. “I Philippo Buonaccorsi e la cultura filosofica del’400 in Polonia.” In Gian Carlo Garfagnini, ed., Callimaco Experiente, poeta e politico del’400, 25–43. Florence: Olschki, 1987. ―――. “Michała Falkenera z Wrocławia (ok. 1460–1534) Prolog do Wykładu hymnów kościelnych,” Przegłąd Tomistyczny 15 (2009): 223–246. ―――. Philosophica, Paraphilosophica, Metaphilosophica. Studia i szkice z dziejów myśli dawnej. Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2008. ―――. Początki humanizmu. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1982 (Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 9). ―――. Scholastyka i początki humanizmu w myśli polskiej XV wieku. Warsaw: Instytut Tomistyczny, 2011. ―――. “Wieki XIII–XV.” In Domański, Zbigniew Ogonowski, and Lech Szczucki, Zaryz dziejów filozofii w Polsce wieki XIII–XVII, 7–219. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1989. Domański, Juliusz, Zbigniew Ogonowski, and Lech Szczucki. Zaryz dziejów filozofii w Polsce wieki XIII–XVII. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1989. Domonkos, Leslie S. “János Vitéz, The Father of Hungarian Humanism (1408–1472).” The New Hungarian Quarterly 20, no. 74 (1979): 142–150. ―――. “Ecclesiastical Patrons as a Factor in the Hungarian Renaissance,” New Review of East-European History 14 (1974): 100–116. ―――. “The Founding (1395) and Refounding (1410) of the University of Óbuda.” In Szőgi László and Julia Varga, eds. Universitas Budensis, 1395–1995, 19–34. Budapest: Bak-Fisch KFT, 1997. ―――. “The History of the Sigismundean Foundation of the University of Óbuda (Hungary).” In L.S. Domonkos, ed. Studium Generale. Studies Offered to Astrik L. Gabriel, 3–33. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1967 (Texts and Studies in The History of Medieval Education 13). ―――. “The Origins of the University of Pozsony,” The New Review: A Journal of EastEuropean History 9, no. 4 (1969): 270–289. ―――. “The Polish Astronomer Martinus Bylica de Ilkusz in Hungary,” The Polish Review 13, no. 3 (1968): 71–79. ―――. “The Problems of Hungarian Foundations in the Middle Ages.” In Steven Béla Vardy and Agnes Huszar Vardy, eds., Society in Change. Studies in Honor of Béla K. Király, 371–390. New York: Distributed by Columbia University Press, 1983 (East European Monographs 132). ―――. ed. Studium Generale. Studies Offered to Astrik L. Gabriel. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1967 (Texts and Studies in The History of Medieval Education 13).

702

Bibliography

Dowiat, Jerzy, ed. Polska w świecie. Szkice z dziejów kultury polskiej. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972. Drabina, Jan. “Episkopat polski wobec husytyzmu.” In Stanisaw Bylina and Ryszard Gładkiewicz, eds., Polskie echa Husytyzmu, 62–81. Warsaw: Instytut Historii PAN, 1999. ―――. Idee koncyliaryzmu na Śląsku. Wykład miejscowych środowisk intelektualnych w ich upowszechnianie (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1984). ―――. “Konziliarismus an der Krakauer Universität in der ersten Hälfte des XV. Jahrhunderts.” In Zofia Włodek, ed., Société et Église. Textes et discussions dans les universités d’Europe Centrale pendant le moyen âge tardif, 117–131. Turnhout: Brepols, 1995. Drelicarz, Wojciech. Annalistyka Małopolska XIII–XV wieku. Kierunki rozwoju wielkich roczników kompilowanych. Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2003. Drewnowski, Jerzy. Uczony w świadomości polskiego środowiska naukowego pierwszej połowy XV wieku. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1987. Drezga, Tihomil. “Włodkowic’s ‘Epistola ad Sbigneum episcopum Cracoviensem’ A Letter of Rare Relevance,” The Polish Review 20, no. 4 (1975): 43–65. Duczmal, Małgorzata. Jagiellonowie. Leksykon biograficzny. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1996. Dudziak, Jan. “Kontrowersja wokół annat papieskich w Polsce,” Analecta Cracoviensis 20 (1988): 401–429. Dymmel, Piotr, Krzysztof Skupieński, and Barbara Trelińska, eds. Droga historii. Studia ofiarowane Profesorowi Józefowi Szymańskiemu w siedemdziesiątą rocznicę urodzin. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie Skłodowskiej, 2001. Dzieduszycki, Maurycy. Zbigniew Oleśnicki przez autora dzieła ‘Piotr Skarga i jego wiek’. 2 vols. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Dzieł Katolickiego i Naukowego, 1853–1854. Eberhard, Winfried and Franz Machilek, eds. Kirchliche Reformimpulse des 14/15. Jahrhunderts in Ostmitteleuropa. Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 2006. Eberhard, Winfried and Alfred A. Strnad, eds. Humanismus und Renaissance in Ostmitteleuropa vor der Reformation. Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 1996. Ehrlich, Ludwik. Paweł Włodkowic i Stanisław ze Skarbimierza. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1954. ―――. Polski wykład prawa wojny XV wieku. Kazanie Stanisława ze Skarbimierza De bellis iustis. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Prawnicze, 1955. ―――. “Z dziejów Wydziału Prawa UJ w wieku XV.” In Michał Patkaniowski, ed., Studia z dziejów Wydziału Prawa Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 35–48. Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1964 (Praca Prawnicza 18). Ekdahl, Sven. Die Schlacht bei Tannenberg 1410. Quellenkritische Untersuchungen. Vol. 1: Einführung und Quellenlage. Berlin: Dunker and Humblot, 1982.

Bibliography

703

Estreicher, Karol. Collegium Maius—Dzieje Gmachu. Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1968. ―――. The Collegium Maius of the Jagiellonian University in Cracow. History. Customs. Collections. Warsaw: Interpress, 1973. ―――. “Miniatury Kodeksu Behema oraz ich treść obyczajowa,” Rocznik Krakowski 24 (1933): 199–244. Estreicher, Stanisław. “Sądownictwo rektora Krakowskiego w wiekach średnich,” Rocznik Krakowski 4 (1900): 249–267. Eulenburg, Franz. Die Frequenz der deutschen Universitäten. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1904 (Abhandlungen der Sächische Akademie der Wissenschaften. PhilologischeHistorische Klasse 54). Fałkowski, Wojciech. Elita władzy w Polsce za panowania Kazimierza Jagiellończyka (1447–1492). Studium aspektów politycznych. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Fundacji “Historia pro Futuro,” 1992. Fałkowski, Wojciech and Stefan Weinfurter, eds. Ritualisierung politischer Willensbildung. Polen und Deutschland im hohen und späten Mittelalter. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010. Fastnacht, Adam. “Pochodzenie społeczne studentów Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego z diecezji przemyskiej w latach 1400–1642,” Rocznik Zakładu Narodowego imienie Ossolińskich 5 (1957): 195–232. Fedorowicz, J.K., ed. A Republic of Nobles. Studies in Polish History to 1864. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Ferruolo, Stephen C. The Origins of the University. The Schools of Paris and their Critics, 1100–1215. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1985. Fijałek, Jan. Dominus Bartolus de Saxoferrato eiusque permagna in Polonos auctoritas. Cracow: Academia Litterarum Cracoviensis, 1914. ―――. “Dwaj dominikanie krakowscy: Jan Biskupiec i Jan Falkenberg.” In Księga pamiątkowa ku czci Oswalda Balzera. 2 vols. 1, 271–348. Lwów: Gubrynowicz, 1925. ―――. “Królowa Korony Polskiej,: Przegląd Kościelny 1 (1902): 409–418; 2 (1902): 108– 125, 255–286, and 422–447; 3 (1903): 23–41 and 81–93. ―――. Mistrz Jakób z Paradyża i Uniwersytet Krakowski w okresie soboru Bazylejskiego. 2 vols. Cracow: Nakładem Akademii Umiejętności, 1900. ―――. “Nasza nauka krakowska o Niepokalanym Poczęciu NP Maryi w wiekach średnich,” Przegląd Polski 34 (1900): 420–485. ―――. “Ostatnie słowo Pawła Włodkowica o zakonie krzyżackim,” Przegląd Kościelny 1 (1902): 1–13, 92–104, 180–189, 258–273, 342–352. ―――. Polonia apud Italos scholastica saeculum XV. Cracow: Typis Universitatis Jagellonicae, 1900. ―――. Studya do dziejów uniwersytetu krakowskiego i jego wydziału teologicznego w XV wieku. Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1898 (reprinted in Rozprawy i

704

Bibliography

Sprawozdania z Posiedzeń Wydziału Filologicznego Akademii Umiejętności 29 (1899): 1–182). Filipowski, Jan ed. Studia historyczne ku czci Profesora Wincentego Zakrzewskiego. Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1908. Filozofia w Polsce. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1971. Firlet, Elżbieta Maria, ed. Kraków w chrześcijańskiej Europie X–XIII w. / Krakow in Christian Europe, 10th–13th c. Cracow: Muzeum Historyczne Miasta Krakowa, 2006. Fiszman, Samuel, ed. The Polish Renaissance in its European Context. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1988. Fletcher, John M. “Developments in the Faculty of Arts 1370–1520.” In The History of the University of Oxford, vol. 2: Late Medieval Oxford, J.I. Catto and T.A.R. Evans, eds., 315–345. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1992. ―――. “The Faculty of Arts.” In The History of the University of Oxford, vol. 3: The Collegiate University, James McConica, ed., 157–199. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1986. ―――. “Wealth and Poverty in the Medieval German Universities, with Particular Reference to the University of Freiburg.” In J.R. Hale, J.R.L. Highfield, and Beryl Smalley, eds., Europe in the Late Middle Ages, 410–436. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1965. Fletcher, John M. and Julian Deahl. “European Universities, 1300–1700: The Development of Research 1969–1981, and A Summary Bibliography.” In James M. Kittelson and Pamela J. Transue, eds., Rebirth, Reform, and Resilience. Universities in Transition 1300–1700, 324–357. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1984. Forstreuter, Kurt. “Aus den letzen Jahren des Paulus Wladimiri,” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 19 (1970): 467–478. Fried, Johannes, ed. Schulen und Studium im sozialen Wandel des hohen und späten Mittelalters. Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 1986. Friedberg, Helena. “Rodzina Vitreatorów (Zasańskich) i jej związki z Uniwersytetem Krakowskim na przełomie XV i XVI w.,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 18, no. 1 (1968): 19–37. Friedberg, Marian. “Kraków w dobie Odrodzenia.” In Jan Dąbrowski, ed. Kraków. Studia nad rozwojem miasta, 189–227. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1957. Frost, Robert. The Oxford History of Poland-Lithuania. Vol. 1: The Making of the PolishLithuanian Union, 1385–1569. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Fuchs, Christoph. Dives, Pauper, Nobilis, Magister, Frater, Clericus. Sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchungen über Heidelberger Universitätsbesucher des Spätmittelalters (1386– 1450). Leiden, New York, Cologne: Brill, 1995 (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, 5).

Bibliography

705

Füssel, Stephan and Jan Pirożyński, eds. Der polnische Humanismus und die europäischen Sodalitäten. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1997. Gabriel, Astrik L. Garlandia. Studies in the History of the Mediaeval University. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1969. ―――. “Intellectual Relations between the University of Paris and the University of Cracow in the 15th century,” Studia Źródłoznawcze 25 (1980): 37–63; reprinted as “Scholarly Bonds of the University of Cracow with Paris Schools in the Late Medieval Period,” Gabriel, The Paris Studium: Robert of Sorbonne and His Legacy. 259–307. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992. ―――. The Mediaeval Universities of Pécs and Pozsony. Notre Dame, IN and Frankfurt: University of Notre Dame and Josef Knecht, 1969. ―――. “Motivation of the Founders of Mediaeval Colleges.” In Paul Wilpert, ed., Beiträge zum Berufsbewußtsein des mittelalterlichen Menschen, 61–72. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1964 (Miscellanea Mediaevalia, 3). Gabriel, Astrik L., ed. The Economic and Material Frame of the Mediaeval University. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977. Ganszyniec, Ryszard. “O ortografii Jakuba Parkosza,” Sprawozdania Towarzystwa Naukowego we Lwowie 12 (1932): 148–151. Gapski, Henryk and Jerzy Kłoczowski, eds. Dzieje dominikanów w Polsce XIII–XVIII wiek. Historiografia i warsztat badawczy historyka. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego Jana Pawła II, 2006 (Studia nad Historią Dominikanów w Polsce 4). Garbacik, Józef. “Ognisko nauki i kultury Renasansowej (1470–1520).” In Kazimierz Lepszy ed., Dzieje Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w latach 1364–1764, vol. 1, 189–220. Cracow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński Wydawnictwo Jubileuszowe, 1964. ―――. “Paolo Veneto, filozof-dyplomata i jego pobyt w Polsce w r. 1412,” Prace Historyczne 4 (1960):17–31. Garbacik, Józef, et al., eds. Mediaevalia—w 50 rocznicę pracy naukowej Jana Dąbrowskiego. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1960. Garbaczowa, Maria. “Krakowskie komentarze do ‘De motu cordis’ w zbiorach rękopiśmiennych Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej,” Materiały do Historii Filozofii śreniowiecznej w Polsce 7 (18) (1974): 92–109. Gąsiorowski, Antoni. “Bylina i inni. Dziekani Wydziału Sztuk krakowskiego uniwersytetu w XV wieku. In Jacek Banaszkiewicz, et al., eds. Ludzie. Kościół. Wierzenia. Studia z dziejów kultury i społeczeństwa Europy Środkowej (średniowiecze—wczesna epoka nowożytna), 523–537. Warsaw: DiG, 2001. ―――. “Immatrykulowani i promowani. Jednoroczni studenci akademii krakowskiej w XV wieku.” In Jerzy Strzelczyk and Józef Dobosz, eds., with the assistance of Zbyszek Górczak, et al., Nihil Superfluum Esse. Prace z dziejów średniowiecza

706

Bibliography

ofiarowane Profesor Jadwidze Krzyżaniakowej, 479–491. Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, 2000. ―――. “Nad najstarszą Metryką najstarszego polskiego uniwersytetu. Album studiosorum Universitatis Cracoviensis 1400–1508,” Roczniki Historyczne 66 (2000): 135–156. ―――. “Nazwisko rektora Stanisława z Brzezin (zm. 1492), czyli o lapsusie Józefa Muczkowskiego (i moim),” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 61 (2011): 5–11. ―――. “Pierwsi studenci odnowionego Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego (1400/1401),” Roczniki Historyczne 71 (2005): 63–98. ―――. “O mieszczanach studiujących na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku.” In Halina Manikowska, et al., eds., Aetas Media Aetas Moderna. Studia ofiarowane profesorowi Henrykowi Samsonowiczowi w siedemdziesiąta rocznicę urodzin, 653–663. Warsaw: Instytut Historyczny Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2000. ―――. “O wydanie wykazów studentów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XV wieku,” Teki Krakowskie 5 (1997): 39–45. ―――. “Rex Ambulans,” Quaestiones Medii Aevi 1 (1977): 139–162. Gąsiorowski, Antoni, ed. The Polish Nobility in the Middle Ages. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1984 (Polish Historical Library 5). Gawęda, Stanisław, ed. Dlugossiana. Studia historyczne w pięćsetlecie śmierci Jana Długosza. Part 1. Warsaw: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, printed by Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1980. ―――. ed. Dlugossiana. Studia historyczne w pięćsetlecie śmierci Jana Długosza. Part 2. Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1985 (Prace historyczne 76). Geremek, Bronisław, ed. Kultura polska średniowiecznej XIV–XV w. Warsaw: Semper, 1997. Gieysztor, Aleksander. “Aspects financiers de l’Université de Cracovie au XV siècle.” In A.L. Gabriel, ed., The Economic and Material Frame of the Mediaeval University, 51–56. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977. ―――. “Management and Resources.” In Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 108–143. Vol. 1 of Walter Rüegg, General Editor, A History of the University in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. ―――. “Mistrzowie polscy uniwersytetu paryskiego w XIV i XV wieku,” in Aleksander Gieysztor, et al., eds., Wieki Średnie. Prace ofiarowane Tadeuszowi Manteufflowi w 60 rocznicę urodzin, 213–225. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1962. Gieysztor, Aleksander, ed., Historia kultury średniowiecznej w Polsce. Warsaw: Polskie Towarzystwo Historyczne, 1963. ―――. ed. Polska dzielnicowa i zjednoczona. Państwo, społeczeństwo, kultura, Warsaw: Wiedza Powszechna, 1972. ―――. et al., eds. Wieki Średnie. Prace ofiarowane Tadeuszowi Manteufflowi w 60 rocznicę urodzin. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1962.

Bibliography

707

Gill, Joseph. Constance et Bâle-Florence. Paris: Éditions de l’Orante, 1965 (Histoire des Conciles Oecuménique 9). Gingerich, Owen. The Book Nobody Read. Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus. New York: Walker and Co., 2004. Glińska, Klementyna. “The Conception of Humanity in the Sermo ad clerum errant appropinquantes, Rector’s Speech on the Bad Students by Stanisław of Skarbimierz (BJ MS 191 and BJ MS 723,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 37 (3) (2008): 37–58. Glomski, Jacqueline. “Erasmus and Cracow (1510–1530),” Erasmus of Rotterdam Yearbook 17 (1997): 1–18. ―――. Patronage and Humanist Literature in the Age of the Jagiellons. Court and Career in the Writings of Rudolf Agricola Junior, Valentine Eck, and Leonard Cox. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007. Goddu, André. Copernicus and the Aristotelian Tradition: Education, Reading, and Philosophy in Copernicus’s Path to Heliocentrism. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010. ―――. “Sources of Natural Philosophy at Kraków in the fifteenth century,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 35, no. 1 (2006): 85–114. ―――. “The Teaching of Natural Philosophy at Kraków in the fifteenth century,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 36, no. 2 (2007): 37–81. Goering, Joseph. “The Internal Forum and the Literature of Penance and Confession.” In Willifried Hartmann and Kenneth Pennington, eds., The History of Canon Law in the Classical Period, 1140–1234. From Gratian to the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, 379–428. Washington, DC, The Catholic University of America Press, 2008. Gogacz, Adam. Koncepcja uniwersytetu według Bartłomieja z Jasła. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Humanistyczno-Ekonomicznej w Łodzi, 2008. Goodman, Anthony and Angus MacKay, eds. The Impact of Humanism on Western Europe. London: Longman, 1990. Góra, Piotr. “Jakub z Gostynina, Komentarz do Liber de causis,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii 11 (1969): 3–162. Górecki, Piotr. A Local Society in Transition. The Henryków Book and Related Documents. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2007. ―――. Parishes, Tithes and Society in Earlier Medieval Poland c. 1000–c. 1250. Philadelphia, PA: The American Philosophical Society, 1993 (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 83, no. 2). ―――. The Text and the World. The Henryków Book, Its Authors, and Their Region, 1160– 1310. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Górecki, Piotr and Nancy van Deusen, eds. Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages. A Cultural History. Essays in Honour of Paul W. Knoll. London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2009.

708

Bibliography

Górski, Karol. “L’histoire de la spiritualité polonaise.” In Marian Rechowicz, ed., Le millénaire du Catholicisme en Pologne, 279–355. Lublin: Société des lettres et des science de l’Université Catholique de Lublin, 1969. ―――. Od religijności do mistyki. Zarys dziejów życia wewnętrznego w Polsce 966–1795. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1962. ―――. L’Ordine teutonico. Alle origini dello stato prussiano. Turin: Einaudi, 1971. ―――. Zakon krzyżacki a powstanie państwa pruskiego. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1977. Gouron, André. “Le recrutement des étudiants à l’apogée de l’Université de Cracovie (1480–1509),” Czasopismo Prawno-historyczne 41, no. 1 (1989): 35–43. Grabmann, Martin. Die Philosophia pauperum und ihr Verfasser Albert von Orlamünde. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des philosophischen Unterrichtes an den deutschen Stadtschulen des ausgehenden Mittelalters. Münster: Aschendorf, 1918 (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters 20, no. 2). Grabski, Andrzej F. Zarys historii historiografii polskiej. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2000. Graff, Tomasz. “Biskup krakowski Zbigniew Oleśnicki wobec schizmy bazylejskiej (1439–1449).” In Feliks Kiryk and Zdzisław Noga, eds., Zbigniew Oleśnicki Książę kościoła i mąż stanu, 195–204. Cracow: Secesja, 2006. ―――. Episkopat monarchii jagiellońskiej w dobie soborów powszechnych XV wieku. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2008. ―――. Kościół w Polsce wobec konfliktu z Zakonem Krzyżackim w XV wieku. Studium z dziejów kultury politycznej polskiego episkopatu. Cracow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2010. ―――. “Stosunki polski ze stolicą apostolską na tle wyboru pseudopapieży—od czasów wczesnopiastowskich do soboru pizańskiego. Wybrane aspekty i zarys problematyki,” Prace historyczne 131 (2004): 43–76. Grant, Edward. God and Reason in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Grendler, Paul F. The Universities of the Italian Renaissance. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press, 2002. Grodecki, Roman, “Mistrz Wincenty, biskup krakowski (zarys biograficzny),” Rocznik Krakowski 19 (1923): 30–61. ―――. Polska Piastowska. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1969. Grodziska, Karolina. “Mikołaja Lasockiego apel o pokój na kongresie w Arras w 1435 r.,” Studia Historyczne 35 (1992): 241–251. ―――. “Mikołaja Lasockiego obrona pamięci króla Władysława Jagiełły na soborze bazylejskim.” In Waldemar Bukowski, et al., eds., Cracovia—Polonia—Europa. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane Jerzemu Wyrozumskiemu w sześćeziesiątą piątą rocznicę urodzin i czterdziestolecie pracy naukowej, 345–353. Cracow: Drukarnia “Secesja,” 1995.

Bibliography

709

―――. “Mikołaja Lasockiego pochwała Władysława Jagiełły i królowej Jadwigi na soborze bazylejskim,” Analecta Cracoviensia 20 (1988): 381–399. Grossé, Ludwik. Stosunki Polski z soborem Bazyleiskim. Warsaw: Gebethner and Wolff, 1885. Grundmann, Herbert. Vom Ursprung der Universität im Mittelalter, 2nd ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960. Grygiel, Jerzy. Życie i działalność Zygmunta Korybutowicza. Studium z dziejów stosunków polsko-czeskich w pierwszej połowie XV wieku. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1988. Grzeszczuk, Stanisław ed. Pisarze staropolscy sylwetki. Warsaw: Wiedza Powszechna, 1991. Grzybowski, Konstanty. “Paweł Włodkowic a współczesna mu Kanonistyka,” Państwo i Prawo 10 (1955): 799–814. ―――. “Rozwój myśli państwowej na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w pierwszej połowie w. XV.” In Kazimierz Lepszy, ed., Dzieje Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w latach 1364– 1764, vol. 1. 139–149. Cracow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński Wydawnictwo Jubileuszowe, 1964. Grzybowski, Stanisław. Jan Długosz. Cracow: Wydawnictwo WAM, 2003. Gushee, Lawrence. “Jehan des Murs.” In Dictionary of the Middle Ages. Joseph R. Strayer, Editor in Chief, 7, 56–57. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1982–1989. Hajdukiewicz, Leszek. Biblioteka Macieja z Miechowa. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1960. ―――. “Zainteresowania naukowe Macieja z Miechowa w świetle jego księgozbioru.” In Henryk Barycz, ed., Maciej z Miechowa 1457–1523. Historyk, geograf, lekarz, organizator nauki, 205–254. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1960. Hale, J.R., J.R.L. Highfield, and Beryl Smalley, eds. Europe in the Late Middle Ages. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1965. Halecki, Oscar. Dzieje Unii Jagiellońskiej. 2 vols. Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętnosci, 1919–1920. ―――. A History of Poland. Chicago: H. Regnery of Logos, 1966. ―――. Jadwiga of Anjou and the Rise of East Central Europe. Edited with a Foreword by Thaddeus V. Gromada. Highland Lakes, NJ: Distributed by Columbia University Press (East European Monographs 308). Hamilton, Bernice M. Political Thought in Sixteenth Century Spain. A study of the political ideas of Vitoria, De Soto, Suárez, and Molina. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1963. Haskins, Charles Homer. The Rise of Universities. New York: H. Holt, 1923. Heath, Terrence. “Logical Grammar, Grammatical Logic, and Humanism in Three German Universities,” Studies in the Renaissance 18 (1971): 9–64. Heck, Roman. Tabor a kandydatura jagiellońska w Czechach (1438–1444). Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1964. Helmrath, Johannes. Das Basler Konzil 1431–1449. Forschungsstand und Probleme. Cologne and Vienna: Böhlau, 1987.

710

Bibliography

Helmrath, Johannes and Heribert Müller, eds. Studien zum 15. Jahrhundert. Festschrift Erich Meuthen, 2 vols. Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1994. The History of the University of Oxford. Vol. 1: The Early Oxford Schools. J.I. Catto, ed. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1984. The History of the University of Oxford. Vol. 2: Late Medieval Oxford. J.I. Catto and T.A.R. Evans, eds. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1992. The History of the University of Oxford. Vol. 3: The Collegiate University. James McConica, ed. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1986. Hornowska, Maria and Halina Zdzitowiecka-Jasieńska. Zbióry rękopiśmienne w Polsce średniowiecznej. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Kasy im. Mianowskiego, 1947. Huntsman, Jeffrey F. “Grammar.” In David L. Wagner, ed., The Seven Liberal Arts in the Middle Ages, 58–95. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1983. Ingrao, Charles W. and Franz A.J. Szabo, eds. The Germans and the East. West Lafayette: IN: Purdue University Press, 2008. d’Irsay, Stephen. Histoire des universités françaises et étrangès des origins à nos jours, 2 vols. Paris: A. Picard, 1933–1935. Isajewicz, Jarosław. “Jerzy z Drohobycza we Włoszech i w Krakowie,” Małopolskie Studia Historyczne 6, no 3/4 (1964): 59–64. Iwańczak, Wojciech. “Polskie badania nad wpływami husyckimi w Polsce.” In Stanisław Bylina and Ryszard Gładkiewicz, eds., Polskie echa Husytyzmu, 20–31. Warsaw: Instytut Historii PAN, 1999. Iwańczak, Wojciech and Janusz Smołuch, eds. Wspólnoty małe i duże w społeczeństwach Czech i Polski w średniowieczu i w czasach nowożytnych. Cracow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2010. Jamka, Rudolf. Kraków w pradziejach, vol. 1. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1963. ―――. “Pradzieje Krakowa.” In Jan Dąbrowski, ed. Kraków. Studia nad rozwojem miasta, 65–83. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1957. Jasienica, Paweł. Jagiellonian Poland. Alexander Jordan, trans. Miami: FL: American Institute of Polish Culture, 1978 (Polish original 1963). Jaskulski, Jacek. “Środowisko społeczne prałatów i kanoników kapituły katedralnej w Poznaniu w XV wieku w świetle metryki Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego.” In Dariusz A. Sikorski and Andrzej M. Wyrwa, eds., Cognitioni gestorum. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza dedykowane Profesorowi Jerzemu Strzelczykowi, 439–445. Warsaw: DiG, 2006. Jasudowicz, Tadeusz. Śladami Lukwika Ehrlicha. Do Pawła Włodkowica po naukę o prawach człowieka. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Comer, 1995. Jelicz, Antonia. Życie codzienne w średniowiecznym Krakowie (wiek XIII–XV ). Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1966. Julia, Dominique, Jacques Revel, and Roger Chartier, eds. Les universités européennes du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle. Histoire sociale des populations étudiantes, 2 vols. Paris: Editions de l’Ecole des hautes etudes en sciences sociales, 1986–1989.

