Philosophy and Theology in the German Dominican scholae in the Late Middle Ages: the Cases of Ulrich of Strasbourg and Berthold of Wimpfen

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 BREPOLS 2012 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 SaintPourçain 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 Medieval studium..............................................................................................165 Maarten J.F.M. HOENEN, How the Thomists in Cologne Saved Aristotle: The Debate over the Eternity of the World in the LateMedieval Period......................................................................................181 II. THE FRANCISCANS ...........................................................................219 Neslihan ŞENOCAK, The Franciscan studium generale: A New Interpretation..............................................................................................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 vi 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, Michael 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 cistercien : quelques remarques.................................................................. 549 V. THE FRIARS, PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY AT PAPAL AND ROYAL COURTS .................................................................................... 575 M. Michèle MULCHAHEY, The Dominican Studium Romanae Curiae: 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 ordres 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 PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY IN THE GERMAN DOMINICAN SCHOLAE IN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES: THE CASES OF ULRICH OF STRASBOURG AND BERTHOLD OF WIMPFEN ALESSANDRO PALAZZO C ompared to what we know about other Dominican provinces, our knowledge of the Dominican strategies in the field of education and the organization of study-houses in Germany between 1250 and 1350 is scanty.1 This is due to the fact that, with the exception of very few fragments, the acts of the Provincial Chapters of the Dominican provinces of Teutonia and, from 1303 on, of Saxonia (carved out of the original province of Teutonia) are now lost. These acts are the most valuable source of information about the Order’s educational policies at the provincial level: extant legislative records from other provinces inform us about the administration of the convent and provincial schools. They list the names of the lectors to be assigned to priory houses, the students, lectors and masters of students to be assigned to provincial houses of study, and which students were to be sent to the Order’s studia generalia; they sometimes even describe the syllabus adopted in the provincial houses of studies (studia artium, studia naturarum and studia theologiae particularis). They also illustrate how the provinces adapted to the instructions coming from the General Chapters and document provincial initiatives in developing special school programs or other innovations that served as pilot pro1 A larger corpus of legislation has been preserved especially for the Roman Province and the Province of Provence, which are therefore those more carefully and exstensively studied: see C. DOUAIS, Essais sur l’organisation des études dans l’ordre des frères Prêcheurs au treizième et au quatorzième siècle (1216-1342). Première province de Provence–Province de Toulouse, avec de nombreux textes inédits et un état du personnel enseignant dans cinquante-cinq couvents du Midi de la France, Paris-Toulouse 1884; M.M. MULCHAHEY, “First the Bow is Bent in Study....”: Dominican Education before 1350 (Studies and Texts 132), Toronto 1998, who relies for her description of the Dominican educational system mainly on the examples provided by France and Italy. The acta of the Roman province and the province of Provence have both been edited: Acta capitulorum provincialium provinciae Romanae (1243-1344), ed. T. KAEPPELI et A. DONDAINE (MOPH 20), Roma 1941; Acta capitulorum provincialium ordinis fratrum Praedicatorum. Premier province de Provence, province romaine, province d’Espagne, ed. C. DOUAIS, Toulouse 1894. Philosophy and Theology in the Studia of the Religious Orders and at Papal and Royal Courts Turnhout, 2012, (Rencontres de Philosophie médiévale 15) pp. 75-105 ©F H G DOI 10.1484/M.RPM-EB.1.100973 76 Alessandro Palazzo jects for the entire Order. Scarcely any of this information any longer exists for the provinces of Teutonia and Saxonia. On the basis of the fragmentary evidence we do have, we know that the Provincial Chapter held in 1284 in Leipzig decreed that in that year seven studia artium were to be established in the province of Teutonia in the convents of Basel, Worms, Würzburg, Regensburg, Leipzig, Neuruppin and Halberstadt, each of them with five to eight students. Another two studia were to be established in Austria and Brabantia in convents which the Provincial Prior judged appropriate for this purpose.2 It is likely that the seven friars mentioned at the beginning of the fragment were students assigned to studia theologiae.3 When exactly the province of Teutonia first introduced the studia artium and the studia theologiae is unknown, but the former must have been created after 1261, since the General Chapter held that year in Barcelona charged Teutonia with establishing two or three logical studia, suggesting that this province had not yet set up that kind of school.4 A letter by the Provincial Prior Hermann of Minden shows that in 1278 the studia artium were already functioning.5 It is also not known when the studia naturarum were first erected. A late reference to them is found in a fragment of the acts of the 1315 German Provincial Chapter held in Friesach, in which, because of war-related difficulties, the suspension of the teaching activities of both the studia artium and the studia naturarum was ordered.6 A very late fragment dated 2 H. FINKE, “Zur Geschichte der deutschen Dominikaner in XIII. und XIV. Jahrhundert”, in Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und für Kirchengeschichte 8 (1894), 376-79, the section concerning the studia is in 376-77. 3 This is the suggestion put forward by H.C. SCHEEBEN, “Der Konvent der Predigerbrüder in Straßburg – Die religiöse Heimat Taulers”, in Johannes Tauler. Ein deutscher Mystiker. Gedenkschrift zum 600. Todestag, hrsg. v. E. FILTHAUT, Essen 1961, 51; in fact, at the end of the section pertaining to the studia there is a reference to “studentes tam arcium quam theologie”. 4 ACGOP 1, ed. B.M. REICHERT (MOPH 3), 109. In his account of the Dominican educational system in Germany, I. FRANK, “Zur Studienorganisation der Dominikanerprovinz Teutonia in der ersten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts und zum Studiengang des seligen Heinrich Seuse OP”, in Heinrich Seuse. Studien zum 600. Todestag. 1366-1966, hrsg. v. E. FILTHAUT, Köln 1966, 60, also alludes to the existence of theological studia particularia, without, however, specifying when they started to function. 5 H. FINKE, Ungedruckte Dominikanerbriefe des XIII. Jahrhunderts, Paderborn 1891, 106 n. 84. 6 T. KAEPPELI, “Ein Fragment der Akten des in Friesach 1315 gefeierten Kapitels der Provinz Teutonia”, in AFP 48 (1978), 72. According to FRANK, “Zur Studienorganisation der Dominikanerprovinz Teutonia”, 56, there were one or two schools for arts in each of Philosophy and Theology in the German Dominican scholae 77 1346 confirms that at that time a provincial network of study-houses in logic, philosophy and theology was functioning in the province of Teutonia.7 Over and above this network in Germany was the studium generale of Cologne, erected by Albert the Great by order of the General Chapter of 1248. We do have some information about Albert’s teaching activity in Cologne. He made the bold decision to lecture on texts that did not then belong to the traditional curriculum of a Dominican general study-house, which was designed to impart high-level theological training to future lectors: these texts were the writings of the Corpus Dionysiacum and Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.8 Later on, in 1258, he would also hold disputations on Aristotle’s De animalibus, a reportatio of which by a certain Brother Cunradus has come down to us.9 the nationes into which the province of Teutonia was divided, depending on the needs of the moment; the same distribution seems to be indicated for the studia naturarum. The sub-division of the province is already foreshadowed in a fragment of the Provincial Chapter of 1267: F. BÜNGER, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Provinzialkapitel und Provinziale des Dominikanerordens (QF 14), Leipzig 1919, 9-10. For the nationes of Teutonia, see also P. VON LOË, Statistisches über die Ordensprovinz (QF 1), Leipzig 1907, 5-6, and W. SENNER, “Die Rheinischen studia der Dominikaner im Mittelalter: Alternative und Vorläufer der Universitates Studiorum”, in University, Council, City. Intellectual Culture on the Rhine (1300–1550). Acts of the XIIth International Colloquium of the SIEPM, Freiburg im Breisgau, 27-29 October 2004, ed. L. CESALLI, N. GERMANN and M.J.F.M. HOENEN (Rencontres de Philosophie Médiévale 13), Turnhout 2007, 8-9. 7 T. KAEPPELI, “Kapitelsakten der Dominikanerprovinz Teutonia (1346)”, in AFP 23 (1953), 327-34. 8 There is disagreement among scholars as to where Albert’s commentary on De caelesti hierarchia, one of the writings of the Corpus Dionysiacum, was written. According to J.A. WEISHEIPL, “The Life and Works of St. Albert the Great”, in Albertus Magnus and the Sciences. Commemorative Essays, ed. J.A. WEISHEIPL (Studies and Texts 49), Toronto 1980, 29, Albert had already commented on it in Paris; W. SENNER, “Albertus Magnus als Gründungsregens des Kölner Studium generale der Dominikaner”, in Geistesleben im 13. Jahrhundert, hrsg. v. J.A. AERTSEN und A. SPEER (Miscellanea Mediaevalia 27), Berlin 2000, 160, believes that the studium generale at Cologne was the more plausible setting for this work; P. SIMON, Prolegomena to ALBERTUS MAGNUS, Super Dionysium De caelesti hierarchia, ed. P. SIMON et W. KÜBEL, in Opera omnia (Editio Coloniensis) 36.1, Münster i.W. 1993, V, even suggests that Albert had already written his commentary on De ecclesiastica hierarchia in Paris, but this solution is not accepted by other scholars; see, besides the aforementioned studies by Weisheipl and Senner, M. BURGER, Prolegomena to ALBERTUS MAGNUS, Super Dionysium De ecclesiastica hierarchia, ed. M. BURGER, in Opera omnia (Editio Coloniensis) 36.2, Münster i.W. 1999, I. 9 E. FILTHAUT, Prolegomena to ALBERTUS MAGNUS, Quaestiones super de animalibus, ed. E. FILTHAUT in Opera omnia (Ed. Colon.) 12, Münster i.W. 1955, XXXV.49-54. 