A Study in the Early Order of Preachers

Home , Dominican Order, Humbert of Romans, List of Dominican friars, Second order (religious)

FROM PREACHER TO PROFESSOR: A STUDY OF IDENTITY IN THE EARLY ORDER OF PREACHERS

Matthew C. Showers B.A., California State University Sacramento 2007

THESIS

Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

HISTORY (Humanities)

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO

SPRING 2011

FROM PREACHER TO PROFESSOR: A STUDY OF IDENTITY IN THE EARLY ORDER OF PREACHERS

A Thesis

Matthew C. Showers

Approved by:

______, Committee Chair Candace Gregory-Abbott, Ph.D.

______, Second Reader Bradley Nystrom, Ph.D.

______Date

Student: Matthew C. Showers

I certify that this student has met the requirements for the format contained in the

University format manual and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for this thesis.

______, Graduate Coordinator ______Mona Siegel, Ph.D. Date

Department of History

iii

Abstract of

FROM PREACHER TO PROFESSOR: A STUDY OF IDENTITY IN THE EARLY ORDER OF PREACHERS

Matthew C. Showers

In the early thirteenth century, the Dominican Order identified itself with the image of the preacher, specifically St. Dominic. There was also a distinct spirituality formed in the order that was s a mix of contemplation, apostolic activity, and a strong emphasis on education. The preacher’s office was venerated and esteemed early on in the Order’s existence, but the emphasis on education created a rival class of university masters that seemed to become the new face of the Dominican Order in the latter half of the century.

Through analysis of early Dominican constitutions, preaching manuals, biographical documents, syllabi and various philosophical works by influential Dominicans from c.1231-1286, one may note that this shift is not a change in Dominican identity but rather a broadening of it. Comparative atmospheres of ideological conflict required similar treatments, though by men of different offices. The professor, specifically Thomas

Aquinas, became the academic realization of the Dominican preacher-tradition.

______, Committee Chair Candace Gregory-Abbott, Ph.D.

______Date

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost I should like to thank my family for their endless love and

support. I would also like to extend my gratitude to my two greatest influences

throughout my graduate studies. Dr. Gregory-Abbott has provided me with nothing less than the strongest support, the most practical advice, and seemingly limitless patience.

Dr. Nystrom has constantly pushed me to be a better writer and scholar with his high standards and uncompromising, yet kindly delivered, honesty. I should also like to thank

Fr. Richard Schenk OP for providing me with his translation of the Statutes of 1259 despite not knowing me from an atom. This made an already challenging task less of a challenge. A special ‘thank you’ also goes out to Andrew Lopez for proofreading two chapters, and to Niccole Scrogins for her editorial contributions to the entire project as well as for her insomniac patterns being similar to my own. Finally I give thanks to God almighty who has always given me definitive answers to my prayers, whether I liked what He had to say or not.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments...... v Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 The Dominican Order ...... 1 Heresy, Reform, and the Issues of the Early Thirteenth Century ...... 2 Formation of the Order of Preachers ...... 11 The Early Dominican Order: Form and Function ...... 25 Conclusion ...... 38 2. DOMINIC THE PREACHER ...... 40 The Image of Dominic and Dominican Spirituality ...... 40 The Biographical Texts ...... 43 The Gentle Hound of the Libellus ...... 46 The Miraculous Dominic of Sister Cecelia ...... 63 The Nine Ways of Prayer of Saint Dominic ...... 73 Agni’s Analysis of a Saint ...... 79 Conclusion ...... 81 3. THE PRIORY SCHOOL AND THE PREACHER’S EDUCATION ...... 83 After Dominic ...... 83 The Rapid Expansion of the Order ...... 84 An Order of Learning ...... 89 Life in the Priory, and the Making of a Friar ...... 91 The Education of a Preacher ...... 97 A Shift in Focus ...... 101

4. GENERAL HOUSES OF STUDY AND THE MASTER’S EDUCATION ...... 103 Universities and the Order of Preachers ...... 103 The First General Houses 1220-1300 ...... 105 Studium Generale and Student Life ...... 110 The Masters of Theology ...... 113 Theology versus Philosophy ...... 116 The Statues of 1259 ...... 119 A New Emphasis and a New Method ...... 125 Conclusion ...... 127 5. THE PARISIAN DISCOURSES AND THE RISE OF THOMISM ...... 129 Growth and Distinction from 1250-1300 ...... 129 The Question of Philosophy ...... 135 The Thomistic Approach to Reason and Revelation ...... 140 Condemnations ...... 150 Conclusion: Dominican Identity Fulfilled ...... 155 Bibliography ...... 157

vii

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The Dominican Order

The Order of Preachers, more commonly known as the Dominican Order, was an order founded under for an apostolic purpose. The Dominican friars, along with the

Franciscan Order, were part of a monastic development in the thirteenth century known as the mendicant movement. Mendicant friars were known for leading a monastic life of religious poverty while carrying out a constant mission of ministry to the laity. This mission of teaching set the friars apart from the previous monastic and canonical orders, which had rarely focused on purposes outside of their immediate cloisters. Dominic de

Guzman (c.1170-1221) sculpted his religious order especially to combat heretical groups that had gained major followings in the early thirteenth century by training preachers to publically teach the orthodox doctrine of the church to a laity that was greatly ignorant of theology. The Dominican Order was particularly notable for its emphasis on a strong theological education as its means to achieve its apostolic end.

In the order’s early years, the office of preacher was held in the highest esteem.

The Dominican preacher, notably modeled in the image of St. Dominic, embodied values and ideals that almost singlehandedly defined Dominican identity for most of the first century of the order’s existence. The Dominican preacher was simultaneously a scholar, a monk, and a priest. He was the product of a rigorous curriculum of theology and tested thoroughly in both his oratorical skills and his ability to debate points based upon the

knowledge he had acquired from this education. Dominican preachers of the early order

preached itinerantly, usually in public and primarily in urban areas.

Although initially it was the preachers that defined the order so strongly, they

were eventually superseded as the figureheads of the order by a rival class of university

professors. The shift came within less than a century of the orders foundation in 1216,

and could be said to have been completed sometime between 1245 and 1270. This change

came about partially as a result of the growing ties between the Dominican Order and the developing European universities, which was a very understandable consequence of the order’s academic inclinations. The second reason was the rise of the school of thought that became known as Thomism, which was named after its Dominican founder Thomas

Aquinas (c.1224-1274). Similar to the conditions under which the Dominican Order itself

had been initially formed, the Thomistic school of thought distinguished itself in an

atmosphere of ideological conflict. Thomas’ ideas regarding the roles of human reason

and divine revelation created the best possible synthesis between Aristotelian philosophy

and Catholic theology, which were often at odds with one another. Though Thomism was

eventually accepted by the Church overall, its origins and founder were very distinctly

Dominican.

Heresy, Reform, and the Issues of the Early Thirteenth Century

The twelfth and early thirteenth centuries are remembered for great confusion and

religious discontent in medieval Christendom. The Church had become detached from the

laity in many ways, which resulted in the discouragement and even embitterment of

many. Heretical movements in regions such as Italy, Germany, and France met certain

unfulfilled needs of the laity and had begun to grow in popularity. The causes for heresy

were numerous. Religious, economic, social and political reasons drove individuals from

all backgrounds and social classes to reject both the church’s authority and its theology,

turning instead to these heretical movements to meet their spiritual needs. As in the early

centuries of the Christian Church, the heresies of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries

proved to be pivotal in the development of Christian doctrine.1 Heresy again pushed the

Church to define its positions more clearly in order to confront and condemn these opposing theological sects and, also, to take new actions in order to deal with them.2

The most prominent of these heresies was Catharism, also known as

Albigensianism. The roots of the Cathar heresy and its theology were complex and

variant. Its influences ranged from the Bulgarian dualistic sect, known as the Bogomils,

to the views of various individual preachers and reformers in the West such as Peter the

Monk, Peter of Bruis.3 Generally speaking, the Cathars believed in a dualistic theology

that depicted two equally powerful deities. They taught that the physical world was evil

and was the creation of a malevolent god that they often identified as the god referred to

1 Movements such as Arianism and Modalist Monarchianism, which prompted the Council of Nicaea (325). Other notable examples of early heretical controversies prompting similar ecumenical action within the Church include Gnosticism, Marcionism, and Montanism, all of which prompted significant definitions in the Church, such as the creation of a canon of scripture and the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. For a broader discussion of heresy in the early Church, two excellent sources are E. Glenn Hinson’s The Early Church: Origins to the dawn of the Middle Ages and William Placher’s A History of Christian Theology.

2 Malcolm Lambert, Medieval Heresy, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1992), 3-5.

3 Lambert, 45-50; Zoe Oldenbourg, Massacre at Montsegur: A history of the Albigenisan crusade (New York: Minerva Press, 1968), 30-32. For a detailed discussion of further Western influences of the Cathar heresy, Lambert’s work, which has been cited here, is one of the most extensive.

in the Old Testament.4 Cathars also believed that the unseen spiritual world was good. and was the creation of an equally powerful benevolent god that they identified with the

god referred to by Jesus in the New Testament.5 Cathars, therefore, rejected the Old

Testament altogether and taught from several New Testament texts as well as a few

unique to their own tradition, such as the Interrogation of John or The Secret Supper.6

Cathars considered themselves to be the true Christian Church and regarded the Catholic

Church and its teachings as a perversion of the truth and a tool of the Antichrist.7

According to Cathar theology, human souls were imprisoned in physical bodies as

a result of a war in Heaven between the two opposing deities. Souls would continue to be

reborn into the evil physical world until a spiritually pure life liberated them from it once

and for all.8 Because of their doctrine of spiritual bondage, the Cathars went to extremes

to reject the physical world and lead an intensely austere life. Cathars rejected marriage

except between virgins, and absolutely forbade sex as it was a reproductive act and, thus,

inherently evil.9 Furthermore, they ate no meat, eggs, or any other food that resulted from

procreation except for fish, which they believed to be a product of the water itself.10

Anything physical or of the flesh was viewed as inherently evil. This also led to a

4 Lambert, 120; Oldenbourg, 34-35.

5 Oldenbourg, 35-36.

6 Lambert., 121.

7 Ibid., 119.

8 Lambert, 120; Oldenbourg, 38.

9 Lambert, 58 and 107.

10Lambert, 107; Oldenbourg, 40.

rejection of many Catholic traditions, such as the taking of the Eucharist. The belief was that the way out of the evil physical world was to take consolamentum, which was

essentially the Cathar equivalent of baptism, and, henceforth, lead the pure life of a

perfect, adhering completely to the sect’s doctrines.11 It was after consolamentum and the

commitment to the life of the perfect that most Cathars received the bulk of their ‘secret’

theological instruction.12

Though a minority committed absolutely to the pure life of a perfect, Catharism

was still appealing to many among the laity for at least several reasons. For one, there

was no elaborate religious hierarchy in Cathar communities as there was in the Catholic

Church, and a sense of common endeavor united the members.13 This egalitarianism

extended to gender roles as well, which likely held some appeal. Women could hold an

equal status with men as perfects in teaching, heading communal households, and performing the ceremony of consolamentum for another14

Sympathizers who did not undertake consolamentum would not achieve salvation

according to Cathar theology but were still welcome to participate in communal or

religious services to whatever degree and attend communal teachings.15 Cathars were usually very informed in their faith and open to discussing it with interested parties. Also, and more pertinent to the reaction by the early Dominicans, the religious climate of the

11 Lambert, 107; Oldenbourg, 44-48.

12 Lambert, 120.

13 Ibid., 108.

14 Lambert, 112; Oldenbourg, 61.

15 Lambert, 109.

age favored poverty and self-sacrifice, both of which were values that the Cathars

promoted in their words and actions.16 The appearance of the Cathar perfects made them

seem very pious and sincere in their faith in that they were apparently strong-willed

enough to maintain such an ascetic way of life.17 The Cathar houses educated any who

showed an interest, and its members were usually well versed in their faith. Their use of

familiar Christian imagery and their claim to secret teachings made them very persuasive

to an uneducated or theologically uninformed laity. For reasons such as these, the heresy

took hold in several regions, including the politically unstable Languedoc in southern

France, attracting members from all social classes.

It was in response to the Cathar heresy that the Order of Preachers was initially

conceived. Both Dominic and his mentor, Bishop Diego Azevedo (d.1207), experienced

the effects of Catharism firsthand and recognized several of the root causes of the

heresy’s tremendous popularity. First and foremost there was the widespread preaching

of Cathar beliefs and the willingness of its well-versed proponents to freely engage the inquisitive minds of any laymen willing to listen. Many Cathars actively traveled to share and spread their faith. Historian Malcolm Lambert notes that prior to the printing press, this proved to be the most successful way to spread new or radically alternative ideas.18

16 Ibid., 60.

17 Ibid., 108.

18 Ibid., 40.

There was no real Catholic counterpart to the heretical preachers at the time that could actively defend or clarify Catholic theology for the laity.

The Catholic clergy’s contact with the laity in the early thirteenth century was primarily limited to the mass held at the local churches. The masses of most Catholic churches of the time were heavy in ritual and recitations of prayers and scriptural passages, usually in Latin, but were lacking in spiritual substance.19 The widespread lack of education among the clergy in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries provided few satisfactory answers to the laity’s theological questions.20 Also, there was the issue of a general lack of preaching in the Catholic Church duty of preaching had been reserved for bishops at the time. The bishop alone was responsible for preaching and the instruction of both the clergy and the laity in his diocese. To make matters worse, he was also often lacking a proper ecclesiastical education and was more often than not engulfed in the political and administrative affairs of his diocese.21 Though it was the bishop’s duty to make arrangements for ecclesiastical schools in his diocese, it was rarely the case that an institution of this sort was established. In the case of the southern French territories such as Languedoc, in which Catharism enjoyed a particularly strong presence, Cathars had begun to establish local schools that filled this widespread educational void. Local nobility in these regions commonly were educated, almost exclusively in some areas, by

19 Pierre Mandonnet, St. Dominic and His Work, (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1938); 16; R.F. Bennet, The Early Dominicans: Studies in Thirteenth-Century Dominican History, (1937; repr., New York: Russell and Russell, 1971), 14.

20 Ibid.,15.

21 R.F. Bennet, The Early Dominicans: Studies in Thirteenth-Century Dominican History, (1937; repr., New York: Russell and Russell, 1971); 14, Mandonnet, 157-161; M.H. Vicaire, Saint Dominic and His Times. Trans. Kathleen Pond. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), 189.

Cathar schools. It was for reasons such as this that the local secular powers of areas such

as Languedoc strongly supported and protected the Cathar communities.22

Monastic orders of the time, such as the Cistercian Order, were intellectually in a

better position to preach as their lifestyle consisted of prayer, reading, recitation and

contemplation that gave them a relatively better understanding of scripture. However, the

aim of their withdrawn lifestyle was greatly, for their individual salvation, which was an

objective better achieved in isolation from the world outside of their communities.

Though monasteries had served as missionary centers at times throughout the Church’s

history,23 monks of the twelfth and early thirteenth century went to great lengths to avoid

interaction with the outside world. This tendency toward seclusion often existed between

the individual monasteries as well. Monasteries, such as those of the Cistercians, were of

one order but operated very independently of one another.24 Historian Herbert Workman

explained that “the defect of monasticism at all times was its essential aloofness from the

life of the outside world. Educational usefulness, except for its inmates, was no part of its

real programme. . .”25 Since the inherently secluded monastic life was meant to be a

retreat from the world to better achieve and maintain a level of spiritual purity through

poverty, chastity and obedience, monks were not trained to be effective preachers.

22 William A. Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, vol 1. of The History of the Dominican Order, (Staten Island: Alba House, 1965), 22.

23One example of this is the roles played by the English and Irish Churches, which consisted heavily of monasteries and remained active even after Rome’s withdrawal from Britain.

24 Herbert P. Workman, The Evolution of the Monastic Ideal (1913; repr., Boston: Beacon Press, 1962), 243.

25 Ibid., 247.

The second root cause of the spread of heresies was the humble and impoverished

appearance of their proponents. Heretics, such as the Cathars, were not adorned with the finery that many of their Catholic counterparts were. Scandals such as simony and a

widespread lecherous tendency among many in the clergy furthered the sense of detachment between the Church and the increasingly embittered laity. Monasteries were

not left untouched by the disease of monetary gain either. As early as c.1109-1122, the

abbots of Cluny had become powerful political figures, and they, as well as their order,

had begun to amass an enormous wealth.26 The Cistercian order was founded as a

reformation the Cluniac system (c.1098) in an attempt to return to a stricter monastic life,

but fell to a similar fate. Cistercian monasteries were intended to be self-sufficient, and its

members became skilled in agriculture and animal husbandry. This resulted in

involvement in commercial endeavors less than a century after their foundation.

Cistercian communities amassed enormous wealth due to these endeavors and, along with

it, a reputation as being crooked businessmen c.1190s.27 Historian Lester K. Little

observes that with the atmosphere of this prospering of the new profit economy, pride

was replaced by avarice in many religious writings as the predominant sin of concern.28

Corruption such as this fueled a growing sense of frustration and discouragement with the

church. Furthermore, it made the clergy appear hypocritical and insincere in regard to the

values they were promoting, further tarnishing the church’s image. The trend had not

26 Ibid., 237.

27 Lester K. Little, Religious Poverty and Profit Economy in Medieval Europe, (1978; repr., Ithaca: Cornell Paperbacks, 1992) 91-93;Workman, 246-248.

28 Ibid., 36.

10 gone unrecognized. Numerous attempts at reform had been attempted in both the secular clergy and monastic circles in the two centuries leading up to the mendicant movement.

Religious poverty, the most pertinent example of such reform, had become a popular form of piety in the preceding two centuries. Poverty was often undertaken out of spiritual motives as a form of religious protest. Catholic reformers of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, most notably Peter Damian (c.1007-1072), pursued the example of an impoverished hermetic lifestyle to serve as an engine of change.29 However, their efforts had been aimed primarily at the reformation of the clergy and the monasteries.30 Groups such as the Cistercian monks and the Premonstratensian canons (c.1120) reacted in a similar fashion by denouncing personal property and retreating from urban areas.31

Again, these religious communities were seeking foremost to purify their own.

Evangelization among the laity, if conducted at all, was at best a secondary goal for these groups. Therefore, whether it was the clergyman or the monk running greedily to the lecherous embrace of avarice, or the reformer running piously away from it into poverty and isolation, the laity was left behind with no one to engage them or fulfill their religious needs.

The mendicant movement, of which the Dominican Order was a major element, was a reaction to these conditions. Dominic and his mentor, Diego, formed the project that evolved into the Order of Preachers after recognizing the churches failings. A lack of informed preaching, the insincere and lecherous appearance of the clergy and the general

29 Ibid., 72-76.

30 Ibid., 82.

31 Ibid., 87-96.

void of education had put heresies, specifically Catharism, into an advantageous position.

What began as a small expedition to counter Catharism in the region of Languedoc grew

into a religious order different than any that had come before it. To properly discuss the

later forms, functions and evolution of the order, a discussion of its foundation is needed.

Formation of the Order of Preachers

The chain of events that led to the formation of the Order of Preachers began with

a fateful journey taken in 1203 by Diego, the bishop of Osma, and his trusted subprior,

Dominic. Commissioned by a local ruler to carry out a marriage proposal, Diego,

Dominic and the rest of the bishop’s envoy set out on a route from Spain to Denmark that

took them through Languedoc. It was here that they were first exposed to the extent that

Catharism had taken hold. There is one story about this journey that is well known to

Dominicans. After the envoy had taken lodging one night Dominic supposedly stayed up

all night debating with a Cathar innkeeper. Dominic refused to rest until he had returned

the man to the Catholic faith. Dominic is said to have succeeded in swaying the innkeeper

who was “no longer able to resist the wisdom and the true spirit that spoke.”32

On the return trip from Denmark, Diego took a detour through Rome to speak with Pope Innocent III (d.1215). For reasons unknown, Diego requested to be relieved of his office so that he might participate in missionary work in the eastern regions held by

32 Jordan of Saxony, Libellus, 15., in Francis C. Lehner, ed., Saint Dominic, Biographical Documents. (Washington DC: Thomist Press, 1964), 13. Lehner’s anthology of English translations of the medieval biographical documents of St. Dominic, the bulls of approbation, Jordan’s encyclical letter and the Primitive Constitutions is a fundamental source for this project. In the cases where the sources have their original passages, they shall be cited according to the passage numbers first, and additionally to their corresponding page numbers in the printed edition. In the event there are no original passage numbers, only the page numbers of the printed edition will be provided.

the Mongols.33 Innocent denied Diego’s request and the bishop’s envoy headed

obediently back to Osma through the region of Montpelier. It was during this return

journey, once again through the Cathar dominated Languedoc, that they arrived at a

church council being held in the town of Montpelier. The topic of discussion at this

council was the problem of Catharism in the region. At least twelve Cistercian abbots,

who had been commissioned by the Pope to preach against the heretics, as well as an

unknown number of archbishops, bishops, and other prelates, were in attendance. These

early attempts to counter the Cathar heresy had been met with minimal success. The

council was apparently receptive to the input of the visiting bishop. It was then that Diego

shared a pivotal insight that seems to effectively characterize the entire mendicant

movement. Jordan of Saxony (c.1190-1237), the second master general and first

chronicler of the Dominican Order, writes:

[H]e commented that the methods these heretics were using to convert souls of their perfidy were in striking contrast to the stylish and expensive carriages and furnishing displayed by those who had been sent. ‘This is not the way . . . for you to proceed. I do not think it possible, by words alone, to lead back to the faith such men as are better attracted by example.’34

Diego then proceeded to practice his own preaching, as it were, and traded his bishop’s

robes for the habit of a Cistercian monk. He sent away his own carriage and envoy, save

for only a few of his clerics including Dominic. He seemed to disregard Innocent’s command here as no attempt to seek papal approval is mentioned in Dominican tradition.

33 Jordan, 17., 14.

34 Ibid., 20., 15.

This small band of preachers was the nascent project from which the Order of Preachers grew.

The small group proceeded to venture into the region in nearly complete poverty, with only the necessary books and the goal of preaching to the laity who had embraced

Catharism. Diego’s idea of setting out in poverty relied heavily on divine providence, which included begging for alms. This was a somewhat controversial choice since canon law at the time forbade begging by clerics and monks.35 This ideal was also a rather impractical in light of the fact that the territory was already hostile to Catholicism, so the bare essentials were provided for by Dominic’s efforts and the funds brought in from

Diego’s own diocese of Osma.36

Dominic proceeded to set up a center of operations at Prouille, which was little more than an abandoned township with a chapel and other facilities. He arranged for the donation of land and a building by a local family. There, the preachers would regroup, nourish themselves, study and then strike out again once they were intellectually and physically refreshed. What Dominic had established, initially, was a center to use as a base of operations for the small group of preachers.37 This also became the site of the first convent of what would become known as the Dominican ‘Second Order,’ or the order of the Dominican Nuns. The women’s community was founded to provide a

Catholic alternative for young women to the various schools that Cathar noblewomen had

35 Mandonnet, 25

36 Vicaire, 111.

37 Ibid., 109-111.

set up within their homes.38 Little is known about the details of the day-to-day life at

Prouille, but both the communities of preachers and nuns resided and functioned there concurrently in the years before the call of the Albigensian Crusade (c.1205-1209).39

The preachers were said to have been met with verbal and physical abuse during

their expeditions. Public debates with Cathars were common, sometimes conducted

formally in the presence of the local nobility. If the Cathar opponents themselves could

be not persuaded, the goal had often been to verbally confuse them and thus discredit

their testimonies.40 The mission had mixed results. Some victories were won for the

Catholic faith and some individuals converted, but there was no overwhelming success.

The peaceful preaching mission was overtaken by the declaration of the Albigensian

Crusade in 1209.

Diego, perhaps fortunately, never saw the carnage of the imminent crusade. In

1207, he left to check on his diocese, which he had not seen for approximately two years.

Meanwhile, Dominic remained in the area to see that the project Diego had begun did not

wither in the bishop’s absence. Dominican tradition accredits Diego for the original

concept of an order both monastic in lifestyle yet with preaching as its sole purpose,41

and he may have had every intention of coming back to see it through. However, no one

will ever know for certain as Diego died before he could return. Upon hearing of Diego’s

38 Ibid., 119.

39 Ibid., 124.

40 Bennet, 87.

41 Jordan, 28., 26.

passing, many of the original group left the region to return to their former lives and

monasteries.42

Dominic, however, refused to abandon the project. Having arranged a small group

of his own, he continued his preaching campaign with very few followers even

throughout the Crusade. During this time he was quite understandably met by more

intense adversity and bitterness from the Cathars he sought to sway.43 Few specifics of

his activities are known throughout the period of the Crusade (1209-1213) other than that

Dominic managed to continue to receive donations from sympathizers and sustain

Prouille.

Dominic’s degree of involvement in the crusade itself and the resulting

Inquisition has been hotly debated among historians for years. However, no conclusion

has ever been decisively agreed upon. Dominic’s friendship with Simon of Montfort

(c.1160-1218), the prominent general of the Albigensian Crusade, aided and sustained

Dominic’s preaching efforts in the region during and after the crusade. It was through

Montfort that Dominic gained “a remarkable fortress at Casselneuil” and a church at

Fanjeaux, which gave Dominic and his followers enough shelter and resources to remain active.44 He continued to attempt foundations of convents like Prouille though not all of

them were to last as the area was not successfully stabilized for some time. The crusaders

42 Ibid., 31., 29-31.

43 Jordan, 31. and .34, 29-35.

44 Ibid., 37., 32.

16 claimed victory in 1214, and an interdict on the area was lifted. It was then that attempts to politically restructure and reorganize the region began.

Dominic’s operation was transferred to Toulouse in 1215, where the prototype for what would become the Order of Preachers began to form. Peter of Seila, who soon took the habit as part of this newly established group of preachers, signed over to Dominic his inherited property, which included three houses. Bishop Fulk of Toulouse (c.1150-1231), who had worked with the preachers since they first arrived in the region, assigned to

Dominic and all his companions present and future a charter of religious intent. In short, the charter from Bishop Fulk authorized monetary allowances, approximately one sixth of the received tithes, were to be given to the small order to keep them fed, clothed, housed and whatever else was absolutely needed by them.

