Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

because it withholds from its disciples all material knowledge, without however being able to give another direction to the stream by his appropriate suggestions.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

The schoolmen of the twelfth century had only the Organon of Aristotle in Boethius' Latin translation, and their philosophical treatment of Dogmatic theology was purely logical. On the other hand all the works of Aristotle were translated into Arabic: The study of his philosophy flourisht especially after the time of

tale utile est illud ingenium, quod sola subtilitate lasciviens, nulla residet gravitate. Unde, ut idem scribit c. 7, fiunt in puerilibus Academici senes ; omnem dictorum aut scriptorum excutiunt syllabam, immo et literam, dubitantes ad omnia, quaerentes semper et nunquam ad scientiam pervenientes, tandemque convertuntur ad vaniloquium : ac nescientes quid loquantur, aut de quibus asserant, errores condunt novos, et antiquorum aut nesciunt aut dedignantur sententias imitari. There is much also on this head in Policraticus lib. vii. c. 7–14. Compare Stephani Episc. Tornacensis (+ 1200) epist. 251 ad Coelestinum iii. (s. $ 60. not. 10): Lapsa sunt apud nos in confusionis officinam sacrarum studia literarum, dum et discipuli solis novitatibus applaudunt, et magistri gloriae potius invigilant quam doctrinae : novas recentesque suinmulas et commentaria firmantia super theologia passim conscribunt, quibus auditores suos demulceant, detineant, decipiant, quasi nondum suffecerint sanctorum opuscula Patrum, quos eodem Spiritu sacram Scripturam legimus exposuisse, quo eam composuisse credimus Apostolos et Prophetas.- Disputatur publice contra sacras constitutiones de incomprehensibili Deitate ; de incarnatione Verbi Dei verbosa caro et sanguis irreverenter litigat; individua Trinitas in triviis secatur et discerpitur; ut tot jam sint errores quot doctores, tot scandala quot auditoria, tot blasphemiae quot plateae. Then follow coinplaints of the perplexing number of the Decretals. Vae duo praedicta sunt, et ecce restat tertium vae. Facultates, quas liberales appellant, amissa libertate pristina in tantam servitutem devocantur, ut comatuli adolescentes earuin magisteria impudenter usurpent, et in cathedra seniorum sedeant imberbes; et qui nondum noverunt esse discipuli, laborant ut nominentur magistri. Conscribunt et ipsi summulas suas, pluribus salivis affluentes et madidas, philosophorum sale nec conditas nec con. ditas. Omissis regulis artium, abjectisque libris authenticis artificum, muscas inanium verbulorum sophismatibus suis, tanquam aranearumi

Avicenna (Ibn Sina † 1036), as well in the Moorish schools in Spain as in general under the Arabian sway. It received a fresh impulse? in the beginning of the thirteenth century, from the new translation and commentary, with which Averrhoës (Ibn Roshd † about 1217) illustrated the works of Aristotle. Ever since the middle of the twelfth century pilgrimages3 to those seats of learning, from western Christendom, grew continually more common. It was natural that here also the attention and desires of men should turn to the remaining portions of Aristotelic philosophy. Soon they began to translate into Latin,4 the works of the Arabian Aristotelians; these they considered to be faithful representations of the Aristotelic philosophy, although in parts, as for instance the writings of Al-gazel († 1127), they were strongly infused with neoplatonico

ideas. The high estimation in which Aristotle was already held - as a logician won for this natural philosophy, supposed to be

Aristotelian, an easy entrance into western Christendom.

tendiculis includunt. Clamat philosophia, vestes suas conscindi et disrumpi etc. Comp. Schlosser e.g. S. 64 ss.

1 Wachler's Gesch. d. Literatur. ii. 95. 113.

? Ou the Arabian philosophy see Tennemann viii, 1, 362. Documenta philosophiae Arabum ex codd. mss. ed. D. Aug. Schmoelders, Bonnae 1836. His Essai sur les écoles philos. chez les Arabes, et notamment sur la doctrine d'Algazzali, Paris 1842. H. Ritter's Gesch. d. christl. Philosophie iïi. 663.