Bibliography

711

Jurek, Tomasz. “Krakowski dyplom promocji magisterskiej z 1512 roku,” Rocznik Krakowski 72 (2006): 69–85. Jurek, Tomasz and Edmund Kizik. Historia Polski do 1572. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 2013. Jurek, Tomasz and Izabela Skierska, eds. Fontes et Historia. Prace dedykowane Antoniemu Gąsiorowskiemu. Poznań: Instytut Historii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2007. Kaczmarczyk, Zdzisław. Monarchia Kazimierza Wielkiego. 2 vols. Poznań: Księgarnia Akademicka, 1939–1946. ―――. Polska czasów Kazimierza Wielkiego. Cracow: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1964. Kaczmarek, Krzysztof. “Augustianie na studiach w Krakowie w XV wieku,” Nasza Przeszłość 99 (2003): 131–164. ―――. “Dlaczego Cystersi z ‘Prus’ nie chcieli studiować w Krakowie?” Nasza Przeszłość 96 (2001): 195–207. ―――. “Głos w dyskusji nad początkami Studium Generalnego dominikanów w Krakowie,” Nasza Przeszłość 91 (1999): 77–100. ―――. “Król Władysław Jagiełło wobec krakowskich szkół cystersów i dominikanów.” In Marek Derwich and Anna Pobóg-Lenartowicz, eds., Klasztor w państwie średniowiecznym i nowożytnym, 3341–350. Wrocław, Opole, Warsaw: DiG, 2005. ―――. “Między Krakowem i Lipskiem. Prowincja szkolna polskich cystersów w średniowiecznu,” Nasza Przeszłość 83 (1994): 125–138. ―――. “O teorii i praktyce szkolnej w zakonie cystersów i jego polskich klasztorach. Na marginesie artykułu M. Kusznierewicz-Mikś ‘Studia cystersów na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV w’,” Studia Historyczne 44, no. 3 (2001): 493–505. ―――. Studia uniwersyteckie cystersów z ziem polskich w okresie średniowiecza. Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, 2002. ―――. Szkoły i studia dominikanów krakowskich w średniowieczu. Warsaw: Neriton, 2005. Kahl, Hans-Dietrich. “Die völkerrechtliche Lösung der ‘Heidenfrage’ bei Paulus Vladimir von Krakau († 1435) und ihre problemgeschichtliche Einordnung,” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 7 (1958): 161–209. Kaliszuk, Jerzy. “Texts of Synodal Statutes in social Communication of Late Medieval Poland—as exemplified by the Wieluń—Kalisz Statutes of Mikołaj Trąba.” In Krzysztof Bracha and Paweł Kras, eds., Przestrzeń religijna Europy ŚrodkowoWschodniej w średniowieczu. Religious space of East-Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 67–78. Warsaw: DiG, 2010. Kaliszuk, Jerzy and Jacek Soszyński. “Die Kartäuser und Krakau im 15. Jahrhundert: Geistliche, Bürger und die Universität.” In Sönke Lorenz, Oliver Auge, and Robert Zagolla, eds., Bücher, Bibliotheken und Schriftkultur der Kartäuser. Festgabe zum 65. Geburtstag von Edward Potkowski, 317–323. Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, 2002. Kałuża, Zenon. “Autor ‘Speculum aureum’,” Roczniki Filozoficzne 28 (1980): 203–232.

712

Bibliography

―――. “Chronologie des premières discussions ecclésiologiques à Cracovie (1404– 1407),” Rivista di Storia della Filosofia 52 (1997): 111–127. ―――. “Eklezjologia Mateusza z Krakowa (Uwagi o De praxi Romanae curiae),” Studia Mediewistyczne 18, no. 1 (1977): 51–174. ―――. “Lex vetus i Lex nova w komentarzy Benedykta Hessego do Ewangelii św. Mateusza,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 14 (2008): 135–151. ―――. “Un manuel de théologie en usage à l’Université de Cracovie: Le commentaire des Sentences dit Utrum Deus Gloriosus.” In L’Église et le peuple chrétien dans les pays de l’Europe du Centre-est et du Nord (XIV–XVe siècles). 107–127. Rome: École Française de Rome, 1990. ―――. “Metateologia Mateusza z Krakowa (Rozważania wstępne nad ‘Rationale operum divinorum’),” Studia Mediewistyczne 20, no. 1 (1980): 19–90. ―――. “Paweł Włodkowic i problem jego doktryny,” Zeszyty Naukowe KUL 21 (1978): 85–92. ―――. “Podręcznik teologii używany na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim: Komentarz do Sentencji, zwany Utrum Deus Gloriosus,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 17 (2011): 235–254. ―――. Les querelles doctrinales à Paris. Nominalistes et realists aux confines du XIVe et du XVe siècle. Bergamo: P. Lubrina, 1988 (Quodlibet 2). ―――. Thomas de Cracovie. Contribution à l’Histoire du Collège de Sorbonne. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1978. ―――. “Topos Translatio studii w Krakowie po odnowieniu Uniwersytetu,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 11 (2005): 71–150. ­―――. “ ‘Translatio studii.’ Kryzys Uniwersytetu Paryskiego w latach 1380–1400 i jego skutki,” Studia. Mediewistyczne 15 (1974): 71–108. Kaniewska, Irena. “Młodzież Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w latach 1510–1560. Studium statystyczne.” In Kazimierz Lepszy, ed., Studia z dziejów młodzieży Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w dobie Renesansu, 1–89. Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1964 (Wydawnictwa Jubileuszowe 17). Kapronczay, Károly. “Ungarisch-polnische Beziehungen im Spiegel der Geschichte der Krakauer Universität in dem 15. und 16. Jahrhundert.” In László Szőgi and Júlia Varga, eds., Universitas Budensis, 1395–1995, 129–134. (Budapest: Bak-Fisch KFT, 1997). Karbowiak, Antoni. Dzieje wychowania i szkół w Polsce. 3 vols. St. Petersburg and Lwów: K. Grendyszyński and Ossolineum, 1898–1923. ―――. Mieszkania żaków krakowskich w XIV–XVI wieku. Lwów: Nakładem Autora, 1887. ―――. “Studia statystyczne z dziejów Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1433/4–1509/10,” Archiwum do Dziejów Literatury i Oświaty w Polsce 12 (1910): 1–82. ―――. Obiady profesorów Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w XVI i XVII w. Cracow: Czas, 1900.

Bibliography

713

―――. Ubiory profesorów i uczniów Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim. Cracow: Nakładem Autora, 1890. Karp, Theodore C. “Music.” In David L. Wagner, ed. The Seven Liberal Arts in the Middle Ages, 169–195. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1983. Karras, Ruth Mazo. “Universities.” In Margaret Schaus, ed., Women and Gender in Medieval Europe. An Encyclopedia, 808. New York and London: Routledge, 2006. Kaufmann, Georg. Geschichte der deutschen Universitäten, 2 vols. Stuttgart: J.G. Cotta, 1888–1896. Kavka, František and Josef Petráň, eds. A History of Charles University. Vol. 1: 1348–1802. Prague: Carolinum, 2001. Kelley, Donald. Foundations of Modern Historical Scholarship. Language, Law, and History in the French Renaissance. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970. Kempfi, Andrzej. “Z dyskusji filozoficznich w kręgu Sodalitatis Litterariae Vistulanae,” Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 4 (15) (1971): 151–182. Kenny, Anthony. Medieval Philosophy. Oxford: The Clarendon Press (A New History of Western Philosophy 2). Kenny, Anthony and Jan Pinborg. “Medieval philosophical literature.” In Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, 11–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Kerr, Neil R. “Oxford College Libraries Before 1500.” In Jacques Paquet and Jozef IJsewijn, eds., Les universités a la fin du moyen âge, 293–311. Louvain: Institut d’Études médiévales U.C.L., 1978. Kibre, Pearl. “Arts and Medicine in the Universities of the Later Middle Ages.” In Jacquet Paquet and Jozef IJsewijn, eds., Les universités a la fin du moyen âge, 213–227. Louvain: Institut d’Études médiévales U.C.L., 1978. ―――. “Hippocrates Latinus: Repertorium of Hippocratic Writings in the Latin Middle Ages,” Traditio 32 (1976): 257–292. ―――The Nations in the Mediaeval Universities. Cambridge, MA: Medieval Academy of America, 1948. ―――. Scholarly Privileges in the Middle Ages. The Rights, Privileges, and Immunities of Scholars and Universities at Bologna, Padua, Paris, and Oxford. Cambridge, MA: Medieval Academy of America, 1961. Kibre, Pearl and Nancy G. Siraisi. “The Institutional Setting: The Universities.” In David C. Lindberg, ed., Science in the Middle Ages, 120–144. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. Kielar, Paweł. “Studia nad kulturą szkolną i intelektualną dominikanów prowincji polskiej w średniowieczu.” In Jerzy Kłoczowski, ed., Studia nad historią dominikanów w Polsce 1222–1972, 1, 271–515. 2 vols. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Prowincji Dominikanów, 1975.

714

Bibliography

Kiersnowski, Ryszard. Wstęp do numizmatyki polskiej wieków średnich. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1964. Kiryk, Feliks and Zdzisław Noga, eds. Zbigniew Oleśnicki Książę kościoła i mąż stanu. Cracow: Secesja, 2006. Kittelson, James M. “Introduction: The Durability of the Universities of Old Europe.” In James M. Kittelson and Pamela J. Transue, eds., Rebirth, Reform, and Resilience. Universities in Transition 1300–1700, 1–18. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1984. Kittelson, James M. and Pamela J. Transue, eds. Rebirth, Reform, and Resilience. Universities in Transition 1300–1700. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1984. Kłoczowski, Jerzy. “Cystersi w Europie Środkowowschodniej wieków średnich. In Andrzej Marek Wyrwa and Józef Dobosz, eds., Cystersi w społeczeństwie Europy Środkowej, 27–53. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2000. ―――. Dominikanie polscy na Śląsku. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1956. ―――. A History of Polish Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. ―――. “Louis the Great as King of Poland as Seen in the Chronicle of Janko of Czarnków.” In S.B. Vardy, Geza Grossmidt, and L.S. Domonkos, eds., Louis the Great, King of Hungary and Poland, 129–154. New York: Distributed by Columbia University Press, 1986 (East European Monographs CIXIV [sic.]). ―――. Młodsza Europa. Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia w kręgu cywilizacji chrześcijańskiej średniowiecza. Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1998. ―――. “Polska w kulturze europejskiej XIV i XV wieku.” In Aleksander Gieysztor, ed., Polska dzielnicowa i zjednoczona. Państwo, społeczeństwo, kultura, 460–503. Warsaw: Wiedza Powszechna, 1972. ―――. “Studia w polskiej prowincji dominikańskiej za prowincjalatu Jakuba z Bydgoszczy (1447–1478).” In Juliusz Bardach, et al., eds., Europa—Słowiańszczyna— Polska. Studia ku uczczenia Profesora Kazimierza Tymienieckiego, 457–481. Poznań: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewiecza, 1970. ―――. ed. Studia nad historią dominikanów w Polsce 1222–1972. 2 vols. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Prowincji Dominikanów, 1975. Kłoczowski, Jerzy, ed. Kościół w Polsce. Vol. 1: Średniowiecze. Cracow: Znak, 1968. Kłoczowski, Jerzy and Jan Andrzej Spież, eds. Dominikanie w środkowej Europie w XIII– XV wieku. Aktywność duszpasterska i kultura intelektualna. Poznań: W Drodze, 2002 (Studia nad Historią Dominikanów w Polsce 3). Knoll, Paul W. “The Arts Faculty at the University of Cracow at the End of the Fifteenth Century.” In Robert Westman, ed., The Copernican Achievement, 1473–1973, 137–156. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1975. ―――. “Casimir the Great and the University of Cracow,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 16 (1968): 232–249.

Bibliography

715

―――. “The European Context of Prussian Humanism,” Journal of Baltic Studies 22, no. 1 (1991): 5–28. ―――. “Gallus—and Others—on the Problems of Origins and Identity.” In Krzysztof Stopka, ed., Gallus Anonymous and His Chronicle in the Context of Twelfth-Century Historiography from the Perspective of the Latest Research, 57–73. Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2010. ―――. “Iacobus Carthusiensis [James of Paradise] and Ecclesiastical Reform in Fifteenth-Century Cracow and Erfurt.” In Nancy van Deusen, ed., Procession, Performance, Liturgy, and Ritual. Essays in Honor of Bryan R. Gillingham, 191–201. Ottawa, Canada: The Institute of Medieval Music, 2007 (Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen 62, no. 8 and Musicological Studies 62, no. 8). ―――. “In Search of Alma Mater Cracoviensis: Recent Publications,” The Polish Review 57 (2012): 101–117. ―――. “Italian Humanism in Poland: The Role of the University of Kraków in the Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries.” In Jean R. Brink and William F. Gentrup, eds., Renaissance Culture in Context: Theory and Practice, 164–175. Aldershot, England and Brookfield, VT: The Scolar Press, 1993. ―――. “Jadwiga and Education,” The Polish Review 44 (1999): 419–431. ―――. “The Jagiellonians and the University of Cracow.” In Urszula Borkowska and Markus Hörsch, eds., Hofkultur der Jagiellonendynastie und verwandter Fürstenhäuser / The Culture of the Jagellonian and Related Courts, 185–191. Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke, 2010 (Studia Jagellonica Lipsiensia 6). ―――. “Jan Długosz, 1480–1980,” The Polish Review 27, nos. 1–2 (1982): 3–28 (reprinted in Charles S. Kraszewski, ed., Fifty Years of Polish Scholarship: The Polish Review 1956– 2006, 259–295. New York: PIASA Books, 2006. ―――. “Learning in Late Piast Poland,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 120, no. 2 (1976): 136–157. ―――. “Literary Production at the University of Cracow in the Fifteenth Century.” In Anna Adamska and Marco Mostert, eds., The Development of Literate Mentalities in East Central Europe, 217–246. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004. ―――. “The Most Unique Crusader State: The Teutonic Order in the Development of the Political Culture of Northeastern Europe during the Middle Ages.” In Charles W. Ingrao and Franz A.J. Szabo, eds., The Germans and the East, 37–48. West Lafayette: IN: Purdue University Press, 2008. ―――. “National Consciousness in Medieval Poland,” Ethnic Studies 10 (1993): 65–84. ―――. “Nationes and Other Bonding Groups at Late Medieval Central European Universities.” In Nancy van Deusen and Leonard Michael Koff, eds. Mobs. An Interdisciplinary Inquiry, 95–115. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012. ―――. “The Papacy at Avignon and University Foundations.” In The Church in a Changing Society: Conflict—Reconciliation or Adjustment? Proceedings of the

716

Bibliography

CIHEC-conference in Uppsala, August 17–20, 1977, 191–196. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1978. ―――. The Rise of the Polish Monarchy. Piast Poland in East Central Europe, 1320–1370. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972. ―――. “The University Context of Kochanowski’s Era: Humanism and the Academic Culture of the Early Renaissance in Poland.” In Samuel Fiszman, ed. The Polish Renaissance in its European Context, 189–212.. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1988. ―――. “The University of Cracow in the Conciliar Movement.” In James M. Kittelson and Pamela J. Transue, eds., Rebirth, Reform, and Resilience. Universities in Transition 1300–1700, 190–212. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1984. ―――. “The Urban Development of Medieval Poland, with Particular Reference to Kraków.” In Bariša Krekić, ed., The Urban Society of Eastern Europe in Pre-Modern Times, 63–136. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1987. ―――. “Working for the King (and Queen): Krakovian Scholars in Royal Service in Late Medieval Poland,” The Polish Review 59 (2014): 3–18. ―――. “The World of the Young Copernicus: Society, Science, and the University.” In Nicholas Steneck, ed., Science and Society. Past, Present, and Future, 19–51. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1975. ―――. “ ‘The Worst Heretic.’ Andrzej Gałka of Dobczyn in the Academic and Ecclesiastical Context of Mid-15th Century Cracow and Poland,” The Polish Review 54 (2009): 3–28. Koch, J., ed. Arts libéraux et philosophie au moyen âge (Actes du quatrième congrès internationale de philosophie médiévale. Montréal: Institut d’etudes médiévales and Paris: J. Vrin, 1989. Koczerska, Maria. “Kto jest autorem Żywotu Długosza?” In Andrzej Radziminski, et al., eds., Venerabiles, Nobiles et Honesti. Studia z dziejów społeczeństwa Polski średniowiecznej, 507–520. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 1997. ―――. Zbigniew Oleśnicki i kościół krakowski w czasach jego pontyfikatu (1423–1455). Warsaw: DiG, 2004. Kokowski, Michał. Copernicus’s Originality. Towards Integration of Contemporary Copernican Studies. Warsaw and Cracow: Wydawnictwa IHN PAN, 2004. Konczyńska, Wanda. Zarys historii Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej. Cracow: Księgarnia Jagiellońska, 1923. Koneczny, Feliks. “Wiadomość z r. 1447 o stanie ludu wiejskiego w Polsce czy na Litwie,” Ateneum Wileńskie 6 (1929): 8–15. Korolec, Jerzy. “Le commentaire de Jean Buridan sur l’Éthique à Nicomaque et l’université de Cracovie dans la première moitié du XVe siècle,” Organon 10 (1974): 187–208.

Bibliography

717

―――. Filozofia moralna. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1980 (Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 7). ―――. “Kierunki i tendencje w nauczaniu Etyki Arystotelesa.” In Ryszard Palacz, ed., Filozofia Polska XV wieku, 94–122. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972. ―――. “Jeremiasza de Montagnone ‘Compendium moralium notabilium’,” Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 5 (16) (1972): 13–21. ―――. “Michał z Bystrzykowa. Stan badań,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii 1 (1961): 141–171. ―――. “Problem cnót moralnych w ‘komentarzu’ Jana z Dąbrówki do ‘Kroniki’ Mistrza Wincentego,” in Korolec, Wolność, cnota, praxis, 167–178. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Filozofii i Socjologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2006 (Studia z dziejów filozofii 1); reprinted from Teresa Michałowska, ed., Literatura i kultura późnego średniowiecza w Polsce, 57–67. Warsaw: Instytut Badań Literackich, 1993. ―――. “Studium generale dominikanów klasztoru Święty Trójcy w Krakowie.” In Jerzy Kłoczowski and Jan Andrzej Spież, eds., Dominikanie w środkowej Europie w XIII–XV wieku. Aktywność duszpasterska i kultura intelektualna, 173–186. Poznań: W Drodze, 2002 (Studia nad Historią Dominikanów w Polsce 3). ―――. Wolność, cnota, praxis. Warsaw: Polska Akademia Nauk, 2006 (Studia z dziejów filozofii 1). Kotarska, Jadwiga. “Poeta i historyk—Filip Kallimach.” In Stanisław Grzeszczuk, ed., Pisarze starpolscy sylwetki, 174–207. Warsaw: Wiedza Powszechna, 1991. Kovács, Endre. Uniwersytet Krakowski a kultura węgierska. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1965. ―――. “Węgierscy scholarze na Akademii Krakowskiej w wiekach XV i XVI.” In Endre Kovács, Uniwersytet Krakowski a kultura węgierska, 21–43. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1965. Kowalczyk[ówna], Maria. “Bartłomiej z Jasła,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 5 (1965): 3–23. ―――. Colligite fragmenta ne pereant. . . . Studia z dziejów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w średniowieczu. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2010 (Historia et Monumenta Universitatis Jagellonicae 1). ―――. “Franciszek z Brzegu,” Acta Mediaevalia 12 (1999): 99–144. Reprinted in Kowalczyk, Colligite fragmenta ne pereant. . . . Studia z dziejów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w średniowieczu, 329–374. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2010 (Historia et Monumenta Universitatis Jagellonicae 1). ―――. “Jakub Parkosz z Żórawic. Przyczynki do życiorysu.” In Waldemar Bukowski, et al., eds. Cracovia—Polonia—Europa. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane Jerzemu Wyrozumskiemu w sześćeziesiątą piątą rocznicę urodzin i czterdziestolecie pracy naukowej, 81–91. Cracow: Drukarnia “Secesja,” 1995.

718

Bibliography

―――. Krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie z pierwszej połowy XV w. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970. ―――. “Lekarz Krakowski Jan z Dobrej,” Studia Mediewistyczne 34/35 (2000): 259– 282. Reprinted in Kowalczyk, Colligite fragmenta ne pereant. . . . Studia z dziejów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w średniowieczu, 375–398. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2010. ―――. “Łukasz z Wielkiego Koźmina,” Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 4 (15) (1971): 3–40. ―――. “Mowy i kazania uniwersyteckie Łukasza z Wielkiego Koźmina,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 12, no. 2 (1960): 7–20. Reprinted in Kowalczyk, Colligite fragmenta ne pereant. . . . Studia z dziejów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w średniowieczu, 67–80. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2010. ―――. “Odnowienie Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w świetle mów Bartłomieja z Jasła,” Małopolskie Studia Historyczne 6, no. 3/4 (1964): 23–42. Reprinted in Kowalczyk, Colligite fragmenta ne pereant. . . . Studia z dziejów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w średniowieczu, 81–100. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2010. ―――. “Pomniejsze średniowieczne teksty ‘de peste’ z kręgu Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 30 no. 1/2 (1980): 5–13. ―――. “Przyczynki do biografii Henryka Czecha i Marcina Króla z Żurawicy,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 221 (1971): 87–91. ―――. “Warsztat naukowy Wawrzyńca z Raciborza,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 44 (1994): 49–62. Reprinted in Kowalczyk, Colligite fragmenta ne pereant. . . . Studia z dziejow Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w średniowieczu, 271–284. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2010 (Historia et Monumenta Universitatis Jagellonicae 1). ―――. “Z badań nad życiem i biblioteką Mikołaja Kozłowskiego,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 22 (1972): 19–28. Kowalska, Zofia. Stanisław Ciołek (†1437). Podkanclerzy królewski, biskup poznański, poeta dworski. Cracow: Universitas, 1993. Kozicka. “Mikołaj Lasocki,” Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 4 (15) (1971): 41–71. Kozłowska, Anna. “Ceny książek ręcznie pisanych,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiego 49, no. 1/2 (1999): 45–65. Kozłowska-Budkowa. “Kodeks Mikołaja Tempelfelda,” Sprawozdania Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności 53 (1952): 466–469. ―――. “Mowa mistrza Jana z Kluczborka na cześć Władysław Jagiełły.” In Józef Garbacik, et al., eds., Mediaevalia—w 50 rocznicę pracy naukowej Jana Dąbrowskiego, 159–176. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1960. ―――. “Najdawniejsze krakowskie mowy uniwersyteckie,” Sprawozdania z czynności i posiedzeń Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności 52 (1951): 570–574.

Bibliography

719

―――. “Odnowienie Jagiellońskie Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego (1390–1414).” In Kazimierz Lepszy, ed., Dzieje Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w latach 1364–1764, vol. 1, 37–89. Cracow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński Wydawnictwo Jubileuszowe, 1964. ―――. “Pieczęć Wydziału Sztuk Wyzwolonych Uniwersytetu Jagiellońsiekgo,” Rocznik Krakowski 38 (1966): 75–78. ―――. “Sermones Sapientiales Stanisława ze Skalbmierza,” Sprawozdania Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności 53 (1952): 394–396. ―――. “Stanisława ze Skarbimierza mowa o złych studentach,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 15, no. 1/2 (1964): 11–21. ―――. “Uniwersytet Jagielloński w dobie Grunwaldu,” Prace Historyczne 8: Zeszyt Grunwaldzki (1968): 55–71. ―――. “Z ostatnich lat Kazimierza Wielkiego,” Małopolskie studia historyczne 6, no. 3/4 (1964): 11–21. Kras, Paweł. Husyci w piętnastowiecznej Polsce. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickie Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1998. ―――. “Kariera uniwersytecka Andrzeja Gałki,” Roczniki Humanistyczne 48, no. 2 (2000): 245–262. ―――. “Wyclif’s Tradition in Fifteenth Century Poland. The Heresy of Andrzej Gałka of Dobczyn.” In Zdeněk V. David and David Holeton, eds., The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice, vol. 5, 191–210. Prague: Czech Academy of Sciences, 2004. Krause, Feliks. “Filozoficzne poglądy Aleksandra z Aleksandrii i ich wpłwy na Uniwersytet Krakowski,” Studia Mediewistyczne 23, no. 2 (1985): 5–164. ―――. Klasyfikacja nauk według Piotra z Sienna,” St. Med. 32 (1997): 65–74. ―――. “Przedmiot metafizyki i jego specyficzne właściwości według Piotra z Sienna,” Acta Mediaevalia 12 (1999): 215–234. ―――. “Wzajemne relacje nauk teoretycznych i praktycznych w ujęcie Piotra z Sienna,” St. Med. 32 (1997): 75–91. Krause, Hermann. “Cessante causa cessat lex,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung. Kanonistische Abteilung 46 (1960): 81–111. Krauze-Błachowicz, Krystyna. “Declaratio Donati minoris Jana z Głogowa—Prolog i kwestia pierwsza,” Acta Mediaevalia 15 (2002): 427–446. ―――. Ioannes Glogoviensis: the Modist Grammarian on the Boundary between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 9 (2003): 123–138. ―――. Jan z Głogowa i tradycja gramatyki spekulatywnej. Warsaw: Semper, 2008. ―――. “Jan z Głogowa w dialogu z tradycją gramatyki spekulatywnej,” Studia Warmińskie 41–42 (2004–2005): 77–86. ―――. “Was Conceptualist Grammar in Use at Cracow University?” Studia Antyczne i Mediewistyczne 6 (2008): 275–285.

720

Bibliography

Kawecka-Gryczowa, Alodia. Rola drukarstwa polskiego w dobie odrodzenia. Warsaw: PIW, 1954. Kawecka-Gryczowa, Alodia, ed. Drukarze dawnej Polski od XV do XVIII wieku, v. 1: Małopolska, part 1: Wiek XV–XVI. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1983. Kretzmann, Norman. “Syncategoremata, exponibilia, sophismata.” In Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg, eds. The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, 211–245. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Kretzmann, Norman, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg, eds. The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Kristeller, Paul Oskar. “The Curriculum of the Italian Renaissance Universities from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance.” In Proceedings of the PMR Conference 9: 1–16. Villanova, PA: Villanova University Press, 1985. ―――. “Humanism.” In Charles B. Schmitt, general editor and Quentin Skinner and Eckhard Kessler, eds., The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy, 113–137. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. ―――. Die Italienischen Universitäten der Renaissance. Krefeld: Scherpe, 1953. ―――. Renaissance Thought and Its Sources. Michael Mooney, ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1979. Krzywiak, Lech. “ ‘ Via concordiae’ czy ‘via iustitiae’—jeszcze w sprawie ‘ostatniego słowa’ Pawła Włodkowica o Zakonie krzyżackim.” In Waldemar Bukowski, et al., eds., Cracovia—Polonia—Europa. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane Jerzemu Wyrozumskiemu w sześćeziesiątą piątą rocznicę urodzin i czterdziestolecie pracy naukowej, 323–327. Cracow: Drukarnia “Secesja,” 1995. Krzyżaniakowa, Jadwiga. “Erudycja historyczna Zbieniewa Oleśnickiego w świetle jego zeznań na procesie w 1422.” In Benon Miśkiewicz, et al., eds., Ars Historica. Prace z dziejów powszechnych i Polski, 475–484. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, 1976. ―――. “Henryk Totting z Oyty i jego prascy uczniowie,” Roczniki Historyczne 61 (1997): 87–109. ―――. “Kancelaria królewska Władysława Jagiełły jako ośrodek kultury historycznej,” Studia Źródłoznawcze 18 (1973): 67–96. ―――. Kancelaria królewska Władysława Jagiełły. Studium z dziejów kultury politycznej Polski w XV wieku. 2 viols. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, 1972–1979. ―――. “Materiały do życiorysu redaktora statutów,” Studia Źródłoznawcze 1 (1957): 204–205. ―――. “Mateusz z Krakowa, działalność w Pradze w latach 1355–1394,” Roczniki Historyczne 29 (1963): 9–57. ―――. “Początki kariery Mikołaja Trąby,” Roczniki Historyczne 35 (1969): 125–135.

Bibliography

721

―――. “Profesorowie krakowscy na uniwersytecie w Pradze—ich mistrzowie i koledzy.” In Waldemar Bukowski, et al., eds., Cracovia—Polonia—Europa. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane Jerzemu Wyrozumskiemu w sześćeziesiątą piątą rocznicę urodzin i czterdziestolecie pracy naukowej, 505–527. Cracow: Drukarnia “Secesja,” 1995. ―――. “Stanowisko polskiej elity intelektualnej wobec Jana Husa i husytyzmu— do roku 1420.” In Stanisław Bylina and Ryszard Gładkiewicz, eds. Polskie echa Husytyzmu, 32–61. Warsaw: Instytut Historii PAN, 1999. ―――. “Związki Uniwersytetu Praskiego z Uniwersytetem Krakowskim w drugiej połowie XIV wieku,” Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Historia Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis 5, nos. 1–2 (1964): 53–134. Krzyżaniakowska, Jadwiga and Jerzy Ochmański. Władysław II Jagiełło. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1990. Krzyżanowski, Stanisław. “Doktryna polityczna Pawła Włodkowicza.” In Jan Filipowski, ed., Studia historyczne ku czci Profesora Wincentego Zakrzewskiego, 389–399. Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1908. ―――. “Poselstwo Kazimierza Wielkiego do Awinionu i pierwsze uniwersyteckie przywileje,” Rocznik Krakowski 4 (1900): 1–112. ―――. “Traktacik Pawła Włodkowice: czy wolno używać pomocy heretyków w wojnie z chrześcijanami?” Sprowozdania z czynności i posiedzeń Akademii Umiejętności 11, no. 3 (1906): 23–24. Kubiś, Adam, ed. Jubileusz Sześćsetlecia Wydziału Teologicznego w Krakowie 20 X 1996– 20 X 1997. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 1998 (Studia do dziejów Wydział Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 10). Kuczyński, Stefan Krzysztof. “Jeszcze o najstarszym berle Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego,” Wiadomości Numizmatyczne 13 (1969): 193–210. Kuczyński, Stefan M. Wielka Wojna z Zakonem Krzyżackim w latach 1409–1411. Revised 4th ed. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej, 1987. Kuhn, Thomas. The Copernican Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957. Kujawski, Witold. Krzesław z Kurozwęk jako wielki kanclerz koronny i biskup włocławski. Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1987 (Studia z Kościoła w Polsce 8). Kukla, Cezary, ed. With the assistance of Piotr Guzowski. Cała historia to dzieje ludzi. Studia z historii społecznej ofiarowane profesorowi Andrzejowi Wyczańskiemu w 80-tą rocznicę i 55-lecie pracy naukowej. Białystok: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, 2004. Kuksiewicz, Zdzisław. Albertyzm i Tomizm w XV wieku w Krakowie i Kolonii. Doktryna psychologiczna. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1973.

