Quick viewing(Text Mode)

9847 ETL 02 Janz

9847 ETL 02 Janz

LUTHER AND LATE MEDIEVAL ALBERTISM

It has long been agreed that Martin Luther defined his theological pro- gram against the background of late medieval theology. Thanks to more than a generation of intensive scholarship, this fifteenth-century theologi- cal landscape is no longer terra incognita. We know now that pluralism flourished, with many “schools competing for influence”. , mysticism, , , , , etc., were all viable options and living components of this intellectual world, and all had some impact on Luther. While much is known today about all these currents, there is one which has remained in relative obscurity: late medieval Albertism. Yet it was part of the intellectual world Luther inherited: he frequently refers to the “Occamistae” or “Thomistae” or “Scotistae”, and often also to “Albertistae”. Who were these “Albertists”, and what was their relationship to Luther? (ca. 1200-1280) was of course the teacher of in Cologne, and later his colleague on the theological faculty at Paris. Albert outlived Thomas and produced a vast corpus of works in theology, and the natural sciences. His influence never seri- ously rivalled that of Thomas. Yet there was a school of thinkers in the 14th and 15th century that identified itself as “Albertist”, and it is to this that Luther refers. The most complete study of this school was published by Gerard Meerseman in 1933, 1935, a two-volume Geschichte des Albertismus1. According to Meerseman, Albert already had followers in Paris in the 14th century. Under the leadership of Johannes de Nova Domo (15th century), these disciples coalesced into a “school” in the early 15th century. Johannes' Paris lectures appeared under the title Trac- tatus de esse et essentia2. In this work he defended the following distinc- tive positions: First, Johannes held that is that out of which proceeds. Second, in created things essence and existence are not really distinct: the distinction is only made “secundum modum significandi” or “secundum rationem ratiocinantem”. Third, each angel does not consti-

1. G.G. MEERSEMAN, Geschichte des Albertismus. Vol. I: Die Pariser Anfänge des Kölner Albertismus, Paris, R. Haloua, 1933; Vol. II: Die ersten Kölner Kontroversen, Rome, Institutum Historicum FF. Praedicatorum, S. Sabina, 1935. Cf. M. GRABMANN, Der Einfluß Alberts des Großen auf das Mittelalterliche Geistesleben, in ID., Mittelalterliches Geistesleben, Vol. II, Munich, Hueber, 1936, pp. 324-412. See also the more recent studies of H.G. SENGER, Albertismus? Überlegungen zur “via Alberti” im 15. Jahrhun- dert, in A. ZIMMERMANN (ed.), Albert der Große. Seine Zeit, sein Werk, seine Wirkung, Berlin, De Gruyter, 1981, pp. 217-236; and S. WLODEK, Albert le Grand et les Albertistes du XVe siècle. Le problème des universaux, in ibid., pp. 193-207. 2. Printed in MEERSEMAN, Geschichte (n. 1), vol. I, pp. 91-191. LUTHER AND LATE MEDIEVAL ALBERTISM 339 tute a separate species but many angels are of the same species insofar as they were created for a certain purpose. These positions, according to Meersemann, constitute the skeleton of Albertism3. Albertists like Johannes de Nova Domo claimed of course to be fol- lowing the thought of Albert himself. This meant that Albertism was des- tined from the outset to carry within it certain ambiguities. For Albert, though he produced a massive corpus and though his thought is uncom- monly rich, nevertheless propounded views which were ambiguous if not downright inconsistent. Thus he embraced and yet his thought is at times heavily colored by Neoplatonic tendencies (inherited above all from Proclus and Pseudo-Dionysius)4. In fact, Meerseman sug- gests that the defining characteristics of 14th-century Latin fit Albertism precisely. First, the style of thought is thoroughly hierarchi- cal, with all graduated according to their perfections. Second, a doctrine of “cosmic sympathy” is common, according to which the life of somehow permeates the whole universe. Third, the deductive method is favored, but it is not used exclusively. And finally, there is a certain propensity for somewhat obscure imagery which hampers clarity of expression5. This then is at least a partial portrait of early 15th century Parisian Albertism. One should not think that Albertism was a major current at the Univer- sity of Paris at this time. The via moderna was clearly dominant, though the challenge from the via antiqua seemed to be gaining influence. The antiqui, however, were divided into Scotists, Thomists and Albertists6. The leader of the Thomists, a contemporary of Johannes de Nova Domo, was Henry of Gorkum (ca. 1378-1431)7. Henry was instrumental in the rebirth of interest in Thomas at Paris, and his move to Cologne in 1419 helped to spread this renaissance of Thomism to the German academic world. There is little evidence of open antagonism between Thomists and Albertists at Paris, though they obviously disagreed on many things: their common enemy, the moderni, seems to have preoccupied both. It was only later, in the German universities that conflict between the two schools erupted. In 1410 a young Flemish student by the name of Heymeric de Campo (or Heymeric van de Velde) (1395-1460) arrived in Paris and began

