A Dominican Master of Theology in Context: John of Naples and Intellectual Life Beyond Paris, Ca

A Dominican Master of Theology in Context: John of Naples and Intellectual Life Beyond Paris, ca. 1300-1350

Kirsten Jean Schut

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Centre for Medieval Studies University of Toronto

A Dominican Master of Theology in Context: John of Naples and Intellectual Life Beyond Paris, ca. 1300-1350

Kirsten Jean Schut

Doctor of Philosophy

Centre for Medieval Studies University of Toronto

2019 Abstract

This dissertation provides the first comprehensive biography of the Dominican scholar John of

Naples (Giovanni Regina di Napoli), who flourished during the first half of the fourteenth century. John studied and taught at the Dominican schools in Naples and Bologna, and at the

University of Paris, where he was made a master of theology in 1315. He spent most of the rest of his life in Naples, where he was closely associated with the Angevin court. Chapter 1 surveys

John’s life and works, setting his career in its Neapolitan context. Chapters 2-4 deal with different aspects of his teaching. Chapter 2 contrasts his contributions to debates about the nature of theology at Paris with the way he introduced this subject to his Dominican students in Naples.

Chapter 3 examines the role of medicine in his theological teaching, where it served as a tool for interpreting core texts as well as a source of material for preaching. Chapter 4 analyzes the symbiotic relationship between his quodlibets and the literature of pastoral care. Chapter 5 looks at John as a Dominican friar and preacher, turning to his sermon collection as a source of information about Dominican life in southern Italy, and Chapter 6 investigates his relationship with the Angevin rulers of Naples and the role of politics and political theory in his works.

Appendices to chapters 2-6 provide transcriptions of unpublished quodlibetal questions, sermons,

ii and other texts used as the basis for this study. Two additional appendices provide descriptions of the main manuscripts and discuss the dating and placing of John’s works.

This study considers John from a variety of angles – teacher, preacher, friar, courtier, Neapolitan

– and suggests that these overlapping identities cannot be productively separated from one another. It highlights the vibrancy of intellectual life in early-fourteenth-century Naples, and the strong cultural ties between Naples, Paris, and Avignon, as well as other regions such as the

Kingdom of Hungary. Furthermore, it illustrates how mendicant convents could help to disseminate theological teachings from the University of Paris to the provinces, while also serving as sites of innovation in their own right.

iii

Acknowledgments

One of the underlying assumptions of this study is that the places in which scholarly work takes place matter to that work itself, and it is a pleasure to recall the places and people that have made this dissertation what it is.

The Centre for Medieval Studies at the University of Toronto has been a true community of learning in the time I have spent there, and this work bears its stamp in many ways. Above all, I am indebted to the members of my advisory committee. Martin Pickavé has been solidly supportive of my academic progress right from my earliest weeks as an MA student, working on the first shaky SSHRC proposal, and that support has continued unabated even as it became apparent that I would not be a philosopher. Lawrin Armstrong provided invaluable training in Latin and technical skills; any deficiencies in those areas reflect my own failings, not his. Joseph Goering’s curious and humane approach to his sources remains an inspiration, and I hope that his influence is detectable here. Conversations with Alexander Andrée, Mark Meyerson, Michèle Mulchahey, Bert Roest, and Giulio Silano have also influenced this project in numerous ways over the years, and Shami Ghosh provided much-needed encouragement during the later stages. Among classmates, Lochin Brouillard deserves special mention as one of the best colleagues and friends that one could ask for.

Toronto is but one node in a wider intellectual network, and I must thank a number of colleagues, including Antonella Ambrosio, Joshua Benson, William Duba, Andrea Improta, Thomas Jeschke, Rosalba di Meglio, Timothy Noone, Francesco Pica, Christopher Schabel, Andreas Speer, and Florian Wöller, for their generosity in sharing research materials and advice. I am especially grateful to Ian Wei for taking time out of a busy visit to Toronto for what proved to be a valuable conversation at a critical point in the writing process, and to William Courtenay for graciously serving as my external examiner. Thanks are also due to Roy Laird and Gregory MacIsaac of Carleton University for introducing me to the joys of medieval intellectual history and for their continued mentorship.

Material and institutional support is a prerequisite for any scholarly activity, and I must acknowledge the financial assistance I have received from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the School of Graduate Studies, the Centre for Medieval Studies, and the Hungarian Helicon Foundation. I would also like to acknowledge the staff of the iv

Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale in Florence, the Biblioteca Nazionale in Naples (especially Luca!), and the Biblioteca della Società Napoletana di Storia Patria. Closer to home, the staff of the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies library and the interlibrary loans staff of the University of Toronto libraries have helped me to solve many problems over the years, and I will miss them terribly.

Most of this dissertation was written in a room on the third floor of a house in Toronto’s Greektown, in an apartment shared most consistently with the incomparable Emma Meadley Dunphy. To her good company, good cooking, good conversations, well-timed book recommendations, and sense of humour I owe rather more of my sanity than I care to admit. Substantial amounts of research, writing, and editing also took place at the rural Ontario home of my parents, Peter Schut and Carol Mortimer. I will cherish the memories of sunny days spent working on the screened-in porch, watching the phoebe chicks learn to fly. My parents deserve special thanks for their remarkably genuine interest in whatever their children happen to be doing. When (for example) my mother offered to learn Latin with me during a sixth grade homeschooling experiment, she had no idea just how far that was going to go. Finally, I am grateful to my younger siblings, Nathan, Adrian, and Thomas, for making me laugh and reminding me of the worlds beyond the humanities, be they engineering, server systems, or the delights of heavy machinery.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments...... iv

Table of Contents ...... vi

Abbreviations for commonly cited manuscripts and a note on transcriptions ...... xi

Introduction ...... 1

Chapter 1 John’s Life and Works ...... 20

1.1 Biographical study ...... 20

Early years: Naples and Bologna, ca. 1275-1309 ...... 20

Paris, ca. autumn 1309-autumn 1317 ...... 27

Naples, autumn 1317-ca. 1322...... 33

Avignon, ca. 1322-1323/1324...... 35

Naples under Robert, ca. 1323/1324-1343 ...... 40

Last years: Naples and a brief trip to Avignon under Johanna, ca. 1343-1348 ...... 50

Themes ...... 56

1.2 John’s Naples ...... 57

San Domenico Maggiore ...... 57

The city ...... 63

Castel Nuovo ...... 66

Other ecclesiastical foundations in Naples ...... 71

1.3 Conclusion ...... 80

Chapter 2 John as a Teacher of Theology ...... 82

2.1 The language of theology...... 85

2.2 John on the science of theology ...... 87

Theology as a science ...... 88

Theology: practical or speculative? ...... 93

The subject-matter of theology ...... 100

Subalternation ...... 105

Theology vs. other sciences ...... 110

2.3 Defending orthodoxy in the classroom ...... 115

2.4 Teaching Theology ...... 118

2.5 Conclusion ...... 124

Appendix to Chapter 2 ...... 128

Schneyer no. 118: Principium on theology ...... 128

Quodl. VIII.29: Whether it is licit to liberate by theft a Christian who is enslaved to a Saracen ...... 142

Chapter 3 Medicine and Theology in John’s Works ...... 151

3.1 John as a teacher of medicine?...... 154

3.2 John on the science of medicine ...... 159

3.3 Medicine’s utility for theologians ...... 166

Food, radical moisture, and the truth of human nature ...... 167

Applying medical theories to theological doctrines: the resurrection, the Eucharist, and the blood of Christ ...... 175

Death: A warning to doctors, or another theological problem? ...... 179

Medicine in John’s sermons...... 183

3.4 Conclusion ...... 194

Appendix to Chapter 3 ...... 197

Schneyer no. 112: Principium on medicine: Longer (B) version ...... 197

Schneyer no. 112: Principium on medicine: Shorter (A) version ...... 206

Quodl. V.10: Whether radical moisture can be restored ...... 212

Quodl. VIII.38: Whether it is better to know law or medicine ...... 217

Chapter 4 Practical Theology: The Quodlibets of John of Naples and Pastoral Care ...... 220 vii

4.1 Pastoral themes in John’s quodlibets ...... 222

4.2 Quodlibetal questions inspired by pastoral literature...... 230

4.3 Quodlibetal questions picked up by later pastoral writers ...... 236

4.4 Case study: medical ethics ...... 243

Choosing between Christians and non-Christians ...... 245

Medicine vs. astrology ...... 246

Abortion ...... 248

Informing the dying patient ...... 251

The later reception of John’s medical-ethical questions ...... 254

4.5 Conclusion ...... 257

Appendix to Chapter 4 ...... 262

Quodl. II.19: Whether it is a sin to kill a daughter and her lover caught in the act of adultery ...... 262

Quodl. XI.14: Whether a physician has to tell a patient that he is dying ...... 266

Chapter 5 Preaching and Dominican Life ...... 269

5.1 Sermons for saints ...... 272

5.2 Preaching and Dominican administration ...... 279

Visitations ...... 283

Elections ...... 291

5.3 Dominican identity...... 293

5.4 Preaching for Dominican nuns...... 296

Nuns as part of the Dominican order ...... 298

Nuns and nobility ...... 302

Elizabeth of Hungary and a whiff of sanctity ...... 306

5.5 Conclusion ...... 314

Appendix to Chapter 5 ...... 316

viii

Partial transcription of the index to John’s sermon collection ...... 316

Schneyer no. 60: Sermon for the translation of the remains of Elizabeth of Hungary ...... 322

Chapter 6 A Scholar in the Service of the Crown ...... 327

6.1 Political preaching ...... 329

John on Johanna ...... 330

6.2 Problems of succession ...... 334

6.3 Prince, pope, and law ...... 342

6.4 Disputing the actions of the king ...... 351

6.5 Conclusion ...... 356

Appendix to Chapter 6 ...... 359

Quodl. X.26: Should a loyal citizen first reveal the plot of his city against his prince, or the plot of his prince against his city? ...... 359

Quodl. XI.12: Whether the king of Sicily can licitly shorten the period of foriudicatio ...... 364

Conclusion ...... 370

Appendix 1 Manuscript Descriptions ...... 375

A: Naples, Bibl. Naz. VIII.AA.11 ...... 375

B: Naples, Bibl. Naz. VII.B.31 ...... 381

Unit 1 (f. 1-60) ...... 382

Unit 2 (f. 61-107) ...... 383

Unit 3 (f. 108-119) ...... 384

N: Naples, Bibl. Naz. VII.B.28 ...... 386

Unit 1 (f. 1ra-12vb) ...... 387

Unit 2 (f. 13ra-32vb) ...... 388

Unit 3 (f. 33ra-154vb) ...... 389

Unit 4 (f. 155ra-166vb) ...... 392

Unit 5 (167ra-174ra) ...... 394

Chronology of the units ...... 395

Collation history...... 399

T: Tortosa, Bibl. Cap. 244 ...... 403

Appendix 2 Dating and Placing John’s Works ...... 409

Quodlibets ...... 409

Disputed Questions ...... 426

Sermons ...... 439

Principia ...... 444

Lost and Spurious Works ...... 450

John’s Sentences commentary ...... 450

A fourteenth quodlibet? ...... 460

The Summa totius logicae Aristotelis ...... 462

Bibliography ...... 464

Abbreviations for commonly cited manuscripts and a note on transcriptions

The following manuscripts, described in Appendix 1, and the early printed edition of John of Naples’ disputed questions, are cited throughout this dissertation using the following abbreviations:

A = Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale, MS VIII.AA.11

B = Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale, MS VII.B.31

N = Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale, MS VII.B.28

T = Tortosa, Biblioteca Capitular, MS 244

Gravina = F. Ioannis de Neapoli [...] Quaestiones Variae Parisiis Disputatae , ed. Domenico Gravina. Naples: Constantinus Vitalis, 1618; repr. Ridgewood, N.J.: Gregg, 1966.

I refer to John’s sermons using the numbers assigned to them by Johannes Baptist Schneyer in his Repertorium der lateinischen Sermones des Mittelalters für die Zeit von 1150-1350 (e.g. Schneyer no. 14). 1 A few sermons were skipped in Schneyer’s catalogue; I will refer to them for instance as Schneyer no. 70a, indicating a position between Schneyer nos. 70 and 71.

Quodlibetal questions will be referred to using a Roman numeral signifying the number of the quodlibet and an Arabic numeral indicating the number of the question within the quodlibet, e.g. Quodl. V.16 for Quodlibet V, question 16. In almost all cases, the numbering accords with that in Palémon Glorieux, La littérature quodlibétique de 1260 à 1320 , vol. 2 (Paris: J. Vrin, 1935). In rare exceptions, I follow N and T.

As discussed in Appendix 2, the numbering for John’s disputed questions differs radically between the printed edition and the copy of the questions in T, although the texts of both versions are nearly identical. I have therefore opted to give both numbers in the footnotes, e.g.

1 Johannes Baptist Schneyer, Repertorium der lateinischen Sermones des Mittelalters für die Zeit von 1150-1350 , vol. 3, 604-15. xi

DQ 1 [23]. The first number is the number assigned to the question by Gravina (the number typically used in the secondary literature); the number in square brackets is the number assigned to the same question in T.

