What Is Later Franciscan Theology? Ockham and the Early Franciscans 283

Volker Leppin What is Later FranciscanTheology? Ockham and the Early Franciscans

Abstract: Although the traditions of particularreligious orders had an impact on shapingindividual theologies,contemporary debates were influential as well. This can be seen in the case of the Franciscan William of Ockham (d. 1347). While reading the Sentences in Oxford, he developed an understanding of theologythat fit quite well with current debates between the university mastersand the mendicantorders. Though thereare not manyexplicit references to the earlier Franciscans in his work, the few quotations from the Summa Halensis in his Commentaryonthe Sentences can be divided according to those thatattribute the Summa to an anonymous group of scholars who represent abroader consensus opinion, on the one hand, and at least one quote, on the other hand, where Ockham seems to contradict Alexander of Hales’ views on theology. In this case, however,itbecomes clear that Ockham might have known the position of the Summa onlybythe means of other Francis- cans, in particular, William of Alnwick. Thus, speakingabout aFranciscan tradition in the Venerable Inceptor’swork involves speakingabout abroken tradition.

The studyofmedievaltheologygenerallyassumes the importance of the religious orders of the period and the different intellectual traditions associated with them. For example, the Franciscan tradition of thought would begin with Alexander of Hales or the Summa Halensis and lead subsequentlytoBonaventure, Duns Scotus,and Wil- liam of Ockham. Obviously,thereisabasis in the social reality of medieval academic education for reconstructing the history of theologythis way: orders provided study housesfor their members, wherethey receivedtheir initial training in the subject matter.This was true not least of the Franciscans, and it standstoreason that in the Franciscan houses of studies, Franciscans wereread more than scholars working in other traditions. Foratleast two reasons, however,one might query whether this wayoftelling the history of theology, namely,interms of order traditions, is the right one or indeed the onlyright one. The first reason concerns the historiographyofresearch concerning medieval members of the orders.For along time, research in the field of scho- lastic theologywas dominated by scholars who themselves weremembers of apar- ticular order.Thus, the great editions of Dominican authorswereprepared by Dominicans; the editions of key Franciscan works wereprovided by Franciscans. The same is true as regardsresearch about them. In that light,one might ask if the idea of specific order traditions simplyreflects the conditions under which mod- ern research on these traditions was undertaken, thatis, within the religious orders

OpenAccess. ©2021Volker Leppin, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110684827-019 282 Volker Leppin

themselves, which wereconcerned with writing their own history and advancingthe ideas that they themselvesregarded as important. The second reason is that research in recent decades, whether by JacquesLeGoff, Alain de Liberaorothers, has laid astronger emphasis on the social realm of universities as the context for the development of both concepts and methods of thinking in this period.¹ When we approach William of Ockham in this light,wemight ask if the Franciscan school reallyformed the horizon of his thinking,consideringthat we do not find Alexander of Hales and Bonaventure mentioned in the index provided by Franciscan editors to his Quodlibeta,the least restricted theological work thathepro- duced. In terms of Franciscan influences, Ockham’scontemporaries, aboveall, Wal- ter of Chatton (d. 1343), who taught duringOckham’stime in Oxford, seem to be much more at the background of his arguments than such earlier members of the order.Furthermore,one might ask if the problems Ockham discussed werereally raised by his order tradition or if they wereaproduct of the current intellectual situation, e.g. the condemnation of radical Aristotelianism in Paris and England in the 1370s. In light of these considerations, the following will not onlydeal with the question of Ockham’srelationship to the older Franciscan school, but also with the question concerning which motivesingeneral made him think and argueinparticular ways.

The Franciscan Context of Ockham’sTeaching

The life and thinking of William of Ockham shows that there was no real dichotomy between academic training undertaken in the context of an order or in the university context,for asimple reason. As aFranciscan teachingatthe university,Ockham nonetheless livedinthe house of his order and possiblyevenoffered his lectures there. Le Goff has made us aware of the fact that the overall medieval idea of mendicants living in their houses and giving lectures for university studentswas not without problems.² Acertain rivalry arose from the simple fact thatmendicants could give lectures for free while secular masters wereaccustomed to being paidbytheir stu- dents. This economic reality might not have been the onlyreason for the problems between mendicants and secular clerics at medieval universities, but it was one of them. Another possiblereason concerns the fact thatmembers of an order represent- ed acoherent group at the universitywith acertain influenceinits council while secular clerics tendedtobethere as mere individuals.

 Jacques Le Goff, Intellectuals in the Middle Ages,trans. Teresa L. Fagan (Cambridge,MA; Oxford: Blackwell, 1993). Alain de Libera, La philosophie médiévale (Paris:Presses Universitaires de France, 2017).  Le Goff, Intellectuals in the Middle Ages. What is Later Franciscan Theology? Ockham and the Early Franciscans 283

