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
Nowadays it is widely realized that much discussion concerning the nature of the Church and of government in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was fuelled by the conceptions of hierarchy that are found in the writings of Denis the pseudo-Areopagite. Denis was invoked and quoted in varied and conflicting ways in consideration of questions concerning the structure and the unity of the Church, the relationships between bishops, mendicants and the papacy, the location of the state of perfection within the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the relationship between temporal and spiritual jurisdiction. From the treatises on the Celestial and on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy was derived knowledge of the arrangement of the angelic society in heaven into nine orders. They constituted an exemplar for the corresponding arrangement into nine orders of the Church Militant on earth. So an examination of the hierarchical structure of the contemporary Church seemed to require an understanding and an interpretation of the celestial hierarchy, and that entailed knowledge of the teachings of Denis. The basic propositions were familiar to many before the composition of the Bull Unam Sanctam in which they are enshrined: St. Paul has written that the powers that be are ordained of God, that is, they are arranged or constituted into an ordering, for they are not equal. To Paul’s disciple on the Areopagus in Athens were ascribed the treatises in which this ordering was elaborately explained in the light of the principle that every spirit belongs to an order or grade which forms part of a continuous hierarchy, so that the lower orders are connected to the highest ones, not directly but by the intermediate orders. Denis himself typically wrote of the differences between created beings in terms of the degree to which these unequal beings participate in the divine light which shines progressively less strongly the further it is transmitted down the orders in the hierarchy. Many medieval readers seized upon the implications of this for the exercise of jurisdiction, secular as well as spiritual. Denis’s angelology had been given a political and social extension by writers such as Alan of Lille who died in 1203 and William of Auvergne whose Magisterium divinale was written from about 1223 onwards. The role played by Denis’s writings and ideas in the debates and polemics concerning lay as well as ecclesiastical power continued to be a substantial one in the fourteenth century.
1 The fundamental study is by Congar, Y., ‘Aspects ecclésiologiques de la querelle entre mendiants et séculiers dans la seconde moîtié du Xllle siècle et le début du XTVe siècle’, AHDLMA 36 (1961) pp. 35–151Google Scholar. Of great importance too is Dufeil, M.-M., Guillaume de Saint-Amour et la polémique universitaire parisienne, 1250-1259 (Paris, 1972).Google Scholar
2 ‘Nam quum dicat Apostolus: Non estpotestas nisi a Deo; quae autem sunt, a Deo ordinata sunt, non autem ordinata essent, nisi gladi us esset sub gladio, et tamquam inferior reduceretur per alium in suprema. Nam secundum B. Dionysium lex dignitatis est infima per media in suprema reduci. Non ergo secundum ordinem universi omnia aeque ac immediate, sed infima per media et inferiora per superiora ad ordinem reducuntur’, Unam Sanctam, ed. E. Friedberg, Corpus luris Canonici (Leipzig, 1879) II. 1245. See Luscombe, D. E., ‘The Lex Dignitatis in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Pope Boniface VIII’, Church and Government in the Middle Ages. Essays presented to C. R. Cheney… ed. Brooke, C. N. L. and others (Cambridge 1976), pp. 205–21.Google Scholar
3 See d’Alverny, M.-T., Alain de Lille. Textes inédits avec une introduction sur sa vie et ses oeuvres. Etudes de philosophie médiévale 52 (Paris, 1965) p. 108Google Scholar. Also Luscombe, D. E., ‘Conceptions of Hierarchy before the Thirteenth Century’, Soziale Ordnungen im Selbstverstândnis des Mittelalters. Miscellanea Mediaevalia. Veröffentlichungen des Thomas-Instituts der Universität zu Köln, ed. Zimmermann, A., Band 12/1 (Berlin, 1979) pp. 1–19, here pp. 11–13.Google Scholar
4 See Vallentin, B., ‘Der Engelstaat. Zur mittelalterlichen Anschauung vom Staate (bis auf Thomas von Aquino)’, Crundrisse und Bausteine zur Staats-und zur Geschichtslehre zusammengetragen zu den Ehren Gustav Schmollers, ed. Breysig, K., Wolters, F., Vallentin, B., Andreae, F. (Berlin, 1908) pp. 41–120Google Scholar. Also, Luscombe, ‘Conceptions of Hierarchy’, pp. 14-17.