[To] root out the corruption of heresy, to drive out vice, to teach the creed and inculcate in men sound morals. [We] institute as preachers in our diocese Brother Dominic and his companions, whose regular purpose is to comport themselves as religious, travelling on foot, and to preach the Gospel word of truth in evangelical poverty.45

As Dominican historian M.H. Vicaire points out, this was unheard of for a religious community of the time for two reasons. First, the duty of preaching was never before commissioned to an entire community as a whole. Preachers had been known to be hired or called upon individually sometimes as freelancers or out of a parish, but a permanent mission assigned to a religious community was something relatively new in the Church.

Second, there was the fact that this newly commissioned religious order lived strictly off of the alms they were given, producing nothing by their own labor. By functioning in this

45 Fulk, The Charter of Toulouse, quoted in Vicaire, 171.

manner they liberated themselves of countless interferences and distractions from their

new mission: the preparation for and carrying-out of their preaching duties.46

In 1215, both Dominic and Fulk set out that same year to seek papal confirmation

of the newly inaugurated community of preachers in Toulouse. Papal confirmation was

important in that it would give permanency to the assets, income, and other unique

qualities new kind of religious community in Toulouse after Fulk had ceased to function

as the bishop.47 Jordan of Saxony wrote that Dominic sought one other thing beyond the

solidification of the existing structure of his new order: the title of the “Order of Friars

Preachers,” as opposed to the “Order of Preaching Friars”48 This was to be an office, not

merely a description of an action. This was an important element to the very essence and

identity of the order that Dominic was seeking to forge.49 Though this alone may have been his sole goal, he would be given at least two more tasks to accomplish before his and Diego’s vision could become wholly realized.

Though Innocent had recently given approval to the Franciscan Order in 1210,

which had drafted an original rule, this would not be the case for the Dominicans.

Dominic and Fulk had arrived during the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), during which the recently passed thirteenth canon decreed that henceforth no new rules could be composed for religious communities in order to avoid possible complications and

46 Vicaire, 173.

47 Ibid., 192-193.

48 Jordan, 40., 41-42.

49 Vicaire, 195.

confusion within the Church. Some historians have presumed Dominic was seeking

confirmation of an original rule he had composed by his own hand, however this notion is

purely speculative. Innocent instructed the two to select an existing rule for their new

order and then return for full confirmation once this was completed. The two men

returned to Toulouse and held a meeting with the members of the order to choose a pre-

approved rule and draft constitutions. This meeting is understood by most to be the first

general chapter meeting of the Dominican Order.

The Rule of St. Augustine was chosen to be the official rule of this new style of mendicant religious life. This was both the most convenient choice and the most sensible one for three reasons. For one, Dominic had lived and functioned as an Augustinian canon for his entire career. The rule had been reintroduced in the eleventh century as the rule for canonical orders primarily for its emphasis on renunciation of personal property and communal living. In this sense, the rule was very compatible with the apostolic mission of the young order. Finally, it provided a degree of flexibility of interpretation.

To best explain this last point, a brief recount of the history of the rule is needed.

Augustine (c.354-430) had originally composed the rule upon his return to Africa shortly after his conversion and for his small Christian fellowship.50 The rule itself is

composed of three separate documents. The first part, composed in 388, was a very

precise set of rules laid out by Augustine for the community living under his own roof in

Tagaste. This portion of the rule is referred to as Disciplina monasterii.51 The second

50 Little, 102-105; Workman, 254.

51 Mandonnet, 202.

document, dated roughly 391, was a commentary on these specific rules, explaining

point-by-point the spiritual substance and deeper meaning of each rule, and therefore the

importance of adhering to it. The two documents were eventually amalgamated. A third

and separate document came years later in 425 when the Bishop of Hippo wrote a

correctional letter to a community of nuns in his diocese whom he felt needed

correction.52 After signing off on his sternly worded letter, he transcribed the rule, but

adapted for a female community. The rule was forgotten for some time after the sixth

century when the Rule of Benedict became the predominant rule for monastic

communities.

The Rule of Augustine was revived in 1067 to replace the Rule of Aix in the

reformation of canonical communities.53 A complication arose, however, concerning the

Rule of Augustine in 1118.54 Complaints accrued regarding its physical demands in

regard to fasts and labor in the cold central European climate. Augustine’s Disciplina

monasterii, written with the Egyptian climate in mind, and was physiologically

impractical to practice in the colder German climate, particularly in the winter months. In

response to this, Pope Gelasius II decreed in 1118 that the precise rules of the Disciplina

monasterii should be abandoned and new rules should be composed according to more

local discretion on a case-by-case basis. This was on the condition that they were written

with the guidance of Augustine’s commentary in the remaining second portion of the

52 Augustine, “Letter 211,” in newadvent.org, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102211.htm (accessed on 7/25/2009).

53 Little, 102.

54 Mandonnet, 245-250.

rule. This action, as Mandonnet puts it, “decapitated” the rule, leaving the commentary

portion as the only remainder from the pen of the bishop of Hippo.55

Even though Augustine’s exact specifications were thrown out to make room for

countless new prescriptions his influence remained in the form of spiritually and morally

substantial, yet very general, guidelines provided by the commentary. The Rule of

Augustine, as it was inherited by Dominic and his early order in 1216, was then the next

best thing to composing a brand new rule. As long as nothing was done to contradict the

primarily spiritual guidelines laid out by the bishop of Hippo, there was, to a degree,

room for the originality needed by this new community of preachers.

The Premonstratensian constitutions were sampled heavily by the first

Dominicans but with significant additions that emphasized and secured the order’s main focus of training scholarly preachers and dispersing them when necessary. Many details of the day-to-day lives of the individuals within the convent were abandoned, and more privileges or dispensations were granted for study and preaching. The most telling example is an addition that can be read in the prologue to the Dominican Order’s original constitutions:

The prelate shall have the power to dispense the brethren in his own Priory when it shall seem expedient to him, especially in those things which are seen to impede study, preaching, or the good of souls, since it is known that our Order was founded, from the beginning, especially for preaching and the salvation of souls.56

55 Ibid., 248.

56 Primitive Constitutions of the Order of Friars Preachers, Prologue, from Lehner, 212.

The rule of Augustine and the modified Premonstratensian constitutions accommodated

the order’s purposes well enough as it allowed them to combine the religious common

life with the mobility to preach and interact with the laity. In 1216, Pope Honorius III

(c.1148-1227), who succeeded the late Innocent III, confirmed the rule, constitutions, housings and ecclesiastical property future and present and the title of the ‘Order of

Preachers’ to the newly affirmed canonical order later that year.

There are no existing records that show any ambition on the part of Dominic to

move beyond the diocese of Toulouse. However, shortly after the order’s confirmation,

Dominic did something rather unexpected. He dispersed his group from their house in

Toulouse, declaring that they were to go out into different parts of the continent never to

live in cloister together again. In doing so, he famously made reference to a biblical

parable: “For he knew that grain bears if sown, but, if stored, it rots.” 57

Dominic’s sudden aspiration to extend his project from an experimental group

functioning locally in Toulouse to international proportions is a puzzling one. Dominic

had labored amongst heretics for more than a decade with little apparent success. As

historian C.N.L. Brook puts it, it is somewhat shocking that Dominic suddenly, “threw

his cap over the moon.”58 Dominic’s decision may have been prompted by a precarious

political situation in the crusade-ravaged city of Toulouse, in which the ill-fated Simon de

Montfort was quickly losing control. However, while this coincides with the timing of the

57Jordan, 4.7, 45.

58 C. N. L. Brooke, “St. Dominic and His First Biographer,” Royal Historical Society 17, (Nov. 1967): 35.

move, it does not explain the vast shift in scale.59 It may well have been Dominic’s

intention to create an international organization from the very beginning. Dominican

tradition accredits the shift in scale to a vision Dominic received during this second visit

to Rome while he was praying for the preservation and growth of his newly founded

order. In this vision both Saints Peter and Paul appeared to him:

Peter . . . appeared to be handing to him a [shepherd’s] staff, and Paul a book. Then they spoke these words: ‘Go and preach, because you have been chosen by God for this work.’ And then, in a moment of time, he seemed to see all his children dispersed through the world and going two by two preaching the word of God to the people. 60

Dominic did exactly this, and officially dispersed his order on August 15, 1217. Of his

sixteen companions at Toulouse, twelve were sent to Spain and parts of France, three

remained in Toulouse, including Peter Seila, at the church of St. Romanus, and the remaining two went to oversee the women’s convent of Prouille. Dominic then set out again for Rome, recruiting as he went.61

From the start, friars were recruited primarily from universities. Dominic began

with such schools as Bologna and Milan to acquire men of intellect and a solid

theological background that would make them effective and informed preachers.

Dominic, a former Augustinian canon and the subprior of Osma for a time was a very

educated man for his day and understood the unique privilege he enjoyed. Receiving an

ecclesiastical education, beginning in childhood and concluding at the Cathedral school

59 Ibid., 35.

60Jordan, 47., 45.

61 Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 50-52.

of Palencia, his was an education rare for the time and reserved for very few. In fact, the

best case for Dominic’s supposed noble lineage, though it has been debated at times was

his evident level of education, a privilege often available only to the aristocracy in the

Middle Ages.62 Universities such as Bologna and Paris were growing, and providing more sophisticated education. Dominic began laying groundwork for recruitment early on in Bologna and Milan, recognizing their potential for harvesting preachers.

Dominic petitioned for and received numerous bulls of recommendation from

Rome to endorse his new kind of mendicant poverty and preaching. The reaction to this

was a new kind of mendicant order that was met with some reservation by more

conservative-minded members of the clergy.63 Pope Honorius backed Dominic’s efforts

enthusiastically and in February of 1218 recommended and endorsed the order by title

and a precise description of their mission, to the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church:

The Order of Preachers (whose salutary ministry and religious institute we believe to be pleasing to God) and regard them, out of reverence for us and the Apostolic See, as approved. Assist in their needs these men who, faithfully preaching the word of the Lord without recompense, and imitating the Lord Himself alone in seeking the good of souls, have given their preference to the title of poverty.64

There was continued success for the next few years until the first official general chapter

meeting was held in the Church of St. Nicholas at Bologna in 1220.

It was at this meeting that the Dominican constitutions were solidified and the

governmental structure of the order formalized. Most of the original Brethren from

62 Vicaire, 17.

63 Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 53.

64 Honorius III, “The Bulls of Approbation,” from Lehner, Saint Dominic, Biographical Documents, 202.

Toulouse were present, as well as the young Jordan of Saxony, who had entered the order

less than three months previously. Dominic, who of course was the acting Master General

of the order, had the most significant role in the amendments. It was these rigorous

adjustments that probably allowed a large scale operation like that of the Dominicans to

succeed. Dominic’s order had begun to take form from a loose but revolutionary concept

to a well-defined, working institution with a single evangelical goal.

Dominic’s last days were spent actively preaching and building his order. He

toured the land preaching, recruiting for his order, fine-tuning the order’s constitutions

and establishing monasteries. He died in 1221 after watching the beginning of his order’s

growth. Little material recalling the life of the saint and founder of the Dominican order

appeared until around the time of his canonization some ten years after his death. The

earliest recollections of the foundation of the Order of Preachers and of the life of

Dominic were composed by Jordan of Saxony, who succeeded him as Master General.

The Dominican Order continued to function successfully after the founder’s

death, although, its mission would take on different guises throughout its history. The

Order of Preachers, as its name implies, was originally intended to be an order that

simply produced and dispersed educated preachers. The order continued to persist in its

apostolic mission, however it would soon shift from itinerate preaching to academia.

Early on, at least until the time of Albertus Magnus (fl.1243-1271) and Thomas Aquinas

(fl.1244-1273), preaching was the sole focus of the order. The Dominican preacher would

become the hero of the order until the mid-to-late thirteenth century when he would be replaced by the Professor.

The Early Dominican Order: Form and Function

Ever since the moment when Diego surmised that the most effective way to

counter the spread of heresy was to adopt the impoverished appearance and informed

preaching of the Cathars, the Dominican religious life began to develop. Like their

mendicant contemporaries, the Order of Preachers balanced the monastic life of celibacy,

prayer, contemplation and religious poverty with the active freedom and education of the

secular clergy. The friar cast off the world for the monastic life but with the intention of

returning to it as a minister. It was this apostolic mission that set the mendicant friars

apart from their monastic predecessors. When compared to previous monastic orders the

structure of government reflects an elaborate effort to unify, coordinate, and maintain the

focus of an international organization upon this apostolic mission. While a mission of

ministry was common to all mendicant orders, it was the emphasis on theological

education and preaching that made the Dominican Order unique from other mendicant

orders such as the Franciscans.

When Dominic and his early companions created their order in 1216, their

greatest accomplishment had been to give a new focus to a religious order. Previously,

religious orders both canonical and monastic had not been necessarily opposed to

preaching per se, but it was certainly not their area of expertise nor was it an order-wide,

coordinated effort.65 Dominic and the founding Dominicans had in many cases synthesized pre-existing material, while emphasizing as aspects that related to their apostolic purpose. The Rule of Augustine was utilized for the new order but not simply

65Mandonnet, 288, Workman, 294-295.

for its discouragement of personal property. Later Dominicans such as Humbert of

Romans would emphasize its focus on charity and often equate it to ministry. In a similar

manner the Premonstratensian constitutions had been sampled from and adjusted where

necessary to allow more flexibility for dispersal for preaching purposes.

The monastic model had developed from isolated individuals to isolated

communities then finally to numerous communities affiliated within one international

organization that was supported and approved by the pope.66 Two predominant models of

the third phase, which was solidly in place at the beginning of the thirteenth century,

were the Cluniac and Cistercian Orders. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries the

canonical orders of the secular clergy had begun to take on monastic characteristics in

their communities and worked within a similar structure and mentality. The adoption of

monastic ideals within the secular clergy was greatly due to the efforts of reformer, and

future Pope Gregory VII, Hildebrand (c.1020-1085), who heavily infused monastic concepts such as celibacy, cloister, and poverty in the canonical orders.67

The Cluniac system, for example, could be described as monarchical in structure

and liturgical in their mission. The abbot of Cluny presided over not only the mother

house but the daughter houses as well.68 Presumably, each abbot had his own agenda but

still adhered to the abbot of Cluny as his superior. Furthermore, the Cluniac mission was

66 Workman, 236.

67Ibid., 226- 229 and 234.

68E. Showalter, “The Business of Salvation: Authority and Representation in the Thirteenth Century,” The Catholic Historical Review 58 (Jan, 1973): 558.

27 one of liturgical observance by its monks and remained primarily within the walls of its houses.69

The Cistercians had been more aristocratic in structure and ascetic in their mission. The Cistercian Order, itself a reform of the Cluniac model, had been meant to be a return to the precise observance of the Benedictine Rule.70 Each Cistercian community had its own locally elected prior running the house as he saw fit. Beyond the annual chapter meetings he rarely communicated with his counterparts in the other houses within his order.71 Also, due to the agricultural tendencies of the Benedictine rule and its emphasis on manual labor, these communities were very self-sustaining; thus, contact with the secular world was not a necessity, nor was it ever truly encouraged.

The Premonstratensian Canons, perhaps the most similar predecessor to the

Dominican Order, was structured as more of an oligarchy and was undecided in its mission.72 The structure of the Premonstratensian Order was loosely unified and inconsistent in its mission, varying between study and pastoral work.73 Each house was autonomous and overseen by an elected abbot with a small group of advisors, therefore, the mission of each house could vary greatly.74 The variance in mission was usually

69 Little, 62, Workman, 228-229.

70 Workman, 241-243.

71 Showalter, 559.

72 Bennet; 161; Showalter, 559.

73 Showalter, 559.

74 Ibid.

between contemplation and pastoral work, which the Dominicans uniquely sought to

balance in their own version of the religious life.

Dominic and the early Order of Preachers constructed a more republican system

with a very clear agenda of evangelical outreach that communicated constantly and met

consistently. The Dominican governmental structure, a constitutionally sound system of

representation, held annual conferences at the local, regional, and international levels.75

Each meeting on each level was meant to further uphold and fine-tune the functions of

the order to achieve its apostolic mission of educating, qualifying, and dispersing

preachers. The administration of the order was a balance of centralized authority and

individual responsibility.76 The map of Christendom was becoming further covered with recently established Dominican houses and divided into provinces.77 Each convent was given a territory to oversee within the province and assigned the task of dispensing its preachers within said territory on an as-needed basis. The monitoring and determination of this need was left greatly to the discretion of the local prior who was elected by his peers and confirmed by the provincial prior.78 Similarly, the provincial prior, oversaw the

operation of all territories within the entire province. He himself was elected from the

province, but confirmed at the annual order-wide general chapter meetings.

75 Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 170; Showalter, 561-562.

76 Showalter, 564.

77 Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 172-173.

78 Showalter, 563.

A provincial chapter meeting was held annually at Pentecost and consisted of all

the conventual priors, each with an elected delegate or ‘definitor,’ as well as a varying number of preachers general.79 During these annual meetings ,they would tend to such

business as assigning friars to convents, naming professors, fine tuning the administration of their schools and also electing inspectors to examine individual convents. 80

General chapter meetings were similar but were order-wide and consisted of

provincial-level representatives.81 These meetings accounted for greatest central

concentration of authority in the order.82 Order wide legislative decisions were made

here, as well as the confirmation of provincial officials and foundation of new convents.

General chapters confirmed the election of provincial priors and elected the Master

General, who was the single most powerful individual in the order. Although Dominic

reserved great power for his office and title of master general, an unusually powerful

figurehead position that wielded great executive power, he took the opportunity to

delegate much of the authority he held at the time to the collective wisdom of the annual

council gathered at the general chapter meetings.83

The Order of Preachers met frequently, and its power was distributed more evenly

than previous monastic orders. The Dominican system was designed to function as a

well-balanced, self-sustaining mechanism that answered only to the pope. The extensive

79 Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 178; Showalter, 563.

80 Showalter, 563.

81 Ibid., 564.

82 Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 184.

83 Bennet, 159; Showalter, 569-570.

Dominican system was impressive for its time, a first for a religious order, and was

initially designed to sustain and promote the training and dispersal of preachers.84 Failure

to meet this all-important goal was to fail the mission of the Order of Preachers, which

was to ensure that educated preachers attended to every square inch of the map. By

meeting and communicating frequently at all levels of its hierarchical government, the evangelical mission of the Order of Preachers would, in theory, be more likely to remain understood and upheld.

The uniqueness of the Dominican Order, when contrasted with its predecessors,

exhibits what the order means to monastic history, though not necessarily with their

contemporaries. The mendicant movement gave birth to other orders with similar

missions. However, no other order of mendicant friars was as successful or notable as the

Order of Friars Minor, also called the Franciscan order. The most notable contemporaries

of the Dominican Order, the Franciscan friars formed almost simultaneously with a

similar evangelical mission and a strong emphasis on religious poverty. Both orders

preached and even borrowed from one another as they developed. The key difference

between the two orders lay primarily in the method and mentality with which they

approached the religious life, and, in effect their preaching.

The Franciscans, founded by the fervent layman Francis of Assisi (c.1182-1226), preached the importance of poverty and penance with a general emphasis on Christ’s sufferings. For Francis and his followers; preaching was a spiritual overflowing that sprung forth from within at the appropriate times. Dominic and the Dominicans had a

84 Showalter, 573.

more academic approach to preaching.85 Whereas the Franciscans drew from emotion, the Dominicans drew from intellect. Most important of all was the fact that while preaching was part of the Franciscan religious life, it was not their sole focus. Preaching, for the Dominican Order, was the sole purpose of their creation. Franciscans performed manual labor while living in small huts and conducted impromptu preaching or other evangelization when they were moved to do so. The Dominicans had no time for labor and required time and resources in order to study. The Dominican spirituality was one of relentless contemplation and study, which was to be dispelled later into their sermons or, if necessary, utilized in a debate. Both orders sculpted their own respective variation of the mendicant religious life to better suit its raison d’être. Therefore, to understand what made the Order of Preachers truly unique and how the early members of the order understood Dominican identity, one must look at early Dominican writings.

The Dominican form of the religious life, which was in and of itself the approach

to achieving its apostolic goal, is poetically summed up in a sermon on evangelism

(c.1245) by the Dominican Peter of Rheims, the provincial prior of the province of Paris

and future bishop of Agen. In his brief sermon Peter explains the role of every member of

the order and how their respective occupation or office contributes to the achievement of

the order’s mission. In doing so, Peter makes use of biblical imagery, and presents an

interpretation of the four living creatures from Revelation 4:7. Each of them is identified

as the king of its respective species and likened to the four kinds of (Dominican)

evangelists.

85 Lambert, 97.

These four living creatures suit the four evangelists, because they are in their own kinds, the most noble. The lion is the king of the beasts, the ox is the leader of the cattle, the eagle is the king of the birds and the man is the most noble of all creatures . . .The moral interpretation can take these four living creatures to mean the four kinds of people there are in our order. . .86

Peter likens the lion to the superior, noting characteristics and qualities of being a strong

leader, guardian and disciplinarian of his subjects. He also emphasizes that the superior is

“particularly exposed to the risk of vanity” and should hide his good works as lions wipe

out their tracks with their tails.87 The ox, a beast of burden is likened to the “those who

administer temporal affairs.” 88 Peter praises those to whom the ox is likened for

performing the necessary tasks of worldly business to benefit the overall efforts of the

order and ought to be found perfect in obedience and penance.

Of particular interest are Peter’s allegories of the eagle, which signifies the

contemplatives, and the man, who signifies the preacher. The contemplative eagle and the

preaching man are described with great reverence by virtue of their intellect. Also of

interest is that this sermon was delivered around or before 1245. Given the estimated

dates of 1245-1270 as the shifting of the order’s identification from preacher to university professor, this allegory likely catches the apex of the preacher and the rising of the

professor.

86 Peter of Rheims, “Sermon on Evangelists,” in Early Dominicans: Selected Writings, ed. Simon Tugwell (New York: Paulist Press, 1982), 146. Tugwell is also a collection of primary source material that is fundamental to this project. Like the Lehner text, when there are original passage numbers they shall be supplied and followed by the page number from the edition cited.

87 Ibid.

88Ibid., 147.

Peter likens the man to the preachers, the man being defined by and praised for his rationality. Peter emphasizes the need for reason in order to define and differentiate the kinds of sin and vice, and to deal with sinful people. Echoing Saint Bernard, Peter says that intelligence, “is well represented by a human form” as it is “the controller of virtues.”89 He also stresses the necessity for the man to be gentle in his demeanor and thus approachable. In summary, Peter explains that the preacher, by way of his intellect and ‘gentle’ nature, one might simply say, knowledge and good people skills are key to achieving the mission of the order.

The eagle is the animal that truly seems to reinforce the education and contemplative nature of the Dominican religious life. The contemplative thinkers of the

Order of Preachers held a position that is “higher and more peaceful,” they “look straight into the face of the sun without flinching.”90 Peter goes on to assert that as eagles do not come down from the sky for mere flies, these men, the contemplatives, should not be bothered by anything other than “contemplating the sun.”91 Peter’s implication here can be assumed to mean that the study and intellectual pursuit of theological enlightenment is itself a fulltime occupation and a very necessary one.

Peter concludes that all of the creatures described in this allegory work together to fulfill the function of the religious life, and lead in their various examples. Although they are all necessary roles in Peter’s sermon, the preacher and the contemplative intellectual

89 Ibid.

90 Ibid.

91 Ibid.,147-148.

34 with their intelligence and rationality are truly the instruments by which the order’s mission is completed. Though the two are guided or supported in some way by the superior and the administrators, it is the man and the eagle that seem to warrant particular reverence in his language.

Even poverty, a key element to the mendicant movement and the spirituality of the Dominican Order was a secondary concern compared to education and the achievement of their apostolic goal. The formative years of the order between the chapter meetings of 1216 and 1220 demonstrate a gradual progression toward more extreme forms of personal and institutional poverty. The Dominican system evolved gradually into what has been called “corporate poverty,”92 in which an institution such as the Order of Preachers would theoretically be allowed to own certain property such as buildings and learning materials to a minimal degree as long as it was necessary for apostolic purposes. The Dominican Order’s practice of religious poverty was and has been notably less extreme than their mendicant counterpart, the Franciscan Order. So much so, in fact, that Franciscan historians have attempted to attribute this gradual buildup as a result of

Dominic being introduced and persuaded to undertake religious poverty by his meeting with St. Francis, who supposedly inspired him to pursue it further. Historians such as

William Hinnebusch and R.H. Bennett have argued more convincingly that the differences between the orders and their approach to poverty is more a question of

92 William Hinnebusch, “Poverty in the Order of Preachers,” The Catholic Historical Review 45 (Jan. 1960): 448.

35 emphasis.93 Dominic and the Dominicans worked up to stricter codes of poverty because it was, as Bennett puts it, “a means to an end.”94 Emphasis was laid on taking only the minimum of what was recognized as necessities, and for an order that led a religious life such as the Order of Preachers buildings and libraries were considered as such. Since housing and educating present and future preachers would require the sustainment of adequate facilities, the reality of the situation was that a consistent income was a necessity.

In a letter to Dominican novices (c.1270) English provincial prior and future archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Kilwardby, explains and defends the reason for the level of poverty versus property kept by the Order of Preachers. He compares the poverty of the Dominican Order to that of Christ and his disciples. Robert notes that just as Jesus and his disciples carried enough currency to further their mission, so then is the Order of

Preachers, “with the addition that they own houses and gardens and schools to hold their teaching in.”95 Books and housing were considered the necessities for effective preaching, but again this is only for a necessary means to the end. Poverty was a necessary but secondary aspiration for the Dominicans. The order worked its way up to greater forms of poverty while ensuring foremost the education and work of the preachers. Kilwardby goes on to insist that there are further necessities, “the apostle did not neglect his books . . . there is no doubt that books are needed, and . . . where men live

93 Ibid., 451-452..

94 Bennet, 46.

95 Robert Kilwardby, “Letter to Dominican Novices,” in Early Dominicans: Selected Writings, ed. Simon Tugwell (New York: Paulist Press, 1982), 151.

together in common life, church furnishings are [also] needed.”96 If the contemplative men of the Order of Preachers were to soar like eagles studying the sun uninterrupted, and the preacher was to effectively minister to his territory and keep his mind sharp, then it would greatly help him to have a support system of not merely housing and food, but also a resource for reference materials and an environment conducive to study.