There is evidence of conflicts between the two groups not onlyinParis, which has been the focus of Le Goff’sanalysis,but also in Oxford. In fact,the main agents there werenot the Franciscans but the Dominicans, though there is some reason to assume that the two mendicant orders shared some common interests.³ These derivedinpart from the exemption they enjoyedwhen it came to taking the equivalent to an undergraduatedegree in the faculty of arts in Oxford. By papal decree, the university had to accept thosebrothers who had attended an arts course in their order’sstudyhouse,asfor example Ockham might have done.⁴ This was particularlyimportant for the Dominicans who werenot allowed to studythe arts at the university.⁵ Now,asweknow from an appellation of the Dom- inicans written in 1311, the university council in the beginning of the 14th century gave new power to astatute of 1252 thatdid not allow anyone to attend ahigher faculty at Oxford who had not graduated from the facultyofarts.⁶ Onlyamajorityofall regent masters of the university was able to free an indi- vidual of this requirement. Furthermore, decisions on this scorehad to be taken on acase-by-case basis, which meant thatseveral times, the mastersactuallydenied access to Oxford Universitytobrothers from the Dominican order who had studied at one of the order’sstudyhouses. The question became even more complicated as it was the preliminary for ahigher course of studyintheology. Against protesting Dom- inicans, the majority of masters claimed that no one should be allowed to hold lectures on the Bible before having lectured on the Sentences,which the Dominicans regarded as aperversion of doctrine.⁷ In this requirement,one might discern apref- erencefor philosophicallyskilled teachers at the university over what the secular masters might have seen as simple-minded mendicant brethren. Institutionally, all these measurescan be seen as an attempt to strengthen the unity of the university against the centrifugalpowers of the orders, particularlythe Dominicans. Such measures wereunderpinnedbypolemics against the services of the Dominicans as well as against their lectures.⁸ Here, as well as in the instruction to hold academic celebrations in the central church of the university instead in the mendicant convents, the Franciscans came into the picture.⁹ Forthey supported the Dominicans in opening up their own church so that the friars preachers could protest this decision.¹⁰

 Forthe following, see Volker Leppin, Wilhelm von Ockham: Gelehrter,Streiter, Bettelmönch,2nd ed. (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,2012), pp. 42– 47.  Leppin, Wilhelm von Ockham,p.20.  H. Rashdall, ‘The Friars Preachers vs. the University,’ in Collectanea,ed. M. Burrows,4vols (Ox- ford: Clarendon Press, 1890), vol. 2, pp. 193–273, on p. 217.  Rashdall, ‘The Friars Preachers,’ p. 217.  Rashdall, ‘The Friars Preachers,’ p. 218.  Rashdall, ‘The Friars Preachers,’ p. 220.  Rashdall, ‘The Friars Preachers,’ pp. 223–25.  Rashdall, ‘The Friars Preachers,’ p. 242. 284 Volker Leppin

Here, we begin to understand what all these conflicts meant for ayoung Francis- can theologian such as William of Ockham. PresumablyOckham entered Oxford Uni- versityin1308, which meant that he witnessed the conflicts mentioned aboveand had to feel himself somehow involved in them.¹¹ Afterall, he seems to have studied at the order’shouse in London and so would have benefittedfrom the exemption from studying in the faculty of arts.¹² All this has to be taken into account in order to understand his new concept of the coherence of arts and theology, as Iargued years ago.¹³ To him, logic or dialectics alone was enough to ensure the validity of ascience, especiallytheology. What Ockham impliedhere regardingthe University of Oxford at the time, consequently, was that ateacher in ahigher faculty like theol- ogydid not need to have studied all issues of the artes;for such aone, rather,a smaller,moreconcentrated curriculum in logic sufficed. In theoretical terms,Ock- ham here argued for the position of the Dominicans and, with them, the Franciscans, in the current conflicts at the university. In light of these considerations, the question of aFranciscan school emergesas far more complicated than it initiallyappears if we tell the story of aschool leading from the Summa Halensis to Ockham. At the sametime, however,itisover-simplistic to assume that Franciscans took part in the largeracademic debates of their times without anyspecial reference to their religious order.Both contexts are relevant, namely, that of the university and of the order; but the intellectual history of the order cannot be reduced to either one. The Franciscans and mendicants overall werepart of the university.But they wereaspecial kind of part.This leads to the question if and how Franciscan theologymight have shaped Ockham’stheologyin general.

The Summa Halensis in Ockham’sCommentaryon the Sentences: Evidence and Problems

At the outset,one has to admitthat the number of quotes from Franciscan theologians in Ockham’sCommentary on the Sentences which Iwill focus on for the pur- poses of the following argument,isnot overwhelming. This is particularlyastonish- ing giventhatthe edition of Ockham’swork was prepared by Franciscans,whose aim was, following to the work of Philotheus Boehner,toshow that there was no reason to seeOckham as aheretic or weak thinker in terms of metaphysics.¹⁴ Thus, there

 Leppin, Wilhelm von Ockham,p.34.  Leppin, Wilhelm von Ockham,p.34.  Leppin, Wilhelm von Ockham,pp. 47– 63.  Philotheus Boehner, Collected Articles on Ockham,ed. E.M. Buytaert (StBonaventure, NY:Fran- ciscan Institute, 1958). What is Later Franciscan Theology? Ockhamand the Early Franciscans 285

