Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T00:33:47.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inquiry and Inquisition: Academic Freedom in Medieval Universities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

William J. Courtenay
William J. Courtenay
Affiliation:
Mr. Courtenay is D. H. Haskins Professor of History inthe University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. This is his presidential address delivered at the annual metting of the American Society of Church History, 29 December 1988.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The year 1988 marks not only the centennial of the American Society of Church History, it is also the anniversary of two important works dealing with the theme of religious toleration and freedom of ideas. One is the fiftieth anniversary of G. G. Coulton's Inquisition and Liberty. The other is Henry Charles Lea's History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, published in three volumes early in 1888. Coulton's work became a model for many that followed: a highly readable, consciously engaging narrative outlining the main features of one of the darker chapters of medieval church history. It covered the development of religious nonconformity, the church's response, especially through the creation and operation of the Inquistion, and the principal victims of the Inquisition: the Albigensians, Waldensians, Spiritual Franciscans, and those accused of witchcraft. Lea's earlier treatment covered those themes in a far more extensive way, and he also included, unlike Coulton, a final chapter on the problem of religious orthodoxy in the schools as viewed from the standpoint of the Inquisition. Lea, in fact, is one of the few authors writing on heresy and inquisition who attempted to place the cases of questioned orthodoxy and freedom of thought in medieval schools and universities in this larger context. Although he did not pursue the topic in any depth, Lea was aware that the character of theological study and the proper training of an educated priesthood were linked to the issue of religious orthodoxy in the schools and the threat of heresy among those charged with the preservation and dissemination of truth.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , June 1989 , pp. 168 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Wyclif and Luther were regent masters of theology; Hus was master of arts and bachelor of theology.

2. For the case of friar John, see Anstey, H., Munimenta Academica, or Documents Illustrative of Academical Life and Studies at Oxford (London, 1868), pp. 208–211.Google Scholar

3. Lea, H. C., A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, 3 vols. (1888; reprint, Philadelphia, 1922), 3:550.Google Scholar

4. Koch, J., Kleine Schriften, vol. 2 (Rome, 1973);Google ScholarMiethke, J., “Papst, Ortsbischof und Universität in den Pariser Theologenprozessen des 13. Jahrhunderts,” in Die Auseinandersetzungen an der Pariser Universität im XIII. Jahrhundert, ed. Zimmerman, A. (Berlin, 1976), pp. 52–94.Google Scholar Koch's articles appeared in various journals and Festschriften between 1930 and 1960.

5. “Pope and Bishop as Judges of Academic Orthodoxy,” Hope College, Holland, Michigan, April 1983.

6. Exceptions were the controversy on grace that led to the canons at the Synod of Orange (529) and the ninth-century controversies on adoptionism, the eucharist, and predestination.

7. In the case of Abelard's second trial, the pope became involved at the stage of Abelard's appeal. In other cases when the papacy was involved, it was at the initial stage. Lanfranc appealed immediately to the pope for the condemnation and excommunication of Berengar in 1050; Conan as papal legate was in charge of the first condemnation of Abelard at Soissons in 1121; Eugenius III presided at the council at Reims in 1148 that attempted to censure the opinions of Gilbert de Ia Porrée; and Alexander III became deeply involved at the earliest stage in the censure of what was thought to be Lombard's Christology.