The cornerstone of the Dominican religious life, as exhibited in Peter’s allegory

of the man and the eagle, was its emphasis on education. The study of theology in

particular was the signature feature for the Dominican Order in its early years. Dominic, an Augustinian canon and a highly educated man himself, sought to create an order that would provide such an education for all its members, but especially for the preachers through whom the apostolic mission of the order was completed. The Dominican Order was in fact the first religious order to write specific prescriptions for study into its constitutions.97The Dominican preacher had to be well-versed in theology in order to

teach and defend Catholic doctrine and, if called upon, debate publically.

In addition to the priory schools, the Dominican Order developed programs of

higher education that paralleled the growth of universities in Europe throughout the

thirteenth century and developed a significant relationship with them. The Dominican

programs imitated the structure and syllabi of the universities, and the Dominicans were

in turn utilized as faculty.98 Curriculums of higher education developed from the order’s

96 Ibid, 152.

97 William A. Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, vol 2. of The History of the Dominican Order, (Staten Island: Alba House, 1965), 6.

98 Bennet, 53- 54, Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 10.

37 foundation until becoming completely standardized in the early fourteenth century.99 This higher level of education was available to only a select few and would lead to the formation of a new academic aristocracy.100 Between roughly 1245 and 1274, the academics rivaled the preacher in terms of respect and privilege, and became an equal if not greater part of Dominican identity.101

As a result of their entrenchment in the university system and the rise of this new academic class within the order, the Dominicans took a very progressive step in 1259 when, upon the recommendation of five Parisian masters, a new corpus of Aristotelian texts were introduced into the Dominican syllabi and several new provincial programs of study were created around them.

The intellectual culture that formed within the Dominican Order throughout the thirteenth century was marked by this gradual embrace of Aristotelian philosophy. The culmination of the new academic aristocracy that had formed within the order came in the form of Thomas Aquinas ( and the ‘Thomistic’ school of thought. Thomas was not only a product of the educational system and spirituality of the Dominican Order, but was also the academic fulfillment of its apostolic mission in the university setting. Thomas’ treatment of the perceived conflict of faith and reason was perfectly in keeping with his core Dominican identity. In this way the Order of Preachers, while remaining true to its foundations, had a new academic identity in the late thirteenth century.

99 Bennet, 55.

100 Ibid., 56.

101 Showalter, 566; Bennet, 66-67.

Conclusion

The university professor’s rivaling of the traveling preacher as the Dominican

Order’s icon and figurehead was not a complete replacement but rather a development of

the same tradition that better met the needs of a different time. Throughout the thirteenth

century the young mendicant order distinguished itself most profoundly in environments of ideological conflict, and the conflict of the late thirteenth century was better met by university professors like Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas than traveling preachers such as Dominic and his early companions.

The preacher’s role had been cast in the midst of the heresies and the educational

void of the early thirteenth century. An examination of the early biographical texts on St.

Dominic and the preaching manuals composed by early Dominicans such as Humbert of

Romans exhibit the formation of a distinct set of values and ideals for the young

Dominican Order to aspire to. These ideals were never abandoned at the end of the

century, but are clearly molded with the religious and social issues of the early thirteenth

century in mind rather than the academic issues of the later. The conflict of the late

thirteenth century was in the halls of university, specifically the University of Paris, and

not in the urban areas or the countryside.

The role of education as the cornerstone of the Dominican religious life proved to be the order’s success in its ability to evolve while remaining true to the values it had set forth for itself early on. The academic tendencies of the Order of Preachers pushed it to stay current with the intellectual trends of the thirteenth century, therefore remaining relevant and able to perform its sworn duty to represent and defend the Catholic faith in

39 the face of ideological challengers whether it came from a theological or philosophical standpoint. Even after the need for itinerate preaching faded its apostolic mission was fulfilled successfully by the university professor. The professor could quite arguably be referred to as the academic fulfillment of the Dominican Order’s preacher tradition.

Chapter 2

DOMINIC THE PREACHER

The Image of Dominic and Dominican Spirituality

Dominic had successfully founded a religious order that focused primarily on the

defense of the Catholic faith, or more particularly Catholic doctrine, through the

promotion of theological education and itinerant preaching. It is no surprise then that

such an order idealized and identified itself with the office of the preacher, thus, making

him into a figurehead of sorts. In the early years of the order (c.1220-1231), the

Dominican mission was exemplified greatly in biographical tales of St. Dominic, who was depicted as a particularly effective preacher and minister. By the mid-thirteenth century (c.1245-1265), the values and ideals of the Dominican Order and the Dominican preacher were more explicitly defined by writers and commentators such as Humbert of

Romans, who served as master general from 1254-1263.

For the Order of Preachers, the preacher played the most important and heroic role in not only the order but the entire church itself, for it was he who brought souls to the faith and kept them on the path to salvation. Humbert, who greatly venerated the office of the preacher and the art of preaching, once wrote that

Without preaching, the church would never have been established, . . . The church would not have made progress in the past nor would she be making progress now without preaching . . . Also the church would collapse without preaching. . . So the church stands because of them

[preachers] just as the human body stands on its feet. 102

Similarly, Dominican biblical commentator Hugh of St. Cher (c.1200-1263) once

remarked that preachers maintained the entire fabric of the church.103

To achieve his all-important evangelical goal, the Dominican preacher was

expected to lead a lifestyle that was equally venerable. The religious lifestyle of the

Dominican preacher was simultaneously monastic, scholarly and pastoral.104 The

Dominican ‘mixed life’ has always been understood as a balance of study, contemplation,

and apostolic activity, all of which were encompassed in one holistic spirituality.105 The

contemplative element can likely be understood to refer to study, but there are also frequent and distinct references to the importance of contemplative prayer in Dominican writings as well. The apostolic element refers to time spent in the world actively performing evangelical works. In the early days of the order, this apostolic element referred most specifically to the itinerate preaching for which the order was formed. As

Hugh of St. Cher elegantly put it, “Arcus tenditur in studio, postea saggittatur in

102 Humbert of Romans, Treatise on the Formation of Preachers, .12, in Tugwell, 188.

103 Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia in universum Vetus & Novum Testamentum. vii. 381, col. 3., cited in Bennet, 82.

104 Mandonnet, 68.

105 William A. Hinnebusch, Dominican Spirituality: Principles and Practice, (Washington DC: Thomist Press, 1964), online edition available at http://www.domcentral.org/trad/domspirit/spirit02.htm (Accessed on 9/7/2009). There are no page numbers in this online edition, however the passage cited may be found in the introduction to Chapter 3.

praedictione,” or in modern English, “First the bow is bent in study, and then the arrow is

released in preaching.”106

Dominic had died in 1221, only a mere five years into his order’s existence. He

had spent those five years primarily attempting to establish his order in terms of

recruitment, legislation, and the establishment of convents and schools. From very early

on in the order’s existence biographical tales of St. Dominic were used to illustrate its

values and practices. The Dominic portrayed in these early works is the ideal Dominican

preacher, diligent in his study, passionate and sincere in his prayer and charitable in his

actions. Even as recently as the mid-twentieth century, the influential Dominican writer

William Hinnebusch specified that a conscious imitation of the saint is as necessary to the

Dominican as the imitation of Jesus is to all Christians.107

One might rightfully ask why it is the image of Dominic sculpted by his successors that is what must be considered rather than his own writings. Simply put, the reason is that Dominic left scant few original writings and those that exist do not reveal much about his personality or any particular views that he may have held. The saint left only three letters of his own composition. Two of them were written during the period in

Toulouse (c.1215-1216), prior to the formation of the order, and simply list the penance to be assigned to converted heretics.108 The third letter was written in order to give

directions to a newly founded convent of nuns in Madrid and is focused solely on giving

106 Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia in universum Vetus & Novum Testamentum, i. 13 col. 3., quoted in Bennet, 53.

107 Hinnebusch, Dominican Spirituality: Principles and Practice. Passage referred to from introduction to Chapter 2.

108 Dominic, “The Letters of Saint Dominic,” Lehner, 90-94.

them encouragement and direction. Therefore, as far as whom Dominic really was and

what his character and personal philosophy may have truly been, there is not as much

first hand material as the historian would hope. Although one cannot hope to know

Dominic through his own words, the manner in which Dominic’s successors have

remembered him reveal a significant amount about early Dominican identity and the

early Dominican preacher.

The Biographical Texts

Biographical texts reflecting the accepted image of Dominic from the formative

years of the order (c.1220-1231) are not numerous, but there are enough to get a sense of

the early Dominican mentality.109 Two such texts are Jordan of Saxony’s Libellus

(wr.1231) and Sister Cecelia’s Miracles of St. Dominic (wr.1272-1288). Both of these

texts are written compilations of pre-existing oral traditions. Both authors were first generation members of the order, recruited by Dominic and the other founders of the order. Any of their own influence in these writings would therefore also reflect the mentality of the earliest Dominicans. Both texts are also written in an anecdotal fashion

that may qualify them, at least on some level, as exempla, which were essentially

collections of individual stories meant to hold the attention of the audience and teach an

109 It should be acknowledged that the testimonials given by witnesses for the purposes of Dominic’s canonization in the 1230s are often listed among the biographical material of this period, but they will not be consulted here. While these eye-witness accounts support certain character traits attributed to Dominic that are consistent with other portrayals, such as his rigorous devotion to prayer, his diet, his compassion for people, and the belief held by witnesses that he had performed miracles, these testimonies are direct answers to specific sets of questions issued by the church that leave less room for elaboration. In this sense these testimonials, while important to the history of the order, exhibit more about the church as a whole and its validation of the order than the Dominican sense of identity. Original works by Dominican authors for a Dominican audience are what is needed.

important moral lesson.110 A story, be it hypothetical or true, would illustrate how one

should either act, or not act, in the face of moral issues as well as reflect the potential

consequences of these actions.111 If one is to understand these first two collections as

collections of exempla, then Dominic is the example of the perfect preacher, and his

image, actions, and even mentality are presumably intended to be imitated by members of

the order, especially the preachers.

While Jordan and Cecelia clearly have points to make and morals to teach

regarding the Dominican mission, and the Dominican preacher, they are not highly

structured. Jordan seems to be concerned only with chronological sequence of historical

events and Cecelia seems unconcerned with even that. The anonymously authored St.

Dominic’s Nine Ways of Prayer (wr.1260-1288) is also likely a written version of the

same previously existing oral traditions but provides a vague sense of structure and

organization to the mendicant spirituality practiced by St. Dominic that culminates at the

end in his preaching. The Nine Ways of Prayer is a unique piece, and though it was sometimes attached as a supplement to Theodric of Apoldia’s Life of St. Dominic, its

intended purpose remains uncertain.

Finally, a sermon on St. Dominic given by Thomas Agni of Lentini (c.1255) is far

more structured, logical, and even borderline legalistic in its discussion of Dominic’s life

and character in relation to his success as a preacher. In a sermon that was likely intended

for an audience within his convent, Thomas explains rather than exemplifies the qualities

110 D. L. d’Avray, The Preaching of the Friars: Sermons Diffused From Paris Before 1300, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 66; Bennett, 76.

111 Ibid., 68-70.

45 that constitute a successful preacher.112 When compared with the exempla of the early

Dominicans, Thomas’ sermon seems to imply that the spirituality of the Dominican

Preacher, as portrayed in the image of Saint Dominic, became better defined by the mid thirteenth century.

All four texts, in various ways, are consistent with one another in their values, their emphasis of the essential elements of the mixed life, and their ideals regarding the character of the preacher, all of which are brought to life in Dominic’s example. Common elements in all four texts are an equivalence of charity and ministry, an emphasis on devotion to prayer, divine providence accounting for the religious poverty of the preachers, and also the importance of focus in both teaching and study. Dominic is also depicted as a strong conduit of the Holy Spirit and an instrument through which God works in the world either because of Dominic’s conscious intervention or, sometimes, merely because he is present.

Humbert of Roman’s work entitled Treatise on the Formation of Preachers, which was likely written during his time as master general (c.1254-1263), is not a biographical work on Dominic but rather a theoretical discussion of the Dominican preacher. Unlike collections of model sermons or scriptural commentaries, which were more common preaching aides of the time, this work by Humbert explores preaching as a spirituality and way of life.113 He discusses good and bad motives for preaching, many potential difficulties to be found in ministry, the different kinds of audiences a preacher

112 Tugwell, 51.

113 Tugwell, 181.

may expect to encounter and the spiritual benefits of preaching for both the preacher and

his audience. Humbert is remembered for works that speculate upon the essence of his

order’s spirituality and mission. His Commentary on the Rule of Augustine is one such

example of his attempt to get to the true core values of the Dominican Order as is his

unfinished commentary on the Dominican constitutions.114 The nature of Humbert’s

writing in Treatise on the Formation of Preachers also reflects a man who strongly

believed in his order’s mission and methods, and more importantly, reflects a very

sharply defined identity of the Dominican preacher that is more independent of Dominic

himself. For this reason, Humbert’s work on the life and spirituality of the Dominican

preacher is a fitting compliment to the biographies of St. Dominic.

The Gentle Hound of the Libellus

Written in 1231 by Jordan of Saxony, the order’s second master general and

Dominic’s direct successor the Libellus is the earliest and most complete written history

of Dominic’s life and works. It was written only ten years after Dominic’s passing, and

was likely intended to coincide with his canonization.115 Jordan admits in the prologue that he was not one of the founding Dominican’s but claims that he knew many of them

very well, including Dominic himself.116 The Libellus was not meant to be strictly a

biography of Dominic, Jordan makes it clear that its intended purpose was to meet the

growing demand for a written account of the “beginnings and institutions of [this] Order

114 Ibid.

115 C.N.L. Brooke, “St. Dominic and His First Biographer,” Royal Historical Society 17, (1967), 25.

116 Jordan, 2., 6.

47 of Preachers.”117 Jordan assembled numerous testimonies, both in written and oral form, and appears to have taken great care to record the events, dates, and locations in the proper chronological sequence. Although Dominic’s life is not the sole focus of the

Libellus it indisputably constitutes the vast majority of the text. The chronicle begins just prior to Dominic’s birth and continues until a few years after his death. Even then, the focus on Dominic does not even truly conclude after the account of his death. Jordan goes on to recount numerous miracle testimonies by many who came forth with their recollections of times spent with the saint.

There are two important implications of Jordan’s admitted motivation for assembling the text and his disproportionate focus on the life of Dominic. The first is that there was a growing desire for a sense of identity in the young order if there was such an interest in its origins. The second is that, at this early date, the Dominican Order seems to have had little identity beyond Dominic himself.118

Jordan’s portrayal of Dominic is very mendicant in that he is intensely ascetic, passionate in prayer, diligent in study, and charitable to everyone he encounters as he ministers to the world. At the same time, there is also no doubt that preaching is

Dominic’s raison d’être. All of the aforementioned attributes contribute to his success as a preacher. Not being one for subtlety in his foreshadowing, Jordan begins the account with Dominic’s mother, who receives a prophetic revelation that enlightens her to her unborn son’s future as a preacher.

117 Ibid.

118 Brooke, 39.

Before his mother conceived him, she saw in a vision that she would bear in her womb a dog who, with a burning torch in his mouth . . . set the whole earth on fire. This was to signify that her child would be an eminent preacher who, by “barking” sacred knowledge, would rouse souls drowsy with sin . . .119

Dominic’s most notable trait, which Jordan emphasizes repeatedly, is his love and concern for people and especially his passion for the salvation of their souls. One particular mention of this occurs in reference to Dominic’s prayers. “His frequent and special prayer to God was for the gift of true charity capable of laboring and procuring the salvation of men.”120 While discussing Dominic’s days as a young student at

Palencia, Jordan comments that God gave Dominic the “singular gift of weeping for sinners.”121 Humbert’s words find a fitting place in this discussion, as he makes a point in his treatise to discuss charity as the only proper motivation for preaching.122 According to

Jordan, Dominic seems to have kept the same practice of nightly prayer throughout his life. Just as Dominic wept for sinners during his time in Palencia, the Libellus again refers to his nightly vigils and his relentless prayers throughout his life. Jordan describes this in some detail, summarizing Dominic’s cyclical routine as such:

In the evening, tears found a place with him and, in the morning, gladness. The daytime he shared with his neighbor, but the night he dedicated to God, for he knew that, in the daytime, God has commanded His mercy and a canticle to Him in the night.”123

119 Jordan, 5., 10.

120 Ibid., 10., 11.

121 Ibid. 12., 12.

122 Humbert, 133., 222.

123 Jordan 105., 76-77.

The implication of a balance between contemplative prayer by night and activity by day is noteworthy in the latter passage. In this way, Dominic’s example seems to illustrate that the Dominican mixed life seems existed, at least in some nascent form, at this early date in the order’s history.

Dominic’s exhibits his passion for evangelization is exhibited in his actions as well. The Libellus recalls Dominic’s first journey through Languedoc (c.1203), in which his “heart was moved to pity at the great number of souls wretchedly deluded.”124 An all- night discourse with a Cathar innkeeper seems to mark a turning point in Dominic’s career. Dominic engages his heretical host on calm and rational level, reasoning and debating until dawn when his opponent is “no longer able to resist the wisdom and the spirit that spoke.”125 Dominic saw many Heretics, as Jordan indicates, but he engaged and successfully swayed his host. Concordantly, in a chapter discussing the different sorts of knowledge a preacher must have, Humbert teaches that ‘discretionary knowledge’ is a distinct and necessary trait for all good preachers to have in order to “know to whom the word of God ought not to be preached and to whom it ought to be preached. . . when he ought to preach and when not . . .It also enables him to know what to say to whom.”126

Dominic’s theological education gave him a distinct advantage when dealing with both the dissenting Cathars and the uninformed laity of early thirteenth century

Languedoc. Jordan depicts Dominic as a man inherently passionate for learning, but

124 Ibid., 15., 13.

125 Ibid.

126 Humbert, 122, 218.

especially so in the subject of theology. He explains that Dominic would forgo sleep to

feed his relentless interest in scripture, imbedding the knowledge of it in his memory,

which Jordan describes as “a storehouse of divine things.”127 Sacrificing sleep for study is among several austere reasons Humbert insists that a preacher be strong in body.128

Of the four biographical texts considered here, Jordan’s is the only one that goes into detail about the debates with the heretics in Languedoc. Several well-known passages in Jordan’s chronicle, which he cross-references with earlier non-Dominican sources, describe the public debates at Fanjeaux and Montreal (c.1205-1207) in which

Dominic and his companions debated their Cathar opponents, sometimes to a standstill.

These disputations were known to last up to two weeks.129 Such a situation occurred

frequently in the years leading up to the Albigensian Crusade. These two exemplary

instances tell of two very different outcomes.

The solution to the deadlock at Fanjeaux, a method not uncommon in the middle-

ages, was to cast books that were referenced, or even written, by both sides into a bonfire.

The logic behind this was that God would allow the erroneous books to burn while

leaving the truthful one intact. Not surprisingly, Jordan accredits Dominic with the win.

A book of Dominic’s original writings is said to have not only failed to burn but was

thrice propelled far from the fire by an unseen force.130

127 Jordan, 7., 10.

128 Humbert, 136., 223.

129 Jordan, 25., 20.

130 Ibid.

The debate in Montreal was said to have taken place with a much less miraculous

outcome. Diego, the Catholic proponent, in this instance, is arguing against the Cathar

claim that the Catholic Church is “the church of the Devil, [holding] the doctrine of

demons.” 131 Diego “offered himself to prove the contrary by the authoritative words of

the New Testament.”132 As the Cathars rejected the Old Testament, appeal to the New

Testament was often the only viable strategy.133 The outcome was not settled so

conclusively in this instance. The writings of both sides were given over to the appointed

judges, but they reached no solid verdict and left mixed results amongst the spectators.

It was in the mold of events such as these that the Dominican approach to

preaching was created. The scenarios just described were what the Dominican preacher

was trained to expect and prepare for. Rational debate was the first weapon of choice

against heresy, and when one was unable to sway one’s opponent it seems that trapping

him in verbal confusion was indeed the next best thing.134 This would be particularly

advantageous in a public debate; a baffled opponent would lose face with the spectators

and the judges. Highly intelligent and well-educated, a Dominican preacher was to be a

theological power-house. This affected everything from the kinds of materials written for such preaching to the mentality the preacher maintained. He approached his congregations armed with a three-year curriculum of theology, regular tests of public

speaking skills, and debate exercises, texts for quick-reference to scriptures and other

131 Ibid, 23., 18.

132 Ibid.

133 Lambert, 59.

134 Bennet, 87.

52 authoritative texts, and was perpetually ready for a public discourse. Writing at a much later date, Humbert had time to observe the advantages and pitfalls of such public preaching and offered the following advice:

There are some people who either use nothing but arguments to make what they are saying more convincing, or else nothing but anecdotes or else nothing but appeals to authority. It is much better to use all three, so that someone who does not respond to one may be moved by one of the others . . . When these three all work together, the hook of preaching has a strong triple line attached to it, and that is a line that no fish can easily break.135

As standardized as it may have become, skilled argumentation drawn from extensive education and familiarity with sacred texts was not the greatest weapon against heresy in Dominic’s mind. The Libellus recalls a conversation between Dominic and a local bishop prior to one of these public debates. Dominic expresses that it is in one’s conduct, both within the debate arena and outside of it, that have the most profoundly persuasive effect on heretical minds; “Heretics,” he says, “are more easily won over by examples of humility and virtue than external display or a hall of words.”136 Several accounts in the Libellus reinforce Dominic’s humility in the face of both verbal and physical abuses imposed upon him by the local Cathars, and how he received them in a meek and admirable manner.137 Humbert, seems to have retained this lesson as well. He instructs that “it is not enough for a preacher to live a good life in private; his life is a

135 Humbert, 85., 206.

136 Jordan, 34., 32-33.

137 Ibid.

53 means to shine for all men in such a way that he preaches by his example as well as by word of mouth.”138

The charitable evangelist that is Dominic, in Jordan’s depiction, was an educated man who could hold his own in an argument and lives the words that he preaches. At one point early in the text Dominic, a man expressed to have such an acute love of learning, sells his books to aid those starving during a famine in Spain and even offers to sell himself to free another from captivity at a later point.139 Jordan writes “All men were swept into the embrace of his charity, and, in loving all, he was beloved by all.”140

Dominic’s love of contemplation is both a practical and necessary component to his work as a preacher but is little more than a means to the end of saving souls and nurturing the needy. Humbert seems to be of the same mind as he speculates that “we may well believe that the charity which makes him [the preacher] work, not only for himself but for others too, is constantly increasing in him because of his job. And as charity increases, so must his substantial reward increase also.”141

138 Humbert, 103., 216.

139 Jordan, 10., 11.

140 Ibid., 107., 78.

141 Humbert, 48., 198.

142 Jordan, 5., 8.

playing or frivolity at a young age, preferring to remain in or around the church,

remaining a virgin until death.143 Passages also repeatedly discuss his sacrificing sleep

for intensely emotional prayer and whipping himself with an iron chain.144 He favored a

life of poverty, clothing

himself in shabby cloth and eating only the simplest meals, occasionally drinking

wine if it were diluted with water.145 Once he was to have successfully fasted an entire

Lent on bread and water.146 He maintained this poverty in his ministry, as is exemplary of

a mendicant friar, and was, according to Jordan, the recipient of divine providence. Coins

miraculously appeared in his hand for passage on a boat, his rain-drenched clothing once

dried miraculously after prayer and on one occasion he held back the rain after making

the sign of the cross.147

Written in 1231 by Jordan of Saxony, the order’s second master general and

Dominic’s direct successor the Libellus is the earliest and most complete written history

of Dominic’s life and works. It was written only ten years after Dominic’s passing, and

was likely intended to coincide with his canonization.148 Jordan admits in the prologue that he was not one of the founding Dominican’s but claims that he knew many of them

143 Ibid, 8., 11.

144 Ibid., 105.-106., 76-78.

145 Ibid,, 108.,78.

146 Ibid., 36., 35-37.

147 Ibid., 34. and 101., 32-35 and 75-76.

148 C.N.L. Brooke, “St. Dominic and His First Biographer,” Royal Historical Society 17, (1967), 25.

55 very well, including Dominic himself.149 The Libellus was not meant to be strictly a biography of Dominic, Jordan makes it clear that its intended purpose was to meet the growing demand for a written account of the “beginnings and institutions of [this] Order of Preachers.”150 Jordan assembled numerous testimonies, both in written and oral form, and appears to have taken great care to record the events, dates, and locations in the proper chronological sequence. Although Dominic’s life is not the sole focus of the

149 Jordan, 2., 6.

150 Ibid.

151 Brooke, 39.

Dominic’s most notable trait, which Jordan emphasizes repeatedly, is his love and concern for people and especially his passion for the salvation of their souls. One particular mention of this occurs in reference to Dominic’s prayers. “His frequent and special prayer to God was for the gift of true charity capable of laboring and procuring the salvation of men.”153 While discussing Dominic’s days as a young student at

Palencia, Jordan comments that God gave Dominic the “singular gift of weeping for sinners.”154 Humbert’s words find a fitting place in this discussion, as he makes a point in his treatise to discuss charity as the only proper motivation for preaching.155 According to

Jordan, Dominic seems to have kept the same practice of nightly prayer throughout his life. Just as Dominic wept for sinners during his time in Palencia, the Libellus again

152 Jordan, 5., 10.

153 Ibid., 10., 11.

154 Ibid. 12., 12.

155 Humbert, 133., 222.

refers to his nightly vigils and his relentless prayers throughout his life. Jordan describes

this in some detail, summarizing Dominic’s cyclical routine as such:

date in the order’s history.