78 Alessandro Palazzo These curricular innovations were counterparts of Albert’s activity as a commentator which began around 1250 while he was lector in Cologne and which within about twenty years would provide the Latins, and first of all his Dominican brethren, with paraphrases of all the Aristotelian writings, including the Liber de causis. Both the choice of the books to lecture upon in class and the decision to compose commentaries on the Aristotelian works clearly reflected Albert’s conviction that Dominican lectors must have specialist knowledge of philosophy. As will be shown, these decisions were to influence strongly Ulrich of Strasbourg, who attended Albert’s lessons at Cologne.10 Furthermore, M. Michèle Mulchahey has recently thrown light on the contemporaneity of Albert’s work of paraphrasing with the first studia naturarum in Provence, suggesting that the studia requested Albert’s commentaries to provide their syllabus.11 The quality of the education imparted in the studium of Cologne—in the absence of real universities, this was the only cultural institution of importance active in Germany before 1348, when a university was founded in Prague—as well as in the provincial and convent schools and the capillary network of these schools were major factors in the supremacy Dominicans managed to exert over German intellectual life between 1250 and 1350: Dominicans were indeed the most prominent theologians and philosophers active in Germany at that time, and to them we owe a rich and varied literature, covering a wide range of genres and styles, from scientific theological summae to theological compendia, from disputed and quodlibetal questions to confessors’ manuals and summae, from commentaries-Quaestiones-Expositiones on philosophical works to theological and philosophical florilegia, from Sentences-commentaries to sermons and other treatises in Latin and the vernacular.12 10 WEISHEIPL, “The Life and Works of St. Albert the Great”, 29-30, rightly emphasizes the relevance of Albert’s didactic innovations; L. STURLESE, Storia della filosofia tedesca nel Medioevo. Il secolo XIII (Accademia toscana di scienze e lettere «La Colombaria». Studi 149), Firenze 1996, 76-79, even refers to Albert’s production after moving to Cologne as “razionalismo filosofico” and a “svolta”. Even though Albert had already mastered philosophy in Paris, as the theological writings from that period show, his undertaking of a systematic commentary on the whole of Aristotle’s corpus was something much more remarkable—especially because in Cologne he was supposed to be still acting as a master in theology—and marked a crucial turning point in his career. 11 MULCHAHEY, “First the Bow is Bent in Study....”, 252-64. 12 L. STURLESE, Homo divinus. Philosophische Projekte in Deutschland zwischen Meister Eckhart und Heinrich Seuse, Stuttgart 2007, insists that Dominicans were predominant from a cultural point of view in late-medieval Germany. Philosophy and Theology in the German Dominican scholae 79 A large part of this literature must be related to the didactic activities in German schools and must be read either as providing a textual basis and support for teaching or as a refined written version of lectures and disputations that actually took place in the schools, or as reference books at the disposal of students and teachers in the libraries of the convents where the schools were located. For this reason, these works furnish us with valuable clues concerning the content and format of the courses and the interests prevailing in the scholae, as well as the way German Dominican schools followed, adapted to, and modified the pedagogical strategies devised by the Order at the level of the General Chapters. In sum, these works fill, at least partly, the gap left by the loss of the legislative documentation of the provinces of Teutonia and Saxonia. The contextualization within the framework of the scholae, moreover, greatly benefits the interpretation of these works themselves, the contents, structure and doctrinal positions of which can be seen to be the result not only of theoretical options but also of didactic concerns, and the quality of which can be assessed not according to generic standards of scientific and original contribution but according to the specific purposes that the writer tried to fulfill by writing his work. The purpose of this study is to examine the cases of two Dominicans, Ulrich of Strasbourg and Berthold of Wimpfen, both of whom were active as lectors in German convents, the former in the second half of thirteenth century and the latter around the turn of the fourteenth century. Their works will be investigated not so much from a textual point of view as from the point of view of their connection with the didactic context in which they came to be and of the cultural tendencies which they reflect. In this way I hope to show the extent to which a context-oriented approach, if applied systematically to all of the literary achievements of German Dominican authors from that period, might enrich the picture gained through textual analysis alone. I. Ulrich as Lector in the Strasbourg Convent There is very little information available about the life of Ulrich of Strasbourg.13 We know that in 1248 or shortly thereafter he was sent to Co13 For Ulrich’s biography, Martin Grabmann’s pioneering essay still remains the basic study and no substantial progress has been made by subsequent scholarship: M. GRABMANN, “Studien über Ulrich von Strassburg. Bilder wissenschaftlichen Lebens und Strebens aus der Schule Alberts des Grossen”, in Mittelalterliches Geistesleben. Abhand- 80 Alessandro Palazzo logne to specialize in the newly created studium generale.14 Ulrich is thought to have stayed there until 1254, the year in which Albert became Provincial Prior of the province of Teutonia and he began to work as a lector. It is not exactly certain when Ulrich began to carry out the role of lector in the Strasbourg convent, where he spent a few years before 1272 when he in turn was elected Provincial Prior of Teutonia.15 Finally in 1277, after repeated requests on his part, Ulrich was discharged from his position as Provincial Prior by the General Chapter of Bordeaux, but was charged instead with reading the Sentences in Paris.16 However, he died before he began his lectures on the Sentences.17 That Ulrich died before beginning to read the Sentences in Paris means that all of his works were written in Germany. Although it is possible that Ulrich carried out the function of lector in other convents (such as Würzburg) before Strasbourg,18 the convent in Strasbourg seems likely to have been the educalungen zur Geschichte und Mystik 1, München 1926, reprt. Hildesheim-Zürich-New York 1984, 147-67. 14 GRABMANN, “Studien über Ulrich von Strassburg”, 154; C. BAEUMKER, “Der Anteil des Elsaß an den geistigen Bewegungen des Mittelalters”, in Studien und Charakteristiken zur Geschichte der Philosophie insbesondere des Mittelalters (BGPhMA 25.1-2), Münster i.W. 1927, 236; A. FRIES, “Johannes von Freiburg, Schüler Ulrichs von Strassburg”, in RTAM 18 (1951), 336. All of these scholars agree on the former solution, while H.C. SCHEEBEN, “De Alberti Magni discipulis”, in Alberto Magno. Atti della Settimana Albertina celebrata in Roma nei giorni 9-14 Nov. 1931, Roma 1932, 207-8, adopts the latter. 15 In two different letters dated 1272 the diffinitores of the Provincial Chapter and the Dominican Master General refer to Ulrich as lector Argentinensis and lector conventus Argentinensis: FINKE, Ungedruckte Dominikanerbriefe, 78-79 nn. 43, 45; see also C. SCHMIDT, “Notice sur le couvent et l’église des dominicains de Strasbourg”, in Bulletin de la société pour la conservation des monuments historiques d’Alsace. IIe serie 9 (1876), 220. 16 GRABMANN, “Studien über Ulrich von Strassburg”, 166. 17 IOANNES DE FRIBURGO, Prologus in priorem libellum quaestionum causalium, in Summa confessorum, Lyon 1518: “Unde et postea provincialatus Teutoniae laudabiliter administrato officio, Parisius ad legendum directus ante lectionis inceptionem ibidem a Domino est assumptus.” FRIES, “Johannes von Freiburg, Schüler Ulrichs von Strassburg”, 334-35, has convincingly argued against the thesis advanced by SCHEEBEN, “De Alberti Magni discipulis”, 211-12, and BAEUMKER, “Der Anteil des Elsaß an den geistigen Bewegungen des Mittelalters”, 237 n. 49, that Ulrich would have had the chance to read the Sentences in Paris, having died not in 1277 but some time later. 18 On the basis of a document drawn up to mark the settlement of a quarrel between the abbey of Waldsassen and the members of the domus Theutonica of Eger, in which a certain brother Ulrich, lector in Würzburg in 1260, is cited, SCHEEBEN, “Der Konvent der Predigerbrüder in Strassburg”, 54 n. 84, hypothesizes that Ulrich only became lector in Strasbourg soon after 1261. The document is published in H.C. SCHEEBEN, Albert der Große. Zur Chronologie seines Lebens (QF 27), Vechta 1931, 137. On another occasion Philosophy and Theology in the German Dominican scholae 81 tional setting of most of his work. Since no documents are available, the nature of the schola of the Strasbourg convent at the time of Ulrich’s probable lectorship (mid-50searly 60s and 1272) is far from clear. A “penal decree” of the General Chapter of 1325 ordering the studentes in theologia who had rebelled against the Prior of the Strasbourg convent be sent back to their convents and provinces clearly reveals that at that time the Strasbourg convent housed a studium theologiae.19 However, it is possible that the creation of such a studium in Strasbourg occurred a few decades earlier.20 This possibility seems to be confirmed by the importance of the Strasbourg convent, one of the oldest (founded in 1224) and most important convents in the province of Teutonia,21 and by a declaration made by John of Freiburg, who was a student of Ulrich, stating that famous lectors were trained in Ulrich’s school,22 which would suggest that the instruction given by Ulrich in Strasbourg was of a higher level than that which was normally Scheeben even suggests that Ulrich was still in Würzburg in 1264; see SCHEEBEN, “De Alberti Magni discipulis”, 208. However, Scheeben’s identification and consequently his chronology do not seem to have been accepted by later scholarship. 19 ACGOP 2, ed. B.M. REICHERT (MOPH 4), 160.7-21. The presence of a provincial studium theologiae in Strasbourg some years later is confirmed by the fragments of the acta of the Basel Provincial Chapter (1346): see KAEPPELI, “Kapitalsakten der Dominikanerprovinz Teutonia (1346)”, 330. 20 SCHEEBEN, “Der Konvent der Predigerbrüder in Strassburg”, 52, hypothesizes that a studium theologiae would have been assigned to Strasbourg immediately after 1261, since after this date the province of Teutonia not only created the first studia artium but also some studia theologiae. 