was alreadyaninterest to include his work within the broader Franciscan tradition. But obviouslythis did not produce agreater number of identified quotations. The few quotations of or allusions to the SH can be divided into those that refer it to an anonymous group of scholars who represent abroader consensus,and at least one quote whereOckham seems to contradict Alexander of Hales. In evaluating the first small group of quotes which describe the SH as part of the common consensus, however,one has again to be aware of some methodological problems.First of all, we have to consider whether Ockham had actuallyread in the original the authors whose works he quotes in his Commentary on the Sentences. Obviously, he had not.This is clear at least in the case of the patristicauthorities he quotes. Acompre- hensive analysis of Ockham’scitations of the Fathers has shownthat in his whole Commentary,thereare just four quotations in total that cannot be found in the Sen- tences of Peter Lombardorinthe Glossa ordinaria accordingtothe Migne text: one to Jerome, one to Augustine, and two to Gregory the Great.¹⁵ Taking into account the poor state of the latter edition, this could indicate that Ockham might have obtained all these quotations second hand,not readingthe originals on his own, even if this cannot be known for sure. This might point to the fact thatOckham even duringhis time in Oxford had lim- ited access to library resources. Now,ifweassume that the reason for this was alack of booksinthe friars’ house nearbythe city,itdoes not automaticallyfollow from this that Ockham did not read the Franciscan authorities in the original as we might assume that they at least werepresent in the order’slibrary. Nevertheless,evenhere, we have reasons to assume that Ockham did not read the original Franciscan sources. This can be shown in his Sentences Commentary book 1, distinction 26,question 1, on the distinctionbetween the persons of the Trin- ity.Interestingly,among the possibleanswers to this question, Ockham refers to a position which statesthat the persons are distinct firstlyinvirtue of their properties and secondlybecause of their relations.¹⁶ Among all four positions referredtoby Ockham, this is the onlyone that mentions not just one, but twocomponents of the distinction. Additionally, it givesthem in adistinct order.Taking this in account, the editors of Ockham seem to be right to sticktoBonaventure as sourcefor this pe- culiar position.

 See Volker Leppin, GeglaubteWahrheit: Das Theologieverständnis Wilhelms von Ockham,For- schungenzur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte63(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht,1995), p. 214, n. 252.  William of Ockham, Operatheologica,vol. 4, eds.Girard L. Etzkorn and Francis E. Kelley (StBo- naventure, NY:StBonaventureUniversity,1979), p. 143, 14– 16: ‘Tertia quod prima distinguuntur per proprietates absolutas et quasi secundarioper relationes.’ 286 Volker Leppin

In his commentary on the Sentences,the Franciscan masterhad dealt with the question, ‘Is the substantive “person” for the divine used according to substance or accordingtorelation?’¹⁷ He responds:

As ‘person’ implies both the supposit and the property,itisnecessarilyunderstood according to substanceaswellastorelation. And although it is expressed according to substanceaswellas to relation, it is moreprincipallyexpressed according to substance.¹⁸

Here, one can see the opinion Ockham refers to,evenifthe wording is of course different.This can be explained easily, as the Venerable Inceptor takes his phraseology not from Bonaventure, but from Duns Scotus.¹⁹ This means, at least here, that he knew the essence of Bonaventure’sthoughts on the matter not by reading him in original but through his contemporary’sreport.Thingsbecome even more complicated, however,ifwetake into account the fact thatneither Ockham nor Scotus mention Bonaventure’sname here. In thatsense, Ockham might not have been aware that the opinion he dealt with here originallycame from Bonaventure. This leads us to the second problem which springsfrom the tradition of research in this field. As mentioned above, the edition of Ockham’swork which hints at the views of earlier Franciscan authorities wasmade by Franciscans. As all of the references to such Franciscans in this context are made anonymouslybyOckham himself, the identification of the authorities not onlyreveals Ockham’sindebtedness to his Franciscan predecessors, but also the Franciscan editors’ knowledge of the Franciscan tradition. Forthis reason, we have to be quite cautious in linking Ockham to the earlier Franciscan school. To summarize the above: 1. In his commentary on the Sentences,Ockham does not mention the names of Alexander and Bonaventure, even when he seems to refer to theirideas. 2. When he refers to their positions, it is not clear that he did this deliberately. 3. When he refers to their position deliberately, it is not clear if he deriveditfrom the original text or learned it through contemporaries quoting them.

 Bonaventure, OperaTheologica Selecta,ed. Leonardo M. Bello (Quaracchi: Ex Typographia Colle- gii S. Bonaventurae, 1934), vol. 1, p. 344: ‘Utrum nomen “persona” in divinis dicatur secundum substantiam, an secundum relationem.’  Bonaventure, OperaTheologica Selecta,vol. 1, p. 346: ‘Cumergopersona utrumqueimportet,sci- licetsuppositum et proprietatem, necesse est dici secundum substantiam et secundum relationem. Et cum dicatur secundum substantiam et secundum relationem, principalius dicitur secundum substantiam.’  Ockham, Operatheologica,vol. 4, p. 147, 10 –12: ‘Omni relatione aliquid refertur formaliter,igitur paternitatedivina aliquid refertur formaliter;sed non essentia, igitur suppositum.’ See also Duns Sco- tus, Ordinatio I, d. 26,q.1(n. 33), in Operaomnia,ed. C. Balić (Vatican City:Typis polyglottis Vatica- nis, 1963), vol. 1, pp. 10 –11: ‘Relatione aliquid refertur formaliter (…)sed essentia non refertur realiter, ergo suppositum tantum refertur.’ What is Later Franciscan Theology? Ockhamand the Early Franciscans 287

Ultimately, this is not much to go on, but it is stillenough to allow for acloser look at Ockham’srelation to the SH.