5 ‘Unde miror quomodo quidam innituntur exemplo de celesti ierarchia, putando quod clerici non debent corrigi a laycis, nam stabilito ordine militanris ierarchie, sicut est in ierarchia celesti, procederei rado a similitudine quod clerici non forent subiecti laicis, sed si deficit eis virtus illuminandi et expurgandi, sic quod sint ceciores et criminosiores quam layci, quomodo starei in illis perturbantibus ordinem ecclesie exemplum ierarchie celestis? Ideo in defecru illorum stat quod pervertitur ordo ecclesiastice ierarchie; ordo dico non simpliciter sed ordo individuus qui foret in illis. Non enim est fas fìdeli credere quod darus clerus servabit ordinem superiorem in ecclesia quantumcunque peccaverit, cum primus angelus cum suis complicibus propter apostasiam ab ordine deiectus est de ecclesia triumphante (ut notatur Is. XIVo). Viator ergo extra ordinem debet habere subsidium a fratre inferions ordinis, cum pes iuvat oculum, eciam utroque servante integritatem corporis. Et ita videtur Lincolniensi quod angelus superioris ordinis illuminarur ab angelo inferioris ordinis, cum omnes beati spiritus sese iuvant reciproce, ymmo (ut alias dixi): Michael et omnes angeli inferioris ordinis confirmati pugnarunt contra draconem Luciferum et contra complices suos apostatantes, quare ergo non debet esse proporcionaliter in ecclesiastica ierarchia?’ pp. 349-50: Cf. also Wyclif in De Civ. Dom. ii. 18-19 ‘Quod si prelati ecclesie monstruose frangant ordinem vocacionis sue, se ipsos plus ceteris negociis secularibus implicantes, lucra temporalia avidius affectantes et legem monarchie Christus plus ceteris dissipantes, indubie non sunt pro tunc nisi forte nuncupative de superiore ordine ecclesiastice yerarchie, cum iste yerarchie fundanrur in virtu turn gradibus, non nature…’
6 Trial, pp. 109-12.
7 Wilks, M., ‘Predestination, Property and Power: Wyclif’s Theory of Dominion and Grace’, SCH 2 (1965) pp. 220–36.Google Scholar
8 De Civ.Dom. ii. 10-20 and idem, Trial, pp. 336, 433. Wyclif argues here against religious who pursue ambition.
9 ‘Ideo necesse est esse tres lerarchias in regno que omnes unam personam unicordem constituant, scilicet sacerdotes vel oratores, seculares dominos vel defensores, et plebeos vel laboratores. Primi sunt tectum domus ecclesie ideo conversado eorum debet esse celo propinquior, sarcina temporalium levior et proteccio spiritualis superior. Debent enim protegere partes inferiores a caumate carnalis concupiscencie, ab imbribus mundane molestie, et a vento inanis iactancie. Secunda yerarchia debet constanter tamquam tetragonus sine vituperio defendere regnum corporaliter a plagis quattuor correspondenter ad quattuor domus parietes. Due vero différencie sursum quo ad celum et deorsum quo ad inferum sunt specialiter sacerdotibus reservate. Tercia vero ierarchia debet intendere operi terrenorum et ideo, tamquam sustentans regnum in temporalibus, comparabitur fundo domus. Quando iste tres yerarchie comproporcionantur in quantitate et qualitate secundum dei regulas regnum procedet prospere. Ideo sapiencia regis ac eius prudencia diligencius debet ad illud attendere. Quamvis autem dei sit perficere hos tres gradus, tamen pertinet ad eius vicarium ministerialiter adiuvare.’ De Off. Reg. pp. 58-9. In his De Christo et Adversario suo Antichristo, cap. 1, Wyclif represents the harmony that should exist between the three parts of the church militant (clergy, warriors, labourers) as an imitation of the uncreated trinity. See Pol. Works ii. 654. Cf. also on the three orders in the church De Blas. p. 227/23-30; Sermones ii Sermon 24, pp. 175-7; Sermon 46, p. 337; Dial. pp. 2-3.