21 According to GRABMANN, “Studien über Ulrich von Strassburg”, 159, the number of friars attending classes in the Strasbourg convent around the time Ulrich was lector was high. This seems to have been the second most important convent in the province of Teutonia; see W. SENNER, Johannes von Sterngassen OP und sein Sentenzenkommentar 1: Studie (QF n.F. 4), Berlin 1995, 141, who relies for this information on A.J. KÜHL, Die Dominikaner im deutschen Rheingebiet und im Elsaß während des dreizehnten Jahrhunderts: mit einem Exkurs über die Entwicklung dominikanischer Ordensgeschichtsschreibung, Freiburg i.Br. (masch. Diss.) 1992, 52. SCHEEBEN, “De Alberti Magni discipulis”, 208, is persuaded that this convent was the studium theologiae in which the fratres studentes from Germania superior were trained, and E. HILLENBRAND, “Der Strassburger Konvent der Predigerbrüder in der Zeit Eckharts”, in Meister Eckhart: Lebensstationen – Redesituationen, hrsg. v. K. JACOBI (QF. NF 7), Berlin 1997, 154, also agrees on its importance as a centre of advanced scientific education in the second half of the thirteenth century. 22 IOANNES DE FRIBURGO, Prologus in priorem libellum quaestionum causalium: “et famosorum lectorum de scholis ipsius (scil. Ulrici) egressorum numerus protestatur.” 82 Alessandro Palazzo given to the friars (fratres communes) in a convent school. Indeed, the future lectors were educated within provincial studia theologiae and studia generalia. What did Ulrich teach in Strasbourg? The answer to this question can be found in Ulrich’s work, both that which is still extant and that which is now lost. In particular there are two works that were produced from those lessons which for the most part do not survive: a commentary on the Sentences (Books II and IV)23 and a quodlibetal question of moral theology on the sinful nature of “touches” and kisses.24 Fragments of these works have been preserved by John of Freiburg in his Summa confessorum; moreover, some of John’s citations would suggest that he even listened, viva voce, to Ulrich’s lessons on the fourth Book of the Sentences.25 II. Ulrich’s Masterwork: The De summo bono Ulrich’s huge theological summa, De summo bono, on the other hand, has been preserved.26 This is a work which is not simply the written expres23 LAURENTII PIGNON Catalogi et Chronica: accedunt catalogi Stamsensis et Upsalensis scriptorum O .P., ed. G. MEERSSEMAN (MOPH 18), Roma 1936, 26, 61, 72; HENRICUS DE HERVORDIA, Liber de rebus memorabilioribus sive Chronicon, ed. A. POTTHAST, Göttingen 1859, 204; GRABMANN, “Studien über Ulrich von Strassburg”, 169-70; FRIES, “Johannes von Freiburg, Schüler Ulrichs von Strassburg”, 333, 338-40. R. IMBACH, “Ex dictis fratris Ulrici. Ein Fragment von Ulrichs Sentenzenkommentar?”, in ULRICUS DE ARGENTINA, De summo bono I, ed. B. MOJSISCH (CPTMA 1.1), Hamburg 1989, XXIXXXXI, has demonstrated that the fragment of a Sentences-commentary ascribed to Ulrich of Strasbourg and preserved in the manuscript Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, A.X.130, ff. 166v-169v, must be a work written by a so far unknown Dominican namesake after 1321, for it contains references to the constitution Vas electionis (24 July 1321) of Pope John XXII. 24 FRIES, “Johannes von Freiburg, Schüler Ulrichs von Strassburg”, 336-37; SOPMA 4, 420. 25 FRIES, “Johannes von Freiburg, Schüler Ulrichs von Strassburg”, 333. Scheeben’s hypothesis that Ulrich would have lectured on Lombard’s Sentences and written his (perhaps incomplete), Sentences-commentary in Paris is based on the assumption, proved wrong by recent scholarship, that the Sentences were read only within Studia generalia during the thirteenth century; see SCHEEBEN, “De Alberti Magni discipulis”, 211. Another work by Ulrich which is no longer extant but of which there is evidence in old catalogues and sources is a commentary on Aristotle’s Meteorology; see LAURENTII PIGNON Catalogi et Chronica, ed. MEERSSEMAN, 26, where there is the term metaphysicorum instead of metheororum, 61; HENRICUS DE HERVORDIA, Liber de rebus memorabilioribus, 204; GRABMANN, “Studien über Ulrich von Strassburg”, 169-70. 26 Besides De summo bono, of Ulrich we also have a German sermon on John 20:29, which had been transcribed by Jeanne Daguillon before the manuscript preserving it, Ham- Philosophy and Theology in the German Dominican scholae 83 sion of Ulrich’s theological and philosophical doctrines, but also—and this is the way in which it will be examined here—a reflection of the lessons of Ulrich the lector in the Strasbourg studium and of tendencies emerging within the cultural policy of the Dominican Order and the province of Teutonia.27 The connection of De summo bono with Ulrich’s teaching activities in the Strasbourg convent is already evident in the probable date of its composition: despite some differences, scholars generally place this work within the decade between 1262 and 1272, namely during the time when Ulrich was lector in Strasbourg.28 burg, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. theol. 2205, ff. 79-82v, was destroyed during World War II; see J. DAGUILLON, “Ulrich de Strasbourg, prédicateur; un sermon inédit du XIIIe siècle”, in La vie spirituelle Suppl. 17 (1927), 90-94. 27 Some doctrines and aspects of De summo bono have already been studied by scholars; many titles are listed in A. PALAZZO, “Ulrich of Strasbourg and Denys the Carthusian: Textual Analysis and Doctrinal Comments”, in Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 46 (2004), 61-64. Recent publications on Ulrich are: A. PALAZZO, “La sapientia nel De summo bono di Ulrico di Strasburgo”, in Quaestio 5 (2005), 495-512; IDEM, “Le apparizioni angeliche e demoniache secondo Alberto il Grande e Ulrico di Strasburgo”, in Giornale critico della filosofia italiana 85 (87) (2006), 237-53; IDEM, “Ulrich of Strasbourg and Denys the Carthusian (II): Doctrinal Influence and Implicit Quotations”, in Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 48 (2006); IDEM, “Ulricus de Argentina... theologus, philosophus, ymmo et iurista. Le dottrine di teologia morale e di pastorale penitenziale nel VI libro del De summo bono e la loro diffusione nel tardo Medioevo”, in Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 55 (2008), 64-97; A. BECCARISI, “La scientia divina dei filosofi nel De summo bono di Ulrico di Strasburgo”, in Rivista di storia della filosofia 61 (2006), 137-63; I. ZAVATTERO, “I principi costitutivi delle virtù nel De summo bono di Ulrico di Strasburgo”, in Per perscrutationem philosophicam. Neue Perspektiven der mittelalterlichen Forschung. Zum 60. Geburtstag Loris Sturlese gewidmet, hrsg. v. A. BECCARISI, R. IMBACH und P. PORRO (CPTMA Beiheft 4), Hamburg 2008, 111-26. However, a complete study has not yet been written because an integral critical edition is still not available; recently another volume has appeared in the CPTMA: ULRICUS DE ARGENTINA, De summo bono IV tr.2.15-2.24, ed. B. MOJSISCH et F. RETUCCI, (CPTMA 1.4[3]), Hamburg 2008. 28 The terminus a quo (1262) is found in the explicit mention of Albert—introduced as having been Bishop of Regensburg some time earlier (“episcopus quondam Ratisbonensis”)—occurring in De summo bono IV: we know, in fact, that Albert resigned his office in 1261, but it was only accepted in 1262. The year 1272 is generally assumed as terminus ante quem because in that year Ulrich was nominated Provincial Prior and, according to many, would not have had time to conclude the work, which, indeed, has come down to us incomplete. J. DAGUILLON, Ulrich de Strasbourg, O. P. La “Summa de bono” livre I (Bibliothèque Thomiste 12), Paris 1930, 30*-31*, and I. BACKES, Die Christologie, Soteriologie und Mariologie des Ulrich von Straßburg. Ein Beitrag zur Geistesgeschichte des 13. Jahrhunderts 2 (Trierer theologische Studien 29), Trier 1975, 11, agree on the period 1262–1272. Based on the absence of quotations from Proclus’ Elementatio theologica, translated by William of Moerbeke in 1268, M. GRABMANN, Des Ulrich Engelberti von 84 Alessandro Palazzo Traces of Ulrich’s teaching can definitely be found in Book VI of De summo bono.29 Apart from the first treatise, devoted to the Holy Spirit, the state of innocence and original sin, this book follows the pattern provided by the analysis of Aristotle’s Ethics by discussing virtue in general (Eth. 2), courage and temperance (Eth. 3) in treatise 2, liberality, magnanimity, magnificence, etc. (Eth. 4) in treatise 3, justice and related virtues (Eth. 5) in treatise 4, and dianoetic virtues (Eth. 6) in treatise 5. Quite large sections, in which Ulrich treats issues regarding moral theology, the sacramental theology of penance and pastoral care, are within treatises 3 and 4: in particular, the analysis of avarice (illiberalitas), one of the vices of liberality (De summo bono VI.3.4), provides the starting point for a series of topics that are generally treated in the Summae confessorum (usury, theft, restitution, robbery, satisfaction, revenge, war, inheritance, judges, witStrassburg O. Pr. (†1277) Abhandlung De pulchro. Untersuchungen und Texte, München 1926, 26, 30, confines the dating of the composition of De summo bono to the interval between 1262 and 1268. B. FAES DE MOTTONI, “La distinzione tra causa agente e causa motrice nella Summa de Summo bono di Ulrico di Strasburgo”, in Studi Medievali 20 (1979), 333, places Ulrich’s De summo bono around 1264 or later; indeed, Albert’s De causis et processu universitatis, thought to have been written between 1264/67 and 1268, is widely cited in the fourth Book of De summo bono. For the dating of Albert’s De causis, see W. FAUSER, Prolegomena, in ALBERTUS MAGNUS, De causis et processu universitatis, ed. W. FAUSER in Opera omnia (Ed. Col.) 17.2, Münster i.W. 1993, V. This fact, however, would imply that not the whole work, but Book IV, together with the two books which follow, can be dated at around 1268 or later. L. HÖDL, “Die Würde des Menschen in der scholastischen Theologie des späten Mittelalters”, in De dignitate hominis: Festschrift für Carlos-Josaphat Pinto de Oliveira zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, hrsg. v. A. HOLDEREGGER, R. IMBACH und R. SUAREZ DE MIGUEL (Studien zur theologischen Ethik 22), Freiburg (Schweiz) 1987, 127, and R. SCHENK’s review of De summo bono. Liber II, Tractatus 1-4 in The Thomist 54 (1990), 548, are inclined to place the writing of the De summo bono towards the end of the decade; the former judges a dating around 1270 as plausible, while the latter, on the basis of some parallels between Books II and IV of De summo bono and the first part of Albert’s Summa theologiae (written around 1269), suggests 1270–1272 as likely date, but he does not exclude the possibility that Ulrich could have worked on the De summo bono even after being elected Provincial Prior in 1272. Schenk, however, does not completely rule out the hypothesis that the parallels between Ulrich’s De summo bono and the first part of Albert’s Summa theologiae mean that Albert’s Summa is dependent on that of Ulrich and not vice versa. 