No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2024
The topic of this brief communication, Theology and Law in Fishacre’s Sentence Commentary, emerges, as one might expect, from the decade- long project of producing a critical edition of the commentary on Peter Lombard’s Sentences by the Dominican theologian, Richard Fishacre. Preparing this edition has been a delightful and often-surprising exercise, and it is one of the surprises that concerns us here. Put in the form of a question, it is this: Why does a Dominican theologian, teaching in the theology faculty of the University of Oxford during the 1240’s, devote so much of his exposition of Book Four, on the Sacraments, to a detailed consideration of the Church’s canon law and to the teachings of the jurists?'
The edition of Fishacre’s commentary provides two kinds of clues to the question. The first is what Fishacre says, explicitly, and the second is what he does—the ways in which he utilizes canon law and the teachings of the canonists in his commentary. We will examine each type of evidence in turn.
Fishacre, like most medieval teachers, took a great deal of care in writing his inaugural lecture for each term of study in the schools, and these lectures now form the prologues to his commentaries on each of the four books of Sentences. What is striking, at least to this reader, is not what Fishacre says about the relation of Law and Theology, but rather what he does not say. Nowhere in the Prologue to Book Four does he prepare us for the abundant recourse he is about to make to the teachings of the canonists.
1 A version of this paper, entitled “Philosophy and Law in Richard Fishacre's Sentences commentary, “was delivered to the Tenth International Congress of Medieval Philosophy, Erfurt, 26 August 1997. A more informal discussion of the principle findings was delivered at the “Colloquium to Commemorate the 750th Anniversary of the Death of Richard Fishacre OP, (1221–1248),” held at Blackfriars, Oxford, 8 July 1998.
2 See Long, R. James, “The Science of Theology according to Richard Fishacre: Edition of the Prologue to his Commentary on the Sentences,”Mediaeval Studies 34 (1972), 71–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 An excellent recent study of the interrelationship of scholastic theologians and jurists is Gordley, James, “Ardor quaerens intellectum: Sex within Marriage according to the Canon Lawyers and Theologians of the 12th and 13th Centuries,” in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stifiung fü;r Rechtsgeschichte: Kanonistische Abteilung 83 (1997) 305–332Google Scholar.
4 “Quid est sapientia et quemadmodum facta sit referam, et non abscondam a vobis sacramenta Dei,” Sap. 6<,24>. Potest hunc sermonem dicere aut Magister aut exponens Magistrum. In praecedentibus enim libris docetur sapientia, sed in hoc sacramenta. Cum enim sit sapientia creata et increata, de quiditate increatae agitur in primo libro, de quiditate creatae in secundo, scilicet angelorum, et ita patet continuitas illorum duorum librorum, quia uterque est de quiditate sapientiae. Sed et creata sapientia facta est, Gen. 1<,3>: “Fiat lux,” et increata facta est, Gal. 4<,4>: “Misit Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere.” Sed quomodo facta sit creata determinavit in secundo, quomodo increata in tertio, et ita continuatur secundus cum tertio, et ita de sapientia determinatur in tribus primis libris, secundum illud Prov. 22<,20>: “Ecce descripsi earn tibi tripliciter,” scilicet sapientiam. lam ergo quid sit sapientia et quomodo facta sit retulit, nunc sacramenta Dei manifestare proponit. (The text has been reconstructed from three manuscripts, C=Cambridge, Gonville & Caius MS 329/410, f. 352va; O=0xford, Oriel College MS 43, f. 33Ira; R=London, British Library, MS Royal lO.B.vii, f. 264ra.)