3. Ibid., p. 89. 4. Cf. R. IMBACH, Le (Néo-)Platonisme Médiéval, Proclus Latin et l'École dominicaine allemande, in RTP 110 (1978) 427-448; and É.H. WÉBER, L'interprétation par Albert le Grand de la Théologie Mystique de Denys le Ps-Aréopagite, in G. MEYER – A. ZIMMER- MANN (eds.), Albertus Magnus Doctor Universalis 1280/1980, Mainz, Matthias- Grünewald-Verlag, 1980, pp. 409-439. 5. MEERSEMAN, Geschichte (n. 1), vol. I, pp. 89f. Cf. M. DE WULF, History of , London, Longmans, Green, and Co., 31938, vol. II, pp. 331f. 6. MEERSEMAN, Geschichte (n. 1), vol. I, p. 18. 7. On GORKUM, see D.R. JANZ, Luther and Late Medieval Thomism: A Study in Theo- logical Anthropology, Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1983, pp. 92-99. 340 D.R. JANZ studying under Johannes de Nova Domo8. Heymeric must have at least encountered Johannes's rival in the via antiqua, Henry of Gorkum. For Henry, who left Paris for Cologne in 1419, later invited Heymeric to join him in Cologne9. Heymeric did this in 1422, and eventually became pro- fessor of theology there in 1428. What he found when he arrived was a via antiqua split between Thomists and Albertists. And to make matters worse, the Thomists had formed an alliance with the moderni, against the Albertists10! Heymeric found himself in a difficult position: in Cologne at the invitation of the Thomist Henry, he was no doubt wary of offend- ing him. Thus he seems to have initially taken a mediating position, defending Albert but offering only a muted criticism of Thomas. Between 1420 and 1422 Heymeric wrote a Compendium divinorum, heavily marked by Albert's influence11. Meanwhile, in 1424, Henry was appointed Vice-Chancellor of the University and a new leader of the Thomist fraction was emerging. Gerhard de Monte (or Gerhard ter Steghen) (d. 1480) had arrived in Cologne by 1421, studied under Henry, and quickly became the Rector of the Thomist “college” (later named, after Gerhard, the “Bursa Montana”)12. As the new leader of the Cologne Thomists, Gerhard seems to have immediately attacked Heymeric, the moderate Albertist, arguing that it was impossible to reconcile Albert and Thomas. In response, Heymeric wrote his Problemata inter Albertum Magnum et Sanctum Thomam, probably around 1424-2513. In it Heymeric elucidated what he saw as eighteen major differences between Albert and Thomas, almost all of them philosophical. On all of them he argued that Albert's view was the correct one14. Meerseman called this book the “Gospel of Albertism”15. It deepened and solidified opposition between Thomists and Albertists. For a time, all literary traces of the controversy seem to disappear. But it must have continued at some level, for three decades later, in 1456, Ger- hard de Monte replied with a book entitled Tractatus concordiae inter

8. MEERSEMAN, Geschichte (n. 1), vol. II, p. 12. For bibliographical references on Heymeric de Campo, see E.J.M. VAN EIJL, Bibliografie – Bibliography – Bibliographie, in ID. (ed.), Facultas S. Theologiae Lovaniensis 1432-1797 (BETL, 45), Leuven, University Press, 1977, pp. 495-557, esp. 508-509 (nos 159-168); L. KENIS – M. LAMBERIGTS, L'ancien- ne Faculté de théologie de Louvain 1432-1797. Bibliographie des années 1977-1992, in M. LAMBERIGTS (ed.), L'Augustinisme à Louvain (BETL, 111), Leuven, University Press – Peeters, 1994, pp. 419-442, esp. 421-422 (nos 29-46). 9. Ibid., p. 20. 10. Ibid. 11. Edited by J.A. KORELEC in Studia Mediewistyczne 8 (1967) 17-75; 9 (1968) 3-90. 12. MEERSEMAN, Geschichte (n. 1), vol. II, p. 18. 13. Ibid., p. 23. See H. BRAAKHUIS, Heymeric van de Velde (a Campo), denker op een kruispunt van wegen. De “logische” kwestie uit zijn “Problemata inter Albertum Magnum et Sanctum Thomam”, in Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte 75 (1983) 13-24. 14. Ibid., pp. 28ff. 15. Ibid., p. 68. LUTHER AND LATE MEDIEVAL ALBERTISM 341

