Société Internationale pour l’Étude de la Philosophie Médiévale — Rencontres de Philosophie Médiévale, 15 — General Editor: Kent EMERY, Jr. (University of Notre Dame) PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY IN THE STUDIA OF THE RELIGIOUS ORDERS AND AT PAPAL AND ROYAL COURTS Acts of the XVth Annual Colloquium of the Société Internationale pour l’Étude de la Philosophie Médiévale University of Notre Dame, 8-10 October 2008 edited by KENT EMERY, JR., WILLIAM J. COURTENAY and STEPHEN M. METZGER F 2012 The XVth Annual Colloquium of the SIEPM was sponsored and funded by the Medieval Institute at the University of Notre Dame and by an Annual Henkels Lectures grant from the Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts, University of Notre Dame. All of the essays published in this volume have been reviewed by members of the Bureau of the SIEPM. © 2012, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2012/0095/28 ISBN 978-2-503-54326-0 Printed in the E.U. on acid-free paper TABLE OF CONTENTS Kent EMERY, Jr., Introduction.................................................................vii Tabula siglorum.....................................................................................xvii I. THE DOMINICANS..................................................................................1 Alfonso MAIERÙ, Dominican studia in Spain............................................3 Joseph GOERING, What the Friars Really Learned at Oxford and Cambridge................................................................................................33 Adriano OLIVA, OP, L’enseignement des Sentences dans les studia dominicains italiens au XIIIe siècle : l’Alia lectura de Thomas d’Aquin et le Scriptum de Bombolognus de Bologne..............................49 Alessandro PALAZZO, Philosophy and Theology in the German Dominican scholae in the Late Middle Ages: The Cases of Ulrich of Strasbourg and Berthold of Wimpfen...................................................75 Guy GULDENTOPS, Struggling with Authority: Durand of Saint- Pourçain on the Origin of Power and on Obedience to the Pope............107 Fabrizio AMERINI, The Reception of Thomas Aquinas’ Philosophy in the Dominican studia of the Roman Province in the Fourteenth Century...................................................................................................139 Hester Goodenough GELBER, Blackfriars London: the Late Medie- val studium..............................................................................................165 Maarten J.F.M. HOENEN, How the Thomists in Cologne Saved Aristotle: The Debate over the Eternity of the World in the Late- Medieval Period......................................................................................181 II. THE FRANCISCANS...........................................................................219 Neslihan (cid:249)ENOCAK, The Franciscan studium generale: A New In- terpretation..............................................................................................221 Luca BIANCHI, Aristotle Among Thirteenth-Century Franciscans: Some Preliminary Remarks....................................................................237 Alain BOUREAU, Enseignement et débat dans les ordres mendiants du XIIIe siècle : Le cas des Quodlibeta de Richard de Mediavilla.........261 William O. DUBA, The Legacy of the Bologna studium in Peter Auriol’s Hylomorphism..........................................................................277 Sylvain PIRON, Les studia franciscains de Provence et d’Aquitaine (1275-1335)............................................................................................303 v i Christopher D. SCHABEL and Garrett R. SMITH, The Franciscan studium in Barcelona in the Early Fourteenth Century..........................359 François-Xavier PUTALLAZ, La peine de mort est-elle légitime ? Le studium franciscain de Cologne s’interroge au XIVe siècle...................393 III. THE AUGUSTINIANS AND THE CARMELITES................................407 Giorgio PINI, Building the Augustinian Identity: Giles of Rome as Master of the Order................................................................................409 Russell L. FRIEDMAN, How ‘Aegidian’ Were Later Augustinian Hermits Regarding Intellectual Cognition? Gerard of Siena, Mi- chael of Massa and the Object of the Intellect.......................................427 Stephen F. BROWN, The Early Carmelite Parisian Masters...................479 Wouter GORIS, The Critique of the Doctrine of God as First Known in the Early Carmelite School................................................................493 IV. THE BENEDICTINES AND THE CISTERCIANS................................527 Thomas SULLIVAN, OSB, Ut nostra religione refloreat studium: The studia of the Monastic Orders.........................................................529 Amos CORBINI, Pierre de Ceffons et l’instruction dans l’Ordre cis- tercien : quelques remarques..................................................................549 V. THE FRIARS, PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY AT PAPAL AND ROYAL COURTS....................................................................................575 M. Michèle MULCHAHEY, The Dominican Studium Romanae Cu- riae: The Papacy, the Magisterium and the Friars.................................577 Jacqueline HAMESSE, Les instruments de travail philosophiques et théologiques, témoins de l’enseignement et de l’influence des or- dres mendiants à l’époque de la papauté d’Avignon............................601 Patrick NOLD, How Influential Was Giovanni di Napoli, OP, at the Papal Court in Avignon?........................................................................629 Christian TROTTMANN, La vision béatifique, question disputée à la cour pontificale d’Avignon ?.................................................................677 Roberto LAMBERTINI, Political Theory in the Making: Theology, Philosophy and Politics at the