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: 17 February 2016
The investigation at Avignon of Ockham‘s suspected errors in the mid 1320s, the canonization by John XXII of Aquinas in July 1323, Ockham’s defiance of Pope John XXII for asserting in November 1323, heretically in Ockham’s view, that Christ and the apostles had held property and property rights, his association with Michael of Cesena and his followers at Avignon, and then at Pisa and Munich, are some of the well-known circumstances which brought Ockham, from 1327 onwards, to write polemics which have acquired the collective title of opera politica. The facility for searching by electronic means the new edition being made of the largest of these works, the Dialogus, has revealed a passage that I had not noticed in the edition made in 1614 by Melchior Goldast, nor have I seen any reference to it in modern scholarship. The passage, which is found in Part 1, Book 1, chapter 9, and which is reproduced below in Appendix 1, reads in English as follows:
1 These polemical writings are the subject of Gordon LefF’s chapter on ‘Society’ in Ockham, pp. 614–43.
2 William of Ockham, “Dialogus’. Latin text and English translation, ed. John Kilcullen and John Scott under the auspices of the Medieval Texts Editorial Committee of the British Academy for the series Auctores Britannici Medii Aevi (ABMA), Version 2, March 1996. This is work in progress and further versions, taking various sections of the Dialogus to a more advanced stage, are being published on the Internet (http://britac.ac.uk/okdial.html).
3 Monarchia S. Romani Imperii, 3 vols (Frankfurt am Main, 1611–14; reprinted Graz, 1960), 2, pp. 392–957. The continuation of llus lllae Dialogus iii. 23 was published by Scholz, R. in Unbekannte kirchenpolitischen Streitschrifien aus der Zeit Ludwigs des Bayem (1327-1354), vol. 2 (Bibliothek des kgl, preuss. hist. Instituts in Rom, 9–10 (1914)), pp. 392–5.Google Scholar
4 Miethke, Cf-Jürgen, Ockhams Weg zur Sozialphilosophie (Berlin, 1969), p. 85Google Scholar; William of Ockham. A Short Discourse on Tyrannical Covernment, ed. Artkur Stephen McGrade, trans, by John KilcuIIen. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought (Cambridge, 1992), p. xxxi.
5 ‘Scientia canonistarum, quantum ad multa moralia particularia et quae valent variationem recipere, est scientia inferior subordinata theologiae, etiam quantum ad multa talia subordinata est morali philosophiae, sicut particularia subordinantur universa-libus’, Dialogus, Part I, bk i, ch. 9.1 cite this passage because the last three words seem out of character in comparison with Ockham’s philosophical teaching.
6 Matthew Paris, Chronica maiora, ed. Luard, H. R., 7 vols, RS (London, 1872-83), 5, pp. 97–8, 186.Google Scholar
7 Chronica maiora, 5, pp. 389–92. Grosseteste’s letter 128 is printed by Luard, H. R., Roberti Grosseteste … Epistolae, RS (London, 1861), pp. 432–7Google Scholar; Luard also prints the letter of Innocent IV, which occasioned this protest, in a footnote on pp. 432–3. The authenticity of letter 128 is defended by Powicke, F. M., King Henry in and the Lord Edward. The Community of the Realm in the Thirteenth Century (Oxford, 1947), 1, p. 285, n. 3Google Scholar, and by Richard Vaughan, who also supports the reliability of Matthew Paris’s version of it, Matthew Paris (Cambridge, 1958; reissued with supplementary bibliography, 1979), pp. 133–4.
8 Chronica maiora, $, p. 393.
9 Thomson, S. Harrison, The Writings of Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln 1235–1253 (Cambridge, 1940), pp. 141–7Google Scholar. Pantin, W. A., ‘Grosseteste’s relations with the papacy and the Crown’, in Callus, D. A., ed., Robert Grosseteste. Scholar and Bishop (Oxford, 1955), pp. 178–215Google Scholar, especially pp. 209–15. Gieben, Servus, ‘Robert Grosseteste at the papal curia, Lyons 1250. Edition of the documents’, in Collectanea Franciscana, 41 (1971), pp. 34°-93Google Scholar See too Powicke, , King Henry III and the Lord Edward, pp. 282–9Google Scholar, and Southern, R. W., Robert Grosseteste. The Growth of an English Mind in Medieval Europe (Oxford, 1986), pp. 272–95Google Scholar; Southern traces in particular the development of Grosseteste’s prophetic and global vision of the problem of the papacy and of unsuitable papal provisions.