Thomam et Albertum16. In it he tried to moderate what must have been considerable antagonism, arguing that the differences were not fundamen- tal17. Heymeric, who had moved to Louvain in 1435, disagreed in a biting open letter18, whereupon Gerhard replied with his own “Apologia”19. It was in this controversy that the German branch of Albertism was born. Its spiritual center was at Cologne, in the so-called “Bursa Laurentiana”20. There, lectures “secundum modum Albertistarum” were a regular part of the curriculum. Thomists still dominated, but Albertists formed the most significant alternative. Thus, out of 23 theological promotions between 1467 and 1488, 14 were Thomists, 5 were Albertists, 3 were Scotists, and one was an “Aegidian”. Likewise, out of 43 baccalaureate promotions between 1475 and 1488, 29 were Thomists, 9 were Albertists, 4 were Sco- tists, and one was listed as “modernus”21. Wessel Gansfort (1419-1489) was trained as an Albertist at Cologne22. Eventually the influence of this school was felt at other universities such as Louvain, Cracow, Heidelberg, Ingolstadt, Tübingen, Basel, Prague, Copenhagen, Upsala, etc.23. New biographies of Albert in the late 15th century indicated a growing inter- est24. Around the turn of the century there was a thriving Albertist faction at Padua, where the young Tomasso de Vio (Cajetan) came under its influ- ence25. Early in the 16th century writers such as Albert di Castello reported that Albert's writings were “very well known” in academic circles26.

16. Printed in MEERSEMAN (ed.), Decisionem S. Thomae, quae ad invicem oppositae a quibusdam dicuntur, concordantiae anno 1456 editae per Gerardum de Monte, Rome, Isti- tuto Storico Domenicano, 1934; and summarized in I. CRAEMER-RUEGENBERG, Albertus Magnus, Munich, C.H. Beck, 1980, pp. 149-152. 17. MEERSEMAN, Geschichte (n. 1), vol. II, p. 69. 18. Edited in MEERSEMAN, Geschichte (n. 1), vol. I, Appendix I. Cf. vol. II, pp. 86-92. 19. Edited ibid., Appendix II. Cf. vol. II, p. 93. 20. M. BAUER, “Secundum Modum Albertistarum” – Ein Albertistischer Kommentar zu De Anima (Köln 1482) in Vergleich mit dem Text des Albertus, in MEYER – ZIMMER- MANN (eds.), Albertus Magnus (n. 4), pp. 7-46, esp. 9. 21. Ibid., p. 7. These statistics call into question Braakhuis' contention that nominalism dominated in the Cologne arts faculty of the 15th century. See H.A.G. BRAAKHUIS, Wessel Gansfort between Albertism and Nominalism, in F. AKKERMAN – G.C. HUISMAN – A.J. VANDERJAGT (eds.), Wessel Gansfort and Northern Humanism, Leiden, Brill, 1993, pp. 30- 43, esp. 33. 22. On Gansfort's Albertism, see ibid., and M.J.F.M. HOENEN, Albertistae, Thomistae und Nominales. Die philosophisch-historischen Hintergründe der Intellektlehre des Wessel Gansfort (d. 1489), in the same volume, pp. 71-96. 23. MEERSEMAN, Geschichte (n. 1), vol. II, p. 106. 24. S. TUGWELL (ed.), Albert and Thomas: Selected Writings, New York, Paulist Press, 1988, p. 38. 25. On this, see E.P. MAHONEY, Albert the Great and the “Studio Patavino” in the Late Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries, in J.A. WEISHEIPL (ed.), Albertus Magnus and the Sciences: Commemorative Essays, 1980, Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1980, pp. 537-563, esp. 559. Cf. N.J. WELLS, On Last Looking into Cajetan's : A Rejoinder, in The New 42 (1968) 112-117. Wells argues that “Cajetan reads Aquinas with Albertinian spectacles on” (p. 116). 26. TUGWELL (ed.), Albert (n. 24), p. 39. 342 D.R. JANZ