The Summa Halensis as Representative of a Common Consensus

The problems discussed aboveimplythe following:wedonot know if Ockham inten- tionally referred to earlier Franciscans when he referred to aconsensus viewpoint. We can onlyobservethat his understanding of the consensus view oftenhas alot in common with earlier Franciscan theology. In fact,the SH is not identifiedvery often in Ockham’sCommentary on the Sentences. Nevertheless,inlight of the objec- tive of this volume, Iwill concentrate on the SH. Indeed, we can find some passages whereOckham might have seen the Summa as arepresentative of the consensus view: 1. The first one occurs in Ockham’sfirst book on the Sentences,distinction 1, question 1. Following Peter Lombard,²⁰ Ockham here deals with the question of uti and frui and asks if everything different to God should be used.²¹ Ockham here infers aspecial neutralact,which involves neither enjoying nor using,inastrict sense at least.²² This means thatthereare some acts in which something is neither loved as the last end nor refers to anything elsebeyond itself.²³ According to Ockham, this act is not onlyneutralregarding the question of uti or frui,but it is also morallyneutral, neither good nor bad.²⁴ At this very stageinthe discussion, Ockham seems to make use of an argument found in the SH,again not referringtoAlexander of Hales by name, but maybe seeing him as part of the group of ‘scholars and Saints.’²⁵ Here, he refuses the argument that anyact that would not be accompanied by circumstances which make it good would by consequence be evil, because, following this argument,there would not be anyneutral act in between these two.²⁶ If this argument was right,Ockham ar-

 See the discussionofuti and frui in the Sentences,bk. 1, d. 1, c. 2–3; Peter Lombard, Sententiae in IV libris distinctae,2vols, ed. Ignatius C. Brady, Spicilegium Bonaventurianum, 4–5(Grottaferrata: Editiones Collegii S. Bonaventurae, 1971– 81), vol. 1, pp. 56–61.  William of Ockham, Operatheologica,vol. 1, ed. Gedeon Gál (StBonaventure, NY:StBonaventure University,1967), p. 371, 3: ‘Utrum tantum omni alio aDeo sit utendum.’  Ockham, Operatheologica,vol. 1, p. 375, 6f.  Ockham, Operatheologica,vol. 1, p. 376, 23–25: ‘Ad primam dicoquod est actus talis medius quo aliquid amatur nec tamquam finis simpliciter ultimus nec actualiter refertur in aliud.’  The question of morality is raised in Ockham, Operatheologica,vol. 1, p. 376, 12–14.Inhis argument,Ockham does not explicitlystatethe moral neutrality,but the discussion, especiallyinOck- ham, Operatheologica,vol. 1, p. 378, 11–19,presupposes it.  Ockham, Operatheologica,vol. 1, p. 378, 23: ‘Secundum doctores et Sanctos.’  Ockham, Operatheologica,vol. 1, p. 378, 16f. 288 Volker Leppin

gues, ignorancewould not excuse moral malice, because it does not count among the circumstances makinganact good. This position, however,would contradict what the scholars and saints said, namelythat ignorance would sometimes (aliquan- do)excuse all.²⁷ Thisview can indeed be found in the SH,where conditions are listed under which ignorance excuses evil and under which it does not.The reasons whyit excuses include invincible ignorance, caused by anatural defect,orignorance of the divinelaw,asfar as nothing is affected that would be necessary for salvation.²⁸ In this regard,the Summa’sposition is in accord with others like Thomas Aquinas, who in his Commentary on the Sentences writes that ignorance mayexcuse sin ‘vel in toto velinparte.’²⁹ Herewemight assume that the Summa is impliedtogether with others who held this position. However,wedonot have anyreason to assert that Ockham even knew that the Summa’sposition was arepresentative of what he held to be acommon consensus. 2. Thesituation is similar in the case of the other issue wherethe editors referto Alexander’sposition as one thatisincluded in the consensus:inSentences I, distinction 27,question 1, even the editors themselvesmention Thomas alongside Alexand- er.The topic in question is the assumption of four relations in God: fatherhood, son- ship, spiration, and passivespiration.³⁰ Obviously,these relations are not only affirmedbyAlexander in his commentary on the Sentences,³¹ but alsobyThomas in his Summa I, question 28,but with different wording.³² Ultimately, therefore, we have to admit what somehowwas clear in the beginning:ifAlexander or the Summa is included in an assumed consensus, this would implythatheisnot the onlyone to hold this position. As he is not mentioned by name,consequentlywe

 Ockham, Operatheologica,vol. 1, pp. 20–24.  Alexander of Hales, Doctoris irrefragabilis Alexandri de Hales Ordinisminorum Summa theologica (SH), 4vols (Quaracchi: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1924–48), III, In3,Tr2,S1, Q2,Ti1,C7(n. 324), Solutio, p. 328: ‘Ad quod dicendum quod ignorantia quaedam excusat et quaedam non excusat. Est enim ignorantia invincibilis ex casu, in quam non incidit homo ex sua culpa, velexdebilitate naturae, et haec excusat.Est iterumignorantia iuris divini velcanonici, et haec excusat simplices quoad quaedam quae non sunt necessaria ad salute essentialiter.’  Thomas Aquinas, Sent II, d. 22, q. 2, a. 2, Solutio, in Thomae Aquinatis Scriptum super libros sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombardi EpiscopiParisiensis,ed. PierreMandonnet, 4vols (Paris:P.Lethiel- leux, 1929), vol. 2, p. 560.  Ockham, Operatheologica,vol. 4, pp. 193, 22–194,4.  Alexander of Hales, Magistri Alexandri de Hales Glossa in quatuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lom- bardi,4vols (Quaracchi: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1951–57), vol. I, p. 266, 5 – 17: ‘Sunt proprietates personales hae tres: paternitas,filiatio, processio. (…)Sunt iterumrelationes quatuor,scilicet tres proprietates personales et communis spiratio, quae nominator hoc nomine “spiratio” vel “principi- um”.’  Thomas Aquinas, Summa I, q. 28,a.4,inSancti Thomae Aquinatis Doctoris Angelici OperaOmnia: iussu Leonis XIII edita (Rome: Ex Typographia Polyglotta, 1882‐), vol. 4, p. 326: ‘Relatio autem principii generationis in viventibus perfectis dicitur paternitas;relatio vero procedentis aprincipio dicitur filiatio. Processio autemamoris non habetnomen proprium (…). Sed vocatur relatio principii huius pro- cessionis spiratio; relatioautemprocedentis, processio.’ What is Later Franciscan Theology? Ockham and the Early Franciscans 289

cannot be sure that his identification givenbythe editors would have been in Ock- ham’smind in anyway.