For transcriptions in the footnotes and in the appendices to chapters 2-6, I have standardized words ending in -cio etc. to -tio etc. (e.g. I transcribe dileccionis as dilectionis , and salutacionem as salutationem ) and -cia etc. to -tia etc. (e.g. I transcribe consciencia as conscientia , and malicia as malitia ), since the letters c and t are often indistinguishable in all the manuscripts used. Several of the scribes use u and v more or less interchangeably or use exclusively u; throughout, I have transcribed u or v when used as a consonant as v, and u or v when used as a vowel as u, e.g. I transcribe vno as uno , and uirtus as virtus , adinuenta as adinventa , and so forth. I have transcribed set (abbreviated or spelled out) as sed . All scribes use a mixture of Roman and Arabic numerals; I have changed all to Arabic numerals, except when noting what seem to be cases of scribal confusion (e.g. between an Arabic 4 and Roman X). When transcribing from a single manuscript, I have reproduced the scribe’s orthography apart from the exceptions noted above. 2 When transcribing disputed questions, I have followed the orthography of T.

I have modernized punctuation and capitalization and made an attempt to standardize biblical references. For instance, I have used the abbreviation Ecclus . for references to Ecclesiasticus, and Eccles. for Ecclesiastes, both of which the scribes confusingly abbreviate as ecc i. I have transcribed (e.g.) secunda Ad Corinthios primo as 2 Ad Cor. 1 , and prima ad Thimotheum tertio as 1 Ad Tim. 3 . I have italicized biblical quotations and titles of works by other authorities.

I have not made note of scribal corrections such as words that have been repeated and deleted, or omitted and added in the margin by the same hand as the main text; instead, I ignore the former and silently incorporate the latter. When transcribing a text from multiple manuscripts, I have not made note of minor differences in orthography 3 or minor textual divergences such as omitted

2 E.g. for A: sollempnizatur for sollemnizatur , ystoricum for historicum , Ungarie for Hungariae ; for B: methaphisice for metaphysicae; for T: dampno for damno.

3 E.g. hedeficationem (A f. 88vb) vs. edificationem (B f. 114ra); prosequtione (A f. 88vb) vs. prosecutione (B f. 114ra); preheminentiam (A f. 89rb) vs. preeminentiam (B, f. 114rb); loquntur (N f. 148va; T f. 134ra) vs. locuntur (Na f. 12vb); Ad Heph. 6 (N f. 148rb) vs. Ad Ephe. 6 (T f. 133vb). xii

single words 4 or ends of biblical quotations 5 (in such cases I provide the fuller text), or minor differences in word order. 6

4 E.g. debemus supponere ab ipso domino exaudiri (B f. 114ra) vs. debemus supponere ab ipso exaudiri (A f. 88va); Sed dicendum est ad hoc (T f. 162ra) vs. Sed dicendum ad hoc (N f. 29ra).

5 E.g. et exaudit vocem meam (A f. 88vb) vs. et exaudit (B f. 114ra).

6 E.g. Psalmus idem (A f. 88vb) vs. idem Psalmus (B f. 114ra). ii

Introduction

At the beginning of the fourteenth century, the masters of theology at the University of Paris were, in a sense, on top of the world. Even as universities and other educational institutions, such as the schools of the mendicant orders, had proliferated across the Latin West over the course of the thirteenth century, the schools at Paris had only consolidated their position as the heartland of Christian theological learning. Parisian masters of theology argued that divine law could be known through human reason, and they presented themselves as experts in this field. This expertise gave them the authority to determine the justice of all aspects of human behaviour, from the making of ecclesiastical and secular laws, to the transactions of merchants, to the interactions between husbands and wives. Not even kings and popes escaped their judgements. 1 Their extensive knowledge of the Creator and his works also gave masters of theology – at least in their own minds – the authority to make pronouncements about all sorts of disciplines: not just canon and civil law, but also medicine, natural philosophy, and anything else pertaining to the created world. Masters of theology demonstrated the all-encompassing nature of their expertise in a variety of ways. One of their showiest exercises was the quodlibetal disputation, held during the solemn liturgical seasons of Advent and Lent, in which masters of theology responded to questions on any subject whatsoever posed by audience members (who could be members of other faculties, or even intellectuals from outside the university community). 2 According to Elsa Marmursztejn, quodlibetal disputations are a prime example of the way that thirteenth- and early- fourteenth-century masters of theology exerted their authority as a normative power within Christian society. 3

1 Elsa Marmursztejn, L’autorité des maîtres: scolastique, normes et société au XIII e siècle (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2007); Ian P. Wei, Intellectual Culture in Medieval Paris: Theologians and the University, c. 1100-1330 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).

2 Jacqueline Hamesse, “Theological Quaestiones Quodlibetales ,” in Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages: Volume 1: The Thirteenth Century , ed. Christopher Schabel (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 17-48. On the theatrical elements of such disputations, see Jody Enders, “The Theater of Scholastic Erudition,” Comparative Drama 27.3 (1993): 341- 63.

3 Elsa Marmursztejn, “A Normative Power in the Making: Theological Quodlibeta and the Authority of the Masters at Paris at the End of the Thirteenth Century,” in Schabel, Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages: Volume 1: The Thirteenth Century , 345-402.

1 2

Parisian masters of theology presented themselves as occupying the top place in an intellectual hierarchy, with simple parish priests at the bottom and lesser minds – mediocres – in between. They often employed the Aristotelian metaphor of the architect and worker, seeing themselves as the architects of Christian doctrine, for whom it would be a waste of talent to stoop to the mundane task of educating the unlearned workers, or simple priests – a task better suited to the less-talented mediocres – or engaging in the hands-on work of pastoral care. 4 According to Ian Wei, Parisian masters of theology

saw themselves as a distinct and self-aware group whose work was vital to the common good. Their contributions to society were numerous: they removed doubt and error, elucidated the truth, defended the faith, and taught others how to preach, teach and see to the cure of souls throughout the Church. They were at the top of a hierarchy of knowledge, dealing with problems which others could not begin to comprehend. 5

Doctrines of purgatory and personal responsibility for sins, developed in large part by the Parisian masters of theology themselves, helped to generate a social need for experts who could answer concerned Christians’ questions about the afterlife and determine the nature of their sins, and the appropriate penances that would help to ensure their salvation in the next life. Preaching and confession (supported by a wealth of handbooks and collections of exemplars), quodlibetal disputations (theoretically open to the general public, and recorded and circulated in written form), and the movements of their students and the precious books they carried with them, all served to disseminate the Parisian masters’ expert teachings on these urgent matters beyond the schools. 6

Masters of theology likened Paris to a fountain or a wellspring from which salvific wisdom would flow throughout the Church – a simile that they also applied to the scriptures on which they based their studies. 7 Yet Paris was not the only place in later medieval Europe where

4 Marmursztejn, L’autorité des maîtres , 53; Marmursztejn, “A Normative Power in the Making,” 353-60; Wei, Intellectual Culture in Medieval Paris , 174-9.

5 Ian P. Wei, “The Self-Image of the Masters of Theology at the University of Paris in the Late Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 46 (1995): 398-431, at 421.

6 Wei, Intellectual Culture in Medieval Paris , 184-244.

7 Wei, Intellectual Culture in Medieval Paris , 238; Andrew Sulavik, “ Principia and Introitus in Thirteenth Century Christian Biblical Exegesis With Related Texts,” in La Bibbia del XIII secolo: storia del testa, storia dell’esegesi:

Christian theology was taught and learned. Wei points out that we should not assume that masters of theology at other universities had an identical self-image to that of the masters of theology at Paris. 8 And looking beyond universities, modern scholars have only recently begun to appreciate the extent to which theological teaching and learning also took place in other settings, such as the schools of the religious orders, and royal and papal courts. 9

The medieval mendicant studia in particular merit closer study than they have received to date. For one thing, they were far more numerous than universities and spread over a far wider geographical area. Deeply embedded in their local communities, they were also connected to an international educational network. Only a tiny fraction of medieval friars ever studied at a university. But university teachings could filter down to even the most remote mendicant convents through the teachings of university-educated brothers and their students, and through the circulation of manuscripts, as friars brought books from convent to convent. The educational programs of the Dominican, Franciscan, and Augustinian orders seem designed to encourage the flow of information in this way, like water splashing forth from the fountain of Paris, down the tiers of the general, provincial, and conventual studia , and out into the world of the laity. 10 Mendicant studia generalia , and even the less prestigious provincial and convent schools, could also be the sites of a good deal of innovation, as teachers of theology sought to prepare their students to tend effectively to the spiritual needs of their local communities. To give just one example, one of the most widely disseminated catechetical texts of the later Middle Ages, the early-fourteenth-century Expositio Orationis Dominice of Jordan of Quedlingburg, was

convegno della Società internazionale per la studio del medioevo latino (SISMEL), Firenze, 1-2 giugno 2001 , ed. Giuseppe Cremascoli and Francesco Santi (Florence: SISMEL edizioni del Galluzzo, 2004), 269-321, at 276.

8 Wei, “The Self-Image of the Masters of Theology at the University of Paris,” 399.

9 See, for instance, the collection of papers in Kent Emery, William J. Courtenay, and Stephen M. Metzger, eds., Philosophy and Theology in the Studia of the Religious Orders and at Papal and Royal Courts: Acts of the XVth International Colloquium of the Société Internationale pour l’Étude de la Philosophie Médiévale , University of Notre Dame, 8-10 October 2008 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012).

10 M. Michèle Mulchahey, “First the Bow Is Bent in Study--”: Dominican Education before 135 0 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1998); Bert Roest, A History of Franciscan Education (c. 1210-1517 ) (Leiden: Brill, 2000); Eric L. Saak, High Way to Heaven: The Augustinian Platform Between Reform and Reformation, 1292-1524 (Leiden: Brill, 2002). For changing Franciscan attitudes to education, see Neslihan Şenocak, The Poor and the Perfect: The Rise of Learning in the Franciscan Order, 1209-1310 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2012).

4 composed by the lector at the Augustinian studium in Erfurt, who had studied at one of his order’s studia generalia and spent a few years in Paris, but never became a master of theology. 11

The educational aims of the mendicant studia were distinct from those of the faculty of theology at Paris. The mendicant orders tended to use the universities for their own ends. They considered it useful to send a small minority of exceptional friars to Paris to obtain the doctorate in theology, which by the early fourteenth century often served as a stepping stone to ecclesiastical administrative positions. 12 But their educational systems were not designed as paths to this destination. Instead, they were primarily concerned with teaching friars to more effectively fulfil their missions as preachers, teachers, and confessors. Parisian masters of theology might debate the extent to which theology was a theoretical or practical science; friars caught up in the work of preaching, hearing confessions, tending the sick, burying the dead, counselling the powerful, correcting errors, and instructing the laity in the basics of the Christian faith, knew its hands-on applications intimately. How, then, might the self-image, teaching, and activities of the masters of theology at mendicant convents differ from those of the masters of theology at Paris? The vast majority of mendicant masters of theology who studied and taught at the University of Paris spent just a fraction of their careers there. The Parisian activities and writings of many thirteenth- and fourteenth-century friars have been studied in great detail, but what these mendicant masters of theology did with the rest of their lives remains, to a large extent, obscure.

A satisfactory response to the question of what mendicant masters of theology got up to beyond Paris would have to rely on a much larger collection of regional and biographical studies than the present scholarly literature permits. Instead, this dissertation takes the much more modest path of answering this question with respect to just one friar: John of Naples, or Giovanni Regina, a Dominican theologian who was active during the first half of the fourteenth century. John is unusual both for the detail in which his career can be reconstructed and for the bulk of his surviving writings, which are all in Latin, and nearly all unedited. He studied at the Dominican

11 Eric L. Saak, Catechesis in the Later Middle Ages I: The Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer of Jordan of Quedlinburg, OESA (d. 1380) — Introduction, Text, and Translation (Leiden: Brill, 2015).

12 William J. Courtenay, “Academic Formation and Careers of Mendicant Friars: A Regional Approach,” in Studio e studia: le scuole degli Ordini mendicanti tra XIII e XIV secolo: atti del XXIX Convegno internazionale, Assisi, 11- 13 ottobre 2001 (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’alto Medioevo, 2002): 199-217.

5 studia in Naples and Bologna, and at the University of Paris, where he was made a master of theology in 1315. Most of the rest of his life, which lasted until around 1350, was spent in Naples. An early protégé of King Charles II of Anjou, John maintained close ties with the Angevin monarchs who ruled the Kingdom of Naples, which in the first half of the fourteenth century comprised southern Italy (excluding Sicily) and portions of southern France, Greece, and Hungary, as well as a nominal claim to the Kingdom of Jerusalem. He made two brief visits to the papal court in Avignon, the first during the early 1320s, promoting the case for the canonization of his fellow-countryman and confrère Thomas Aquinas, and the second near the very end of his life in the service of the young Queen Johanna of Naples.

John was clearly a person of some standing within the Dominican order. In addition to participating in the investigation of the controversial Sentences commentary of Durand of St.- Pourçain in Paris, he attended provincial and general chapters, visited convents, and taught in one of the order’s most important studia generalia , located in the Neapolitan convent of San Domenico Maggiore. He was an important person in Naples too, or at least someone who knew important people, since he preached a large number of memorial sermons for members of the Angevin dynasty and other Neapolitan nobles, and served as executor for the testaments of several members of the royal court. John’s biography thus provides a window into a number of early-fourteenth-century social, political, and intellectual worlds – the Angevin court in Naples and the papal court in Avignon, as well as the universities and Dominican studia of Paris, Naples, and Bologna – thereby shedding light on the connections between cultural centres that are often studied in isolation.