Prominent individuals such as , who had studied under Heymeric de Campo at Cologne and who seems to have relied heavily on Albert, lent wider intellectual respectability to the movement27. Moreover, one can easily compile a list of early 16th-century thinkers who, while they were not “Albertists”, nevertheless were to some extent influenced by Albert. Hieronymus Dungersheim, one of Luther's earliest opponents, cited Albert in his Theorismata Duodecim of 1523, and fol- lowed Albert's eucharistic theology in his Articuli sive libelli triginta of ca. 152528. John Fisher, in his De Unica Magdalena of 1519 cites Albert's scripture commentaries29. Konrad Summenhart wrote a Com- mentaria in Summam phisice Alberti Magni in 150730. John Eck cited Albert in his Chrysopassus Praedestinationis of 151431. Wendelin Stein- bach quoted Albert's views on the eucharist in a letter of 149932. Bart- holemew Arnoldi of Usingen is said to have allowed Albert to influence his doctrine of justification33. The list need not be extended: Albert was widely recognized as a theological authority. Albertism was thus a living and vibrant component of the intellectual scene into which Luther stepped as he began his academic career in 1511. As one of the scholastic viae, albeit a minor one, it was familiar to all intellectuals in the early 16th century. True, some such as regarded it as hopelessly moribund and excessively backward-looking34. But at a minimum, all were at least aware of this school as anti-Thomist, anti-nominalist, and appealing above all to the authority of Albertus Magnus. This much at least, Luther certainly knew. But as in most such cases, it is difficult to establish how much more he knew. The possibilities for a more exact and detailed acquaintance with Albertism were ready at hand. The various libraries in Erfurt where he began his advanced studies had almost 100 titles by Albert, some in multiple copies (and some of which are now known to be not from Albert's hand)35. Even the small library in the Augustinian monastery where Luther lived contained some of

27. R. HAUBST, Albert, wie Cusanus ihn sah, in MEYER – ZIMMERMANN (eds.), Albertus Magnus (n. 4), pp. 167-194. Cf. CRAEMER-RUEGENBERG, Albertus Magnus (n. 16), pp. 154- 157. 28. T. FREUDENBERGER (ed.), Hieronymus Dungersheim. Schriften Gegen Luther (Cor- pus Catholicorum, 39), Münster, Aschendorff, 1987, pp. 35 and 151. 29. R. REX, The Theology of John Fisher, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991, p. 63. 30. H.A. OBERMAN, Werden und Wertung der Reformation. Vom Wegestreit zum Glaubenskampf, Tübingen, Mohr, 1977, p. 171, n. 27. 31. Ibid. 32. Ibid., p. 419. 33. Luther's Works (American Edition), vol. 48, p. 30 n. 34. E.g. in his 1509 work In Praise of Folly, London, Allen and Unwin, 1915, p. 133. 35. P. LEHMANN, Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands und der Schweiz, Vol. II: Erfurt, Munich, C.H. Beck, 1928, pp. 607f. After a long dispute, it now appears that Albert's Summa Theologiae is authentic. On this, see R. WIELOCKX, Zur “Summa Theologiae” des Albertus Magnus, in ETL 66 (1970) 78-110. LUTHER AND LATE MEDIEVAL ALBERTISM 343

Albert's works36. At Wittenberg too Albert's writings were readily avail- able. A 1536 library catalogue, for instance, under the category “Theolo- gia Latina”, lists Albertus Magnus 13 times – more than any other name in the list37! The same catalogue under “Philosophi” again lists Albert more frequently than any other38. Moreover it has been shown that this was a library that Luther used, as is clear from his marginal notes in a borrowed book39. Although he regarded many of the books in this library as “donkey shit”40, he seems to never have made an attempt to purge it41. But this library surely reflected to some extent the intellectual climate that prevailed at Wittenberg in the early years of the university42. How much of this Luther actually absorbed is another question.