10 Gieben, ed., ‘Grosseteste at the papal curia’, pp. 382–3.
11 From the auctores indexes given in the volumes of the Franciscan Institute edition of Ockham’s Opera philosophica et theoiogica, it can be seen that Ockham made reference infrequently to a number of the writings of Grosseteste. They include, on one occasion, Grosseteste’s commentary on the Celestial Hierarchy. ‘Lincolniensis, Super Angelicam Hier-archiam, parte V, cap. 3: Nihil positive dictum potest de Deo et creatura univoce dici’, Scriptum in lihrum primum Sententiarum Ordinatio, dist. 2, q. 9, Opera theoiogica, 2, ed. Stephanus Brown and Gedeone Gal (St Bonaventure, NY, 1970), p. 326.
12 The manuscripts used by Gieben for his edition are described in ‘Grosseteste at the papal curia’ on pp. 344–6; additional manuscripts are listed by Thomson, Writings of Robert Grosseteste, pp. 142–7.
13 ‘Interim dum praedicta agerentur …’, Gieben, ed., ‘Grosseteste at the papal curia’, p. 387.
14 Gieben, ed., ‘Grosseteste at the papal curia’, pp. 387–93; cf. Pantin, ‘Grosseteste’s relations’, pp. 214–15. Cf. the Memorandum, 7 and 9, Gieben, ed., pp. 354 and 355: ‘animaram curae suae commissarum occisores et mortificatores … sunt antichristi’; ‘Sodomitis peiores et abominabiliores’.
15 According to Marsh, the speeches in which Grosseteste presented the Conquestio cleri Angliae and the account of his own visitations followed the reading of the Memorandum by a few days, paucis elapsis diebus (Gieben, ed., ‘Grosseteste at the papal curia’, p. 373).
16 Gieben, ed., ‘Grosseteste at the papal curia’, p. 350.
17 Ibid., p. 380.
18 Southern, Robert Grosseteste, pp. 298–307, here p. 306.
19 Grosseteste’s letter 128 (written in 1253 and printed by Luard, , Roberti Grosseteste … Epistolae, pp. 432–7Google Scholar is copied by Wyclif, in his Tractatus de civili dominio liber primus, ed. Poole, R. L., WS (London, 1885), cap. xliii, pp. 384–5, 387, 388–9, 389–90Google Scholar; Innocent IVs letter (printed by Luard on pp. 432–3 of his edition of Grosseteste’s letters) is copied by Wyclif here on pp. 385–6. On Wyclif’s handling of conceptions of hierarchy, in the light of his knowledge of the writings of Grosseteste, see my “Wyclif and Hierarchy’, in Hudson, Anne and Wilks, Michael, eds, From Ockham to Wyclif, SCH. S, 5 (Oxford, 1987), pp. 233–44.Google Scholar
20 Robert Grosseteste, p. 277, n.7. The Paris MS is in the Bibliothèque nationale, lat 10358; all the other copies listed by Thomson, , Writings of Robert Grosseteste, pp. 142–7Google Scholar (and cf. Gieben, ‘Grosseteste at the papal curia’, pp. 344–6) appear to be English in origin.