29 The De summo bono was planned in 8 books dedicated respectively to: (I) issues pertinent to the science of the supreme good, i.e., theology; (II) the essence of the supreme good; (III) the divine Persons considered together; (IV) the Father and creation; (V) the Son, his Incarnation and mysteries surrounding him; (VI) the Holy Spirit, grace, gifts and virtues; (VII) sacraments; (VIII) beatitude; cf. ULRICUS DE ARGENTINA, De summo bono I.1.1, ed. MOJSISCH, 5.62-74. The work is incomplete; the last two books were never written and Book VI breaks off at the beginning of Treatise 5. Philosophy and Theology in the German Dominican scholae 85 nesses, lawyers, simony, sacrilege, etc.); in De summo bono VI.4 there are chapters on analogous topics (religion, devotion, prayer, obedience due to secular authorities and to ecclesiastical prelates, ecclesiastical judgement, secular judgement, priestly orders, etc.).30 Thanks to these analyses Ulrich was a great authority in the late Middle Ages on matters pertaining to issues regarding the so-called forum interiore, and Book VI of De summo bono became a favourite source for summae, epitomes and handbooks for confessors.31 At least some of the topics of practical and sacramental theology, ecclesiastical law and pastoral care presented in De summo bono VI were likely to have been described by Ulrich himself in class while lecturing upon Peter Lombard’s Sentences (ignorance in Book II, perjury in Book III, simony, theft, robbery and satisfaction in Book IV) and holding disputations. So, on these themes, De summo bono VI can be seen as a reworking of doctrines which Ulrich had taught and discussed in class and now set down systematically in the form of a written treatise.32 John of Freiburg lets this be understood: after having reported the fragments from Ulrich’s commentary on the Sentences and quodlibetal question, John turns to the chapters of De summo bono which deal with the same issues: Cum his per omnia concordat Ulricus in quadam quaestione de quolibet, ubi haec secundum quod ex libidine procedunt, esse peccata mortalia multipliciter probat... Haec omnia Ulricus. His concordant ea quae idem Ulricus dicit in libro suo VI, tract. II, c. IX.33 In De summo bono VI.2.9, indeed, while dealing with the vice of intemperance, Ulrich also takes up the issue of lascivious touches, namely touches whereby a woman is deliberately touched as an object of desire (“quo ipsa contingitur ut obiectum voluptatis scienter et ex deliberatione”). His position on this subject is the same as that of the quodlibetal question: such touches are always deadly sins:34 30 A complete list of all of the chapters of De summo bono is in DAGUILLON, Ulrich de Strasbourg, O. P., 14*-29*. 31 See PALAZZO, “Ulricus de Argentina... theologus, philosophus, ymmo et iurista”, 6497. 32 A formal feature of the De summo bono is indeed the abandonment of the quaestioformat and the use of a systematic type of treatment, divided into books, treatises, chapters, and paragraphs. 33 IOANNES DE FRIBURGO, Summa confessorum III tit.34 q.272. 34 On this very issue, De summo bono VI.2.9 cites some of the authorities referred to by Ulrich in the quodlibetal question: Matth. 5:28, Ad. Eph. 5:3-6 and the Glossa ordinaria on these verses, Aristotle’s Nicomomachean Ethics VII.9 (1150b16-18); cf. ULRICUS DE 86 Alessandro Palazzo Respondeo secundum Ulricum, sicut legitur super secundum sententiarum d. 22, et concordat cum hoc satis in libro suo VI, tract. II, c. III.35 This fragment excerpted from Ulrich’s Sentences-commentary contains the answer to the question as to whether or not and to what extent ignorance excuses sin; the subject is broached also in De summo bono VI.2.3, where Ulrich, after having discussed the involuntarium per violentiam, goes on to analyse the involuntarium per ignorantiam.36 Moreover, it is likely that Book VI of De summo bono was used as a reference book during the collationes de moralibus which were a part of the conventual education; these collationes provided the framework in which Dominican friars, guided by the master of students, discussed moral and practical issues related to the cura animarum and the sample cases of conscience confronting them as confessors.37 Ulrich’s analyses represented the right mix of moral-theological and technical-juridical instruction. Regarding the latter, Ulrich used the analytical and expository structure of casus, demonstrating that he could master juridical material and easily cite legal sources (Justinian’s Digesta, the Decretum Gratiani, the collections of Decretales and the texts of the decretists [i.e., Iohannes Teutonicus] and of the decretalists [i.e., Innocent IV]).38 ARGENTINA, De summo bono VI.2.9, in Città del Vaticano, BAV, Cod. Vat. lat. 1311, f.160ra-b. 35 IOANNES DE FRIBURGO, Summa confessorum III tit.32, 1.17. 36 ULRICUS DE ARGENTINA, De summo bono VI.2.3, in F.-B. STAMMKÖTTER, De virtutibus secundum principia philosophica. Die philosophische Tugendlehre bei Albert dem Großen und Ulrich von Straßburg, on-line: http://deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=960446214, AVI-AXII. 37 MULCHAHEY, “First the Bow is Bent in Study....”, 198-203. For Dominican literature regarding practical and sacramental theology—especially confession—and pastoral care (Summae confessorum, handbooks for confessors, manuals of moral theology, lists of virtues and vices, etc.), see L.E. BOYLE, “The Summa Confessorum of John of Freiburg and the Popularization of the Moral Teaching of St. Thomas and of some of his Contemporaries”, in St. Thomas Aquinas 1274-1974. Commemmorative Studies 2, Toronto 1974, 24568; IDEM, “Notes on the Education of the Fratres Communes in the Dominican Order in the Thirteenth Century”, in Xenia Medii Aevi Historiam Illustrantia oblata Thomae Kaeppeli O.P., ed. R. CREYTENS et P. KÜNZLE, I (Studi e Testi 141), Roma 1978, 249-67; MULCHAHEY, “First the Bow is Bent in Study....”, 527-52. 38 Ulrich’s sound amalgam of these sources can be appreciated in the two chapters which he devoted to simony (De summo bono VI.3.19-20), recently edited for the first time; see A. PALAZZO, “La dottrina della simonia di Ulrico di Strasburgo: De summo bono VI 3 19-20”, in Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 55 (2008), 434-70. Philosophy and Theology in the German Dominican scholae 87 Other sections of De summo bono that could be reflections of lectures held by Ulrich are those in which there is an extensive inclusion of the writings of pseudo-Dionysius (Book II and Book IV.3) and of the Nicomachean Ethics (some chapters of Book VI). It must be noted, however, that this is only an hypothesis based on the analogy with what Thomas Aquinas did, as a lector at the studium of Santa Sabina. Both Thomas and Ulrich had been students of Albert at the studium generale in Cologne and had attended the lectures he had delivered on Dionysius’ writings and Aristotle’s Ethics. M. Michèle Mulchahey has suggested that Thomas, while teaching at the studium of Santa Sabina (1265-1268), which was not a simple convent school, followed in Albert’s footsteps by adopting Dionysius’ De divinis nominibus as part of his syllabus.39 It would not be surprising if Ulrich, while teaching in Strasbourg more or less at the same time as Thomas was teaching at Santa Sabina, also had followed the example of his master by basing his lessons on those very same works. The didactic approach that Ulrich takes when he comments on Dionysius’ texts could provide further support to this hypothesis. In fact, entire chapters of De summo bono appear to be explanations of Dionysius’ littera, in which Ulrich quotes the Dionysian text more or less faithfully and clarifies the meaning of each phrase and sometimes individual words.40 These chapters seem to suggest, in other words, that Ulrich rephrased in written form material first conceived for oral exposition in class.41 Seen from the standpoint of its relationship with the teachings of the lector Ulrich the De summo bono clearly appears in a new light. Yet, in order to gain a better understanding of it, this work must also be placed within the wider context of the cultural strategy pursued by the Dominican Order in those years. A work of such size and scope hardly could be the result of Ulrich’s initiative alone; it is more probable that he was commissioned to compose the work by some higher authority, as his words in the very first chapter indicate.42 Not accidentally, around the time in which 39 MULCHAHEY, “First the Bow is Bent in Study....”, 290-93. For Ulrich’s reception of pseudo-Dionysius’ writings, see G. THÉRY, “Originalitè du plan de la Summa de bono d’Ulrich de Strasbourg”, in Revue Thomiste 27 (1922), 377-97, and A. DE LIBERA, La mistique rhénane d’Albert le Grand à Maître Eckhart, Paris 1994, 99-162. 41 This reworking also includes recourse to Albert’s explanations of Dionysius’ littera, as a few quotations indicate: see, e.g., ULRICUS DE ARGENTINA, De summo bono IV.3.10 §2, ed. A. PALAZZO (CPTMA 1.4[4]), Hamburg 2005, 153.30-32; IV.3.11 §1, ed. Palazzo, 166.9-167.12. 42 ULRICUS DE ARGENTINA, De summo bono I.1.1, ed. MOJSISCH, 3.12-16: “Amor quippe 40 88 Alessandro Palazzo Ulrich was writing his summa two other Dominican theological summae appeared: Thomas’ Summa theologiae and Albert’s Summa theologiae. There was obviously a desire on the Order’s part to create theological teaching tools that were more apt than the Sentences of Peter Lombard.43 The De summo bono is a clear witness to this formal and didactic need, because, as scholars have observed, its structure does not follow the structural model of Peter Lombard’s Sentences.44 The connection between the Dominican cultural policy and the De summo bono, however, can be discerned not only in the latter’s formal organization but also in its contents. Ulrich’s summa reflects the awarness, which at that time and despite resistance was emerging within the Order, that the training of Dominican intellectuals, of future lectors, could not be accomplished without giving them a deep knowledge of philosophy. One should note that more or less at the same time (1262-1271) when Ulrich wrote his summa the first Dominican experiments with the studia naturarum were taking place in Provence.45 In my judgment, the large sections of philosophy in De summo bono can best be explained in light of Ulrich’s adherence to this new approach in Dominican theological pedagogy. With a view to providing his German brethren with a summa as much about theology as about philosophy (to use the words of John of Freiburg),46 Ulrich, using a technique peculiar to him, created entire chapters, and sometimes treatises, on philosophical topics within the theological discussion: the doctrine of the intellectual perfection is inserted into the analysis of the various ways of knowing God (I.1.7); the philosophical doctrine of fate is part of the discussion of divine providence (II.5.18); a treatment of some of the concepts discussed in Book V of Aristotle’s Metaphysics (the same, different, contrary, whole and part, coming from something, universal, genus, species, etc.) is presented in the section devoted to the relationships between the three perDei nos movet ad superiorum oboedientiam, ut in doctrinis glorificemus Deum et totum, quod in nobis est, dictandi et scribendi officio convertatur in linguas laudes Domini modulantes et dicere possimus cum Psalm.: ‘Benedic, anima mea, Domino, et omnia, quae intra me sunt’ et cetera” (italics mine). 