* Caesaris Heisterbacensis (about 1225) de miraculis et visionibus sui temporis lib. v. c. 4: plures ex diversis regionibus scholares in eadem civitate (Toleti) studebant in arte necromantica, among them also were juvenes aliqui de Suevia et Bajoaria.

Jo. Launoji de varia Aristotelis in Acad. Paris. fortuna, Paris. 1662. 8. denuo ed. J. H. ab Elswich. Vitemb. 1720. 8. An entirely new light has been thrown upon this subject in Jourdain recherches critiques sur l'âge et l'origine des traductions latines d'Aristote, et sur des commentaires grecs ou arabes employés par des docteurs scholastiques. Paris 1819 (translated by Dr Stahr, Halle 1831) nouv. édit. revue et augm. 1843. Before this time, works on medicine, astronomy, and such subjects, had been translated from Arabic into Latin (Jourdain p. 97 ss.): Raymund, Archbishop of Toledo (1130—1150), was the first to cause the principal Arabic works on the Aristotelic philosophy, namely those of Avicenna, Algazel, and Alpharabius, to be translated by several learned men. (Jourdain p. 111 ss.)

5 Proofs of the existence of the doctrines of neoplatonic philosophy among the Mahometans may be seen in A. Tholuck's die speculative Trinitätslehre des späteren Orients, Berlin 1826. 8.

Still the first effects of this new wisdom must make it an object of the greatest suspicion. Whether the error of Simon of Tournay, teacher of theology in Paris about the year 1200, is to be explained by the influence of this philosophy, or to be regarded only as the blindness of a presumptuous dialectician, remains uncertain. But two other theologians were beguiled by it into Pantheistic errors. Davids of Dinant remained firm in a specu

6 Two entirely different calumnious stories are told of him by Thomas Cantipratanus (see above, $ 55, note 24) and Matthaeus Paris ann. 1201, p. 206 (namely : 0 Jesule, Jesule, quantum in hac quaestione confirmavi legem tuam et exaltavi : profecto si malignando et adversandu vellem, fortioribus rationibus et argumentis scirem illam infirmare, et deprimendo improbare.) On the other hand Henricus Gandavensis, Doctor of the Sorbonne about 1280, in his lib. de scriptt. eccles. c. 24 (in Fabricii biblioth. eccl. ii. p. 121) says merely : dum nimis — Aristotelem sequitur, a nonnullis modernis haereseos arguitur. Compare Cramer vii. 98. Histoire littéraire de la France. xvi. 388.

? Amalric v. Bena, in Engelhardt's kirchengesch. Abhandlungen, Erlangen 1832, S. 251. On Amalric and David see Ritter's Gesch. d. christl. Philosophie iii. 625. Amalrich v. Bena, v. Dr C. U. Hahn, in d. Theol. Studien u. Krit. 1846. i. 184. Amalrich v. Bena u. David v. Dinant, v. Dr J. H. Krönlein in d. Theol. Studien u. Krit. 1847. ii. 271.