At this point we must turn to Luther himself to see what he actually had to say about Albert and the Albertists. In a recent study Thomas O'Meara carried out a systematic comparison of Albert and Luther on the subject of justification43. Insightful as this work was, it never once raised the question of what Luther knew about Albert or even more importantly, what Luther said about Albert. It thereby revealed itself to be essentially ahistorical. While purely systematic comparisons are warranted on their own level, for the historical theologian their value is limited. There can be no substitute for looking at what Luther actually says. When we do this, the first thing that must be recognized is that Luther's comments on Albert and Albertism are relatively few in number, though they extend from the beginning to the end of Luther's theological career. Albertism was obviously not one of Luther's major preoccupations, nor was it a dominant object of his polemic. Rather, it was one element in the intel- lectual heritage which Luther from 1517 on consciously tried to abandon. We turn first to Luther's comments on Albertism. These are all of a kind and extend from 1518 to the 1530's. First, in his Wittenberg sermons on the ten commandments of 1518, Luther attacks the scholastic use of Aristotle44. What discredits this entire intellectual project of the scholas-

36. J. MATSUURA, Restbestände aus der Bibliothek des Erfurter Augustinerklosters zu Luthers Zeit und bisher unbekannte eigenhändige Notizen Luthers, in G. HAMMER – K.-H. ZUR MÜHLEN (eds.), Lutheriana. Zum 500. Geburtstag Martin Luthers, von den Mitar- beitern der Weimarer Ausgabe, Cologne, Böhlau, 1984, pp. 315-332, esp. 319f. and 323. 37. E. HILDEBRANDT, Die kurfürstliche Schloß- und Universitätsbibliothek zu Witten- berg, 1512-1547, in Zeitschrift für Buchkunde 2 (1925) 34-42, 109-129, 157-188, esp. 159. 38. Ibid., p. 161. 39. Ibid., p. 179. 40. WA 15, 50, 11. 41. HILDEBRANDT, Die kurfürstliche Schloß- und Universitätsbibliothek (n. 37), p. 175. 42. Ibid., p. 173. 43. T.F. O'MEARA, Albert the Great and Martin Luther on , in The Thomist 44 (1980) 539-559. 44. On this, see D.R. JANZ, Luther on Thomas Aquinas: The Angelic Doctor in the Thought of the Reformer, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, 1989, pp. 17-24. 344 D.R. JANZ tics is that they all understand Aristotle in different ways. What the scholastics give us, in fact, is a “quadriceps Aristoteles”, a four-headed Aristotle. The Thomists, Scotists, Albertists and moderni all disagree in their interpretation of Aristotle. This alone is enough to abandon them all, Luther thinks45. Luther's argument here is essentially correct, insofar as Albert's Aristotle is certainly not identical with that of Thomas Aquinas. For one thing, Thomas' use of Aristotle is much more system- atic and thorough-going. And for another, Albert's interpretation of Aris- totle is curiously tinged with Neoplatonic elements. Thomism and Alber- tism were indeed two different heads of the scholastic “four-headed Aristotle”. In 1519 Luther again mentions this scholastic pluralism, identifying Albertism as one of the four main “sects” (along with Scotism, Thomism and the moderni). Luther is glad that he has escaped the futility of their endless argumentation, what he calls here the “miserable treadmill” of scholastic theology46. On the other hand, Luther can also point out, as he does in 1521, that Albertism and the other three principal scholastic schools agree unanimously on some minor points, such as the absence of in animals. On this they speak with one voice47. Still his hope for the future, as he puts it in 1522, is that soon these four scholastic schools (including Albertists) will be obsolete. Then there will be only “simple sons of God and genuine ”48. There is in Luther one final refer- ence to the Albertists in a “Table Talk” probably from the late 1530's or early 1540's. Here Luther again mentions the scholastic schools, this time indicating that the “Terministen” (moderni) were at odds with the via antiqua (consisting of Thomists, Scotists and Albertists)49. What is clear is that by this time, Luther has left this part of his own intellectual her- itage far behind. One also finds references to Albert himself in Luther's writings. These too, occurring between 1519 and 1538, all point in one direction. The first