John was the author of one of the largest surviving collections of quodlibets: thirteen disputations, containing a total of nearly 300 questions, most of which were disputed in Naples either before or after he became a master of theology. His other major works are a set of 42 disputed questions and a substantial sermon collection, of which approximately 150 sermons (about half of the original total) now survive. He also submitted contributions to multiple papal consultations, and made a deposition for the canonization inquest of Thomas Aquinas. He presumably also composed a commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, but this appears to

6 have been lost already by the sixteenth century. 13 John’s works are especially notable for the fact that most of them originated in Naples, a major cultural centre in late medieval Europe, whose intellectual history has received far less attention than it deserves. 14

John’s life and works therefore make for an excellent case study for investigating the nature of teaching and learning in non-university contexts during the first half of the fourteenth century, and the kinds of activities that were open to mendicant theologians beyond Paris. They also provide a good deal of insight into the nature of intellectual life in Angevin Naples. The first chapter of this dissertation will provide a comprehensive biography of John of Naples, and a discussion of the city of Naples as he would have known it. The following chapters examine different facets of his identity, considering John as a teacher, preacher, confessor, friar, and associate of the Neapolitan royal court.

It is generally agreed that beyond Paris (and at Paris too, for that matter) teaching occupied a substantial portion of mendicant masters’ time. Any Dominican friar sent to incept as a master of theology at Paris would have already spent several alternating periods of teaching and study in Dominican convents, most likely in his home province, and would be expected to spend some time thereafter teaching at a studium generale designated by his superiors. But what exactly did these friars teach, and how did they teach it? The fundamental outlines of the medieval Dominican educational curriculum have been well established by Michèle Mulchahey, and similar work has been done for the Franciscans and Augustinians by Bert Roest and Eric Saak, respectively. 15 Studies of this sort are enormously useful for reconstructing the educational networks of an order as a whole, and for modelling the educational path taken by a ‘typical’ friar. But they inevitably end up glossing over the complexities of regional variations and individual

13 The disputed questions were printed in the early modern period as F. Ioannis de Neapoli [...] Quaestiones Variae Parisiis Disputatae , ed. Domenico Gravina (Naples: Constantinus Vitalis, 1618; repr. Ridgewood, N. J.: Gregg Press, 1966). For descriptions of the main manuscripts of John’s quodlibets and sermons, see Appendix 1; discussion of the dating and placing of his works can be found in Chapter 1 and Appendix 2.

14 For a brisk overview of late medieval and early modern Neapolitan history and consideration of the place of Naples in (especially Anglophone) historiography, see Ronald G. Musto, “Introduction: Naples in Myth and History,” in Naples , ed. Marcia B. Hall and Thomas Willette (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 1-33.

15 See above, note 10.

7 experiences. For example, Michael Vargas’ study of the fourteenth-century chapter acts of the Dominican Province of Aragon calls into question Mulchahey’s depiction of the Dominicans as an order of life-long scholars, claiming that the curriculum was much less stable and many students much less devoted to study than the order’s statutes and general chapter acts might suggest. 16

In order to achieve a more nuanced understanding of mendicant education, it is necessary to investigate how individual friars actually taught theology on the ground, in a particular convent, at a particular time. Mulchahey’s ongoing work on Remigio de’ Girolami and Saak’s on Jordan of Quedlinburg both aim to get inside mendicant classrooms in this way. John of Naples is another excellent candidate for this sort of study because of the large quantity of surviving texts stemming from his teaching at the studium generale of San Domenico Maggiore in Naples. Chapter 2 considers John as a master of theology, comparing the account of the science of theology that he developed in a series of standard questions disputed at the University of Paris to the principia , or introductory lectures on theology, that he delivered at the Dominican studium generale in Naples. I argue that the pronouncements on the nature of theology that John delivered as part of a mandatory academic exercise in Paris bear little relation to the way he introduced the discipline to his Dominican students in Naples. This chapter also investigates how John conceived of himself as a teacher, focusing on the ways in which he defended the worldly status of masters of theology, and sought to defend orthodoxy – which he associated closely with the teachings of Thomas Aquinas – in the classroom.

The next two chapters take a closer look at two prominent themes in John’s teaching: medicine and pastoral care. Chapter 3 begins with a puzzle. In addition to many principia on theological subjects, John was also the author of a principium on medicine. Could he have been teaching medicine as well as theology in Naples? I argue that there was nothing preventing him from doing so, and use examples from his quodlibets and sermons to demonstrate some of the ways in which medical learning could be useful to Dominican friars, both for explicating questions arising from theological texts, and as a source of illustrative material for preaching. Although

16 Michael Vargas, Taming a Brood of Vipers: Conflict and Change in Fourteenth-Century Dominican Convents (Leiden: Brill, 2011), especially ch. 5.

John praised both practical and theoretical medicine highly, his interest was mainly in the latter. Fourteenth-century Naples, thanks in part to its proximity to Salerno, which had long been an important centre for medical studies, was home to a large number of highly-educated medical scholars and practitioners, and the prominence of medical themes in John’s works is likely related to this local context.

Chapter 4 examines the relationship between John’s quodlibets and the literature of pastoral care. I argue that some of his quodlibetal questions on practical ethical topics were inspired by popular pastoral manuals, and show that others were picked up by later composers of handbooks for confessors. This is one of the areas in which John’s works had the greatest impact, since references to a handful of his quodlibetal questions can be found in pastoral manuals composed right across Europe and well into the early modern period. Taken together, chapters 2-4 illustrate how John worked to train his Dominican students to be effective preachers, teachers, and confessors, and some of the ways in which local interests could influence the character of teaching in a particular Dominican convent.

In Chapter 5, I turn to considering John as a preacher and Dominican friar. This chapter is based mainly on his sermons for Dominican audiences, which testify to the extent to which preaching was integrated into the rhythms of Dominican daily life. Most research on Dominican sermons has concentrated on public preaching, aimed at lay or mixed audiences. However, this chapter demonstrates that a good deal of Dominican preaching also took place ‘in-house.’ John’s sermon collection sheds light on a number of specifically Dominican or mendicant activities that he performed in Naples and the surrounding areas. He performed visitations to check up on male and female convents, attended provincial and general chapters, participated in elections of ecclesiastical officials, received important persons to his convent, and presided over funerals and the annual cycle of the Dominican liturgy. The Dominican order, which spanned a geographical area larger than any medieval kingdom, had a formidable administrative structure, and by the fourteenth century, according to some historians – not least medieval and early modern Dominican ones – this structure was creaking under its own weight. 17 John’s sermons illustrate

17 E.g. William A. Hinnebusch, The History of the Dominican Order , vol. 1 (Staten Island, N.Y: Alba House, 1966), 71-2. On narratives of decline in Dominican historiography, see Claire Taylor Jones, Ruling the Spirit: Women, Liturgy, and Dominican Reform in Late Medieval Germany (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017),

9 how a single friar could contribute to the maintenance of this vast structure. Much as his quodlibets and principia help to show how the Dominican educational statutes could play out in practice, John’s sermons illustrate how the order’s statutes on internal governance and mission were carried out at a particular place and time. They also show how Dominican and local interests could overlap. For instance, I argue that John’s sermons for saints are mainly based on the Dominican liturgical calendar as it stood in his time, but also contain some nods to the piety of the Neapolitan Angevins. John actively promoted the cults of Angevin dynastic saints, and may even have attempted to add a new one to their number, in the person of Elizabeth of Hungary, sister-in-law of King Robert of Naples, who ended her days as a Dominican nun in a Neapolitan convent with extremely close ties to the royal court.

The sixth and final chapter examines the political aspects of John’s works. The involvement of Parisian masters of theology in politics has already received a good deal of scholarly attention, but by and large, this attention has focussed on French theologians and their interactions with the French crown, or occasionally other Northern European political authorities. 18 John’s southern Italian context provides a much-needed complement to these existing studies. After a discussion of his political preaching, including a close analysis of his preaching in support of the controversial Queen Johanna of Naples, I turn to the political issues treated in John’s quodlibets and disputed questions, which were based on everything from commentaries on Aristotle’s Politics to the behaviour of the King of Naples. I show that John responds to these kinds of questions from the perspective of an expert on natural law and its application to the complexities of life in a fallen world. He was rarely critical of the Neapolitan rulers who were his patrons, tending instead to confirm the extent of the king’s powers and provide theological justifications

86-8; Anne Huijbers, Zealots for Souls: Dominican Narratives of Self-Understanding During Observant Reforms, c. 1388-1517 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018),183-90 and 229-37; Vargas, Taming a Brood of Vipers , 39-47.

18 E.g. John W. Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants: The Social Views of Peter the Chanter & His Circle . (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970) and Baldwin, “Master Stephen Langton, Future Archbishop of Canterbury: The Paris Schools and Magna Carta,” English Historical Review 123.503 (2008): 811-46; Katherine Chambers, “‘When We Do Nothing Wrong, We Are Peers”: Peter the Chanter and Twelfth-Century Political Thought,” Speculum 88.2 (2013): 405-26; William Chester Jordan, Unceasing Strife, Unending Fear: Jacques de Thérines and the Freedom of the Church in the Age of the Last Capetians (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005); Jean Dunbabin, A Hound of God: Pierre de la Palud and the Fourteenth-Century Church (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991); Marmursztejn, L’autorité des maîtres , esp. ch. 6; Joel Kaye, A History of Balance, 1250-1375: The Emergence of a New Model of Equilibrium and its Impact on Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), ch. 5-7.

10 for existing royal policies. In contrast to contemporary French Dominican theologians who were sometimes torn between obedience to pope and king, John served a dynasty of monarchs who attempted to portray themselves as faithful papal vassals, and he helped to bolster theories of papal supremacy in his theological works. In her study of Peter of Palude, a French Dominican theologian who was an exact contemporary of John of Naples (the two certainly knew each other, having served together on the commissions to investigate Durand’s Sentences commentary in Paris), Jean Dunbabin argues that Peter’s historical importance lies partly in the fact that he is an example of a group of French theologians who “strove to serve two masters, to uphold the rights of each and create harmony between them” and “to convince both sides and their supporters that this harmony was both possible and desirable.” 19 John, on the contrary, worked for monarchs who were already very interested in cooperating with the papacy.

John’s historical importance comes not from any particular originality in his thought, nor any promotions to high offices. He took no bold stands of conscience, and made no particularly controversial or revolutionary philosophical or theological pronouncements. Many other Dominicans who became masters of theology in the first decades of the fourteenth century went on to obtain ecclesiastical administrative positions, either within their order or beyond it, like Hervaeus Natalis (elected prior for the Dominican province of France in 1308 and Master General of the order ten years later), Peter of Palude (appointed Patriarch of Jerusalem by Pope John XXII in 1329), or even Durand of St.-Pourçain (who, despite the Dominican controversy over his Sentences commentary, was quickly appointed Master of the Sacred Palace by Pope Clement V and then awarded a series of bishoprics by Pope John XXII). 20 Indeed, ecclesiastical service seems to have become something of a prerequisite for being sent to study at Paris; many early-fourteenth-century Dominicans who were sent to Paris by their superiors had already served as provincial priors. 21 John, however, never rose above the level of lector at the Neapolitan studium generale , and the nominal office of papal chaplain very late in life. There is

19 Dunbabin, A Hound of God , 197.

20 Courtenay, “Academic Formation and Careers of Mendicant Friars,” 214, lists several other examples from the 1310s and 1320s.

21 Courtenay, “Academic Formation and Careers of Mendicant Friars,” 215.

11 no indication that he served as so much as prior of his home convent, let alone prior for the Dominican province of the Regno, although the list of fourteenth-century holders of both offices admittedly has some gaps. 22 But it is not only prelates who hold a church or religious order together, nor merely the star professors who make a university run. John was by no means an average Dominican lector, but nor was he one of his order’s brightest stars. He is a good example of a second-tier theologian who served his order primarily as a teacher and liason with local political powers.

John’s historical importance also lies in the local contexts in which he spent his career. Naples in the first half of the fourteenth century was an unusual city. It was home to one of the oldest universities in Europe, founded by Frederick II Hohenstaufen in 1224. 23 By the 1330s, it also boasted studia generalia – the highest houses of study aside from the University of Paris – for all four of the main mendicant orders; those of the Dominicans, Franciscans, and Augustinians had already been established by the first years of the fourteenth century. 24 Few other European cities at the time could claim to possess such a concentration of centres of learning. Twentieth-century historians of universities, however, often dismissed the medieval University of Naples as overly dependent on the monarch and lacking in intellectual vigour. 25 It is true that the king or queen of

22 Thomas Käppeli, “Dalle pergamene di S. Domenico di Napoli,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 32 (1962): 285-326, at 312-26.

23 Paul Oldfield, “The Kingdom of Sicily and the Early University Movement,” Viator 40.2 (2009): 135-50; Gennaro Maria Monti, “L’Età Angioina,” in Storia della Università di Napoli (Naples: Ricciardi, 1924), 19-150.

24 The Dominican studium at San Domenico Maggiore had long held a place of prominence within the order, and it was raised to the level of a studium generale in 1303; see Mulchahey, “First the Bow Is Bent ,” 183; 385-6. The Franciscans also seem to have had a major school at Naples from the 1240s, if not before, and their school at San Lorenzo was designated a studium generale in the late thirteenth century; see Bert Roest, “The Franciscan School System: Re-Assessing the Early Evidence,” in Franciscan Organisation in the Mendicant Context: Formal and Informal Structures of the Friars’ Lives and Ministry in the Middle Ages , ed. Michael Robson and Jens Röhrkasten (Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2010), 253-79, at 268-9, and Roest, A History of Franciscan Education , 50-1. An Augustinian studium generale in Naples was first alluded to in 1287, and the Carmelite studium generale appears to have been founded sometime between 1324 and 1333; see Mariano d’Alatri, “Panorama geografico, cronologico e statistico sulla distribuzione degli studia degli ordini mendicanti: Italia,” in Le scuole degli ordini mendicanti (secoli XIII- XIV) (Todi: Accademia Tudertina, 1978), 49-72, at 69-70.