Dominic’s exhibits his passion for evangelization is exhibited in his actions as

well. The Libellus recalls Dominic’s first journey through Languedoc (c.1203), in which

his “heart was moved to pity at the great number of souls wretchedly deluded.”157 An all-

night discourse with a Cathar innkeeper seems to mark a turning point in Dominic’s

career. Dominic engages his heretical host on calm and rational level, reasoning and

debating until dawn when his opponent is “no longer able to resist the wisdom and the

spirit that spoke.”158 Dominic saw many Heretics, as Jordan indicates, but he engaged

and successfully swayed his host. Concordantly, in a chapter discussing the different sorts

of knowledge a preacher must have, Humbert teaches that ‘discretionary knowledge’ is a

distinct and necessary trait for all good preachers to have in order to “know to whom the

156 Jordan 105., 76-77.

157 Ibid., 15., 13.

158 Ibid.

word of God ought not to be preached and to whom it ought to be preached. . . when he

ought to preach and when not . . .It also enables him to know what to say to whom.”159

Dominic’s theological education gave him a distinct advantage when dealing

with both the dissenting Cathars and the uninformed laity of early thirteenth century

Languedoc. Jordan depicts Dominic as a man inherently passionate for learning, but

especially so in the subject of theology. He explains that Dominic would forgo sleep to

feed his relentless interest in scripture, imbedding the knowledge of it in his memory,

which Jordan describes as “a storehouse of divine things.”160 Sacrificing sleep for study is among several austere reasons Humbert insists that a preacher be strong in body.161

Of the four biographical texts considered here, Jordan’s is the only one that goes

into detail about the debates with the heretics in Languedoc. Several well-known passages in Jordan’s chronicle, which he cross-references with earlier non-Dominican sources, describe the public debates at Fanjeaux and Montreal (c.1205-1207) in which

Dominic and his companions debated their Cathar opponents, sometimes to a standstill.

These disputations were known to last up to two weeks.162 Such a situation occurred

frequently in the years leading up to the Albigensian Crusade. These two exemplary

instances tell of two very different outcomes.

159 Humbert, 122, 218.

160 Jordan, 7., 10.

161 Humbert, 136., 223.

162 Jordan, 25., 20.

The solution to the deadlock at Fanjeaux, a method not uncommon in the middle-

ages, was to cast books that were referenced, or even written, by both sides into a bonfire.

The logic behind this was that God would allow the erroneous books to burn while

leaving the truthful one intact. Not surprisingly, Jordan accredits Dominic with the win.

A book of Dominic’s original writings is said to have not only failed to burn but was

thrice propelled far from the fire by an unseen force.163

The debate in Montreal was said to have taken place with a much less miraculous outcome. Diego, the Catholic proponent, in this instance, is arguing against the Cathar claim that the Catholic Church is “the church of the Devil, [holding] the doctrine of demons.” 164 Diego “offered himself to prove the contrary by the authoritative words of

the New Testament.”165 As the Cathars rejected the Old Testament, appeal to the New

Testament was often the only viable strategy.166 The outcome was not settled so

conclusively in this instance. The writings of both sides were given over to the appointed

judges, but they reached no solid verdict and left mixed results amongst the spectators.

It was in the mold of events such as these that the Dominican approach to

preaching was created. The scenarios just described were what the Dominican preacher

was trained to expect and prepare for. Rational debate was the first weapon of choice

against heresy, and when one was unable to sway one’s opponent it seems that trapping

163 Ibid.

164 Ibid, 23., 18.

165 Ibid.

166 Lambert, 59.

him in verbal confusion was indeed the next best thing.167 This would be particularly

advantageous in a public debate; a baffled opponent would lose face with the spectators

and the judges. Highly intelligent and well-educated, a Dominican preacher was to be a

theological power-house. This affected everything from the kinds of materials written for

such preaching to the mentality the preacher maintained. He approached his

congregations armed with a three-year curriculum of theology, regular tests of public

speaking skills, and debate exercises, texts for quick-reference to scriptures and other authoritative texts, and was perpetually ready for a public discourse. Writing at a much later date, Humbert had time to observe the advantages and pitfalls of such public preaching and offered the following advice:

As standardized as it may have become, skilled argumentation drawn from

extensive education and familiarity with sacred texts was not the greatest weapon against

heresy in Dominic’s mind. The Libellus recalls a conversation between Dominic and a

local bishop prior to one of these public debates. Dominic expresses that it is in one’s

conduct, both within the debate arena and outside of it, that have the most profoundly

persuasive effect on heretical minds; “Heretics,” he says, “are more easily won over by

167 Bennet, 87.

168 Humbert, 85., 206.

61 examples of humility and virtue than external display or a hall of words.”169 Several accounts in the Libellus reinforce Dominic’s humility in the face of both verbal and physical abuses imposed upon him by the local Cathars, and how he received them in a meek and admirable manner.170 Humbert, seems to have retained this lesson as well. He instructs that “it is not enough for a preacher to live a good life in private; his life is a means to shine for all men in such a way that he preaches by his example as well as by word of mouth.”171

The charitable evangelist that is Dominic, in Jordan’s depiction, was an educated man who could hold his own in an argument and lives the words that he preaches. At one point early in the text Dominic, a man expressed to have such an acute love of learning, sells his books to aid those starving during a famine in Spain and even offers to sell himself to free another from captivity at a later point.172 Jordan writes “All men were swept into the embrace of his charity, and, in loving all, he was beloved by all.”173

169 Jordan, 34., 32-33.

170 Ibid.

171 Humbert, 103., 216.

172 Jordan, 10., 11.

173 Ibid., 107., 78.

62 too, is constantly increasing in him because of his job. And as charity increases, so must his substantial reward increase also.”174

The final aspect worthy of discussion in the Libellus is Dominic’s inherent asceticism. Jordan depicts Dominic as forsaking his bed as a child “as though already beginning to distrust the pleasures of the flesh.”175 Dominic is also depicted as avoiding playing or frivolity at a young age, preferring to remain in or around the church, remaining a virgin until death.176 Passages also repeatedly discuss his sacrificing sleep for intensely emotional prayer and whipping himself with an iron chain.177 He favored a life of poverty, clothing himself in shabby cloth and eating only the simplest meals, occasionally drinking wine if it were diluted with water.178 Once he was to have successfully fasted an entire Lent on bread and water.179 He maintained this poverty in his ministry, as is exemplary of a mendicant friar, and was, according to Jordan, the recipient of divine providence. Coins miraculously appeared in his hand for passage on a boat, his rain-drenched clothing once dried miraculously after prayer and on one occasion he held back the rain after making the sign of the cross.180

174 Humbert, 48., 198.

175 Jordan, 5., 8.

176 Ibid, 8., 11.

177 Ibid., 105.-106., 76-78.

178 Ibid,, 108.,78.

179 Ibid., 36., 35-37.

180 Ibid., 34. and 101., 32-35 and 75-76.

The Miraculous Dominic of Sister Cecelia

Sister Cecilia’s The Miracles of Saint Dominic was transcribed late in the thirteenth century (c.1272-1288) at the women’s convent of St. Agnes in Bologna by one

Sister Angelica. Historians of the order assume that Angelica probably accomplished most of this transcription during recreational periods while Cecelia entertained novices and her fellow nuns with sensational accounts of the order’s founder.181 These miracle

accounts, some of which that Cecelia claims to have witnessed herself, were written

down at a much later date than the other biographical texts examined here, however this

collection reflects the traditions of a much earlier period in the order’s existence. The text

is an accumulation of a lifetime’s worth of stories gathered and recited by one of the very

first Dominicans. Cecilia had been one the first women to join the order of Dominican

nuns, often called the ‘Second Order,’ and received the habit from Dominic himself

(c.1205-1221). She aided in the foundation of the convent of St. Agnes in Bologna in

1223 and remained there for the duration of her life.182 Cecilia continued to recite the miraculous deeds of a gentle and fatherly Saint Dominic to the members of her community until she was well into her twilight years.

Cecelia’s tales were intended to teach her fellow nuns, but she did so in an

entertaining and informal fashion rather than in a scholarly sense. Cecilia’s style is more that of a sensational storyteller than a meticulous historian. Her anecdotes are scattered with no concern for chronological order or any sort of definitive timeline for that matter

181 Lehner, 160-163.

182 Ibid.

64 and her language sometimes implies a sense of urgency. She has also found a place in

Dominican history, in addition to her own legacy, as one of Jordan’s sources for the

Libellus.183 This connection has resulted in several events being mirrored in both works, though Cecilia’s versions are told with greater flare for the dramatic.

Cecelia portrays Dominic as a man through whom the Holy Spirit works very strongly. Dominic exhibits a strong mystic intuition that often gives him an inkling that something is occurring or about to occur, which Cecelia explains as happening “through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost,” or simply “the spirit.”184 Dominic’s sanctity, which is expressed in terms of his “merits,” is strongly implied to be the source of this spiritual connection. Humbert would later extensively discuss the “merits” that a good preacher gained in performing his sacred duty in a “praiseworthy fashion,” though he tended to focus more on possible ways one could lose said merits.185 The Dominic portrayed in

Cecelia’s text seems to be in no danger of any of Humbert’s warnings as he successfully performs a plethora of miracles familiar to Christian stories. Dominic heals the sick, resurrects the dead, casts out and strikes down demons, and is aided in his ministry by divine providence. As in the Libellus, Dominic is depicted as a minister with a very charitable spirit and an equal attention paid to all types of people from various backgrounds and circumstances. All who appeal to him, as well as those whom he seeks out, benefit from his generous spirit and meritorious nature.

183 Ibid.

184 Cecelia, .9 and .12 The Miracles of Saint Dominic, in Lehner, 177 and 180-181.

185 Humbert, 123., 220.

There are at least two reoccurring themes emphasized by the text. The first major

theme is the power of prayer. The intense and heartfelt prayers of Dominic seem to have

a particular sway with God. Dominic’s prayers always precede the miracles that result

directly from his conscious intervention. Other times, it is the prayers of those who

recognize the value of his ‘merits’ that the miracles occur in favor of. The text makes

clear on several occasions that God is the true source of the miracles and not Dominic

himself, nevertheless, God hears and often grants Dominic the things he prays for,

however supernatural they may be. The second theme in this text is Dominic’s power

over evil. Demonic forces manifest physically to impede learning, but are powerless

before Dominic’s unwavering sanctity. In these ways, both the active and contemplative

elements of the Dominican mixed life are represented.

The first theme of the text is made apparent straight away. The text begins with

Dominic raising the dead through the power of prayer. A young widow who holds

Dominic in great veneration leaves to see him preach a sermon, leaving her sick child at home. The child dies while she is away and she is understandably very distraught.

Trusting “in the power of God and the merits of blessed Dominic,” she takes the dead child to the preacher whom she so admires. Dominic seems to anticipate her arrival, and she finds him at the door of the church he has just preached at “as if waiting for someone.”186 Dominic, moved by her faith and grief, retreats to pray for a few moments,

the action that usually precedes his miracles. The boy is raised back to life, and Dominic

instructs the widow not to speak of this, for “he sincerely loved and wished to safeguard

186 Cecilia, 1., 163-165.

his humility.”187 Of course, the instance does not remain a secret, but his request for it is

still praised by Cecelia.

A similar account refers the resurrection of the widow’s child involves the

resurrection of a Cardinal’s nephew named Napoleon who dies in a riding accident with

his body “horribly crushed and badly lacerated.”188 Dominic inspects the body, and asks

it be placed in a nearby house until after the evening mass. This account tells of Dominic

weeping as he leads the mass, and then levitating a full foot off the ground while holding

both arms outstretched. After mass, Dominic has the corpse brought in and “by his own

hands,” arranges all the lacerated members of the dead boy. He rearranges the body

several more times while groaning intensely and kneeling periodically throughout his

intense and continuous prayer. After Dominic repeats the process several times he

commands it, in the name of the Lord, to rise. The young man then arises lively and

physically intact asking for something to eat.

Dominic’s powerful prayers are again to thank for this miracle. Dominic’s tears

while saying the mass, as well as his resulting levitation, seem to imply that it is from the

mass that Dominic draws upon the Holy Spirit, so much so that it is in his power to turn

back death. One might take this as a lesson in the Dominican mixed life. Liturgy and collective worship are a necessary element to apostolic success in the world. Yet again,

Cecelia’s text seems to exemplify what Humbert was are later explain in very clear

187 Ibid.

188 Ibid., 2., 165-166. This account is also in the Libellus, though the descriptive language and graphic portrayal are absent from Jordan’s depiction.

language. “For some, the soul only resides in the body as the dead in the tombs and, just as God shall cause the resurrection of the body on the last day by the power of His word, so at the present time the soul is restored to life by the power of preaching.”189

Dominic is a model apostle, and a shining beacon of piety and divine grace to the

lay-people in Cecelia’s text, but it is not strictly the laity in the text who is in need of

Dominic’s masterful ministry. There are both worldly and otherworldly forces working against those leading, or attempting to lead, a religious life. This is especially true in the

cases of the younger members of the order. The religious life is subtly championed as the

in Cecelia’s accounts, but it is recognized as a particularly difficult one to maintain,

fraught with challenges. There are two notable instances in which Dominic aids novices

who are in crises on the path to a religious life.

The first such account tells of a young man who ran away to join the order and

against his parents wishes. While leaving with Dominican companions, he crosses a creek while being pursued by his disapproving family who “planned to take him by force and return him to the world.”190 Upon rendezvousing with Dominic before being overtaken by his mounted pursuers, the aspiring novice “commends himself to God and to the

Merits of Blessed Dominic,” and then, “by Him Who alone works miracles,” and the river miraculously rises to prevent the pursuers from crossing and reclaiming him.191

Dominic’s presence intervenes for an apostolic purpose despite his lack of intervention.

189 Humbert, 58., 201.

190 Cecelia, 11.,179-180.

191 Ibid., 6., 171-174.

The second and far more detailed account describes the anguish of a novice

already belonging to the order. In this account, Dominic rises with urgency late at night

claiming “The Lord wants me to go to Santa Sebina.”192 Dominic’s companions attempt

to dissuade him, but Dominic is insistent that an angel will be sent to guide him. A young

man dressed as a traveler who is later identified as this angel appears suddenly and guides

them to the church. The door is barred, but their youthful guide pulls on it and it

immediately opens. Dominic finds the novice inside, who has vowed to leave the order

after the evening Matins. Dominic approaches the situation with “fatherly understanding

of the violent temptation assailing the young man,” but the novice is resolved to leave the

order. He begs the young novice to wait just a few moments and proceeds to prostrate

himself in prayer. Cecilia draws specific attention to the particular sway Dominic holds.

What happens next, gives us an idea of the influence Dominic had with God and how easily he could obtain whatever he wished. Hardly had he finished his prayer than the young man . . . burst into tears . . . asked for forgiveness and for the return of the habit he had flung aside under the onslaught of temptation.193

The lesson of these two accounts, as well as the one that precedes it, are again mirrored in later years by Humbert’s instructional writings. Humbert notes that

“Preaching tends to inspire devotion in people . . . . it inspires them not only to follow, but to wait on the preacher too.”194 This lesson may also remind one of Dominic’s

teaching in the Libellus about the preacher’s example being more important than his

192 Ibid., 172.

193 Ibid., 173.

194 Humbert, 40. and 42., 196-197.

69 words and arguments. The ideal held by the Order of Preachers was that preaching was not merely a profession but a way of life. It was not merely a set of skills one needed to hone but was a spiritual state of being.

One may note that the active element of the Dominican mixed life gets more attention in Cecelia’s text. This is somewhat understandable since this is a collection that focuses on miracle stories. Still, the contemplative element gets notable attention from

Cecelia as well. Like any good collection of exempla produced in the middle ages, demons physically manifest to harass the righteous. It is interesting to note that the demons always appear specifically to take away from studies, or learning in general. The implication seems to be that fear or aggravation can be utilized by the minions of the devil to prevent both the religious and the laity from receiving God’s word. Dominic, like the ideal apostle he is, stands strongly and unwaveringly in the way of such an impediment. Whether one is to take these stories literally or metaphorically, Dominic provides the example for the Dominican preacher or student to imitate as he remains a solid and serene presence who is perpetually in control of the situation. This is a fitting depiction as Humbert had likened preachers to an army of angles under fighting against the devil and his host.195

In one instance a demon in the form of an ape appears to distract Dominic from his solitary late night contemplation. With a simple command, Dominic forces it to hold his candle for him and ignores its further jeers and obscenities. Finally, the candle burns down all the way and singes the demons hand. Dominic sends the howling demon away

195 Ibid., 52., 199.

70 after a time with a swat of his cane as if spanking a mischievous child.196 This instance is the only reference in the text to Dominic in solitary contemplation, however, demonic intrusions occur three more times. The demons’ motives are similar, but their targets differ. They now seek to prevent Dominic’s pupils from learning from him.

Dominic addresses another distractive apparition when he preaches to congregations of laity and religious alike. Seven devils inhabiting a certain woman disrupt a sermon Dominic is giving during Lent at San Sisto shortly after its foundation.

The voice of the demons curse Dominic for having apparently expelled four of them somehow through his “deceptions.”197 The remaining seven challenge him, claiming they will stay no matter what he may do. As they continue to distract the crowd with the details as to how each one entered her, Dominic invokes the name of Jesus Christ and dispels them all. She is cured after vomiting blood and charcoal and resting for some time.198

Another abomination appears in yet another instance, this time to frighten a group of nuns to whom Dominic is giving a lesson. Showing his signature foresight, Dominic forewarns them that “if the enemy of the human race tries to terrify you by appearing in some strange shape, do not be afraid.”199 Despite his insistence that it cannot harm them,

196 Cecilia, 4., 169-170.

197 Ibid., 5., 170-171.

198 Ibid., 170.

199 Cecelia, 8. 176-177.

the nuns are of course terrified when the beast shows itself. Dominic turns and commands

it to cast itself into a nearby stream. Powerless to resist, the demon complies.

Finally, though admittedly less impressively, a fourth instance tells of a demon in

the form of a bird that flies in and overturns a lamp during an indoor lesson that Dominic

is giving to a group of nuns. As with the reptilian demon, Dominic seems to foresee the

instance as he addresses the problem of demonic distraction from learning and

contemplation ahead of the instance and warns that “In order to deceive, Satan would not

only transform himself into an angel of light, but, if he could hinder preaching and other

good works, would assume the shape of the most trifling things, even a sparrow.”200 The

‘demon,’ indeed in this very form, flies in through the window and overturns a lamp.

Dominic catches it and plucks the sparrow bald. The lamp, though it was overturned,

neither brakes nor goes out but continues to burn while inverted in mid-air and the lesson

continues unimpeded. 201

Throughout the passages of the text, Dominic seems to be perpetually traveling

and preaching to a broad array of individuals. There are two instances that tell of him

reaching out to reclusive hermits who are suffering from illness and maladies, all of whom are cured by Dominic’s meritorious presence.202 The fact that Dominic is

remembered for reaching out to individuals who had isolated themselves from society

speaks to the need for a Dominican preacher of the time to consider all people in all

200 Ibid., 10., 177-179.

201 Ibid., 178.

202 Cecelia, 12.-13., 180-181.

72 places. Humbert emphasized the need for different sermons for different audiences, such as for the religious, the laity, men, or women.203 Humbert also discussed the inherent need for mobility to reach as many of such people as possible, for “It is not their [the preacher’s] function to stay put, but to move.”204 Humbert’s discussion of travel discusses advises many practical measures such as the danger of overexerting oneself and traveling in good company so as to remain safe from harm.205 Still, Humbert’s main emphasis throughout his discussion is that wherever a preacher found himself, there should always be a motivation to teach and evangelize. Humbert instructs that the preacher “must always have his eye on the chance to do some good, whether it is on the way or in someone’s house, whether he is on the way, or in someone’s house, he is with few people or many. . .”206 In this sense Humbert and Cecelia’s teachings seem to be very in keeping with one another.

What is worthy of notice, and sets Cecelia’s work apart from Jordan’s, is the fact there is less emphasis in Cecelia’s text on Dominic preaching to the unconverted.

Dominic ministers to those already belonging to the Catholic Church and even to the

Dominican Order itself. Whether this was intentional or not, Cecelia’s depiction of

Dominic as a minister to the faithful, rather than a combatant of heresy, exemplifies the role that an order focused on preaching would need to play within the Church when there was no competing belief system to counteract. When contrasted in this way with Jordan’s

203 Humbert, 1.-16, 326-332.

204 Ibid., 394. 286.

205 Ibid.,, 414 and 416., 288.

206 Ibid., 415., 289.

dry historical record of past events, Cecelia’s document seems very progressive.

Dominic’s sincere love for people, faith in God, and unwavering self control are

indicative of a man more of heaven than of earth yet working actively and effectively

within the world. Whatever the variety of implications may be that one may infer from

Cecelia’s tales, Dominic’s effectiveness as a preacher was soon to be structured and

analyzed more directly.

The Nine Ways of Prayer of Saint Dominic

Written by an anonymous author, probably somewhere near Bologna, The Nine

Ways of Prayer is a very unique piece. The text was itself discovered in 1288, and could

likely date back to c.1260, which would still place it toward the end of the period in

question.207 The text seems to have drawn heavily from the same pre-existing sources as

Cecelia and Jordan, or possibly even both them as well.208 However, while the preceding

two texts are narratives that focus on the results of Dominic’s actions, The Nine Ways of

Prayer is a very spiritual text that focuses mostly on contemplation. Whereas one can

find scattered references to study, prayer and apostolic activity in the former two texts, it

is in The Nine Ways of Prayer that the spirituality of the mixed life becomes more clearly defined and is even given a structure. While Jordan and Cecelia have tended to focus on the deeds done in Dominic’s active life through mention of his studious habits and passionate prayer as side notes this text focuses heavily on those contemplative elements

207 Tugwell, 52.

208 Lehner, 147-148.

and portrays his apostolic actions as resulting directly from them. Only in a piece such as

this could the true nature of contemplation and its essential role in the Dominican mixed

life be fully explored.

The text creates very descriptive visual images of Dominic and his intense prayer

practices, which were even accompanied by wood cut prints early on.209 Together, the

images are presented in what one might call a procedure. Through these compiled

examples of Dominic in various states of contemplative prayer the text, may be

interpreted as implying a personal transformation through contemplative stages of self-

awareness that result in a cycle of contemplation feeding apostolic action.

The text opens with a brief discourse on prayer and how it has been practiced by

saints and discussed in depth by the great minds of the church. In fact, throughout the

text, Dominic’s forms of prayer are compared to those of the apostles, church fathers and even to Jesus. The author notes the particularly beautiful form of prayer in which “the

soul makes use of the members of the body to raise itself more devoutly to God” and then

explains that “St. Dominic often prayed in this way and it is fitting that we say something

of his method.” 210 By describing Dominic’s prayer practices as a method, there is an

implication of premeditated logic instilled upon what is to follow.

The first four ways of prayer describe Dominic acknowledging his own flawed

humanity and then acknowledging that this is the state of all men. First he bows before

the altar “as if Christ . . . were truly and personally present," and acknowledges his

209 Early copies of the text included miniature woodprints of the images described.

210 Nine Ways of Prayer, in Lehner,148.

lowliness in comparison to his savior.211 He then prostrates himself on the ground before

it and begs for forgiveness of his personal sins. Directly following this he would rise to

his knees and “discipline himself with wooden switches,” indicating that the Lord’s

discipline had corrected him. The text even explains that the order made a common

practice of this. “[I]n memory of this example” it reads, “all brethren should receive the

discipline as they were bowing down in worship and reciting the psalm.”212 Dominic then transitions directly into his fourth way of prayer in which he rises and kneels, never breaking his gaze upon the altar, and prays for not only his own sins, but for the sins of all others as well as the perseverance of the younger preachers whom he had sent forth to reach them. The author describes Dominic’s tears and sincere emotion in this particular method and the rising and kneeling accompanying this was his own uniquely personal form of worship. The author also notes that “this way of prayer he taught his brethren more by example than words.”213 These first four methods of prayer are specifically indicated to be a procedure which Dominic practiced in this succession on a regular basis.

The following five ways of prayer are arranged according to the author’s discrimination.

In the fifth way of prayer, Dominic stands before the altar with his hands

extended from his chest, as if mimicking the reading of a book. The text describes that

Dominic, “appeared to be meditating on the words of God, and he seemed to repeat them

211 Ibid., 149-150.

212 Ibid., 151.

213 Ibid., 151-152.

to himself in a sweet voice.”214 Again, he is described as weeping on occasion, usually with clasped hands when in this state, and appeared to be listening intently as if a voice were speaking to him from the altar. “If one had seen his great devotion . . . he would

have surely thought he was observing a prophet.”215 Until this point, Dominic’s prayers

have been strictly contemplative, depicting him in a mystic or meditative state. It is not

until the sixth form of prayer that the text refers to Dominic actively working out in the

world.

The sixth way of prayer finds Dominic stands straight up with his arms thrust

outwards in the form of the cross. The author notes several miracles invoked by such

prayer, including the instance in which Dominic raised the Cardinal’s nephew, Napoleon,

back to life after the riding accident. The author makes the point that Dominic reserved

this manner of prayer for times in which he was inspired by God to ask for something

truly marvelous.216

The seventh way of prayer portrays Dominic is back before the altar again

standing in a more confident posture with hands reaching to heaven as if to receive

something. “One would believe that he was asking for an increase in grace and in this

rapture of spirit was asking God for the gifts of the Holy Spirit for the order he had

founded.”217 It is likely no coincidence the author chose to place this heavenly charging

214 Ibid., 153.

215 Ibid., 154.

216 Ibid., 154.

217 Ibid.. 156.

of the spirit directly after Dominic is described doing miraculous deeds out in the world.

The author describes Dominic as looking like “a person coming from a great distance or

like a stranger in this world.”218 The cycle seems to have brought the preacher back to the pulpit after the inspiration brought about by the events outside the walls of the monastery.

Contemplation has thus lead to successful activity in the world, which themselves result in the desire for further contemplation.

In the eighth way of prayer, Dominic is portrayed in book-study. As described in

the previous texts, Dominic retreats with a book after the canonical hours and proceeds to

pour over it late into the night. As he read he was “zealous and filled with the spirit of

devotion which he drew from the divine words.”219 After praying over the book, making

the sign of the cross and the reading silently and intently for some time, he was seen to

act in the following way.

As if disputing with a companion he would firs appear somewhat impatient in his thought and words. At the next moment he would become a quiet listener, then again seem to discuss and contend. He seemed almost to laugh and to weep at the same time, and then, attentively and submissively, would murmur to himself and strike his breast. 220

The author likens this practice to Moses climbing the sacred mountain of God, as

Dominic climbs from reading to prayer, prayer to meditation, and then from meditation to

218 Ibid.

219 Ibid., 157.

220 Ibid., 158.

contemplation.221 His prayers are concluded usually in his usual fervent tears as if giving

thanks for what he had just read.