43 See STURLESE, Storia della filosofia tedesca, 162. 44 GRABMANN, “Studien über Ulrich von Strassburg“, 188-89; THÉRY, “Originalitè du plan de la Summa de bono d’Ulrich de Strasbourg”, 379, 393; STURLESE, Storia della filosofia tedesca, 161. 45 MULCHAHEY, “First the Bow is Bent in Study....”, 252-53. 46 IOANNES DE FRIBURGO, Prologus in priorem libellum quaestionum causalium: “...in libro suo, quem tam de theologia quam de philosophia conscripsit.” Philosophy and Theology in the German Dominican scholae 89 sons of the Trinity (III.4.4-8); the treatment of philosophical (Aristotelian and neo-Platonic) aetiology and of the concepts of substance, form, matter and of other Aristotelian categories is part of the analysis of creation (IV.1-2); the teaching on Intelligences and heavenly souls is presented as a prologue to angelology (IV.3.1-3); the doctrine of natural divination is put forward in the chapter on demonic divination (IV.3.8); chapters on philosophical ethics are intertwined with others on moral theology, the theology of penance and pastoral care (VI), etc. Even though he also read philosophical literature first-hand, Ulrich let himself be guided in his reception and understanding of the philosophy of Aristotle and his commentators by Albert’s paraphrases. Scholars have rightly emphasized the role played by Albert’s works in De summo bono, notably his most speculative writings: the Metaphysica, Physica, De causis et processu universitatis, the commentaries on Dionysius and De intellectu et intelligibili. By choosing these writings, Ulrich transmitted a certain image of Albert’s thought to us, an image which highlights the neoPlatonic character and themes of Albert’s thought (intellectual perfection, fate, inchoatio formae, emanation from the First Cause, God as universal Agent Intellect, separate Intelligences, the anima nobilis, etc.).47 Ulrich’s appropriation of Albert’s works, however, did not stop here. As the critical edition of the De summo bono progresses, the outlines of what was a systematic recourse to Albert’s corpus are revealed: besides the works already mentioned, Ulrich also quoted Albert’s other physical writings (De caelo et mundo, De generatione et corruptione, De somno et vigilia, De morte et vita), logical writings (Super Porphyrium De V universalibus, De praedicamentis), moral writings (especially the Ethica), and, to a lesser degree, theological works (above all the commentary on the Sentences).48 47 M.R. PAGNONI STURLESE, “A propos du néoplatonisme d’Albert le Grand, Aventures et mésaventures de quelques textes d’Albert le Grand dans le Commentaire sur Proclus de Berthold de Moosburg”, in Archives de Philosophie 43 (1980), 635-54; STURLESE, “Albert der Große und die deutsche philosophische Kultur des Mittelalters”, in IDEM, Homo divinus, 3-5; A. DE LIBERA, Métaphysisque et noétique. Albert le Grand, Paris 2005, 189-200, 206-9. 48 The last volume of De summo bono published in the CPTMA (ULRICUS DE ARGENTINA, De summo bono IV tr.2.15-2.24, ed. MOJSISCH et RETUCCI) documents a frequent recourse to De caelo et mundo and De generatione et corruptione, and a certain familiarity with Super Porphyrium De V universalibus and De praedicamentis. Numerous quotations from Albert’s De somno et vigilia III.1 and from his commentary on the second Book of Lombard’s Sentences are in De summo bono VI.3: see ULRICUS DE ARGENTINA, 90 Alessandro Palazzo To sum up, in his summa Ulrich intended to condense all of the learning which future Dominican lectors needed to have, not only in the field of speculative theology, moral theology and pastoral care but also of philosophy. Albert’s corpus of writings was nearly the exclusive source of Ulrich’s philosophical teaching. Both Albert’s project of making the whole Aristotelian corpus accessible to the Latins and Ulrich’s systematic recourse to his master’s philosophical writings served the very same purpose of supplying Dominican fratres studentes with adequate philosophical training. From this point of view, it is clear that their literary achievements were caused by or contributed to—it is difficult to distinguish cause and effect—the shift in Dominican cultural strategy towards the idea that philosophy is indispensable in the education of lectors in theology. Yet, in order to fit Albertian philosophical material into the boundaries of a single summa, Ulrich scaled down Albert’s project. What in my opinion is really striking about this reduction, however, is the fact that even though the emphasis in De summo bono was placed on those writings containing Albert’s more decidedly neo-Platonic views, this did not involve curtailing Albert’s writings on natural philosophy, which Ulrich evidently judged also to be part of the philosophical competence required of future theological lectors in the Order. The success which the De summo bono enjoyed in the fifteenth-century Albertist school must be attributed to its being an authoritative interpretation of Albert’s thought, authoritative because given by Albert’s “most favourite” disciple and designed to comprehend the various components of that thought.49 III. Berthold of Wimpfen The manuscript Uppsala, Universitätsbibliothek, Hs. C.78, ff. 91-120, De summo bono IV tr.3, ed. PALAZZO. Alain de Libera first called scholars’ attention to Ulrich’s use of Albert’s De morte et vita and, possibly, the late Summa theologiae; see A. DE LIBERA, “Ulrich de Strasbourg, lecteur d’Albert le Grand”, in Albert der Große und die deutsche Dominikanerschule. Philosophische Perspektiven, hrsg. v. R. IMBACH und C. FLÜELER, Freiburg (Schweiz) 1985, 112-21, 127. In the sections on philosophical ethics in Book VI, Ulrich frequently cites Albert’s Ethica; see ULRICUS DE ARGENTINA, De summo bono VI tr.2.1-7, tr.5, ed. F.-B. STAMMKÖTTER, in STAMMKÖTTER, De virtutibus secundum principia philosophica. 49 In contrast with the earlier tendency to dismiss Ulrich’s De summo bono as an unoriginal abridgement of Albert’s works, all of the scholarship on Ulrich in the last thirty years agrees that he did not limit himself to slavishly creating a collage of Albert’s texts, but that he reworked them and used them to expound his own point of view, which, in several cases, does not perfectly coincide with that of the master. Philosophy and Theology in the German Dominican scholae 91 contains three works (Hortus spiritalis, Speculum virtutum and Collationes sanctorum doctorum) written by a certain Berthold. From the colophon (f. 122r) we learn that Berthold from the Order of the Preachers wrote and ordered the work—in actual fact three works—in 1301, a short time after having held the office of lector in Wimpfen.50 The Berthold in question has been identified as the Berthold who was author of a commentary on the Liber de mysteriis et laudibus S. Crucis by Hrabanus Maurus and of a Liber de mysteriis et laudibus intemerate Virginis Mariae.51 We know from the colophon of a manuscript preserved in Gotha (Landesbibliothek, Membr. I.80, f. 54ra) containing the former work, that Berthold was a lector in Nuremberg before 1292. This information is confirmed by the colophon in a manuscript from Basel (Universitätsbibliothek, B.IX.11, f. 50) containing the second work, completed in 1294, a few years after the end of his term as lector in Nuremberg.52 Given the temporal contiguity, without any overlapping, of the data relating to Berthold of Wimpfen and to Berthold of Nuremberg and given the close proximity of the two convents, it is highly probable that we are dealing with the same person. From the information in the colophons, then, we know that Berthold was a lector in Nuremberg some years prior to 1292, and that after 1294 and before 1301 he was lector in Wimpfen. The three works that are to be found only in the Uppsala manuscript are collections of the sententiae of the Fathers.53 The first one is titled Hortus spiritalis because, as is explained in the prologue, in this work, as in a garden are found, according to the famous dicta of St. Bernard, “the spiritual sweetness of smell” and “the flowers and fruits of honour and honesty.”54 The Speculum virtutum is a collection of 50 sententiae con50 BERTHOLDUS DE WIMPFEN, Opera, in Miscellanea: Texte aus der Zeit Meister Eckharts 2, ed. A. BECCARISI (CPTMA 7.2), Hamburg 2004, 167: “Hoc opus conscripsit et ordinavit frater Bertoldus de ordine fratrum praedicatorum quondam lector Wimpinensis anno domini M°CCC°I° anima eius requiescat in pace. Amen.” 51 P. JOHANEK, “Bruder Berthold (von Freiburg)”, in VL2 1, 808, mentions several Dominican authors active around the turn of the fourteenth century named Berthold, including the one who wrote the works preserved in the Uppsala manuscript and the one who wrote the two works on the Holy Cross and the Virgin Mary without clarifying, however, whether they were one or two people; SOPMA 4, 55, 499, and STURLESE, “Philosophische Florilegien im mittelalterlichen Deutschland”, in IDEM, Homo divinus, 164-65, identify them as the same person. 52 SOPMA 1, 241. 53 All of these three works have been recently edited for the first time in volume 7.2 of the CPTMA; see n. 50, above. 