10 Roberti Grosseteste Epistolae, ed. H. R. Luard. RS (London, 1861) no. CXXVIII, pp. 432-7. Cf. W. A. Pantin, ‘Grosseteste’s Relations with the Papacy and the Crown’, Robert Grosseteste. Scholar ana Bishop. Essays in Commemoration of the Seventh Centenary of his Death, ed. D. A. Callus (Oxford, 1955) pp. 178-215, here pp. 189-90. M.J. Wilks, ‘The Early Oxford Wyclif: Papalist or Nominalist?’, SCH 5 (1969) pp. 69-98 stresses Wyclif’s ‘quite exceptional grasp of papalhierocratic theory’ and his ‘superior ability to detect the weakest points in his adversaries’ chain of argument’, and he advances the stimulating hypothesis that what Wyclif later rejected he had once accepted. The matter is complicated but Wilks’s valuable argument does not here apparently take into account the fact that Grosseteste (or Denis) was such a powerful stimulus upon Wyclif’s. For Wyclif’s debt to Giles of Rome and Richard FitzRalph see Gwynn, A., The English Austin Friars in the Time of Wyclif (Oxford, 1940).Google Scholar
11 Cf. for example, De Eccles. p. 350; and, generally, see Loserth, J., ‘Johann von WiclifF und Robert Grosseteste, Bischof von Lincoln’, Sitzungsberichte der Akademie des Wissenschaftens in Wien, Philos, hist. Klasse 186 (1918) fase. 2, pp. 1–83Google Scholar, here 31-2, 70-3; also Workman, H. B., John Wyclif. A Study of the English Medieval Church, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1926) I pp. 115–16Google Scholar. Robson, J. A., Wyclif and the Oxford Schools (Cambridge, 1961) p. 26Google Scholar writes of ‘the extraordinary revival of interest in the work of Lincolniensis, which preceded Wyclif’s entry into the schools and persisted into the fifteenth century’. Grosseteste’s name and fame spread more widely through Wycliffite writings in the vernacular. Glossed Gospels using the early version (EV) of the English translation of die Bible, perhaps by Nicholas Hereford, show how a Lollard commentator or commentators cited Grosseteste’s sermons repeatedly in criticism of the clergy. See the extracts printed by Hudson, A., Selections from English Wycliffite Writings (Cambridge, 1978) no. 12, pp. 62–3Google Scholar (see also pp. 171-2). In the General Prologue to the Wycliffite Bible, chap. 15, written perhaps between 1395 and 1397, one of the Dicta of Grosseteste is cited in favour of vernacular translations of the Scriptures. See Hudson, , Selections, no. 14, p. 71Google Scholar, line 155 and p. 176, n. 155-7. Grosseteste’s Dicta and sermons were frequendy cited in the unprinted Wycliffite collections that go under the name ofFloretum or Rosarium Theologie according to Hudson, A., ‘A Lollard compilation and the dissemination of Wycliffite thought’, JTS 23 (1973) pp. 65–81, here p. 73.Google Scholar
12 ‘For si♭ prestis ben clepid aungelis in holy writt, & ♭es curatis bryngen not message of god but of ♭e fend, as here wicked lif scewi♭, ♭ei ben not aungelis of god but aungelis of ♭e fend; & ♭e trewe clerk robert grosted writ♭ to ♭e pope ♭at curatis ben sathanas transfigurid in-to aungel of liзt for ♭ei prechen not cristis gospel bi word & good lif, ♭ouз pei diden no more synne; and si♭ seynt perir was clepid sathanas of crist, as ♭e gospel tellij>, for he was contrarie to goddis wille & sauourid not hevenly ♭ngis, wel ben ♭es euele curatis clepid sathanas, si♭ ♭ei ben more contrarie to goddis wille & sauouren less gostly fingis & sauynge of cristene soulis’, The Office of Curates, cap. 3, ed. F. D. Matthew, The English Works of Wyclif hitherto unprinted, EETS, O.S. 74 (London, 1880) p. 145. The work is of uncertain authorship. Cf. On the Twenty Five Articles (written 1388/9), in Select English Works of John Wyclif, ed. T. Arnold, 3 vols., (Oxford, 1869-72) 111, pp. 469-70. This work too is of uncertain authorship. Also: ‘And ♭us sei♭ Lincoln, in a sermoun: ♭e office of prelacy pass♭ alle o♭er in charge, syn ♭e principale and ♭e finale wark of Crist ♭at he cam for in to ♭is world is ♭e quiking of soulis… werfor scheperds, clepid ♭e persoun of ♭e verry schepherd lesu Crist, nouзt schewing ♭p gospel, ♭of ♭ei ekid not o♭er malice ouer, ♭ey are anticrists, and Sathanas transfigurid in to an aungel of liзt’, An Apology for Lollard Doctrines attributed to Widiffe, ed. J. H. Todd, CSer 14 (London, 1842) p. 54.