722

Bibliography

―――. Filozofia człowieka. Teoria duszy. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1975 (Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 5). ―――. “Główne źródła ‘Komentarza do de anima’ Jana z Głogowa,” Studia Mediewistyczne 5 (1963): 5–204. ―――. “Jan ze Słupczy. Stan badań,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 1 (1961): 85–117. ―――. Jana z Głogowa Koncepcja duszy,” Studia Mediewistyczne 6 (1964): 137–247. ―――. “Le manuscript des ‘Quaestiones sur le De anima’ de Jean de Głogów retrouvé,” Medievalia Philosophica Polonorum 12 (1967): 33–45. ―――. “Marcin Król z Żurawicy alias z Przemyśla,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii śreniowiecznej w Polsce 1 (1961): 118–140. ―――. “The Potential and the Agent Intellect.” In Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, 595–601. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. ―――. “Problematyka psychologiczna w polskiej filozofii XV w.” In Ryszard Palacz, ed., Filozofia Polska XV wieku, 123–189. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972. ―――. “Problematyka uniwersaliów w polskich piętnastowiecznych pismach nominalistycznych,” Studia Mediewistyczne 12 (1970): 73–166. Kuksiewicz, Zdzisław, ed. Z dziejów filozofii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1965. Kumaniecki, Kazimierz F. “De studii Vergilianis in Universitate Jagellonica priore sec. XVI parte florentibus.” In Commentationes Vergilianae, 193–205. Cracow: Sumptibus Academiae Poloniae Litterarum et Scientiarum, 1930. Kumor, Bolesław and Zdzisław Obertyński, eds. Historia Kościoła w Polsce. Vol. 1. Poznań and Warsaw: Pallotinum, 1974. Kuraś, Stanisław. “Fundacja kolegiatury epistolografii i sztuki pisania dokumentów w Akademii Krakowskiej w r. 1420,” Małopolskie Studia Historyczne 6, no. 3/4 (1964): 119–122. Reprinted in Kuraś, ed. Zbiór dokumentów katedry i diecezi krakowskiej, 2: 1416–1450, 43–45. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1973. Kürbis[ówna], Brygida. “Mieszczanie na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim i ich udział w kształtowaniu świadomości narodowej w XV w.” Studia Staropolskie 5 (1957): Ze studiów nad literaturą staropolską 5–79. Kurtyka, Janusz. Odrodzone Królestwo. Monarchia Władysława Łokietka i Kazimierza Wielkiego w świetle nowszych badań. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2001. ―――. Tęczyńscy herbu Topór. Studium z dziejów polskich elity możnowładczej w średniowieczu. Cracow: Secesja, 1997.

Bibliography

723

Kusznierewicz-Mikś. “Studia Cystersów mogilskich na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV w.,” Studia Historyczne 43, no. 4 (2000): 551–568. Kutrzeba, Stanisław. Handel Krakowa w wiekach średnich (na tle stosunków handłowych Polski. Cracow: Nakład Akademii Umiejętności, 1902. ―――. “Polacy na studiach w Paryżu w wiekach średnich,” Biblioteka Warszawska 60, no. 2 (1900): 514–541. Kutzner, Marian. “Sztuka Polska póżnego średniowiecza.” In Aleksander Gieysztor, ed. Polska dzielnicowa i zjednoczona. Państwo, społeczeństwo, kultura, 539–588. Warsaw: Wiedza Powszechna, 1972. Kuzmová, Stanislava. Preaching Saint Stanislaus. Medieval Sermons on St. Stanislaus of Cracow. His Image and Cult. Warsaw: DiG, 2013. Kwiatkowski, Stefan. Der Deutsche Orden im Streit mit Polen-Litauen. Eine theologische Kontroverse über Krieg und Frieden auf dem Konzil von Konstanz (1414–1418). Stuttgart, Berlin, and Cologne: Kohlhammer, 2000. Ładogórski, Tadeusz. Studia nad zaludnieniem Polski XIV wieku. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1958. Lampe, G.W., et al., eds. The Cambridge History of the Bible, 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963–1970. Láng, Benedek. Unlocked Books. Manuscripts of Learned Magic in the Medieval Libraries of Central Europe. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008. Lasocki, Zygmunt. Un diplomate polonaise Nicolas Lasocki, membre de la delegation polonaise au concile de Basle au congrès d’Arras en 1435. Paris: Societé Générale d’Imprimerie et d’Editions, 1928. Leader, Damian Riehl. A History of the University of Cambridge. Vol. 1: The University to 1546. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Leff, Gordon. “The Trivium and the Three Philosophies.” In Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 307–336. Cambridge University Press, 1992 (vol. 1 of Walter Rüegg, General Editor, A History of the University in Europe). Lemay, Richard. “The Late Medieval Astrological School at Cracow and the Copernican System.” In Erna Hilfstein, Paweł Czartoryski, and Frank D. Grande, eds., Science and Society. Studies in Honor of Edward Rosen, 337–354. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1978 (Studia Copernicana 16). Lepszy, Kazimierez, ed. Dzieje Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w latach 1364–1764, vol. 1. Cracow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński Wydawnictwo Jubileuszowe, 1964. ―――. ed. Studia z dziejów młodzieży Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w dobie Renesansu. Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1964 (Wydawnictwa Jubile­ uszowe 17). Lepszy, Leonard. “Pergameniści i papiernicy Krakowscy w ubiegłych wiekach i ich wyroby,” Rocznik Krakowski 4 (1900): 233–248. ―――. Thurzonowie w Polsce. Cracow: Nakład Autora, 1890.

724

Bibliography

Lewański, Julian. “Wykład o teatrze w krakowskiej Akademii w 1451 roku.” In Teresa Michałowska, ed., Pogranicza i konteksty literatury polskiego średniowiecza. Praca zbiorowa, 319–337. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1989. Lewicka-Kamińska, Anna. “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1492–1665.” In Jerzy Zathey, Lewicka-Kamińska, and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, Historia Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej, vol. 1: 1364–1775, Ignacy Zarębski, ed., 133–271. Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1966. ―――. Inkunabuły Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej. Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1962. ―――. Renesansowy księgozbiór Mikołaja Czepla w Bibliotece Jagiellońskiej. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1956. Lexicon Theologorum Catholicorum Polonorum / Słownik Polskich Teologów Katolickich. H.E. Wyczawski, ed. 4 vols. Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1981–1983. Lichończak-Nurek, Grażyna. Wojciech Herbu Jastrzębiec Arcybiskup i mąż stanu (ok. 1362–1436). Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 1996 (Studia do dziejów wydziału teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 4). Lindberg, David C. “Commentary.” In Nicholas Steneck, ed. Science and Society. Past, Present, and Future, 44–51. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1975. Lindberg, David C. ed. Science in the Middle Ages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. Lorenz, Sönke, Oliver Auge, and Robert Zagolla, eds. Bücher, Bibliotheken und Schriftkultur der Kartäuser. Festgabe zum 65. Geburtstag von Edward Potkowski. Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, 2002. Louthan, Howard. “A Model for Christendom? Erasmus, Poland, and the Reformation,” Church History 83 (2014): 18–37. Luciński, Jerzy. “Formularze czynności prawnych w Polsce w wiekach średnich. Przegląd badań,” Studia Źródłoznawcze 18 (1973): 149–179. Machilek, Franz. “Konrad Celtis und die Gelehrtensodalitäten, insbesondere in Ostmitteleuropa.” In Winfried Eberhard and Alfred A. Strnad, eds. Humanismus und Renaissance in Ostmitteleuropa vor der Reformation, 137–155. Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 1996. Maddison, Francis. “Early Astronomical and Mathematical Instruments. A Brief Survey of Sources and Modern Studies,” History of Science 2 (1963): 17–50. Madyda, Władysław. “Johannes Longinus Długosz als Vorläufer des Humanismus in Polen.” In Johannes Irmscher, ed., Renaissance und Humanismus in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Eine Sammlung von Materialien, 185–191. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1962. ―――. “Wzory klasyczne w ‘Historii Polski’ Długosza,” Eos 49 (1957/1958): 177–201. Mahoney, Edward P., “Sense, Intellect, and Imagination in Albert, Thomas, and Siger.” In Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge

Bibliography

725

History of Later Medieval Philosophy, 602–622. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Mahoney, Michael S. “Mathematics.” In David C. Lindberg, ed., Science in the Middle Ages, 145–178. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. Maier, Annaliese. Zwei Grundprobleme der scholastischen Naturphilosophie. Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1951. ―――. Zwischen Philosophie und Mechanik. Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1958. Maierù, Alfonso. University Training in Medieval Europe. Darleen N. Pryds, transl. and ed. Leiden, New York, and Cologne: Brill 1994 (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 3). Majer, Józef. “Z dziejów Wydziału Lekarskiego w Uniwersytecie Krakowskim,” Rocznik Wydziału Lekarskiego w Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim 2 (1839): 44–52. Makdisi. George. “The Model of Islamic Scholastic Culture and its Later Parallel in the Christian West.” In Olga Weijers, ed. Vocabulaire des collèges universitaires: (XIIIe– XVIe siècles): actes du colloque: Leuven 9–11 avril 1992, 158–174. Turnhout: Brepols, 1993 (CIVICIMA Études sur le vocabulaire intellectual du Moyen Âge, 6). ―――. The Rise of Colleges: Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981. Małecki, Jan Marian. Chrystianizacja Polski południowej. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1994. Maleczyńska, Ewa. Książęce lenno mazowieckie, 1351–1526. Lwów: Nakład Towarzystwa Naukowego, 1929. ―――. Ruch husycki w Czechach i w Polsce. Warsaw: Książka i Wiedza, 1959. Manikowska, Halina. “Szkoły: nauczanie szkolne i uniwersyteckie.” In Bronisław Geremek, ed., Kultura polska średniowiecznej XIV–XV w., 308–365. Warsaw: Semper, 1997. Manikowska, Halina and Wojciech Brojer, eds. Animarum cultura. Studia nad kulturą religijną na ziemiach polskich w średniowieczu, 407–439. Warsaw: Instytut Historii PAN, 2008. Manikowska, Halina, et al., eds. Aetas Media Aetas Moderna. Studia ofiarowane profesorowi Henrykowi Samsonowiczowi w siedemdziesiątą rocznicę urodzin. Warsaw: Instytut Historyczny Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2000. Marchel, Sławomir. “Ze studiów nad karierą Pawła Włodkowica. Okres po soborze w Konstancji, 1419–1436,” Słupskie Studia Historyczne 13 (2007): 183–198. Marin, Olivier. L’archevêque, le maître et le dévot. Genèse du movement réformateur pragois. Années 1360–1419. Paris: Champion, 2005. Markowski, Mieczysław. “Andrzej z Kokorzyna (ok. 1379–1433).” In Stanisław Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 111–116. Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie, 2000.

726

Bibliography

―――. “Astronomia w Polsce od X do XIV wieku.” In Jerzy Dobrzycki, Markowski, and Tadeusz Przypkowski, Historia Astronomii w Polsce, vol. 1, Eugeniusz Rybka, ed., 43–56. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1975. ―――. Astronomica et astrologica Cracoviensia ante annum 1550. Florence: Olschki, 1980. ―――. “Astronomie an der Krakauer Universität im XV. Jahrhundert.” In Jacques Pacquet and Jozef IJsewijn, eds., Les universités a la fin du moyen âge, 256–275. Louvain: Institut d’Études médiévales U.C.L., 1978. ―――. “Benedykt Hesse z Krakowa (ok. 1389–1450).” In Stanisław Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej131–138. Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie, 2000. ―――. “Beziehungen zwischen der Wiener mathematischen Schule und der Krakauer astronomischen Schule im Licht der erhaltenen mathematisch-astronomischen Schriften in den Manuskripten der Österreichischen Nationalbibliotek in Wien und der Jagellonischen Bibliotek in Kraków,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 18 (1973): 133–158. ―――. Burydanizm w Polsce w okresie przedkopernikańskim. Studium z historii filozofii i nauk ścisłych na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1971 (Studia Copernicana 2). ―――. “Un commentaire averroîst sur le De anima de le motié du XV-e siècle dans le ms BJ 2024,” Medievalia Philosophica Polonorum 9 (1961): 48–50. ―――. “Działalność Jana z Ludziska na polu astronomii w świetle rękopisów Państwowe Biblioteki ZSRR im. W.I. Lenina w Moskwie i Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej w Krakowie,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 23 (1973): 57–67. ―――. Dzieje Wydziału Teologii Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w latach 1397–1525. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej wKrakowie, 1996 (Studia do dziejów Wydziału Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 2). ―――. Filozofia przyrody w drugiej połowie XV wieku. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1983 (Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 10). ―――. Filozofia przyrody w pierwszej połowie XV wieku. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1976 (Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 4). ―――. “Franciszek z Brzegu (ok. 1370–1432.” In Stanisław Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 89–97. Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie, 2000. ―――. “Die Heilige Hedwig—Gründerin der Universität in Krakau,” Acta Mediaevalia 13 (2000): 75–91. ―――. “Jakub z Nowego Sącza,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 3 (1964): 3–29.

Bibliography

727

―――. “Jakub z Paradyża (ok. 1380–1464).” In Stanisław Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 117–123. Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie, 2000. ―――. “Jan z Kluczborka (ok. 1370–1436).” In Stanisław Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 99–104. Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie, 2000. ―――. “Komentarze do ‘Isagogi’ Porfiriusza z Tyru, zachowane w średniowiecznych rękopisach i inkunabułach Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii 9 (1968): 25–75. ―――. “Krakowskie komentarze do Fizyki Arystotelesa zachowane w średniowiecznych rękopisach Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej,” Studia Mediewistycznych 7 (1966): 107–124. ―――. “Krakowskie piśmiennictwo retoryczne w świetle piętnastowiecznych źródeł,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiego 37 (1987): 5–83. ―――. “Krakowska szkoła międzynarodowego nauczania astronomii.” In Teresa Michałowska, ed., Septem artes w kształtowaniu kultury umysłowej w Polsce średniowiecznej. Wybrane zagadnienia, 87–101. Wrocław: Chronicon, 2007. ―――. “Kształtowanie się krakowskiej szkoły astronomicznej.” In Jerzy Dobrzycki, Markowski, and Tadeusz Przypkowski, Historia Astronomii w Polsce, vol. 1, Eugeniusz Rybka, ed., 57–86. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1975. ―――. “Les manuscrits des listes de docteurs en médicine à l’Université de Cracovie entre 1400 et 1611,” Medievalia Philosophica Polonorum 20 (1974): 121–140. ―――. Logika. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1975 (Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 1). ―――. “Les manuscrits des listes de docteurs en medicine a l’Université de Cracovie entre 1400 et 1611,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 20 (1974): 141–159. ―――. “Marcin Biem z Olkusza.” In Józef Gierowski, ed., Krakowski krąg Mikołaja Kopernika, 7–24. Cracow: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1973 (Prace historyczne 42: Copernicana Cracoviensia 3). ―――. “Martin Bylica aus Olkusz als Vermittler zwischen Johannes Regiomontanus und der Krakauer astronomischen Schule in der vorkopernikanischen Zeit.” Studia Mediewistyczne 26, no. 1 (1989): 125–132. ―――. Metodologia nauk. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1976 (Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 2). ―――. “Metodologia nauk, logika, i teoria poznania na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku.” In Ryszard Palacz, ed., Filozofia Polska XV wieku, 250–311. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972. ―――. “Methodologische Grundlagen der offiziellen Universitätsbeschlüsse und Erklärungen der Professoren an der Krakauer Universität im XV. Jahrhundert,” Studia Mediewistyczne 17 (1977): 5–32.

728

Bibliography

―――. “Mikołaj Bawdysen z Krakowa (ok. 1383-ok. 1424).” In Stanisław Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 125–130. Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie, 2000. ―――. “Mikołaj Budissen,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 3 (1964): 92–119. ―――. “Mikołaj z Kozłowa,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 5 (1965): 76–141. ―――. “Mikołaj z Kozłowa (ok. 1378–1443).” In Stanisław Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 105–109. Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie, 2000. ―――. “Nauki ścisłe na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku.” In Ryszard Palacz, ed., Filozofia Polska XV w. 190–249. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972. ―――. “Nauki wyzwolone i filozofia na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku,” Studia Mediewistyczne 9 (1968): 91–116. ―――. “Nie znane polskie komentarze z XV wieku do ‘Traktatu o sferze’ Jana z Holywood,” Studia filozoficzne 4 (1974): 3–32. ―――. “Od Kazimierzowskiej do Jagiellońskiej fundacji Uniwersytetu w Krakowie,” Acta Mediaevalia 15 (2002): 13–41. ―――. “Okresy rozwoju astronomii w Polsce w epoce przedkopernikańskiej,” Studia Warmińskie 9 (1972): 344–354. ―――. “Peter Wyschs Traktate über die Reform der Kirche des beginnenden 15. Jahrhunderts,” Studia Mediewistyczne 31 (1994): 71–89. ―――. Pierwowzory uniwersytetów. Olecko: Wydawnictwo Wszechnicy Mazurskiej, 2003. ―――. “Pierwsi bakalarze i doktorzy teologii Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 6–7 (1997): 233–314. ―――. “Pierwsi doktorzy medycyny Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w świetle źródeł rękopiśmiennych,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 6–7 (1997): 315–347. ―――. “Piotr Gaszowiec twórcą Krakowskiej komputystyki o zasięgu międzynaro­ dowym,” Studia Mediewistyczne 25, no. 1 (1988): 69–117. ―――. “Poglądy filozoficzne Andrzeja z Kokorzyna,” Studia Mediewistyczna 6 (1964): 55–136. ―――. “Powstanie pełnej szkoły astronomicznej.” In Jerzy Dobrzycki, Markowski, and Tadeusz Przypkowski, Historia Astronomii w Polsce, vol. 1, Eugeniusz Rybka, ed., 87–106. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1975. ―――. “Programowe założenia uniwersyteckiego nauczania w Jagiellońskiej odnowie krakowskiego Studium Generale,” Analecta Cracoviensis 19 (1987): 223–244.

Bibliography

729

―――. “Rękopisy Austriackiej Biblioteki Narodowej 13104 i Archiwum Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 296 i 297 jako źródła do dziejów medycyny w Polsce w XV, XVI, i XVII wieku,” Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 7 (18) (1974): 141–159. ―――. “Repertorium bio-bibliographicum astronomorum Cracoviensium medii aevi: Adam Tussinus . . . Andreas Grzymała de Posnania,” Studia Mediewistyczne 27, no. 1 (1990): 111–163. ―――. “Repertorium bio-bibliographicum astronomorum Cracoviensium medii aevi: Georgius Kotermak de Drohobycz—Iosephus Struthius (Struś) de Posnania,” Studia Mediewistyczna 28 (1992): 91–155. ―――. “Repertorium bio-bibliographicum astronomorum Cracoviensium medii aevi: Ioannes Schelling de Glogovia,” Studia Mediewistyczne 26, no. 2 (1990): 103–162. ―――. “La réplique d’André de Kokorzyn au ‘Principium’ de Jean de Kluczbork,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 10 (1961): 50–54. ―――. “Der Skotismus an der Krakauer Universität im Mittelalter.” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 34 (2001): 147–161. ―――. “Ślązacy na wydziale teologii Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XV wieku,” Folia Historica Cracoviensia 3 (1996): 53–68. ―――. “Spis osób dopuszczonych do wykładów i do katedry na Wydziale Teologii Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XV w.,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 4 (1965): 127–275. ―――. “Stanowisko Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego wobec petycji husyckiej z 1421 roku,” Materiały 4 (1965): 354–360. ―――. “Święta Jadwiga Królowa a Uniwersytet Krakowski,” Studia Warmińskie 35 (1998): 47–60. ―――. “Szczyt rozkwitu i międzynarodowego promieniowania krakowskiej szkoły astronomicznej.” In Jerzy Dobrzycki, Markowski, and Tadeusz Przypkowski, Historia Astronomii w Polsce, vol. 1, Eugeniusz Rybka, ed., 107–126. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1975. ―――. “Szkotyzm na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w wiekach średnich,” Studia Franciszkańskie 3 (1988): 105–120. ―――. Teoria poznania. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1978 (Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 6). ―――. “Tomasz ze Strzempina (1398–1460).” In Stanisław Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 165–172. Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie, 2000. ―――. “Uniwersytet Krakowski a sobory pierwszej połowy XV wieku,” Acta Mediaevalia 12 (1999): 178–213.

730

Bibliography

―――. Uniwersytet Krakowski w kontekście środkowoeuropejskim późnego średniowiecza i wczesnej nowożytności. Olecko: Wydawnictwo Wszechnicy Mazurskiej, 2005. ―――. “Wpłwy burydanizmu na Uniwersytet Krakowski w pierwszej połowie XV wieku.” In Zdzisław Kuksiewicz, ed., Z dziejów filozofii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku, 118–151. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1965. ―――. “Wykład wstępny Andrzeja z Kokorzyna,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 2 (1962): 3–51. ―――. “Wykłady wstępne i komentarze do ‘Sentencji’ Benedykta Hessego z Krakowa,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 4 (1965): 334–340. ―――. “Zygmunt z Pyzdr,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 5 (1965): 169–205. Markowski, Mieczysław and Zofia Włodek, eds. Repertorium commentariorum medii aevi in Aristotelem Latinorum quae in Bibliotheca Iagellonica Cracoviae asservantur. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1974. Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce, vols. 1–11. 1961–1969; series continued thereafter as: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce with new numeration of volumes and volume number from old series in parentheses, thus 1 (12) etc. McFarlane, I.D. ed. Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Sanctandreani. Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies. Binghamton, NY: Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 1986 (Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies 38). McGinn, Bernard. “Regina quondam . . . ,” Speculum 83 (2008): 817–839. Meier, Ludger. Die Werke des Erfurter Karthäuser Jakob von Jüterbog in ihrer handschriftlichen Überlieferung. Münster: Aschendorf, 1955 (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters 37, no. 5). Mertens, Dieter. Iacobus Carthusiensis. Untersuchungen zur Rezeption der Werke des Kartäusers Jakob von Paradies (1381–1465). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. Michalewicz, Jerzy. “Les bases économique de l’Université Jagellonne et leurs aspects sociaux.” In L’histoire des universités. Problèmes et methods, Mariusz Kulczykowski, ed., with the assistance of Wanda Baczkowska and Krzysztof Zamorski, 91–100. Warsaw and Cracow: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1980 (Prace historyczne 67). Michalewicz, Jerzy and Maria Michałewiczowa. “Beneficjum—element struktury majątkowej Akademii Krakowskiej,” Prace historyczne 50 (1974): 45–62.

Bibliography

731

Michalewiczowa, Maria. “Le benefice en tant qu’elément de la structure d’organisation de l’Université Jagellonne.” In L’histoire des universités. Problèmes et methods, Mariusz Kulczykowski, ed., with the assistance of Wanda Baczkowska and Krzysztof Zamorski, 101–104. Warsaw and Cracow: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1980 (Prace historyczne 67). Michałowska, Teresa. “ ‘Ars dictaminis’ w Polsce średniowiecznej. Literackie treści doktryny.” In Michałowska, ed., Septem artes w kształtowaniu kultury umysłowej w Polsce średniowiecznej, 41–74. Wrocław: Chronicon, 2007. ―――. “Między słowem mówionym a pisanym (O poezji polskiej późnego średniowiecza.” In Michałowska, ed., Literatura i kultura późnego średniowiecza w Polsce, 83–124. Warsaw: Instytut Badań Literackich PAN, 1993. ―――. Średniowiecze. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1995 (Wielka Historia Literatury polskiej). Michałowska, Teresa, ed. Literatura i kultura późnego średniowiecza w Polsce. Warsaw: Instytut Badań Literackich PAN, 1993. ―――. ed. Septem artes w kształtowaniu kultury umysłowej w Polsce średniowiecznej. Wrocław: Chronicon, 2007. Michalski, Konstanty. “Jan Buridanus i jego wpływ na filozofią scholastyczną w Polsce,” Sprawozdania z Czynności i Posiedzeń Akademii Umiejętności w Krakowie 21, no. 10 (1916): 25–34. ―――. “Michał z Bystrzykowa i Jan ze Stobnicy jako przedstawiciele skotyzmu w Polsce,” Archiwum Komisji do Badań Filozofii w Polsce 1 (1915): 21–80. ―――. “Prądy filozoficzno-teologiczne na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim w pierwszej dobie jego istnienia,” Nasza Myśł Teologiczna 2 (1935): 30–47. ―――. “Tekst, osobistość, szkoła i prąd w filozofji średniowiecznej,” Pamiątnik IV Wszechnego Zjazdu Historyków Polskich w Poznaniu, 1–13. Poznań, 1925. ―――. “Zachodnie prądy filozoficzne w XIV wieku i stopniowy ich wpływ w środkowej i wschodniej Europie,” Przegląd Filozoficzny 31 (1928): 15–21. Mickūnaitė, Giedrė. Making a Great Ruler. Grand Duke Vytautas of Lithuania. Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2006. Mielczarski, Cyprian. Między gramatyką scholastyczną a humanistyczną. Komentarz Jana Sommerfelda Starszego do traktatu gramatycznego Eberharda Hiszpańskiego (Strasburg 1499). Warsaw: Uniwersytet Warszawski, Wydział Polonistyki, 2003. Mietke, Jürgen. “Universitas und Studium zu den Verfassungsstrukturen mittelalterlicher Universitäten,” Aevum 73 (1999): 493–511. “Mistrz Wincenty Kadłubek pierwszy uczony polski w 750-lecie śmierci. (Sympozjum naukowe zorganizowane w Poznaniu starniem Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk i Polskiego Towarzystwa Historycznego w dniach 23 i 24 listopada 1973 roku),” Studia Źródłoznawcze 20 (1976): 3–140.

732

Bibliography

Mitkowski. “Kraków lokacyjny.” In Jan Dąbrowski, ed. Kraków. Studia nad rozwojem miasta, 117–139. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1957. Mittelalterliche Universitätszepter. Meisterwerke europäischer Goldschmiedekunst der Gotik. Ausstellung zum 600jährigen Jubiläum der [Ruprecht-Karls] Universität. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Verlagsanstalt und Druckerei, 1986. Molland, A.G. “The Geometrical Background to the ‘Merton School’. An Exploration into the Application of Mathematics to Natural Philosophy in the Fourteenth Century,” British Journal for the History of Science 4 (1968/1969): 108–125. Moraw, Peter. “Careers of Graduates.” In Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, Vol. 1 of Walter Rüegg, General Editor, A History of the University in Europe, 244–279. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Reprinted in Moraw, Gesammelte Beiträge zur Deutschen und Europäischen Universitätsgeschichte, Strukturen—Personen—Entwicklungen, 391–432. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008 (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 31). ―――. Gesammelte Beiträge zur Deutschen und Europäischen Universitätsgeschichte. Strukturen—Personen—Entwicklungen. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008 (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 31). ―――. “Die Hohe Schule in Krakau und das europäische Universitätssystem um 1400.” In Johannes Helmrath and Heribert Müller, eds., Studien zum 15. Jahrhundert. Festschrift Erich Meuthen, 2 vols., 521–539. Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1994. Reprinted in Moraw, Gesammelte Beiträge zur Deutschen und Europäischen Universitätsgeschichte. Strukturen—Personen—Entwicklungen. 181–206. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008 (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 31). ―――. “Die Juristenuniversität in Prag (1372–1419), verfassungs- und sozialgeschichtlich betrachtet.” In Johannes Fried, ed., Schulen und Studium im sozialen Wandel des hohen und späten Mittelalters, 439–486. Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 1986. Reprinted in Moraw, Gesammelte Beiträge zur Deutschen und Europäischen Universitätsgeschichte. Strukturen—Personen—Entwicklungen. 101–159. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008 (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance). ―――. “Prag. Die älteste Universität in Mitteleuropa.” In Alexander Demand, ed., Stätten des Geistes, 127–146. Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 1999. ―――. “Die Prager Universitäten des Mittelalters. Perspektiven von gestern und von heute.” In Susanna Burghartz, et al., eds. Spannungen und Widersprüche. Gedenkschrift für František Graus, 109–123. Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke, 1992. Morawski, Kazimierz. Historya Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Średnie wieki i Odrodzenie. 2 vols. Cracow: Munera Saecularia Universitatis Cracoviensis, 1900. Moreau-Reibel, Jean. “Le droit de société interhumaine et le ‘Jus Gentium.’ Essai sur les origins et le developpement des notions jusqu’a Grotius,” Recueil des Cours de l’Academie de Droit International 77 (1950), 481–598.

