"Per clerum et populum"?: Reflections on Legal Terminology and Episcopal Appointments in Denmark, 1059–1225
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phrase per clerum et populum (“by clergy and people”) was traditionally used to describe how the election of a bishop had been or should be undertaken. Over the course of the twelfth century this changed. Ecclesiastical legislation was step by step revised and codified. The aim of the reformers was to safeguard the autonomy of the Church and to reduce lay influence. The purposes of this article are, first, to examine legal terminology in the context of episcopal appointments from 1059 to 1215, with special reference to the formula per clerum et populum and the role of cathedral chapters as electoral bodies; second, to examine how episcopal appointments were actually undertaken and what terminology was used in the kingdom of Denmark until circa 1225; and, third, to share some ideas about the development of canon law in the context of “cathedral culture.” My conclusions are, first, that the mode of election per clerum et populum was gradually replaced and eventually became invalid, parallel to a legal development where cathedral chapters became the “proper” electoral body; second, that the monastic ideals of ecclesiastical freedom prompted by the reformers are evident in normative texts from cathedral chapters in Denmark already in the first quarter of the twelfth century; and, finally, that the legal developments strongly contributed to the formation of capitular institutions and a specific cathedral culture, which was rooted in monasticism but also differed from it, not least with regard to its legal functions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".