54 BERTHOLDUS DE WIMPFEN, Hortus spiritalis, ed. BECCARISI, 174.4-6: “Hic libellus po- 92 Alessandro Palazzo cerning virtue excerpted from the writings of Gregory the Great. The Collationes sanctorum doctorum contain 50 quotations concerning matters related to the salvation of the soul (“ea, quae sunt salutis”), ten from each of five famous fathers of the Church: Ambrose, Augustine, John Chrysostom, Jerome and the Venerable Bede. As one would expect from the titles of these collections and the authorities quoted, the sentences collected in the three texts concern theological issues; recurring topics are God, the Virgin Mary, Christ, the Holy Cross, sacraments, sin, virtues and vices, religious life and its various states, eternal beatitude, etc. The best way of approaching Berthold’s writings is by considering them in relation to the education provided to friars in priory-houses. The format and other features clearly suggest that these writings served practical purposes within that educational framework. The structure of both the Hortus and the Collationes is identical: after a short prologue illustrating the reason for the work’s title and mentioning the authority or authorities cited, there follow the parts or collationes into which the text is divided. Each part presents first a list of the headings of the sentences it contains, and then these sentences, each numbered and preceded by its heading. The Speculum is organized slightly differently: since it is not divided into parts, it has only one general list of 50 numbered headings—a tabula capitulorum—after which all the sayings, numbered and preceded by their own headings, are recorded. This kind of structure (especially the lists of the headings and the fact that each quotation is numbered and given a heading) was clearly designed to allow readers easily to retrieve sayings on specific topics. Two other features, namely the numerical regularity— each part of the Hortus and the Collationes contains 10 quotations, the Speculum and the Collationes overall contain 50 quotations—and the small average length of the sentences—two to four lines in the printed edition—suggest that these patristic florilegia were conceived of by Berthold not only as sourcebooks to consult as necessary but also as mnemonic devices. Berthold’s florilegia were certainly composed with a view to providing useful tools for the practical aspect of conventual education of Dominican friars, that is, for the making of preachers. Supplying dozens of authoritative sentences on theological issues, these three writings were very useful preaching aids, precious sources on which preachers could test appellari Hortus spiritalis, quia in eo velut in horto secundum dicta praeclara beati Bernardi inveniuntur spiritualiter suavitates odoris et flores fructusque honoris et honestatis.” Philosophy and Theology in the German Dominican scholae 93 easily draw for auctoritates to quote in their sermons. Moreover, given their emphasis on moral theology (especially the Speculum virtutum) and their treatment of the sacraments as well as sin, they also served as reference texts during the collationes de moralibus, especially on behalf of those friars who, still unable to recite larger texts or to handle a disputation, were nonetheless asked to quote at least one notabilis auctoritas.55 Yet, it is not only the evident relationship with the practical aspects of conventual education that explains the genesis and nature of Berthold’s florilegia. Indeed, along with Berthold’s other two works (the commentary on Hrabanus’ Liber de mysteriis et laudibus S. Crucis and the Liber de mysteriis et laudibus intemerate Virginis Mariae), the three florilegia seem to me to be products of a certain conservative ideology which circulated in Germany at that time and was adopted especially outside Dominican circles by such authors as Henry of Freimar and other German Augustinians and Franciscans. Berthold’s selection of authors to quote (only Church fathers and Bernard of Clairvaux) and issues to discuss promotes a kind of twelfth-century spirituality with a strong moral, edifying and devotional orientation.56 By compiling collections of patristic dicta, therefore, Berthold was certainly providing friars with useful study tools, but he was also making clear his adherence to a traditional cultural current. IV. Conclusion In light of the two cases that I have examined in this essay, the two points that I made in the first part appear to be confirmed. On the one hand, in evaluating the scholarly products of the literary activity of German Dominicans in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, two major extratextual factors must be considered: the educational context for which those works were written or in which they originated, and the impact of cultural poli55 HUMBERTUS DE ROMANIS, Opera de vita regulari 2: Instructiones de Officiis Ordinis c.12.3, ed. J.J. BERTHIER, Torino 1956, 260: “...et ab illis qui non sunt adhuc sufficientes ad majora, saltem aliqua notabilis auctoritas recitari.” 56 The character of Berthold’s florilegia can best be appreciated if compared with a chronologically very close work by Meister Eckhart, the Rede, which presents some similarities with Berthold’s writings. Eckhart’s text as well was born in a conventual setting— it is presented as the result of conferences held by Eckhart to instruct the novices of the convent at Erfurt—and resorts to the same patristic tradition as Berthold’s florilegia, yet by reinterpreting the traditional monastic teaching on virtues, Eckhart came to formulate a radically new anthropology based on the concepts of abegeschiedenheit and gotes durchformung; see STURLESE, “Meister Eckhart: ein Porträt”, in IDEM, Homo divinus, 17-21. 94 Alessandro Palazzo cies pursued by the Order and intellectual tendencies emerging within it, either at the central or the provincial level. If we were to ignore these factors, a merely text-oriented analysis would make it impossible to gain a full understanding of all the aspects and nuances of these works and could lead to misunderstandings. On the other hand, given their close connection with the context of the Dominican scholae and studia, these works may also be read as sources from which it is possible to learn more about the network of German Dominican schools and, above all, about their curricula. Università degli studi di Trento *** APPENDIX The following appendix complements my essay, presenting the critical edition of two chapters of the De summo bono (VI.3.15-16). Treating ‘accusation’ and related topics, the two chapters are among those of Book VI of the De summo bono that contain discussions of practical theology, the sacramental theology of penance, canon law and pastoral care. This group of chapters in Book VI certainly reflect Ulrich’s teaching activity in Strasbourg and, most probably, made his work one of the sources to which Dominican friars had recourse during the collationes de moralibus, while discussing moral and practical issues related to the cura animarum and their duty as confessors. Yet, because of the absence of an integral critical edition of De summo bono VI, Ulrich’s teachings on moral and sacramental theology, canon law and pastoral care have been so far neglected or underestimated in the scholarship concerning them. The present edition, though brief, illustrates how Ulrich deals with these issues by combining different types of sources (scriptural, patristic and legal); his mastery of the major texts of juridical literature (the Digesta Iustiniani, Gratian’s Decretum, the collections of Decretales, the texts of the decretists and the decretalists, such as the Glossa on the Decretum and the commentary on the Decretales by Innocent IV, are explicitly quoted) truly justifies the fame as a iurista that he enjoyed in the late Middle Ages. *** Philosophy and Theology in the German Dominican scholae 95 Editorial Criteria The text has been reconstructed on the basis of five manuscripts: B = Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Ms. theol. lat. fol. 233. E1 = Erlangen–Nürnberg, Universitätsbibliothek, Hs. 530/2 (Irm. 819). P1 = Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Ms. lat. 15901. R = Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Cod. Vat. lat. 1311. U1 = Wien, Dominikanerkonvent, Cod. 152/122 (formerly 170a). The manuscripts have been chosen among the representatives of the two families into which the manuscript transmission of the De summo bono manuscript tradition is divided: α (B, E1 and P1) and β (R and U1). Probably because of its brevity, the present edition does not offer further examples of mistakes common to the manuscripts of each of the two families; rather, most of the accidents recorded in the apparatus are shared by one of the two β manuscripts and one or two of the α manuscripts. However, these variants are generally meaningless and can be easily accounted for as accidentally common readings: in other words, they do not really undermine the subdivision of De summo bono manuscripts into two distinct families (α, β). In the apparatus criticus are recorded only variants shared by at least two manuscripts or different readings of two or more manuscripts concerning the same vocable, whereas singular accidents are omitted. Symbols and Abbreviations P 1* P 1c add. ap. can. cf. corr. del. illeg. in marg. inv. iter. lib. om. p. praem. qu. sup. lin. suppl. tit. Cod. P1 ante correctionem Cod. P1 post correctionem addidit (-erunt etc.) apud canon conferatur correxit delevit, deletum illegibilis in margine invertit iteravit liber omisit pars praemisit quaestio supra lineam supplevit titulus 96 Alessandro Palazzo Sources AUGUSTINUS, Epistulae, ed. A. GOLDBACHER (CSEL 34.2, 44), WienLeipzig 1898-1904. AUGUSTINUS, Regula ad servos Dei (PL 32),1377-84. Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, ed. R. WEBER (adiuvantibus B. Fischer, I. Gribomont, H.F.D. Sparks et W. Thiele), 2 vols., Stuttgart2 1975. Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E.-L. RICHTER et E. FRIEDBERG, I-II, Leizpig2 1879-1881. Digesta Iustiniani Augusti, ed. T. MOMMSEN, Berlin 1868-70, reprt. facs. Goldbach 2001. Decretum Gratiani, emendatum et notationibus illustratum una cum glossis, Lyon 1613. INNOCENTIUS PAPA IV, In quinque libros Decretalium necnon in Decretales per eundem editas quae modo sunt in sexto Decretalium libro Commentaria doctissima, Venezia 1610. *** ULRICI DE ARGENTINA De summo bono VI tr.3 Cap. 15. De accusatione et de his, quae ad hanc materiam pertinent 5 10 In foro ecclesiae quattuor modis agitur de crimine, scilicet per | accusationem, inquisitionem, denunciationem, exceptionem. Quamvis tantum tribus modis possit opponi, quia in inquisitione non opponitur crimen communiter, tamen quandoque accusatores vocantur et tam illi, qui accusant | alium de crimine ad poenam, quam etiam illi, qui denunciant crimen ad paenitentiam. De his ergo videamus, quantum sufficit ad sciendum, qualiter hic peccatur et qualiter hic illiberalis fit acceptio. ¶ Accusatio est alicuius de crimine delatio ad poenam canonicam vel legalem. Quod non est intelligendum ita, quod poena sit finis principalis, quia hoc esset contra caritatem, sed finis poenae est accusatorum correctio 2 Cap. 15] Cap. 14 P1 om. B 4 denunciationem om. B et add. E1 6 quandoque om. E1U1 accusatores] quandoque add. E1 quando add. U1 et om. E1U1 9 hic] sit add. BE1 fit om. BE1U1 11 intelligendum] est add. BR B 218rb P1 139rb Philosophy and Theology in the German Dominican scholae 97 per poenam et terror aliorum, ne similia committant. “Sive enim plectendo sive ignoscendo, hoc solum bene agitur, ut vita hominum corrigatur”, ut dicit AUGUSTINUS Ad Donatum,1 et in hoc consistit benivolentia caritatis. Unde dicit AUGUSTINUS in Regula:2 “Nec vos putetis esse malivolos, quando hoc indicatis. Magis quippe innocentes non estis etc.” ¶ Prohibentur accusare aliqui propter sexum, ut mulieres, nisi in aliquibus