Arguing with the SummaHalensis about the Frame of Theology

However,thereare perhaps more interesting cases than thosewherethe consensus opinion to which Ockham refers is thatofthe earlier Franciscans. These concerns passagewhereOckham actuallydiscusses theirpositions or what he assumes to be their positions.Wefind at least one case in which the SH does not represent a kind of consensus, but possiblylaysbehind aposition referred to by Ockham and later rejected by him. This is the case in the question whether theologyisaspecula- tive or practical science. As Ulrich Köpf has shown this was acommon question in the theory of theologyfrom the 1240s on, which drew inspiration from Aristotle’s Pos- terior Analytics. To understand Ockham’sargument here, one has to take into account that he was not able to answer the question directly, because his concept of science did not grasp an academic discipline as awhole. In his answer to question 12 in the Prologueofhis Sentences commentary,heclearlysays: ‘Theologyisnot just one knowledge or science.’³³ Instead, he sees theologyasanumber of different forms of knowing or scientifichabits which among themselvesdiffer insofar as they are either practical or speculative:³⁴

So Isay,that acertain part of theology is practical because it deals with our works, takingour works to be everythingwhich is in our power,whether deeds or done things; and the other part is speculative, because it does not deal with things like these.³⁵

Obviously, this position denies the possibility of apurelypractical theologyaswell as atotallyspeculative one. With the latter,clearly, the SH comes into the picture. In fact,the Summa did not inquireabout the speculative or practical kind of theology as later theologians did.³⁶ In fact,itknew about the problem and, as Ulrich Köpf says, coined anumber of phrases which lateronwould often be repeated.³⁷ Aspeculative science, accordingtothe Summa,would recognize something true as true and some-

 Ockham, Operatheologica,vol. 1, p. 337, 17– 18: ‘Ideo aliterdico ad quaestionemquod theologia non est una notitia velscientia.’  Ockham, Operatheologica,vol. 1, p. 337,18–20.  Ockham, Operatheologica,vol. 1, p. 338, 15–18: ‘Dico igitur quod aliqua pars theologiae est prac- tica, quia est de operibusnostris,accipiendo operanostra proomnibus quae sunt in potestatenostra, sive sint operationes sive operata; et aliqua est speculative, quia non est de talibus.’  Ulrich Köpf, Die Anfänge der theologischen Wissenschaftstheorie im 13.Jahrhundert,Beiträgezur Historischen Theologie 49 (Tübingen: Mohr,1974), p. 197.  Köpf, Die Anfänge der theologischen Wissenschaftstheorie,p.197. 290 Volker Leppin

thing good as true, while apractical one would understand something true as good in amoral sense.³⁸ Thus, the differenceisthat speculative sciencespertain to knowledge of what is true, while practical sciences have to do with moralgoodness. In theology, by contrast,the knowledge in question sees what is true as true as well as what is true as good, but good not in amoral sense, but as agratuitouslygiven good.³⁹ In thatsense, theologyisneither practical nor speculative,evenifittends to be more speculative or even speculative to ahigher degree. This model could not stand long at atime which became increasingly accus- tomed to the distinction practical and speculative sciencesindiscussions of theology.Inorder to understand Ockham, consequently, we must again take into account that his engagement with other positions was largely focused on his owncontempo- raries. It seems as if at least one of the authorsOckham dealt with was William of Alnwick.⁴⁰ The latter wasaFranciscan master in Oxford about 1316/17, ⁴ ¹ thatis, shortlybefore Ockham started readingthe Sentences there(1317–19).⁴² In this position, he might have been of some influenceonOckham, representing the slightly older generation which, like Ockham himself, was influenced by the important master DunsScotus.⁴³ Now,Alnwick not onlyhimself regarded theologyasaspeculative science, but he alsoclaimed Alexander of Hales to be asupporter of this theory:

There is afourth opinion, holdingthat theology considered in itself is aspeculativescience, which for the moment Ihold (…). The opinion mentioned also seems to belongtomaster Alexander of Hales and not onlymaster Henry of Ghent,for Alexander says in Summa P1, Q1, that atheoretical science is of its own kind and thereforetheological science is speculative of what is highest.⁴⁴

 SH I, Tractatus introductorius Q1, C2 (n. 2),Adobiecta, p. 5: ‘In aliis vero scientiis speculativis scilicet est acceptatio veri ut veri et etiam boni ut veri; in practicis autemmoralibus, etsi sit acceptio veri ut boni, non tamen ut boni gratuiti, sed moralis.’  SH I, Tractatus introductorius Q1, C2 (n. 2),Adobiecta, p. 5: ‘Est enim verum ut verum, et est verum ut bonum; utrumqueest aSpiritu Sancto.Sed cum accipitur verum ut bonum, illud bonum autest ut bonum morale aututbonum gratuitum. Si est gratuitum: sic est assimilatioadSpiritum Sanctum, qui est bonitas (…)hinc est quod anotonomasticedicitur haec doctrina edita aSpiritu Sanc- to.’  See the references in Ockham, Operatheologica,vol. 1, p. 325,n.2,and p. 328, n. 1.  Manfred Gerwing, ‘Wilhelm vonAlnwick,’ in Lexikon des Mittelalters,ed. Robert Auty (Stuttgart: Metzler,1999), vol. 9, col. 161.  Leppin, Wilhelm von Ockham,p.39.  See William J. Courtenay, Schools &Scholars in Fourteenth-CenturyEngland (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), p. 189.  William of Alnwick, In ISent,prologue, q. 2: ‘Est opinio quarta, quod theologia secundum se con- siderata est scientia speculativa,quam ad praesens teneo (…). Praedicta autem opinio videturesse magistri AlexandrideAlysetnon solum magistri henrici de Gandavo,dicit enim Alexander in summa, P1,Q1, quod theoretica est sui generis et per consequens est theologica summi speculative;’ Assisi, Biblioteca communale 172,fol. 16r; fol. 18;see also Ockham, Operatheologica,vol. 1, p. 325, What is Later Franciscan Theology? Ockhamand the Early Franciscans 291