25 For an overview of this historiographical trend, see Oldfield, “The Kingdom of Sicily and the Early University Movement,” 135-6. Anti-southern biases may also have played a role in these characterizations; see Nelson Moe, The View from Vesuvius: Italian Culture and the Southern Question (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002).

Naples was nominally the head of the university, but it does not follow from this that intellectual life in Naples was lacking, either within the university or outside it. More recent studies, such as Samantha Kelly’s The New Solomon: Robert of Naples (1309-1343) and Fourteenth-Century Kingship and Jean Dunbabin’s The French in the Kingdom of Sicily , which take into account the wider circles of Angevin patronage, point on the contrary to the vibrancy of intellectual life in Angevin Naples. 26 King Robert of Naples, who “adopted the persona not simply of a learned and wise man, but also of a professional scholar,” was especially important in promoting scholarly activities in Naples during the first half of the fourteenth century. 27

Studies like Kelly’s and Dunbabin’s, focussed on larger questions of kingship and politics, often do little more than list the names of scholars who were active in Naples and a few biographical details, without investigating their ideas and teachings in detail. A recent article by Iolanda Ventura on medical culture in fourteenth-century Naples, summarizing the state of the field and suggesting directions for future research, gives a sense of how much work remains to be done. 28 At present, Ventura reports, we lack a thorough understanding of the kinds of medical works that circulated and were used as sources in Naples, as well as the circulation of medical manuscripts created in southern Italy. Many questions also remain about the nature of the medical translations produced in southern Italy and their diffusion, and the nature of academic and professional culture in Naples and southern Italy more broadly, including the connections between Naples and other cities in the Kingdom of Naples and abroad. Mutatis mutandis , the same could be said for other disciplines, such as law and theology. In all cases, basic questions about the circulation of texts, manuscripts, people, and ideas in southern Italy remain unanswered, to say nothing of questions about the culture(s) and identities of Neapolitan literati . By investigating in detail the

26 Kelly, Robert of Naples (1309-1343) and Fourteenth-Century Kingship (Leiden: Brill, 2003), especially chapter 2, and Dunbabin, The French in the Kingdom of Sicily, 1266–1305 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) , especially chapters 10-14 and 17.

27 Darleen Pryds, “Court as studium : royal venues for academic preaching,” in Medieval Sermons and Society: Cloister, City, University: Proceedings of International Symposia at Kalamazoo and New York , ed. Jacqueline Hamesse (Leuven: Fédération Internationale des Instituts d’études médiévales, 1998), 343-56, at 356.

28 Iolanda Ventura, “Cultura medica a Napoli nel XIV secolo,” in Boccaccio angioino: Materiali per la storia di Napoli nel Trecento , ed. Giancarlo Alfano, Teresa d’Urso, and Alessandra Perriccioli Saggese (Brussels: Peter Lang, 2012), 251-88.

13 life and works of a prominent Neapolitan scholar, one whose interests included not only theology, but also medicine, law, and politics, this dissertation significantly advances our understanding of the kinds of intellectual activities that flourished in fourteenth-century Naples.

John’s career also illustrates some of the key intellectual and cultural networks that linked Naples to other “beacon cities.” 29 Especially important was the Paris-Naples-Avignon triangle, in which scholars, books, and ideas frequently travelled between universities, mendicant studia , and royal and papal courts. Typically these three cities have been studied in isolation, and works that explore connections between them tend to be bilateral. 30 One rare exception is William Duba’s recent study of an academic exercise by the Neapolitan Franciscan Landolfo Caracciolo, which points to the existence of an early-fourteenth-century network of Paris-educated theologians with ties to the Angevin court in Naples and the papal court in Avignon. 31 The conclusion of Aurélien Robert’s study of medicine and theology at the Angevin court in Naples also points to the importance of investigating connections between Naples and other intellectual centres – not only Paris and its university, but also the papal court at Avignon and other Italian centres such as Bologna – for understanding scholarly works produced there. 32

This dissertation therefore attempts to bridge the gap between “studies that focus on educational structures and social milieu, and those that focus on the ideas generated in such an

29 I borrow the term from Constant J. Mews and John N. Crossley, introduction to Communities of Learning: Networks and the Shaping of Intellectual Identity in Europe, 1100-1500 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), 1-7; Mews and Crossley in turn are translating the phrase “ villes phares ” from Christian Jacob, ed. Lieux de savoir 1: Espaces et communautés (Paris: Albin Michel, 2007).

30 E.g. Marianne Pade, Hannemarie Ragn Jensen, and Lene Waage Petersen, eds., Avignon & Naples: Italy in France-France in Italy in the Fourteenth Century (Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1997); Cathleen A. Fleck, The Clement Bible at the Medieval Courts of Naples and Avignon: A Story of Papal Power, Royal Prestige, and Patronage (New York: Ashgate, 2010); Francesco Pasquale, “La costruzione di una capitale. Roberto d’Angiò e la sua corte tra Napoli e Avignone,” in Images and Words in Exile. Avignon and Italy during the First Half of the 14 th Century , ed. Elisa Brilli, Laura Fenelli, and Gerhard Wolf (Florence: SISMEL Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2015), 421-32; Dunbabin, The French in the Kingdom of Sicily , esp. ch. 12, which examines the connections between the universities of Paris and Naples during the second half of the thirteenth century.

31 William O. Duba, “Masters and Bachelors at Paris in 1319: The lectio finalis of Landolfo Caracciolo, OFM,” in Schüler und Meister , ed. Andreas Speer and Thomas Jeschke (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016), 315-70.

32 Aurélien Robert, “Médicine et théologie à la cour des Angevins de Naples,” in Frontières des savoirs en Italie à l’époque des premières universités , ed. Joël Chandelier and Aurélien Robert (Rome: École française de Rome, 2015), 295-349.

14 environment.” 33 On one hand, I hope that it will be useful for scholars who are interested in mendicant education and the roles played by mendicant (especially Dominican) masters of theology within their orders. On the other, I hope that by bringing to light the intellectual activities of one of the most prominent theologians associated with the Angevin court of Naples, this study will inspire further investigation into the lives and works of other scholars who were active in the same vibrant cultural milieu.

* * *

John of Naples has not been completely neglected by previous scholars. Modern scholarship on John of Naples takes as its starting point a 1940 article by the Dominican historian Thomas Käppeli, which distinguished between two late medieval Dominican Johns of Naples, one (Giovanni Regina) active during the first half of the fourteenth century and the other (Giovanni Cataldi) active in the fifteenth. 34 Käppeli devoted the majority of his article to the life and works of the first John, whom he deemed the more important of the two. 35 He paid special attention to the collection of John’s sermons contained in Naples, Bibl. Naz. VIII.AA.11 (A), devoting a substantial section of the article to systematically outlining the contents of the manuscript and printing passages that he found particularly interesting. One of the enduring strengths of Käppeli’s study is that he drew extensively on archival sources in reconstructing John’s biography. Published just a few years before the devastation of the Neapolitan State Archives following Italy’s surrender to the Germans in September 1943, Käppeli’s article is now the only record of many of the documents that it cites. 36

33 Constant J. Mews, “Communities of Learning and the Dream of Synthesis: The Schools and Colleges of Thirteenth-Century Paris,” in Communities of Learning , 109-35, at 110.

34 Thomas Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori domenicani di nome Giovanni di Napoli,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 10 (1940): 48-76.

35 Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 48-71.

36 For a concise report, written by the head archivist shortly after the destruction, see Riccardo Filangieri, “Report on the Destruction by the Germans, September 30, 1943, of the Depository of Priceless Historical Records of the Naples State Archives,” The American Archivist 7.4 (October 1944): 252-5. Filangieri devoted much of the rest of his life to painstakingly reconstructing the Angevin Registers on the basis of published excerpts and references to documents. The effort to reconstruct the archives continues to this day, published by the Accademia Pontaniana in the series Registri della Cancelleria Angioina . Unfortunately, the most recent volume in the series, published in

A supplement to Käppeli’s biography of John can be found in a more recent book chapter by Patrick Nold, which concentrates on a particular aspect of John’s career: his relationship with the papacy. 37 Nold takes issue with the tendency of twenty-first and late-twentieth-century encyclopaedists to present John as one of the most influential theologians at the court of Pope John XXII. On the contrary, Nold argues, John’s time at the papal court in Avignon was brief, and his influence on the pope was minimal. Examining a range of sources dating from John’s Avignon period, Nold concludes that “his writings supply an excellent testimony to the intellectual debates that animated the pontificate,” but this does not mean that he was especially influential with the pope. 38 Despite the quality of Nold’s work, old habits die hard; the most recent encyclopedic entry on John, for the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani , cites Nold’s article but still refers to John of Naples as one of the closest collaborators of John XXII. 39

Nold’s study is unusual for drawing on the full spectrum of John’s surviving writings: quodlibets, disputed questions, papal consultations, and sermons. Most other scholars writing about John have employed only one of these genres, typically looking at his quodlibets and/or disputed questions, or his sermons, but not both. Amidst the steady stream of articles and book sections devoted to John of Naples, the contributions of a few authors deserve special mention. The first is Prospero T. Stella, who announced that he was working on a critical edition of John’s quodlibets in the mid-1970s and published articles based on this work at regular intervals throughout his career. 40 Most of Stella’s articles took the same form: an edition of one or two of John’s questions, accompanied by a brief exposition of their contents and their historical and

2010, only goes as far as 1295, just before John of Naples comes on the scene. For now, scholars interested in the contents of the fourteenth-century registers must perform the work of reconstruction themselves.

37 Patrick Nold, “How Influential Was Giovanni Di Napoli, OP, in Avignon?” in Philosophy and Theology in the Studia of the Religious Orders and at Papal and Royal Courts , 629-75.

38 Nold, “How Influential,” 669.

39 Victor Riviera Magos, “Regina, Giovanni,” Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani 86 (2016), http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/giovanni-regina_(Dizionario-Biografico)/

40 The edition was announced in Prospero T. Stella, “Gli ‘articuli parisienses, qui doctrinam eximii doctoris beati Thomae de Aquino tangunt vel tangere asseruntur’ nella accezione di Giovanni Regina di Napoli,” Salesianum 37 (1975): 39-67, at 42.

16 intellectual context. 41 The same could be said for many of the other authors who have written about John’s quodlibets, including Mauro Mantovani, who became involved in Stella’s edition project at a later stage. 42 (Pasquale Porro assured me in the summer of 2015 that the first volume of this edition would be published within the year, but to the best of my knowledge no such volume has appeared as yet. More recently, Federico Canaccini informed me that he has taken up the project of editing Quodl. I and II.) A handful of book-length studies have been based on aspects of John’s thought in his quodlibets and disputed questions, such as the relationship between God and the world, 43 trinitarian theology, 44 and the beatific vision. 45 A useful summary of the state of the field for research on John’s quodlibets, especially concerning their dating, is found in Russell L. Friedman’s chapter on Dominican quodlibetal literature in the second of the two volumes on Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages edited by Christopher Schabel. 46 With a few exceptions, research on John’s quodlibets and disputed questions has tended to focus on theological and philosophical topics.

Less work has been done on John’s sermons, despite the fact that Johannes Baptist Schneyer catalogued them in his Repertorium der lateinischen Sermones des Mittelalters für die Zeit von

41 In addition to the article cited in the note above, which edits John’s Quodl. VI.2, see Prospero T. Stella, “Zwei unedierte Artikel des Johannes von Neapel über das Individationsprinzip,” Divus Thomas (Freiburg) 29 (1951): 129-66 (edits Quodl. III.5 and Quodl. VII.6); “Puer quasi res parentum: Breve contributo alla storia della pedagogia medioevale,” Orientamenti Pedagogici 8 (1961): 910-27 (edits Quodl. X.21); “Giovanni Regina di Napoli, O.P., e la tesi di Giovanni XXII circa la visione beatifica,” Salesianum 35 (1973): 53-99 (edits Quodl. XI.7); “Padrinato e madrinato battesimali a Napoli sull’inizio del sec. XIV: due questioni quodlibetali inedite di G. R. di Napoli O.P.” in Historiam perscrutari. Miscellanea di studi offerti al prof. Ottorino Pasquato , ed. Mario Maritano (Rome: Editrice L.A.S., 2002), 409-21 (edits Quodl. III.20 and Quodl. IX.20).

42 Mauro Mantovani, “Due questioni inedite di Giovanni di Napoli su temi gioachimiti,” Florensia 13/15 (1999- 2000): 259-80 (edits Quodl. I.13 and Quodl. II.5); “‘ Veraciter, sed non evidenter ’. Due questioni quodlibetali inedite di Giovanni di Napoli sul tema della creazione,” Salesianum 61 (1999): 463-82 (edits Quodl. X.8-9).

43 Carl Johann Jellouschek, Johannes von Neapel und seine Lehre vom Verhältnisse zwischen Gott und Welt: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der ältesten Thomistenschule (Vienna: Mayer & Comp., 1918).

44 Richard Schneider, Die Trinitätslehre in den Quodlibeta und Quaestiones disputatae des Johannes von Neapel O.P. († 1336 ) (Munich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1972).

45 Franz Merta, “Die Lehre von der Visio beata in den Quodlibeta und Quaestiones disputatae des Johannes von Neapel O.P. († 1336)” (Inaugural-Dissertation, Munich, 1964).

46 Russell L. Friedman, “Dominican Quodlibetal Literature, ca. 1260-1330,” in Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages. Volume 2: The Fourteenth Century , ed. Christopher Schabel (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 401-91, at 455-63.