45. WA 1, 509, 11ff: “Vere enim sumus seducti per Aristotelem et commenta eius, atque si aliud non esset, hoc unum satis erat argumentum, quod tot sectae et capita sint in ista bestia gentili, simili Hydrae in Lerna: nam ibi sunt Thomistae, Scotistae, Albertistae, Moderni, et factus est quadriceps Aristoteles et regnum in seipsum divisum, et mirum quod non desoletur, sed prope est ut desoletur”. 46. WA 5, 22, 6ff: “Porro, quam vere dixeris, nihil posse tam argute proponi, quod non rursus possit retundi, Miserum illud pistrinum abunde docet, in quo Scotistae, Thomistae, Albertistae, Moderni et singuli, in suas quoque sectas divisi, tempus perdunt”. 47. WA 7, 707, 16ff: “Iam ubi constat unanimi Thomistarum, Scotistarum, Moderno- rum, Albertistarum sententia (Est enim aliqua cauda, in qua vulpes istae conveniant), Bestias carere libero arbitrio et potentia electiva, in qua prudentiae et universae virtutis ratio subiective et formaliter consistit, feranturque solo naturae ductu et appetitu naturali cognoscitivo...”. 48. WA 10 II, 330, 7ff: “His ducibus ex harena cedens lampadem trado, quibus spero futurum, ut breui non sit in orbe nostro neque Thomista neque Albertista neque Scotista neque Occanista [sic], sed uniuersi simplices filij dei et germane Christiani...”. 49. WATR 5, 653, 1-18 (nr. 6419). LUTHER AND LATE MEDIEVAL ALBERTISM 345 comes from his “Meditation on Christ's Passion” from 1519. While he recommends that Christians meditate on the suffering of , they should be careful not to make this into another of the traditional meritori- ous works of piety. This, he says, is what Albert has done. A saying ascribed to Albert holds that it is more beneficial to ponder Christ's pas- sion just once than to fast for a whole year or pray a psalter daily. Such a statement, according to Luther, clearly transforms this kind of meditation into a meritorious work. It becomes then merely one more item in the paraphernalia of a piety grounded in merit: holy pictures, rosaries, amulets, etc.50. Luther repeated this critique in a Friday sermon in 1521. Though some of the details differ, the point is essentially the same: meditation on Christ's passion is important, but it should not be under- stood as a meritorious work51. Again in 1530, in his “Vermahnung zum Sakrament des Leibes und Blutes Christi”, Luther warns against making the sacrament into a good work, as Albert had done with meditation on the passion52. Albert is mentioned again in this connection in a Good Fri- day sermon of 153153. A Holy Thursday sermon from 1536 reiterates the same54. And another Good Friday sermon from 1538 makes the same charge against Albert55. It should be noted that the statement which Luther repeatedly ascribes to Albert is not to be found in Albert's writ- ings. This is not surprising since many legends of Albert and many pseudo-Albertine writings circulated in the early 16th century. In any case, Luther's critique takes us into the area of Frömmigkeitstheologie, the late medieval theology which underlay the pious devotional practice of the laity. Implicit in this popular piety is a theology of justification – one with which Luther sharply differs. And this theology could well be