Finally, in the ninth and final form of prayer, Dominic is described as being on

the road with companions and either falling a few steps behind or going off for a moment

to pray before preaching. The author notes that it was in this way that

the saint obtained his extensive penetration of Sacred Scripture and profound understanding of the divine words, the power to preach so fervently and courageously, and that intimate acquaintance with the Holy Spirit by which he came to know the hidden things of God. 222

Again, Dominic exhibits what Humbert teaches, that “the most important thing is that a

preacher should have recourse to prayer, asking God to grant him speech that will be

effective in bringing salvation to his hearers.”223 Throughout the course of the text,

Dominic first cleanses himself in a monastic lifestyle, gains knowledge directly from God in prayer and study, and then takes his gift back out into the world.

The Nine ways of Prayer implies a spiritual cycle. Self awareness and ones own

peace with God is first sought, followed by a concern for others and then a profound

desire to know God intimately, and from there such dialogue through prayer and study

both empower one to make a very profound difference in the world and motivate one to

go do so. The entire text explains a cycle of contemplation feeding the active elements

and making the evangelism rendered effectively. The Dominican mixed life is, therefore,

illustrated in the one of the most straight-forward ways possible.

221 Ibid.

222 Ibid. 159.

223 Humbert, 97., 209.

Agni’s Analysis of a Saint

As the prior of Naples, Thomas Agni of Lentini (fl.1220-1272) was in a position

of authority and influence over the members of his community. In a sermon dated

sometime prior to 1255 while he was still prior of Naples, he composed a very thorough

and detailed deconstruction of Dominic’s character and works in a sermon that was likely

given to his community, an audience of friars and novices, and audience that likely

consisted mostly of aspiring preachers. 224 The purpose for the sermon could have been a

special occasion such as a feast day, a holiday, a day of significance within the order or

any number of reasons for that matter.

Thomas’ method differs greatly from the preceding three texts. His is a

discussion, not a demonstration. Agni presents his points in the form of an argument

rather than a narrative or a visual example, treating it as a simple yet important fact. By

isolating and justifying each aspect of Dominic’s character traits, Agni gives a thorough

explanation of the ideals that Dominican preachers were expected to reach for that ranks

with Humbert’s Treatise on the Formation of Preachers. In this sermon, Agni focuses

completely on Dominic’s life, career as a preacher, and his merits in both that contributed

to his glorification. Though this sermon was given between The Nine Ways of Prayer and

the other two texts, it is addressed last in this study because it differs from them so very

greatly in its style and presentation.

Thomas begins by quoting Matthew 5:19: “He who practices and teaches, he is the one who will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Agni then presents his

224 Tugwell, 51.

audience with the three qualifications of a saint; life, teachings and glorification.

Reinforcing each small point with numerous scriptural references, Agni goes on to give

five different qualifications for each of the three prerequisites laid out for Sainthood.

Agni comments on Dominic’s vigilance in study, his toiling as a canon, his proclamation

of the gospel, his ministry of leadership and his sobriety in living. 225

Agni then goes on to justify Dominic’s teaching by identifying five qualities,

reinforcing each with adequate scriptural support. Agni describes Dominic’s teaching

was savory as salt, radiant as light, constant and solid as a mountain, and on fire as a lit

lamp (one can take this to mean passionate). Finally, but seemingly most importantly,

Agni explains that Dominic’s teaching was, as a result of the previous two, effective and

complete. Both of these elements and their five-fold justifications thus lead into the third.

“The merritoriousness of his life and his job as a teacher lead to the reward of his glorification.”226 Agni concludes Dominic was great in his mind, great in his kindness to

others, and thus great in his reward. “Truly he is great in the kingdom of heaven.”227

Agni’s ultimate message seems to be that Dominic’s occupation as a preacher was

an all encompassing state of being. Every small part of Dominic was a necessary

component that made him what he was. Thomas’ explanation of Dominic’s studious and

devout lifestyle leading to effective and complete teaching is consistent with the other examples of the mixed life, but his scholarly and legalistic style is anything but subtle.

225 Thomas Agni of Lentini, “Sermon on Saint Dominic,” in Tugwell, 61-62.

226 Ibid., 63.

227 Ibid., 65.

The shift from expression to explanation in the style of text seems to indicate a stauncher

sense of Dominican identity in the preacher. In the Dominican order, preaching was not

merely a job to be done it was a life to be lived.

Conclusion

The Dominican mixed life and its particular brand of mendicant spirituality seems

to have been a set of common values and practices that were quickly methodized when

put into widespread use. If the dates given to these writings are to be believed then from

c.1221-c.1260, a distinct spiritual identity had formed within the Dominican preacher that

seems to have defined the overall order. The widespread growth of the order in a relatively short amount of time is likely to have contributed to this need for identity. Until the mid thirteenth century, the preachers were venerated by the order and given more leeway to perform their task in terms of dispensations from other activities that might take away from their preparation and performing of their sacred duty. In this sense, regardless of whether they individually adhered to the spirituality laid out in Dominic’s image or Humbert’s writings, the preachers seem to have been the privileged class within the Dominican Order.

As the Dominican educational system became more structured and defined, the contemplative aspect seems to have become primarily the ecclesiastical education

Dominican friars received. This shift in the contemplative element of the Dominican mixed life would in turn affect the nature of the apostolic element, which became open to broader definition than itinerate preaching. Changes in the intellectual currents of

Christendom, and the construction of a curriculum of higher education within the order

82 available only to an elite few began to form a rival class within order, as well as a new figurehead.

Chapter 3

THE PRIORY SCHOOL AND THE PREACHER’S EDUCATION

After Dominic

As one may gather from the texts examined in the previous chapter, Dominican identity in the early thirteenth century extended little beyond the life and works of St.

Dominic. The Order of Preachers in its early years was synonymous with the image and spirituality of a traveling preacher who was diligent in his studies, ascetic in his appearance and lifestyle, tireless in his ministry, and in every one of these aspects he served as a conduit for the Holy Spirit. This iconic preacher, who was exemplified in lore of St. Dominic and logically explained in the instructional manuals such as the work by

Humbert referred to in the previous chapter, was the exemplar of an order that had been founded for a purpose very specific to the particular issues facing the church in regions of

Southern Europe during the first quarter of the thirteenth century. Dominic had lived and worked in a time of a widely uneducated clergy and strongly established pockets of heresy among the laity, and therefore his approach to the task of preaching had been specifically designed to deliver coherently definitive answers to questions regarding what the Catholic Church deemed to be theologically correct.

The primary reason Dominic’s personal identity became so directly tied to the overall identity of the young order was that it was primarily his creation, and therefore based on the method of itinerate preaching he had practiced in Languedoc and Toulouse, which was a practice that had been more or less dormant since the time of the early

Church. Because of this, the image of the preacher, which was essentially a reflection of

St. Dominic, became the order’s figurehead. A second reason this image of Dominic defined the order as exclusively as it did was that the order expanded so rapidly after his death that it did not truly have adequate time to create any identity for itself beyond its founder and his methods. Such an identity was arguably quite necessary for a young religious order, particularly in light of the fact that such an order had not been previously attempted.

Although Dominic’s design for the order was highly specific to his time and place, he had touched on something far more timeless, which was that the developing societies of Catholic Europe had a growing desire for higher learning. For many, the education that the Dominican Order demanded of its preachers was simultaneously the order’s most attractive quality, and it would eventually became the order’s definitive trait.

The scholarly aspects of the Dominican lifestyle eventually redefined the order’s image and maintained its cultural relevancy in the latter half of the thirteenth century.

The Rapid Expansion of the Order

The Order of Preachers expanded quickly and steadily after its founder’s death in

1221, bolstered by great support from the papacy and interest in membership from both laity and religious alike. When viewed in terms of institutional establishments, the first fifty-six years of the order exhibit growth worthy of discussion. Bennet estimates that between 1221 and 1277 the number of convents grew from 60 to 404 and continued to multiply at a steady pace into the early fourteenth century, boasting 582 communities by

1303.228 Bennet acknowledges that measurement in terms of the number of convents does

not necessarily offer a reliable reflection of the number of friars since the numbers could

vary.229 Be this as it may, some Dominican scholars have offered rough estimates.

Hinnebusch has noted that a minimum of 12 friars, including at least one professor of

theology to serve as a lector and one to serve as prior, were constitutionally required to

found and perpetuate a Dominican community that also qualified as a canonical priory;

therefore there is at least some data upon which to build. 230 Hinnebusch estimates that by

the year 1300 the averages of each convent probably ranged from 28-51 to 250-300 friars

depending upon the region.231 Bennett cites Pierre Mandonnet’s estimate of there being between 7-10,000 Dominican clerics overall serving from between 1256 and 1300.232

Hinnebusch, on the other hand, gives the much greater estimate of 13,000 total friars in

the Dominican Order by 1256, and 20,650 by 1303.233

Even if one assumes the truth lies somewhere in between, this is still a

remarkable growth, particularly when considering that the order had less than 20

228 Bennet,75.

229 Ibid.

230 William A. Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 251, 280; William A. Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, vol 2. of The History of the Dominican Order, (Staten Island: Alba House, 1965), 37; Primitive Constitutions of the Order of Friars Preachers, p. II. Sec .23, in Lehner, Saint Dominic, Biographical Documents. (Washington DC: Thomist Press, 1964), 244.

231 Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 280.

232 Bennet, 75.

233 Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 330-331.

members in 1217.234 Such numbers are further validated by the strong reaction the order

received from other branches of the church. The early Dominicans’ contemporaries in the

secular clergy strongly felt the presence of the mendicant orders and saw them as an

imposition both in the physical sense as well as upon their own sphere of influence. The

tension that resulted between the mendicants and the clergy was a century-spanning

conflict that is remembered by Dominican historians as the “Pastoral Crisis.”235

The level of independence the mendicants enjoyed set them apart from the

previously less-challenged episcopal authority. The Dominicans functioned according to their own self-determined territories rather than the established dioceses of the secular clergy. The mendicant orders had their own hierarchical power structures, and were truly subject only to the pope, not the bishops or other authorities of the secular clergy. The

Franciscan Order, the other significant presence of the mendicant movement, functioned very similarly. The mendicants had been urged to work with the clergy, and vice versa.

The Constitutions of the Order section XIII was set aside solely to decree that none should preach in a diocese if its bishop forbade it while Pope Honorius III issued a bull in

1218 specifically urging the secular clergy to work alongside the Order of Preachers and

234 Little, 160.

235 William A. Hinnebusch, “How the Dominican Order Faced its Crises,” http://www.domcentral.org/ trad/crises.htm., There are no page numbers in the online edition, however the works cited are under the section entitled “The Pastoral Crisis of the Early Years.”

assist the order in its cause.236 Though many bishops and priests did receive the friars and

cooperate with them, sporadic resistance built up from as early as the 1220s.237

The animosity became undeniably evident in the 1240s -1250s when a widespread

rise of complaints arose against the mendicants, some from the secular clergy and some

from the University of Paris. The issues on record mainly had to do with financial matter,

and with the friars’ exemption from the episcopal control. The friars could preach, take

confession, and even administer last rights anywhere the saw fit and were not required to

subjugate themselves to the local secular clergy.238 Not only was this an issue of

subversion of the clergy’s authority, but it could also potentially have financial motive. In

the case of administering last rights, it was often the case that the dying individual willed

their possessions to whoever gave them their final sacrament.239 Also, because of the

state of religious poverty they lived in, friars begged as they preached and kept any alms

they were given as gifts, which was viewed with some jealousy.240

Complaints from the clergy grew numerous, but the involvement of the faculty

members at the University of Paris truly brought the crisis to its most extreme degree.241

Innocent IV revoked the autonomy of the mendicant orders in a bull issued in 1254,

236 Primitive Constitutions, p I. Sec. 13, 220-221, Honorious III, Bulls of Approbation in Lehner, 198.

237 Hinnebusch, “How the Dominican Order Faced its Crises,”

238 Ibid.

239 Mark Johnson, ed., St. Thomas Aquinas and the Mendicant Controversies, trans. John Proctor, (Leesburg: Alethes Press, 2007), xvi.

240 Ibid.

241 Hinnebusch, “How the Dominican Order Faced its Crises,” http://www.domcentral.org/trad/crises.htm., Johnson, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Mendicant Controversies, xvi-xviii. The issues specific to the University of Paris, where the Pastoral Crisis reached its apex, will be discussed further in chapter 4.

88 which forbade the friars from preaching or taking confessions without the approval of the local bishops.242 This decree would perhaps have subjugated the mendicant orders’ to the local clergy indefinitely had Innocent not passed away two weeks later and his bull not been promptly overturned by his successor, Pope Alexander IV. 243 Many other issues remained unresolved until the Council of Trent (1545-1563).244 Such a strong and widespread reaction by the clergy could only have been inspired by a significant number of active friars. This means that a mere quarter century into their orders’ existence, friars were numerous and influential in Catholic society.245 Furthermore, it demonstrates how firmly established and well organized both the Dominicans and the Franciscans were at this early stage to produce such a noticeable number of members.

The fact that the presence of the mendicant friars, of which the Dominicans made up approximately half, was strong enough to evoke such a jealous reaction from their contemporaries in the clergy also implies that whatever the exact numbers may have been, most convents were likely not suffering from a lack of interest in membership. The education and training a Dominican friar needed to complete in order to become a preacher required much dedication and effort, therefore this evidence of the success of so many Dominican novices at becoming preachers further indicates that there was also a great number who tried unsuccessfully. The aforementioned estimates of this great

242 Johnson, xviii.

243 Ibid.

244 Ibid.

245 Ibid.

89 number of active preachers are particularly impressive when weighed against the level of education and testing an aspiring Dominican preacher had to achieve.

An Order of Learning

The Order of Preachers was the first religious order to include and even prioritize educational requirements within its constitutions. Prior to the educational reforms made at the general chapter meeting of 1259, the early constitutions of 1220 and 1228 were the only order-wide specifications that existed. These constitutions, which were composed by

Dominic and his fellow founding Dominicans, focused heavily on the day to day activities of the local communities and their priory schools. The communities, their schools and their syllabus of study, reflect the earliest guidelines found in the primitive constitutions, as well as how the order had been initially conceptualized by its founders.

Since the order was founded solely for the purpose of publicly defending Catholic doctrine through preachers be well versed in the subject, study was the central priority in the friar’s daily routine. This purpose also greatly shaped their approach to subject matter.

Study and lecture filled the role in Dominican priories that manual labor had previously played in monastic communities. Lectures were the central event of a friar’s daily hours and of equal importance with communal worship. It has also been remarked that libraries became as common a commodity as the pews and choir stalls.246 Priory

246 William Bertrand Ryan, O.P., “Dominican Legislation Concerning Preaching,” in The Dominican Preacher (Washington D.C.: The office of the Promoter of Preaching, Dominican Province of St. Joseph, 1992), 12, Hinnebusch The History of the Dominican Order, vol 1., 22.

90 schools of the local communities had a mission of ministry and were designed to provide the basic doctrinal training one would need to become in order to become a competent preacher.

Jordan of Saxony’s Encyclical Letter (1233) exemplifies the mindset of the early

Dominicans regarding the role of study in the Dominican life and mission. As one might expect, Jordan begins his letter by first briefly rehashing the personal virtues of St.

Dominic and the saint’s shining example, which all Dominicans should strive to imitate.

He then discusses what a Dominican friar ought not to be by addressing specific kinds of careless attitudes towards study, learning and the order’s mission. He first discusses superiors who “care not for study” but “very often send out gifted and capable brethren or assign them to every other kind of duty so they cannot study.”247 Jordan then proceeds to admonish lectors who teach their courses “so rarely and poorly [and] lecture half- heartedly,” so that they do not inspire their pupils to learn.248 Finally, the second master general of the Dominican Order condemns students who seldom study or do so carelessly. In doing so, says Jordan, they not only “disgust their professors . . . but also rob many souls of the opportunity of salvation whom they could have established on the road to eternal life if they had studied, not carelessly, but industrially.”249

As the letter concludes, Jordan subtly likens study to charity with its ultimate goal being the benefit one’s fellow man. This philosophy was the signature of the young

247 Jordan, The Encyclical Letter of Jordan of Saxony, in, Lehner, 206

248 Ibid., 206-207

249 Ibid., 207.

91 mendicant order in the first quarter if the thirteenth century. Thus, if one neglected his studies or impeded others in theirs, one was placing a stumbling block in his fellow man’s path to God. This philosophy was strongly reflected in the design of the priory schools, which were intended to manifest this uniquely Dominican vision.

Life in the Priory, and the Making of a Friar

Papal decree had imposed restriction regarding those that the order were allowed to accept when the order was first confirmed. Honorius III’s bull of 1216, which made the Order of Preachers a legitimate Catholic institution, declared to them “[Y]ou may receive and keep, without opposition from anyone, members of the clergy or the laity who are free men and unencumbered by debt, who flee from the world to enter the religious life.”250 The order itself further defined its regulations on membership in its early constitutions, most particularly when it came to accepting members from other branches of the Church. For a member of the clergy or another religious order, membership could only be authorized only by a provincial or even a general chapter.251

Curiously, members of the Cistercian order were singled out specifically as only to be admitted by special Papal approval.252

Though some priories did offer some elementary courses for novices of a less educated background, learned men were still preferred. A basic understanding of Latin was required of any incoming novices, a requirement that was tested upon first contact

250 Innocent III, Bulls of Approbation, 198.

251 Primitive Constitutions, p.i Sect.xiii, 221.

252 Ibid.

that likely disqualified many laymen.253 This prerequisite was eventually relaxed as

younger recruits became more common.254 Local grammar schools for young children were also frequently established adjacent to many priories. These were set up as a cooperative effort with the local secular governments or wealthy private benefactors. The schools were often partially funded by the local Dominican friars who also made up the faculty and syllabi.255 Priories would also set aside a number of places for graduates of

these grammar schools when they reached eighteen, making the schools both a ministry

and a suitable recruitment pool.256

A concern in the Order of Preachers, especially in the early years, was that a

possible motive for joining the Order of Preachers might be for no other reason than to

receive an education. In much the same spirit that Jordan of Saxony condemned lazy

students and teachers in his aforementioned Encyclical Letter, Humbert of Romans would go a step further in defining the Dominican ideal and the role of learning by criticizing industrious study as an end unto itself in Treatise on Preaching (c.1254-1263).

There are others again who happily devote themselves to sacred reading; But if all this study is not devoted to teaching or preaching, what good is it? ‘Wisdom that is hidden is, treasure that is not seen, what good are either? (Ecclus. 20:32). . . teaching ought to be the purpose of the reading. And the end is more important than the means. 257

253 Mulchahey, 75.

254 Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 23.

255 Mulchahey, 86.

256 Ibid., 86, 94.

257 Humbert, .264, 257.

The fact that Humbert felt the need to address this issue speaks to the attractiveness that the education offered by the order held for a significant number. The initial phase one had to complete as a novice was, in part, meant to weed out ambitious but ‘misdirected’ individuals.

Once accepted as a novice, the first two years of one’s life in the order were focused solely on adaptation to the Dominican lifestyle. Total adaptation to an ascetic life and a monastic mentality was demanded of the aspiring friar before he was allowed to receive any theological education. The constitutions make this plain in their definition of the role of the novice master: “[He] should be conscientious in training them, and it is his job to instruct them about the life of the order . . . and to strive to correct them to the best of his ability.”258 Novices learned to observe customs and memorized other various rules and regulations as they assimilated to life in the order both in body and mind. After a few weeks of adapting to the routines and habits of the Dominican religious life, a new novice committed himself to memorization of the constitutions; the Psalter; more specific codes of conduct, such as when to be silent and when to speak; etc. He also learned how to procure books and confess his sins in a way befitting a friar.

Some basic studies were eventually assigned to a novice. Regrettably, no specific syllabus for novices remains for the historian to consult, but since conditioning the proper mentality toward learning and developing proper study habits was assuredly a major part

258 Primitive Constitutions, p I. Sect xii., 219-220.

of the novice years.259 Novices selected daily passages from materials approved by the

novice master to study and meditate upon on a daily basis. Historian Michele Mulchahey

points to suggestions by Humbert that include standard monastic works such as Hugh of

Fouilley’s de claustro anime, as well as works of such names as St. Bernard, St. Anslem

and St. Augustine just to name a few. 260 The General chapter of 1233 also encouraged

novices to acquire both a breviary and a Bible of their own as early as possible with

whatever funds were legitimately available to them.261

Robert Kilwardby’s Letter to Dominican Novices (c.1270) encourages patience

and perseverance in this initial two-year phase by reinforcing both the reverence of the

Dominican life and its necessity to the order’s mission of defending Catholicism.

You [novices] should notice the usefulness of our state of life. . . our state of life ought . . . to be preferred to all others. For all our Chapters and discussions and debates and all the Order’s study aim at nothing else than to prepare people and make them fit for the salvation of souls, and, when they are prepared and equipped in their way of life and in knowledge, to direct them to the task of converting sinners. 262

Kilwardby’s words, like Jordan’s and Humbert’s, illustrate the relationship between learning and preaching in the Dominican order’s specific brand of mendicant spirituality.

Learning was constantly reinforced as a necessity, but only insofar as it was meant to work as a means to an evangelical end that culminated in a preacher with the qualities of

St. Dominic.

259 Mulchahey, 108.

260 Ibid., 110.

261 Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 215.

262 Robert Kilwardby, Letter to Dominican Novices, in Tugwell, 150.

Being that preaching was the zenith of the Priory school, the local Dominican community and the Dominican life, it is no surprise to discover that it was not in any way reserved strictly for the secular world outside the convent. Preaching and sermons were commonplace within the community, in part because novices and young friars were confined to the walls of the convent and during their first years of assimilation and it behooved the order to make preaching available for them to absorb. A conventual pulpit was placed in a central location within the convent from which sermons were given periodically, as well as on special occasions such as Christmas or the beginning of the

Lent fast, as well as specifically Dominican events such as chapter meetings.263

Guest preachers were occasionally hosted depending on their title, the purpose for their visit and the importance of the occasion. Dominican convents hosted their own higher ranking officials, as well as any prominent members of the secular clergy or sometimes even members of other religious orders were invited to give a sermon as honored guests. 264 This was not only beneficial to the Dominicans for promoting their own cause but also for improving relations with other branches of the church where possible and exposing their members to a wider variety of preaching styles.

Knowledge of style and the delivery of sermons were emphasized as a necessary component of preaching. In preparation for preaching, as well as to keep his skills sharp, the aspiring friars and even practicing preachers engaged regularly in the intellectual exercises of recitation and debate, repetitio and disputatio, which regularly refreshed

263 Mulchahey, 189.

264 Ibid., 189.

96 their knowledge of the material and kept their analytical and argumentative skills sharp.265 If a friar distinguished himself in his studies and showed a good grasp of the material during these exercises, the master of students would then consider the friar’s grasp of preaching techniques. If an adequate command of the pulpit was demonstrated, the friar was then bidden to preach before his community.266 The conventual prior and a board of advisors would later determine, based upon these “in-house” exercises, if said friar was fit to preach outside the walls of the convent in secular communities.267

Despite the additional talents and skills needed to preach and the nobility of the office, arming the preacher with the ammunition of a proper theological education was the key element to the order’s mission. Classes, lectures, and hours of study dominated the life of a friar once he was accepted into the order. Once inducted after the completion of his novice years, a young Dominican began his doctrinal education. He was required to complete no less than two years studying theology before officially becoming a friar and one more year beyond this before he was considered for the duty of preaching.268 The material and studies of the priory school, therefore, deserve special attention.

265 Ibid., 184.

266 Ibid., 80.

267 Ibid., 189.

268 Ibid., 133.

The Education of a Preacher

The priory schools’ theology program was designed for those who had graduated

from their elementary studies or for those that already had an educated background. 269

Classes such as these were the cornerstone of the Dominican day and were mandatory for

all members of the order regardless of their title or office. The classes and the lectures

took priority over all other aspects of a Dominican’s life regardless of his station.270 The

only exception to this rule came in the case of preaching matters or any other perceived

need for evangelization in the local province. Though the classes and lectures were

extensive in their detail and the academic exercises thorough in their testing of the

students’ knowledge, the material covered was rather basic and their approach to

theology highly conservative in the years leading up to 1259.

To be ordained as preachers, friars were first required to complete no less than

three years of theological study.271 The materials the friar studied so relentlessly were referred to collectively as the schola. Prior to the reforms of 1259, the schola seems to have revolved primarily around two cycles of daily lectures devoted primarily to two texts, the Bible and Peter Lombard’s Sentences. Daily lectures on the Bible were understandably emphasized as the most important, a priority that was reinforced in the general chapter of 1249.272 The Sentences directly followed the Bible in order of

importance as it was the definitive compilation, corroboration, and commentary on

269 Bennet, 53.

270 Mulchahey, 133.

271 Primitive Constitutions, p II sec. xxxi, 246-247.

272 Mulchahey, 135.

scripture and the works of the church fathers.273 The general chapter of 1249 defined the

role of the Sentences as to keep students focused strictly on the study of theology rather

than philosophy.274 Emphasis on these two texts was often reiterated in statements by

Dominican general chapters from very early on in the order’s existence, even before specific syllabi were drafted and standardized.275

It is worth mentioning that the Historia Scholastica, which was a running

commentary on biblical history commonly attributed to Peter Comestor, seems to have

made its way into the Dominican schola sometime between the mid-thirteenth to early

fourteenth centuries. For the most part, it seems to have been utilized in the Italian

provinces; although, exactly when and to what degree is hard to determine.276 Mulchahey

points out that even this third text had been utilized by those who favored a very strict

and literal reading of the Bible.277 Though extensive, the texts around which the education of the local priory student revolved were few and adhered to a very strict doctrinal interpretation.

Considering the texts utilized in the schola and the guidelines laid out in the

constitutions, theology appears to have been taught in a very straightforward manner at

the priory level that did not venture into deep speculation. The language of the early

constitutions and the guidelines they prescribe attest to this narrowly focused attitude. For

273 Ibid. 134.

274 Ibid., 135.

275 Ibid.

276 Ibid., 138.

277 Ibid.,140.

one of the “grave faults” listed in the early constitutions, is “the reading of books that are

forbidden.” 278 The nature of said “forbidden” texts is further defined in section in its

description of the duties of the Master of Students.