1150-1350 , and even published a short article highlighting the importance of the collection, reiterating Käppeli’s comments of over twenty years before. 47 Most research concentrates on John’s preaching for and about the Angevin rulers of Naples. The outstanding figure in this regard is Jean-Paul Boyer, who has published a great many articles dealing with a group of preachers who were associated with the Angevin court of Naples during the first half of the fourteenth century, often editing single sermons in appendices.48 Also worthy of note is David D’Avray, whose Death and the Prince is mainly based on the memorial sermons for members of the Angevin royal family by a similar group of preachers, including John of Naples. 49 Samantha Kelly provided a catalogue of John’s sermons in support of the Angevins in her study of King Robert of Naples, and elsewhere published a translation of one of his sermons beseeching God to protect the Angevin army. 50

Various recent works deal with John in passing, and with varying degrees of accuracy. As recently as 2005, Isabel Iribarren, in her monograph on Durand of St. Pourçain, referred to

47 Johannes Baptist Schneyer, “Der Beitrag des Johannes Regina von Neapel zur Entwicklung eigener Predigtreihen,” Theologische Quartalschrift 144 (1964): 216-27.

48 Leaving aside articles on the preaching of King Robert of Naples and his logothete, Bartholomew of Capua, Boyer’s articles that make reference to John include: “Les Baux et le modèle royal: une oraison funèbre de Jean Regina de Naples (1334),” Provence Historique 181 (1995): 427-52; “Prédication et État napolitain dans la première moitié du XIV e siècle,” in L’État angevin: Pouvoir, culture et société entre XIII e et XIV e siècle (Rome: École française de Rome, 1998), 127–57; “La noblesse dans les sermons des Dominicains de Naples (première moitié du XIV e siècle),” in La noblesse dans les territoires angevins à la fin du Moyen Age , ed. Noël Coulet and Jean-Marie Matz (Rome: École française de Rome, 2000), 567-83; “Vertus privées et bien public: Reines et princesses selon la prédication de mortuis à la cour de Naples (première moitié du XIV e siècle),” in Reines et princesses au Moyen Age: actes du cinquième Colloque international de Montpellier, Université Paul-Valéry, 24-27 novembre 1999 , ed. Marcel Faure (Montpellier: Association C.R.I.S.I.M.A., 2001), 413-35; “ Sapientis est ordinare : La monarchie de Sicile-Naples et Thomas d’Aquin (de Charles I er à Robert),” in Formation intellectuelle et culture du clergé dans les territoires angevins (milieu du XIII e-fin du XV e siècle) , ed. Marie-Madeleine de Cevins and Jean-Marie Matz (Rome: École française de Rome, 2005), 277-312; “Spirituel et temporel dans les sermons napolitains de la première moitié du XIV e siècle,” Preaching and Political Society: From Late Antiquity to the End of the Middle Ages = Depuis l’Antiquité tardive jusqu’à la fin du Moyen Âge , ed. Franco Morenzoni (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), 267-309; “Processions civiques et prédication à Naples. Première motié du XIV e siècle,” in Identités angevines. Entre Provence et Naples, XIII e-XV e siècle, ed. Jean-Paul Boyer, Anne Mailloux, and Laure Verdon (Aix-en-Provence: Presses Universitaires de Provence, 2016), 133-66.

49 David D’Avray, Death and the Prince: Memorial Preaching before 1350 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994).

50 Kelly, The New Solomon , 36; “Giovanni Regina on Angevin Military Success Against the Empire (1328),” in Medieval Italy: Texts in Translation , ed. Katherine L. Jansen, Joanna Drell, and Frances Andrews (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 138-41.

Jellouschek’s book on John, written in 1918, as the standard account of his life, apparently unaware of Käppeli’s article. 51 Elizabeth Lowe, in another study of Durand’s conflict with his order, confusingly refers to John’s Sentences commentary as though it were extant, and treats his sixth and seventh quodlibetal disputations as though they were the only ones. 52 Schabel, Friedman, and Balcoyiannopoulou discuss John’s writings on the problem of divine knowledge of future contingents as part of the larger Parisian reaction to the views of Durand of St. Pourçain;53 Gabriella Zuccolin examines quodlibetal questions by John of Naples and other late- thirteenth and early-fourteenth-century theologians on problems involving cojoined twins. 54 Patrick Nold’s studies of Pope John XXII’s consultations on marriage and the apostolic poverty controversy both discuss John’s contributions, but, as noted above, John was not highly influential in either, so he does not occupy a large part of either book. 55 Recent studies of the medieval cults of Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Becket, Louis of Anjou, and Mary Magdalene all mention John, but often in a single sentence or a footnote. 56 Despite the growing body of scholarship on John, most of these authors make no reference to aspects of his life or thought other than the one that is the main focus of their study. This is understandable, but it means that the existing scholarship is quite fragmented.

51 Isabel Iribarren, Durandus of St. Pourçain: A Dominican Theologian in the Shadow of Aquinas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 184n9.

52 Elizabeth Lowe, The Contested Theological Authority of Thomas Aquinas: The Controversies Between Hervaeus Natalis and Durandus of St. Pourcain, 1307-1323 (New York: Routledge, 2003), 77; 80.

53 Christopher Schabel, Russel Friedman, and Ireni Balcoyiannopoulou, “Peter of Palude and the Parisian Reaction to Durand of St Pourcain on Future Contingents,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 71 (2001): 183-300.

54 Gabriella Zuccolin, “Two Heads Two Souls? Cojoined Twins in Theological Quodlibeta (1270- c. 1310),” Quaestio 17 (2017): 573-95.

55 Patrick Nold, Pope John XXII and his Franciscan Cardinal: Bertrand de la Tour and the Apostolic Poverty Controversy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003); Marriage Advice for a Pope: John XXII and the Power to Dissolve (Leiden: Brill, 2009).

56 Jean-Pierre Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas. Volume 1: The Person and His Work , rev. ed., trans. Robert Royal (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2005), 319-20; Phyllis B. Roberts, Thomas Becket in the Medieval Latin Preaching Tradition (The Hague: M. Nijhoff International, 1992), 32-3; 76; Marianne Cecilia Gaposchkin, The Making of Saint Louis: Kingship, Sanctity, and Crusade in the Later Middle Ages (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2008), 86; Katherine Ludwig Jansen, The Making of the Magdalen: Preaching and Popular Devotion in the Later Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 307-8; 314.

Other works will be cited as they become relevant in the course of this dissertation. For now, the main point to note is the disjointed nature of the existing scholarship on John. A deep divide exists between scholars working on John’s ‘scholastic’ texts (the quodlibets and disputed questions) and his sermons, and existing studies tend to look at a small portion of his works in isolation, be it his memorial sermons for princes, writings related to Pope John XXII, or questions on a specific philosophical or theological issue. Since Käppeli’s “notes”, no one has studied John’s life and works in their entirety, taking into account his biography and his intellectual output in all genres. But, as this dissertation will make clear, studying John’s output holistically provides us with greater insight into his thought, and contributes more to our understanding of fourteenth-century mendicant life, education, preaching, and relations with secular powers and the papacy, than studying any one of his works in isolation.

Chapter 1 John’s Life and Works

The first part of this chapter presents a chronological survey of John’s life and works. Detailed arguments for the dating and placing of his extant writings, and discussion of lost and spurious works, can be found in Appendix 2. The second part of the chapter seeks to set these works in context with a discussion of the city of Naples as John would have known it.

1.1 Biographical study

Early years: Naples and Bologna, ca. 1275-1309

John’s parentage and date of birth are unknown. He first appears in the records in 1298 as a Dominican student in Bologna, and since the Dominican order theoretically did not accept friars who were younger than eighteen, he must have been born before 1280; Käppeli suggested he was born ca. 1275. 1 From all appearances, he came from a noble Neapolitan family. Regina was a reasonably common family name in Naples, common enough for one art historian to argue that the church of Santa Maria Donna Regina in Naples was named after the family rather than the queen of heaven. 2 Käppeli noted that other people with the same family name appeared frequently as royal officials in the Angevin registers. 3 Although the loss of these registers makes it impossible to trace those references, an extant document from the abbey of Montevergine dating to 1331 was witnessed by a Neapolitan judge called Ludovicus de Regina, in all likelihood a relative of John’s. 4 References to nobles of the Regina family can be found into the

1 Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 55. For the Dominicans’ minimum age policy, which was not always strictly enforced, see Mulchahey, “ First the Bow is Bent ,” 83-5.

2 Émil Bertaux, Santa Maria di Donna Regina e l’arte senese a Napoli nel secolo XIV (Naples: Giannini, 1899), 4.

3 Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 48.

4 Biblioteca Statale di Montevergine, Perg. 3268, described in Giovanni Mongelli, O.S.B., Abbazia di Montevergine: Regesto delle Pergamene, vol. 4 (sec. IV) (Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, 1958), 211-12. The document was related to the execution of Bartholomew of Capua’s will, for which John was one of the executors.

20 21 early modern period. 5 Early modern biographers often touted John’s noble origins, frequently by asserting that he came from the Sicula family – a name which is not attested in any contemporary documents. 6 John’s frequent interactions with the Neapolitan nobility, which will be discussed below, lend further circumstantial evidence to the hypothesis that he was of noble origins himself.

The date at which John joined the Dominican order is uncertain. He probably made his profession in Naples and attended the convent schola there before being sent to Bologna for higher studies. 7 The earliest surviving document that refers to him is a letter dated September 23, 1298, in which King Charles II instructed the Dominican inquisitors William of Tocco and Landolfo Siginulfus to pay John, then a student at Bologna, four gold uncie to buy books. 8 Although Dominican students sent to a studium provinciale or studium generale were supposed to be provided with the books necessary for their studies by their convent or province, it was not unusual for friars to be allocated money to spend on books themselves, or to receive gifts of books or money for books from family members or patrons outside the order. 9 Four uncie would have paid the salary of a Neapolitan royal scribe for several months, so this was not an inconsequential sum. 10 The king’s letter specified that the money was to come out of the portion

5 Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 48-9n2; Francesco Bonazzi, Famiglie Nobili e Titolate del Napolitano (Naples: Libreria Detken & Rocholl, 1902), 198.

6 E.g. Antonius Senensis, Bibliotheca ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum , (Paris: Nicolaus Nivellius, 1585), 136; Théodore Valle, Breve compendio de gli piu illustri padri nella vita, dignità, uffici, e lettere ch'hà prodotto la prov. del Regno di Nap. dell' Ordine de predicatores [...] (Naples: Secondino Roncagliolo, 1651), 97-103.

7 The Dominican studium generale at Bologna had been established in 1246, making it one of the oldest in the order; see M. Michèle Mulchahey, “The Dominicans’ Studium at Bologna and its Relationship with the University in the Thirteenth Century,” in Praedicatores, Doctores: lo studium generale dei frati predicatori nella cultura bolognese tra il ’200 e il ’300 , ed. Roberto Lambertini (Florence: Nerbini, 2009), 17-30.

8 For the document, see Gennaro Maria Monti, “Da Carlo I a Roberto di Angiò: ricerche e documenti,” Archivio Storico per le province Napoletane , n.s. 20 (1934): 137-223, at 165n4. The uncia was a monetary unit for the kingdom of Sicily. 1 uncia = 30 tarì ; 1 tarì = 20 grani .

9 Kenneth W. Humphreys, The Book Provisions of the Mediaeval Friars, 1215-1400 (Amsterdam: Erasmus Booksellers, 1964): 20-22. The same was true for other orders; see Neslihan Şenocak, “Book Acquisition in the Medieval Franciscan Order,” The Journal of Religious History 27.1 (2003): 14-28.

10 In 1280, a Neapolitan head scribe in charge of copying royal books was paid 1 tarì per day and his assistant 15 grani per day; in 1313, a certain scribe was paid 4 tarì per month; in 1316, King Robert of Naples paid 1 uncia for a French devotional book. See Cornelia C. Coulter, “The Library of the Angevin Kings at Naples,” Transactions and

22 of proceeds from the inquisition that was owed to the royal curia. In 1295, Charles II had declared that the crown would receive a third of the money derived from the inquisition, so this may simply have been a convenient way of allocating funds. 11

One of the Dominican inquisitors charged with passing on the money to John in Bologna in 1298 may have also been one of his early teachers. In his deposition for the inquest about the life and miracles of Thomas Aquinas at Naples in 1319, John recounted the story of a miraculous cure told to him by his “kind lector” Landolfo de Neapoli, who was a prior and inquisitor and later the bishop of Vico Equense (near Sorrento) and Acerenza (Basilicata). 12 Käppeli identifies this Landolfo with Landolfo Siginulfus of Naples, who is recorded in 1298 as an inquisitor, and who served as prior of San Domenico Maggiore in Naples from at least January 1298 to September 1299. 13 He was made bishop of Sorrento in 1301 and Pope Clement V subsequently transferred him to the archbishopric of Acerenza and Matera at the request of King Charles II of Naples, indicating that, like John, he was under the patronage of the Angevin court. Innocenzo Taurisano suggested that this Landolfo might be the “Landolfo da Caivano” who was assigned to the Dominican convent of Capua as lector in 1288. 14 However, this seems unlikely, since a “Landolfo di Caiano” was listed as an inquisitor in Naples in 1309, whereas the Landolfo who

Proceedings of the American Philological Association 75 (1944): 141-55, at 143-4. See also Caroline Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples: Church Building in Angevin Italy, 1266-1343 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 231n32. In the mid-1340s, 6 uncie would be equivalent to approximately 33 florins; see Peter Spufford, Handbook of Medieval Exchange (London: Royal Historical Society, 1986), 63.