Court of Lewis the Bavarian..................701 William J. COURTENAY, Epilogue.........................................................725 Index of Manuscripts.............................................................................735 Index of Ancient and Medieval Names.................................................741 Index of Modern and Contemporary Authors........................................753 INTRODUCTION KENT EMERY, JR. W ith one exception, the essays in this volume originated as lectures delivered at the XVth Annual Colloquium of the Société Interna- tionale pour l’Étude de la Philosophie Médiévale (SIEPM), held at the University of Notre Dame, 8-10 October 2008. The Colloquium cele- brated the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Société. Like the anni- versary meeting itself, this volume marks a certain progress in the study of medieval philosophy and theology since the time when the Société was founded. At its beginning, the Société was especially concerned with the nexus between the transmission of the writings of Aristotle in the Latin West, the rise of the universities, and the development of the curricula and formal study of philosophy and of Scholastic theology within the universi- ties.1 In the last two decades especially, intellectual historians have di- rected attention to other institutional loci of philosophical and theological learning in the later Middle Ages, notably to the schools or studia (study- houses) of the mendicant and monastic religious orders, as well as to the intellectual activity at the papal court (especially at Avignon) and at vari- ous royal courts.2 The purpose of this volume is to consolidate scholarship on these subjects, to define the status quaestionis, to encourage students of medieval philosophy and theology to become more aware of, and be more attentive to, the particularities of instruction in the studia as distinct from the university, and to heed more carefully large and more subtle dif- ferences between texts produced to fulfill degree-requirements at the uni- versity, designed for instruction in the schools of the religious orders, or as contributions to the agenda of the papal or some royal court. The development of Scholastic philosophy and theology in the later Middle Ages is indeed associated closely with the foundation of the uni- versities; in large part the various genres of Scholastic literature are de- fined by the curricula, academic exercises, degree requirements, etc. es- 1 For recollections and comments on the founding of the SIEPM, see J. HAMESSE and K. EMERY, Jr. in the Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 50 (2008), v-x, x-xvii, respectively. 2 In passing, William J. COURTENAY gives an overview of this scholarly literature in his Epilogue to this volume, pp. 725-34. Philosophy and Theology in the Studia of the Religious Orders and at Papal and Royal Courts Turnhout, 2012, (Rencontres de Philosophie médiévale 15) pp. VII-XVI © F H G DOI 10.1484/M.RPM-EB.1.100969 v iii Kent Emery, Jr. tablished at the universities. Yet it is a large fact, commonly disregarded, that members of the mendicant (Augustinian, Carmelite, Dominican, Franciscan) and monastic (Benedictine, Cistercian) religious orders typi- cally received all of their instruction in the liberal arts and most or all of their instruction in theology not in the university proper but in the local, provincial and general study-houses of their orders. Consequently, proba- bly the greater part of Scholastic philosophical and theological literature was designed and composed for instruction within the studia of the reli- gious orders. The religious orders usually established general study- houses near universities; the relationship between the studia and universi- ties, however, varied in different places and times. For example, there were no faculties of theology in Italian universities, so that in Italy theo- logical training took place nearly exclusively in the study-houses of the religious orders. Otherwise, more talented Italian friars were sent to Paris (e.g., Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas) or, especially in the fourteenth cen- tury, to Oxford, to study theology. In all cases, however, only a very few of the many friars and monks who had embarked upon the long course of study in arts and theology in the network of their orders’ studia were eventually sent to Paris to pursue the university degrees of Bachelor and Doctor of Theology under the order’s current Regent Master. In principle if not always in fact, the curricula of the religious studia were meant to duplicate broadly the curriculum in the university; accord- ingly, teachers and students in the studia produced Scholastic literature in the same genres as their secular counterparts in the university proper: logical treatises, commentaries on the works of Aristotle, on Scripture and the Sentences, questions on natural philosophy and theology (which in their literary transmission were usually detached from the brief comments on authoritative texts that originally accompanied them), disputations of various kinds, including quodlibetal disputes and collationes (or evening disputes). But although the curricula in the studia broadly matched the curriculum of the university, the differences in teaching and intention could be significant. Masters in the faculty of Arts in the university were accustomed to comment on the works of Aristotle in a thorough and sys- tematic way: lemmata of the continuous text received explanation and comment, questions were raised and disputed, and in general the meaning intended by the Philosopher was determined. Friars composed commen- taries like those of the secular masters at the university. The commentaries on Aristotle by Thomas Aquinas, for example, were probably composed with the instruction of the friars in the studia in mind, but because in their form and quality they emulated the tradition of commentary at the univer- Introduction ix sity, they