8 Krönlein e.g. S. 283 rightly opposes the common opinion that David of Dinant was Amalric's pupil. Compare Chron. anonymi Laudun. Canonici, a contemporary, in Bouquet rerum Gall. scriptt. continued by Brial xviii. 714: Almaricus vir quidem subtilissimus, sed ingenio pessimus fuit : in omnibus facultatibus, in quibus studebat, aliis contrarius inveniebatur. Item sciendum, quod iste Magister Almaricus fuit cum domino Ludovico primogenito Regis Francorum, quia credebatur vir esse bonae conversationis et opinionis illaesae. Magister vero David, alter haereticus, de Dinaunt, hujus novitatis inventor, circa Papam Innocentium conversabatur, eo quod idem Papa subtilitatibus studiose incumbebat. Erat enim idem David subtilis ultra quam deceret, ex cujus quaternis, ut creditur, magister Almaricus et caeteri haeretici hujus temporis suum hauserunt errorem. Thomas Aquin. Summa theol. P. i. qu. iii. art. 8 makes an express distinction between their opinions, bere he enumerates three errors with regard to the Being of God: Alii autem dixerunt, deum esse principium formale omnium rerum, et haec dicitur fuisse opinio Almaricanorum. Sed tertius error fuit David de Dinando, qui stultissime posuit, Deum esse materiam primam. So the Synod of Paris in 1209 condemned David's work at the same time with Amalric : not as was hitherto believed, because David was Amalric's pupil, but because Amalric had drawn his errors from David's work. Besides, according to that .chronicle, David seems not to have been a teacher in Paris, but to have maintained himself at the Papal Court, and in 1209 he was certainly dead.

lative Pantheism ;' Amalric of Bena, teacher of theology in Paris († 1205) advanced from this platform, to deny many of the doctrineslo of the Church : The followers of this last, against

9 On this point Albertus Magnus was the great authority, from whom Thomas Aquinas derived his knowledge of this theory. Albertus seems to bave been acquainted with a work of David's de tomis h. e. de divisionibus, which he quotes, Summa Theol. P. i. tract iv. qu. 20. membr. 2. quaest. incidens. Compare his Summa theol. P. i. tract vi. qu. 29. membr. 1. art 2: Sunt quidam haeretici dicentes, Deum et inateriam primam et noun sive mentem idein esse. Quod sic probant : Quaecunque sunt, et nullam differentiam habent, eadem sunt. Idem enim est, ut dicit, Aristoteles vii, topicorum, quod non differt differentia. Deus, nous et materia prima sunt, et nullam differentiam habent : ergo eadem sunt. Quod autem haec tria sint et plura principia rerum, ex hoc volebant probare, quod res sint triplices, scilicet materiales, spirituales et divinae, nec ex uno principio proprio formabiles. Primum ergo principium formationis materialium est materia, ut dicunt; et primum principium formationis spiritualium, in quibus principium vitae est, dicunt, quod est nous, sive mens. Dicunt enim, quod omnia, quae sunt in uno genere, ex uno aliquo principio simplici formantur, ut patet in omnibus generibus entis, scilicet substantia, quantitate, qualitate, et sic de aliis. Similiter divinum esse multiplex est, ut dicunt, et necesse est, quod ex aliquo uno formetur principio, et hoc dicunt esse Deum. Haec ergo tria sunt simplicia prima : et si sunt simplicia, nullam differentiam habent : quaecunque enim habent differentias, sunt composita. Et sic suam volunt probasse intentionem. Et in hoc errore fuit David De Dinanto. David expressly draws upon the metaphysics and physics of Aristotle, and avails himself of his technical phraseology. See Krönlein S. 327, and other places.

10 About him writes particularly the contemporary Gulielmus Armoricus or Brito (whose continuation of Rigord in Duchesne scriptt. rer. Gall. T. V. is printed by mistake as part of the same, so Rigord is often quoted here without claim) de gestis Philippi Augusti ad ann. 1209 (in Bouquet rerum Gall. scriptt. fortges. v. Brial xvii. 83.) As early as 1204 Amalric was charged with having laid down, quod quilibet Christianus teneatur credere, se esse membrum Christi, nec aliquem posse salvari, qui hoc non crederet. He must have asserted this in some unusual sense; for he was condemned by the Pope, obliged to recant, and soon after died of chagrin. In the year 1209, however doctrines still more offensive appeared among his disciples, the blame of which was laid upon him. The Council of Paris ann. 1209, thus states their heresies (Martene thes. anecd. iv. 163): Pater a principio operatus est sine Filio et Spiritu sancto usque ad ejusdem Filii incarnationem.-Pater in Abraham incarnatus, Filius in Maria, Spiritus sanctus in nobis quotidie incarnatur.—omnia unum, quia quicquid est, est Deus.—Tum Deus · visibilibus erat indutus instrumentis, quibus videri poterat a creaturis, et accidentibus videri poterat extrinsecis. Hoc siquidem errore decepti, corpus Christi ante verborum prolationem visibilibus panis accidentibus subesse