11 Gennaro Maria Monti, “Intorno al Santo Offizio nel regno di Napoli da Giovanna I a Giovanna II,” Nuovi Studi Angioini (Naples: Vecchi, 1937): 279-95, at 283.

12 M.-H. Laurent, ed. Fontes Vitae S. Thomae Aquinatis, vol. IV: Processus canonizationis S. Thomae, Neapoli (St. Maximin: Revue Thomiste, 1912), 328: “dixit quod audivit dici et recitari sibi a fratre Landulfo de Neapoli, ordinis Predicatorum, qui fuit in ordine ipso lector gratiosus, et prior et inquisitor heretice pravitatis, et postea episcopus Equensis et tandem archiepiscopus Acherontinus...” The story is a minor healing miracle, in which Landolfo, at the encouragement of the monks of Fossanova, was miraculously cured of colic pains by stretching his belt across Aquinas’s tomb and then lying down on it. John could not remember exactly when or where he heard this story, but he insisted that he had heard it from Landolfo directly. The detail that Landolfo was on his way to the Roman Province when the healing took place suggests that the story’s events probably occurred after 1296, when the Dominican Province of the Regno was separated from the Roman Province; before then, all of Italy fell under the dominion of the Roman Province.

13 Käppeli, “Dalle pergamene di S. Domenico di Napoli,” 313n6, and in “Giacomo di Fusignano O.P.,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 15 (1945): 134-42, at 141n40.

14 Innocenzo Taurisano, Discepoli e biografi di S. Tommaso: note storico-critiche (Rome: A. Manuzio, 1924), 65.

23 was archbishop of Acerenza and Matera died in 1307. John was in Bologna until at least March 1300, when he witnessed a will, 15 and since Landolfo was made a bishop in 1301, it seems likeliest that John studied with him before going to Bologna. No trace of this Dominican’s teachings survive, although the scanty records concerning him do emphasize his learning. 16

In Bologna, John was almost certainly a student of Aymeric of Piacenza, who went on to serve as Master General of the Dominican order from 1304-1311. 17 Given the close connections between the Dominican studium and the university in Bologna, John may also have come into contact with some of the university masters. For instance, Aurélien Robert argues that it is unlikely that John was unaware of the medical debates going on in Bologna during his stay there. 18 If that is so, John may well have met or heard about the teachings of some of the students of the influential medical master Taddeo Alderotti, such as Gentile da Cingoli, who taught logic and philosophy at Bologna from around 1295, 19 and professors of medicine such as Mondino de’

15 Guido Zaccagnini, “Le scuole e la libreria del convento di S. Domenico in Bologna dalle origini al secolo XVI,” Atti e memorie della deputazione di storia patria per le province di Romagna , ser. 4, vol. 17 (1927): 228-327, at 269n2: “Se si potesse esser certi che fosse proprio costui quel “Fratre Zoanne de Napoli” che apparisce come teste nel testamento di Feo del fu Enrico del 16 marzo 1300 (A.S.B., arch deman. di S. Domenico, b. a 181/7515), si pottrebe affermare che fino dal 1300 era nel convento bolognese.” I have not examined this document.

16 E.g. Ferdinando Ughelli, Italia Sacra (Second ed., Venice: Coleti, 1720), vol. 6, col. 632: “cum esset vir doctissimus et gratia Regis polleret, eo petente a Clemente V Papa translatus est ad Archiepiscopalem Sedem Acheruntinam et Materanam anno 1306” and vol. 7 (Venice: Coleti, 1721), col. 44: “Magnaram virtutum, omniumque scientiarum genere ornatum fuisse Landulphum narrat Leander in Nomenclatura Archiepiscoporum Ordinis Praedicatorum”; Vincentio Maria Fontana, Sacrum theatrum dominicanum (Rome: Nicolai Angeli Tinassii, 1665), p. 50: “Scientiarum et virtutum omnium corona redimitus fuisse affirmat Leander Albertus noster in Archiepiscoporum nostrorum nomenclatura; fuerat enim in Ordine Doctor Parisiensis insignis, Fideique Quaesitor in Neapolitano Regno” and p. 323: “cum inter sui saeculi Doctores eruditoresque merito computaretur, Regisque gratia polleret...”; Giovanni-Maria Cavalieri, Galleria de sommi Pontefici, Patriarchi, Arcivescovi e Vescovi dell’Ordine de Predicatori (Benevento, 1696), vol. 1, p. 67: “fu Dottor Parigino, ed Inquisitore nel Regno di Napoli, ornato colla corona di ogni virtu, e di ogni scienza.”

17 Zaccagnini, “Le scuole e la libreria del convento di S. Domenico in Bologna,” 22, lists Aymeric as a lector at Bologna from 1299-1302. Abele L. Redigonda, “Aimerico da Piacenza,” Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani 1 (1960), http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/aimerico-da-piacenza_(Dizionario-Biografico)/ , has him holding the theologian’s chair from 1299-1304, as well as being prior in 1297.

18 Robert, “Médicine et théologie,” 304.

19 Nancy Siraisi, Taddeo Alderotti and His Pupils: Two Generations of Italian Medical Learning (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), 42-3.

Liuzzi (and perhaps also his father Liuzzio), 20 Bartolomeo da Varignana, 21 and perhaps also

Dino del Garbo, who started teaching in Bologna in 1305 or a few years earlier. 22 Depending on how long John stayed in Bologna, he might also have encountered Johannes Andree, a major legal commentator who taught canon law in Bologna from 1301/2 until 1348, with gaps in 1307- 9 and 1319.23 Bologna was undoubtedly a stimulating place to be a student around the start of the fourteenth century. John seems to have remembered his time there fondly; in a later sermon welcoming home a Neapolitan scholar who was returning from studies in Bologna, he praised the city’s material and scholarly riches. 24

After Bologna, the next record that mentions John dates from March 1307, when Charles II wrote to the Prior Provincial of Provence, William of Laudun, asking him to pass on a letter to Aymeric of Piacenza, now the Dominican Master General, requesting that John be sent to read the Sentences at Paris the next winter. 25 John was not the only scholar to receive this kind of royal support in his studies; in 1323, King Robert of Naples prevailed upon Pope John XXII to write to the chancellor of the University of Paris, requesting that the Provençal Franciscan

20 Siraisi, Taddeo Alderotti and His Pupils , 67.

21 Siraisi, Taddeo Alderotti and His Pupils , 46-7.

22 Siraisi, Taddeo Alderotti and His Pupils , 57.

23 Kenneth Pennington and Charles Donahue, Jr., Bio-Bibliographical Guide to Medieval and Early Modern Jurists , Report No. r339, http://amesfoundation.law.harvard.edu/BioBibCanonists/Report_Biobib2.php?record_id=r339 .

24 Schneyer no. 109, A f. 72va-b: “...auditu communi et notorio audivimus nos quasi omnes, non ab uno solo vel paucis sed multis valde, vos in Bononia legisse cum magno honore patrie, et persone opposuisse frequenter, respondisse, et omnes quasi actus scolasticos et doctorum exercuisse valde excellenter. Job 28[:22], auribus nostris audivimus famam eius . Et quod ut hec hic etiam exerceatis, debent affectare omnes ordinate amantes studium et bonum huius civitatis et totius patrie, et vobis dicere quod dictum est Christo, Luc. 4[:23], quanta audivimus facta in Capharneum , id est Bononia – Capharneum enim interpretatur ager pinguedinis, seu villa consolationis, et Bononia est ager pinguedinis et villa consolationis temporalis propter habun|dantiam victualium, unde et in Francia dicitur Bononia pinguis, et specialiter propter studium sollempne in diversis scientiis quod ibi viget – fac et hic in patria tua .”

25 For the document, see Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 68-9. William presumably passed on the message at the 1307 Dominican general chapter at Strasbourg, which was a meeting of provincial priors; see Georgina Galbraith, The Constitution of the Dominican Order, 1216-1360 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1925), 258.

25 theologian Francis of Meyronnes be promoted to the license in theology. 26 Robert also took an interest in the career of another Franciscan, Andrew of Perugia. In 1332, Pope John XXII wrote to the archbishop of Naples, requesting that Andrew be made a master of theology in Naples, and the king preached a graduation sermon at Castel Nuovo in his honour. 27 The Angevin rulers’ readiness to intervene in the scholarly careers of their subjects probably had something to do with the organization of the University of Naples, which had been headed by the Neapolitan monarch since its foundation by Frederick II in 1224, meaning that all degrees were conferred by the monarch or his representative. In Naples, the sovereign also appointed university officials and determined who could teach at the studium and where graduates could teach. 28 It is therefore unsurprising that the Angevin rulers also took an active role in the education of their mendicant subjects. Personal connections undoubtedly played a role in the educational paths of friars elsewhere too; for instance, in 1323, Pope John XXII wrote to the chancellor of the University of Paris at the request of King Charles IV of France, urging that Pierre Roger (the future Pope Clement VI) be promoted to master. 29 So it was not totally out of the ordinary for the king of Naples to actively promote John’s educational progress.

In his letters of March 1307, Charles describes John as “continually overseeing the studium ” in Naples and says that he has “already several times made himself so pleasing to his hearers that he has been made worthy of translation [to the University of Paris], through which by studying he might take on a greater load, and hence become more useful to others.” 30 This suggests that

26 Kelly, The New Solomon , 35; Heinrich Denifle, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis , vol. 2 (Paris: Delalain, 1891), doc. 823, p. 272.

27 Kelly, The New Solomon , 38; Darleen Pryds, The King Embodies the Word: Robert d’Anjou and the Politics of Preaching (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 71-5; 127.

28 On the ties between the University of Naples and the sovereign, especially under Robert of Naples, see Darleen Pryds, The King Embodies the Word , 63-81. On the broader Mediterranean phenomenon of royal involvement in university organization and life, with particular attention to Naples, see Darleen Pryds, “ Studia as Royal Offices: Mediterranean Universities of Medieval Europe,” in Universities and Schooling in Medieval Society , ed. William J. Courtenay, Jürgen Miethke, and David B. Priest (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 83-99.

29 Denifle, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis , vol. 2, doc. 822, p. 271-2.

30 Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 68: “Sane intellecto iam pluries quod frater Iohannes de Neapoli eiusdem ordinis, lector Neapolitanus, invigilans continue studio sic se audientibus gratum reddit quod translatione dignus efficitur per quam studendi sibi maius onus incumbat et aliis proinde plus fructuosus existat, scripsimus vobis per alias litteras

John had already been teaching in Naples for several academic cycles by the spring of 1307. He might have been recalled to Naples in 1303 to teach at the Dominican school at San Domenico Maggiore that had recently been elevated to the level of studium generale on the request of Charles II, but this is pure speculation. 31 John’s first five quodlibets almost certainly date from the time he spent lecturing in Naples during the first decade of the fourteenth century. As discussed in more detail in Appendix 2, it would have been well within his rights as lector at a Dominican studium generale to preside over quodlibets even if he was not a master of theology. 32

Patrick Nold has suggested that a thanksgiving sermon in John’s sermon collection was addressed to Charles II in thanks for his academic patronage. 33 However, this suggestion should be treated with caution. John’s obsequious tone in this sermon might indeed suggest a royal audience, but he refers to himself as a bachelor and thanks his addressee for being an attentive listener to his lectures on Scripture over the past year. 34 John does seem to be thanking a high- ranking audience member, possibly from outside the Dominican order, but there is no strong evidence for identifying this person as Charles II. Instead, a reference to “schools” in the plural

nostras affectuosius exorantes ut eundem fratrem Iohannem deputare deberetis Parisius ad legendum Sentencias in yeme futura.”

31 Mulchahey, “ First the Bow is Bent ,” 385.

32 Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent, ” 183; 385-6. See Appendix 2 for further discussion of the dating and placing of John’s quodlibets.

33 Nold, “How influential,” 630-1, referring to Schneyer no. 107 (A f. 71ra-vb), which is labelled “Sermo pro gratiarum actione” in the manuscript.

34 Schneyer no. 107, A f. 71rb-va: “Quia igitur magnum beneficium a vobis hoc anno recepi, me scilicet associando et meam insipientiam humiliter supportando, bene potest dici mihi et similibus meis verbum primum propositum [...] Ergo mihi a vobis hoc anno honorem exhibitum possum et debeo beneficium seu beneficenciam nuncupare, I Pet. 1 [actually II Pet. 1:19], Bene facitis attendentes quasi lucerne lucenti in caliginoso loco donec illucescat dies caliginosus locus . Donec illlucescat dies est ecclesia militans, donec perveniat ad claritatem perfecte et aperte visionis, in qua lucerna lucens est quilibet veritatem sacre scripture docens sive ut magister sive ut bachallarius. Matt. 5[:15]: nemo accendit lucernam et ponit eam sub modio, sed super candelabrum ut luceat omnibus qui in domo sunt. De quorum numero ut bachallarius fui ego isto anno, licet immeritus et indignus. Huic lucerne bene fecistis isto anno, attendentes , scilicet a me dicta, non propter aliquam indigenciam, aut neccesitatem, sed propter vestram benivolenciam et curialitatem.”