Bibliography

733

Morrissey, Thomas E. The Art of Teaching and Learning Law: A Late Medieval Tract,” History of Universities 8 (1989): 27–74. Reprinted with original pagination as item fifteen in Morrissey, Conciliarism and Church Law in the Fifteenth Century. Studies on Franciscus Zabarella and the Council of Constance. Farnham, England and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014. ―――. “Cardinal Zabarella on Papal and Episcopal Authority.” In Guy Fitch Lytle, ed., Proceedings of the First Patristic, Medieval and Renaissance Conference, Villanova University 1976, 37–54. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1976. Reprinted as item thirteen with original pagination in Morrissey, Conciliarism and Church Law in the Fifteenth Century. Studies on Franciscus Zabarella and the Council of Constance. Farnham, England and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014. ―――. “The Decree ‘Haec Sancta’ and Cardinal Zabarella. His role in its formulation and interpretation,” Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 10 (1978): 145–176. Reprinted as item three with original pagination in Morrissey, Conciliarism and Church Law in the Fifteenth Century. Studies on Franciscus Zabarella and the Council of Constance. Farnham, England and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014. ―――. “Franciscus Zabarella (1360–1417): papacy, community and limitations upon authority.” In Guy Fitch Lytle, ed., Reform and Authority in the Medieval and Reformation Church, 37–54. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1981. Reprinted as item fourteen with original pagination in Morrissey, Conciliarism and Church Law in the Fifteenth Century. Studies on Franciscus Zabarella and the Council of Constance. Farnham, England and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014. ―――. “Natural Rights, Natural Law and the Canonist: Franciscus Zabarella, 1360– 1417.” In Kenneth Pennington, et al., eds., Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law. Syracuse, NY. 13–18 August 1996, 727–750. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2001. Reprinted as item ten with original pagination in Morrissey, Conciliarism and Church Law in the Fifteenth Century. Studies on Franciscus Zabarella and the Council of Constance. Farnham, England and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014. Muczkowski, Józef. Mieszkania i postępowanie uczniów krakowskich. Cracow: J. Czech, 1842. ―――. Wiadomość o założeniu Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego. Cracow: Drukarnia Uniwersytetu, 1849. Müller, Eugeniusz. Żydzi w Krakowie w drugiej połowie XIV stulecie. Cracow: Czas, 1906 (Biblioteka Krakowska 35). Müller, Rainer A. “Humanismus und Universität im östlichen Mitteleuropa.” In Winfried Eberhard and Alfred A. Strnad, eds., Humanismus und Renaissance in Ostmitteleuropa vor der Reformation, 245–272. Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 1966.

734

Bibliography

Murawiec, Wiesław Franciszek. “Jan z Oświęcimia zwany Sakranem (1443–1527).” In Stanisław Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 201–206. Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie, 2000. Murdoch, John E. “The Medieval Euclid: Salient Aspects of the Translations of the Elements by Adelard of Bath and Campanus of Novara,” Revue de Synthese 89 (Series 3, nos. 49–52) (1968): 67–94. Murdoch, John E. and Edith D. Sylla. “The Science of Motion.” In David C. Lindberg, ed., Science in the Middle Ages, 206–274. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. Murphy, James J. Rhetoric in the Middle Ages. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1974. Reprinted 2001. ―――. “Rhetoric: Western European.” In Dictionary of the Middle Ages, Joseph R. Strayer, Editor in chief, 10, 351–364. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1982–1989. Nadolski, Andrzej. Grunwald 1410. Warsaw: Dom Wydawniczy Bellona, 2003. ―――. Grunwald. Problemy wybrane. Warsaw: Templum, 2010. Nadolski, Bronisław. “Humanistyczne mowy lekarza Piotra Gaszowca,” Pamiętnik Literacki 28 (1931): 454–472. ―――. “Rola Jana z Ludziska w polskim Odrodzeniu,” Pamiętnik Literacki 26 (1929): 198–211. Nardi, Bruno, et al., eds. La filosofia della natura nel medioevo. Milan: Società editrice Vita e pensiero, 1966. Nardi, Paolo. “Relations with Authority,” in Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 77–107. Vol. 1 of Walter Rüegg, General Editor, A History of the University in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Nauert, Charles G. Humanism and the Culture of Renaissance Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Neuber, Wolfgang, Thomas Rahn, and Claus Zittel, eds. The Making of Copernicus. Early Modern Transformations of a Scientist and His Science. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015. Niemczycka, Katarzyna. “Jan Elgot—życie i twórczość,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 5 (1992): 9–38. Niesiołowski, Andrzej. “Testament Pawła Włodkowica (W pięćsetlecie śmierci pierwszego ideologa i myśliciela katolickiego Polski),” Verbum 4 (1935): 771–807. Niewiński, Andrzej. Przestrzeń kościelna w topografii średniowiecznego Krakowa. Próba syntezy. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolicki Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 2004. Nikodem, Jarosław. Witold Wielki Książę Litewski (1354 lub 1355–27 października 1430). Cracow: Avalon, 2013. ―――. “Zbigniew Oleśnicki wobec unii Polsko-Litewskiej do śmierci Jagiełły,” Nasza Przeszłość 91 (1999): 101–151. ―――. “Zbigniew Oleśnicki wobec unii polsko-Litewskiej w latach 1434–1453,” Nasza Przeszłość 92 (1999): 95–135.

Bibliography

735

Niwiński, Mieczysław. “Biskup krakowski Bodzanta i Kazimierz Wielki,” Collectanea Theologica 17 (1936): 225–262. North, John D. “Astronomy and Mathematics.” In The History of the University of Oxford. Vol 2: Late Medieval Oxford, J.I. Catto and T.A.R. Evans, eds., 103–174. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1992. ―――. “The Quadrivium.” In Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 337–359. Cambridge University Press, 1992 (vol. 1 of Walter Rüegg, General Editor, A History of the University in Europe). Novikoff, Alex J. The Medieval Culture of Disputation: Pedagogy, Practice, and Performance. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013. ―――. “Toward a Cultural History of Scholastic Disputation,” American Historical Review 117 (2012): 331–364. Nowack, Józef. Dzieje archidiecezji poznańska. 2 vols. Poznań, Księgarnia św. Wojciecha, 1959–1964. Nowak, Lucyna. “Przyczynki do księgozbioru Pawła z Worczyna,” Studia Mediewistyczne 34–35 (2000): 283–288. ―――. “Scholar, student, bakałarz, magister—edukacja w średniowieczu.” In Wiesława Sajdek, ed., Czasy katedr—czasy uniwersytetów. Źródła jedności narodów Europy, 115–132. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolicki Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 2005. ―――. “Scholar, Student, Bakkalaureus, Magister—Bildung im Mittelalter,” Acta Mediaevalia 18 (2005): 353–370. ―――. “Zapiski Macieja z Łabiszyna w rękopisie Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 1456. Edycja wybranych fragmentów,” Acta Mediaevalia 22 (2009): 490–499. Nowak, Zenon Hubert. Mięezynarodowe procesy polubowne jako narzędzie politiki Zygmunta Luksemburskiego 1412–1424. Toruń: Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika, 1981. ―――. “Związki Prus z uniwersytetami w Roztoce i Gryfii w XV i początkach XVI wieku,” Zapiski Historyczne 33, no. 4 (1968): 7–41. Nowakowska, Natalia. Church, State and Dynasty in Renaissance Poland. The Career of Cardinal Fryderyk Jagiellon (1468–1503). Aldershot, England and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007. Nowy Korbut. Piśmiennictwo Staropolskie. Roman Pollack, et al., eds. 3 vols. Warsaw: Państwowe Instytut Wydawniczny, 1963–1965. Nuding. Matthias. Matthäus von Krakau. Theologe, Politiker, Kirchenreformer in Krakau, Prag und Heidelberg zur Zeit des Großen Abendländlichen Schismas. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Oakley, Francis. “Conciliar Theory.” In Dictionary of the Middle Ages, Joseph R. Strayer, Editor in Chief, 3, 510–523. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1982–1989. ―――. “Natural Law, the Corpus Mysticum, and Consent in Conciliar Thought from John of Paris to Matthias Ugonius,” Speculum 56 (1981): 786–810. Reprinted, with

736

Bibliography

the same pagination as article fourteen, in Oakley, Natural Law, Conciliarism and Consent in the Late Middle Ages. London: Variorum, 1984. ―――. The Western Church in the Later Middle Ages. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1979. Oberman, Heiko. Masters of the Reformation. The Emergence of a New Intellectual Climate in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. (Revised version of his Werden und Wertung der Reformation. Vom Wegestreit zum Glaubenskampf [Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1977]). Ochałówna, Czesława. “Bitwa grunwaldzka w poezji polsko-łacińskiej XV w.,” Małopolskie Studia Historyczne 3, no. 1/2 (1960): 81–106. Ojszyński, Rafał. Obraz Polski i Polaków w pismach Eneasza Sylwiusza Piccolominiego (Papież Pius II). Warsaw: DiG, 2014. Olszewski, Mikołaj. “History at the medieval university? Remarks on John of Dąbrówka’s Commentary on Vincent Kadłubek’s Chronicle of Poles” (Unpublished paper presented 8 September 2011 at the SIEPM Annual Colloquium, Łódź, Poland). Omodeo, Pietro Daniel. Copernicus in the Cultural Debates of the Renaissance— Reception, Legacy, Transformation. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2014. Overfield, James H. Humanism and Scholasticism in Late Medieval Germany. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986. ―――. “Nobles and Paupers at German Universities to 1600,” Societas: A Review of Social History 4 (1974): 175–210. ―――. “University Studies and the Clergy in pre-Reformation Germany.” In James M. Kittelson and Pamela J. Transue, eds. Rebirth, Reform, and Resilience. Universities in Transition 1300–1700, 254–292. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1984. Oźóg, Krzysztof. “Formacja intelektualna biskupów krakowskich w średniowieczu.” In Waldemar Bukowski, et al., eds., Cracovia—Polonia—Europa. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane Jerzemu Wyrozumskiemu w sześćeziesiątą piątą rocznicę urodzin i czterdziestolecie pracy naukowej, 159–177. Cracow: Drukarnia “Secesja,” 1995. ―――. “Ideal władcy w krakowskim środowisko intelektualnym na początku XV wieku.” In Jerzy Strzelczyk and Józef Dobosz, eds., with the assistance of Zbyszek Górczak, et al., Nihil Superfluum Esse. Prace z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane Profesor Jadwidze Krzyżaniakowej, 415–426. Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, 2000. ―――. Intelektualiści w służbie Królestwo Polskiego w latach 1306–1382. Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1995. ―――. “Die Krakauer Universität und ihre Teilnahme am öffentlichen Leben des jagiellonischen Königreiches,” in Wojciech Fałkowski and Stefan Weinfurter, eds. Ritualisierung politischer Willensbildung. Polen und Deutschland im hohen und späten Mittelalter, 163–181. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010.

Bibliography

737

―――. Kultura umysłowa w Krakowie s XIV wieku. Środowisko duchowieństwa świeckiego. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1987. ―――. “Migrationen vom Professoren und Studenten aus Prag nach Krakau zu Beginn des 15. Jahrhunderts.” In Blanka Zilynská, ed., Universitäten, Landesherren und Landeskirchen: das Kuttenberger Dekret von 1409 im Kontext der Epoche; von der Gründung der Karlsuniversität bis zum Augsburger Religionsfrieden 1555, 99–112. Prague: Universita Karlova, 2010. ―――. “Praskie studia prałatów i kanoników katedralnych metropolii gnieźnieński w drugiej połowie XIV i na początku XV wieku.” In Andrzej Radzimiński, ed., Duchowieństwo kapitulne w Polsce średniowiecznej i wczesnonowożytnej. Studia nad pochodzeniem i funkcjonowaniem elity kościelnej, 133–162. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2000. ―――. “Rex Illiteratus est quasi asinus coronatur—narodziny średniowiecznego ideału władcy wykształconego.” In Halina Manikowska, et al., eds., Aetas media Aetas Moderna. Studia ofiarowane profesorowi Henrykowi Samsonowiczowi w siedemdziesiątą rocznicę urodzin, 699–712. Warsaw: Instytut Historyczny Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2000. ―――. The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe in the Middle Ages. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2009 (Krakow Historical Monographs 1). ―――. “Spór o biskupstwo krakowskie w roku 1392 na tle stosunków Polski z papiestwem u schyłku XIV w.,” Kwartalnik Historyczny 104 (1997): 3–20. ―――. “Stanisława ze Skarbimierza refleksje o państwie.” In Piotr Dymmel, Krzysztof Skupieński, and Barbara Trelińska, eds., Droga historii. Studia ofiarowane Profesorowi Józefowi Szymańskiemu w siedemdziesiątą recznicę urodzin, 47–61. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie Skłodowskiej, 2001. ―――. “Studia krakowian na praskim uniwersytecie do początku XV wieku.” In Zenon Piech, ed., Miasta. Ludzie. Instytucje. Znaki. Księga jubileuszowa ofiarowana Profesor Bożenie Wyrozumskiej w 75. rocznicę urodzin, 637–651. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2008. ―――. Uczeni w monarchii Jadwigi Andegaweńskiej i Władysław Jagiełły (1384–1434). Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2004. ―――. “Udział Andrzeja Łaskarzyca w sprawach i sporach Polsko-Krzyżackich do soboru w Konstancji.” In Oźóg and Stanisław Szczur, eds., Polska i jej sąsiedzi w późnym średniowieczu, 159–186. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2000. ―――. “University Masters at the Royal Court of Hedwig of Anjou and Władysław Jagiełło.” In Piotr Górecki and Nancy van Deusen, eds., Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages. A Cultural History. Essays in Honour of Paul W. Knoll, 147–160 and 267–274. London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2009. ―――. “Uniwersytet Krakowski: przykład późnośredniowiecznego eklektyzmu.” In Teresa Wolińska and Mirosław Leszka, eds., Średniowieczna wizja świata.

738

Bibliography

Jedność czy różnorodność. Idee i teksty, 235–250. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2009. ―――. “Utrum Universitas Pragensis sit mater Universitatis Cracoviensis? Czyli o wzorcach korporacynych krakowskiej wszechnicy w XV wieku.” in Wojciech Iwańczak and Janusz Smołuch, eds., Wspólnoty małe i duże w społeczeństwach Czech i Polski w średniowieczu i w czasach nowożytnych, 59–81. Cracow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2010. ―――. “Uwagi o potrzebach i perspektywach w zakresie badań nad dziejami dominikanów prowincji polskiej w średniowieczu ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem ich kultury intelektualnej i duchowej.” In Henryk Gapski and Jerzy Kłoczowski, eds., Dzieje dominikanów w Polsce XIII–XVIII wiek. Historiografia i warsztat badawczy historyka, 103–121. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego Jana Pawła II, 2006 (Studia nad Historią Dominikanów w Polsce 4). ―――. “Wpływ środowiska uniwersyteckiego na kształtowanie i rozwój kultury religijnej w Polsce średniowiecznej.” In Halina Manikowska and Wojciech Brojer, eds., Animarum cultura. Studia nad kulturą religijną na ziemiach polskich w średniowieczu, 407–439. Warsaw: Instytut Historii PAN, 2008. ―――. “Zakres i metody nauczania septem artes na Wydziale Sztuk Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XV wieku.” In Teresa Michałowska, ed., Septem artes w kształto­ waniu kultury umysłowej w Polsce średniowiecznej, 105–124. Wrocław: Chronicon, 2007. ―――. “Związki Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego z kapitułą katedralną krakowską u schyłku XIV i w pierwszej ćwierci XV wieku,” Rocznik Biblioteki PAN w Krakowie 43 (1998): 7–35. Oźóg, Krzysztof and Stanisław Szczur, eds. Polska i jej sąsiedzi w późnym średniowieczu. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2000. Ozorowski, Mieczysław. Benedykta Hessego nauka o małżeństwie. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego, 2002. Pakulski, Jan. “Wojciech z Brudzewa (1445–1495). Rys biograficzny,” Zapiski historyczne 38 (1973): 21–41. Palacz, Ryszard. “Jakuba z Gostynina Komentarz do Fizyki Arystotelesa,” Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 2 (13) (1970): 86–103. ―――. “Jan ze Stobnicy,” Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 1 (12) (1970): 23–38. ―――. “Un manuel scotiste à l’Université de Cracovie.” In De doctrina Ioannis Duns Scoti. Acta Congressus Scotisti Internationalis Oxonii et Edimburgi . . . 1966 celebrati, 185–187. Rome: Cura Commissionis Scotisticae, 1968. ―――. “Michał Falkener z Wrocławia. Stan badań,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 6 (1966): 35–91.

Bibliography

739

―――. “Nauczanie filozofii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV w. Główne tendencje i kierunki.” In Lech Szczucki, ed., Nauczanie filozofii w Polsce w XV–XVIII wieku, 7–44. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1978. ―――. “Les ‘Quaestiones Cracovienses’—principale source pour la philosophie de la nature dans la second moitié du XVe siècle à l’Université Jagellonne à Cracovie,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 14 (1970): 41–52. ―――. “Der Streit zwischen der ‘via moderna’ und ‘via antiqua’ in der Naturphilosophie an der Krakauer Universität in der zweiten Hälfte des XV. Jahrhunderts,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 20 (1974): 97–108. ―――. “Wojciech Blar z Brudzewa,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 1 (1961): 172–198. ―――. “Wojciech z Brudzewa jako astronom i filozof,” Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 7 (18) (1974): 53–91. ―――. “Z badań nad filozofią przyrody na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku.” In Palacz, ed., Filozofia Polska XV wieku, 312–368. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972. ―――. “Z problematyki badań nad filozofią przyrody z XV wieku, Cz. I: Filozofia przyrody na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku,” Studia Mediewistyczne 11 (1970): 73–109. ―――. “Z problematyki badań nad filozofią przyrody w XV w. Cz. II: Główne problemy europejskiej filozofii przyrody XIV i XV w.,” St. Med. 13 (1971): 3–107. ―――. “Z problematyki badań nad filozofią przyrody z XV wieku, Cz. III: Polska filozofia przyrody w drugiej połowie XV w.,” Studia Mediewistyczne 14 (1973): 87–198. Palacz, Ryszard, ed. Filozofia Polska XV wieku. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972. Panuś, Kazimierz, ed. Wielcy kaznodzieje Krakowa. Studia in honorem prof. Edwardii Stanek. Cracow: Unum PTT, 2006. Paquet, Jacques. Les matricules universitaires. Turnhout: Brepols, 1992 (Typologie des sources du moyen âge occidental 65). ―――. Salaires et prébendes des professeurs de l’Université de Louvain au quinzième siècle. Leopoldville: Editions de l’Université, 1958 (Studia Universitatis Lovanium, 2). ―――. “L’Universitaire ‘pauvre’ au moyen âge: problèmes, documentation, questions de méthode.” In Paquet and Jozef IJsewijn, eds., Les Universités a la fin du moyen âge, 399–425. Louvain: Institut d’Études médiévales U.C.L., 1978. Paquet, Jacques and Jozef IJsewijn, eds. Les Universités a la fin du moyen âge. Louvain: Institut d’Études médiévales U.C.L., 1978. Parkes, M.B. “The Provision of Books.” In The History of the University of Oxford, vol. 2: Late Medieval Oxford, J.I. Catto and T.A.R. Evans, eds., 407–483. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1992.

740

Bibliography

Patkaniowski, Michał, ed. Studia z dziejów Wydziału Prawa Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1964 (Praca Prawnicicza 18). Pawlikowska-Brożek, Zofia. “Wojciech z Brudzewa,” Prace historyczne 62 (1973): 67–82. Pedersen, Olaf. “Astronomy.” In David C. Lindberg, ed., Science in the Middle Ages, 303– 337. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. ―――. “The Corpus Astronomicum and the Traditions of Medieval Latin Astronomy.” In Marian Biskup, et al. eds., Colloquia Copernicana, 3, 57–96. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1975. ―――. The First Universities. Studium Generale and the Origins of University Education in Europe, trans. Richard North. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. ―――. “In Quest of Sacrobosco,” Journal of the History of Astronomy 16 (1985): 175–221. Pedersen, Olaf and Mogens Pihl. Early Physics and Astronomy. A Historical Introduction. London: MacDonald and Janes and New York: American Elsivier, 1975. Pegues, Franklin J. “Philanthropy and the Universities in France and England in the Later Middle Ages.” In Astrik L. Gabriel, ed. The Economic and Material Frame of the Mediaeval University, 69–78. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977. Pelc, Juljan. Ceny w Krakowie w latach 1369–1600. Lwów: Kasa J. Manowskiego, 1935. Perlbach, Max. Prussia Scholastica. Die Ost- und Westpreussen auf den mittelalterlichen Universitäten. Braunsberg: Erml. Zeitungs- und Verlagsdruckerei, 1895. Petráň, Josef. Karolinum. Prague: Univerzita Karlova, 1988. Petrani, Aleksy. “Kanonistyka.” In Marian Rechowicz, ed., Dzieje Teologii Katolickiej w Polsce, vol. 1: Średniowiecze, 359–399. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1974. Piech, Stanisław. “Święty Jan z Kęt (1390–1473).” In Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 139–158. Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie, 2000. ―――. “Theology at Kraków Academy.” In Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 49–70. Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie, 2000. Piech, Stanisław ed. Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej. Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie, 2000. Piech, Zenon, ed. Miasta. Ludzie. Instytucje. Znaki. Księga jubileuszowa ofiarowana Profesor Bożenie Wyrozumskiej w 75. rocznicę urodzin. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2008. Piekosiński, Franciszek. “Wybór znaków wodnych z XV stulecie,” Wiadomości Numizmatyczno-Archeologiczne Supplement (1896): 78–112. Pieradzka, Krystyna. “Rozkwit średniowiecznego Krakowa w XIV i XV wieku.” In Jan Dąbrowski, ed., Kraków. Studia nad rozwojem miasta, 141–187. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1957. ―――. “Uniwersytet Krakowski w służbie państwa i wobec soborów w Konstancji i Bazylei.” In Kazimierz Lepszy ed., Dzieje Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w

Bibliography

741

latach 1364–1764, vol. 1, 91–137. Cracow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński Wydawnictwo Jubileuszowe, 1964. ―――. Związki Długosza z Krakowem. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1975 (Biblioteka Krakowska 115). Pinborg, Jan. “Speculative Grammar.” In Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, 254–269. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Piroźyński, Jan. “Die Krakauer Universität in der Renaissancezeit.” In Stephan Füssel and Pirożyński, eds., Der polnische Humanismus und die europäischen Sodalitäten, 13–38. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1997. Plezia, Marian. “Jan Długosz.” In Stanisław Grzeszczuk, ed., Pisarze staropolscy sylwetki, 132–173. Warsaw: Wiedza Powszechna, 1991. ―――. “Mistrz Wincenty zwany Kadłubkiem.” In Stanisław Grzeszczuk, ed., Pisarze staropolscy sylwetki, 93–131. Warsaw: Wiedza Powszechna, 1991. Polski Słownik biograficzny. Cracow (later also Warsaw, Wrocław, and Cracow): Polski Akademia Umiejętności, Ossolineum, Polski Akademia Nauk, Societas Vistulana, 1935–. Półtawski, Andrzej. “Communis Lectura Pragensis,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 1 (1958): 11–27. Porębski, Stanisław Andrzej. Jakub z Paradyża. Poglądy i teksty. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Akademii Teologii Katolickiej, 1994. Post, Gaines. “A Romano-canonical maxim, ‘Quod omnes tangit’ in Bracton,” Traditio 4 (1946): 197–251. Post, R.R. The Modern Devotion. Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Potkowski, Edward. “Krytyka i reforma. Teksty publicystyki kościelnej w Polsce XV wieku.” In Teresa Michałowska, ed., Literatura i kultura późnego średniowiecza w Polsce, 177–196. Warsaw: Instytut Badań Literackich, 1993. Prochaska, Antoni. “Na soborze w Konstancyi,” Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności: wydział Historyczno-filozoficzny 35 (1898): 1–100. Prokop, Krzysztof Rafał. Wincenty Kadłubek. Cracow: Wydawnictwo WAM, 2005. Ptaśnik, Jan. “Studya nad patrycyatem Krakowskim wieków średnich,” Rocznik Krakowski 15 (1913): 23–95 and 16 (1914): 1–90. Rabiej, Piotr, “Les savants de l’Université au service et dans l’entourage de Zbigniew Oleśnicki évéque de Cracovie,” Quaestiones Medii Aevi Novae 8 (2003): 67–103. ―――. “Uczeni uniwersyteccy w służbie i otoczeniu Zbiegniewa Oleśnickiego, Biskupa Krakowskiego.” In Krzysztof Oźóg and Stanisław Szczur, eds. Polska i jej sąsiedzi w późnym średniowieczu, 199–231. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2000. Rabil, Albert Jr., ed. Renaissance Humanism. Foundations, Forms, and Legacy. 3 vols. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988.

742

Bibliography

Radwański, Kazimierz. Kraków przedlokacyjny, rozwój przestrzenny. Cracow: Muzeum Archeologiczne, 1975. Radzilowski, Paul. “Binding the New Together With the Old: Fifteenth Century Writers on the Origins of the Polish State and Peoples in the Face of Earlier Traditions” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 2000). ―――. “Poland Never Defeated: The Diplomatic Uses of Legend in the 15th Century,” The Polish Review 51 (2006): 173–187. Radziminski, Andrzej, et al., eds. Venerabiles, Nobiles et Honesti. Studia z dziejów społeczeństwa Polski średniowiecznej. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 1997. Rait, R.S. Life in the Medieval University. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912. Rashdall, Hastings. The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, 2nd ed. F.M. Powicke and A.B. Emden, eds., 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936. Ratajczak, Krzysztof. Edukacja kobiet w kręgu dynastii piastowskiej w średniowieczu. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2005. Rebeta, Jerzy. “Czy notatka ‘Revocatur’ należy do polskiej szkoły prawa stosunków międzynarodowych z połowy XV wieku,” Kwartalnik Historii Nauk i Techniki 20 (1975): 533–540. ―――. Komentarz Pawła z Worczyna do ‘Etyki Nikomachejskiej’ Arystotelesa z 1424 roku. Zarys problematyki filozoficzno-społecznej. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970. ―――. “Metodologiczno-filozoficzne założenia problematyki dyscyplin praktycznych w Polsce na początku XV wieku,” Studia i materiały z dziejów nauki Polskiej, Series E 3 (1968): 3–28. ―――. “Miejsce Wawrzyńce z Raciborza w najwcześniejszym okresie krakowskiej astronomii XV wieku” Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki 12 (1968): 553–564. ―――. “Nieznane pisma i fragment biblioteki Jana ze Słupczy,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 8 (1967): 125–148. ―――. “Paweł z Worczyna,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 3 (1964): 120–129. ―――. Początki nauk społecznych. Podstawy metodologiczne. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1988 (Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 11). Rechowicz, Marian. “Po założeniu wydziału teologicznego w Krakowie (wiek XV).” In Rechowicz, ed., Dzieje Teologii katolickiej w Polsce, vol. 1: Średniowiecza, 93–148. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwerytetu Lubelskiego, 1974. ―――. “Polska myśl teologiczna w średniowieczu.” In Marian Rechowicz, et al., eds., Księga Tysiąclecie Katolicyzmu w Polsce, 3 vols., 1, 237–245. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Naukowego Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1969.

Bibliography

743

―――. “St. Jean Kanty a-t-il été l’auteur du commentaire conciliariste sur l’Evangile de St. Mathieu,” Collectanea Theologica 26 (1955): 13–45. ―――. Św. Jan Kanty i Benedykt Hesse w świetle krakowskiej kompilacji teologicznej z XV wieku. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1958. Rechowicz, Marian, ed. Dzieje Teologii katolickiej w Polsce, vol. 1: Średniowiecza. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwerytetu Lubelskiego, 1974. Rechowicz, Marian, et al., eds. Księga Tysiąclecie Katolicyzmu w Polsce. 3 vols., Lublin: Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Naukowego Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1969. Reid, Charles J, Jr. “Paulus Vladimiri, the Tractatus, Opinio Hostiensis, and the Rights of Infidels.” In Pavel Krafl, ed., Sacri canones servandi sunt. Ius canonicum et status ecclesiae saeculis XIII–XV, 418–423. Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR, 2008. Reuter, Timothy, ed. The Medieval Nobility. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1979. de Ridder-Symoens, Hilde. “Mobility.” In Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 280–304. Vol. 1 of Walter Rüegg, General Editor, A History of the University in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. ―――. ed. Universities in the Middle Ages. Vol. 1 of Walter Rüegg, General Editor, A History of the University in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Ritter, Gerard. Via antiqua und via moderna auf den deutschen Universitäten des XV. Jahrhunderts. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1922. Robertson, D.W., Jr. “The Pearl as a Symbol,” Modern Language Notes 65 (1950): 155–161. Rodriquez-Bachiller. “Paulus Wladimiri, precursor de Francisco de Vitoria.” In Christian Wenin, ed., L’homme et son universe au Moyen Âge. Actes du Septieme Congres International de Philosophie Médiéval (30 aout–4 septembre 1982), 2 vols. 2, 863–868. Louvain-la-Neuve: Ed. de l’institut supérieur de philosophie, 1986. Rosemann, Philip W. Peter Lombard. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Rosen, Edward. Three Copernican Treatises. 3rd. ed. New York: Octagon, 1971. Rosińska, Grażyna. “Dzieło astronomiczne Sędziwoja z Czechla. Z problematyki i metod krakowskiej astronomii w XV wieku,” Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki 17 (1972): 11–24. ―――. Instrumenty astronomiczne na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1974 (Studia Copernicana 11). ―――. “Sandivogius de Czechel et l’école astronomique de Cracovie vers 1430,” Organon 9 (1973): 217–229. ―――. “Kwadratura koła i ‘liczba π’ w nauczaniu matematyki na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w pierwszej połowie XV wieku. Recepcja Archimedesa De mensura circuli poprzez Tomasza Bradwardina Geometria speculativa,” Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki 45 (2000): 49–62.