5 Primum est manife stare difficultatem cognitionis sacramentorum. Difficultas autem ilia sic patet. Item, si quaeras, cum natura habeat leges certas et stabiles, unde in naturalibus tot mutationes et instabilitates ut non possunt ab homine praecognosci, respondent naturales /C=r353rb/ quod harum tot mutationum incomprehensibilium causa est materia, quae est indeterminatum principium, quae est susceptiva actionum naturae, et ad omnem formam suscipiendam prona. Unde Rabbi Moyse comparat earn, imrao dicit Salomonem comparare earn, mulieri vagae et coniugatae habenti virum, quoniam non est materia aliquando sine forma. Sed tamen habens unam, parata est /R=264val ad suscipiendam alteram sicut adultera, Eccli. 36<,23>: “Omnem masculum excipiet mulier.” Quomodo nunc ex hac putrefactione erunt culices nunc pulices, cum tamen certa lex naturae sit quod horum fiat. Si igitur effectus naturae particulares nos latent propter incomprehensibiles mutationes materiae in qua fiunt illi effectus, cum anima rationalis in qua fiunt effectus sacramentorum sit satis mutabilior quam materia, quia materia fit quandoque necessitas ad formam aliquam, sed voluntas numquam est necessitas respectu effectus alicuius sacramentalis, dico adulti, quia semper habet liberum arbitrium quo potest non suscipere ilium effectum quantumcumque disponatur ad ipsum. Ergo satis difficilius est de effectibus sacramentorum /0=33 lvb/ certam dare regulam et cognitionem quam de naturalibus. Si igitur illi naturalium effectuum scrutatores qui totum tempus ad eorum cognitionem habendam expenderunt, nee ad paucas aut nullas certas regulas circa effectus naturales pervenerunt, quid putas erit in effectibus sacramentorum difficultatis, maxime cum casus hie non varientur tantum penes voluntatem recipientem ita variabilem, sed et penes ministri voluntatem conferentis totidem modis variabilem. Et ideo vere dicere possumus de tribus libris praecedentibus, et de hoc quarto, illud Prov. 30<, 18>: “Tria sunt difficilia mihi et quartum penitus ignore” Quia ergo multiplicius sunt morbi animae quam corporis, multiplicius est medicamentum animae, scilicet sacramenta, quam corporis medicina. Et si medici frequentius ignorent totum morbum et ideo medicinae temperamentum quod competeret illi in multis casibus, et si quaeras medicinam, dicet, non plene novi morbum, et si nosset, ignorare tamen posset curam, sic multo magis medici animorum. Unde multi casus circa sacramenta quaeri possunt quos plene determinare non audemus, et multi in quibus inter doctos dissentio est sicut inter medicos.
6 The critical edition is Lombardus, Petrus, Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, ed. Bonaventurae, Colleg. S., 2 vols. (Grottaferrata 1971,1981)Google Scholar.
7 Ad secundum dicendum quod argumentari ex auctoritate est maxime proprium huius doctrinae, eo quod principia huius doctrinae per revelationem habentur, et sic oportet quod credatur auctoritati eorum quibus revelatio facta est. Nee hoc derogat dignitati huius doctrinae, nam licet locus ab auctoritate quae fundatur super ratione humana sit infirmissimus, locus tamen ab auctoritate quae fundatur super revelatione divina est efficacissimus. Summa theologiae, 1.1.8 ad 2.
8 Peter Abelard, Sic et non, PL 178, 1339–1610.
9 Ivo of Chartres, “Prologus,” in PL 161, 47–60. See Stephan Kuttner's classic article: “Harmony from dissonance: An interpretation of medieval canon law,” reprinted in his History of ideas and doctrines of canon law in the Middle Ages (London, 1992), 1–16Google Scholar.
10 The same point is made by Gordley, “Ardor quaerens intellectum”: “Their [i.e. theologians and canonists] methods were similar. They began with authoritative texts. They then drew distinctions that would minimize logical conflict among texts themselves, and with common sense, and with generally accepted legal and moral principles. the important difference was not in their methods themselves. When they asked the same questions, they usually encountered similar difficulties and found similar ways of resolving them, so much so that one can scarcely distinguish canon law from theology. When differences arose, the reason, most often, was that they asked different questions. The canonists were more interested in finding rules, the theologians in explaining them. The canonists asked which actions were sinful. The theologians were concerned with why they were sinful. When there was little dispute as to the appropriate rule, the theologians simply asked more questions than the canonists. When the rule itself was in doubt, the canonists' effort to determine the appropriate rule helped the theologians by suggesting conclusions that the theologians could borrow and use.” p. 307.
11 Hö;dl, L., Articulus fidei: Eine begriffsgeschichtliche Arbeit, in: Ratzinger, J. / Fries, H. (eds.), Einsicht und Glaube, Freiburg - Basel - Wien, 1962, 358–376Google Scholar; Goering, J., “Christ in Dominican Catechesis: The Articles of Faith,” in: Emery, K. Jr. Wawrykow, I J. (eds.), Christ among the Medieval Dominicans, (Notre Dame, IN, 1998) 127–138Google Scholar.
12 See above, at note 4.
13 See Long, R.J., “Utrum iurista vel theologus plus proficiat ad regimen ecclesie: A Quaestio disputata of Francis Caraccioli, Edition and Study,”Mediaeval Studies 30 (1968), 134–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 Augustinus Triumphus: Utrum dignus magistrari in theologia teneatur scire ius canonicum. Differunt tamen şientia iuris canonici et theologia in modo considerandi quantum ad quinque. Quinto, quia a theologo determinantur magis universaliter et in foro conscientie in quo agitur causa inter hominem et Deum. A canonistis vero magis particulariter applicando ad particularia negocia in foro exterioris iudicii in quo agitur causa inter hominem et hominem. Et quia sermones universales in materia morali parum sunt utiles ut dicitur i. ethice; ideo puto quod provida ordinatio esset ut dignus magistrari in theologia post lecturam libri sententiarum teneretur legere librum decretorum quatinus magis tritus et expertus assumeretur in his que sunt necessaria ad consulendum saluti animarum fidclium. ed. R. J. Long, ibid., Appendix 2,160–162.
You have
Access