casibus, scilicet cum prosequitur iniuriam suam vel suorum in crimine fraudatae annonae, in crimine dilapidationis, in simonia, in aliis criminibus exceptis, etsi exsequantur mortem eorum, in quos ex lege non dicunt invitae testimonium publicorum iudiciorum, et de testamento paterni liberti vel materni. ¶ Aliqui prohibentur propter aetatem, ut pupillus, nisi in aliquibus casibus, quia ff. De accusationibus3 “concessum est pupillis exsequi patris mortem ex consilio tutorum et pupillae avi sui mortem”; adultus autem minor tamen 20 annis potest accusare tutore auctore. ¶ Item alii prohibentur propter magistratum, non quemcumque modicum, sed habentem merum imperium, ut est consulatus; hi enim in ius vocari non possunt. P1 139va ¶ Alii propter sacramentum, ut milites, qui iurant se | non evitaturos mortem propter rem publicam. E1 3r ¶ Alii propter delictum, ut criminosi et infames, nisi in casu. Admittuntur enim in exceptis criminibus contra infames ad accusandum et etiam ad testificandum “non secundum rigorem iuris, sed secundum temperantiam aequitatis”, ut dicit INNOCENTIUS III4 et sicut dicit | INNOCENTIUS IV.5 Illa aequitas non solum in exceptis criminibus servanda est, sed etiam in non exceptis, quia dicitur Extra De simonia6 “Per tuas”, quod considerandum est, si crimina testium sint maiora his, contra quae testificantur – 16 Nec] Ne BP1R 17 indicatis] iudicatis E1P1R 18 Prohibentur] Et sic praem. B autem add. E1 accusare aliqui inv. E1P1 20 simonia] et add. E1U1 22 testimonium] testium B testimoniorum E1 25 concessum] concessa BP1RU1 27 tamen om. BP1 auctore] auctuore R actore U1 29 habentem] habente BRU1 1 AUGUSTINUS, Epistula 153 c.6.19 (GOLDBACHER 418.16-17). AUGUSTINUS, Regula 7 (PL 32, 1381). 3 Digesta Iustiniani XLVIII 2 (MOMMSEN 796.34-35). 4 Decretal. Gregor. IX V tit.3 c.32 (RICHTER-FRIEDBERG II, 762). 5 INNOCENTIUS IV, In V libros Decretal. comment. V rubr.3 c.32 (Venezia 1610, 598a-b). 6 Decretal. Gregor. IX V tit.3 c.32 (RICHTER-FRIEDBERG II, 761). 2 15 20 25 30 35 98 40 45 50 55 60 Alessandro Palazzo crimina autem excepta non habent maiora se – sed tamen in non exceptis non debent admitti nisi legitimi testes secundum rigorem iuris nisi ex magna causa. Dicit etiam IDEM7 hanc aequitatem servandam, sive civiliter sive criminaliter agatur, sed tamen “rigor iuris, quando criminaliter agitur, non debet de facili temperari”, “nec est haec temperantia iuris in arbitrio iudicis”, ut idem INNOCENTIUS8 dicit, “quia in iure scripta est, sed sicut dicitur in supradicto c., semper est in similibus observanda.” ¶ Est autem haec temperantia, cum agitur per modum inquisitionis. Admittuntur omnes criminosi ad testificandum consideratis tamen 5 condicionibus in persona eius, contra quem proceditur. Facilius enim admittet contra religiosum quam contra clericum secularem, et facilius contra clericos vel religiosos | minoris gradus quam maioris dignitatis, et facilius contra clericum vel praelatum malae opinionis quam bonae, et forte | nullatenus admittere debet | contra eum, qui est bonae opinionis, et facilius admittet, cum ex eius admissione non est oriturum scandalum, quam si sit oriturum. In teste etiam considerabit 5. Facilius enim admittet | testes honestos quam criminosos, et inter criminosos facilius emendatos de crimine quam adhuc in ipso persistentes. Facilius etiam admittet illos, qui minora et postmodum qui paria quam qui maiora crimina commiserunt. Qui autem eadem, non sunt de facili admittendi, cum sint socii. Item facilius admittet criminosos, qui ex zelo iustitiae quam qui ex malignitatis fomite, idest ex conspiratione vel odio, procedunt. Facilius si eis alia adminicula suffragantur quam si non. 65 ¶ Eadem etiam sunt consideranda, si agatur excipiendo. Si vero denunciando procedatur, sicut ad denunciandum, ita etiam ad testificandum, admittuntur infames et summe criminosi, dummodo sint emendati de crimine. 70 ¶ Item prohibentur accusare aliqui propter suspicionem turpis quaestus, ut qui duos reos in diversis iudiciis habet iudicio nondum finito: tertium enim accusare non potest, nisi suam vel suorum iniuriam prosequatur. Item qui ad accusandum vel non accusandum pretium accepit, talis enim crimen concussionis committit et tenetur ad restitutionem faciendam 54 est] sit E1P1 59 paria] parva BE1P1R 71 non] ad add. P1R sed del. P1 sandum om. B 72 committit] committit sed admittit sup. lin. B admittit P1 7 8 vel... accu- INNOCENTIUS IV, In V libros Decretal. comment. V rubr.3 c.32 (Venezia 1610, 598b). INNOCENTIUS IV, In V libros Decretal. comment. V rubr.3 c.32 (Venezia 1610, 598b). U1 38rb B 218va R 172va P1 139vb Philosophy and Theology in the German Dominican scholae P1 140ra E1 3v 99 ei, qui dedit, si non turpiter dedit alias ei, in cuius iniuriam datum fuit. Alii propter condicionem suam, ut servus, vel propter reverentiam, quam tenentur ex sua condicione exhibere aliquibus personis, ut liberi liberti contra patronos, beneficiati, servi, familiares. Alii propter paupertatem, scilicet qui minus habent in bonis quam 50 aureos. Item qui ad sacrilegos magosque concurrunt. Admittuntur tamen omnes praedicti, si suam vel suorum iniuriam prosequantur. Alii propter participationem in crimine, ut socii criminum: illi enim non admittuntur in accusatione proprie dicta, quamvis, ut diximus, admittantur in denunciatione | et exceptione. Item qui ab alio delatus est: ille enim non alium nec suum accusatorem potest accusare, nisi solum de maiori crimine. Item condemnatus de crimine, cum sit infamis nec suam vel suorum iniuriam prosequatur, non potest alium accusare, si novam accusationem velit incohare in extraneum; potest tamen accusare suum accusatorem, si per sententiam non amisit suam libertatem et civilitatem: “parcendum enim est ei”, ut dicit lex,9 “qui provocatus voluit se ulcisci.” Tamen | in foro conscientiae, si quis deliberato animo accusat aliquem de crimine vel de eo, quod infamiam habet sibi conexam, propter vindictam, scilicet ut eum infamet vel aliter puniri faciat, peccat mortaliter, etiam si verum est, quod accusat, et etiam accusatione large sumpta, secundum quod extendit se etiam ad denunciationem, quia affectare proximo malum per se, idest propter malum, ex odio venit necessario. Si autem ex inconsulto fervore irae hoc faciat vel si sit levis culpa, ad quam nec infamia nec poena alicuius gravitatis consequitur, veniale peccatum est. Item prohibentur accusare infideles, quia praesumitur esse persecutio fidelium potius quam accusatio. 75 80 85 90 95 ¶ Excommunicati, quia eis non est communicandum. B 218vb U1 38va ¶ Monachi sine auctoritate suorum praelatorum, quia ipsi mortui sunt et mortua est in talibus vox eorum II q. VII c. “Placuit”10 et c. “Nullus”.11 Sed hoc | verum est, nisi hoc faciant ex necessitate caritatis, unde alii canones permittunt | eos accusare. Inimici, quia malus est zelus eorum. Detractores, quia “bona in malum 77 habent] habet P1R 86 suam om. BE1U1 88 voluit] noluit BR 91 etiam1 illeg. P1* om. R 92 extendit] extenditur B extendat E1 se etiam illeg. B om. E1 etiam om. P1 94 irae] ne R om. sed sup. lin. suppl. B om. E1 illeg. P1 9 Digesta Iustiniani XXXVIII 2 (MOMMSEN 331.31-32). GRATIANUS, Decretum p.II causa II q.7 can.53 (RICHTER-FRIEDBERG I, 501). 11 GRATIANUS, Decretum p.II causa II q.7 can.54 (RICHTER-FRIEDBERG I, 501). 10 100 100 105 110 115 120 125 Alessandro Palazzo convertens insidiatur etc.” Eccli. 11.12 Conspiratores, quia illi sunt calumniatores. Inter infideles tamen est differentia, quia haeretici, cum sint excommunicati, non possunt simpliciter | accusare; pagani vero et Iudaei nonnisi suam iniuriam prosequantur. ¶ Accusari etiam non possunt aliqui propter excellentiam dignitatis, ut papa non potest accusari nisi in crimine haeresis, ut dicitur in Gestis Bonifacii Martyris,13 et ponitur auctoritas d. XL c. “Si papa”;14 tamen apparatus ibi15 dicit, quod, licet “specialiter dicatur de haeresi eo, quod de illa potest accusari, etiam si occulta sit”, “cum non vult corrigi, alias enim non posset accusari”, | tamen etiam “de alio crimine potest accusari, si sit notorium per confessionem vel per facti evidentiam et incorrigibilis sit et ecclesia inde scandalizatur”, ut probatur per illud Gal. 2:16 “In faciem ei”, scilicet Petro primo papae, “restiti etc.”, et quod dicit HIERONYMUS ibidem,17 ut pari, hoc non intelligitur de officio, sed de merito, unde AUGU18 STINUS in Epistula ad Hieronymum: “Quamquam episcopatus sit presbyterio maior, Augustinus tamen Hieronymo minor est.” Et idem HIE19 RONYMUS in Libro de illustribus viris dicit, quod Damasus papa de adulterio accusatus cum 42 episcopis se purgavit, sed si sit occultum, non potest accusari. Probatur etiam idem, quod praedictum est per hoc, quod contumacia dicitur haeresis d. LXXXI “Si qui presbyteri”20 et contumax dicitur infidelis XXVII d. “Nullus”.21 Item imperator non potest accusari, nisi sit incorrigibilis sive in hoc, quod est minus utilis, sive in quocumque peccato. Item, ut praediximus, magistratus habens merum imperium non accusatur, quia nec in iudicium vocatur. ¶ Forma autem accusationis est, ut concipiatur libellus accusationis continens nomen iudicis et principis tunc residentis, accusatoris rei, crimen, 111 illa] illo BR 122 idem] id U1 om. E1 126 merum] merum sed in marg. verum B verum P1R 128 ut] quod BE1U1 accusationis] actionis BP1RU1 12 Eccli. 11:33. ap. GRATIANUS, Decretum p.I d.40 can.6 (RICHTER-FRIEDBERG I, 146). 14 GRATIANUS, Decretum p.I d.40 can.6 (RICHTER-FRIEDBERG I, 146). 15 Glossa in Decretum Gratiani p.I d.40 can.6 (Lyon 1613, 195). 16 Gal. 2:11. 17 Non invenitur. 18 AUGUSTINUS, Epistula 82 c.4.33 (GOLDBACHER 385.5-8). 19 Non invenitur. 20 GRATIANUS, Decretum p.I d.81 can.15 (RICHTER-FRIEDBERG I, 284-85). 21 GRATIANUS, Decretum p.I d.38 can.16 (RICHTER-FRIEDBERG I, 144). 13 P1 140rb R 172vb Philosophy and Theology in the German Dominican scholae 101 P1 140va E1 4r B 219ra U1 38vb P1 140vb de quo agitur, personam, cum qua dicitur crimen commissum – hic tamen non est necesse locus, in quo crimen commissum est –, dies concepti libelli, licet diem | vel horam commissi criminis non cogatur comprehendere, et professionem accusatoris, scilicet ut profiteatur se velle prosequi accusationem et subiturum talionem, idest talem poenam, qualem accusando intendit inferre secundum illud legis divinae22 “dentem pro dente, oculum pro oculo etc.”, et hoc subscribet is, qui libellum dat vel alius pro eo, si litteras nesciat, unde versus: “Consule mense die coram praetore professus te deferre reum crimen loca pone sodalem et licet hora dies non mensis praetereatur.” 130 ¶ Dixi autem libellus accusationis, qui in criminibus locum habet, ad differentiam libelli conventionalis, qui in civilibus locum habet et continet nomen actoris et nomen rei et nomen iudicis et rem, quae petitur, et causam, propter quam dicit rem illam esse suam, et causam agendi et modum. 