744

Bibliography

―――. “Nieznany traktat astronomiczny Marcina króla z Żurawicy,” Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki 17 (1972): 227–233. ―――. Scientific Writings and Astronomical Tables in Cracow (XIVth–XVIth Centuries. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1984 (Studia Copernicana 22). ―――. “Une table astronomique de Laurent de Racibórz. Le commentaire qui l’accompagne,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 19 (1974): 141–147. ―――. “Traité astronomique inconnu de Martin Rex de Żurawica,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 18 (1973): 159–166. Rostfiński, Józef. Medycyna na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim w XV w. Cracow: Nakładem autora, 1900. Ruciński, Robert. “Studia uniwersyteckie mieszczan wielkich miast pruskich w średniowieczu,” Klio 8, no. 10 (2008): 31–86. Rüegg, Walter. “The Rise of Humanism.” In Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 442–468. Vol. 1 of Walter Rüegg, General Editor, A History of the University in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. ―――. “Themes.” In Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 3–34. Vol. 1 of Walter Rüegg, General Editor, A History of the University in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Russell, Frederick H. The Just War in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. ―――. “Paulus Vladimiri’s Attack on the Just War: A Case Study in Legal Polemics.” In Brian Tierney and Peter Linehan, eds., Authority and Power: studies on medieval law and government presented to Walter Ullmann on his seventieth birthday, 237–254. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Ryś, Jan. Szkolnictwo parafialne w miastach Małopolski w XV wieku. Warsaw: Instytut Historii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1995. Sajdek, Wiesława, ed. Czasy katedr—czasy uniwersytetów. Źródła jedności narodów Europy. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolicki Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 2005. Schaus, Margaret, ed. Women and Gender in Medieval Europe. An Encyclopedia. New York and London: Routledge, 2006. Schmitt, Charles B., general editor and Quentin Skinner and Eckhard Kessler, eds. The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Schoeck, Richard J. “Humanism and Jurisprudence.” In Albert Rabil, ed., Renaissance Humanism. Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, 3, 310–326. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988. Schuh, Maximilian. Aneignungen des Humanismus. Institutionelle und individuelle Praktiken an der Universität Ingolstadt im 15. Jahrhundert. Leiden: Brill, 2013 (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 47).

Bibliography

745

Schulz, Eberhard. “Paulus Vladimiri und das jagiellonischen Polen. Eine Untersuchung zu den Wirkungen der italienischen Rechtswissenschaft auf den jagiellonischen Staat.” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Göttingen, 1951). Schwinges, Rainer Christoph. Deutsche Universitätsbesucher im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert. Studien zur Sozialgeschichte des alten Reiches Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, 1986. ―――. “On Recruitment in German Universities from the Fourteenth to Sixteenth Centuries.” In William J. Courtenay and Jürgen Miethke, eds., Universities and Schooling in Medieval Society, 32–48. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2000 (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 32). Reprinted in Schwinges, Studenten und Gelehrte. Studien zur Sozial- und Kulturgeschichte deutscher Universitäten im Mittelalter / Students and Scholars. A social and cultural history of medieval German universities, 191–213. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008 (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, 32). ―――. “Student Education, Student Life.” In Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 195–243. Vol. 1 of Walter Rüegg, General Editor, A History of the University in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Reprinted in Schwinges, Studenten und Gelehrte. Studien zur Sozial- und Kulturgeschichte deutscher Universitäten im Mittelalter / Students and Scholars. A social and cultural history of medieval German universities, 431–488.. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008 (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, 32). ―――. Studenten und Gelehrte. Studien zur Sozial- und Kulturgeschichte deutscher Universitäten im Mittelalter / Students and Scholars. A social and cultural history of medieval German universities. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008 (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, 32). Segel, Harold B. Renaissance Culture in Poland. The Rise of Humanism, 1470–1543. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1989. Seifert, Arno. “Studium als soziales System.” In Johannes Fried, ed., Schulen und Studium im sozialen Wandel des hohen und späten Mittelalters, 601–619. Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 1986. Semkowicz-Zarembina, Wanda. “Elementy humanistyczny redakcji Annalium Jana Długosza.” In Józef Garbacik, et al., eds., Mediaevalia. W 50 rocznicę pracy naukowej Jana Dąbrowskiego, 235–253. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1964. Seńko, Władysław. “Charakterystyka Albertyzmu na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim w XV wieku.” In Zdzisław Kuksiewicz, ed., Z dziejów filozofii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku, 182–205. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1965. ―――. “Glosy i noty z wykładów niektórych profesorów wydziału artium Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego z pocz. XVI w. zaczerpnięte z druków dzieł Jana z Głogowa,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowieczna w Polsce 4 (1965): 341–353.

746

Bibliography

―――. “Jakub z Gostynina i jego Komentarz do ‘Liber de Causis’,” Studia Mediewistyczne 2 (1961): 185–210. ―――. Piotr Wysz z Radolina i jego dzielo ‘Speculum aureum.’ Warsaw: Instytut Tomistyczny, 1995. ―――. Les tendances préhumanistes dans la philosophie polonaise au XVe siècle. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1973. ―――. “Uzupełnienia do katalogu pism filozoficznych Jana z Głogowa,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowieczna w Polsce 3 (1964): 173–174. ―――. “Wstęp do studium nad Janem z Głogowa,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowieczna w Polsce 1 (1961): 9–59. ―――. “Wstęp do studium nad Janem z Głogowa, cz. 2: Katalog dzieł astrologicznych i astronomicznych,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii śreniowiecznej w Polsce 3 (1964): 30–38. ―――. “Z badań nad historią myśli społeczno-politycznej w Polsce w XV wieku.” In Ryszard Palacz, ed., Filozofia Polska XV wieku, 20–57. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972. Shank. Michael H. “A Female University Student in Late Medieval Kraków,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 12 (1987): 373–380 (reprinted in Judith M. Bennett, ed. Sisters and Workers in the Middle Ages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989). Siemiątkowska, Zofia. “Jan Szczekna,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 5 (1965): 34–75. ―――. “Piotr Polak, filozof dominikański z XIV wieku,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 3 (1964): 157–172. Silnicki, Tadeusz. Arcybiskup Mikołaj Trąba. Warsaw: PAX, 1954. Sinko, Tadeusz. “De Długosii praefatione Historiae Polonorum.” In Henryk Barycz and Jan Hulewicz, eds., Studia z Dziejów Kultury Polskiej. Księga zbiorowa, 105–143. Warsaw: Gebethner & Wolff, 1949. ―――. “Kazimierz Morawski (1852–1925),” Przegląd Współczesny 4, no. 14 (1925): 465–468. Siraisi, Nancy. Arts and Sciences at Padua. The ‘Studium’ of Padua before 1350. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1973. ―――. “The Faculty of Medicine.” In Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 360–387. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992 (Vol. 1 of Walter Rüegg, General Editor, A History of the University in Europe).

Bibliography

747

―――. Medieval and Early Renaissance Medicine: An Introduction to Knowledge and Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. Skulimowski, Mieczysław. “Dzieje fakultetu medycznego Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego do reform Kołłątaja (1364–1779).” In Leon Tochowicz, et al., eds. Nauki medyczne w sześćsetlecie Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiej. Sześćsetlecie medycyny Krakowskiej, 2, 13–53. Cracow: Akademia Medyczna w Krakowie, 1963–1964. Słomczyńska, Anna. Krakowskie Komentarze z XV wieku do ‘Ekonomiki’ Arystotelesa. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1978. Šmahel, František. “Die Anfänge der Prager Universität. Kritische Reflexionen zum Jubiläum eines ‘Nationalen Monuments’,” Historica SN 3–4 (1996–1997): 7–50. Reprinted in Šmahel, Die Prager Universität im Mittelalter / The Charles University in the Middle Ages. Gesammelte Aufsätze / Selected Studies 3–50. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007 (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, 28). ―――. “Die Bücherkataloge des Collegium Nationis Bohemicae und das Collegium Reczkonis.” In Šmahel, Die Prager Universität im Mittelalter / The Charles University in the Middle Ages. Gesammelte Aufsätze / Selected Studies, 405–439. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007 (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, 28). ―――. “The Faculty of Liberal Arts 1348–1419.” In František Kavka and Josef Petráň, eds., A History of Charles University, vol. 1: 1348–1802, 93–120. Prague: Carolinum, 2001. Reprinted, with new appendices, in Šmahel, Die Prager Universität im Mittelalter / The Charles University in the Middle Ages. Gesammelte Aufsätze / Selected Studies, 213–315. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007 (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, 28). ―――. “Paris und Prag um 1450. Johannes Versor und seine böhmischen Schüler,” Studia Źródłoznawcze 25 (1980): 65–77. Reprinted in Šmahel, Die Prager Universität im Mittelalter / The Charles University in the Middle Ages. Gesammelte Aufsätze / Selected Studies, 440–464 . Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007 (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, 28). ―――. Die Prager Universität im Mittelalter / The Charles University in the Middle Ages. Gesammelte Aufsätze / Selected Studies. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007 (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, 28). ―――. “L’Université de Prague de 1433 à 1622: recrutement géographique, carrières et mobilité social des étudiants gradués.” In Dominique Julia, Jacques Revel, and Roger Chartier, eds., Les universités européennes du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle. Histoire sociale des populations étudiantes, 2 vols., 1, 65–88. Paris: Editions de l’Ecole des hautes etudes en sciences sociales, 1986–1989. Smalley, Beryl. “The Bible in the Medieval Schools.” In G.W. Lampe, et al., eds., The Cambridge History of the Bible, 3 vols. 2, 197–220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963–1970. ―――. The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952.

748

Bibliography

Smołucha, Janusz, “Kontaky Zbigniewa Oleśnickiego z Eneaszem Sylwiuszem Piccolominim.” In Feliks Kiryk and Zdzisław Noga, eds., Zbigniew Oleśnicki Książę kościoła i mąż stanu. 205–210. Cracow: Secesja, 2006. Sołtan, Andrzej. “Warszawianie na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w latach 1400–1642,” Studia Warszawskie 20, no. 1 (1974): 9–63. ―――. “Warszawskie peregrynacje akademickie od XV do połowy XVII w.,” Rocznik Warszawski 23 (1993): 187–210. ―――. “Warszawskie środowisko umysłowe w XV i początku XVI wieku,” Studia Warszawskie 19 [sic., recte 21] (1975): 199–215. Sondel, Janusz. “Kilka uwag na temat początków Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” Kwartalnik Historyczny 109 (2002): 117–125. ―――. Przywileje fundacyjne Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego oraz przywilej nadania szlachectwa jego profesorom (z historyczno-prawnym komentarzem). Cracow: Universitas, 2015. Sottili, Agostino. “Note biografiche sui petrarchisti Giocomo Publicio e Guiniforte Barzizza e sull’umanista valenziano Giovanni Serra.” In Fritz Schalk, ed., Petrarch 1304–1374. Beiträge zu Werk und Wirkung, 270–273. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1975. Spencer, H.L. “Pearl: ‘God’s law’ and ‘Man’s law’,” Review of English Studies, n.s. 59:240 (2008): 317–341. Spitz, Lewis W. Conrad Celtis. The German Arch-Humanist. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press, 1957. ―――. “The Importance of the Reformation for the Universities: Culture and Confessions in the Critical Years.” In James M. Kittelson and Pamela J. Transue, eds., Rebirth, Reform, and Resilience. Universities in Transition 1300–1700, 42–67. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1984. ―――. The Religious Renaissance of the German Humanists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963. Stegmüller, Friedrich. Repertorium Commentariorum in ‘Sententias’ Petri Lombardi. Würzburg: Schöning, 1947. Stelling-Michaud, Sven. “L’histoire des universités au Moyen Âge et à la Renaissance au cours des vingt-cinq dernières années.” In Rapports du XIe Congrès International des Sciences historiques, 1, 97–143. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1960. Steneck, Nicholas. “In Defense of Context.” In Robert S. Westman, ed., The Copernican Achievement, 157–164. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: 1975. Steneck, Nicholas, ed. Science and Society. Past, Present, and Future. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1975. Stieber, Joachim W. Pope Eugenius IV, the Council of Basel and the Secular and Ecclesiastical Authorities in the Empire. The Conflict over Supreme Authority and Power in the Church. Leiden: Brill, 1978.

Bibliography

749

Stone, Daniel. The Polish-Lithuanian State, 1386–1795. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 2001 (A History of East Central Europe 4). Stopka, Krzysztof. “From Foundation to the Late 18th Century.” In Stopka, Andrzej Kazimierz Banach, and Julian Dybiec, The History of the Jagiellonian University, Teresa Bałuk-Ulewiczowa, trans. 9–88. Cracow: Jagiellonian University Press, 2000. ―――. “Głos w dyskusji nad fundacją uniwersytetu w Krakowie,” Rocznik Krakowski 71 (2005): 31–40. ―――. “The Jagiellonian Foundation of Cracow University,” Quaestiones medii aevi novae 8 (2003): 49–66. ―――. “Jagiellońska fundacja Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” Rocznik Krakowski 69 (2003): 35–46. ―――. Szkoły katedralne Metropolii Gnieźnieńskiej w średniowieczu. Studia nad kształceniem kleru polskiego w wiekach średnich. Cracow: Nakładem Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności, 1994. ―――. “Życie codzienne w kolegiach uniwersyteckich średniowiecza / Everyday life in medieval university colleges.” In Danuta Ambrożewicz and Grażyna Fallowa, eds., Kolegia Uniwersyteckie średniowiecznej Europy / University Colleges of Medieval Europe, 97–124. Cracow: Muzeum Uniwersytetu Jagiellońsiekgo, 2007. Stopka, Krzysztof, Andrzej Kazimierz Banach, and Julian Dybiec. The History of the Jagiellonian University. Teresa Bałuk-Ulewiczowa, trans. Cracow: Jagiellonian University Press, 2000. Stopka, Krzysztof, ed. Gallus Anonymous and His Chronicle in the Context of TwelfthCentury Historiography from the Perspective of the Latest Research. Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2010. Stoś, Jarosław. Jakub z Paradyża. Cracow: WAM, 2004. ―――. Mistrz Jakub z Paradyża i devotio moderna. Główne problemy refleksji filozoficzno-teologicznej Jakuba z Paradyża i ich związek z devotio moderna. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Akademii Teologicznego Katolickiego, 1997. Strnad, Alfred A. “Die Rezeption des Humanismus und Renaissance in Wien.” In Winfried Eberhard and Strnad, eds., Humanismus und Renaissance in Ostmitteleuropa vor der Reformation, 71–135. Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 1996. Strzelczyk, Jerzy. “Andrzej [Jędrzej, Andreas] Gałka von Dobczyn—ein polnischer WyclifAnhänger um die Mitte des 15. Jahrhunderts.” In Joachim Bahlcke, Karen Lambrecht, and Hans-Christian Maner, eds., Konfessionelle Pluralität als Herausforderung Koexistenz und Konflikt in Spätmittelalter und Früher Neuzeit (Winfried Eberhard zum 65. Geburtstag), 71–83. Leipzig: Leipzig University Press, 2006. Strzelczyk, Jerzy and Józef Dobosz, eds. With the assistance of Zbyszek Górczak, et al. Nihil Superfluum Esse. Prace z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane Profesor Jadwidze Krzyżaniakowej. Poznań: Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, 2000.

750

Bibliography

Stump, Eleonore. “Dialectic.” In David L. Wagner, ed., The Seven Liberal Arts in the Middle Ages, 125–146. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1983. Stump, Philip. The Reforms of the Council of Constance 1414–1418. Leiden, New York, and Cologne: Brill, 1994 (Studies in the History of Christian Thought 53). Sułkowska-Kurasiowa, Irena. Dokumenty królewskie i ich funcja w państwie polskim za Andegawenów i pierwszych Jagiellonów. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1977. ―――. Polska kancelaria królewska w latach 1447–1506. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1967. Sullivan, Thomas. Parisian Licentiates in Theology, A.D. 1373–1500. A Biographical Register. 2 vols. (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2004–2011 (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 18 and 37). Świeboda, Wojciech. Innowiercy w opiniach prawnych uczonych polskich w XV wieku. Poganie, żydzi, muzułmanie. Cracow: Societas Vistula, 2013. Swieżawski, Stefan. Dzieje filozofii europejskiej XV w. 6 vols. Warsaw: Akademia Teologii Katolickiej, 1974–1983. ―――. “Filozofia w średniowiecznym Uniwersytecie Krakowskim.” In Aleksander Gieysztor, ed., Historia kultury średniowiecznej w Polsce, 129–159. Warsaw: Polskie Towarzystwo Historyczne, 1963. ―――. “Filozofia w Europie XV wieku.” In Ryszard Palacz, ed., Filozofia polska XV w., 435–490. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972. ―――. “Materiały do studiów nad Janem z Głogowa († 1507),” Studia Mediewistyczne 2 (1961): 135–184. ―――. “Note sur le contenu philosophique des questions anonymes ‘Utrum Deus gloriosus’,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 12 (1967): 8–15. ―――. “Quelques aspects du contenu philosophique des ‘Quaestiones in Physicam Aristotelis’ de Jean de Głogów.” In Bruno Nardi, et al., eds., La filosofia della natura nel medioevo, 699–709. Milan: Società editrice Vita e pensiero, 1966. ―――. U źródeł nowożytnej etyki. Filozofia moralna w Europie XV wieku. Cracow: Znak, 1987. Swiszczowski, Stefan. “Gródek krakowski i mury miejskie między Gródkiem a Wawelem,” Rocznik Krakowski 32 (1950): 3–41. Szafrański, A.L. “Mateusz z Krakowa. Wstęp do badań nad życiem i tworczością naukową,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 8 (1967): 25–92. Szczucki, Lech, ed. Nauczanie filozofii w Polsce w XV–XVIII wieku. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1978. Szczur, Stanisław. Historia Polski średniowiecze. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 2002. ―――. Papież Urban V i powstanie uniwersytetu w Krakowie w 1364 r. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 1999.

Bibliography

751

Szelińska, Wacława. Biblioteki profesorów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XV i początkach XVI wieku. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1966. ―――. “Dwa testamenty Jana Dąbrówki,” Studia i Materiały z Dziejów Nauki Polskiej. Series A. 5 (1962): 3–40. ―――. “Izajasz Boner, Augustianin (ok. 1400–1471). I. Profesor Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego,” Analecta Cracoviensia 29 (1997): 597–623. ―――. “Izajasz Boner, Augustianin (ok. 1400–1471). II. Droga do świętości,” Analecta Cracoviensia 30/31 (1998–1999): 571–589. ―――. Ślązacy w Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV i XVI wieku w świetle ich książek i księgozbiorów. Katowice: Wojewódzka Biblioteka Publiczna w Katowicach, 1997. Szőgi, László and Julia Varga, eds. Universitas Budensis, 1395–1995. Budapest: Bak-Fisch KFT, 1997. Szumowski, Władysław. Historja medycyny. Cracow: Gebethner and Wolff, 1935. Szymborska, Wiktor. “Krakowskie zaświadczenie o promocji bakalarskiej z 1492 roku,” Roczniki Historyczne 73 (2007): 199–202. Talbot, Charles H. “Medicine.” In David C. Lindberg, ed., Science in the Middle Ages, 391–428. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. Taszycki, Witold. Rola Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w dziejach języka polskiego. Cracow: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1964. Tatarzyński, Ryszard. “Krakowski anonimowy Komentarz do ‘Metafizyki’ w formie kwestii z roku 1423. Wstęp i edycja I Księgi,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 8 (2000): 11–180. ―――. “Stanisława ze Skarbimierza trzy mowy rekomendacyne—na rektoraty: Jana Wajduta, Mikołaja Gorzkowskiego, Ottona Marcinowica,” Przegląd Tomistyczny 6–7 (1997): 362–373. Teeuwen, Mariken. The Vocabulary of Intellectual Life in the Middle Ages. Turnhout: Brepols, 2003 (CIVICIMA Études sur le vocabulaire intellectual du Moyen Âge, 10). Tęgowski, Jan. “Stosunik Zbigniewa Oleśnickiego do unii Polski z Litwą.” In Feliks Kiryk and Zdzisław Noga, eds. Zbigniew Oleśnicki Książę kościoła i mąż stanu, 73–84. Cracow: Secesja, 2006. Thomson, S. Harrison. “Learning at the Court of Charles IV,” Speculum 25 (1950): 1–20. Tierney, Brian. Foundations of the Conciliar Theory. The Contributions of the Medieval Canonists from Gratian to the Great Schism. Enlarged, new 3rd edition. Leiden: Brill, 1998 (original edition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955). ―――. The Idea of Natural Rights. Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Church Law, 1150–1625. Atlanta: GA: Scholars Press, 1997. Tierney, Brian and Peter Linehan, eds. Authority and Power: studies on medieval law and government presented to Walter Ullmann on his seventieth birthday. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Tobiasz, Mieczysław. Fortifikacja dawnego Krakowa. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1973.

752

Bibliography

Tochowicz, Leon, et al., eds. Nauki medyczne w sześćsetlecie Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiej. Sześćsetlecie medycyny Krakowskiej. 2 vols. 1: Życiorysy. 2: Historia Katedr. Cracow: Akademia Medyczna w Krakowie, 1963–1964. Tomkowicz, Stanisław. “Gmach Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej, Historya i opis,” Rocznik Krakowski 4 (1900): 113–176. ―――. “Kołłątajowski Plan Krakowa z roku 1785,” Rocznik Krakowski 9 (1907): 149–175. ―――. Pałac biskupi w Krakowie. Cracow: Czas, 1933 (Biblioteka Krakowska 78). ―――. Ulice i place Krakowa w ciągu dziejów. Ich nazwy i zmiany postaci. Cracow: Czas, 1926 (Biblioteka Krakowska 63/64). Tymieniecki, Kazimierz. “Zagadnienie niewoli w Polsce u schyłku wieków średnich,” Prace Komisji Historii Poznańskiego Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk 7 (1933): 498–537. Tyszkowska, Janina. “Badania nad składem społeczny studentów Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w XV wieku,” Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Cracow, 1967[?]. Ulanowski, Bolesław. “Mikołaj z Błonia, kanonista polski z pierwszej połowie XV wieku,” Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności: wydział Historyczno-filozoficzny 23 (1888): 1–60. Ulewicz, Tadeusz. Iter Romano-Italicum Polonorum czyli o związkach umysłowokulturalnych Polski z Włochami w wiekach średnich i renesansie. Cracow: Universitas, 1999. ―――. “Polish Humanism and its Italian Sources: Beginnings and Historical Development.” In Samuel Fiszman, ed., The Polish Renaissance in its European Context, 215–235. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Ullman, Berthold L. “The Library of the Sorbonne in the XIVth century.” In The Septicentennial Celebration of the Founding of the Sorbonne College in the University of Paris, 33–47. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Urban, William. The Teutonic Knights. A Military History. London: Greenhill, 2003. van Deusen, Nancy ed. Procession, Performance, Liturgy, and Ritual. Essays in Honor of Bryan R. Gillingham. Ottawa, Canada: The Institute of Medieval Music, 2007 (Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen 62, no. 8 and Musicological Studies 62, no. 8). van Deusen, Nancy, and Leonard Michael Koff, eds. Mobs. An Interdisciplinary Inquiry. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012. van Engen, John. Sisters and Brothers of the Common Life. The Devotio Moderna and the World of the Later Middle Ages. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008. Vardy, Steven Béla and Agnes Huszar Vardy, eds. Society in Change. Studies in Honor of Béla K. Király, 371–390. New York: Distributed by Columbia University Press, 1983 (East European Monographs 132). Verger, Jacques. “Les étudiants slaves et hongrois dans les universités occidentales (XIIIe–XVe siècles,” in L’Eglise et le people chrétien dans les pays de l’Europe du

Bibliography

753

Centre-Est et du Nord (XIVe–XVe siècles), 83–106. Rome: École Française de Rome, 1990 (Collection de l’École Française de Rome 128). ―――. Men of learning in Europe at the End of the Middle Ages, Lisa Neal and Steven Rendell, trans. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000; French original 1997. ―――. “Patterns.” In Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 38–74. Vol. 1 of Walter Ruegg, General Editor, A History of the University in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. ―――. “Schools and Universities.” In Christopher Allmand, ed., The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 7: c. 1415–c. 1500, 220–242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. ―――. “Teachers.” In Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed., Universities in the Middle Ages, 144–168. Vol. 1 of Walter Rüegg, General Editor, A History of the University in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. ―――. Les universités au moyen âge. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1973. Vetulani, Adam. “La foundation des universités dans l’Europe Centrale aux temps du pontificat d’Urbain V,” in Atti del primo Congresso internazionale della Societa Italiana di Storia del Diritto, 361–367. Florence: L.S. Olschki, 1966. ―――. “Les origins de l’Université de Cracovie,” Acta Poloniae Historica 13 (1966): 14–40. ―――. Początki najstarszych wszechnic środkowoeuropejskich. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1970. Vickers, Brian. “Rhetoric and Poetics.” In Charles B. Schmitt, general editor and Quentin Skinner and Eckhard Kessler, eds. The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy, 715–745. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Voigt, Georg. Die Wiederbelebung des classischen Alterthums, oder das erste Jahrhundert des Humanismus. 3rd ed. 2 vols. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1893. Original edition 1859. Wagner, Bettina, et al., eds. Worlds of Learning. The Library and World Chronicle of the Nuremberg Physician Hartmann Schedel (1440–1514). Munich: Allitera, 2015. Wagner, David L. ed. The Seven Liberal Arts in the Middle Ages. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1983. Wagner, Wolfgang Eric. Universitätsstift und Kollegium in Prague, Wien und Heidelberg. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung spätmittelalterlicher Stiftungen im Spannungsfeld von Herrschaft und Genossenschaft. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1999. Walawender, Antoni. Kronika klęsk elementarnych w Polsce i w krajach sąsiednich w latach 1450–1586. Vol. 1: Zjawiska meteoroligiczne i pomory. Lwów: Skład główny, Kasa im. Mianowskiego, 1932. Walczak, Marek. “Działalność fundacyjna biskupa krakowskiego, kardynała Zbigniewa Oleśnickiego,” Folia Historiae Artium 28 (1992): 57–73.

754

Bibliography

Wallace, William A. “The Philosophical Setting of Medieval Science.” In David C. Lindberg, ed., Science in the Middle Ages, 91–119. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. Walsh, Katherine. “Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften im Spätmittelalter. Die Universität Krakau als Vorbild für Wien,” Innsbrucker Historische Studien 10/11 (1988): 28–37. ―――. “Ein Schlesier an der Universität Krakau im 15. Jahrhundert. Zu Biographie, wissenschaftlichen Interessen und Handschriftenbesitz des Laurentius von Ratibor,” Archiv für Schlesischen Kirchengeschichte 40 (1982): 191–206. ―――. “Die wissenschaftliche Umfeld des Laurentius von Ratibor: Astronom, Mathematiker, Theologe.” In Gerhardt Kosellek, ed., Die Anfänge des Schrifttums in Oberschlesiens bis zum Frühhumanismus, 59–84. Frankfurt am Main and New York: Peter Lang, 1997. Węcławowicz, Tomasz. “Średniowieczne kolegia uniwersyteckie i ich rekonstrukcje / Medieval university colleges and their reconstructions.” In Danuta Ambrożewicz and Grażyna Fallowa, eds., Kolegia uniwersyteckie średniowiecznej Europy / University Colleges of Medieval Europe, 31–45. Cracow: Muzeum Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2007 (Exhibition Catalogue, Jagiellonian University Museum). Węcowski, Piotr. Mazowsze w Koronie. Propaganda i legitymizacja władcy Kazimierza Jagiellońcczyka na Mazowszu. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2004. Weijers, Olga. In Search of the Truth. A History of Disputation Techniques from Antiquity to Early Modern Times. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013. ―――. La ‘disputatio’ dans les Facultés des arts au moyen âge. Turnhout: Brepols, 2002 (Studia Artistarum. Études sur la Faculté des arts dans les Universités médiévales 10). ―――. Terminologie des universités au XIIIe siècle. Rome: Ed. dell’Ateneo & Bizzan, 1987 (Lessico Intellettuale Europeo, 39). Weisheipl, James A. “Classification of the Sciences in Medieval Thought,” Mediaeval Studies 27 (1965): 54–90. ―――. “Curriculum of the Faculty of Arts at Oxford in the early Fourteenth Century,” Mediaeval Studies 26 (1964): 143–185. ―――. “Developments in the Arts Curriculum at Oxford in the Early Fourteenth Century,” Mediaeval Studies 28 (1966): 151–157. ―――. “The interpretation of Aristotle’s Physics and the science of motion.” In Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, 521–537. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. ―――. “The Nature, Scope, and Classification of the Sciences.” In David C. Lindberg, ed., Science in the Middle Ages, 461–482. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. ―――. “The Nature, Scope, and Classification of the Sciences,” Studia Mediewistyczne 18, no. 2 (1977): 85–101.