soon became esteemed by masters in the faculty of Arts at the University of Paris.3 As William Courtenay points out in his Epilogue to this volume, whereas secular masters in the universities commented upon the writings of Aristotle before studying theology, the “Aristotelian com- mentaries of mendicants... were for the most part written after their bacca- laureate in theology and lectures on the Sentences” (p. 731). This fact was not without consequence, and it is evident that courses in the Arts taught in the studia of the religious orders could be quite different in form and intention from those taught in the faculty of Arts at the university. For example, the Quaestiones super secundum et tertium De anima by John Duns Scotus issued from a course that he taught in the Franciscan studium in Oxford in the early 1290s. The Quaestiones scarcely constitute a com- mentary on De anima; Scotus does not expound Aristotle’s text and he seldom engages the actual arguments of Aristotle or his commentators. More frequently he addresses the arguments of theologians, e.g., Thomas Aquinas, Vital du Four, Gonsalvus Hispanus, Henry of Ghent, Godfrey of Fontaines, Giles of Rome. The work is only loosely related to Aristotle’s text, comprising a series of selected questions roughly in sequence with topics in Books II and III of De anima. The questions treat precisely those matters concerning the soul that commonly and conventionally arise in theological discourse, for instance, in commentaries on the Sentences. In- deed, in his questions Scotus raises theological topics (e.g., the Beatific Vision) and adduces theological examples freely, in a way that would never be allowed by a master in the Arts faculty at the University of Paris. Scotus’ Quaestiones unambiguously reflect an understanding of philoso- phy as the handmaiden of theology (ancilla theologiae); his course on De anima was designed to introduce friars to the ways men talked about the soul in the faculty of Theology, and was especially useful to students who might someday advance so far in their studies as to become Bachelors under a Regent Master of the Order.4 3 See J.-P. TORRELL, OP, Initiation à saint Thomas d’Aquin : sa person et son œuvre, deuxième édition, Fribourg Suisse-Paris, 2002, 327-60. Among Masters of the Arts fac- ulty, Thomas soon earned the epithet famosus expositor [of Aristotle]; see C. STEEL, Intro- duction to HENRICUS BATE: Speculum divinorum et quorundam naturalium. Parts XI-XII: On Platonic Philosophy, ed. H. BOESE (Ancient and Medieval Series 1: 12), Leuven 1990, xi. Concerning the use of the title, Steel (n. 2) cites A. PATTIN, De verhouding van en wezenheid en de transcendentale relatie in de 2de helft van de XIIIe eeuw (Verhandelingen van Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België 21), Brussel 1955, 189 n. 12. 4 See B. IOANNIS DUNS SCOTI Quaestiones super secundum et tertium De anima, ed. C. BÁZAN, K. EMERY, R. GREEN, T. NOONE, R. PLEVANO et A. TRAVER (B. Ioannis Duns Scoti x Kent Emery, Jr. Probably the supreme exercise performed by the Master of Theology at the University of Paris was the quodlibetal disputation. Accordingly, Quodlibeta were the preferred literary production of the great secular masters—e.g., Gerard of Abbeville, Henry of Ghent, Godfrey of Fon- taines, Jean de Pouilly—who spent their whole careers in the faculty of Theology at Paris. Significantly, the commentaries on the Sentences of these secular masters, which they needs must have delivered on their way to becoming Bachelors and Masters of Theology, do not survive; in rela- tion to their later magisterial teaching responsibilities (ordinary and quod- libetal disputes), their baccalaureate exercise seemingly did not assume such great importance, and unlike mendicant masters (see below), they evidently did not devote any time to revising and up-dating their early Sentences-commentaries. Mendicant theologians who became university masters (e.g., Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus) disputed quodlibe- tal questions during their regencies at the University of Paris, but since their teaching careers in the university proper were not long, the number of disputes they conducted were few in comparison with the secular mas- ters. Not surprisingly, the quodlibetal dispute—the quintessential form of the faculty of Theology at the university—was carried over into the study- houses of the religious orders. In the studia, however, quodlibeta assumed a slightly different form, served a subtly different purpose and held a dif- ferent significance than they did in the university.5 The quodlibetal dis- pute, moreover, was enacted in yet another institutional venue. In the years 1314-1316 (probably at Christmas each year), as Master of the Sa- cred Palace Durand of Saint-Pourçain, OP disputed three large Quodlibeta at the papal court at Avignon.6 Interpreters ought to be alert to the differ- ences between generically similar formal disputes as they occur in differ- ent institutional settings and contexts. Opera philosophica 5), Washington, D.C.-St. Bonaventure, NY 2006, 139*-43*. 5 See the comments of J.C. WEY, CSB (ed.), Venerabilis inceptoris GUILLELMI DE OCKHAM Quodlibeta septem (Guillelmi de Ockham Opera theologica 9), St. Bonaventure, NY 1980, 30*-41*. Wey argues that the Quodlibeta were disputed in the Franciscan study- house in London but were composed in the study-house in Avignon. For a magisterial study of quodlibetal disputations within the studia of the Franciscans, see S. PIRON, “Fran- ciscan Quodlibeta in Southern studia and at Paris, 1280-1300”, in Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages I: The Thirteenth Century, ed. C. SCHABEL (Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 1), Leiden-Boston 2006, 403-38. 6 DURANDUS A SANCTO PORCIANO, Quodlibeta Avenionensia tria, additis correctionibus HERVEI NATALIS supra dicta Durandi in primo Quolibet, ed. P.T. STELLA (Textus et studia in historiam scholasticae 1), Zürich 1965.