8. On Berengar, see Enchiridion symbolorum, ed. Denzinger, H. and Schönmetzer, A., 32d ed. (Rome, 1963), no. 700, p. 230.;Google Scholar on Roscellin, see Anselm, , De incarnatione Verbi in Opera Omnia, ed. Schmitt, F., 6 vols. (Edinburgh, 1946–1961), 1:281–290;Google ScholarEpist. 128, 129, 136 in jt Opera Omnia, 3:270–272, 279–281; on Abelard, see his Historia calamitatum, c.9–10 (Patrologia Latina, 178, 140–159) and Denzinger, , Enchiridion, nos. 721–739, pp. 235–237;Google Scholar on Gilbert, see Colker, M., “The Trial of Gilbert of Poitiers, 1148: A Previously Unknown Record,” Mediaeval Studies 27 (1965): 152–183;CrossRefGoogle ScholarGammersbach, S., Gilbert von Poitiers und seine Prozesse im Urteil der Zeitgenossen (Cologne, 1959);Google ScholarHäring, N., “The Case of Gilbert de la Porrée, Bishop of Poitiers (1142–1154),” Mediaeval Studies 13 (1951): 1–40;CrossRefGoogle Scholaridem, “Notes on the Council and Consistory of Rheims (1148),” Mediaeval Studies 28 (1966): 39–59; idem, “Das sogenannte Glaubensbekenntnis des Reimser Konsistoriuins von 1148,” Scholastik 40 (1965): 55–90; Hayen, A., “Le Concile de Reims et l'erreur theologique de Gilbert de la Porrée,” Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age 10 (1935–1936): 29–102;Google ScholarElswijk, H. C. Van, Gilbert Porreta. Sa vie, son oeuvre, sa pensée (Louvain, 1966);Google Scholar on Lombard, , see Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, ed. Denifle, H. and Chatelain, E., 4 vols. (Paris, 1889), 1:4,8–9Google Scholar (hereafter cited as CUP); Denzinger, , Enchiridion, nos. 749–750, p. 239;Google ScholarGlorieux, P., “L'orthodoxie de III Sentences (d.6, 7, & 10),” in Miscellanea Lombardiana (Novara, 1957), p. 137–147;Google ScholarLandgraf, A. M., Dogmengeschichte der Frühscholastik, vol. 2:1 (Regensburg, 1953), pp. 116–137, 172–198, 372–373.Google Scholar

9. CUP, 1:70–72, 106–107, 170–172, 206–207; Théry, G., Autour du décret de 1210: I.David de Dinant (Kain, 1925);Google ScholarCapelle, G. C., Autour du décret de 1210: III.Amaury de Bène (Paris, 1932);Google ScholarDickson, G., “Joachism and the Amalricians,” Florensia 1 (1987): 35–45.Google Scholar I am grateful to Robert Lerner for calling this article to my attention.

10. Hissette, R., Enquete sur les 219 articles condamnés a Paris le Mars 1277 (Louvain, 1977).Google Scholar

11. This appears to be the case both with Amaury de Bène and the Amaurians as well as in the case of John Brescain and Master Raymond, and with some of the propositions condemned in 1270 and 1277.

12. Koch, , “Philosophische und theologische Irrtumslisten von 1270–1329. Em Beitrag zur Entwicklung der theologischen Zensuren,” in Kleine Schriften, 2:423–450.Google Scholar

13. Koch, , “Irrtumslisten”; Durandus de S. Porciano O.P. (Münster, 1927),Google Scholar and Kleine Schriften, 2:7–168.

14. Koch, , “Irrtumslisten”; “ Der Prozess gegen den Magister Johannes de Polliaco und seine Vorgeschichte (1312–1321),”Google Scholar in Kleine Schriften, 2:387–422; “Aktenstiü, Neue;cke zu dem gegen Wilhelm Ockham in Avignon geführten Prozess,” in Kleine Schriften, 2:275–365;Google Scholar on Elmedene, and Costesey, , see Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britian and Ireland: Papal Letters, 13 vols. (London, 1893–1955), 2:493, 496;Google Scholar on Autrecourt, see CUP, 2:505, 576–587; on Autrecourt, see Briefe, ed. Imbach, R. and Perler, D. (Hamburg, 1988); on Richard, see CUP, 2:541–542.Google Scholar

15. Kaeppeli, T., Leprocès contre Thomas Waleys O.P. (Rome, 1936).Google Scholar

16. Koch, “Irrtumslisten.” Other cases were settled at Avignon posthumously or absentia, such as the 1326 condemnation of Olivi's errors, that of Marsilius of Padua in 1327, and of Meister Eckhart in 1329.

17. Southern, R. W., “The Changing Role of Universities in Medieval Europe,” Historical Research 60 (1987): 133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. Cited from Southern, , “Changing Role,” p. 136,Google Scholar and revised according to Finke, H., Aus den Tagen Bontfaz VIII, ed. Finke, H. (Münster, 1902), pp. vi–vii:Google Scholar “Seditis in Cathedris et putatis quod vestris racionibus regatur Christus. Nam consciencia plurimorum vestris frivolis racionibus sauciatur. Non sic, fratres mci, non sic! Set quia nobis commissus est mundus, cogitare debemus non quid expediat vobis clericis pro vestro libito, set quid expediat orbi universo… Deberetis disputare de questionibus utilibus, set nunc assumitis vobis fabulosa et frivola. Est enim questio vestra fatua, quam stultus fatue proponit vel quam magister fatue assumit vel determinat. Vidi raciones vestras et vere sunt, set raciones solubiles. Set hec sit solucio: Precipimus in virtute obediencie sub pena privacionis oflicii et beneficii, ne aliquis magistrorum de cetero de dicto privilegio predicet, disputet vel determinet occulte vel manifeste… Vere dico vobis, antequam curia Romana a dictis fratribus hoc privilegium ammoveret, pocius studium Parysiense confunderet.”