Bibliography

755

―――. “The Place of the Liberal Arts in the University Curriculum During the XIVth and XVth Centuries.” In J. Koch, ed., Arts libéraux et philosophie au moyen âge (Actes du quatrième congrès internationale de philosophie médiévale, 209–213. Montréal: Institut d’etudes médiévales and Paris: J. Vrin, 1989. Westman, Robert S., ed. The Copernican Achievement. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1975. ―――. The Copernican Question. Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order. Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA, and London: University of California Press, 2011. Widawski, Jarosław. Miejskie mury obronne w Państwie Polskim do początku XV wieku. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej, 1973. Wieland, George. “The Reception and Interpretation of Aristotle’s Ethics.” In Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, 657–672. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Wielgus, Stanisław. “Komentarz Macieja z Łzbiszyna do ośmiu początkowych rozdziałów z Ewangelii św. Jana (BJ 1273, BJ 1455),” Acta Mediaevalia 3 (1978): 71–107. ―――. The Medieval Polish Doctrine of the Law of Nations Ius Gentium. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1996. ―――. Polska średniowieczna doktryna Ius gentium. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1996. ―――. “Średniowieczna filozofia w Polsce. Encyklopedyczne opracowanie z wyczerpująją bibliografią.” In Wielgus, Z badań nad średniowieczem, 51–116. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1995. ―――. Średniowieczna łacińskojęzyczna biblistyka polska. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1992. ―――. “Uber die Arbeiten zur kritischen Ausgabe des Kommentars von Benedikt Hesse zur ‘Physic’ des Aristoteles,” Studia Mediewistyczne 20, no. 2 (1980): 3–27. ―――. Z badań nad średniowieczem. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1995. Wiesioławski, Jacek. Ambroży Pampowski—Starosta Jagiellów. Z dziejów awansu społecznego na przełomie średniowiecza i odrodzenia. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1976. ―――. Kolekcje historyczne w Polsce średniowiecznej XIV–XV wieku. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1967. ―――. “Kultura szlachecka.” In Bronisław Geremek, ed., Kultura Polski średniowiecznej XIV–XV w., 170–188. Warsaw: Semper, 1997. ―――. “Prace i projekty Pawła Włodkowica—Konstancja, zima 1415 i 1416 roku,” Roczniki Historyczne 35 (1969): 93–123. ―――. “Sędziwój z Czechła. Studium z dziejów kultury umysłowej Wielkopolski,” Studia Źródłoznawcze 9 (1964): 75–104. Williams, George Hunston. “Erasmianism in Poland,” The Polish Review 22, no. 3 (1977): 3–50.

756

Bibliography

Wilpert, Paul, ed. Beiträge zum Berufsbewußtsein des mittelalterlichen Menschen. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1964 (Miscellanea Mediaevalia, 3). Winiarski, Bohdan. “Vitoria i Włodkowic,” Sprawozdania z Czynności i Posiedzeń Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności 40 (1935): 341–345. Winniczuk, Lidia. Epistolografia. Łacińskie podręczniki epistolograficzne w Polsce w XV–XVI wieku. Warsaw: Ministerstwo Szkolnictwa Wyższego, 1952. ―――. “The Latin Manuals of Epistolography in Poland in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries.” In I.D. McFarlane, ed., Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Sanctandreani. Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies, 549–559. Binghamton, NY: Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 1986 (Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies 38). Wippel, John F. “Essence and Existence.” In Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, 385–410. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. ―――. “Quodlibetal Questions Chiefly in Theology Faculties.” In Bernardo C. Bazàn, Wippel, Gérard Fransen, and Danielle Jacquart, Les questions disputées et les questions quodlibétiques dans les facultés de théologie, de droit et de medicine, 151–122. Turnhout: Brepols, 1985 [Typologie des sources du moyen âge occidental 44–45). Wisłocki, Władysław. Incunabula typographica Bibliothecae Universitatis Jagellonicae Cracoviensis. Cracow: Typis sumptibus Universitatis Jagellonicae, 1900. Wiśniowski, Eugeniusz. “The Parochial School System in Poland Towards the Close of the Middle Ages,” Acta Poloniae Historica 27 (1973): 29–43. ―――. “Rozwój orgnizacji parafialnej w Polsce do czasów reformacji.” In Jerzy Kłoczowski, ed., Kościół w Polsce, vol. 1: Średniowiecze, 237–372. Cracow: Znak, 1968. ―――. “Sieć szkół parafialnych w Wielkopolsce i w Małopolsce w początkach XVI w.,” Roczniki Humanistyczne 15, no. 2 (1967): 87–101. Witkowska-Zaremba, Elżbieta. “Ars musica jako przedmiot nauczania w obrębie quadrivium. In Teresa Michałowska, ed., Septem artes w kształtowaniu kultury umysłowej w Polsce średniowiecznej, 75–85. Wrocław: Chronicon, 2007. Włoch, Violetta. “Obuwie Krakowskie w średniowiecznej Anglii,” Kronika Miasta Krakowa 1959–1960 ([Cracow], 1962): 67–78. Włodarek, Andrzej. Architektura średniowieccznych kolegiów i burs Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego. Cracow: Universitas, 2000. Włodek, Zofia. “L’art et la science dans les commentaries médiévaux cracoviens sur la Métaphysique d’Aristote.” In “Scientia” und “ars” im Hoch- und Spätmittelalter. Albert Zimmermann zum 60. Geburtstag, 257–265. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994. Reprinted in Włodek, Z dziejów filozofii i teologii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku. Sylwetki, teksty, studia, 373–381. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2011.

Bibliography

757

―――. “Eklezjologia krakowska w pierwszej połowie XV wieku.” In Adam Kubiś, ed., Jubileusz Sześćsetlecia Wydziału Teologicznego w Krakowie 20 X 1996– 20 X 1997, 247–282. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 1998 (Studia do dziejów Wydział Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 10). Reprinted in Włodek, Z dziejów filozofii i teologii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku. Sylwetki, teksty, studia, 383–418. Cracow: Societas Vistulana (Historia et Monumenta Universitatis Jagellonicae 2). ―――. “Filozofia a teologia. Wybór tekstów z krakowskich wykładów wstępnych do ‘Sentencji’ Piotra Lombarda z XV wieku,” Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 1 (12) (1970): 39–114. ―――. “Filozofia a teologia w ujęciu mistrzów krakowskich.” In Ryszard Palacz, ed., Filozofia Polska XV wieku, 58–93. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972. Reprinted in Włodek, Z dziejów filozofii i teologii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku. Sylwetki, teksty, studia, 253–288. Cracow: Societas Vistulana (Historia et Monumenta Universitatis Jagellonicae 2). ―――. Filozofia bytu. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1977 (Dzieje filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 3). ―――. “Koncepcja metafizyki w Krakowie w XV wieku.” In Piotr Skubiszewski, ed., Sztuka i ideologia XV wieku, 89–96. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1978. Reprinted in Włodek, Z dziejów filozofii i teologii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku. Sylwetki, teksty, studia, 299–306. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2011 (Historia et Monumenta Universitatis Jagellonicae 2). ―――. “Krakowska kwestia z XV wieku o interpretacji Pisma Św.,” Studia Mediewistyczne 30 (1993): 73–81. ―――. “Krakowski Komentarz z XV wieku do Sentencji Piotra Lombarda. Część pierwsza: Wstęp historyczny i edycja tekstu Księgi I i II,” Studia Mediewistyczne 7 (1966): 125–355. ―――. “Krakowski Komentarz z XV wieku do Sentencji Piotra Lombarda. W poszukiwaniu tendencji doktrynalnych na wydziale teologicznym Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XV wieku. Cz. 2: Tendencje doktrynalne komentarza,” Studia Mediewistyczne 9 (1968): 245–291. ―――. “Maciej z Sąspowa,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 3 (1964): 44–91. ―――. “Odnaleziona Satyra Falkenberga,” Studia Historyczne 14 (1971): 477–491. ―――. “Paul de Pyskowice († vers 1468). Témoin inconnu de la ‘Devotio moderna’ a l’Université de Cracovie.” In Włodek, Z dziejów filozofii i teologii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim. Sylwetki, teksty, studia, 289–298. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2011 (Historia et Monumenta Universitatis Jagellonicae 2).

758

Bibliography

―――. “Paweł z Pyskowic,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 5 (1965): 142–168. ―――. “Paweł z Pyskowic († ok. 1470).” In Stanisław Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 159–164. Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie, 2000. ―――. “Pawła z Pyskowic kwestia ‘Utrum Deus sit nominabilis’.” In Jan Safarewicz, et al., eds., Munera philologica et historica Mariano Plezia oblata, 205–215. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1988. Reprinted in Włodek, Z dziejów filozofii i teologii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku. Sylwetki, teksty, studia, 323–333. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2011 (Historia et Monumenta Universitatis Jagellonicae 2). ―――. “Pourquoi étudiait-on la philosophie à l’Université de Cracovie au Moyen Âge? Témoignage d’un maître de la première moitié du XVe siècle.” In Jan Aertsen and Andreas Speer, eds., Was ist Philosophie im Mittelalter? Qu’est-ce la philosophie au Moyen Âge? / What is Philosophy in the Middle Ages? Akten des X. Internationalen Kongresses für mittelalterliche Philosophie der Société Internationale pour l’Étude de la Philosophie Médiévale (S.I.E.P.M.), 330–337. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998. ―――. “La Satire de Jean Falkenberg. Texte inéedit avec introduction,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 18 (1973): 51–120. ―――. “Tendencje doktrynale na wydziale teologicznym Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XV wieku.” In Teresa Michałowska, ed., Literatura i kultura późnego średniowiecza w Polsce, 17–27. Warsaw: Instytut Badań Literackich PAN, 1993. ―――. “Wawrzyniec z Lindores—życie, dzieła i poglądy,” Studia Mediewistyczne 19, no. 2 (1978): 95–108. ―――. Z dziejów filozofii i teologii na Uniwersytecie Krakowskim w XV wieku. Sylwetki, teksty, studia. Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2011 (Historia et Monumenta Universitatis Jagellonicae 2). Włodek, Sophie [Zofia] ed. Société et Église. Textes et discussions dans les universités d’Europe centrale pendant le Moyen Âge Tardif. Turnhout: Brepols, 1995. Wojciechowski, Teofil, “Działalność soborowa (bazylejska) Tomasza Strzempińskiego,” Prace Historyczno-Archiwalne 11 (2002): 5–22. Wójcik, Kazimierz, “Jan Orient,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria A: Materiały do Historii Filozofii 5 (1965): 24–33. ―――. “Jan z Kluczborka,” Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 4 (15) (1971): 73–150. ―――. Jan z Kluczborka. Filozof i teolog Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1995. ―――. “Wykład wstępny Mikołaja Kozłowskiego do I Księgi ‘Sentencji’ Piotra Lombarda w rękopisie BJ 1525,” Materiały do Historii Filozofii średniowiecznej w Polsce 1 (12) (1970): 115–159.

Bibliography

759

Wójcik, Rafał. “The Art of Memory at Cracow Academy at the Turn of the Sixteenth Century,” Humanities in New Europe 2 (2007): 145–155. ―――. “The Staging of Memory: Ars memorativa and the Spectacle of Imagination in Late Medieval Preaching in Poland.” In Lucie Doležalová, ed., The Making of Memory in the Middle Ages, 79–94. Leiden and Boston” Brill, 2010 (Later Medieval Europe 4). Wójcik, Rafał and Wiesław Wydra. “Jakub Parkoszowic’s Polish Mnemonic Verse about Polish Orthography from the 15th Century.” In Wójcik, ed., Culture of Memory in East Central Europe in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period, 119–127. Poznań: Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, 2008. Wojtkowski, Józef. “Kult Matki Boskiej w polskim piśmiennictwie do końca XV w.,” Studia Warmiński 3 (1966): 221–299. ―――. “Początki kultu Matki Boskiej w Polsce w świetle najstarszych rękopisów,” Studia Warmiński 1 (1964): 215–257. ―――. “Przedmiot liturgicznego kultu Matki Boskiej w Polsce XIII w.,” Studia Warmiński 2 (1965): 205–259. ―――. Wiara w Niepokalane Poczęcie Najświętszej Maryi Panny w Polsce s świetle średniowiecznych zabytków liturgicznych. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowego Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1958. Wolińska, Teresa and Mirosław Leszka, eds. Średniowieczna wizja świata. Jedność czy różnorodność. Idee i teksty. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2009. Wolny, Jerzy. “Kaznodziestwo.” In Marian Rechowicz, ed. Dzieje Teologii katolickiej w Polsce, vol. 1: Średniowiecza, 272–308. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwerytetu Lubelskiego, 1974. ―――. “Łaciński zbiór kazań Peregryna z Opola i ich związek z tzw. ‘Kazaniami Gnieźnieńskimi’,” Średniowiecze. Studium o Kulturze 1 (1961): 171–238. ―――. “Z dziejów katechezy.” In Marian Rechowicz, ed. Dzieje Teologii katolickiej w Polsce, vol. 1: Średniowiecza, 149–209. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwerytetu Lubelskiego, 1974. Wolny, Jerzy and Roman Maria Zawadzki. “Królowa Jadwiga w tradycji kaznodziejskiej XV wieku,” Analecta Cracoviensis 7 (1975): 15–90. Woods, Marjorie C. “A Medieval Rhetoric Goes to School—and to the University; The Commentaries on the Poetria nova,” Rhetorica 9 (1991): 55–65. Woś, Jan W. “Un débat ouvert: Paulus Wladimiri et Francisco de Vitoria,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 20 (1975): 85–88. ―――. “Paulus Wladimiri aus Brudzen—Vorläufer oder Fortsetzer,” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 25 (1976): 438–461. Wriedt, Klaus. Schule und Universität. Bildungsverhältnisse in norddeutschen Städten des Spätmittelalters, Gesammelte Aufsätze. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005 (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, 23).

760

Bibliography

―――. “Schule und Universitätsbesuch in norddeutschen Städten des Spätmittelalters.” In Harald Dickerhof, ed, Bildungs- und schulgeschichtliche Studien zu Spätmittelalter, Reformation und konfessionellem Zeitalter, 75–90. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1994 (Wissensliteratur im Mittelalter 19). (Reprinted in Wriedt, Schule und Universität. Bildungsverhältnisse in norddeutschen Städten des Spätmittelalters. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005 [Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 23], 27–44). ―――. “Studienförderung und Studienstiftungen in norddeutschen Städten (14.–16. Jahrhundert).” In Heinz Duchhardt, ed., Stadt und Universität, 33–49. Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 1993. Wünsch, Thomas. “Between conciliar thought and mystical theology. The development of ideas for church reform by James of Paradyż (1380/1–1464/5).” In Piotr Górecki and Nancy van Deusen, eds., Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages. A Cultural History. Essays in Honour of Paul w. Knoll, 161–175. London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2009. ―――. Konziliarismus und Polen. Personen, Politik und Programme aus Polen zur Verfassungsfrage der Kirche in der Zeit der mittelalterlichen Reformkonzilien. Paderborn, Munich, Vienna, and Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1998. ―――. “ ‘Ne pestifera doctrina corrumpat gregem dominicum.’ Zur Konfrontation zwischen Wycliffismus und Konziliarismus im Umkreis der Universität Krakau in der ersten Hälfte des 15. Jahrhunderts,” Zeitschrift fur Ostmitteleuropa Forschung 44, no. 1 (1995): 5–26. ―――. “Das Reformprogramm des Krakauer Bischofs Petrus Wysz 1392–1412, Mit Neuedition der 22-Punkte-Liste ‘De Reformatione Ecclesie’.” In Winfried Eberhard and Franz Machilek, eds., Kirchliche Reformimpulse des 14/15. Jahrhunderts in Ostmitteleuropa, 157–178. Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 2006. Wünsch, Thomas and Andrzej Janeczek, eds. On the Frontier of Latin Europe. Integration and Segregation in Red Ruthenia, 1350–1600. Warsaw: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, 2004. Wróbel, Dariusz. “Zbigniew Oleśnicki a kwestia pruska i krzyżacka.” In Feliks Kiryk and Zdzisław Noga, eds. Zbigniew Oleśnicki Książę kościoła i mąż stanu, 85–101. Cracow: Secesja, 2006. Wyczański, Andrzej. “Struktura społeczne Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XVI w.” In Jerzy Dowiat, ed., Polska w świecie. Szkice z dziejów kultury polskiej, 227–240. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1972. Wyrozumska, Bożena, ed. Żydzi w średniowiecznym Krakowie. Wypisy źródłowe z ksiąg miejskich krakowskich / Jews in Medieval Cracow. Source Excerpts from the Cracow Town Books. Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1996. Wyrozumski, Jerzy. “Handel Krakowa za wschodem w średniowieczu,” Rocznik Krakowski 50 (1980): 57–64.

Bibliography

761

―――. “L’idée de tolerance à l’Université de Cracovie dans la première moitié du X[V]e siècle.” In Sophie Włodek, ed., Société et Église. Textes et discussions dans les universités d’Europe centrale pendant le Moyen Âge Tardif, 133–143. Turnhout: Brepols, 1995. ―――. Kraków do schyłku wieków średnich. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1992 (Dzieje Krakowa. Janina Bieniarzowa and Jan Małecki, eds. vol.1). ―――. “Kraków w chrześcijańskiej Europie X–XIII w. / Kraków in Christian Europe, 10th–13th c..” In Elżbieta Maria Firlet, ed., Kraków w chrześcijańskiej Europie X–XIII w. / Krakow in Christian Europe, 10th-13th c., 36–77. Cracow: Muzeum Historyczne Miasta Krakowa, 2006. ―――. Z najstarszych dziejów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego. Szkice. Cracow: Universitas, 1996. Wyrwa, Andrzej Marek and Józef Dobosz, eds. Cystersi w społeczeństwie Europy Środkowej. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2000. Zachorowski, Stanisław. Studya z historyi prawa kościelnego i polskiego. Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1917. Zahajkiewicz, Marek Tomasz. “Liturgia mszy świetle ‘Tractatus sacerdotalis de sacramentis’ Mikołaja z Błonia.” In Marian Rechowicz and Wacław Schenk, eds., Studia z dziejów liturgii w Polsce, 33–91. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Lubelskiego, 1973. ―――. “Polskie traktaty teologiczno-duszpasterskie okresu przedtrydenckiego,” Archiwa Biblioteki i Muzea Kościelne 21 (1970): 199–210. ―――. Teoria duszpasterstwa.” In Marian Rechowicz, ed., Dzieje Teologii katolickiej w Polsce, vol. 1: Średniowiecza, 211–248. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwerytetu Lubelskiego, 1974. Zaitz, Emil. “Osadnictwo wczesnośredniowieczne na terenie Krakowa / Settlement colonization on the area of Krakow in the early Middle Ages.” In Elżbieta Maria Firlet, ed., Kraków w chrześcijańskiej Europie X–XIII w. / Krakow in Christian Europe, 10th–13th c., 220–272. Cracow: Muzeum Historyczne Miasta Krakowa, 2006. Żaki, Andrzej. “Kraków wiślański, czeski i wczesnopiastowski.” In Jan Marian Małecki, ed., Chrystianizacja Polski południowej, 41–71. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1994. Zarębski, Ignacy. “Kodeks BJ 413: Giovanni Boccaccio, Genealogia Deorum a Gontier Col, Humanista francuski wczesnego odrodzenia,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 15, nos. 1–2 (1963): 39–48. ―――. “Z dziejów recepcji humanizmu w Polsce. Pierwszy w literaturze polskiej traktat pedagogiczny.” In Henryk Barycz and Jan Hulewicz, eds., Studia z dziejów kultury polskiej. Książka zbiorowa, 147–171. Warsaw: Gebethner and Wolff, 1949. ―――. “Nieznany komentarz do ‘Bukolik’ Wergiliusza w rękopisie BJ 1198 (Spory o wczesny humanizm w Polsce ciąg dalszy),” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 19 (1969): 5–24.

762

Bibliography

―――. “Okres wczesnego humanizmu.” In Kazimierz Lepszy, ed. Dzieje Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w latach 1364–1764, vol. 1, 151–187. Cracow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński Wydawnictwo Jubileuszowe, 1964. ―――. “Pierwsze [Najwcześniejszy] humanistyczny polski traktak pedagogiczny (około 1467).” In Wincenty Danek, Władysław Szyszkowski, et al., eds. Dziesięciolecie Wyższej Szkoły Pedagogicznej w Krakowie, 1946–1956. Zbiór rozpraw i artykułów, 151– 178. Cracow: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1957. ―――. “Problemy wczesnego odrodzenia w Polsce: Grzegorz z Sanoka, Boccaccio, Długosz,” Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce 2 (1957): 5–52. ―――. Rola języka polskiego w nauczaniu szkolnym w Polsce XVI wieku. Wroclaw: Ossolineum, 1955. ―――. “Stosunki Eneasza Sylwiusza z Polską i Polakami,” Rozprawy Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności: wydział Historyczno-filozoficzny, Series 2 45 (1939): 281–437. ―――. “Zur Bedeutung des Aufenthaltes von Krakauer Universitätsprofessoren auf dem Basler Konzil für die Geistesgeschichte Polens,” Vierteljahresschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaft und Technik, 5: Sonderheft 2 (1960): 7–23. Zaremska, Hanna. “Jan Długosz o tumulcie krakowskim w 1407 roku.” In Cezary Kuklo, ed. Między polityką a kulturą, 155–167. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1999. ―――. “Jewish Street (Platea Judeorum) in Cracow: the 14th—the First Half of the 15th c.,” Acta Poloniae Historica 83 (2001): 27–57. ―――. “Le Juif au tribunal: Cracovie XVème siècle.” In Balázs Nagy and Marcell Sebők, eds., The Man of Many Devices, who Wandered Full Many Ways. Festschrift in Honor of János M. Bak, 105–116. Budapest: Central European University Press, 1999. ―――. “Ulica Żydowska w Krakowie: XIV—piersza połowa XV wieku,” Kwartalnik Historii Kultury Materialnej 47 (1999): 113–130. ―――. Żydzi w średniowiecznej Polsce. Gmina Krakowska. Warsaw: Instytut Historii PAN, 2011. Zathey, Jerzy. “Biblioteka Jagiellońska w latach 1364–1492.” In Zathey, Anna LewickaKamińska, and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, Historia Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej, vol. 1: 1364–1775. Ignacy Zarębski, ed., 3–130. Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1966. ―――. “ ‘Colligite fragmenta ne pereant.’ Contribution aux recherches sur l’histoire de l’enseignement à l’Université de Cracovie au XVe s.,” Medievalia Philosophica Polonorum 10 (1961): 96–102. ―――. “Marcin Bylica z Olkusza, profesor Akademie Istropolitanych.” In Ludovit Holotik and Anton Vantuch, eds., Humanizmus a Renesancia na Slovensku v 15–16 storočí, 40–54. Bratislava: Vydavatelstvo Slovenskej Akadémie vied, 1967. Zathey, Jerzy, Anna Lewicka-Kamińska, and Leszek Hajdukiewicz. Historia Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej, vol. 1: 1364–1775. Ignacy Zarębski, ed. Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1966.

Bibliography

763

Zathey, Jerzy and Jerzy Reichan, eds. Indeks studentów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w latach 1400–1500. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1974. Zawadzki, Roman Maria. “Dojść do mądrości Ojca.’ Stanisław ze Skarbimierza jako kaznodzieja krakowski.” In Kazimierz Panuś, ed., Wielcy kaznodzieje Krakowa. Studia in honorem prof. Edwardii Stanek, 27–37. Cracow: Unum PTT, 2006. ―――. “Jagiellońskie rękopisów Jana z Kęt w zbiorach watykańskich,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 26, no. 1/2 1976): 23–35. ―――. “Jan ze Słupczy (1408–1488).” In Stanisław Piech, ed. Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 195–199. Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie, 2000. ―――. “Maciej z Łabiszyna (1400–1453).” In Stanisław Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 173–177. Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie, 2000. ―――. Spuścizna pisarska Stanisława ze Skarbimierza. Studium źródłoznawcze. Cracow: Polskie Towarzystwo Teologiczne, 1979. ―――. Spuścizna rękopiśmiena świętego Jana Kantego. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej w Krakowie, 1995 (Studia do dziejów Wydziału teologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 3). Zawodzińska, Celina. “Kolegium królowej Jadwigi przy Uniwersytecie Karola w Pradze i jego pierwszy statut,” Pracy Historyczne 9 (1962): 19–36. ―――. “Pisma Stanisława za Skarbimierza, pierwszego rektora UJ w kodeksach Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej,” Roczniki Biblioteczne 4, nos. 3–4 (1960): 299–327 and 635– 636 (summary). Zdanek, Maciej. Szkoły i studia dominikanów krakowskich w średniowieczu. Cracow: Neriton, 2005. ―――. “Tractatus contra sacra concilia Jana Biskupca. Nowe źródło do dziejów eklezjologii polskiej XV wieku,” Roczniki Historyczne 72 (2006): 105–114. Żegarski, Teofil. Polen und das Basler Konzil. Poznań: Praca, 1910. Zilynská, Blanka, ed. Universitäten, Landesherren und Landeskirchen: das Kuttenberger Dekret von 1409 im Kontext der Epoche; von der Gründung der Karlsuniversität bis zum Augsburger Religionsfrieden 1555. Prague: Universita Karlova, 2010. Zimmermann, Albert, ed. Antiqui und Moderni. Traditionsbewusstsein und Fortschrittsbewusstsein im späten Mittelalter. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1974. Zinner, Ernst. Leben und Wirken des Johannes Müller von Königsberg genannt Regiomontanus. 2nd ed. Osnabrück: O. Zeller, 1968 (original edition, Munich: Beck, 1938). ―――. Regiomontanus. His Life and Work. Amsterdam and New York: North Holland Publishing Co., 1990. Zins, Henryk. “A British Humanist and the University of Kraków at the Beginning of the Sixteenth Century: A Chapter in Anglo-Polish Relations in the Age of the Renaissance,” Renaissance Studies 8 (1994): 13–39.

764

Bibliography

―――. “Leonard Coxe i erazmiańskie koła w Polsce i Anglii,” Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce 17 (1972): 27–60. Żurkowska, Renata. “Kraków wczesnośredniowieczny (wiek X do połowy XIII).” In Jan Dąbrowski, ed. Kraków. Studia nad rozwojem miasta, 85–116. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1957. Zwiercan, Marian. “Jan z Dąbrówki (ok. 1400–1472).” In Stanisław Piech, ed., Złota księga Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 179–185. Cracow: Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie, 2000. ―――. “Jan z Głogowa,” Prace historyczne 42: Copernicana Cracoviensia 3 (1973): 103–118. ―――. Komentarz Jana z Dąbrówki do Kroniki Mistrza Wincentego zwanego Kadłubkiem. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1969. ―――. “Materiały do wykładów Arystotelesowskich Piotra Aurifabera na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim na przełomie XV/XVI wieku,” Biuletyn Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej 12, no. 2 (1960): 21–23. ―――. “Model władcy w komentarzu Jana z Dąbrówki do Kroniki bł. Wincentego zwanego Kadłubkiem w wykładzie uniwersyteckim w latach Jana Długosza,” Analecta Cracoviensia 16 (1984): 233–246. ―――. “Les ‘Quaestiones in Physicam Aristotelis’ de Jean de Głogów enfin retrouvées!,” Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 11 (1963): 86–92. ―――. “Zainteresowania historyczne społeczności Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w XV wieku.” In Teresa Michałowska, ed., Literatura i kultura późnego średniowiecza w Polsce, 41–56. Warsaw: Instytut Badań Literackich PAN, 1993.