21 Robert Grosseteste, p. 300. On one occasion Wyclif, in the course of discussing the notion of heresy, cites Grosseteste’s definition from ‘a special booklet of his on the subject’: ‘docet Lyncolniensis in quodam libello speciali istius materie quod “heresis est dogma falsum scripture sacre contrarium, pertinaciter defensatum” … Aristóteles primo Ethicorum vocat eleccionem, in qua bonum a malo dividitur, proheresim; et istum sensum dicit Lyncolniensis se extraxisse a Grecorum sentenciis; et concordant Latini catholici’, De civili dominio líber secundus, ed. Iohann Loserth, 2, WS (London, 1900), cap. 7, pp. 58–9. The quotation and the reference are not taken from the Lyons dossier, and their source remains unknown to me. They show, however, a clear similarity with Matthew Paris’s report of Grosseteste’s last words on his death bed, and thereby offer further support to Southern’s rehabilitation of Matthew’s reliability. See Paris, Matthew, Chronica maiora, 5, p. 401Google Scholar, and Southern, , Robert Grosseteste, pp. 291–3.Google Scholar
22 There was probably at least one other copy of the collection in an Oxford library in the early fourteenth century, Exeter College MS 21 (Gieben, ‘Grosseteste at the papal curia’, p. 345; Southern, , Robert Grosseteste, p. 290, n. 31.Google Scholar
23 ‘Dominus noster Jesus Christus’, Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden monachi Cestrensis, ed. Lumby, Joseph Rawson, 9 vols, RS (London, 1865-86), 8, p. 240.Google Scholar
24 La Naissance de l’esprit laïque au déclin du moyen âge, 4. Guillaume d’Ockham. Défense de l’empire, new edn (Louvain, 1962), p. 78. McGrade, Likewise A. S., The Political Thought of William of Ockham (Cambridge, 1974), p. 82, n. 11Google Scholar: ‘I have discovered no clear reference to Egidius in Ockham’s political writings’, but ‘it is more than possible that he was acquainted with the De Ecclesiastica Potestate’.
25 See, for James of Viterbo, Arquillière, H. X., Le plus ancien traité de l’Eglise. Jacques de Viterbe, De Regimine Christiano (1301-1302). Etude des sources et édition critique. Etudes de théologie historique (Paris, 1926)Google Scholar. The Commentary of Giles of Rome on Unam sanctam has been edited by Lapparent, P. de, X ‘oeuvre politique de François de Meyronnes: ses rapports avec celle de Dante’, AHDLMA, 15ème-17ème Année, t.13 (1940-42)Google Scholar, Appendix, and the De ecclesiastica potestate by Scholz, R., Aegidius Romanus, De ecclesiastica sive summi pontifias potestate (Weimar, 1929)Google Scholar. For François de Meyronnes see de Lapparent, cited in this note, and my ‘François de Meyronnes and hierarchy’, in Wood, Diana, ed., The Church and Sovereignty c.590-1918. Essays in Honour of Michael Wilks, SCH. S, 9 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 225–31Google Scholar. For Augustinus Triumphus, and ideas of papal monarchy in general, see Wilks, Michael,The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages. The Papal Monarchy with Augustinus Triumphus and the Publicists. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, ns, 9 (Cambridge, 1963).Google Scholar
26 III Dialogus, I, 11, 18, pp. 803–4.
27 McGrade, , Political Thought of William of Ockham, pp. 158–68Google Scholar, especially pp. 160–1.
28 On this see Shogimen, Takashi, William Ockham and Spiritual Power (University of Sheffield, PhD thesis, 1997)Google Scholar and ‘Ockham’s Vision of the Primitive Church’ in Swanson, R. N., ed., The Church Retrospective, SCH, 33 (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 163–75.Google Scholar
29 Congar, Yves M.-J., ‘Aspects ecclésiologiques de la querelle entre mendiants et séculiers dans la seconde moitié du XlIIe siècle et le début du XTVe’, AHDLMA, 28 (1962, 36ème Année, 1961), pp. 35–151.Google Scholar
30 ‘Propter illos autera, (qui) doctrinae Thomae adhaercnt, sunt verba eiusdem de hac materia recitanda, ait itaque secunda secundae quaestio 2. articul. 6. Explicatio fidei ad inferiores homines, oportet quod perueniat per maiores, & ideo sicut superiores angeli, qui inferiores illuminant, habent pleniorem notitiam de rebus diuinis quam inferiores, vt Dionysius dicit 12. cap. coelestis Hierarchiae: ita superiores homines, ad quos pertinet alios erudire, tenentur habere pleniorem notitiam de credendis & magis explicite credere’, ed. Goldast, Monarchia, 2, p. 753.