13 ‘Et patet quod hodie (si phas est dicere) sunt episcopi Anglie quoad Romanam ecclesiam in casu consimili, ut Lincolniensis in sermone suo conqueritur Romano pontifici’. De Civ. Dom. i. 290.
14 De Civ. Dom. i. 384-92.
15 Determinatio contra Kylingham Carmelitani and Alia determinatio contra Kylingham Carmelitam in FZ pp. 454 and 477. Cf. Denis, Divine Names, c. 10, in Dionysiaca. Recueil donnant l’ensemble des traductions latines des ouvrages attribués au Denys l’Aréopage… 2 vols., (Bruges, 1937) I, pp. 4821-2, 4853-64. On Wyclif’s argument in general see Leff, G., Heresy in the Later Middle Ages, 2 vols. (Manchester, 1967) 2 pp. 503–16Google Scholar; also Robson, J. A., Wyclif and the Oxford Schools (Cambridge, 1961) pp. 162–70Google Scholar. On this particular point see Smalley, B., ‘The Bible and Eternity: John Wyclifs Dilemma’, JWCI 27 (1964) pp. 73–89.Google Scholar
16 De Apos. p. 69. The treatise was written between 1378 and 1380.
17 Cf.Smalley, B., ‘The Biblical Scholar’ in Robert Grosseteste, Scholar and Bishop, ed. Callus, D. A. (Oxford, 1955) pp. 70, 95–6Google Scholar. According to Benrath, G.A., Wyclifs Bibelkommentar. Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 36 (Berlin, 1966) p. 72CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Wyclif cites Denis as well as Grosseteste’s Commentary on Denis’s Mystical Theology in a discussion of mystical and symbolic theology which is found in his unprinted commentary on Daniel i. contained in the Oxford MS., Magdalen College, Lat. 117, f. 187c. Other references to Denis in the printed editions of WycliPs Latin works are all to the Divine Names. In De Dom. Div. pp. 42, 195, 207 Wyclif invokes Denis’s work (multis locis) for terms describing God and beginning in super- (e.g. supersubstantia). On the second of these three references Grosseteste is mentioned as well (‘beams Dionysius in De divinis Nominibus cum Lincolniense’). On two occasions Wyclif makes an identical mention of chapter 5 of Divine Names; see Sermones ii.no. 53 (p. 387), and Opus Evan. i. 87. In De triplici vinculo amoris cap. i. Wyclif cites Denis without naming his work; see Pol. Works i. 163. All these references have a common theme: the goodness of God and his love.
18 See Congar, Y., ‘Aspects ecclésiologiques’, pp. 124, 130–1Google Scholar, for references to Aquinas. Among these note, inter alia, Aquinas: ‘Nee oportet quod in omnibus nostra hierarchia cum coelesti conveniat, ersi earn secundum modum suum imitetur’, II Sent., d. 9, q. 1, a. 7, ad. 3. Also, ‘Ecclesiastica hierarchia imitatur coelestem aliqualiter, sed non perfecte consequitur eius similitudinem’, Summa theologiae, 1a, q. 106, a. 3, ad. 1.