Index (The Index does not include names or terms in Tables from Chapter Four or Appendices A, B, and C.) academic career of students 186–215 Adalbert (Wojciech) of Brudzewo as member of Cracow Sodality 580 background, career, astronomical teaching and activity 395–399 book collection 628 Commentariolum super Theoricas novas planetarum Georgii Purbachii  397–398, 676 courses taught while Copernicus at university 676 loses books in 1492 fire 605 Adalbert of Opatów, physician background, career, astronomical activities 384 Adam of Łowicz lectures on Ovid 577 Adam of Vilnius lectures on Horace 577 Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini (later Pope Pius II) correspondence with Zbigniew Oleśnicki 551–552 De Europa 42 praises Cracow and its learning 42, 574 records anecdote about Dziersław of Borzymów 258 Albert Caprinus of Bukowo writes Bishop of Płock about Copernicus 675 Albertist tradition at Cracow 290, 316, 334, 337–338, 343–344, 360n52, 362n59, 363, 402, 629 Alexander, Duke of Mazovia rectoral election 89 matriculation at Cracow, career 173 Alexander of Villa Dei Doctrinale 293 Alphonsine Tables at Cracow 136, 373, 375, 378–380, 390, 620, 627

Ambroży Pampowski, starosta (palatinus) background, career, outlook from university experience 280–281 model for collective prosopography  281n194, 642 Andrew Cricius (Krzycki), poet praises John Sacranus of Oświęcim  583 Andrew Gałka of Dobczyn as follower of Wycliffe 536–9 opinion of Andrew of Kokorzyn 349 Andrew Grzymała of Poznań, physician astronomical activity 386 book collection 411, 622–623 humanistic interests 571–572 medical career 405 studies in Cracow and Italy, role as rector 113 Andrew Łaskarz, Bishop of Poznań at Council of Constance 235 background, career 236 presents Polish cause to Emperor Sigismund 333 Andrew of Buk background, career, astronomical work 380 Andrew of Kokorzyn background, career, commentary on Physics 349–350 book collection 611 contribution to Casus pulchri 532 contribution to pastoral care 530 debates Hussites at Wawel 254 lectures on Sentences 488 Principium lecture 107 view by Andrew Gałka of 538 Andrew of Łabiszyn background, career, book collection 627–628 Andrew Ruczel of Kościan background, career, commentary on De anima 342

766 Andrew Rudowski benefactor of university 46 Andrew Swirski, Lithuanian prince matriculation 173 Andrew Wężyk (Serpens) background, career, commentary on Physics 347–348 Arnolf of Mirzyniec book collection 624 brevity of study to doctoral degree in law 109–110 ars dictaminis at Cracow 309 Arts Faculty Seal 95, 97 Bardejov, Upper Hungary (Slovakia) number of students from 161 Bartholomew of Jasło book collection 607–608 contribution to pastoral care 530 contribution to religious education 529 copy of Priscianus minor 293 prepares university statutes 80 source for knowledge of 1390s revival  22–25 teaching at Cracow, writings 494 translatio studii 39 Basle, Council of 254–267 Representatives advise university to recognize Nicholas V as pope 266 seeks support of University of Cracow 260 Bědřich of Stražnica Hussite, debates in Cracow 254 Bellum iustum Stanisław of Skarbimierz’s views on  421–425 Benedict Hesse of Cracow 9 as reflective of Devotio moderna 536 as vice-chancellor 86 background, career 512–3 book collection 614–615 biblical studies seen as high point of Cracovian contribution 508 commentary on De anima 340–342 commentary on De meteora 366 commentary on Matthew 497–503 conciliar views in 498–500 issue of heresy 500–501

Index issue of tithes 501–502 marriage 503 nature of the church 500 passion of Christ 503 social issues 501–502 sources 497 use of quaestiones 498 conciliar treatise (Tractatus brevior) 263, 512–514 distinction between church as corpus politicum and mysticum  514 support of Council of Basle, Felix V, and conciliar superiority 513–514 discusses criteria for truth 353–4 lectures on Sentences using Utrum Deus Gloriosus 485 departs from approach of Utrum Deus Gloriosus 489 Quaestiones super primum librum De interpretatione Aristotelis 315 Quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis 350–355 teaching at Cracow, writings 495–503 translatio studii 39 triplex division of philosophy 289–291 Benedictine Order matriculations at Cracow 180 Bernard Crotinphul of Nysa background, education, career 213 Bernard Hesse of Cracow member of Medicine Faculty 406 refuses to live in Collegium Medicum 113 Błażej of Kazimierz book collection 625–626 Bochnia salt mine there bought for university 25, 135 salt mines 51 Bodzanta, Bishop of Cracow 17, 19 Bologna, university 1 theology faculty of 106 Boniface IX, pope authorizes theology faculty at Cracow 28 requires Polish Cistercians to study only at Cracow 179 books and libraries in medieval universities, generally  595–596

Index Brassó, Transylvania number of students from 161 Brno, Moravia number of students from 164 Brzeg, Silesia number of students from 162 Buda, Hungary number of students from 161 Buridanism; see John Buridan and Buridanist tradtion at Cracow Buridanist tradition at Cracow 213, 334, 342, 351, 356, 363, 365, 381, 616 Callimachus, Italian humanist 312 as biographer of Gregory of Sanok 505 as member of Cracow Sodality 580 background, career, contributions 574–575 conversations at home of John Heydecke (Mirica) 581 diplomatic activity 575 Ode by Celtis dedicated to him 579 relations with University of Cracow 575 writings 575 Cambridge, university theology faculty of 105 canon law view of, by Stanisław of Skarbimierz 416 Cantilena vulgaris written by Andrew Gałka of Dobczyn  538 Carmelite Order matriculations at Cracow 182 Casimir III the Great, King of Poland 8 foundation of University of Cracow 5, 10–12, 15 general intent in foundation 18 intent for legal studies 415 intent for medical studies 404 provisions for students to borrow from Jews 49 Casimir IV Jagiellonian, Grand Duke of Lithuania 1440–92, King of Poland 1447–92 relies on university for counsel about Mazovia 268 succeeds brother as King of Poland, declares Poland’s obedience to Rome 264–265

767 Casus pulchri as part of penitential system, Cracovian contributions to 532 Catherine Mężykowa association with university 183; see also Mężykowa Chair in Arts Faculty Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Bohemia 4 founds university in Prague 11 gift of books to University of Prague 596 impact upon city of Prague 639 Cieszyn, Silesia number of students from 162 Cistercian Order General Chapter requires Polish Cistercians to study only at Cracow 179 matriculations at Cracow 178–180 Clement of Myslenice book collection 633n113 clergy in Poland attitude toward university 130 Cologne, university advises University of Cracow to recognize Nicholas V as pope 286 Conrad Celtis, German humanist and poet visit to Cracow 578–581 affair with Hasilina 580–581 dedication of Odes to Cracovians 578 influences Laurence Rabe Corvinus and John Rhagius Aesticampianus  579 lectures at Cracow 579 organizes Sodalitas litteraria Vistulana 580 seeks faculty appointment 578 travels in Poland 578 views of John Sommerfeld Aesticampianus’ work 311 writings 578 Constance, Council of  234–244 Polish aims at 235 Polish representatives at, contacts with humanism 545–547 Copernicus 43, 400 and university of Cracow 674–679 effect of humanistic natural sciences upon him 592, 592n165

768 Copernicus (cont.) intellectual climate at university during his Cracow attendance 677 knowledge of Adalbert of Brudzewo’s work 676 possible student of Nicholas Wodka (Abstemius) of Kwidzyn 392 writes Commentariolus 677 Corpus iuris canonici basis for instruction in canon law 417 Cracovian astronomy status and reputation at end of fifteenth century 399 Cracow, cathedral canonries there, granted to university  132 Cracow, city 8, 42 as capital 54–57 charter of support from, for Casimiran university foundation 16 churches and hospitals All Saints 59 Franciscan 62 Holy Cross 60 Holy Trinity 59 Hospital of the Brothers of the Holy Spirit 60 St. Anne 61, 138–139 St. Florian 64, 131, 145 St. George 63 St. Giles 60 St. Mark 60 St. Mary 58 St. Mary the Egyptian 63 St. Mary Magdalene 59, 132–133 St. Michael 63 St. Nicholas 64 St. Stephen 60 St. Wojciech 58, 132 early history, to 1400 44 economy and commerce 50–54 cloth trade 50 industrial production, metals 51 manufacture of paper 52 prices in 52–53 salt trade 51 epidemics 62 fires 63 governance 45–46

Index graduates from university from, number  197 guilds 51–52 Jewish areas (platea Judeorum, Judengasse) 49, 61 Kleparz (Florentia), Cracow suburb 62 number of students from 166 paper manufacture 52 population of 62 relationship to university 43–64, 64–78 salaries of notaries in 53 structure of society clergy 48 Jews 49, 126 poor, unskilled 48 patricians 46–47 urban organization 57–64 central square (rynek) 58 Grodzki (castle) quarter 59–60 Rzeźnicy (butchers) quarter 60 Sławkowska (famous) quarter 60–61 walls and fortifications 58–59 water courses around 57 Wawel, royal residence 55, 63 Wesoła, Cracow suburb 64 Cracow, university academic career path at 216 academic preachers at 223 approves condemnation of Hus and Jerome of Prague 250 Arts Faculty 100–105 basic function 287 curriculum and structure: trivium, quadrivium, three philosophies  287 curriculum, character of in course of fifteenth century 104–105 curriculum for bachelor’s degree  102–103 curriculum for master’s degree  103–104 curriculum: philosophy, divisions and classifications of 288–291 curriculum: quadrivium, astronomy  320 writings by masters in 373–401 curriculum: quadrivium, geometry  320 writings by masters in  368–373

Index curriculum: quadrivium, mathematics  320 writings by masters in 368–373 curriculum: quadrivium, music  320–321 curriculum: three philosophies metaphysics, writings by masters on 332–339 moral philosophy, writings by masters on 321–332 Economics 331–332 Ethics 322–325 Politics 325–331 natural philosophy 339–402 De anima commentaries  339–345 exact sciences in general 339 Physics 346–363 Libri naturales 363–368 trivium: grammar modist or speculative 292 overview of contribution by Cracow masters 300 texts required 293 practical grammar 292 writings by Cracovian masters on 292–300 trivium: dialectic or logic, importance of in statutes 314 writings by Cracovian masters on 300–313 trivium: rhetoric, writings by Cracovian masters on  300–313 Dean of Faculty, power and responsibilities 100–101; see also seal of Arts Faculty instructional forms, disputations  190–191 number of masters in faculty 101–102 as a late medieval university 639–642 as early center of humanistic interests and activity 591, 591n164 as Pearl (margarita) of Powerful Learning 4, 5, 5n11, 10, 15, 34, 64, 130, 220, 286, 590 as site of school of thought on international relations and natural law 461–462

769 astrology and learned magic, faculty interests in 636, 636n119 attempts at revival in 1390s 23–25 benefaction and benefactors All Saints church altar 141 All Souls altar in cathedral; outcome  138 canons at St. Florian’s church 145 Catherine Mężykowa 139; see also Mężykowa chair Cracow judge in 1425 Dersław and John of Rytwian 147 from Gniezno Cathedral chapter 1427 140 James of Piotrków 142 James of Szadek 145–146 James Zaborowski 141 John Albert, Polish king 145 John Isner 137 John Stobner 117; see also Stobner Chair Martin Król of Żórawica 143 Matthew of Kobylin 146 Nicholas of Brzeźnica 142 Nicholas of Bytom 145 Nicholas of Kurozwęki 147 Nicholas of Staw 145 Nicholas Wolny 145 Peter Wysz, Bishop of Cracow 132 Small gifts 146 Stanisław of Kobylin 144 St. Anne’s church 138–139 St. Florian’s church, Kleparz 131 St. Mary Magdalene, rectorship gifted 1401, obtained 1419 132–133 Szafraniec family 135–137 Tęczyński family 134 Thomas Lelów, called Nowko; see also Nowko Chair 136 Thomas Strzempiński 144 widow of royal marshal, 1415; outcome 138 Władysław Jagiełło, Polish king 131–132 Zbigniew Oleśnicki; see also Jerusalem bursa 143–144 book collections by individual masters; see also individuals 605–634 book collections by individual masters, fourth group 631–634

770 Cracow, university (cont.) book collections by individual masters, first group 606–613 book collections by individual masters, humanistic interests reflected in  635 book collections by individual masters, philosophical and theological interests and orientation reflected in 634–635 book collections by individual masters, second group 613–623 book collections by individual masters, third group 623–631 Casimiran foundation, 1364 4, 11–22 character of foundation 17–18 identity of chancellor 16 model for 15 status of, after 1370 19–21 support for 15 colleges and bursa; see also Collegium maius and Collegium minus 114–130 Bursa canonistarium (John Długosz bursa) 126–127 Bursa divitum 118, 127 Bursa Hungarorum  128–129 Bursa medicum  127 Bursa pauperum 122 Bursa philosophorum 122 Bursa pisarum (Grochowa hostel) 59, 126 Collegium Iuridicum  59, 120–121 Collegium medicorum 121 German hostel 129 Jerusalem bursa 123–126 fire and restoration 124 organization of and life in 124–126 Collegium maius 64–78 architectural character of, possible humanistic elements 72–74 as home for Royal or Artists College and Theologians College 35 aula (theologians’ lecture room) 74 enlargement of 1417 66 enlargement of 1439 66–67 enlargement of 1469 67 enlargement of 1496 67 enlargement of 1511 67 fire in 1492 70 floor plan 75

Index food and meals in 115 gifts and treasures after fire of 1492  70–71 Libraria, by 1520; see also Library 74 life in 114–117 living quarters in 116 number of residents 117 officers in  115 original home, form 65 place reserved at table for pauper  116 reconstruction in 1490 71–72 remodeling before fire of 1492 56, 70, 605, 628 remodeling in 1460s 69 remodeling of 1440 68 semi-monastic character of life in 116 stages of building 64–78 statutes of 1429 115 status at end of fifteenth century 72 Collegium minus 117–120 building 118 curriculum reforms for 568–571 establishment of, 1449 68, 117 number of masters in 117 organization of and life in 119 economic and material frame 131–148 endowment and annual income 147–148 investments 142–143 matriculation fees, amount and distribution of 187–188 sources of income 147 endowed chairs, responsibilities of 216; see also Mężykowa, Nowko, and Stobner chairs enrollment patterns and graduation rates 151–182, 195–201; see also Tables 4.1–4.7, Appendix C effect of enrollment at other universities upon 154 effect of plague upon 153, 155 frequency of degrees, reasons for low numbers 199–200 geographic distribution, from within and outside kingdom 157–165 length of time to degree 195–196 matriculants from Bohemia and Moravia 164–165

Index matriculants from Hungary 159–162 matriculants from Prussia 162–163 matriculants from Silesia 162 number of students, total; by decade  151–152, 198–199 overall patterns 151–157 promotion rates, variance between regions and cities 197–198 formal records Acta rectoralia 89 Collegia and bursa statutes 81 Conclusiones (minutes of professors’ meetings) 81 Liber diligentiarum 81 Liber promotionum (Arts Faculty)  80 Matricula 80, 149 statutes of Arts Faculty 80 statutes of Medical Faculty 80 statutes of Theology Faculty 80 university statutes 80 history of, in sixteenth and seventeenth century 637–639 impact of, upon larger society contribution to development of Polish language 274–277 impact upon pre-university schools in Poland 277–279 influence upon administration of lay and ecclesiastical courts and chanceries 279–282 justifies self to Polish society 221–227 masters engage with needs of church in Poland 223 role in developing national consciousness 211, 221–227, 282–285 involvement with Council of Basle 254–267 debates allegiance to Council and Pope Felix V 262–263 receives delegation from council  261 recognizes Nicholas V as pope without renouncing conciliar theory 267 seeks advice from other universities 265–267 sends conciliar treatise to council, reception there 263

771 Jagiellonian foundation, 1400 10–11, 32–38 opening ceremonies 33–38 privileges granted in 1400, model for them 34 Law Faculty 109–111, 415–463; see also Stanisław of Skarbimierz and Paul Vladimiri curriculum and degrees 109 discussions over bellum iustum 229 length of study 109 limited to canon law 109 organization of study 110 popularity of study and opportunity for employment 111 probable lack of writings on canon law directly by professors 419 status in university in relation to theology 415 statutes 80 treatise Revocatur in dubium 425–428 authorship, date of composition  427–428 issues treated in 426 weakness of or absence of civil law 420 writings and sermons of Stanisław of Skarbimierz 420–425 writings of Paul Vladimiri 429–445 Library; see also Collegium maius, Libraria book curators, functions and responsibilities of 599 books, number of 603 books obtained from bequests 603–604 books obtained from purchases 604–605 cataloguers or librarians 598–601 completion of 605 early cataloguing system 598 early storage of books 597–598 formation of 597–605 in Bursa canonistarum 603 in Bursa pauperum 603 in Collegium Iuridicum 602 in Collegium maius 601 in Collegium minus 602 in Jerusalem hostel 603 location of, in early period 601

772 Cracow, university (cont.) losses due to fires 605 process of obtaining books 597 size of, at end of fifteenth century 604 statute establishing book curators  599 locations in city 61 Medical Faculty 111–114, 403–415; see also John de Saccis of Pavia and Matthew of Miechów absence of dean in 1422, and later 112 character and general weakness of in fifteenth century 414–415 Collegium medicum 113 curriculum 112 lists of appointed and incorporated professors 405 statutes 80 Mężykowa Chair 117, 139–140, 301, 310, 337, 569, 585 Matriculation Cistercians 178–180 compared with other universities 168 noble students 173 oath at, contains condemnation of Hus  250–251 occupation of students’ fathers 171 peasants 174–175 Regulars and mendicants 177–182 rural origins of students 166 rural students 172–175 secular clergy 166–167 social origins 166–176 urban character of 166 Nowko chair 117, 137, 200, 283–284, 301–302, 567–568, 570 Officers of, chancellor 81–86 relation between university and chancellor 85 conservatores 99 rector 87–99 court of 99 election of 88–89 re-election to office of rector 89 responsibilities 95–99 royal chancellor as rector for Władysław Jagiełło 35 symbols of authority for 90–95

Index vice-chancellor 86–87 vice-rector or pro-rector 99 pauperes at 185–186 professoriate garb 50 income and salaries 15, 53–54 misconduct 219 negligence in responsibilities 217 problems, personal 218 resistance to dress codes 217 view of themselves and university as ideal society or state 331, 465 professors noble background 215 peasant background 215 Silesian origin 213–215 social composition 215 relations of, with monarchy decline in faculty participation in royal policy, reasons 273–274 general relations with Jagiellonian family 56 professors prepare consilium on Vytautas coronation issues 247–248 supports Casimir IV Jagiellonian during Thirteen Years War  271–273 supports monarchy in claims to Mazovia 268 supports Polish delegates and policy at Council of Constance 238 supports Polish policy after Battle of Grunwald 233 supports royal candidate for bishop 268 supports royal policy on Lithuanian issues 244–248 Royal College (Collegium Vladislai Regis); see Collegium maius scepters 90–95 seals and arms 95–98; see also scepters social history of 641–642 St. Anne’s collegiate church as university church 138–139 Stobner Chair 117, 136, 143, 145, 147, 261, 368, 371, 373, 376–377, 379, 380, 382, 386, 399, 571 student life ability to borrow from Jews 49

Index Beanus status 190, 190n110 bursa antagonisms 206–207 clothing 204–205 course tuition costs (pastus) 192–193 daily schedule, holidays 201–211 discipline problems 208 dissatisfied with academic program 210 enrollment, process 150 group identity among students 211 housing policy for students 129 in rectoral court 204–209 national antagonisms 208 over-all expenses 193–194 possible dissent over curriculum in 1440s 566 regional antagonisms 207 town-gown issues 205 Theology Faculty; see also individual professors 105–109 bachelors authorized to lecture prior to 1503, number 491 biblical studies 491–508 Lectio, quaestio approach to biblical commentaries 493 church reform and conciliarism 508–527 conciliar treatises compared and analyzed 526–527 contributions to pastoral care by professors 530–533 contributions to popular piety 527–528 contributions to preaching and the New Devotion 533–536 contributions to religious education in Poland 529–530 curriculum 106 degrees Baccalaureus cursor biblicus 106 Bachelor of Theology ( formatus)  107 Licentiate 107 Master and doctor 107 Sententiarius 107 Doctors authorized to lecture prior to 1517, number 491–492 early professors, Prague educated  484

773 establishment of Theology Faculty, 1397 28 general absence of quodlibetical disputations 470 general characteristics of Cracovian school 483 general trends of theological thought 534–536 masters’ views on human reason and divine revelation 469 Principium lecture 107 promotion ceremonies 108 Sentence commentaries in addition to Utrum Deus Gloriosus 483–491 Sentence commentaries: lectura communis Cracoviensis 472 Sentence commentaries and lectures 470–491 Sentence commentaries: Utrum Deus Gloriosus 472–483 statutes for Faculty 80 structure of Faculty 106 view of masters about practical, non speculative character of theology 469 Translatio studii 38–41 utilitarian, practical, anti-speculative character of Cracovian thought 463–464 women at 182–184, 184n89 De bellis iustis; see Stanisław of Skarbimierz Dziersław of Borzymów Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini anecdote about him 258 contribution to Casus pulchri 532 delegate from Council of Basle to Cracow, seeking support 260 delegate to Council of Basle 256 preaching activity 534 benefaction to university 147 Devotio moderna as trend in Polish religious piety and practice 505, 535, 535n199, 535n200, 536 Dominican Order hostility of some in Cracow to university  221 matriculation at Cracow 180–181

774 eclecticism, as characteristic of Cracovian thought 335–336, 340, 357, 359, 361,  361n53, 365–366, 402, 482–483, 489, 507–508, 516, 525, 536, 635 Elias of Wąwelnica debates Hussites at Wawel 254 Erasmian tradition, in Poland 542, 633, 637 Erasmus of Cracow lectures on Ovid 577 Erasmus of Nysa prepares Arts Faculty statutes 80 Erasmus of Rotterdam; see Erasmian tradition, in Poland Erfurt, university counsels University of Cracow to remain loyal to Felix V 260 Esztergom, Hungary number of students from 161 Faust legend 626, 626n94 Felix V, Duke of Savoy, Pope elected by Council of Basle 259 Filippo Buonaccorsi; see Callimachus Florian Mokrski of Łęczyca chancellor of Casimir III the Great 11 Francis of Brzeg as academic advisor 189 as Vice-chancellor 86 book collection 615 debates Hussites at Wawel 254 laments lack of income for faculty 133 lectures and writings on religious education 529 optimism about contributions of university 225 prepares Arts Faculty statutes 80 theological education, teaching at Cracow 484 views of philosophy 231 Francis of Legnica astronomical work 380 Francis Zabarella, canonist, cardinal  236–237, 242, 430–431, 452, 544, 546 relationship with Paul Vladimiri 544 Franciscan Order matriculation at Cracow 182 Franco de Polonia, astronomer 374 Frederick II Hohenstaufen, Holy Roman Emperor 4

Index Gdańsk graduates from, number 107 number of students from 166 George, royal notary 139 Liber formularum Cracoviensium 301 translatio studii 39 George Kotermak of Drohobycz 392, 408 George Morsztyn, civic councilor as member of Cracow sodality 580 Georg Peuerbach 382, 396–397 Algorismus novus de integris 372 Theoricae novae planetarum 676 copy owned by Adalbert of Brudzewo  628 George Schmed of Nysa lectures on Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy 577 Gliwice, Silesia number of students from 162 Głogów, Silesia graduates from, number 198 number of students from 162 Great Poland (Polonia maior) chancellery of, granted as benefice to university by Władysław Jagiełło 131 Great Seal of university 95 Gregory IX, pope 4 Gregory of Nowa Wieś astronomical activity 390 Gregory of Sanok, humanist and Archbishop of Lwów background, career, development of humanistic interests 555–558 host of Callimachus 574 lectures on Buccolics of Vergil at Cracow  556 obtains copy of Boccaccio’s Genealogia deorum gentilium 556 Greifswald, university 163 Grunwald, battle of 1410 37, 56, 84, 231–233, 246, 249, 307, 328–329, 421, 428, 464 Guiliano Cesarini, cardinal invites Polish church to send delegates to Council of Basle 255 Hartmann Schedel view of Cracow in Liber chronicarum 43 views about Cracovian astronomy in Liber chronicarum 401

Index Hasilina affair with Celtis 580–581 Heidelberg, university foundation 4 Heinrich Bebel, Tübingen university humanist praises John Sommerfeld Aesticampianus 584 teacher and supporter of Laurence Rabe Corvinus 586–587 Henry Bitterfeld of Brzeg, Dominican friar at University of Cracow 180 Heraldic arms of university 95 Herman Gedrojć, Lithuanian prince 173 Herman of Przeworsk in medical faculty 406 library of 408 Horodło, Union of 1413 245 Humanism apparent decline of at Cracow after 1490 587–590 at University of Cracow in fifteenth century, assessment of 590–594 defined 541–542, 542n2 early influence at University of Cracow (to 1472) 543–574 growth of lectures and cultural circles reflecting humanistic tastes 576–580 influence at Cracow, 1472 to early 1490s 574–581 influence at Cracow, 1490s into sixteenth century 581–590 means of transmission to Poland  543–544 narrow range of interests at Cracow 592 progress of, into sixteenth century  589–590 scope of, in Poland and in university  593 within universities 542, 542n3 Hussite movement as issue for university masters and Polish church 248–254 basis for sympathy toward, in Poland 249 Hussites come to Cracow for debate, 1431 253 debate in Wawel castle 252 seek disputation in Cracow 251

775 Impetus, theory of in Cracovian thought 334, 348–357, 359, 361–364, 473 Jacobus Publicius, humanist visit to Cracow, ca. 1470 573 Jagiellonian family attitude toward university in late fifteenth century 146 Jagiellonian University named after Władysław Jagiełło 11 Jadwiga of Anjou, Polish ruler accession in Poland, marriage to Jagiełło  228 death in 1399 30 effort to establish theology faculty in Cracow 28 founds bursa for Lithuanians at University of Prague 29–30 urges Jagiełło to refound university 31 will and benefactions to university 31 James of Boksyce background, career, interests 581–582 book collection 627 cultural activity 581–582 in Medical Faculty, library 411 James of Gostynin background, career 337 commentary on Aristotle’s De anima  344–345 commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics and pseudo-Aristotle Liber de causis  338 lectures and writings on Physics 356, 361–362 lectures on Poetica 577 lectures on Statius and Cicero 577 lectures on Utrum Deus Gloriosus 486–487 James of Nowy Sącz career, lectures on Sentences 487 James of Paradise (Paradyż) as reflective of Devotio moderna 520n150, 536 background, career 519 biblical teachings and writings 503–505 conciliar treatise 512, 520–522 debates Hussites at Wawel 254 peasant background 175

776 James Parkoszewic of Żórawica, law professor orthographic reform manual 266 James of Piotrków benefactor to university 142 book collection 615 James of Szadek assists king in peace negotiations 272 benefactor for university 145 book collection 620 lectures on Cicero 577 writes treatise supporting royal claims in Mazovia 270 James of Zalesia astronomical activities 390 James Zaborowski as professor ordinarius in law 110 career and benefactions to university 141–142 contributions to Casus pulchri 532 prepares consilium on question of Vytautus’s coronation 247 presents Polish case to papal court, 1422 244 rejects disputation with Hussites 252 Janko of Czarnków, Vice-chancellor of Casimir III and chronicler 21 Jarosław Bogoria Skotnicki, Archbishop of Gniezno 14 Jelenia Góra, Silesia number of students from 162 Jerome of Prague in Poland to present religious views 249 Jerome (Jan Sylvan) of Prague career at Prague, early teaching at Cracow 484 Jewish street (platea Judeorum, Judengasse) 61 location of house for Collegium maius 32 Jihlava, Moravia number of students from 164 Jodochus of Ziegenhals Arts course 1416–1418 103 course of study, contents 417 John Albert, King of Poland 56, 67, 312, 575, 586 benefactions for university 146 welcomed to Cracow by John Sacranus of Oświęcim 583

Index John, Archbishop of Gniezno (d. between 1168 and 1176) 302n50 John Beber of Oświęcim book collection 621–622 John Ber Ursinus advocates study of civil law at Cracow  109, 420 background, career, humanistic interests 585–586 in Medical Faculty 415 Modus epistolandi 312 Ode by Celtis dedicated to him 579 orations 586 John Biskupiec, Dominican friar matriculation at Cracow 181 John Brożek notes Adalbert of Brudzewo as professor of Copernicus 676 John Buridan influence on Benedict Hesse of Cracow 351–352 influence at Cracow 314–315, 333, 348, 355–356, 473 John de Bossis astronomical activity 391 John de Saccis of Pavia career of, at Cracow; organizes Medical Faculty 112, 257, 405–406, 412, 559 John Długosz assists king in peace negotiations 272 background, career, ties to humanism  552–554 book collection 636 enables enlargement of Bursa pauperum 133 establishes Bursa canonistarum  126–127 goes to Rome to negotiate obedience of Polish church to Nicholas V 265 influence of humanism upon him and his works 554 matriculation, discontinues degree program 199–200 prepares historical materials supporting royal claims to Mazovian inheritance 269 purchases works of Boccaccio 576 relocation of Bursa pisarum 126

Index John Elgot as professor ordinarius in law 110 as vicarius in spiritualibus for bishop 537–538 background, career 516 conciliar treatise 263, 512, 516–519 contributions to Casus pulchri 532 debates Hussites at Wawel 254 investigates Andrew Gałka of Dobczyn 537–538 leads Polish delegation to Council of Basle 264 preaching activity 534 prepares consilium on question of coronation of Vytautas 247 recognizes Felix V as pope on behalf of Polish church 264 John Falkenberg, Dominican friar critical of University of Cracow 181 polemic with Matthew of Cracow, Peter Wysz, and Stanisław of Skarbimierz 222 treatise Satira 242–243 writes De monarchia mundi 222 John Gasztold, Lithuanian prince matriculation at Cracow 173 John Heydecke (John Mirica), Cracow notary as member of Cracow sodality 580 John Hus interest in Polish affairs, writes to Władysław Jagiełło 249 John Isner benefaction to university 137 book collection 606–607 commentary on the Physics 347 contributions to religious education 529 establishes Bursa pauperum 122–123 Prague education, theological writings there 484 prepares university statutes 80 teaching in theology at Cracow, writings there 494–495 will 194 John Kalderberg provides money for book purchase 598 John Kanty background, career, possible lecture on Donatus’ Ars minor 294

777 book collection 616 commentary on Prior and Posterior Analytics of Aristotle 316 contributions to Casus pulchri 532 contributions to religious education 529 copies Benedict Hesse’s commentary on Matthew; canonization 496 prepares redaction of Benedict Hesse’s commentary on the Physics 350 support of Marian cult of Immaculate Conception 528 John Kro 112, 405 John Lutek of Brzeź, Bishop of Cracow delegate to Council of Basle 256 John Mirica; see John Heydecke John Morsteyn (Morsztyn) benefactor of university 146 John of Dąbrówka academic career, course of 187–201 as Vice-chancellor 87 assists king in peace negotiations 272 benefactions to university 145 book collection, character of 618–619 creates Collegium minus; curriculum of; possible humanistic orientation 564–571 commentary on Vincent Kadłubek’s chronicle; sources 282–285, 303n54 Commentum in Chronicam Polonorum Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek 301–303 delays promotion of John of Olkusz  407 inclusion of his commentary in university curriculum; other uses 283–285 is debated by Gregory of Sanok 556 lectures on Sentences, departs from approach of Utrum Deus Gloriosus 429 library 564–565 masters and endowed chairs in Collegium minus 565–566 matriculation, oath, inception, and teaching 187–188, 194, 200–201 peasant background 175 reorganizes Collegium maius, establishes Collegium minus 308 serves as librarian 601