140 ¶ Notandum tamen, | quod in pluribus casibus non est necessaria libelli conceptio, scilicet in levi crimine et in notoriis, in quibus nec accusator est necessarius, ut dicit AMBROSIUS.23 Secus est in manifestis et non notoriis et in calumniatore tempore sentientiae: ibi enim sine accusatore | proceditur ad poenam, sed post sententiam non, et cum civiliter agitur de crimine non ad poenam ordinariam. Similiter ab eo, quod diximus accusatorem debere inscribere, excipiuntur multi casus, cum accusat de levi crimine vel cum mulier accusat et in crimine apostasiae et cum accusatur Christianus, quod Iudaeam duxerit uxorem, et cum | maritus accusat uxorem de adulterio et in accusatione falsae monetae et si tutor accusat et cum quis ex necessitate accusat, ut heres volens vindicare necem defuncti, et in crimine abigeatus | et cum per officiales crimina nunciantur. ¶ Effectus accusationis est depositio inquisitionis ab administratione, admonitio denunciationis, correctio exceptionis, consecrandi exclusio. Interdum tamen denunciationem sequitur admonitio, ut cum quis non potest agere poenam eo retento, super quo denunciatus est, ut in simonia, 130 personam] persona BRU1 hic] hoc BE1P1U1 131 locus] locum E1P1 dies] diem E1P1 137 versus] cum et add. esse in marg. B cum P1 die] diem E1P1 140 accusationis] actionis BP1RU1 143 illam] nullam P1*R 151 mulier] mulier sed in marg. viliter B viliter P1*R 158 admonitio] amotio E1 ammotio(?) P1 22 23 Lev. 24:20. Non invenitur. 135 145 150 155 160 102 Alessandro Palazzo sive sit in ordine sive in beneficio vel dignitate, et in re furtiva vel violenta vel per dolum acquisita. 165 170 175 180 185 ¶ Si autem accusatus de crimine absolutus fuerit, non potest super eodem iterum accusari, nisi posterior probet priorem praevaricatum fuisse vel ostendat se primam accusationem ignorasse. ¶ In huiusmodi etiam causa, scilicet criminali, requiruntur principales personae, nec intervenit procurator nisi in aliquibus casibus, scilicet in crimine iniuriarum et ad excusandum et cum agitur de crimine non criminaliter et in levibus criminibus et si crimen non excedat poenam relegationis et in crimine suspecti tutoris et cum quis accusat alium de ingratitudine, et in popularibus actionibus intervenit ad agendum, licet non ad defendendum, et dominus defendit servum in crimine. ¶ Delinquunt vero accusatores tripliciter, quia vel calumniantur vel praevaricantur vel tergiversantur. Calumniari est falsa crimina imponere, interpretari scienter et animo calumniandi; praevaricari est vera crimina abscondere; tergiversari est in universum cedere, actioni terga vertere, idest ab ipsa desistere, et, sicut dicit EUTICIANUS papa:24 “Calumniantes ad vindictam poscit similitudo supplicii”, idest ut similia patiantur, qualia inferre intendunt | accusando, praevaricator vero et tergiversator extraordinarie puniuntur. ¶ Non autem convincitur | quis de calumnia eo ipso, quod non probat intentum, quia potest esse, quod accusator, licet non probet, tamen iusta causa devenit ad crimen. Sed huius rei inquisitio pertinet ad iudicem, qui, cum proponit absolvere reum, antequam per sententiam absolvat ipsum vel etiam incontinenti post, incipit consilio quaerere, qua mente ductus ad accusationem processit, et per sententiam condemnabit eum vel absolvet. Cap. 16. De inquisitione, in quo est quae crimina sint enormia 190 Proceditur autem ad inquisitionem ex quattuor causis, scilicet ex clamosa insinuatione secundum illud Gen. 18:25 “Clamor Sodomorum et Gomorrae multiplicatus est etc.” Tunc autem clamor pervenit ad praelatum, ut dicit 170-71 ingratitudine] magnitudine E1P1* 175 interpretari] intepretare BR interpretari(sic) E1 intemptare U1 176 in om. sed sup. lin. suppl. P1 om. R 178 poscit] possit BE1 187 Cap. 16] Cap. 15 P1 om. B 188 clamosa] clamorosa BE1 189 Sodomorum] Zodomorum BE1 190 etc. om. BP1 24 25 GRATIANUS, Decretum p.II causa II q.8 can. 3 (RICHTER-FRIEDBERG I, 503). Gen. 18:20. R 173ra P1 141ra Philosophy and Theology in the German Dominican scholae 103 B 219rb INNOCENTIUS IV,26 cum per publicam famam aut insinuationem frequentem subditorum sibi referuntur excessus non | semel tantum, sed saepe. Hoc enim clamor innuit et diffamatio manifestat. Item propter scandali timorem, quod potest turbare ecclesiam, sive sit unus adeo potens, quod ipse scandalizatus potest ecclesiae scandalum suscitare, sive sint plures. Ad remotionem enim talis scandali indicitur purgatio et illa sequitur inquisitionem. E1 4v U1 39ra Item potest fieri inquisitio contra eum, qui suspectus est | suo praelato vel principi terrae vel aliis bonis viris, | etiam si non sit alias infamatus, quia et huic indicitur purgatio. 195 200 Item fit inquisitio propter periculum etiam sine infamia, sicut fit in haeresi et in aliis criminibus, quae serpunt in occulto. ¶ Inquisitionum vero quaedam est contra personam singularem, quaedam est de statu ecclesiae in capite et in membris. P1 141rb In prima debet hic ordo servari: debet praesens esse is, contra quem inquisitio facienda est, | nisi se per contumaciam absentaverit, et exponenda sunt ei illa capitula, de quibus fuerit inquirendum, ut habeat facultatem defendendi se ipsum, et nomina testium sunt ei publicanda et admittendae sunt ei exceptiones et replicationes legitimae, ne per suppressionem nominum infamandi, per exceptionum vero exclusionem deponendi falsum audacia praebeatur. 205 210 In secunda vero inquisitione debet procedi “de plano et absque strepitu iudiciorum” non ita, quod ordinem iudiciorum non teneat, ut quidam male dicunt, sed, ut compescat partes et advocatos a superfluis et inutilibus probationibus et allegationibus, “cum talibus non deceat servos Dei involvi”, ut dicit GREGORIUS IX,27 et recipientur tales testes, quales in ecclesia inveniuntur, quia ea, quae domi fiunt, per domesticos probari oportet, cum in prima inquisitione legitimi testes sint adhibendi. 215 ¶ Item multae sunt differentiae inter inquisitionem, ad quam iudex procedit ex suo officio, et eam, ad quam procedit alio procurante. Nam in prima inquisitor faciet iurare illum, contra quem inquirit, quod respondeat 220 194 turbare] perturbare BP1 197 sequitur] in marg. iuris add. B iuris add. P1 199 vel2] etiam sup. lin. add. B etiam add. P1 210 exceptionum] exceptionem B exceptionis E1 exceptioim P1 221 respondeat] responderet B respondebit E1 26 27 INNOCENTIUS IV, In V libros Decretal. comment. V rubr.1 c.19 (Venezia 1610, 586a). Decretal. Gregor. IX V tit.1 c.26 (RICHTER-FRIEDBERG II, 747). 104 225 230 235 240 245 250 255 Alessandro Palazzo ad interrogata super eo, de quo inquirit; in secunda vero non, sed procurator inquisitionis tenetur probare suam intentionem et, si defecerit, punietur suspensione ab officio et beneficio, donec purgaverit se, quod non animo calumniandi crimina proposuerit. Item in prima publicatis attestationibus inquisitor potest denuo ab aliis testibus inquirere; in secunda non, quia timetur subornatio. ¶ Debet autem inquisitio fieri in loco, in quo conversatur persona, de qua inquirendum est, et potest ipse opponere contra inquisitorem de suspecto vel quod sit criminosus et contra testes et contra | dicta testium et contra denunciantem vel litteras ad inquirendum impetrantem et poterit proponere excusationes suas. Inquisitor etiam faciet iurare eos, qui denunciaverunt, sed forma huius iuramenti alia est a forma illa, quae in causis aliis observatur, quia in inquisitione contra personam singularem iurat testis, quod super crimine dicat plenam veritatem, in inquisitione vero super statu ecclesiae iuramenti forma duplex est, quia vel iurat dicere veritatem de his, quae scit vel credit in ecclesia esse reformanda exceptis occultis, vel quod respondebit ad interrogata. | B 219va ¶ Occulta autem hic vocamus non solum secretum confessionis, sed omne crimen, de quo quis non est infamatus. Sciendum tamen, quod, si fiat inquisitio super certis capitulis, tunc in iuramento non apponetur haec clausula exceptis occultis, sed cum infamia praecesserit specialiter de hoc crimine determinato secundum numerum, dicent testes, quidquid de hoc sciunt vel credunt, etiam si sit occultum, dummodo non sit occultum per confessionem, ut si aliquis sit infamatus de fornicatione cum hac muliere et super hoc crimine sit inquisitio, debet testis dicere etiam secretas circumstantias, | quas novit, etiam si iuravit tenere secretum. R 173rb Dixi autem determinato secundum numerum, quia, si solum de specie criminis | est infamatus, tunc non debet testis occulta revelare. Quando autem fit generalis inquisitio, tunc, si de occultis, de quibus non praecessit infamia, aliquid dixerint testes, non valebit dictum eorum, et est ratio differentiae, quia, dum super certis articulis inquiritur vel committitur inquisitio, scitur praecessisse infamia, | et hoc non patet in generali inquisitione. ¶ Aut ergo is, contra quem inquiritur, convincitur | de crimine, aut de sola fama probatur contra eum, vel omnes testes dicunt eum innocentem. 244 etiam] et BR 246 sit] fit BP1U1 dicere om. sed in marg. suppl. P1 om. R 249 occulta] secreta B occulta revelare inv. E1U1 252 dum] cum E1 in marg. add. P1 om. RU1 255 is] iste P1R P1 141va U1 39rb E1 5r P1 141vb Philosophy and Theology in the German Dominican scholae 105 Si sit primo modo, tunc, si sit praelatus, removendus est ab administratione secundum illud Lucae 1628 de vilico, qui “diffamatus fuit apud” dominum suum, “quasi dissipasset bona ipsius”, et dixit ei dominus: “iam non poteris” amplius “vilicare.” 260 Si vero sit privata persona, tunc poena est arbitraria, quam secundum merita personae et qualitatem excessus poterit iudicantis discretio moderari, nisi sit aliquod de criminibus enormibus, quae etiam post peractam paenitentiam impediunt executionem ordinis suscepti aut retentionem beneficii. In his enim est procedendum sicut in iudicio accusationis. 265 ¶ Dicuntur autem crimina enormia in sacra Scriptura, quae sunt extra omnem normam non solum gratiae et rationis, sed etiam ipsius naturae. Sed secundum canones patrum enormia crimina dicuntur dupliciter, scilicet vel illa, quae ad normam paenitentiae plene reduci non possunt, sed semper remanet aliquid de poena, scilicet id, quod diximus, idest quod impedit ordinis executionem et beneficii retentionem, ut sunt homicidium, haeresis, simonia in ordine, vel illa, quae normam dispensationis non recipiunt, ut sunt simonia in beneficio et omnia delicta, quae ipso facto inducunt infamiam civilem et quae sequitur infamia ex declaratione ipsorum per sententiam. P1 142ra Si vero nihil nisi de fama probatum sit contra eum, non debet statim propter infamiam suspendi, nisi enormitas delicti vel scandalum hoc exposcat, sed admoneat eum ordinarius seorsum, postea coram testibus, si non cavet sibi, et si adhuc infamia perduret, suspendat eum usque ad condignam satisfactionem. | ¶ Si sit tertio modo, non suspendetur nec onerabitur purgatione, nisi fiat hoc ex abundanti ad tollendam infamiam facti. 263 aliquod] alquid E1U1 28 Luc. 16:1-2. 282 abundanti] abundantia BE1 270 275 280