19. Eugenius III and Alexander III; see note 8 above.

20. On Knapwell, see Koch, “Irrtumslisten”; Roensch, F. J., Early Thomistic School (Dubuque, 1964), pp. 34–39;Google Scholar on Quidort, see CUP, 2:120.

21. CUP, 2:610–614, 622–633; 3:11–12, 21–23, 95–97, 108–109.

22. Knowles, D., “The Censured Opinions of Uthred of Bolden,” in Knowles, The Historian and Character and Other Essays (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 129–170;Google ScholarWorkman, H. B., John Wyclif, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1926);Google Scholar on Crump, see Emden, A. B., Biographical Register of the University of Oxford to 1500, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1957), pp. 524–525.Google Scholar

23. The number of cases at Paris between 1342 and 1370 in which statements from Sentences commentaries or the inception disputation known as vespers came under scrutiny and condemnation suggests that such proceedings became a frequent housekeeping event in the last stages of many academic careers. Those who had opinions from their Sentences commentaries condemned were Jean de Mirecourt, O.Cist. (1347), Jean Guyon, OFM (1348), Guido (de Medonta?), OESA (1354), and Denis de Foullechat, OFM (1364). Those with condemned opinions from their vespers or resumption disputations were Simon (de Brossa?), OSB (1351), Louis of Padua, OFM (1362), John de Calore (1363), and John de Montesono, OP (1387).

24. Courtenay, William J., Adam Wodeham (Leiden, 1978), pp. 172–174.Google Scholar

25. If a bachelor forgot to take this oath at the proper time, as happened with Richard Kilvington at Oxford in the early 1330s, he was permitted or required to affirm the oath as soon as possible. In no case could it be omitted. Kilvington, Lectura, Erfurt, Wissenschaftliche Bibliothek, MS CA 2, 105, f.134rb: “Ego, Richardus de Kilvyngton Eboracensis dyocesis, debita protestatione praemissa nunc pro tunc, revoco in hiis scriptis et correctioni sacrosanctae Romanae ecclesiae et doctorum meorum universitatis Oxoniensis ubi primi mundi universitatibus ceteris viget amplius decor clerici penitus me submitto.

26. In the list of new Parisian articles used by Hugolino of Orvieto at Bologna in 1364 and recorded in CUP, 2:610–614, items 4,6–8, 30,32, 39–42,44, and 49 are not from Mirecourt or other known lists of articles condemned between 1340 and 1364.

27. CUP, 2:587, 622–623, 3:114, 121.

28. CUP, 3:486–533; Peter, of Ailly, , Concepts and Insolubles, trans. Spade, P. V. (Dordrecht, 1980), p. 58Google Scholar

29. Wodeham cites as authoritative the Parisian articles of 1277 in a way that parallels his citations of the decrees of the Council of Vienne (1311). Holcot similarly uses the articles from Pouilly; see Holcot, , Lectura super sententias(Lyon, 1518), IV, q.5, B.Google Scholar

30. CUP, 2:610–614; Stegmüller, F., “Die zwei Apologien des Jean de Mirecourt,” Recherches de Théologie ancienne et médiévale (hereafter cited as RTAM) 5 (1933): 40–78, 192–204;Google ScholarCourtenay, William J., “John of Mirecourt and Gregory of Rimini on Whether God Can Undo the Past,” RTAM 39 (1972): 224–256, and 40 (1973): 147–174;Google Scholaridem, “John of Mirecourt's Condemnation: Its Original Form, ” RTAM 53 1986: 90–191.

31. CUP, 3:108–109, 193–194.

32. It was Autrecourt's magisterial status that was removed in arts and denied in theology. He was allowed to retain his licentiate in theology.

33. The language of “ill-sounding” and “offensive to pious ears” reveals the concern over the effect of these statements on younger members of the university community or on those outside the university.

34. In a revealing passage Jean Gerson, former chancellor of the University of Paris, admitted that many of the articles of Wyclif and Hus condmned at Constance “could have been defended by the power of logic or grammar,” but were rightly condemned; see Shank, Michael, “Unless You Believe, You Shall Not Understand”: Logic, University, and Society in Late Medieval Vienna (Princeton, 1988), pp. 179–180.Google Scholar