Robert E Somerville is the Ada Byron Bampton Tremain Professor of Religion and Professor of History at Columbia University in New York; he has taught at Columbia since 1969, except for a year at the University of Pennsylvania (1976–1977). He carried out his doctoral work at Yale University, and is internationally recognised as an authority on medieval church councils, canon law and medieval papal history. He recently published the final volume (Pope Urban II's Council of Piacenza, Oxford, 2011) in a series now containing all the sources relating to the councils of Pope Urban II, the pope who preached the First Crusade. This festschrift, originally intended for Professor Somerville's seventieth birthday, is edited by two of his former students (Uta-Renate Blumenthal of the Catholic University of America and Anders Winroth of Yale University) and the redoubtable Peter Landau (of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich, and the Institute of Medieval Canon Law, now named for Somerville's doctoral supervisor, the late Stephan Kuttner). The volume contains 19 essays and articles about areas significant for Somerville's own work: canon law (nine essays), religion (two) and politics (eight). There is a concluding bibliography of Somerville's publications, and indexes of manuscripts and papal letters cited.

Many, perhaps most, of the articles are of interest primarily to the specialist in medieval canon law, as they contain detailed manuscript descriptions and studies, with only a cursory introduction or presentation of the context that would be needed by a non-specialist. While running the inevitable risk of overlooking many of the gems contained in this volume, four essays in particular should be highlighted from the final ‘Politics’ section that can be appreciated and even enjoyed by one not a specialist in medieval canon law.

Ken Pennington's contribution, ‘Roman law in the papal curia in the early twelfth century’, addresses the question of canon nine (Prava autem consuetudo) of the Second Lateran Council (1139), which forbade monks and canons regular from studying Roman law or representing litigants in lawsuits. Although Gratian incorporated most of the canons of this council of Innocent II in his famous textbook Concordia discordantium canonum, he omitted canon nine. Pennington asks why this canon was rejected by Gratian and the canonists, and uses this consideration as a springboard to review the use of Roman law in the secular and ecclesiastical courts of the twelfth century, before focusing on a particular case between the bishops of Siena and Arezzo, determined by Honorius II in 1125. The legal arguments used in this case, and the Roman law texts cited to support the arguments, are significant and sophisticated, leading Pennington to conclude that the study of Roman law was essential by the early twelfth century, despite numerous attempts by the popes to suppress its use or limit its growth.

Diocesan legislation is the focus of Charles Donahue's essay ‘Thoughts on diocesan statutes: England and France, 1200–1500’. He asks why there were substantial differences between statutes in England and France during these three centuries, not only in content but also in structure. He links this with the events of the Reformation, immediately after the conclusion of his period, and muses on how during the later Middle Ages diocesan statutes served as a vehicle for reform in one of the Churches, which did not completely break from Rome, but not the other, which did.

Elizabeth Makowski continues her compelling work on cloistered nuns in the later Middle Ages with her article on ‘Canon law and the spirituality of cloistered English nuns’. Although she has dealt with many of these issues at greater length in her other works, she here tries to outline how English cloistered nuns were different from other women's religious communities, reviewing their particular legislation and how these norms formed their lives, and how and why Boniface VIII's statute Periculoso (1298) failed to establish more than a foothold in these cloisters.

James Brundage's ‘The medieval battle of the faculties: theologians v canonists’ sparkles with his usual erudition and wit. In many ways it takes up where his previous article on canonists and civilians left off.Footnote ¹ While having theologians complain about canonists has been common for centuries, it is fascinating to read the response canonists made to this abuse, and to see that they gave as good as they got. But this also raises the strikingly modern question of what is the relationship – if any – between canon law and theology. Brundage quotes the intriguing quaestio of Johannes Teutonicus:

Hostiensis (c 1200–1271) compared the three disciplines to parts of the human body: theology is the head, civil law is the feet and canon law is the hands; canon law is thus the noblest of all fields of learning, Hostiensis concludes, because it is the one that actually gets the work done. It is most like Jesus Christ, and a more perfect field of learning than theology, because as true God and true man united in the person of Christ, so theology and civil law are united in canon law, ‘and accordingly just as a composite nature is worthier and greater than all others, therefore so is our science, because the same conclusion is to be reached concerning similar things’.Footnote ² This is at least more complimentary than his previous triad comparing theology to a horse, civil law to a donkey and canon law to a mule. The estrangement between canon law and theology seems to date from the twelfth century, according to Brundage, and has not been fully reconciled even today, although the charges and counter-charges are much more gracious, and much less humorous, today. It is with a trace of sadness that it should be noted that, because of his declining health, this is likely to be Professor Brundage's last publication. This contribution shows a perceptiveness and humour that will be greatly missed.