William argued further with the first question of the Summa: the Summa here taught theologytobeascience of its own accord (sui gratia).⁴⁵ Forhim this termmight have been appropriate to express what he regarded as the excessive speculation in Alexander’sargumentation outlinedabove. Forthe Summa,this was the coreargu- ment to conclude that theologywas wisdom in the tradition of Augustine.⁴⁶ But for William of Alnwick, the argument receivedanew orientation within an Aristote- lian framework. To him, ascience on its owncould be nothing other than aspeculative science.⁴⁷ Thus the argument became full and quite supportive for him: Alexander of Hales, as he sawand summarizedhim, held the position that theology is aspeculative science,evenifinamore historical context we might denythis to be true. The important consequencefor Ockham is this: even if he might have read some passages of the Summa in its original – though,asnoted above, we cannot be sure he did so – he would have done this through the lens of his Franciscan surroundingsas aresultofwhich he also believed the Summa held the theory of theologyasaspeculative science. When Ockham himself declared that the theologywas not such ascience, therefore, he did this with the intent to disagree with Alexander of Hales. In the end, the disagreement with his older contemporary wasnot aquestion within the order’stradition,however.Rather,itfollowed from the new understanding of truth, which was developedbyOckham against the background of increased understanding of logic:⁴⁸ ‘This has to be admitted: truth is atrue proposition, and falsehood is afalse proposition.’⁴⁹ This was the reason whyOckham understood ascience not as acomplex organic whole, but as acollection of true sentences,which again led to the consequencethat no prediction of ‘practical’ or ‘speculative’ could be made concerning the whole science, but onlyfor sentences in it.Ultimately, he had to disagree with the SH,because he had acompletelydifferent understandingofwhat ascience was,and this had to do with reasons unrelated to the order.

n. 2, with some differingreadings of the manuscript; Iheartilythank Prof. Thurner,Grabmann-Institut München, for givingmeaccess to acopyofthe manuscript.  SH I, Tractatus introductorius, Q1,C1(n. 1), Solutio, p. 2.  SH I, Tractatus introductorius, Q1,C1(n. 1), Solutio, p. 2.  See above, n. 44.  See Matthias Kaufmann, Begriffe, Sätze, Dinge: Referenzund Wahrheit bei Wilhelm von Ockham, Studien und Textezur Geistesgeschichtedes Mittelalters 40 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp. 194–98.  William of Ockham, Operaphilosophica,eds.Philotheus Boehner,Gedeon Gál, and Stephen Brown (StBonaventure, NY:Franciscan Institute, 1974), vol. 1, p. 131, 245: ‘Haec est concedenda veritas est propositio vera et falsitas est propositio falsa.’ 292 Volker Leppin

Order Traditions and University Developments: AComplex Story

It is interesting enough that the most direct connection between Ockham and his older Franciscan fellows can be observed in the question as to whether,towhat ex- tent,and how theologyisascience.Onthe one hand, this is interesting,because it links the discussion immediatelywith Ockham’scommitment to the Franciscan interests at the University of Oxford. As outlined above, the quarrels at the university at least somehow were concerned with the question of the waytostudytheology, and Ockham dealt with this in his presentation of theologyasascience in broader sense, based on the importance of logic in it. Furthermore, it is interesting,because with his concept of theology, Ockham not onlyreacted to the situation at his university,but he also dealt with the radical Ar- istotelianism, usually referredtoas‘Latin Averroism’.⁵⁰ Usually, the condemnation in Paris in 1277 is seen as the climax and breakdown of this movement,but it had also affected England, as evidenced by the condemnations of Aristotelian theses by Rob- ert Kilwardby in 1277 and by John Peckhamin1286.⁵¹ However,this condemnation leadsdirectlytodiscussions among Franciscans at the beginning of the 14th century who had afocus other than the earlyFranciscan tradition. Obviously, Ockham took notice of the events on the Continent.For example, he seems to refer to article 204and 219inSentences II question 14.⁵² Even more importantly, in Sentences Idistinction 17,question 5, he obviouslyquoted Parisian thesis 124 when he said: ‘The soul of Christ (…)accordingtoacertain article is more perfect thanJude’ssoul.’⁵³ The thesis judgedinParis had been: ‘Someintellects are morenoble than others.’⁵⁴ Number 124 is among the few sentences in the docu-