27 makes it more likely that this sermon was delivered while John was studying in Paris, in which case it was probably an academic thanksgiving sermon. 35

Paris, ca. autumn 1309-autumn 1317

Following the king’s request to the Dominican officials, John was indeed sent to read the Sentences at Paris, although it is uncertain when he actually arrived there. The likeliest date is autumn 1309. Bartolomeo Chioccarello, an early modern historian of Naples, reported that in 1309 King Charles II sent money to a Dominican student at Paris named John of Naples, “dictum de Sancto Gregorio,” whom Chioccarello identified with our John. 36 Since Charles II died on May 5, 1309, this would mean that John would already have to have been in Paris by the spring of that year. Unfortunately, this reference is impossible to verify, as Chioccarello did not cite a source, and the document in question was almost certainly destroyed along with the rest of the Angevin registers. Since the appellation “de Sancto Gregorio” is not attested in any other surviving documents concerning John, I am hesitant to read too much into this reference. John’s sermon collection contains several memorial sermons for Charles II, and some of these likely originated from the funeral itself, which means that John probably did not leave for Paris until after the king’s death. 37 Käppeli suggested the autumn of 1309 as the likely date for John’s

35 Schneyer no. 107, A f. 71va: “Quantum autem ad secundum, est sciendum quod sicut communitas est dignius et maius bonum quam persona aliqua singularis, ut patet primo Ethicorum , sic beneficium collatum comunitati est maius, ceteris paribus, quam collatum singulari persone. Beneficium enim, quanto confertur meliori et digniori, tanto est maius et melius, ceteris paribus. Honor autem exhibitus hiis scolis non tantum uni persone exhibetur, sed toti conventui et toti ordini, et immo ex hoc quamdam specialem bonitatem habet.” For examples of similar sermons from a slightly later period, see Ueli Zahnd, “Der Dank an die Meister. Anmerkungen zu einigen Gratiarum actiones spätmittelalterlicher Sentenzenlesungen,” in Schüler und Meister , ed. Thomas Jeschke and Andreas Speer (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016), 81-105.

36 Bartolomeo Chioccarello, De illustribus scriptoribus qui in civitate et regno Neapolis ab orbe condito ad annum usque 1646 floruerunt (Naples: Vincentus Ursinus, 1780), 342a.

37 Schneyer nos. 35, 37, 38, and 39. Schneyer no. 36, in the same series, probably does not refer to King Charles, rather to Charles of Calabria (d. 1328), as Samantha Kelly argues in The New Solomon , 308. In Death and the Prince , David D’Avray treats all of these sermons as anniversary sermons, delivered a month, a year, or several years after the death (see p. 57; 104-5). Kelly suggests ( The New Solomon , 309) that Schneyer no. 39 was actually for Charles’ funeral itself, but it is not clear on what evidence she bases this claim; while this sermon begins “Omnes ad presens sumus congregati ad exequias Karoli...” (f. 26vb), the one before it also refers to the funeral: “Karolus autem, ad cuius exequias congregati sumus, fuit dei amicus...” (f. 26ra). Jean-Paul Boyer points out that this is not necessarily a problem, since funerals in Naples could last several days, and Charles’s reputedly lasted 13. See Boyer, “Prédication et État, 134n39. Charles’ heart was preserved at San Domenico; see Tanja Michalsky, “Tombs and the Ornamentation of Chapels,” in Naples , 233-98, at 235.

28 arrival in Paris, based on the contemporary Dominican practice of selecting bachelors for Paris alternately from the province of France and from one of the other provinces, and this hypothesis has been upheld by more recent studies. 38 In all likelihood, John read the Sentences at Paris during the academic year 1309/10, between the French candidates Durand of St.-Pourçain and Peter of Palude.

John was certainly present in Paris as a bachelor of theology in 1313/14, when he served on the first commission to examine the Sentences commentary of his confrère Durand of St.-Pourçain. Around 1307-8, a commentary on the Sentences attributed to Durand began to circulate outside the order, apparently without his permission, and much to the displeasure of the Dominican authorities. 39 For one thing, the circulation of this work appeared to be a flagrant breach of the Dominican requirement for texts written by friars to be examined and approved by officials within the order before they were disseminated more widely. 40 For another, Durand’s teachings differed from those of Thomas Aquinas on a number of key points, at a time when Aquinas’s position as the ‘official theologian’ of the Dominican order was increasingly being codified. 41 Early criticisms of Durand’s commentary came from Hervaeus Natalis, the prior of the Dominican province of France, during the academic year 1308/9, and Durand may have begun

38 Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 49-50; William J. Courtenay, “Durand in His Educational and Intellectual Context,” in Durand of Saint-Pourçain and His Sentences Commentary: Historical, Philosophical, and Theological Issues , ed. Andreas Speer, Fiorella Retucci, Thomas Jeschke, and Guy Guldentops (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 13-34, at 20-3; William O. Duba and Christopher Schabel, “Remigio, Auriol, Scotus, and the Myth of a Two-Year Sentences Lecture at Paris,” Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie Médiévales 84.1 (2017): 143-79, at 157. Courtenay, Duba, and Schabel all acknowledge that the date of John’s Sentences lectures is conjectural, but with most of the other slots filled between 1300 and 1315, there is little room to maneuver.

39 This commentary, usually referred to as the first redaction, may have originated from Durand’s teaching at a Dominican convent such as Lyon, or, as William Courtenay has suggested, from his preparatory notes for reading the Sentences at Paris in 1308/9; see Courtenay, “Durand in His Educational and Intellectual Context,” 23-32.

40 This rule had been in place since the mid-thirteenth century, having been confirmed by the general chapter of 1256. It was strengthened in 1313, probably in response to Durand’s case, with a directive that all writings, tracts, compilations, reportationes of questions, and other works by Dominican friars were not to be published outside the order without being examined by the Master General himself. See Mulchahey, “First the Bow Is Bent ,” 156.

41 Aquinas’s ascent to primacy in the Dominican curriculum was far from inevitable, and followed several decades of debate over the legacy of his teachings, outlined in Mulchahey, “First the Bow Is Bent ,” 141-67.

29 revising his commentary in response by the spring of 1309. 42 The revisions were apparently enough to satisfy some people in positions of authority, as Durand was able to incept as master of theology in 1312. 43 In early 1313, Pope Clement V appointed him Master of the Sacred Palace and Durand left Paris for the papal court in Avignon, where he taught for the next four years. 44

Back in Paris, however, the controversy over Durand’s writings was far from over. Within a few months of his departure for Avignon, a commission of ten scholars, including John of Naples, was appointed by the newly-elected Dominican Master General, Berengar of Landorra, to investigate the orthodoxy of Durand’s Sentences commentary. Approximately a year later, on July 3, 1314, the commission published a list of 93 articles extracted from Durand’s commentary, which they condemned variously as rash, erroneous, false, dangerous, outright heretical, and/or contrary to the teachings of the saints, the Creed, the Bible, canon law, the custom of the Church, Augustine, and/or Aquinas. 45 At least some members of this commission, including John, had access to both the first and second redactions of Durand’s commentary, since a number of the articles make references to an “old” and a “new” version of the text. The list was delivered to Durand, who chose to defend himself in writing rather than retract his statements; other Dominicans, including Hervaeus Natalis, countered Durand’s Excusationes with responses of their own. 46 A second commission was struck to examine Durand’s Sentences commentary specifically for points on which he deviated from the teachings of Aquinas, and John of Naples

42 This is the chronology suggested (“ non assertive ”!) by Courtenay, “Durand in His Educational and Intellectual Context,” 31-2.

43 Courtenay suggests that he may have taken advantage of the confusion following the aftermath of Aymeric of Piacenza’s resignation as Master General and pulled a few strings with the papacy and/or the French king to do so; see Courtenay, “Durand in His Educational and Intellectual Context,” 32-3.

44 On the ambiguity of this term, see M. Michèle Mulchahey, “The Dominican Studium Romanae Curiae : The Papacy, the Magisterium and the Friars,” in Philosophy and Theology in the Studia of the Religious Orders and at Papal and Royal Courts , 577-600. The office was usually staffed by Dominicans, who were appointed not by their order, but by the pope. Clement was clearly unconcerned by the growing Dominican controversy over Durand’s teachings.

45 For the list, see Josef Koch, “Die Magister-Jahre des Durandus de S. Porciano O.P. und der Konflikt mit seinem Orden,” in Kleine Schriften II (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1973), 7-118, at 53-72.

46 Durand’s Excusationes are no longer extant, but Hervaeus’s Reprobationes excusationum Durandi are preserved in Reims, Bibl. Mun., MS 502.

30 was a member of this commission too, alongside James of Lausanne and Peter of Palude. The resulting list of 235 offending articles was published in early 1317. 47 A note at the end of the version published by Koch attributes the entirety of this second list to John. Whether or not this is true, John clearly played a major role in the Durand investigations, and he frequently cites Durand as an adversary in his quodlibets and disputed questions. 48

While in Paris, John of course was busy with much more than just the commissions to investigate Durand’s Sentences commentary. He was licenced to incept as a master of theology in the Dominican chair for foreigners in November 1315 and taught as regent master for the requisite two years thereafter. 49 He probably debated his sixth quodlibet shortly after his inception, most likely during Lent 1316, and his seventh quodlibet most likely dates from Advent 1316. 50 Students in the faculty of theology at Paris were required to preach at least once a year, and preaching skills were taken into account as one of the requirements for the license in theology. 51 Evidence for John’s fulfillment of this obligation can be found in Paris, BnF lat. 14799, a manuscript that belonged to the convent of St. Victor, which also contains works by a number of other Dominican scholars who were active in Paris during the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. 52 Much of this manuscript is occupied by a large collection of sermons, most of which seem to have been preached at various churches in Paris, mostly by Dominicans, including John of Parma, Peter of Palude, Durand of St.-Pourçain and James of Lausanne. Eight of the sermons are by John of Naples, and three can be precisely dated to 1314, the year before

47 For the list, see Koch, “Die Magister-Jahre,” 72-118.

48 For further discussion, see Chapter 2, section 6.

49 Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 50-1. There has been some debate about the date at which John received the license, but it is generally agreed that a date of 1315 fits better with the evidence; see Nold, “How influential,” 631n13 and Friedman, “Dominican Quodlibetal Literature,” 457n167.

50 Friedman, “Dominican Quodlibetal Literature,” 457-8.

51 Phyllis B. Roberts, “Medieval University Preaching: The Evidence in the Statutes,” in Medieval Sermons and Society: Cloister, City, University , ed. Debra L. Stoudt, Anne T. Thayer, Jacqueline Hamesse, and Beverly Mayne Kienzle (Leuven: Fédération Internationale des Instituts d’études médiévales, 1998), 317-28, at 318-9.

52 Described in Barthélemy Hauréau, Notices et extraits de quelques manuscrits latins de la Bibliothèque nationale , vol. 3 (Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1891), 80-140.

John’s inception as a master of theology. 53 A few of these sermons can also be found in Vat. Borgh. 247, a commonplace book compiled around 1315 by Pierre Roger, the future pope Clement VI, when he was a student in Paris. 54 Most of John’s disputed questions were probably also composed while he was in Paris; for discussion, see Appendix 2.

John never identifies any of his teachers at Paris by name. It is clear that he worked closely with his fellow Dominicans, most notably Hervaeus Natalis, Peter of Palude, and James of Lausanne, to examine the Sentences commentary of Durand of St. Pourçain. 55 However, it is unlikely that he interacted only with members of his own order. A sense of the scholarly community and intellectual atmosphere in the faculty of theology at Paris during the 1310s can be had from the notebook of the Augustinian theologian Prosper of Reggio Emilia. 56 Prosper, who incepted as a master of theology in March 1316, around the same time as John, recorded quodlibetal questions and other works by approximately 40 theologians who were active while he was a bachelor at Paris. The opinions of several dozen masters and students are also identified by name in the

53 In addition to Hauréau, Notices et extraits , these sermons are also catalogued in Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 58-9. I will refer to them as P1-P8. Several of the same sermons can also be found in Paris, BnF lat. 14973: P3 (f. 158v-162r, missing the last section), P7 (f. 150r-152v), and P8 (f. 136r-142r). Pierre Roger, the future Pope Clement VI, copied at least two more into his ‘commonplace book’, which is now Vat. Borgh. 247: P4 appears, in somewhat abbreviated form, on f. 159r-v, and P5 on f. 160v-161r. The ones that can be dated to 1314 are P3 (for the third Sunday after Trinity and the feast of St. John the Baptist), P5 (for the twelfth Sunday after Trinity and the feast of St. Louis of Anjou), and P7 (for Passion Sunday and the feast of the Annunciation). The coincidences of feasts (or their vigils, in the cases of P3 and P7) with Sundays allows these sermons to be dated to June 23, August 25, and March 24, 1314.

54 Anneliese Maier, Codices Burghesiani bibliothecae Vaticanae (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1952), 205-301; Maier, “Der literarische Nachlass des Petrus Rogerii (Clemens VI.) in der Borghesiana,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 16 (1949): 72-98, reprinted in Ausgehendes Mittelalters II (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1967), 255-315, at 308-13.

55 Peter of Palude and James of Lausanne were members of both commissions. Other members of the first commission of 1313/4, in addition to Hervaeus Natalis, were Yves of Caen and John of Parma (masters of theology like Hervaeus and Peter of Palude), Theoderic of Saxony and John of Prato (both bachelors like John of Naples), Yves of Lyon (a bachalarius Biblie like James of Lausanne), and Matthew Orsini, whom the general chapter had assigned to read the Sentences at Paris the next year that the spot was open to someone from a ‘foreign’ province (Orsini would take up this position in the academic year 1315/6).

56 William J. Courtenay, “Reflections on Vat. Lat. 1086 and Prosper of Reggio Emilia, O.E.S.A.,” in Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages. Volume 2: The Fourteenth Century , 345-57. Vat. Lat. 1086 consists of a substantial fragment of Prosper’s Sentences commentary, which Courtenay argues dates from the academic year 1314/15, and a second unit containing a large number of reportationes of quodlibetal questions and other works, which Courtenay argues were probably copied in 1314.