778 John of Dąbrówka (cont.) studies in both law and theology; reasons 111 supports royal claims in Mazovia 270 teaches John Długosz 552 views of ideal ruler 330 John of Dobra background, career, library, treatise on pestilence 410–411 on Medical Faculty 405 writes to Council of Basle 259–260 John of Głogów astronomical activity 392–395 background, education, career, writings in general 214 book collection 630 manages German hostel 129 manages Hungarian hostel 129 serves as librarian 601 writings Alexandri Gallici secunda pars Doctrinalis 295–296 Canones Tabularum directionum Johannes de Regiomonte 393–395 commentaries on Aristotle’s Metaphysics; influence of via antiqua 338 commentaries on Aristotle’s Physics 356, 358–361 commentary on Aristotle’s De anima 343–344 commentary on Theorica planetarum  393–395 Computus chirometralis 393–395 Declamatio Donati minoris de octo partibus orations 295–296 Exercitium veteris artis Ioannis Glogoviensis 317 Interpretatio Tabularum resolutarum ad meridianum Cracoviensem 393–395 Introductorium cosmographiae 393–395 Introductorium in tractatum spherae Johannis de Sacrobusco 393–395 Quaestiones de motu 393–395 Quaestiones super duos libros Analyticorum posteriorum 317 Tractatus de 48 imaginibus caelestibus 393–395

Index John of Inowrocław book collection 622 John of Kluczbork book collection 609 contribution to pastoral care 530 contribution to religious education 529 lectures on Sentences 487 Principium (1413) 107 sermon after Battle of Grunwald 232 views on ideal ruler and on Władysław Jagiełło 328–329 John of Latoszyn book collection 624–625 John of Ludzisko as possible conciliarist 561 astronomical activity 378–379 background, career, humanistic sympathies 261, 558–563 contacts with Gasparino Barzizza and Guarino Guarini 599 Expositio super canones circa tabulas astronomica Joannis de Saxonia 378–379 medical studies and position at Cracow in Medical Faculty 405–406 methods of preparing orations  562–563 orations 560–562 possible peasant background 175 speeches welcoming delegation from Council of Basle on behalf of university–261 translatio studii 40 view of best society 465 John of Olkusz astronomical activities, writings 387–388 book collection 622 promotion in medicine delayed by John of Dąbrówka 407 treatise on pestilence 412 John of Racibórz background, career, writings 336–337 John of Radochonice book collection 614 John of Reguły as royal physician 56 book collection 413 medical professor 46, 405 studies in Cracow and Italy; career in Cracow 114

Index John of Rytwian benefactions to university 147 John of Rzeszów, provost of St. Michael election as rector 89 John of Staniszewice serves as librarian 600 John of Stobnica astronomical activity 400 background and career, humanism 298 Scotist outlook in approach to physics 356, 363–363 writings; Generalis doctrina de modis significandi; assessment 298–299, 319 John of Słupca background, career 335 book collection 620–621 commentary on the Parva naturalia  367 commentary on the Physics 336 Quaestiones super quatuor libros De coelo et mundo Aristotelis 363–364 John of Świetlik library, in Medical Faculty 409 John of Ziębice (Monsterberg), Silesia as Prague master; lectures on Metaphysics 333 influence on Peter of Sienno 334 John Orient of Cracow background, career 335 exposition on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, reflects Scotist outlook 336 John Puszka at Council of Basle 257 John Radlica, Bishop of Cracow role in 1390s revival of university 23 John Rhagius Aesticampianus background, career 584 influenced by Celtis 579 teacher of Ulrich von Hutten 584 John Sacranus of Oświęcim activities as orator; welcomes king John Albert to Cracow 583 as representative of continuing humanistic influence at university 589 background, career, humanistic interests 582–583 lectures on Cicero 577 rhetorical work Modus epistolandi 310

779 sends Adalbert of Brudzewo to Lithuania to serve Grand Duke 273 teaching in Arts, character of 582 John Schelling (Schelynk) of Głogów; see John of Głogów John Sommerfeld Aesticampianus as part of circle around Celtis; praised by Celtis 584 background and career 297 book collection 629–630 defends Celtis 584 commentary on earlier versified version of Priscian; assessment 298 glosses on commentaries upon Aristotle’s Metaphysics 338 humanistic interests of; lectures  583–584 lectures on Priscian’s Volumen maius  577 manages Hungarian hostel 129 Ode by Celtis dedicated to him 579 praised by Leonard Coxe and Heinrich Bebel 554, 554n136 wills some of books to university 603–604 writes Celtis, lamenting decline of university 588–589 writes Modus epistolandi 214 John Stanko background, career, work on antidotes 412–413 book collection 607 John Štěkna book collection 607 career at Prague; early teaching at Cracow 494 joins University of Cracow as professor 251 lobbies for Cistercian matriculation at Cracow 179 prepares university statutes 80 supports Lithuanian bursa at Prague with Jadwiga 30 teaching at Cracow 494 John Stercze of Kwieciszowo astronomical activities 391 John Stobner endows chair in mathematics and astronomy 136; see also Stobner Chair

780 John Stolle of Głogów, former student, notary, altarist at St. Mary’s library of, some willed to university 604 John Szafraniec, curator of Cracow cathedral election as rector 89–90 Vicarius in spiritualibus for bishop Peter Wysz 132 see also Szafraniec, noble family John Tęczyński, castellan of Cracow administrator of Jadwiga’s will 31–32 invests Jadwiga’s bequest to university, buys salt mine in Bochnia 135 John Thurzo lectures on Ovid 577 John Urbach (Auerbach, Frebach, Vrebach), canonist treatise in support of Teutonic Order  241 John Wajdut, Prince of Drohiczyn, decretalist rectoral election 89 John Wells of Poznań book collection 626 member of Medical Faculty 412 promotion in medicine 407 used by monarchy in diplomatic negotiations 273 Kalisz, Great Poland number of students from 166 Kazimierz, Cracow suburb Jewish population 49 number of students from 166 Kežmarok, Upper Hungary (Slovakia) number of students from 161 Knights of Teutonic Order; see Teutonic Order Kolosvár (Cluj), Transylvania number of students from 161 Kościan graduates from, number 197 number of students from 166–167 Košice graduates from, number 198 number of students from 161 Kremnice, Upper Hungary (Slovakia) number of students from 161 Krewo (Lithuanian: Krèva), Union of, 1385 245

Index Król Chair curriculum taught in 143 foundation and endowment of 382 Krosno, Ruthenia number of students from 170 Laurence Rabe Corvinus background, career, teaching, writings 586–587 influenced by Celtis 579 Laurence of Racibórz astronomical activity 376–378 background, career 514 conciliar treatise, contents 263, 512, 514–516 owned copy of Paul of Worczyn’s commentary on Politics 326 Tabula radicum ad meridianum Cracoviensem AD 1420 374 Legnica, Silesia number of students from 162 Leipzig, university of 163 advises University of Cracow to recognize Nicholas V as pope 266 impact of opening on matriculation at Cracow 134, 154 Łęczyca chancellery of, granted as benefice to university by Władysław Jagiełło 131 Leonard Coxe, Welsh humanist praises Cracow, 1518 40, 543 teaches Quintilian at Cracow 571 Leonard Dobczyce Vitreator astronomical activity 400 Levoča, Upper Hungary (Slovakia) graduates from, number 198 number of students from 161 Liber promotionum 80 Libraries, in fourteenth century Poland 13 Libraries, of professors growth of humanistic and classical material in 576 Lithuania, Grand Duchy Poland’s union with 245–248 small number of students from 165 Luborzyca, parish church in rectorship granted to university in 1401, obtained in 1419 132–133

Index Lucas of Wielki Koźmin book collection 608 preaching activity 534 sermon praising Władysław Jagiełło  232 support of Marian cult of Immaculate Conception 528 use of Ovid in 1412 548 views on ideal ruler 328–329 Łuck, Volhynia site of conference over issue of coronation of Vytautas 246–247 Lwów graduates from, number 197 Maces 90–95 see also scepters and Cracow, university: scepters Marco Bonfili, Spanish theologian delegate from Council of Basle to university 260, 263–264 matriculation of, at Cracow 165 supports Marian cult of Immaculate Conception 528 Martin V, pope appoints legate to convene court hearing Polish charges against Teutonic Order 244 promises to investigate attack contained in Falkenberg’s Satira 243 Martin Biem of Olkusz astronomical activity and views 400 book collection 633 Martin Bylica of Olkusz astronomical activity, views 388–390 gift of astronomical instruments and materials to university 389–390 relationship with Regiomontanus 373 Martin Król of Żórawica Algorismus minutiarum 371 astronomical and astrological activity; background, career, writings 216, 381–385 book collection 622 Canones super calendarium 383 foundation of chair in applied astronomy 143 medical professor 143

781 Motus astrorum girantium, known and used by Adalbert of Brudzewo 398 Opus de geometria 370 Summa super Tabulas Alphonsii 372 treatise on Theorica planetarum 383 Martin Kułap of Tarnowiec accused of infamy and insobriety  218–219 Martin Łysy of Cracow astronomical activity 400 book collection 630–631 Martin of Głogów lectures on Georgics 577 Mary and Marian cult of Immaculate Conception, in Poland 527–528 Matthew, Bishop of Cracow (d. 1166)  302n50 Matthew Drzewicki, humanist 312 Matthew of Cracow De praxi [or squaloribus] Romanae Curiae 509 efforts to revive university in Cracow 26–27 possible teaching at Cracow 494 support of Marian cult of Immaculate Conception 528 Matthew of Kobylin benefactor for university 146 book collection 624 owner of Bartholomew of Jasło’s copy of Priscianus minor 293 Matthew of Kolo functions as university librarian, purchases books 598 Matthew of Łabiszyn biblical studies 506 book collection 617–618 contributions to religious education 529 copies Benedict Hesse’s commentary on the Physics 350 lectures on Sentences, writes independent commentary 490 serves as librarian 600 translatio studii 39 Matthew of Miechów background, career, in medical faculty, founds second chair in medicine 413–414

782 Matthew of Miechów (cont.) book collection 632 reaffirms traditional dress code for faculty 217 studies in Italy 114 Matthew of Sąspów biblical studies 506 book collection 619–620 career, lectures on Sentences 490 Maurice (Mařik) Rvačka career at Prague, early teaching at Cracow 251, 484 Mężykowa Chair 117, 139–140, 301, 310, 337, 569, 585 Michael Falkener of Wrocław astronomical activity 400 background, education, career 214 book collection 632 Congestum logicum (Introductorium dialecticae) 318–319 obtains elements of John of Głogów’s library 630 support of Marian cult of Immaculate Conception 528 teaching and writings on the Physics 356, 361 Michael Twaróg of Biestrzyków background, career, works 318 legal problems 218 Scotist orientation, participation in extended disputation 356, 362 Minor, or rectoral, seal 95 Mogiła, Abbot of monastery as protector of Cistercian students at Cracow 179 Namysłów, Silesia number of students from 162 Nawój Tęczyński role in 1390s revival 23 Nicholas V, pope obtains obedience of Polish church 265 Nicholas Budziszyn (Bawdiszyn, Budissen) background, career, writings 323 lectures on Sentences 487–488 Nicholas Copernicus; see Copernicus Nicholas Czepel of Poznań background, career, book collection  631–632

Index Nicholas Grabostowski commentary on Aristotle’s Economics 332 Nicholas Kozłowski appointed to theology chair 98 at Council of Basle, book purchases 548–550 book collection 613–614 contributions to Casus pulchri 582 copies anonymous commentary on Metaphysics in Prague, uses it in Cracow 333 debates Hussites at Wawel 254 delegate to Council of Basle 256 lectures on Utrum Deus Gloriosus 485 preaching activity 534 pronounces eulogy at Basle on death of Władysław Jagiełło 258 vernacular preaching 274 views on ideal ruler 330 views on similarity between university and society 465–466 wills library to university, value of 603 Nicholas Lasocki delegate to Council of Basle 256 humanistic interests 551 informs Council of Basle of death of Władysław Jagiełło 257 Nicholas Mikosz book collection 632 Nicholas Morsztyn Spicymierz at Council of Basle 257 Nicholas of Błonie contribution to pastoral care 531 preaching activity 534 support of Marian cult of Immaculate Conception 528 Tractatus [sacerdotalis] de sacramentis  224, 531 Nicholas of Brzeźnica benefaction to University of Cracow 142 Nicholas of Bytom benefaction to University of Cracow 145 Nicholas of Czechel receives list of book to complete law course at Cracow 110 Nicholas of Gorzków book collection 612 prepares university statutes 80 rectoral election 89

Index Nicholas of Grabostaw astronomical work 380 Nicholas of Kurowęki, castellan of Sandomir gift to University of Cracow 147 Nicholas of Łabiszyn astronomical activity 405 Nicholas of Münsterberg studies for MA deviate from statutes  104n77 Nicholas of Oszkowice astronomical activity 380 background, career, in Medical Faculty  408 Nicholas Peyser prepares university statutes 80 Nicholas of Pyzdry Prague education, teaching at Cracow 484 Nicholas of Staw benefaction to university 145 Nicholas Tempelfeld book collection 615 commentary on Parva naturalia 367 praises John de Saccis of Pavia at his death 112 supports Polish delegates to Council of Basle in sermon 257 Nicholas Trąba, Archbishop of Gniezno as Polish representative at Council of Constance 235 Nicholas Wigand contributions to religious education 529 education at Prague, early teaching at Cracow 484 purchases books for university 598 teaching at Cracow 494 Nicholas Wiśliczka book collection 608 Nicholas Wodka (Abstemius) of Kwidzyn astronomical activity 391–392 possible teacher of Copernicus 392 Nicholas Wolny benefaction to university 145 Nowko Chair 117, 137, 200, 283–284, 301–302, 567–568, 570 endowed by Thomas of Lelów, called Nowko, in rhetoric and grammar 136 Nysa, Silesia graduates from, number 198 number of students from 162

783 Oleśnicki, Zbigniew, Bishop of Cracow as member of royal chancery 56 attitude toward Council of Basle  255–256 chancellor of university, career 83–84, 89 correspondence with Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini 551–552 death of 271 elevated to position of cardinal by Pope Eugene IV, declines 259 enhances endowment income for university 147 establishes Jerusalem bursa 123 founds preaching prebend at cathedral, reserved for university 143–144 humanistic interests 550–552 mentions Paul Vladimiri’s large book collection 613 named cardinal by Pope Felix V 260 policy toward Lithuania 246 prevents Hussites from staying in Cracow, 1431 253 recognizes Felix V as pope 264 returns church in Poland to Roman obedience, becomes cardinal 265 views of Andrew Gałka of Dobczyn  537 Olomouc, Moravia graduates from, number 198 number of students from 164 Opole, Silesia number of students from 162 Otto Marcinkowic, scholasticus in Cracow cathedral rectoral election 89–90 Oxford, university book collections 595–596 theology faculty of 105 Paris, university 1 advises University of Cracow to recognize Nicholas V 266–267 Libraria magna at college founded by Robert de Sorbon 595 Theology Faculty of 105 Paul of Pyskowice biblical studies 505–506 book collection 615–616

784 Paul of Pyskowice (cont.) career, lectures on Utrum Deus Gloriosus  485–486 contributions to pastoral care 531 support of Marian cult of Immaculate Conception 528 Paul of Venice, philosopher visit to Cracow in 1412 547 Paul of Worczyn background, career, commentary on Aristotle’s Ethics 323–325 book collection 610 commentary on Aristotle’s De anima 340 commentary on Aristotle’s Economics 332 commentary on Aristotle’s Politics 326 commentary on De generatione et corruptione 365 commentary on Parva naturalia 367 Paul of Zakliczew lectures on Aeneid 577 Paul of Zator preaching activity 534 vernacular preaching 275 Paul Paulirini (Paul of Prague or Paul the Jew) Liber viginti atrium 626 Paul Vladimiri advises Bishop of Cracow to take issues touching Teutonic Oder to court of justice 443 as activist intellectual 462 as representative of Cracow school of international relations 461–462 as possible author of Revocatur in dubium 427–428 brings copy of Aquinas commentary on Metaphysics from Council of Constance 334 book collection 612–613 calls for dissolution of Teutonic Order 438 defines appropriate court to adjudicate Polish issues with Teutonic Order 444–445 denies legitimacy of territorial possessions of Teutonic Order 439–440 draws fifty-two conclusions from principles defined in Ssaevientibus 433–436

Index examines laws touching privileges of Teutonic Order 441–443 examines legitimacy of imperial grants to Teutonic Order 442–443 holds benefice with no teaching responsibilities 418 main themes in Opinio Ostiensis 436 member of Polish delegation to Council of Constance; background, career 235–237 on annates 511 possible contribution to creation of school of international law 458–461 promotion, mentioned 328 promotion to Doctor of Decretals in 1411 226 relations with Francis Zabarella 544 represents Polish royal policy against Teutonic Order before emperor, appeals to pope 244 views on imperial power in Saevientibus 431–432 views on toleration in Saevientibus  430–431 views regarding pagans by Hostiensis  432–433 views Teutonic Order as heresy in Ad aperiendam 436–440 with Pier Paolo Vergerio and Francis Zabarella at Constance 546 works 429–445 Ad aperiendam 436–440 Ad vivendum 440–443 letter to Bishop of Cracow 443–445 Opinio Ostiensis 433–436 Saevientibus 429–433 works, themes reflected therein 445–458 writings presented at Council of Constance 238–243 Pauperes at University of Cracow 185–186 Pearl (margarita) as foundation symbol  4, 5, 5n11, 10, 15, 34, 64, 130, 220, 286, 590 Péc, University foundation of 4 Pécs, Hungary number of students from 161

Index Pełka Segney of Wiślica, student book collection 610 Pest, Hungary number of students from 161 Peter Gaszowiec astronomical activities and writings 386 book collection 636n119 humanistic interests 572–573 involved in Jagiellonian succession in Bohemia 273 medical education 113, 405 Peter of Dzwonowo astronomical work 380 book collection 620 provides money to purchase books for university library 604 Peter of Sienno background, career, Commentary on Metaphysics 304 commentary on De meteora, elements of via antiqua and via moderna therein 367 source for John of Racibórz 337 Peter of Telcz prepares manuscript of Petrarch’s works for Nicholas Kozłowski 549–550, 549n22 Peter Payne English follower of Wycliffe and Hus, in Cracow 251 Hussite, debates in Cracow 254 Peter Świętopełk of Zambrzecz book collection 628–629 Peter Wichman, Dominican friar matriculation at Cracow 181 Peter Wolfram of Lwów background and career, attraction to humanism 545 book collection 611 contribution to religious education 529 holds benefice without ties to university 418 member of Polish delegation to Council of Constance 235–236 Peter Wysz, Bishop of Cracow address at 1400 refoundation 37 administrator of Jadwiga’s will 31 appoints statutes committee 80

785 approach to reform in church 223 as chancellor of university 33, 81–82 collaborates with Matthew of Cracow 509 De reformatione ecclesie tam in membris, quam in capita 511 efforts to revive University of Cracow, career 27 grants of benefices to university 132 inauguration as bishop, 1392 25 Speculum aureum de titulis beneficiorum ecclesiasticorum 510–511 Philosophy and Theology relation between in view of Cracovian professors 468–470 π[pi], determination of 369 Pius II, pope; see Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini Poland conflict with Teutonic Order, 1409–1411 229–231 nobility (szlachta), nature of 173 relatively weak urbanization of 169 union with Lithuania 245–248 Polish language in professorial handbooks 275 see also James Parkoszewicz of Żórawica Polish political thought issues: public war, responsibilities of citizens, international order, ideal ruler 420 Poznań, Great Poland graduates from, number 197 number of students from 166 Prague, university 79 books and library 596 foundation 4 influence of, on professors at Cracow  211–213 recruitment of students at, after Hussite period 164 rectors at 87 Theology Faculty 106 waning of influence on Cracow professoriate 213 Prešov, Upper Hungary (Slovakia) number of students from 161 printing development of, in Poland 634, 634n114

786 Prokop the Great, Hussite debates in Cracow 254 Prussia, Ducal 157, 272 Prussia, Royal 157–158, 272 Przemyśl, Ruthenia, city number of students from 170 Przemyśl, Ruthenia, diocese of number of students from 169–170 Przeworsk, Ruthenia number of students from 170 Quaestiones Cracoviensis super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis anonymous, but influential; reflects both via antiqua and via moderna approaches 356–358 Racibórz, Silesia number of students from 162 Regiomontanus 388, 390, 394, 396 Disputationes inter Viennensem et Cracoviensem super Cremonensis in planetarum theorica deliramenta  373 Revocatur in dubium; see Cracow, university: Law Faculty, treatise Revocatur in Dubium rhetorical manuals at Cracow 310 Rostock, university 163 Sanok, Ruthenia number of students from 170 Satira; see John Falkenberg scepters or maces Fryderyk Jagiellonian bequest  91, 94 “Jadwiga scepter” 90–92 Oleśnicki scepter 91, 93 schools in Poland pre-university 278–279 Scotist tradition at Cracow 290, 316, 318–319, 334, 336–337, 339, 362–363, 402, 482, 629 Sędziwój of Czechel Algorismus minutiarum 371 Algorismus proportionum 371 background, career 269, 379 commentary on John Peckham’s Perspectiva 379–380

Index commentary on Theorica planetarum 379–380 joins council in Ferrara/Florence after papal transfer from Basle 254 provides rationale for royal incorporation of Mazovian territories 269 seeks promotion in theology 108 Septem Castra (Siebenbürgen), Transylvania number of students from 161 Sibiu, Transylvania number of students from 161 Siebenbürgen; see Septem Castra Sieradz chancellery of, granted as benefice to university by Władysław Jagiełło 131 Sigismund of Luxembourg, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Hungary proposes coronation of Vytautas 246 Sigismund of Pyzdry career, lectures on Sentences 488–489 vernacular preaching 274 Simon of Śrem astronomical activity 390 Society in Poland attitude toward university 130 Sodalitas litteraria Vistulana organized by Celtis 580 Speculum aureum; see Peter Wysz Stanisław Biel Albinus astronomical activity 400 background, career, humanistic interests 584–585 lectures on Aeneid 577 lectures on Vergil’s Buccolics 577 orations, welcomes King Sigismund I the Old to Cracow 585 Stanisław Bylica of Olkusz astronomical activity 400 Stanisław Ciołek, Bishop of Poznań delegate to Council of Basle 256 De rhetorica cum dictamino 301 humanistic interests 501 panegyric on Cracow 42 Stanisław Górka Srebna career, lectures on Utrum Deus Gloriosus 486 Stanisław of Kobylin benefaction for University of Cracow  144

Index Stanisław of Łowicz praises John Sacranus of Oświęcim 583 Stanisław of Pleszów astronomical activity 388 book collection 412 promotion in medicine 407 Stanisław of Skarbimierz 9, 79 anti-Hussite treatises 511 as possible author of Revocatur in dubium 427 as professor ordinarius in law 110 book collection 612 commentary on Decretals 419 commentary on indulgences 418 contributions to Casus pulchri 532 contributions to religious education 529 criticizes student behavior 203–204 delivers soliloquy at death and funeral of Jadwiga 31 elected first rector of refounded university, delivers inaugural address 33, 37–38 expresses doubt about society’s support for university 221 inaugural lecture view of importance of Arts 291 view of Canon Law 416 view of Medicine 404–405 view of Theology 468 on role of rector 88 preaching activity 534 prepares Arts Faculty statutes 80 prepares consilium on issue of Vytautas’ coronation 247 prepares university statutes 80 presents Polish case to papal courts, 1422 244 recognizes hostility to university 222–223 recommends Paul Vladimiri for promotion in 1411 226 Sermo de bellis iustis 229–230, 420–425 Sermones de Sapientia Dei 225 sermons condemning heresy 250 study at Prague 22 translatio studii 39 view of best society in sermon De republica 464 views on rulership 327–328 Stanisław of Zawada biblical studies 507

787 Stanisław Selig astronomical activity 400 lectures on Juvenal 577 lectures on Valerius Maximus and Vergil’s Buccolics 577 lectures on Vergil’s Georgics 577 Ode by Celtis dedicated to him 579 promotion in medicine 407 Stanisław Sobniowski at Council of Basle 257 delegate from Council of Basle to university, seeking support 260 Stanisław Zaborowski orthographic treatise 277 Stephen Páleč advises Cracow rector against disputation with Hussites 252 Prague professor, joins University of Cracow 251 witness for Poland before papal court in 1422 244 Stobner Chair 117, 136, 143, 145, 147, 261, 368, 371, 373, 376–377, 379–380, 382, 386, 399, 571 students, in medieval universities generally: social mobility 6–7 Švitrigaila (Świdrygiełło), Grand Duke of Lithuania 242 Świdnica, Silesia number of students from 162 Świdrygiełło; see Švitrigaila Szafraniec, noble family benefactions for university 135, 136, 137 Szeged, Hungary number of students from 161 Székesverhérvár, Hungary number of students from 161 Tannenberg, battle of; see Grunwald, battle of Teutonic Knights; see Teutonic Order Teutonic Order 307 establishment in Prussia, policy on conversion 227–228 Paul Vladimiri’s views on 429–445 response to conversion and accession in Poland of Władysław Jagiełło 228 response to Paul Vladimiri’s treatises 241 struggles with Poland 226 Thirteen Years War 271–273

788 Theology as capstone of university and as “Queen of Sciences” 467 Thirteen Years War 271–273 Thomas of Lelów; see Nowko Chair Thomas Strzempiński, Bishop of Cracow appoints Nicholas Kozłowski to theology chair 98 as professor ordinarius in law 110 background and career 522 becomes Bishop of Cracow 268 benefaction to university 144 brevity of study to doctoral degree in law 109 book collection, how housed 617 calendar reform proposals 381 conciliar treatise 263, 512 as most complete defense of Basle conciliarism 525 authority of council within church, relation to pope, eclectic character 522–526 delegate to Council of Basle 256 lectures on Utrum Deus Gloriosus 485 preaching activity 534 view on ideal ruler 330–331 view on university as model of ideal society 465 Thomist tradition at Cracow 316, 318, 363, 402, 475, 629 Thurzo family foundry 51 students from family at university 172 Toruń, Peace of, 1411 231 Torun, Second Peace of, 1466 division of lands of Teutonic Order 271 translatio studii in view of Cracovian masters and professors 38–41 Trigonometry used at Cracow 372–373 Twardowski Book 626, 626n93 Urban V. pope authorization for foundation of University of Cracow 14 modification of Casimiran foundation 16–17

Index universities, medieval general character (both learning and professionalism) 7 collegiate movement 3 development and evolution 1–3 Várad (Nagyvárad, Oradea), Transylvania number of students from 161 via antiqua 290, 296, 298, 299, 316, 318, 319, 324, 337, 338, 341, 343, 344, 354, 357, 362, 363, 367, 402, 539, 635, 640 via moderna 290, 299, 315, 316, 324, 334, 335, 337, 340, 356, 367, 402, 539, 635, 640 Vienna, university advises University of Cracow to recognize Nicholas V 266 foundation 4 importance 165 Vilnius graduates from, number 198 Vincent Kadłubek, Bishop of Cracow Chronica Polonorum 302–308 Vytautas, Grand Duke of Lithuania 228, 307 relations with Władysław Jagiełło, ambitions 245–246 Warsaw, Mazovia number of students from 170–171 Wawel acropolis, royal residence, ecclesiastical establishments there 42, 54–55 Wieliczka, salt mine resource for university 12, 21, 25, 51 Witelo, astronomer 374 Witold; see Vytautas Władysław II Jagiełło, King of Poland 5, 307 addresses Hussites at Wawel 254 arranges to buy house to house University of Cracow 32 as [re]founder of University of Cracow 10, 36 attitude toward Council of Basle 255–256 death of 256 efforts to revive university in 1390s 22 expectation of usefulness for university 286

Index expresses ambitions for university in 1400 220 includes civil and canon law in 1400 foundation 416 marriage to Jadwiga, conversion, accession in Poland 228 praised by Lucas of Wielki Koźmin 232 provision for students to borrow from Jews 49 relations with Vytautas 245–246 refoundation charter for university in 1400 34–36 seen as ideal ruler 329 specifies role for theology in 1400 foundation 106, 467 view of, by Bartholomew of Jasło 23

789 Władysław III, King of Poland 1434–1444 and of Hungary 1440–1444 death at Varna, 264, 565 Wojciech Jastrzębiec, Bishop of Cracow and royal chancellor 82 Jadwiga’s preacher, supports Lithuanian bursa in Prague 31 Wojciech of Młodzaw prepares Arts Faculty statutes 80 women, at University of Cracow 182–184, 184n89 Wrocław, Silesia graduates from, number 198 number of students from 162 Żalgiris, battle of; see Grunwald, battle of Zbigniew Oleśnicki; see Oleśnicki, Zbigniew