They shall not study the books of the pagans and philosophers, even for an hour. They shall not discuss secular sciences or even so-called liberal arts, unless the Master of the order or the general chapter decides to provide otherwise in certain cases. But everyone, both the young and the others, shall read only theological books.279

Furthermore, the proper study of these approved “theological books” is further specified

in the constitutions when it decrees that “none of our brethren shall read into the Psalms

or Prophets any literal sense other than what the saints approve and confirm.”280 The cut and dried nature of priory theology is implied by the fact that while a preacher required three years of theological education before being allowed to practice, the lector, who was

responsible for the training of the revered preachers, was only required to complete four

years of theological coursework.281

In addition to the daily lectures, there were also the aforementioned exercises of

review and disputation. Historians have noted that the Dominican priory followed the

scholastic model for the most part, which is probably in itself indicative of the influence

of the secular masters and of the university system.282 Lectors would propose a topic for

debate, make certain the proper resources were available for his students to consult, and

278 Primitive Constitutions, p. I. sec. xx, num 21., 225.

279 Ibid., p. I. sec.xxviii, 245-246.

280 Ibid, p.I sect. xxx, 246.

281 Ibid, p. II, sect. xxxi,246.

282 Mulchahey, 134.

100

be present during the debates in a somewhat informal manner to ensure order and be

consulted only if his expertise was absolutely necessary.283 Reviews ensured that the

texts were memorized and their principles were clear. Two kinds of reviews, one daily and one weekly were regularly scheduled. The daily review recapped the main points of the day’s lecture whereas the weekly review opened the floor to students for general discussion.284

Despite the narrow approach to the material, the theological education of the

preacher gave him a far more thorough understanding of theology than the average

layman and quite often, for that matter, the average parish priest.285 His reviews solidified

the material in his mind, and the disputes exercised his ability to think on his feet and

publicly counter heretical opponents in a coherent and informed manner. The priory

schools of the local convents were not concerned with advancing man’s understanding of

God, but rather with ensuring that the faith of the masses within their territory stay within the boundaries of Catholic doctrine and Catholic theology without descending into erroneous heresy. Such had been the case with the Cathar movement, which was the event that had inspired the order’s very existence. One house was responsible for the spiritual well-being of one territory, a goal that was achieved by dispersing preachers capable of answering the questions of the local laity.

283 Ibid., 170.

284 Ibid., 176-177.

285 Bennet, 56; Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 10.

101

A Shift in Focus

Although Dominic’s design for the order was highly specific to his time and

place, he had touched on something far more timeless. The societies of thirteenth century

Europe had a growing desire for higher learning. For many, the education that the

Dominican Order demanded of its preachers was the order’s most attractive quality and it

would soon became the order’s definitive trait. The scholarly aspects of the Dominican

lifestyle eventually redefined the order’s image and maintained its cultural relevancy in

the latter half of the thirteenth century.

The education the priory schools provided and emphasized was narrowly focused and somewhat cursory, but it was both adequate and appropriate for achieving its intended purpose, which was to dispense career preachers to minister to the nearby laity.

Historians such as Mulchahey deduce that a friar probably got a rather cursory education in theology that would more or less equate to that of the priest.286 One could go so far as

to say it was rather what the average parish priest should have received and directed

toward the laity in the early thirteenth century. Though the education a friar received

from his priory school was substantial compared to what had been previously available, it

was still somewhat basic compared to what was possible. Exceptionally gifted friars were sent to one of order’s general houses of study, of which there were only a handful in the thirteenth century.

Unlike the priory schools Dominican general houses of study intertwined with the

developing universities, which resulted in a deeper approach to theology and an influence

286 Mulchahey, 139.

102 upon the intellectual development of Christendom overall. The educational reforms proposed at the General Chapter of 1259 are as reflective of the universities’ influence upon the Dominican general houses of study as the early constitutions are of Dominic’s original vision. These reforms established a significantly broader syllabus of study with much more variant material. They are also demonstrative of an impressively progressive commitment by the order to stay current with the intellectual trends in Europe. Though the reforms affected the overall order, including the local and provincial levels, they are best discussed alongside the general houses of study as that is where they originated.

103

Chapter 4

GENERAL HOUSES OF STUDY AND THE MASTER’S EDUCATION

Universities and the Order of Preachers

Even during the order’s formative phase, Dominic clearly recognized the value of

universities. He saw the genius and potential of university men such as Reginald of

Orleans (c.1180-1220) and Jordan of Saxony (c.1190-1237), two founding members who were largely responsible for many of the ties that developed between the young mendicant order and the University of Paris.287 Dominic also undoubtedly recognized the

potential of these universities as a rich source for recruitment of the scholarly minds he

wanted to enlist for his army of preachers. Indeed, the contemplative elements of the

order’s spirituality made the connection a logical one. Though originally considered to be

primarily a recruitment pool for preachers, the University of Paris was greatly responsible

for the broadening of the order’s image after relatively little time had passed.

Dominican general houses, the order’s own institutions of higher learning,

integrated themselves into the Universities of Oxford and Paris and worked symbiotically

with the universities for the mutual benefit of both. The general houses attempted to

imitate the structure and educational quality of the universities, and the universities in

turn utilized qualified Dominicans as staff members, most notably for their theological

faculty. Though both worked hand in hand and greatly influenced one another, the

general houses were still considered separate institutions and enjoyed a significant degree

287 Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 309.

104 of independence, which was, at times, a point of contention between the order and the secular masters. Dominican identity was greatly affected by this relationship, and lead to a new class of university masters within the order who rivaled the preachers in both esteem and influence.288

There was an obvious sense of higher achievement that this connection made possible to the Dominican friars. The exclusive and highly competitive process of admission to a Dominican general house and its university-style education was reserved for very a few. The challenging and selective nature of admission to a general house or studia generale made it an accomplishment in and of itself, and those elite few that did went on to form what Bennet once referred to as a “small and jealous aristocracy of learning.”289 The masters degree in theology and the prestige of the title likely spoke to the ambitious nature of many friars. A detailed examination of the academic process one underwent to earn a masters degree in theology and the tremendous rate of the order’s expansion suggests that this was likely a contributing factor to the immense success university ties.

The historically significant effect that these relationships with universities had upon the Order of Preachers was that the order became deeply entrenched in the intellectual trends of the time. This entrenchment pushed, if not forced, the order to confront and eventually embrace Aristotelianism, a school of thought beyond the narrow theological scope defined in its early constitutions. The relationship between Catholic

288 Showalter, “The Business of Salvation, 566.

289 Bennet, 56.

105

theology and Aristotelian philosophy, or if indeed there could or should be any at all, was

the subject of a contentious debate throughout the Catholic Church in the thirteenth century. Aristotelianism gained popularity with many intellectuals despite the fact that it had fundamental differences with Catholic theology. Implications that Aristotelianism held for issues such as the unity of the soul, the eternity of the world, the nature of God and numerous other issues conflicted with what the church had held to be theologically correct for some time. As one can imagine, this was a particularly delicate and poignant issue for this Catholic order that had been founded to seek out and refute heretical forms of thought.

The educational statutes put forth at the General Chapter at Valenciennes in 1259 are a testament to the intellectual growth the order experienced as a result of these factors. The twenty-two recommendations made by a handful of Dominican masters of theology from the University of Paris reflected a more progressive attitude toward learning in the Order of Preachers. Furthermore, this progressive attitude was unique within the church itself. Still, less than half a century old, the order was soon to gain a new image by broadening its methods and its intellectual horizons. The Order of

Preachers was soon to fulfill its mission in a new era and a new arena.

The First General Houses 1220-1300

The first general house of study was the house of St. Jacques, which was established adjacent to the University of Paris from the very beginning of the order in

1220. John of St. Albans, a secular professor of theology at Paris, gave major credit to the

106

Dominican institution by agreeing to instruct the friars at St. Jacques in 1227. 290 John of

St. Albans mentored John of St. Giles (c.1205-1260), a secular student at the time who later assumed the Dominican habit while serving as one of the Parisian chairs of theology in 1230.291 Just prior to assuming the habit himself, John of St. Giles sponsored a

Dominican friar named Roland of Cremona (c.1178-1259), who received his masters in

theology in 1229 and ascended to the second chair of theology alongside his old

mentor.292 This trend of grandfathering members of the order into chairs of theology

continued for some time.

It should be noted that trends such as this led to tension with the secular masters,

particularly since the Franciscans also began to hold an influence at the University. In

1252 the university attempted to scale back the influence of this Dominican monopoly on

the chairs by unsuccessfully attempting to impose statute that limited the amount of

chairs a religious order could hold to no more than one at a time.293 Tensions were

furthered when both the Dominican and Franciscan professors refused to participate in a

faculty strike that was organized by the secular masters.294 The seculars finally found a

leader in William of St. Amour, who challenged the teachings of both mendicant orders

290 Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500,58-59;Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent in Study. . .,” 26-27.

291 Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 295, Mulchahey, 81-82.

292 Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 41-42.

293 Mark Johnson, ed., St. Thomas Aquinas and the Mendicant Controversies, trans. John Proctor, (Leesburg: Alethes Press, 2007), xvii.

294 Ibid.

107

as well as their religious lifestyles.295 This controversy led Dominicans like Thomas

Aquinas and Thomas Cantiempre, as well as the Franciscan Bonaventure, to compose

detailed defenses of mendicant spirituality.296 In 1254, William was successful in

convincing Pope Innocent IV to retract the autonomy of both orders and subjugate them

to secular authorities on all levels. The 1254 bull was quickly overturned by Pope

Alexander IV some months later after the sudden death of Innocent two weeks after the

fact.297 Despite tensions such as this, Paris remained the intellectual nucleus of the

Dominican order holding the most prestigious reputation, historically influential alumni,

notable faculty, and general influence upon the shaping of the order and more than any

other school.

The General house at Oxford grew from a small establishment in 1221 by a

commission of thirteen friars that had been organized by Dominic shortly before his

death.298 Despite these early roots, Oxford did not become a studium generale until 1248.

The influence of Robert Bacon (fl.1233-1248), the house’s regent master and Oxford

University’s Chair of Theology, fostered and intertwining relationship between the

Dominican house there and the University of Oxford, establishing the first Dominican

295 William of St. Amour came at both the mendicant orders initially through one Franciscan writer, Gerard of Borgo San Donnino, attacking his interest in the teachings of Joachim di Fiore and his work on the “Three age Teaching.” For a concise yet detailed discussion of his attack and his attempt to portray both orders as erroneous in their teachings and spiritualities, consult the introduction to Johnson’s work cited here.

296 Frederick Copelston. Medieval Philosophy: From Augustine to Duns Scotus. Vol. 2. of A History of Philosophy, (Garden City: Image Books, 1993), 216.

297 Johnson, xvii-xix..

298 Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 38-39.

108 theology school in England.299 Oxford was the only location in England where a friar could gain a universally recognized masters degree in theology until Cambridge developed its own theological faculty in 1250.300 Though Paris would remain the more prestigious of the two, Oxford became influential enough to diverge from its continental counterpart creating some intellectual traditions uniquely its own.

In addition to Oxford, three more houses of study were added around 1248 in

Montpellier, Bologna, and Cologne to keep up with the order’s growing demand for lectors as the order continued to struggle to keep up with its own standards. Rome and

Spain eventually developed general houses in 1290 and 1293.301 Michele Mulchahey makes the important observation that these other Dominican houses were not as directly involved with the secular universities they were founded adjacent too as in the cases of

Paris and Oxford.302 Paris, and, to a lesser extent, Oxford, were to remain the most influential in the order’s development, but the need for the addition of five new general houses in the latter half of the thirteenth century is a testament to the growth of the order and the enthusiasm for education.

This growth in higher education appears to be even more profound when weighed against the standards to which new enrollees were held. Each of the original twelve provinces was allowed to send only three students to Paris and two students to all the

299 Ibid., 41-42.

300 Ibid., 39.

301 Ibid., 39, 43.

302 Mulchahey, 62.

109

other houses per year.303 Therefore, even at the peak of the thirteenth century, a mere

fifteen students per province went off to a general house to study each year, making a

total of 180 students out of the 7-13,000 Dominican friars as estimated respectively by

Bennet, Mandonnet, and Hinnebusch.304 These students were of course the most

promising and accomplished friars of each province, who had been selected first by their

local superiors and had then gone on to sufficiently impress their provincial superiors.

Academically driven individuals would naturally be drawn to the general houses

and the education they offered, therefore, it follows that competitive feelings must have

been widely cultivated by such a highly exclusive admissions process. Feelings of elitism

befitting of a ‘small and jealous aristocracy of learning’ would have been difficult to

avoid in such a small circle of distinguished and accomplished friars as those who were

admitted to general houses. Furthermore, Humbert’s warning from Treatise on Preaching

(c.1254-1263), as discussed in the previous chapter, is an indication that even at this stage many of the friars who were advanced within the order still saw education as its own end rather than a necessary supplement of preaching.305 This is understandable given the

syllabi of theological study and the prestigious honor brought by a masters degree in

theology.

303 Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 44.

304 Bennet, 75; Hinnebusch, 330-331.

305 Humbert,.264., 257.

110

Studium Generale and Student Life

The Dominican use of the term “studium generale” in reference to its own general

houses and their syllabi is a testament in and of itself to the order’s gradual identification

with secular universities. “Studium” was a general term in the early thirteenth century

that referred simply to an organized institution of education. The term studium generale,

meant, in a broad sense, a widely recognized school of higher learning with a “generally

accepted” reputation that was strong enough to attract students from great distances and

diverse backgrounds.306 The term retained this general ambiguity until the latter half of

the thirteenth century.

The first appearance of this term as anything more precise than a well-known

school of broad appeal came from Spanish law in 1263, designating a studium generale

as a school teaching canon law, civil law, and/or arts that had been founded by the

authority of the Pope, the Emperor, or the King.307 Italian jurists also referred to a

studium generale in the late thirteenth century as a school that enjoyed privileges granted

by the pope such as the licensing of clergy serving within said school to be dispensed or

excused from other duties for the purposes of study.308 More precisely, the term came to

be associated on all accounts with a school of superb quality in the subjects of medicine,

306 Mulchahey, 353-354.

307 Ibid., 356.

308 Ibid., 356-357. Mulchahey goes on to explain that this practice eventually began to be defining feature of all studium generale. If the pope recognized a school as qualified or worthy enough to excuse clerics to attend at the expense of their church-related obligations, while still continuing to receive revenues from their benefices, then this school qualified as a studium generale.

111

law or theology.309 The consistent use of this term in reference to Dominican general

houses demonstrates both a striving for university caliber scholarship by the Order of

Preachers as well as their apparent success in achieving that goal. Dominican higher

learning grew to resemble the university structure with its primary distinction being that

the Dominican syllabi focused solely on theology.310

A general sketch of what the early syllabus at a general house prior to 1259 is as

follows. As in the schola of the priory schools, the Bible and Peter Lombard’s Sentences

were the primary texts used, but the approach taken to these texts differed from the

straight-forward and sharply defined lectures of the priory schools. Originally, candidates

for a masters in theology were required to have not only studied the subject for an

extended period but to have lectured on both the scriptures and Lombard’s Sentences for

six total years in the early days, though it was eventually reduced to five.311 Seven total

years of theological study were required; although, the schola of the priory schools were

considered a suitable equivalent to beginning university studies. As discussed in the

previous chapter, a typical student of a general house had already completed three or four

years of theological study at a priory before arriving at the general house.312

A regent master presided over the entire studium generale and not only

conducted the central lecture cycle but also directed regular disputations throughout the

309 Ibid, 357-360.

310 Ibid, 352-378.

311 Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, vol 2. of The History of the Dominican Order, (Staten Island: Alba House, 1965), 59.

312 Ibid.

112 year.313 Classes were always taught by a principle lector, usually the regent master, who was of course a master of theology himself. The lectures given in these classes focused on the deeper theological implications of scripture, and expounded much further than the straightforward lectures a friar received locally at a priory.314 The principle lector was assisted by two other lectors, both of whom held bachelors degrees in theology and were usually preparing for their “licentiate,” which was the final step in the process before receiving their Masters degree. One of these lecturers, referred to as the cursor

Sententiarum, lectured solely on the four books of Lombard’s Sentences in a simple and cursory manner over the course of two academic years.315 The second lecturer, referred to as the cursor biblicus, gave a similar treatment to the Bible, taking one book at a time from both the Old and New Testaments covering roughly one chapter each per day.316

These lectures were likely intended to keep the students fresh in the basic subject matter for the more in-depth lectures given during the primary lectures.

Additionally, sermons were given by masters and talented bachelors at special times throughout the course of the year.317 Such sermons were organized by the master of students. His was an office entrusted to talented bachelors who tutored and motivated

313 Mulchahey, 379.

314 Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 59; Mulchahey, 379.

315 Mulchahey, 379.

316 Ibid.

317 Ibid.

113

younger students. Additionally, he organized practice disputations and regular recitations

for practice and reiteration of the subject matter.318

The Masters of Theology

The chair of the theology department, having two in Paris and one in all other

houses, presented one candidate for licentiate during each odd numbered Jubilee year.319

These candidates would then present four theses for defense in what was referred to as a

Principum.320 The first two theses were used for his “Vespers” debate, in which he would defend it in private against the Master who had served as his advisor and guided his studies.321 The second or Aula debate came after his receiving the master’s biretta, and

saw him guiding a discussion on his remaining two theses among the participating

masters and bachelors holders.322 The third and final act, referred to as the candidate’s

resumption, was the first class that he taught in the first course he was assigned to teach

as an inductee in the college of masters.323

The masters degree earned and the opportunities it brought were a remarkable

achievement in a society that, especially until recently, did not even have a basic

education available on a wide scale. One further step in the career of a Dominican Master

318 Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 60, Mulchahey, 383.

319 Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 61.

320 Ibid.

321 Ibid.

322 Ibid.

323 Ibid.

114 was still conceivable but very rare. This was the honor of being named regent master, the title bestowed upon he who also held a chair of theology in the university. The chair fulfilled his role for an indefinite period of time and could not relinquish it until it was filled by an individual of his approval. A chair might be reassigned to make way for promising new blood or for the return of a proven elder. Thomas Aquinas, for example, held a chair at Paris from 1256-1259 and returned to hold it once again from 1269-1272.

A regent master lectured principally on Scripture, expounding upon its deeper implications. During his time as the chair, a regent master usually composed his own original works of thought, typically biblical or textual commentaries. Thomas Aquinas wrote numerous commentaries on both the Old and New Testaments while serving as a

Parisian chair.324 Additionally, and truly exemplary of his authority, was the role the regent master played in the disputations that were a regular occurrence in the general houses. The ordinary disputations held throughout the year dealt with questions on subjects both theological and philosophical in nature. Questions or discussion points were posed by those on the masters or professorial level to an audience of masters and bachelors who participated in these events.325 The points of discussion were dealt with by designated opponents and respondents with a certain level of audience participation, but the final verdict was always rendered by the regent master. Additionally, extraordinary disputations, or Quaestiones de quolibet, were held during Advent and Lent.326 In

324 Ibid.

325 Ibid., 62.

326 Ibid.

115

disputations of this nature the regent master definitively answered questions posed by an

audience on any theological subject or science.327

The office of regent master and chair of theology was the apex of the thirteenth

century Dominican academic’s possible career. A minimal fifteen-year path from novice to master was long, but the path to the chair of theology and the title of regent master could take twenty to twenty-five. William of Peter Godin (1260-1335), for example, entered the order in 1279 and did not become chair until 1304. Thomas Aquinas entered the order by going straight into Paris in 1244 but did not in fact preside as Parisian chair until 1256. R.F. Bennett makes the valid point that a period of fifteen to twenty-five years was a significant portion out of the life of a thirteenth century man.328 Such an

achievement could not have been undertaken without a significant drive and

commitment.

Greater honors, bestowed upon fewer and fewer the higher up one ventured in the

Dominican hierarchy, were a testament to one’s academic excellence. The office of the

Dominican regent master seems to have, at least within the confines of his order, become

an icon of such excellence. His authority to definitively determine the answers to deeper

questions of intense theological quandary speaks to an approaching shift in the order’s

function that was subtle yet significant. Whereas the Order of Preachers had begun by

simply defending Catholic theology, members of the order at this advanced level found

themselves exploring the deeper meanings of this theology.

327 Ibid.

328 Bennet, 56.

116

Theology versus Philosophy

The order had been diligent in its efforts to keep their curriculums of higher

education equivalent to secular universities, but by the mid-thirteenth century such

standards brought new challenges. Aristotelian philosophy had been attracting more and

more interest as it had been rediscovered in the Muslim world and had now found its way

to Catholic Europe. Growing interest both within and outside of the order conflicted with

the strictly theological approach the Dominicans had taken since their foundation. The early constitutions forbade the study of pagan texts or writings of the philosophers, and

Dominican students were, furthermore, not allowed to infer anything from their approved theological texts other than “what the saints confirm.”329 This approach was determined

by St. Dominic and other founding members in the time of the Cathar heresy. Catharism

had been essentially a theological disagreement that could be refuted within the bounds

of a coherent understanding of the New Testament. Aristotelian philosophy was not as

easily refutable since much of it could be demonstrated as scientifically true or at least

within the bounds of logical reasoning.

The conflict was of course in no way limited to the Order of Preachers; indeed it

was a church-wide debate. Still, given the nature of the Dominican Order’s foundation

and apostolic mission, one might rightly infer that the debate held a special meaning in

the Dominican order, particularly for its older members. Debates had been consistent

over the years concerning the need for secular philosophy in a theological education.

John of St. Giles, while serving as a Parisian chair, had warned that philosophers were

329 Primitive Constitutions, p ii sect. xxviii, p ii sect. xxx., 245-246.

117

not necessarily good theologians. Roland of Cremonia, John’s protégé and fellow chair,

had held the more amenable view that rational philosophy, such as logic, was indeed

useful to a theologian in order to understand and identify erroneous theological

arguments.330

The debate became more charged by the mid-thirteenth century as Aristotelian philosophy became even more popular within university circles. Conservative voices were not shy about their perception of philosophy as a perverse instrument of corruption.

One the most blatant examples of the anti-philosophical attitude within the Order of

Preachers may be found within a compilation of various exempla from numerous

Dominican priories assembled from 1256 to 1260 when the ideological debate between traditional attitude and Aristotelianism was especially charged. Lives of the Brethren, assembled by Gerard de Frachet, contains several classic examples of the traditional monastic attitude.

Frachet categorizes his subjects in the collection giving each its own heading. The subject of interest is addressed in kind under a heading entitled Philosophical Curiosity, which contains three short examples. One tells of an English friar who, in a revelatory dream, is presented with a Bible in a foul binding by Christ himself, who scolds the friar by saying “My word is fair enough, but you have soiled it with your philosophy.”331 A second account tells of another English friar who, also in a revelatory vision, is shown a

330 Mulchahey, 226-228.

331 Gerard de Frachet, Lives of the Brethren, Ch. 4. XX., ed. Bede Jarrett, trans. Fr. Placid Conway (London: Burns Oates and Washbourne Ltd., 1924), 188-189.

118 list of torments reserved for damned souls whose trespass was studying philosophy.332

Finally, a third account tells of a friar who was rapt in spirit and taken before God where he was stripped and beaten. His offense, he was told, was that he was not a religious, but a philosopher.333

Not all involved in the debate had such a one-sided mentality. There was a collection of moderate Dominicans who, while not fully embracing philosophy, did not seem to see any imminent danger in it. Such men included two sequential master generals, John of Wildeshausen (1241-1252) and Humbert of Romans (1254-1263).

Though neither of these men championed the study of philosophy the way Albert the

Great and Thomas Aquinas both did, their actions suggest their partial acceptance of the subject. John allowed the provincial authorities to decide what should be taught in their convents, despite the fact that he could have easily done otherwise.334 Humbert, who had in fact been one of those provincial authorities under John before becoming master general himself, was reservedly accepting in both his words and actions. Most telling is the fact that Humbert entrusted university professors of the order to recommend what was best for the order’s pupils in the pivotal statutes of 1259.335 Humbert also echoed his predecessor’s appeal to the provincial authorities when it came to determining what their students should study. His feelings are best summarized in his commentary on the

332 Ibid.

333 Ibid.

334 Mulchahey, 220.

335 Ibid., 253-254.

119

Dominican constitutions; “For there are certain friars, who have a vast capacity and a

great aptitude for grasping sciences of this sort, and from whose knowledge- so long as they combine it with religion- great results may be expected. . .”336 It should- come as no

surprise then that in 1259, under Humbert’s administration, came the first definitively

progressive step toward the study of secular philosophy in the Order of Preachers.

The Statues of 1259

In an attempt to revaluate the order’s educational system, Humbert selected five

Dominican Masters of Theology, all of whom were connected to the University of Paris, to bring their recommendations for the future conduct of the order’s educational system.

These five men were Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Peter of Tarentaise, Florence of

Hesdin, and Bonhomme of Brittany.337 Collectively, the five professors produced what was to be called the ratio studiorum of the Dominican Order, a list of twenty-two recommendations, which in many cases merely codified what was already being put into practice either on a wide scale or in successful isolated incidents. This list of statutes, which in ways went against some of the limitations set by the original constitutions, was presented and approved at the general chapter meeting of Valenciennes in 1259.

The most significant example of these statutes, which yielded the most

measurable results, was probably the recommendation “That provision be made in

336 Humbert of Romans, super Constitutiones, c. 13, in Opera, II, quoted in Mulchahey. “First the Bow is Bent in Study. . .,” 231-232.

337 Mulchahey, 223.

120 provinces lacking a [general] house of studies that there be a house of studies for liberal arts and philosophy where the young Dominicans might be instructed.”338 What resulted in the next 10-12 years were several new intermediate or provincial programs of study.

The first to develop, and the most accepted of the programs, was the Studia artium, which was a course in arts, but was more precisely a course in logic. The second, which met with greater resistance, was the Studia naturarum, a course in natural philosophy.

Different provinces approached this task at different paces with minor variations in their syllabi. The earliest detailed evidence comes from the Italian province of Rome and the

French province of Provence. Though, as Bennett points out, these provincial schools were designed to primarily produce the next generation of teachers, they represent an opening of the order’s doors to subjects beyond strict theology and a broadening of the order’s evangelical and educational vision. 339

The model for the Studia artia that the order eventually developed had originated with an experimental program in Provence in the 1240’s with the licensing of a few select friars to study the arts. The arts in this case meant logic, which was technically a form of rational philosophy. Though there was some reluctance from higher levels of the order, the program in Provence was formalized in 1252, and a second logic school was established.340 Several smaller attempts at such schools in Spanish provinces c.1250 indicate that John of Wildeshausen, the fifth master general of the order (1241-1252), exercised a relaxation of the rules that shied away from the secular studies, which

338 Statutes on Studies 1259, translation by, and supplied courtesy of, Dr. Richard Schenk O.P., 2010.

339 Bennet, 56.

340 Mulchahey, 221.

121

included the formal study of logic. Provence opened two more provincial logic schools in

1256. Finally in n1269, ten years after the Statutes of Valenciennes justified and

recommended such programs, Provence boasted ten Studia artia within its borders.