50. WA 2, 136, 12ff: “Darzu geht yrre eyn spruch, S. Albert zu geschrieben, das es besser sey, Christus leyden eyn mal oben hyn uber dacht, dan ob man eyn gantz jar fastet, alle tag eyn Psalter bettet, etc. Dem folgen sie blind da hyn und geratten eben widder die rechte frucht des leydens Christi, dan sie das yhre darynnen suchen. Darum tragen sie sich mit bildelein und büchlein, brieffen und creutzen ... und alsso Christus leyden eyn unleyden yn yhn wircken sol widder seyn art und natur”. LW 42, 7 translates “eyn Psalter bettet” as “to pray a psalm”. A “Psalter”, however, is a collection of Psalms, in the jargon of late medieval devotional practice. 51. WA 9, 651, 10ff: “Darnach seind ettlich, die machen eyn missbrauch darauss, wie Albert sagt, wen man die passio ein mal oben hin und mith eynner roeschen bedenckung betrachtet, seyes besser, dan wann du ein ganzs jar fastest und den leyb alle tage mit ruethen schlugst... Diese wollen eyn gueth werck auss dem bedencken machen ...”. 52. WA 30 II, 611, 23ff: “Gleich wie bis her ettliche haben die Passion lassen malen und jnn buechlin gelesen, Und solchem werck grosse ehre gegeben, wie der spruch Alberti hat geleret, das ein mal das leiden Christi schlecht oben hin betrachten sey besser, denn ob einer ein gantz iar fastet, alle tage einen Psalter betet und sich selbs bis auffs blut steupet. Ein solch werck wurde aus dem Sakrament auch ...”. 53. WA 34 I, 231, 4+16. 54. WA 41, 523, 27ff. 55. WA 46, 294, 18ff: “... Albertus ait: Qui considerat passionem Christi cursim modo, tantum facit, atque psalterium legit aut sese flagellat. Ecce quanta haec est doctrina fana- tica: merum opus fit ex ista meditatione, non ut peccatorum remissio inde proveniat etc.”. 346 D.R. JANZ perfectly consonant with Albert the Great's position. For as O'Meara and others have shown, while one finds in Albert sola gratia and sola fides statements, one also finds in his work statements which point in quite another direction. There is in Albert significant ambiguity on the question of a de congruo disposition for justification56. Thus Luther's critique is not entirely misplaced. In summary then, Luther repeatedly acknowledges Albertism as one of the four most important scholastic viae. Essentially the rediscovery of Augustine and St. Paul – of what Luther calls the “gospel” – has made this entire world of thought obsolete. And the flaws in the piety which spring from it are only symptoms of how mistaken it was. Albert and Albertism, in Luther's view, are destined for the dustbin of history. Their demise cannot come soon enough.

Yet this is not the end of the story of Luther and Albertism. For Albert's influence was not confined to those who formally designated themselves as “Albertists”. For instance, Hugh Ripelin of Strasbourg, Ulrich of Strasbourg, Dietrich of Freiburg, and Berthold of Moosburg were deeply indebted to Albert's thought57. Nicholas of Cusa, as was already mentioned, relied heavily on Albert in certain ways, as did Cardi- nal Cajetan and others. Far more importantly, Albert was perhaps the sin- gle most important source for the tradition which has come to be called German Dominican mysticism. Albert's own mystical theology is a re- working of Pseudo-Dionysian themes58. By doing this, Albert “inaugu- rated a strongly Neoplatonic form of mystical theology and thereby founded speculative German mysticism”59. Luther's relationship to this tradition is highly problematic and much disputed. It cannot be sorted out here, except to suggest that insofar as Luther was influenced by this form of mysticism he came face to face with the influence of Albert, whether he knew it or not. The first major representative of German Dominican mysticism was of course (ca. 1260 - ca. 1328). Eckhart probably knew Albert during his student years at Cologne, and he may even have been Albert's pupil60. The condemnation of certain propositions from his writ- ings in 1329 limited the overt impact which he might otherwise have had.

56. O'MEARA, Albert the Great (n. 43). Cf. H. DOMS, Die Gnadenlehre des sel. Alber- tus Magnus, Breslau, Müller, 1929. 57. TUGWELL (ed.), Albert (n. 24), p. 38. For a much longer list, see GRABMANN, Der Einfluß Alberts (n. 1), pp. 360-412. Cf. also ID., Studien über Ulrich von Straßburg, in Mittelalterliches Geistesleben, vol. 1, Munich, Hueber, 1936, pp. 147-221. 58. WÉBER, L'interpretation (n. 4). 59. A.M. HAAS, Schools of Late Medieval Mysticism, in J. RAITT (ed.), Christian Spiri- tuality: High Middle Ages and Reformation, New York, Crossroad, 1987, pp. 140-175, esp. 145. 60. E. COLLEGE – B. MCGINN (eds.), Meister Eckhart: The Essential Sermons, Com- mentaries, Treatises, and Defense, New York, Paulist Press, 1981, pp. 5f. LUTHER AND LATE MEDIEVAL ALBERTISM 347