 Forthe concepts see Volker Leppin, TheologieimMittelalter (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007), p. 120.  ForKilwardby’scondemnation, issued in Oxfordon18th March1277, see ChartulariumUniversi- tatis Parisiensis,eds. H. Denifle and E. Chatelain, 4vols (Paris:Delalain Frères,1889), vol. 1, pp. 558–60;for Peckham, see Registrum Epistolarum Fratris Iohannis Peckham, Archiepiscopi Can- tuarensis,ed. Charles TriceMartin, 4vols (London: Longman, 1885), vol. 3, pp. 921– 23.  William of Ockham, Operatheologica,vol. 5, eds.Gideon Gál and RegaWood (StBonaventure, NY: St BonaventureUniversity,1981), p. 324, 3 – 5: ‘Exemplum primi, ponendoquod angelus non sit in loco per operationem – propter articulum – sed per substantiam suam,’ which seems to referto art.204: ‘Quod substantieseparate sunt alicubi per operationem;’ see Kurt Flasch, Aufklärung im Mit- telalter? Die Verurteilung von 1277: Das Dokument des Bischofs von Paris übersetzt und erklärt (Mainz: Dieterich, 1989), pp. 248and 219. Ibid., p. 260: ‘Quod substantieseparate nusquam sunt secundum substantiam.’  William of Ockham, OperaTheologica,vol. 3, ed. GirardEtzkorn (StBonaventure, NY:StBonaven- ture University,1977), p. 487–88: ‘Anima Christi (…)secundum unum articulum est perfectior anima Iudae.’  Flasch, Aufklärung im Mittelalter,p.200: ‘Quod inconveniens est ponerealiquos intellectus nobi- lioresaliis.’ What is Later Franciscan Theology? Ockham and the Early Franciscans 293

ment of 1277 whereareason is assigned for the condemnation. Hereitreads: ‘This is an error, because in this case, the soul of Christ would not be more noble than the one of Jude.’⁵⁵ Clearly, Ockham refers to this argument. With this, again, we can come closer to his immediate context as afield where the articles werediscussed. In his critique of Ockham, Walter of Chatton referred to Ockham’sargument concerning the soul of Christ and the soul of Jude. Explicitly he went back to the Paris condemnation discussingifthis had to be understood regarding the substance of the soul or regarding the accidents.⁵⁶ Now,Adam of Wode- ham (d. 1358), astudent of Ockham, again reported Chatton’sargument,and in try- ing to resolve it,heseems to have asked Ockham for it.⁵⁷ So he refers directlytohim, writing: ‘With his own hand at the margin of my manuscriptOckham writes.’⁵⁸ Adam, following Ockham, now adds an argument against Chatton, in which Ockham shows that the Paris condemnation here did not deal with the question of substance or accident,but with the question whether the soul is bound to abodyornot.⁵⁹ Ac- tually, he was right in this, as the argument within thesis 124 goes like this: ‘Because adifference between souls cannot derive from the bodies, it has necessarilytoderive from the intelligences.’⁶⁰ At this point,itisnot interesting whether Ockham was right or Chatton. What we can see here is that the Paris condemnation was of striking current importance to Ockham. Moreover,wesee adense textureofauthors discussing this condemnation and its consequences. There wasaheavy debate and avivid intellectual atmosphere in Oxford and around in the beginning 14th century. This ultimatelyshows thatitwas important to Ockham to understand Aristotle as correctlyaspossible, and to offer an interpretationofAristotle as seen in the theses condemned in Paris that was provoking for theologybut claimed to give amore accurate interpretationofthe philosopher.This givesthe background against which Ockham explainedthat seeing truth as amatter of not more thansentences, was ex- actlythe right Aristotelian understanding.⁶¹ The battle he fought was not merely about the Franciscans or the university.Itwas about the right understanding of Ar- istotle after 1277. This, indeed, leadsback to the introduction of this paper:ashas been shown, a background in earlier Franciscan thoughtmight be taken for granted for aFranciscan in the beginning of the 14th century,who held his lecturesinafriars’ house.But the

 Flasch, Aufklärung im Mittelalter,p.200: ‘Error,quia sic anima Christi non esset nobilior anima Jude.’  Ockham, Operatheologica,vol. 1, p. 29*, n. 2.  See the proemial letter to him in the Summa logicae: Ockham, Operaphilosophica,vol. 1, p. 1, 5ff.  Ockham, Operatheologica,vol. 1, p. 29*, n. 2: ‘Ockham (…)manu sua in margine reportationis mee.’  Ockham, Operatheologica,vol. 1, p. 29*, n. 2.  Flasch, AufklärungimMittelalter,p.200: ‘Quia cum ista diversitas non possit esse apartecorpo- rum, oportet quod sit aparteintelligentiarum.’  Ockham, Operatheologica,vol. 1, p. 131,241– 43. 294 Volker Leppin

impetus behind his arguments, the challengeofpaving new ways in theology, was derivedfrom other factors, includingthe situation in the university and the new un- derstandingofAristotle, as documented in the condemnation of 1277.

Epilogue:FranciscanTheology in Ockham

The effort to discern Ockham’sconnection with the earlyFranciscan school produces rather complex results. Ockham was trainedasaFranciscan, and, as far as we can discern, he identifiedasaFranciscan, at least in the quarrels at Oxford University. But his Franciscan commitment can rather be seen in his discussion with contemporary Franciscans as Duns Scotus,Walter Chatton, and Adam Wodeham, than in a deeper reception of the earlier doctors. Nevertheless,hefelt more and more obliged to apeculiarlyFranciscan understanding of theology. JürgenMiethke speaksofa‘Franciscan option’ in Ockham’spo- litical theology.⁶² In 1328/29,Ockham began counsellingEmperor Louis the Bavarian in his struggle with Pope John XXII.⁶³ Louis himself had taken up some Franciscan ideas in the so called ‘Minorites’ excursus’ in his appellation of Sachsenhausen, givenon24th May1324.⁶⁴ In this document,Louis denied the legitimacy of John’spa- pacy.Among the reasons he mentioned was adiscussion of poverty,obviouslyin- spired by Franciscan spiritualistideas. So, when Ockham together with some other Franciscans fled from the Pope’scourt in Avignon, wherehehad been under accusation for approximately four years, the Emperor and the Franciscans sawthem- selvesasnatural allies fighting together against the Pope.⁶⁵ In the last two decades of his life, Ockham spent his time mainlydeveloping a political theory about poverty,church and empire, and indeed, thereismuch evidence for Miethke’sidea of aFranciscan option in these writings. As he has shown, Ockham laid the basisfor his later thoughts in his famous Opus nonaginta dierum,which bears this name, because Ockham claimed to have written it within not more thanninetydays.⁶⁶ Here, he positions himself in the discussion about Fran- ciscan poverty.His aim was to show that John XXII had presented himself as aheretic condemning the Franciscan poverty.Obviously, here he identifiedhimself with