These provincial schools were most commonly called Studia artia or “art

schools,” but were also referred to interchangeably as Studia logicalia. Works by

Aristotle were consulted, but his deeper philosophy was not as much a part of the syllabi

as the University of Paris’ had called for in 1255.341 The Dominican syllabus, such as in

Provence and Rome, had focused solely on the study of logic. In the first term of the first

year the primary lectures focused on the Analytica posteriora with secondary lectures

from one of several logic handbooks. The most popular logic book favored by the

continental schools was the Summulae logicales by Peter of Spain. The book consisted of

12 tracts on various areas of logic, which earned it the titular synonym Tractatus.342 The syllabus at Oxford differed in that it favored logic books such as Lambert of Auxerre’s

Summa Lamberti , William of Sherwood’s Logica and Roger Bacon’s Summulae dialectices. The second term of the first year saw primary lectures on Aristotle’s

Categoriae and its supplemental text, Liber de sex principiis with secondary lectures taken from the Analytica priora. The second year then began with primary lectures on De sophisticis elenchis and a study of fallacies from the same logic book as the first semester of the previous year. The second term of the second year concluded with Peri hermaneias and the Isagoge, an introduction penned by Porphroy. Secondary lectures were also

341 Ibid., 222.

342 Ibid., 241-243.

122 given on Topica. This two year program rotated between three participating convents, and became a Masters’ degree prerequisite.343

The Studia naturarum was much slower to catch on. Again, it was Provence that led the way, founding the first, small school of natural science in 1262. The program, however, did not grow profoundly until nine years when two more were founded in 1271.

Mulchahey observes that since the statutes of 1259 did not legally refute the constitutions, Humbert would have been the deciding authority as the master general. It is possible that he turned the decision over to provincial authorities as his predecessor had done for the studia artia of Provence in the 1240s.344

A second argument for this timeline of the studia naturarum is Albert the Great’s finalization of his encyclopedic documentation of Aristotle in 1271. Albert’s attitude towards Aristotelian philosophy was more embracing. He felt it was foolish to dismiss or resist the works of the philosopher, insisting that Aristotle was, like most men, right about some things and wrong about others. Albert held that the philosopher was likely right about a good many things, yet to call him infallible was to give him a god-like status.345 Albert’s general attitude is probably best summarized by his own words.

If there be a disagreement in matters of faith on morals, then I follow Augustine rather than the philosophers. But if it is a question of medicine, then I much prefer Galen or Hippocratus; or if there be a question of natural science, then I much prefer Aristotle, or someone else who is experienced in these matters.346

343 Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 59.

344 Mulchahey, 253-254.

345 Ibid., 259.

346 Albert the Great, II Sent. d. 13 art. 2. , cited in Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 127.

123

Albert’s approach to Aristotle differed from the average commentator. He often digressed, filled in gaps inserted his own voice into the philosophers work. Often he would speak for Aristotle wherever there were gaps, filling in what he thought the Greek thinker might have said based upon his other works. Mulchahey points out that Albert proved to be strikingly accurate in light of his attempt for the later rediscovered De motibus animalium.347 Albert’s willingness to consider Aristotle on the philosopher’s own terms was unusual accepting for the time. Albert never fully accepted Aristotle without some kind of reservation, and it is this handling of the controversy that likely made it acceptable in the eyes of the skeptical order.

The studia naturarum syllabi of the Italian provinces called for four lectors. Two lectors were assigned to lecture upon the Metaphysica and the De anima with secondary lectures on various subsidiary texts. After a solid year of Aristotelian metaphysics and psychology, the students then moved on to an academic year studying physics. The remaining two lectors were thus assigned to lecture on Aristotle’s Physica and De generatione “cum sequentibus quibusadam.” The third year was a combination of metaphysics and biology, or a covering of the former with commentary or contrast with the latter.348

The syllabi of Toulouse followed a similar model, but with one key difference: there was more emphasis on moral philosophy rather than physics and metaphysics.

Aristotle’s Ethica was used instead of Physica in the Toulouse courses. Moral philosophy

347 Ibid., 259.

348 Ibid., 272.

124

had always been more palatable, even in more conservative times. The Roman province,

for example had allowed friars to keep their logic and moral philosophy books during a

provincial-wide call to surrender forbidden texts in back in 1244.349 Still, however, this was a profound move in that Aristotle’s Ethica was a work in ethics of a pre-Christian philosopher and had no scriptural or theological foundation.

Natural philosophy was not truly accepted as a full-fledged, legitimate program of study within the order until 1305.350 Though Albert’s work was monumental and

groundbreaking in the Catholic Church’s relationship with Aristotle, it was Albert’s

pupil, Thomas Aquinas, who went on to not only engage Aristotelianism with an open

mind but rectify much of the pre-Christian philosopher’s principles with his own

Catholicism.

349 Mulchahey, 228.

350 Ibid., 251, 265.

125

A New Emphasis and a New Method

These provincial studia eventually became the foundation of Dominican study,

becoming prerequisites to theology by the early fourteenth century. Philosophy, both

rational and natural, was thus applied in a to a friar’s understanding of theology in what

could be called a guided environment. Also, the subject of theology itself was soon to be

divided into levels of beginning, intermediate, and advanced. The Dominicans had, as

Bennett points out, designed a curriculum of study that mirrored the intellectual

development of the thirteenth century.351 Humbert and, as shall be discussed in the next chapter, Thomas Aquinas made this move permissible by insisting on the marriage of study, regardless of the subject, with the religious end of knowing God better in order to teach. In this way the order remained true to the cyclical spirituality designed either by

Dominic himself or his immediate successors.

Aside from the provincial programs, one other noteworthy aspect of the statutes

of 125 may be identified. Many of the recommendations dealt with the duties of lectors,

priors, bachelors, student masters and students. This of course includes such stipulations

that all of them attend regular classes, and additionally that they all face harsh penalties if

they were to fail to do so.352 Rights and privileges of lectors and students were also laid

out very clearly. Three are of particular interest:

351 Bennet, The Early Dominicans, 57.

352 Statutes on Studies 1259,

126

[T]he lectors are not to be occupied with duties or business which would keep them from their lectures; 353

That the younger brethren apt at studies are to be spared diversions and other occupations, less they be held back from their studies;354

That during the time assigned for the lectures the brethren not be occupied with celebrating masses or anything of this kind, nor are they to go into the city, except for in cases of great necessity; 355

In short, automatic dispensation seems to be implied from all other duties, even mass, for

the purposes of study and lectures. Several poignant examples of these recommendations

being put into action may be observed in the Italian provinces for the students of natural

philosophy. Students of the Studium naturarum were allowed to miss matins up to three

times a week and forgo the running of errands in order to prepare for the repetition

exercises in upcoming lectures.356 This trend eventually extended quite significantly to the skipping of the theology lectures in the province of Rome, save for the main lectures of the principle lector.357 For the first time, then, philosophy took priority over theology.

Mulchahey makes the valid point that these examples speak to the vigor of this

particular provincial course and its demand upon the students.358 However, the statutes

and the apparent attention paid to them are indicative of a subtler but significant shift in

the order’s mentality. Perhaps the most notable aspect of the statutes concerning

353 Ibid.

354 Ibid.

355 Ibid.

356 Mulchahey. “First the Bow is Bent in Study. . .:”, 268.

357 Ibid.

358 Ibid., 268-269.

127 dispersions is that the act of preaching was no longer mentioned specifically as a priority.

This is an understandable omission since these statues were composed by teachers and specifically concerned the education of the order rather than the task of preaching. Still, however, what is suggested by the emphasis on scholarly activity and the omission of any mention of preaching altogether is that the order had, at this point, grown beyond the one- dimensional method it originally focused on so exclusively. Yet, as Humbert’s quote from his commentary on the constitutions implies, the order was staying current to remain relevant in their evangelical mission. Unlike the strictly theological heresy of

Catharism, Aristotelianism warranted a deeper understanding in order to be related and possibly rectified with Catholicism.

Conclusion

The order was breaking new ground with its university ties. No changes came hastily or without debate, but in a crucial turning point there were allowances made at the recommendation of five Parisian masters. The university had thus begun to directly influence the functioning of the entire order not merely the general houses. Study, once merely an element of the order’s spirituality, was truly becoming its main focus. By seriously considering Aristotelian natural philosophy, applying methods of logic to theology, and holding more speculative lectures and debates students and masters alike could not but ‘infer beyond what the saints confirm.’ This enthusiasm for learning, reserved for an elite few, had created a new class of academics in the order, the prestige of whom was becoming a distinct part of the Dominican identity.

128

The contemplative element of the Dominican life had taken the order down a path of higher education and a deeper speculation of theology. This path had led the order to universities like Paris were new challenges awaited them. The apostolic element of the

Dominican spirituality would soon need to be exercised in an academic setting, different from the heresies the order had encountered before.

129

Chapter 5

THE PARISIAN DISCOURSES AND THE RISE OF THOMISM

Growth and Distinction from 1250-1300

By the early 1260s, the Order of Preachers had grown significantly from its beginning as a small network of preachers awaiting their dispersal to minister to the local urban or rural congregations. The number of the order’s active members had grown tremendously, as had its relationships with major universities. The university connections had also begun to broaden how Dominican friars perceived themselves. A new aristocracy of schoolmen had formed within the Dominican general houses that included the masters of theology who taught there, and the advanced pupils who had been deemed worthy by their provincial superiors to undertake a more in depth study of theology.

What had not yet been fully determined was the manner in which this new class

of Dominican schoolmen could best fulfill the order’s apostolic mission. The audiences

of lay-people to whom the preachers ministered differed greatly from the academic

audiences of the universities. It was with the growing debate surrounding the introduction

of a new corpus of Aristotelian texts and the extensive work of the Dominican master

Thomas Aquinas that the Order of Preachers would fully distinguish itself within the academic environment in which it had become so deeply entrenched. Thomas contributed to Dominican identity by epitomizing the order’s growing academic aristocracy. He also

singlehandedly provided both his order and the Christian world with a comprehensive

new system of theology and philosophy. He furthermore contributed to the order’s

130

apostolic mission by offering probably the best possible solution to the issue of the conflicting ‘truths’ of reason and revelation.

The In the latter half of the thirteenth century the University of Paris became an

arena for an intense debate among the Christian world’s leading theologians and

philosophers. The introduction of a new corpus of Aristotelian texts that had been

introduced by way of Arabic commentators had created controversy in Christian

intellectual circles. For centuries the Christian world had cultivated a very solid system of

thought in which theology and philosophy, while not inseparable, were strongly

intertwined.359 In the minds of seminal Christian thinkers like Augustine (c.354-430), and

later Anselm (1033-1109), philosophical reasoning was useful to aid in the understanding

of what had already been revealed by God to be true.360 But not all thinkers of the

Christian world would hold this view.

With the introduction of new Aristotelian texts, Christian thinkers were exposed

to a new philosophical system of reasoned reflection upon the world, and the universe,

that was strongly independent of theology.361 At the University of Paris, the discussion of

this issue became particularly more intensified c.1255 when the university imposed a

statute requiring all members of the Arts faculty to read the entire Aristotelian corpus.362

Aristotelian concepts such as unity of form theory and the eternal existence of the world

359 Copleston, 5 and 208; John F. Wippel, Mediaeval Reactions to the Encounter between Faith and Reason, (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1995), 2-8.

360 Copleston, 6,; Wippel , 4.

361 Copelston,, 208.

362 Mulchahey, 222; Wippel, 12.

131 held implications that contradicted many of the long accepted Christian doctrines such as the independence of the soul from the physical body and the creation of the world by God in time. Furthermore, some lines of Aristotelian reasoning held different implications regarding to the nature of God that contradicted Christian theology. Whereas these

Aristotelian concepts had been reached logically by way of pure reason, the theological concepts had been accepted on the authority of revelation. How to rectify differing conclusions between the two systems was not immediately clear.

This conflict between the reason of Aristotelianism and the authoritive revelation of theology divided thinkers everywhere in the Christian world, and the faculty of the

University of Paris was no exception. The university boasted a particularly dynamic group of thinkers from the 1250s through the 1270s, all of whom had variant opinions regarding this issue. Differing intellectual attitudes toward Aristotelianism created allegiances that developed into three distinct schools of thought. What is more, they seem to have been generally divided along the lines of religious orders and secular masters.363

Thinkers of the more traditional and theologically conservative mindset were, and often still are, referred to as ‘Augustinians.’ This school of thought was greatly characteristic of the Franciscans, such as Bonaventure (1217-1274), as well as some of the older Dominicans, such as Robert Kilwardby (1215-1279).364 The attitudes of these thinkers varied in how they regarded Aristotelianism, ranging from total rejection to a

363 Copelston, 216.

364 Ibid., 216-217.

132

partial acceptance.365 It is important to note that though this conglomerated opposition

may have rallied behind the banner of Augustine’s name against Aristotelianism, their

views did not authentically reflect those of the fourth century Bishop of Hippo. The term,

in the context in which it is used here, was not recorded prior to the 1260s.366

Those who embraced Aristotelianism were commonly referred to as ‘Latin

Averroists’ by their contemporaries but are retrospectively classified as ‘Radical

Aristotelians’ by some modern historians such as John Wippel.367 This movement is

characterized most notably by secular masters such as Siger of Brabant (1240-1284) and

Boethius of Dacia (1240-?). The works of Aristotle, Arabic commentators such as

Averroes, and other pre-Christian philosophers influenced the members of this school of

thought to varying degrees. Scholars have noted that the Latin Averroists, such as Siger,

had a tendency to use Aristotle’s voice to qualify what their reasoning had produced.368

This may well be because of the contradictory nature of their conclusions and the sensitive issues they touched upon.

The third distinctive group consisted primarily of Thomas Aquinas and a largely

Dominican support-base. Consisting of Oxford Dominicans like Richard Knapwell

(fl.1282-1286), William Macclesfield, Robert Orford (fl. 1278-1290), and Thomas Sutton

(fl. 1277-1303), as well as Parisian supporters such as Bernard of Trillia (c.1240-1292)

365 Ibid.

366 Daniel A. Callus, The Condemnation of St. Thomas at Oxford (Oxford: Blackfriars, 1955), 4.

367 Wippel, 14.

368 Ibid., 35.

133 and Giles of Lessines (c.1230-1304).369 The intellectual current that produced and supported Thomas Aquinas and the early ‘Thomistic’ school was characterized primarily by the progressive members of the Dominican Order.370 From as early as the 1240s, and especially since 1259, the Dominican Order had gradually become more engaging of the newly discovered Aristotelian works, or ‘New Logic,’371 Many of these works had been incorporated into the syllabi of their studia generale and provincial programs of study for logic and natural philosophy had become more common since the mid thirteenth century.

As discussed in the previous chapter, much of this had been owed to the extensive work of Albert the Great. Albert’s cataloging of, and commentaries on, Aristotle’s works had been largely responsible for the order’s acceptance and understanding of the Greek

Philosopher and his Arab commentators.372 Thomas Aquinas was the product of this

Dominican education and a pupil of Albert the Great.

Thomas had entered the order in 1243 and studied first at the general house in

Paris until left for Cologne in 1248 with his mentor, Albert.373 After assisting in the foundation of the new studium generale in Cologne, he returned to Paris in 1252 where he lectured as a Bachelor on both the Bible and the Sentences from 1252-1255, and began his writing career by composing commentaries on the latter in 1253.374 He received his

369 Roensch, Early Thomistic School (Dibuque, Priory Press,1964), 34-35,40-41,47-46, 84.

370 Copleston, 216.

371 Wippel, 8.

372 Mulchahey, 256.

373 Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 132-133.

374 Ibid.,133.

134 masters in theology from Paris in 1256.375 Thomas twice held a chair of theology in

Paris, first from 1257-1259 and again from 1269-1272.376 He also pioneered a provincial theology school at Santa Sabina from 1265-1269.377 An extensive discussion of Thomas’ writings is impractical here for the fact that they were so numerous and on such a wide variety of topics, but some of his most influential works include the Summa Contra

Gentilies (c.1260) and the Summa Theologiae (c.1265-1273).

The historically significant achievement of Thomas Aquinas was to singlehandedly construct a new school of thought that encompassed both Aristotelian philosophy and Christian theology without discrediting or sacrificing the fundamentals of either.378 Thomas’ work represented a broad array of influences. He synthesized elements of Aristotelianism, Neoplatonism, the works of Augustine, and various Arab thinkers while infused them with his own original thought.379 It should also be mentioned here that Thomas’ mentor in the Order of Preachers was none other than the renowned

Aristotelian commentator Albert the Great, whom Thomas studied under in Cologne from

1248-1252.380 The fields that Thomism encompassed were as broad as broad as his influences. Thomas work included the subjects of theology, metaphysics, psychology,

375 Ibid.

376 Hackett, 42, Hinnebusch Intellectual and Cultural Life, 133.

377 Mulchahey, 278-306.

378 Copleston, 303,;Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 134-135.

379 Hackett, 40;Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 135.

380 Hackett, 41.

135

epistemology, moral philosophy and political theory. Key to the success of Thomas work,

particularly in his discourses with his Parisian colleagues, was his treatment of the reason

and revelation.

The Question of Philosophy

In the latter half of the thirteenth century the University of Paris became an arena

for an intense debate among the Christian world’s leading theologians and philosophers.

The introduction of a new corpus of Aristotelian texts that had been introduced by way of

Arabic commentators had created controversy in Christian intellectual circles. For

centuries the Christian world had cultivated a very solid system of thought in which

theology and philosophy, while not inseparable, were strongly intertwined.381 In the

minds of seminal Christian thinkers like Augustine (354-430), and later Anselm (1033-

1109), philosophical reasoning was useful to aid the understanding of what had been

revealed by God to be true.382 But not all thinkers of the Christian world would hold this

view.

With the introduction of new Aristotelian texts, Christian thinkers were exposed

to a new philosophical system of reasoned reflection upon the world, and the universe,

that was strongly independent of theology.383 At the University of Paris, the discussion of

this issue became particularly more intensified c.1255 when the university imposed a

381 Copleston, 5 and 208; John F. Wippel, Mediaeval Reactions to the Encounter between Faith and Reason, (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1995), 2-8.

382 Copleston, 6,; Wippel , 4.

383 Copelston,, 208.

136

statute requiring all members of the Arts faculty to read the entire Aristotelian corpus.384

Aristotelian concepts such as unity of form theory and the eternal existence of the world held implications that contradicted many of the long accepted Christian doctrines such as the independence of the soul from the physical body and the creation of the world by God in time. Furthermore, some lines of Aristotelian reasoning held different implications regarding to the nature of God that contradicted Christian theology. Whereas these

This issue of the conflict between the reason of Aristotelianism and the

authoritive revelation of theology divided thinkers everywhere in the Christian world, and the faculty of the University of Paris was no exception. The university boasted a particularly dynamic group of thinkers from the 1250s through the 1270s, all of whom had variant opinions regarding theology and philosophy. Differing intellectual attitudes toward Aristotelianism created allegiances that developed into three distinct schools of thought. What is more, they seem to have been generally divided along the lines of religious orders and secular masters.385

Thinkers of the more traditional and theologically conservative mindset were, and

often still are, referred to as ‘Augustinians.’ This school of thought was greatly

characteristic of the Franciscans, such as Bonaventure (1217-1274), as well as some of

384 Mulchahey, 222; Wippel, 12.

385 Copelston, 216.

137 the older Dominicans, such as Robert Kilwardby (1215-1279).386 The attitudes of these thinkers varied in how they regarded Aristotelianism, ranging from total rejection to a partial acceptance.387 It is important to note that though this conglomerated opposition may have rallied behind the banner of Augustine’s name against Aristotelianism, their views did not authentically reflect those of the fourth century Bishop of Hippo. The term, in the context in which it is used here, was not recorded prior to the 1260s.388

Those who embraced Aristotelianism were commonly referred to as ‘Latin

Averroists’ by their contemporaries but are retrospectively classified as ‘Radical

Aristotelians’ by some modern historians such as John Wippel.389 This movement is characterized most notably by Parisian secular masters such as Siger of Brabant (1240-

1284) and Boethius of Dacia (1240-?). The works of Aristotle, Arabic commentators such as Averroes, and other pre-Christian philosophers influenced the members of this school of thought to varying degrees. Scholars have noted that the Latin Averroists, such as

Siger, had a tendency to use Aristotle’s voice to qualify what their reasoning had produced.390 This may well be because of the contradictory nature of their conclusions and the sensitive issues they touched upon.

386 Ibid., 216-217.

387 Ibid.

388 Daniel A. Callus, The Condemnation of St. Thomas at Oxford (Oxford: Blackfriars, 1955), 4.

389 Wippel, 14.

390 Ibid., 35.

138

The third distinctive group consisted primarily of Thomas Aquinas and a largely

Dominican support-base. Consisting of Oxford Dominicans like Richard Knapwell

(fl.1282-1286), William Macclesfield, Robert Orford (fl. 1278-1290), and Thomas Sutton

(fl. 1277-1303), as well as Parisian supporters such as Bernard of Trillia (c.1240-1292) and Giles of Lessines (c.1230-1304).391 The intellectual current that produced and supported Thomas Aquinas and the early ‘Thomistic’ school was characterized primarily by the progressive members of the Dominican Order.392 From as early as the 1240s, and especially since 1259, the Dominican Order had gradually become more engaging of the newly discovered Aristotelian works, or ‘New Logic,’393 Many of these works had been incorporated into the syllabi of their studia generale and provincial programs of study for logic and natural philosophy had become more common since the mid thirteenth century.

Philosopher and his Arab commentators.394 Thomas Aquinas was the product of this

Dominican education and a pupil of Albert the Great.

391 Roensch, Early Thomistic School (Dibuque, Priory Press,1964), 34-35,40-41,47-46, 84.

392 Copleston, 216.

393 Wippel, 8.

394 Mulchahey, 256.

139

Thomas had entered the order in 1243 and studied first at the general house in

Paris until left for Cologne in 1248 with his mentor, Albert.395 After assisting in the foundation of the new studium generale in Cologne, he returned to Paris in 1252 where he lectured as a Bachelor on both the Bible and the Sentences from 1252-1255, and began his writing career by composing commentaries on the latter in 1253.396 He received his masters in theology from Paris in 1256.397 Thomas twice held a chair of theology in

Paris, first from 1257-1259 and again from 1269-1272.398 He also pioneered a provincial theology school at Santa Sabina from 1265-1269.399 An extensive discussion of Thomas writings is impractical here for the fact that they were so numerous and on such a wide variety of topics, but some of his most influential works include the Summa Contra

Gentilies (c.1260) and the Summa Theologiae (c.1265-1273).

The historically significant achievement of Thomas Aquinas was to singlehandedly construct a new school of thought that encompassed both Aristotelian philosophy and Christian theology without discrediting or sacrificing the fundamentals of either.400 Thomas’ work represented a broad array of influences. He synthesized elements of Aristotelianism, Neoplatonism, the works of Augustine, and various Arab thinkers

395 Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 132-133.

396 Ibid.,133.

397 Ibid.

398 Hackett, 42, Hinnebusch Intellectual and Cultural Life, 133.

399 Mulchahey, 278-306.

400 Copleston, 303,;Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 134-135.

140 while infused them with his own original thought.401He had presumably been influenced by Albert the Great since he had studied under him in Cologne.

The fields that Thomism encompassed were as broad as broad as his influences.

Thomas work included the subjects of theology, metaphysics, psychology, epistemology, moral philosophy and political theory. Key to the success of Thomas work, particularly in his discourses with his Parisian colleagues, was his treatment of the reason and revelation.

The Thomistic Approach to Reason and Revelation

Thomas approached philosophy and metaphysics in a very Aristotelian manner.

Aristotle’s approach to philosophy had been to reach his conclusions through an objective observation of the world that existed around him. Like Aristotle, Thomas first observed a thing or a being and then based his conclusions strictly upon the indications of what he had seen.402 For this reason, Thomas made a much clearer distinction between theology and philosophy than had previously existed in Christian thought.403 Thomas did not presuppose a premise and then mold his observations of reality to fit into it like previous

Christian thinkers such as Augustine and Anselm, or his Augustinian contemporaries such as Bonaventure. Be this as it may, Thomas did not dismiss the authority of revelation or challenge the doctrine of the church. Unlike the Latin Averroists, such as

401 Hackett, 40;Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 135.

402 Copelston, 308.

403 Ibid., 312.

141

Siger of Brabant, he did not accept all conclusions reached by reason as necessary truths.

In this way, Thomas not only rectifies the tension between Aristotelianism and

Christianity, but also gives greater value to what it means to truly have faith, and,

additionally, identifies reason as a motivation to seek God. To fully demonstrate this, it

may be helpful to contrast Thomas’ approach to the issue with that of the Bonaventure

and Siger.

Bonaventure, like his fellow Augustinians, favored a more traditional approach in

theology that was rooted in faith. Bonaventure relied on revelation to provide him with

the conclusions of questions in advance, the polar opposite of both Aristotle and Thomas.

For Bonaventure, philosophy and the tools of reasoning it provided were a way to better understand what was already evident. 404 Some might make the case that Bonaventure did

not separate theology and philosophy, but he seems to have recognized at least some

distinction between the two according to remarks in his Breviloquiom (c.1255-1257).

Theology is the only perfect science, for it begins at the beginning, which is the first Principle, and proceeds to the end . . . .Theology is also the only perfect wisdom, for it begins with the supreme Cause, considered as the Principle of all things made. This is the point where philosophical knowledge ends, whereas theology goes on to consider this same. 405

It would seem then that Bonaventure did see a separation of theology and philosophy,

though appealed unquestioningly to the former.

A good example of Bonaventure’s reasoning comes from his commentary on

Lombard’s Sentences (c.1250-155). This work predates the years of more intense debate

404 Hackett, 124.

405 Bonaventure, Breviloquium, 1.1-1.3, (Patterson: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1963), http://www.catholic.uz. tl_files/library/books/Bonaventure_breviloquium, (accessed on 3/20/2011).