Yet it proved to be powerful (while unacknowledged) in his two chief “pupils and disciples”, Johannes Tauler (1300-1361) and Henry Suso (1295-1366). Luther, however, never comments explicitly on Eckhart's thought61. Furthermore, Luther does not refer in his writings to Henry Suso. Luther was clearly more familiar with Tauler, Eckhart's other influ- ential disciple. From 1514 to 1544 Luther commented twenty-six times on Tauler, and every time positively62. “In Tauler”, he said, “I have found more true theology than in all the university doctors lumped together”63. But the highpoint, from Luther's point of view, of the Ger- man Dominican mystical tradition, was the anonymous book which he published in 1516 and then again in 1518, the Theologia Deutsch. This book, written around the mid-14th century was clearly inspired by Eck- hart and Tauler. Luther even suggested in 1516 that Tauler may have been its author64. In any case, Luther called it “... an abridgement of [Tauler's] entire art of proclamation ...”65. “Next to the Bible and St. Augustine,” Luther said in 1518, “no other book has come to my atten- tion from which I have learned -- and desired to learn – more concerning God, Christ, man, and what all things are”66. We cannot here enter into the debates surrounding the Theologia Deutsch and its relation to Luther's mature theology67. It is easy to see, however, why Luther was so attracted to this book. Its emphasis on ego- centricity as the ultimate obstacle to of God and neighbor was amenable to Luther's understanding of sin. Its focus on the human inca- pacity for good found echoes in Luther's experience. Its description of the “dark night of the ” reinforced Luther's view of “Anfechtung” and the “hidden God”. Furthermore, it was written by a leader of the “friends of God” movement, a movement of revitalized lay piety led by Domini- cans such as Tauler and Suso. This movement had for a long time sought to counteract the “heresy of the Free Spirit”, an openly anti-institutional mystical tendency. Already Albert the Great, Henry Suso and others had

61. H. OBERMAN, “Simul Gemitus et Raptus”: Luther and Mysticism, in ID., The Dawn of the Reformation: Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1992, pp. 126-154, esp. 141. 62. Ibid., p. 140. 63. WA 1, 557, 29: “... Sed ego plus in eo ... reperi theologiae solidae et syncerae quam in universis omnium universitatum Scholasticis doctoribus repertum est aut reperiri possit in suis sententiis”. 64. WA 1, 153, 8f. 65. WA BR 1, 79, 58-63. 66. WA 1, 378, 21ff. 67. Cf. the discussion in S. OZMENT, Mysticism and Dissent: Religious Ideology and Social Protest in the Sixteenth Century, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1973, pp. 1-60; G. WILLIAMS, German Mysticism in the Polarization of Ethical Behavior in Luther and the Anabaptists, in Mennonite Quarterly Review 48 (1974) 275-304; and B. HOFFMAN (ed.), The Theologica Germanica of Martin Luther, New York, Paulist Press, 1980, pp. 1-50. 348 D.R. JANZ defended themselves against this heresy68. The Theologia Deutsch may have been written precisely against the “Free Spirit” heresy69. Luther regarded some of his early “enthusiast” opponents as guilty of the “Free Spirit” heresy, and therefore found the Theologia Deutsch highly relevant to his own situation. For these and other Luther treasured the book, though a closer investigation would also show areas of dissonance between it and his developed theology70. Further research would also have to raise the question to what extent these themes derive ultimately from Albert. Do they in fact receive major emphasis in his mystical theology? This question cannot be answered here. What is clear, however, is that the Theologia Deutsch stands in the German Dominican mystical tradition and therefore in the shadow of Albert the Great. Here, in a general way at least, Luther came under Albert's influence by way of a tradition which stemmed from him. In all probability Luther was unaware of the origins of this inheritance. This paper has attempted to fill a gap in contemporary Luther scholarship by clarifying his relation to one of the four medieval theological schools to which he most often refers. He consciously repudiated this scholastic via as obsolete and theologically deficient. Nevertheless, unbeknownst to him, he inherited something from it. The medieval bequest to Luther came in part from intellectual forebears that would have surprised him.

SUMMARY Albertism was a vibrant component of the 15th century intellectual landscape, i.e. the late medieval “Wegestreit”. Luther regarded this school as one of the four most significant of the scholastic viae and rejected it as mistaken and obsolete. Yet Albert was perhaps the single most significant source for what has come to be known as German Dominican mysticism. And this tradition influenced Luther profoundly and in complex ways. Here, indirectly and perhaps unknowingly, he came under the influence of Albertus Magnus.

Loyola University Denis R. JANZ New Orleans, LA 70118, U.S.A.

68. HAAS, Schools (n. 59), p. 160. 69. HOFFMAN, Theologia Germanica (n. 67), p. 7. 70. On Luther's “sic et non” to medieval mysticism, see OBERMAN, “Simul Gemitus et Raptus” (n. 61), pp. 131-141.

Top View