31 ‘Universis Christi fidelibus praesentem tractatulum inspecturis … sine personarum acceptione’, De imperatorum et pontificum potestate, ed. Hilary Seton Offler, William Ockham, Opera politica, 4. ABMA, 14 (Oxford, 1997), Prologus, pp. 279–80. See Knysh, further G., Ockham Perspectives (Winnipeg, 1994)Google Scholar. On the Michaelists see Leff, , Heresy I, pp. 238–55.Google Scholar
32 Offler, H. S., ‘Zum Verfasser der “Allegaciones de potestate imperiali” (1338)’, Deutsches Archiv, 42 (1987), pp. 555–619Google Scholar, and also Offler’s introduction to his edition of the Allegationes, Opera politica, 4, pp. 359–61.
33 Opera politica, 4, p. ix.
34 Ibid., 4, p. 361.
35 See my paper on The Lex divinitatis in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Pope Boniface VIH’, in Brooke, Christopher, Luscombe, David, Martin, Geoffrey, and Owen, Dorothy, eds, Church and Government in the Middle Ages. Essays presented to C. R. Cheney (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 205–21.Google Scholar
36 The relevant passage is printed in Appendix 2 below.
37 Of era politica, 4, pp. 416–17 and (on the composition of this work) pp. 350ft”.
38 See my Thomas Aquinas and conceptions of hierarchy in the thirteenth century’, in Zimmermann, Albert, ed., Miscellanea Mediaevalia. VerôffentlUhungen des Thomas-Instituts der Universität zu Kóln, 19: Thomas von Aauin (Berlin, 1988), pp. 261–77.Google Scholar
39 Summa theologiae, la, q. 90, a. 3; q. 106, a. 3; q. 108, a. 2; q. 112, a. 2. Cf. Compendium theologiae, I, c. 124.
40 Summa theologiae, la, q. 106, a. 3; q. 117, a. 2. Many other passages could be cited from Aquinas’s writings on these themes. See my Thomas Aquinas and conceptions of hierarchy’.
41 John of Paris, De Potestate Regia et Papali, ed. Jean Leclercq.^ean de Paris et l’ecclésiologie du XIIIe siècle. L’Eglise et l’état au moyen âge, 5 (Paris, 1942), c. 2, 18, pp. 179, 230 ff. See also Congar, , ‘Aspects ecclésiologiques’, p. 144Google Scholar, and my ‘Wyclif and hierarchy’, p. 241.
42 Dupuy, Pierre, ed., Histoire du différend d’entre le Pape Boniface VIII. et Philippe le Bel, Roy de France (Paris, 1655), pp. 663–83Google Scholar. See also my ‘Wyclif and hierarchy’, p. 241.
43 Finke, Heinrich, ed., Aus den Tagen Bonifaz VIH. Funde una Forschungen (Münster i. W., 1902), pp. c–cxviGoogle Scholar. See also Congar, , ‘Aspects ecclésiologiques’, pp. 144–5Google Scholar, and my ‘Wyclif and hierarchy’, p. 242.
44 ‘Lex divinitatis … reducere’: cited thus by Giles, of Rome, , De ecclesiastica potestate, i. 4Google Scholar, ed. R. Scholz (Weimar, 1929), p. 12; cf. Pope Boniface VIII, Unam sanetam = Extravag. Commun., 1.8,1, in Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. E. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1879–81), 2, col. 1245. This form of words does not seem to occur in any of the known Latin versions of Denis the Areopagite. But cf. De caelesti hierarchia, ed. Ph. Chevallier, Dionisiaca (Bruges, 1937), 1, pp. 812–14; Luscombe, The hex divinitatis in the Bull Unam Sanetam’, pp. 205–21.
45 Augustine, De Trinitate, iii. 9. CChrSL, 50, pp. 135–6. Cited in this abbreviated form by Giles of Rome, De ecclesiastica potestate, i.5, ed. Scholz, p. 16.
46 Superius: art. ii. 522–74; art. iii. 386–95.