142

in the late 1260s when the Augustinian reaction against Radical Aristotelians became

more charged, but it very clearly illustrates how Bonaventure and the Augustinians

viewed theology and philosophy. The subject Bonaventure is addressing is perceived

eternal existence of the world. The idea that the world had always existed and will always

exist infinitely was problematic for the Christian doctrine of the creation of the world in

time. Bonaventure’s motivation for attacking the argument is that its implications

contradict the scriptures and the Christian theological doctrine regarding God’s nature.

Bonaventure’s goal is simply discredit the argument by dismissing it as absurd, leaving

the best alternative in revelatory doctrine.

In this work, Bonaventure addressed Aristotelian arguments for the eternity of the world such as every moment being a past and future and the need a first cause or a ‘prime mover’ from which to proceed, but he dismisses them as blasphemous and impossible.406

While Bonaventure admits that God ultimately qualifies as such a ‘prime mover’ in His

eternal nature, Bonaventure holds that if God begins to produce then His passing from

rest into act would subject Him to mutability.407 Bonaventure then states his main

contention, that this indication contradicts Gods ultimate goodness and absolute

simplicity.408

406 Bonaventure, In II Sent. d.1, p.1 a.1, q2. Translated by Cyril Volert, Lottie Kendzierski, Paul Byrne, in On the Eternity of the World: (De Aeternitate Mundi), (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1964), 106.

407 Ibid., 107.

408 Ibid., 108.

143

Bonaventure attempts to refute the notion of the world’s infinite nature on philosophical premises of the impossibility of adding to the infinite, the impossibility of an infinite-in-number to be ordered, and the impossibility to traverse the infinite, the impossibility of the infinite to be grasped by a finite power, the impossibility of a simultaneously infinite number of things, and finally the impossibility of a thing that proceeds from non-being to exist eternally.409 Bonaventure concludes that to hold to the eternity of the world or the notion that all things produce eternally from nothing is therefore “entirely against truth and reason.”410 To further his point, Bonaventure makes use of a simile, maintaining that if a foot and its imprint in the dust were co-eternal, the foot would still precede the imprint.411 Toward the end of his analysis, Bonaventure acknowledges the reasonableness of the arguments for the eternal world and states that even “that outstanding philosopher, Aristotle, fell into this error.”412

Siger of Brabant and the Latin Averroists favored a completely different approach than that of Bonaventure and the Augustinians and arrived at staunchly different conclusions. Siger’s style and his position on a similar subject are exemplified in his work De Aeternitae Mundi (c.1270-1272).413 Throughout this text Siger appeals extensively to the authority of Aristotle and makes use of Aristotelian concepts such as the nature of universals and the generation of species. He does not openly admit to

409 Ibid., 108-109.

410 Ibid., 109.

411 Ibid. 110.

412 Ibid.

413 Cyril Volert, ed., On the Eternity of the World, 77.

144

seeking a refutation revelation though he does refute arguments that resemble those of the

Augustinian theologians. Nowhere in the text does he claim any of his conclusions as his

own opinions, instead he prefers to accredit the results of his reasoning to what the

philosophers would have said. He further removes himself from the conclusion, giving it

a feel of objectivity, claiming that the conclusion is evident because of the ‘necessary’

proceedings of the arguments reason.

Similar to Bonaventure, Siger frames his text with arguments that he is seeking to

refute. He acknowledges arguments that would lead one to conclude the world began in

time, or more specifically that all species having a beginning in time. These arguments

that Siger addresses rest on the premise that all species and universals exist in singulars,

which all have individual beginnings, therefore if God created singulars, then universals

must have had a indeed began in time.414 Siger refutes the argument regarding species by

pointing out that the human species must indeed be eternal as all individual humans

depend on a preceding human for their existence. He then refers to Aristotle by

explaining that universals exist primarily as a concept of the mind.415 Siger also cites the

Aristotelian commentator, Averroes, who defined universals as intelligibles, not as

beings.416

414 Siger of Brabant, “De Aeternitae Mundi,” Trans. by Cyril Volert, Lottie Kendzierski, and Paul Byrne, in On the Eternity of the World: (De Aeternitate Mundi), (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1964), 84- 86.

415 Ibid., 88.

416 Ibid., 89.

145

Siger then explains that generation is an act, and as an act it must be preceded by potency, therefore, numerically speaking, there must be an infinite species of man. For if man or the universe were caused in time, then potency would precede the act.417 Siger holds, again citing Aristotle, that potential man must exist eternally for potency not to precede act, but God as a ‘prime mover’ is also eternal. “For, just as God always exists, according to Aristotle, so also does the potential man, since he is regarded as prime matter.”418

Siger did not seek to disprove a competing set of conclusions for fear of its implications as Bonaventure did. Siger sought to prove his conclusion by demonatrating it to be necessarily true. The wording in which Siger concludes his argument is as follows: It is necessary to hold that there is a being in act, there is a being in potency

from which it proceeds into act, so also before being in potency there is a being in act which educes itself from potentiality to act. . . In the order of things it is necessary to hold that there is a being in act which educes into act what is potency, since the being in potency from which it is made does not precede it, as is evident.419

Though he detaches himself from his argument by citing Aristotle and Averroes, and utilizes phrases such as “according to philosophers,420” Siger sought to use reason alone as a path to truth in the realms of physics and metaphysics. As the Augustinians based their premises on the authority of revelation, one might infer that Siger’s method and

417 Ibid., 91-95.

418 Ibid., 95.

419 Ibid.

420 Ibid., 84.

146

language give equal authority to reason. Thomas Aquinas, however, saw such an attitude

as a leap of faith in and of itself.

Thomas was serving his second term as a chair of theology at the University of

Paris while debates of this nature were raging. Thomas agreed with Bonaventure’s faith,

but not his method. Similarly, he agreed with Siger’s basic use of reason, but not the

necessity of his conclusions. Key to Thomas’ synthesizing of philosophy and theology

was how he defined what constituted a ‘necessary’ truth. Furthermore, in doing so,

Thomas touched upon what he considered to be the real meaning of faith and how it

could work with reason to drive man to God.

Thomas treated the issue of the eternity of the world vs. its creation in time concisely yet thoroughly in his Summa Contra Gentiles (c.1260), seemingly leaving no aspect of it unexplored. The ultimate issue that he took with the argument as it had been represented by both the Augustinians and the Latin Averroists was that they both took great liberties in determining the will of God. One such example reads from his introduction to the topic. “A thing caused by God cannot have existed forever, because such a position would imply that passive potentiality has always existed, which is heretical. However, this does not require the conclusion that God cannot bring it about that some being should exist forever.”421 In short, Thomas held that God operated beyond

the realm of human understanding. Simply because God did not have to create the world

421 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, in On the Eternity of the World: (De Aeternitate Mundi), edited by Cyril Vollert, Lottie Kendzierski, and Paul Byrne, (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1964), 19.

147

in time did not mean that He did not choose to do so. Thomas claimed confidently the

following:

I answer that we must hold firmly that the world has not always existed, as the Catholic faith teaches. And this truth cannot be effectively attacked by any demonstration based on physics. . .we must understand . . . that in God’s activity we cannot assign any necessity on the part of material cause, or on the part of active power, or on the part of the last end, but only on the part of the form which is the end of the operation. 422

Throughout his career Thomas recognized arguments that contradicted the faith as legitimate uses of reason, if they were made well, but remained confident that none of these contradictions would ever be proved to be a ‘necessary’ truth. In the event that such an argument claimed necessity, Thomas was certain it could be demonstrated as a faulty use of reason or an abuse of philosophy.423 In this way, Thomas’ system allowed for a

free use of legitimate and responsible philosophical reasoning while holding firmly to

one’s faith and religious conviction.

Thomas did not view reason as something that should destroy man’s belief in

God. In fact, he saw it as a tool to strengthen it. As Thomas saw reason to be an

inadequate as a destroyer of faith, he saw its inability to prove the doctrines of revelation

as a bolster to faith. “Sacred doctrine, also makes use of human reason, not, indeed, to

prove faith (for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear other

things that are set forth in this doctrine.”424 It was precisely because God existed beyond

422 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, 50.

423 Wippel, 30.

424 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Q.1. Art. 8., in Introduction to Thomas Aquinas, ed. Anton Pegis, (New York: Modern Library, 1948), 15.

148

the realm of human reason that Thomas saw the true meaning of faith and value in

revelation. A closer reading from Thomas’ highly influential work Summa Theologiae

(c.1265-1273) offers a closer look into his thoughts on the subject.

Revelation, as Thomas saw it, was a tool to wet the appetite of man’s intellect. It

was from a glimpse of what existed beyond the realm of reason and would pull man to

God by virtue of his curiosity. “It was necessary for man’s salvation that there should be

a knowledge revealed by God, besides what the philosophical sciences investigated by

human reason. . . because man is directed to God as to an end that surpasses the grasp of

reason.”425 Thomas also saw this as the necessity for theology, the sacred science of revelation.

Theology, the sacred science of revelation, was indeed a legitimate science in

Thomas view, but utterly separate from the philosophy of human reason. “As other

sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue in their principles to

demonstrate other truths in these sciences, so this doctrine does not argue in proof of

these principles.”426 Theology for Thomas was a higher science. One that was meant to

explain the mysteries of faith, but not one that could fully explained by reason.427 It was an aid to the contemplation of God and the divine.

Finally, in regard to the subject of Thomas and his views on the relationship

between reason and revelation, one more thing must be addressed. It is also perhaps the

425 Ibid., Q 1. Art. 1 , 4.

426 Ibid., Q. 1. art.8, 24.

427 Ibid.

149 most evident example of the influence of Dominican spirituality in Thomas’ thought.

Thomas believed that mans ultimate happiness was in the contemplation of God. All human motives and actions, Thomas argued, are directed toward achieving happiness.428

However, Thomas argued that man’s ultimate happiness lay not in the passions of this life, but with God. “All other operations,” Thomas argued, “are to this end.”429

Joy in the seeking of God through contemplation, as both a motivator to see God and a motivator of actions resulting thereof, is the key to the Dominican spirituality. One may be reminded of St. Dominic himself in the biographies written by the early

Dominicans spending hours after dark in contemplative prayer and study. One may be reminded of Dominic’s tears of joy and beating of his breast in the eighth way of prayer from the anonymously written 9 Ways of Prayer. Thomas’ words at the end of the thirteenth century come full circle here with Dominic’s teachings at the beginning. What

Thomas had provided his order with here was the freedom from what he saw as a false conflict between faith and reason. Furthermore, he had provided an entirely new. exhaustive body of material from which to draw both inspiration and information.

Thomas’ contribution to the Christian world overall was system of theology and philosophy working harmoniously with one another. The apostolic value of the newly formed aristocracy of schoolmen in the Order of Preachers was now apparent.

428 Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Contra Gentiles, XXXVII, in Introduction to Thomas Aquinas,, 453

429 Ibid., 453-454.

150

Condemnations

Thomas Aquinas died in 1274. Despite the legacy that Thomas left the world, his

work required significant defense not only during his lifetime, but also after his death. In

1270, a Franciscan lead condemnation of thirteen principles held by Latin Averroists was

initiated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris (d.1279). The major proponents of this

condemnation were John Pecham (d.1292), who was then serving as the regent master of

the Parisian Franciscans, and Bonaventure, who was then the Minister General of the

Franciscan Order.430 A 1270 letter from the Dominican Giles of Lessines to Albert the

Great has provided historians with some evidence that there were some attempts being made to include some of Thomas’ theses on the immateriality of spiritual substances and

the Unity of Form to the condemned teachings of the Latin Averroists, though this

apparently did not happen as none are included in the condemnation that took place on

December 10, 1270.431

A second, more extensive, condemnation occurred in Paris four years after

Thomas’ death on March 7, 1277, again by Bishop Tempier. This time there were 219

propositions to be condemned including several Thomistic theses. A few days later on

March 18 of the same year, Thomist teachings were the specific target of yet another

condemnation, this time at Oxford. The Oxford attack was initiated this time by a

member of Thomas’ own order. Robert Kilwardby, the then Archbishop of Canterbury,

condemned a number of Thomistic theses including several on the subject of the Unity of

430 Callus,2-13; Roensch, 11.

431 Callus,13.

151

Form, a subject absent from the current Parisian Condemnation. Kilwardby, an

Augustinian at heart, had considered the teachings of Aristotle early in his career but

ultimately decided in favor of more traditional thinking. Dominican historian Daniel

Callus suggests that Kilwardby seems to have been out of touch with the majority of the

change Thomism had brought about. Callus infers that upon his sudden discovery of the

Thomistic ideas later in his career, Kilwardby reacted so strongly out of utter shock.432

Thomas’ Unity of Form theory was, in short, that man consists of one substantial

form, “the intellective soul,” which is simultaneously human, animal, vegetative and

corporeal.433 According to this thesis, man is therefore an individual only in this unified

state, and only because of this unity. This differed from the traditional pluralist view,

which separates the soul from the physical body.434 Thus the unified soul was considered

to be problematic by some theologians in regard to the possible implications it held for

issues such as Christ’s resurrection, the Eucharist, the veneration of the relics of saints

and other such doctrine.435

Kilwardby took little further action on the matter as he was called to the role of

Cardinal Bishop of Porto and forced to resign his post to reside in the Papal Curia. In an

interesting turn of events, it was none other than John Pecham, the outspoken

Augustinian and proponent of the 1270 condemnation in Paris, who was appointed to

432 Callus, 15.

433 Roensch, Early Thomistic School, 201.

434 Thomas Bokekotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church, (New York: Image Books, 2005), 166- 162.

435 Callus, The Condemnation of St. Thomas at Oxford, 21.;Roensch, Early Thomistic School, 202.

152

take Kilwarby’s place as Archbishop in 1279. As one might presume, he went

enthusiastically forth with the condemnation.

Callus’s deconstruction of the grounds upon which Pecham attacked the

Thomistic theory exhibit very flawed premises. For one, Pecham labeled Thomas’ theory a “presumptuous novelty,” in effect claiming it was an oddity exclusive to Thomistic thought. Callus points out that this was not necessarily true as Pecham’s accusation assumes a universal consensus of the pluralist view, when it had in fact been debated at many universities including Oxford, and had been given many varying treatments by numerous intellectuals including Bonaventure.436 Pecham also condemned the Unity of

Form theory as being “of suspect origin,” attempting to insinuate there were connections

with Radical Aristotelianism. This is also not the case as Thomas had taken this theory directly from Aristotle’s original works.437 Pecham further claimed the theory was in

direct opposition to the teachings of Augustine, though the truth was that the fourth

century bishop of Hippo never addressed the unified soul, or even promoted the pluralist

theory which really been the work of the Jewish philosopher Avicebron.438

Numerous Oxford Dominicans stepped up in defense of Thomas’ teachings,

Richard Knapwell (fl.1282-1286), William Macclesfield, Robert Orford (fl. 1278-1290) and Thomas Sutton (fl. 1277-1303). Knapwell’s defense is noted by historians as particularly elegant. Knapwell proceeded in a manner very representative of the late

436 Callus, The Condemnation of St. Thomas at Oxford 23.

437 Ibid., 27.

438 Ibid, 21.

153

Thomas Aquinas.439 He never directly attacked the positions of his opponent’s doctrines, but rather defended the plausibility of Thomas’ thesis by responded to the criticisms of the Pecham and another Franciscan challenger named William de la Mare.440 Still, the

Franciscan led opposition won the day and Knapwell was excommunicated for his

support of the Thomistic theory in 1286.441 The actions taken against Thomism, and

Thomists such as Knapwell for that matter, seems curiously harsh, particularly as the

results of the Parisian condemnation were overturned in 1325 by Bishop Sptephen de

Bouret, whereas the results of the Oxford condemnation were not overturned until

1914.442

The real significance of the Oxford condemnation is that it demonstrates more

than a rift between schools of thought, but also the mendicant orders themselves. Callus

makes the point that the Dominican order took the attack on Thomas very personally, as

an attack upon their order as a whole.443 This is an interesting reaction since the initial

attack had been made by one of their own, albeit one who was of an older generation and

arguably somewhat out of touch with the intellectual developments of the recent decades.

Either way, a significant number of Dominicans had begun to identify with Thomas

Aquinas and also with his school of thought that would come to be known as ‘Thomism.’

439 Callus, The Condemnation of St. Thomas at Oxford 29; Roensch, Early Thomistic School, 203..

440 Callus, The Condemnation of St. Thomas at Oxford 33; Roensch, Early Thomistic School, 201-215.

441 Ibid., 33.

442 Ibid.

443 Ibid., 30.

154

Callus does not discuss the atmosphere between the two orders, which was somewhat

tumultuous at the time for reasons besides the ideology conflict.

The Franciscan Order had suffered a rift over the issue of evangelical poverty in

the 1270s. The 1274 council of Lyons marked the height of the intensity, but the debate

remained until the end of the thirteenth century.444 Religious poverty and its proper

practice was not only a major point of the contention among Franciscans, but was also a

topic that had fostered sensitivities between them and the Dominican Order as well.445

The Dominicans practice of “corporate poverty,” budgeting for communal

libraries, gardens, beds and cells to study in as well as allowing personal possessions such

as books. This far exceeded the food, clothing and modest huts that some Franciscans

held as the maximum allowance for religious poverty, and thus drew their criticisms.

Robert Kilwardby himself had, in his well known 1270 Letter to Dominican Novices, struck back at Dominican criticisms without naming them outright. He championed the

Dominican apostolic mission as an end justifying the means. In the eyes of Kilwardby and the Dominican Order, poverty was important to their spirituality, but expendable to a degree in favor of the necessary means of study for apostolic purposes. Pecham himself had supposedly responded to this criticism, though no physical record remains to consult.446 The conflict between the mendicant orders, the condemnations of Thomism at

Oxford, and the men common to both instances are all causes for curiosity. One can only

444 Lambert,192.

445 Ibid., 193.

446 Hackett, 260.

155

speculate as to how many different factors motivated Pecham’s actions when he took

over the role of Archbishop for Kilwardby.

The particular harshness of the Condemnation at Oxford also illustrated how

much the Dominican Order had come to identify itself with Thomism. If Kilwardby is

indeed the oddity that Callus alleges him to be, the reaction of the Oxford Dominicans

identifies him as the exception that proves the rule. The idea that Pecham’s harsh perpetuation of the condemnation may have been, to some degree, motivated by the

Franciscan Order’s identity crisis would make sense in that many Franciscans likely sought to solidify their own identity and could do so through an attack upon an icon of their competitors. Thomas was obviously not universally accepted as the doctor of his order yet, but he was well on his way. Thomas was an object to be targeted as well as the subject of passionate defense. History has nonetheless indisputably ruled in favor of

Aquinas, and not Bonaventure, Kilwardby or Pecham as having the strongest influence and the most lasting legacy in Catholic as well as secular thought.

Conclusion: Dominican Identity Fulfilled

There may be no doubt that Thomas was the product of the highly developed

Dominican system of higher education, as well as a member of the new academic aristocracy that had risen within it. Jordan of Saxony’s description of St. Dominic seems appropriate to apply to Thomas as well, in that his mind was a ‘storehouse of divine things.’447 Thomas represented his order extremely well as a prolific writer and two-time

regent master, as well as in his debates with the Augustinians and the Latin Averroists.

447 Jordan, 7.,10.

156

One might justifiably infer that Thomas and the Thomistic school may quite justifiably be

understood as the zenith of the Dominican Order’s gradual embrace of Aristotelian

philosophy as well as its emphasis on higher education throughout the thirteenth century.

One would be hard-pressed to claim that Thomas does not signify, at least to some enduring extent, the values and ideals of the Dominican Order.

Still, Thomas’ true shining moment of Dominican ideals probably stems from his

subtle diffusion of the faith-reason issue, and his implication that reason itself could lead

man to God. Thomas had at last found a way to turn the contemplative energy of the

university into an apostolic energy. After all, one of Humbert’s main positions held in

Treatise on the Formation of Preachers wass the need to preach to variant audiences.

One might make the case that, in a way, Thomas’ audience was the intellectuals of the

academic aristocracy itself. In a much different environment of ideological conflict,

Thomas publicly defended of the faith, refuted opponents, and did so through boundless

displays of intellect. In a sense one might say he was the academic realization of the

Dominican preacher-tradition.

157

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albertus, Bonhomme, Florent, Thomas Aquinas, Pete. “Statues on Studies for the Order of Preachers: Presented at the general chapter meeting of Valenciennes, the beginning of June”, 1259. Translated by Fr. Richard Schenk O.P., Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, CA, 2010.

Amos, Thomas, Eugene A. Green and Beverly Mayne Kienzel. De Oro Domini: Preacher and Word in the Middle Ages. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 1989.

Ashley, Benedict. Dictionnaire de Spiritualite, Editions Beauchesne “The Friars Preachers” English Translation. http://www.domcentral.org/study/ashley/ ds00intr.htm (accessed on 7/15/2009).

Augustine, “Letter 211.” Translated by G.J. Cunningham, from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol. 1 Edited by Phillip Schaff, Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102211.htm (accessed on, 7/25/2009).

Bennet, R.F. The Early Dominicans: Studies in Thirteenth-Century Dominican History. 2nd ed. New York: Russel and Russel, 1971.

Bokenkotter, Thomas. A Concise History of the Catholic Church. Rev.ed New York: Image Books, 2005.

Bonaventure. The Breviloquium. Translated by Jose de Vinck. Patterson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1963. http://agnuz.info/tl_files/library/books/Bonaventure breviloquium (accessed on 3/20/2011).

Brooke, C. N. L. St. Dominic and His First Biographer.Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, vol.17 (Nov. 1967): 23-40

Callus, Daniel Angelo Philip. The Condemnation of St. Thomas at Oxford: A Paper Read to the Aquinas Society of London on 24th April, 1946. Oxford: Blackfriars, 1955.

Constable, Giles. The Reformation of the Twelfth Century: The Trevelyan Lectures Given at the University of Cambridge, 1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Copelston, Frederick. Medieval Philosophy: From Augustine to Duns Scotus. vol. 2 of A History of Philosophy. 1962. Reprint, Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1993.

158

______. Late Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy. vol. 3 of A History of Philosophy. 1962. Reprint, Garden City, N.Y.: Image Books, 1993.

d’Avray, D. L. The Preaching of the Friars: Sermons Diffused From Paris Before 1300. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.

Emery, Richard. “The Second Council of Lyons and the Mendicant Orders.” The Catholic Historical Review, no. 3 (October 1953): 257-271.

Gerard de Frachet. Lives of the Brethren. Edited by Placid Conway. Translated by Bede Jarrett. London: Burns Oates and Washbourne Ltd., 1924.

Hackett, Jeremiah. Medieval Philosophers. Detroit: Gale Research, 1992.

Hinnebusch, John Frederick, William Bertrand Ryan, and Raymond Smith. The Dominican Preacher. [Washington, DC]: Office of the Promoter of Preaching, Dominican Province of St. Joseph, 1992.

Hinnebusch, William. Origins and Growth to 1500, vol. 1 of The History of the Dominican Order. Staten Island: Alba House, 1965.

______. Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, vol. 2 of The History of the Dominican Order. Staten Island: Alba House, 1965.

______. Dominican Spirituality: Principles and Practice. Washington D.C. : Thomist Press, 1965. http//www.domcentral.org/trad/domspirit/spirit0.5.htm. (Accessed on 9/7/2009).

______. “How The Dominican Order Faced its Crises.” Review for the Religious, (June 1973): 1307-1321.

______. “Poverty in the Order of Preachers.” The Catholic Historical Review, no. 4 (Jan. 1960): 436-453

Humbert of Romans. The Explanation of the Rule of St. Augustine. Translated by Members of Saint Dominic’s Convent, Jersey City. Akron: D.H. McBride, 1900.

______. Treatise on Preaching. Edited by Walter M. Conlon. Translated by Dominican Students Province of Saint Joseph. Text from the 1951 Newman Press edition. http://dominicanidaho.org/humbert.pdf (accessed on 10/11/2009)

Hugh of St. Cher. Opera omnia in universum Vetus & Novum Testamentum. Lugduni: J.A. Huguetan & G. Barbier, 1967.

159

Lambert, Malcolm. Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to the Reformation. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000.

Lehner, Francis C. Saint Dominic, Biographical Documents. Washington DC: Thomist Press, 1964.

Little, Lester K. Religious Poverty and Profit Economy in Medieval Europe. 1978. Reprint, Ithica: Cornell Paperbacks, 1992.

Mandonnet, Pierre. St. Dominic and His Work. Edited by M.H. Vicaire. Translated by Sister Mary Benedicta Larkin, O.P. St. Louis: B. Herder, 1945.

Mulchahey, M. Michele. “First the Bow is Bent in Study. . .”: Dominican Education Before 1350. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1998.

Roensch, Frederick J. Early Thomistic School. Dubuque, Iowa: Priory Press, 1964.

Rossenwein, Barbara H., and Little, Lester K. “Social Meaning in the Monastic and Mendicant Spiritualities.” Past and Present, no 63 (May, 1974): 4-32.

Showalter, Dennis E.. The Business of Salvation: Authority and Representation in the Thirteenth Century. The Catholic Historical Review, no. 4 (Jan, 1973): 556-574.

Thomas, Pegis Anton Charles. Introduction to Saint Thomas Aquinas. New York: Modern Library, 1948.

Thomas, Summa Theologiae: Vol. 44 (2a2ae. 155-170): Well-Tempered Passion. Ed. And Trans. by Thomas Gilby O.P. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

Thomas, Siger, and Bonaventure. On the Eternity of the World; (De Aeternitate Mundi). Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1964.

Thomas, John Proctor, Mark Johnson. St. Thomas Aquinas and the Mendicant Controversies: Three Translations. Leesburg: Alethes Press, 2007.

Touron, Father Anthony. The First Disciples of Saint Dominic. Edited by Victor F. O’Daniel, O.P.. New York: Frederick Putset, 1928.

Tugwell, Simon. ed. Early Dominicans: Selected Writings. New York: Paulist Press, 1982.

160

Vicaire, M.H. Saint Dominic and His Times. Translated by Kathleen Pond. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

Wippel, John F. Mediaeval Reactions to the Encounter between Faith and Reason. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1995.

Workman, Herbert P. The Evolution of the Monastic Ideal. 1913. Reprint, Boston: Beacon, 1962.