 JürgenMiethke, Ockhams Wegzur Sozialphilosophie (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,1969), p. 536.  Leppin, Wilhelm von Ockham,pp. 181–83.  Ludwig IV, ‘Appellatio tertia:Forma posterior,24. 5.1324,’ in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorumetregum5(Hannover; Leipzig: Bibliopolius Hahnianus, 1909–13), p. 752, 32, n. 910;for the authors,see Eva Luise Wittneben, Bonagratia von Bergamo:Fran- ziskanerjurist und Wortführer seines Ordens im Streit mit Papst JohannesXXII,Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought90(Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2003), pp. 251–53.  See Leppin, Wilhelm von Ockham,pp. 181–82.  William of Ockham, Operapolitica,ed. Hilary S. Offler (Manchester:University Press,1963), vol. 2, p. 857, 459f. What is Later Franciscan Theology? Ockhamand the Early Franciscans 295

the order’stradition. Clearlyanimportant figure in the conceptualizationofpoverty had been Bonaventure, being the order’sgeneral minister for awhile. Even more,re- flecting on poverty,Ockham pavedthe wayfor his latertheories of imperium and sac- erdotium.⁶⁷ So, indeed, there is no doubt,that the laterOckham was heavilycommit- ted with his Franciscan identity.Evenmore, Miethke could show that Ockham’s concept of the churchwas not invented completelyanew,but to acertain degree fol- lowed Ockham’snominalist or better,conceptualist understanding of universals.⁶⁸ The argument abovemight add asomewhat biographical line from the earlyOck- ham to the latter;asshown above, Ockham was somehow involved in the quarrels at his university.There is some reason to assume that this was the reason for the harsh break in his career.Asiswellknown, he bears his honorific title ‘Venerabilis inceptor’ not as an expressionofhis efforts as the originator of new thinking,but by juridical reasons.⁶⁹ He had become an inceptor by beginning his doctoral exams, and he re- mainedaninceptor for his whole life, because he never finishedthese exams. The reason for this was the accusation by former Oxford Chancellor John Lutterell. Lutterell had resigned as aChancellor latest in 1322,and among the reasons for this werethe conflicts with the mendicants.⁷⁰ It seems as if Ockham became the scapegoat for all these problems:Lutterell collected comprehensive accusations against him and did not relent even when he could not bring the process to an end in England.⁷¹ He then transferred the process to the papal court.His accusation was amixture of philosophical, metaphysical, and theological questions, among them most important the sacrament.⁷² This is the reason whyOckham had to enter Avignon. However,before this, Ockham was involved again in his order’spolicy, and he began to feel his order protecting him: as Girard Etzkorn has shown, there wasa kind of ‘prelude’ to Avignon in England.⁷³ ‘Certain masters’ (aliqui magistri)asked Ockham to explain himself.⁷⁴ Etzkorn has highlighted that the tone of the investiga- tion was more friendlythan accusatory.⁷⁵ By this, we might understand that the order tried to open the chance of avoiding apapal process, and Ockham might have tried to use this opportunity, writing his treatises about the sacrament.⁷⁶ However,the proc-

 Forthe parallels see Volker Leppin, ‘Ockham/Ockhamismus: Ockhamspolitische Theorie,’ in Theologische Realenzyklopädie 25,eds.GerhardMüller et al. (Berlin: De Gruyter,1995), pp. 14 – 16.  Miethke, Ockhams Wegzur Sozialphilosophie,pp. 511– 13.  Miethke, Ockhams Wegzur Sozialphilosophie,p.30, n. 110.  John Lutterell, Die Schriften des OxforderKanzlersIohannesLutterell: Texte zurTheologie des vier- zehnten Jahrhunderts,ed. Fritz Hoffmann (Leipzig: St.Benno-Verlag, 1999), p. 124.  John Lutterell, Die Schriften,p.124.  John Lutterell, Die Schriften,pp. 150 –53.  Girard Etzkorn, ‘Ockham at aProvincial Chapter, 1323:APrelude to Avignon,’ Archivum Francis- canum Historicum 83 (1990), pp. 557–67.  Etzkorn, Ockham at aProvincial Chapter,p.566.  Etzkorn, Ockham at aProvincial Chapter,p.566.  Leppin, Wilhelm von Ockham,pp. 114–19. 296 Volker Leppin

ess went its way, and Ockham could not avoid going to Avignon. But here, in the midst of his academic interests, he had felt what it meant to be alecturer at university as well as abrother of an order.The wayled directlyfrom his Franciscan-inspired thoughts about theologytothe accusation – and so to Avignon. This might have been areason whyhebecame aware of the order’sconcerns and in the end showed pref- erencefor the Franciscans.