whom a Synod of Paris in 1209 commenced a bloody persecu

conati sunt affirmare : cum e contra dicat auctoritas : accedit Verbum ad elementum. et fit Sacramentum. Quod sic exposuerunt: id quod ibi fuerat prius, formis visibilibus prolatione verborum subesse ostenditur. Item Filius incarnatus, i. e. visibili formae subjectus ; nec aliter illum hoininem esse Deum, quam unum ex eis cognoscere voluerunt. Item Spiritus sanctus in eis incarnatus, ut dixerunt, eis omnia revelabat: et haec revelatio nihil aliud erat, quam mortuorum resurrectio. Inde semetipsos jam resuscitatos asserebant, fidem et spem ab eorum cordibus excludebant, se soli scientiae mentientes subjacere. Item de meritis praesumentes, gratiae derogantes, mentiti sunt, bonorum baptismatis non egere parvulos ex eorum sanguinibus propagatos, si suae condi.. tionis mulieribus carnali possent copula misceri. Item Filius usque nunc operatus est, sed Spiritus sanctus ex hoc nunc usque ad mundi consummationem inchoat operari. Joh. Gerson de concordia metaphysicae cum logica (opp. ed. du Pin iv, 826) draws his statements with regard to Almaricus from the Commentary of the Cardinal Ostiensis (about 1260) on Decret. Greg. lib. i. tit. 1. cap. 2 § reprobainus, and from the chronicon. of Martini Poloni. The first appear to be the most important : because Henricus · Ostiensis wisht to have them immediately from Odo Episc. Tusculanus, who as Episcopal Chancellor of Paris took an active part in the Conc. Paris. ann. 1209. The passage is not to be found in Ostiensis Summa, but probably in his Lectura, which according to a marginal note in the Summa ed. Basil. 1573 p. 2 he wrote after the Summa, and is given, more fully than in Gerson, in Jac. Thomasii origines hist. philosophicae et ecclesiasticae, Halae 1699, p. 113: Impii Almarici dogma istud colligitur in libro Magistri Joanuis Scoti, qui dicitur Periphysion i. e. de natura. Quem secutus est iste Almaricus, de quo hic loquitur. Sed et dictus Joannes in eodem libro auctoritatis cujusdam Graeci nomine Maximi introduxit. In quo libro, qui et per magistros damnatus fuit Parisius, multae haereses continentur. Primus et summus error est, quod omnia sunt Deus. Unde dicit: motum Deo dare non possum : et sequitur : cum in ipso sunt omnia, et cum ipse sit omnia. Et alibi in eodem libro dicit, non facile posse negari, creaturam et creatorem idem esse. Secundus est, quod primordiales causae, quae vocantur ideae, i. e. forma seu exemplar, creant et creantur. Tertius est, quod post consumirationem saeculi erit adunatio sexuum, sive non erit distinctio sexus, quam adunationem in Christo asserit incepisse. On this Gerson remarks : Praedictus Odo Tusculanus, qui fuerat Cancellarius Parisiensis, notaverat et damnaverat errores dicti libri, et ab hoc Odone dicit Hostiensis se praedictos errores accepisse. It is clear that the Card. Ostiensis is here quoting from the list of the heretical doctrines of Joh. Scotus, prepared by Odo, accordingly those propositions are taken word for word from Joh. Scotus de divis naturae. However, Card. Ostiensis only produces them, to denote the heresies of Amalric, who drew from Joh. Scotus ; and Gerson attributes these propositions immediately to Amalric. Martinus Polonus also (chron, ed. Antverp. 1574 p. 394 written 1271)

« PoprzedniaDalej »