19 John of Paris, De Potestate Regia et Papali ed. J. Leclercq, Jean de Paris et l’Ecclésiologie du XIIIe siècle. L’Eglise et l’Etat au Moyen Age 5 (Paris, 1942), e.g. in chap. 2 (p. 179) and chap. 18 (pp. 230 ff). In addition to Leclercq’s full examination of the treatise see Rivière, J., Leproblème de l’église et l’état au temps de Philippe le Bel. Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense, 8 (Louvain-Paris, 1926) pp. 148–50, 281–300, 415Google Scholar. See too John of Paris. On Royal and Papal Power. Translated with an introduction by J. A. Watt (Toronto, 1971). Also John of Paris. On Royal and Papal Power. A Translation with Introduction … Monahan, A. P.. Records of Civilization. Sources and Studies 90 (Columbia, 1974).Google Scholar
20 John of Paris, De Potestate Regia et Papali c. 18, ed. Leclercq, op. cit., pp. 230-1.
21 Ed. Dupuy, P., Histoire du differend d’entre le pape Boniface VIII et Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1655) pp. 663–83Google Scholar. See too Scholz, R., Die Publizistik zur Zeit Philipps des Schönen und Bonifaz’ VIII. (Stuttgart, 1903) pp. 252–75Google Scholar, and Rivière, J., Le problème de l’église et de l’état pp. 137–8, 262–70, 431–4Google Scholar. The work has recently been attributed to John of Paris by Saenger, P., John of Paris, Principal Author of the Quaestio de potestate papae (Rex pacificus)’ Speculum 59 (1981) pp. 41–55.Google Scholar
22 Vinay, G., ‘Egidio Romano e la cosidetta Questio in utramque partem (con testo critico)’, Bollettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo e Archivio Muratoriano 53 (Rome, 1939) pp. 43–136Google Scholar. Previously ed. Goldast, M. Monarchia sacri romani imperii II (Frankfurt, 1614) pp. 95–107Google Scholar. See Scholz, R., Die Publizistik, pp. 224–51Google Scholar and Rivière, J., Le problème de l’église et l’état, pp. 133–7, 274–81Google Scholar. Also Watt, J. A. ‘The Quaestio in utramaue partem reconsidered’, SGra 13 (1967) pp. 411–53Google Scholar. Vinay argues that the author is Giles of Rome. Mariani, U., Chiesa eStato nei teologi agostiniani del secolo XIV. Uomini e dottrine, 5 (Rome, 1957) pp. 37–9Google Scholar disagrees. But see Kuttner, S., ‘Aegidius Romanus and the authorship of In utramaue partem and De ecclesiastica potestate ’, Augustiniana 8 (1958) pp. 267–80.Google Scholar
23 Questio, ed. Vinay, pp. 119-20.
24 Raoul’s translation of the Quaestio in utramaue partem was ed. M. Goldast, Monarchia S. Romani Imperii, (Hannover, 1611) I pp. 39-57. His translation of Rex pacificus which is here mentioned appears not to have survived.
25 Ed. Finke, H., Aus den Tagen Bonifaz VIII. Funde und Forschungen (Münster i.W., 1902) pp. c–cxviGoogle Scholar; cf. pp. 181-6. For the distinction between the orders of dignity and of causality Aquinas, cf., Summa theologiae IIIa, a. 6, a. 1, S. Thomae Aauinatis Opera omnia, XI (Rome, 1903) p. 93Google Scholar. See further Rivière, J., Le problème de l’église et l’état, pp. 153–5, 300–5.Google Scholar
26 Somnium Viridarii, ed. M. Goldast, Monarchia S. Romani Imperii (Hannover, 1611) I pp. 58-229. See Royer, J. P., L’Eglise et le Royaume de France au XIVe siècle d’apres le “Songe du Vergier”et la juris prudence du Parlement. Bibliothèque d’histoire du droit et du droit romain 15 (Paris, 1969).Google Scholar
27 Somnium lib. I, cap. xliii-xliv, pp. 72-3.
28 Dialogus inter Militem et Clericum… by John Trevisa, ed. A.J. Perry, EETS, 167 (1925).
29 Pantin, W. A., ‘Grosseteste’s Relations with the Papacy and the Crown’, p. 183.Google Scholar