32 margins of his Sentences commentary. 57 Although an Augustinian himself, Prosper recorded works by Dominicans, Franciscans, monks, regular canons, and secular masters, clearly demonstrating that students of theology in this period were not confined to hearing members of their own order. John himself may make an appearance in Prosper’s Sentences commentary as “Johannes Neapolitanus qui dicitur Judeus ” – the intriguing nickname “the Jew” is not attested elsewhere, but there are no other likely Johns from Naples who are thought to have been present at Paris during this period. 58 In the quodlibets he debated in Paris ca. 1315-16, John refers to the opinions of Hervaeus Natalis, Peter of Palude, Prosper of Reggio Emilia, and above all Durand of St. Pourçain, indicating that he was familiar with their teachings, among others. We should also assume that he was personally familiar with at least the other Dominicans who are known to have read the Sentences at Paris between 1309 and 1315, including Theodoric of Saxony, John of Pré, William of Laudun, and Matthew Orsini. 59

A thorough account of John’s interactions with other scholars during his time at Paris will have to await a full edition of his Parisian works, with attention to their explicitly and silently cited sources; identifying these will require, in many cases, further editions. 60 Such work is well beyond the scope of this project, and I make no claims to comprehensiveness in identifying the intellectual influences on John’s works. One potential avenue for future research would be to probe the networks of kinship, regional origins, and patronage among the scholars in Paris during the time that John was there, ca. 1309-1317. William Duba has recently demonstrated that a few

57 For lists, see Courtenay, “Reflections on Vat. Lat. 1086,” 356-7.

58 Courtenay, “Reflections on Vat. Lat. 1086,” 356; Auguste Pelzer, “Prosper de Reggio Emilia, des Ermites de Saint-Augustin, et le manuscrit latin 1086 de la Bibliothèque Vaticane,” Revue néo-scolastique de philosophie 30.19 (1928): 316-351, at 333. The nickname might have had something to do with John’s appearance; as early as the twelfth century, physical characteristics associated in humoral theory with a melancholy complexion, such as black hair and ‘pallid’ skin, were stereotypically attributed to Jews by Christian authors. See Irven M. Resnick, Marks of Distinction: Christian Perceptions of Jews in the High Middle Ages (Washington: Catholic University Press, 2012), 277-9. Or perhaps he had a penchant for stereotypically ‘Jewish’ styles of biblical commentary, such as an emphasis on the literal sense; I thank Bert Roest for this suggestion. John’s works show no signs of familiarity with Jewish texts, so it seems highly unlikely that he was a convert from Judaism to Christianity.

59 I am following the reconstructed list in Duba and Schabel, “Remigio, Auriol, Scotus,” 156-7.

60 On some of the methodological challenges associated with this kind of work, see Christopher Schabel, “Haec Ille: Citation, Quotation, and Plagiarism in 14 th Century Scholasticism,” in The Origins of European Scholarship: The Cyprus Millennium International Conference , ed. Ioannis Taifacos (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2005), 163-75.

33 years after John left Paris, in 1319, the Neapolitan Franciscan Landolfo Caracciolo used his ceremonial final lecture on the Sentences to systematically call out in mocking fashion the other Italian theologians who were present at Paris at the time, many of whom, like John, went on to enjoy the patronage of King Robert of Naples and Pope John XXII. 61 The cultural triangle of Paris-Naples-Avignon, exemplified by John’s own career, certainly merits further exploration.

Naples, autumn 1317-ca. 1322

In 1317, the Dominican general chapter at Pamplona assigned John back to the Dominican studium generale in Naples to serve as a lector. 62 In all probability, John’s eighth quodlibet originated from a disputation held during Advent 1317, shortly after his return to Naples. 63 Containing forty questions (the most of any of John’s quodlibets), it would have been a suitably impressive display of learning for a new master returning in glory to his home studium . Besides teaching, some traces of John’s other activities during the next few years survive. Although King Robert of Naples had departed for Avignon with a large retinue in 1318, John did not immediately follow him. 64 On August 1, 1319, as already mentioned, he testified for the inquest concerning the miracles of Thomas Aquinas at the archbishop’s palace in Naples. 65 His brief deposition consisted entirely of things he had heard from other “ancient” friars who had known Aquinas personally, suggesting that John was too young to have met the great man himself.

61 Duba, “Masters and Bachelors at Paris in 1319.”

62 Acta capitulorum generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum , vol. II: ab anno 1304 usque ad annum 1378 , ed. Benedict Maria Reichert (Rome: Polyglotta, 1899) (Henceforth Acta II), 104: “Studio Neapolitano assignamus fratrem Johannem Neapolitanum, magistrum in theologia, pro lectore, et committimus sibi quod hoc anno eidem studio provideat de cursore.” Michèle Mulchahey informs me that the last phrase means that John was also given the authority to select the friar who would act as cursor sententiarum that year, providing cursory lectures on all four books of the Sentences ; John, as lector, would have been responsible for lecturing on a book of the Bible and a book of the Sentences in more detail.

63 For discussion of the dating, see Appendix 2.

64 Kelly, The New Solomon , 78; Nold, “How influential,” 632. Avignon, despite being the papal residence, was still part of the Kingdom of Naples at this time.

65 Fontes Vitae S. Thomae Aquinatis , 328-9.

John was apparently still in Naples on June 25, 1321, when Charles of Salerno, Robert’s son and General Vicar, appointed him to a committee tasked with resolving a legal battle among the relatives of Bartholomew of Capua (1248-1328), a lawyer and royal official who had been for some decades the second-most-powerful man in the realm, and an important force for administrative continuity under three Angevin kings. Other members of this committee included Francis of Marchia (Francesco de Esculo), then lector at San Lorenzo in Naples, and some unnamed nobles and jurists. 66

Bartholomew was a professor of civil law in Naples from 1278, and he served King Charles I as a counsellor and in other administrative capacities. In 1290, Charles II appointed him protonotary, and four years later confirmed him in this position for life. In 1296, he also invested him with the title of logothete, and Bartholomew continued to hold both titles until his death, well into the reign of Robert. The offices of protonotary and logothete were borrowed from traditions of Byzantine government, and their presence in southern Italy dated back to Norman and Hohenstaufen rule. Both served as representatives and spokesmen of the monarch. The logothete acted much like a chancellor: on solemn public occasions he sat to the right of the monarch, and his responsibilities included drawing up and promulgating laws, responding to petitions, and receiving foreign dignitaries, all of which he did in the king’s name. The protonotary was the king’s chief notary and secretary of state, and he too responded to petitions and requests on the king’s behalf. Bartholomew’s long tenure attests to his competence in both roles, and he was frequently sent on important diplomatic missions by all three monarchs. His surviving works include civil law commentaries and questions concerning both the laws of the Kingdom of Sicily and the Corpus iuris civilis , as well as several dozen sermons or speeches that he delivered in his capacity as protonotary and logothete. 67 John’s involvement in the committee

66 Chioccarello, De illustribus scriptoribus , 342a, based on a now-lost document from the Angevin Registers: “Carolus Salerni Princeps, Roberti regis filius, ac Generalis Vicarius causam magni momenti vertentem inter filios ac nepotes magni illius Bartolomei de Capua super successione Feudorum ac bonorum divisione, comittit aliquibus proceribus ac Iurisconsultis ac duobus Theologis, nempe honorabili viro Fratre Joanni de Neapoli Ordinis Praedicatorum, sacrae pagine doctori, et religioso viro Fratre Francisco de Exculo, Lectori loci Sancti Laurentis Ordinis Minorum de Neapoli, prout ex Regiis literis sub datum Neapoli, die 25 Junii 1321, Indictione 4. In Registro Caroli III [ sic. ] 1320. Litera C. fol. 14.”

67 Léon Cadier, Essai sur l’administration du royaume de Sicile sous Charles 1er et Charles II d’Anjou (Paris: E. Thorin, 1891), 194-213; Jean-Paul Boyer, “Parler du roi et pour le roi. Deux ‘sermons’ de Barthélemy de Capoue,

35 of 1321 was a foretaste of things to come, since, as will be discussed below, he would be involved in the settlement of Bartholomew of Capua’s estate well into the 1330s.

Avignon, ca. 1322-1323/1324

John spent a few years in Avignon during the early 1320s. His visit to the papal city overlapped with that of King Robert of Naples, who moved to Avignon (then still an Angevin territory) with a large entourage in 1318, and resided there until March 1324, although John does not seem to have travelled either to or from Avignon with the king. 68 Instead, he probably made the journey to Avignon in early 1322, shortly after taking over from the Dominican inquisitor William of Tocco as procurator for the canonization of Thomas Aquinas. It is unclear exactly when John assumed this office. William was still in charge of the canonization process in November 1321, when he directed an inquest at Fossanova, but the acts of this inquest arrived in Avignon “in the first months of 1322” and the aged inquisitor did not travel with them, instead spending his final year or two in Naples. 69 At any rate, John was certainly in Avignon for the culmination of the canonization process in July 1323.

Two contemporary accounts give us a fairly good sense of how the canonization unfolded. 70 On July 14, a consistory was held at the papal palace in Avignon, attended by King Robert of Naples, Queen Sancia, and many other dignitaries. Pope John XXII opened the ceremony with a sermon in praise of Thomas Aquinas, and John of Naples, as procurator, was supposed to preach next, formally requesting Aquinas’s canonization. However, in what was probably a crushing disappointment, John was ill and another friar, Peter Canterii, preached the sermon instead. 71 Six

logothète du royaume de Sicile,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 79.2 (1995): 193-248; Boyer, “Prédication et État napolitain.”

68 Kelly, The New Solomon , 78; Nold, “How influential,” 632; Pasquale, “La costruzione di una capitale.”

69 Leonardas V. Ergulaitis, “The Canonization of Saint Thomas Aquinas,” Vivarium 5 (1967): 25-46, at 40.

70 The two parallel accounts of the canonization, the “Récit anonyme” and “Récit de Fr. Bentius,” are printed in Fontes Vitae S. Thomae Aquinatis , 513-8.

71 Nold, “How Influential,” 632; “Récit anonyme,” in Fontes Vitae S. Thomae Aquinatis , 514. This sermon and another “sermo postulativus” were originally included in John’s sermon collection under the section of sermons on saints, but all that remains is their entries in the index; see the appendix to Chapter 5, 21.1, A f. 108va.

36 other sermons followed, by a series of preachers starting with King Robert, and at the end the pope declared Aquinas worthy of canonization. There is no word on whether John was well enough to participate in the formal celebrations a few days later, on July 18, when the pope presided over a mass in Aquinas’s honour in the cathedral, and publicly entered his name into the catalogue of saints. The bull of canonization was published the same day. According to one account, the king proclaimed that the city of Avignon should rejoice as if it were Christmas, and both accounts record that the Dominican convent in Avignon was the site of many festivities, which were attended by the royal couple as well as the cardinals and other prelates. 72

There is further evidence to suggest that John was already in Avignon by 1322, since he participated in the consultations that John XXII held while preparing decretals on marriage and apostolic poverty in 1322-3. 73 The pope, who had trained as a jurist, routinely called together groups of theologians as consultants when he needed to rule on issues of theological orthodoxy. 74 John was one of fifteen experts consulted in preparation for the publication of the decretal Antique concertationi (December 1, 1322), which aimed to settle a long-standing debate over whether taking holy orders dissolves an unconsummated marriage like entering a religious life does. 75 He was also part of a group of over fifty bishops, cardinals, and masters of theology consulted on the divisive subject of apostolic poverty in preparation for the decretals Ad conditorem canonum (December 8, 1322) and Cum inter nonullos (November 12, 1323). 76 Patrick Nold has argued that John’s influence on the pope was minimal; he was, after all, just

72 Ergulaitis, “The Canonization of Saint Thomas Aquinas,” 41-2.

73 The fruits of these consultations are gathered in Rome, Biblioteca Alessandrina 79 and Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, vat. lat. 3740. Patrick Nold dates the pope’s canvassing of opinions on both questions roughly to the summer of 1322. See Nold, Marriage Advice for a Pope , lxxii, and Pope John XXII and his Franciscan Cardinal , 98-9.

74 For an overview of John XXII’s consulting activities, see Sylvain Piron, “Avignon sous Jean XXII, l’Eldorado des théologiens,” in Jean XXII et le Midi , ed. ed. Julien Théry (Toulouse: Privat, 2012), 357-97, which builds on Richard Southern, “The Changing Role of Universities in Medieval Europe,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 60 (1987): 133-46.

75 Nold, “How Influential,” 639-44. This consultation is discussed in detail in Nold, Marriage Advice for a Pope .

76 Nold, “How Influential,” 646-58. This consultation is discussed in detail in Nold, Pope John XXII and his Franciscan Cardinal .

37 one of many consultants, and John XXII did not annotate John’s contributions in the way that he did those of theologians such as Bertrand de la Tour, Hervaeus Natalis, and Durand of St.- Pourçain. 77

John was unusual in that he submitted revised versions of his Dicta for both consultations to the pope, whereas most consultants only submitted one response. However, Nold points out that it is unclear whether these additions were requested by the pope or whether John submitted them on his own initiative. Given the pope’s apparent lack of special interest in John’s responses and John’s own “comprehensiveness” and “solicitous desire to ‘get it right’ for his audience” in these texts, the latter scenario seems quite probable. 78 John certainly seems to have taken pride in his participation in these consultations. In a sermon for the occasion of the entry of a noblewoman into the religious life, probably delivered at Naples shortly after his return from Avignon, he recycled part of his revised Dicta for the marriage consultation and cited “a certain new decretal issued and published at the Roman Curia by Pope John XXII.” 79 References to canon law are otherwise rare in John’s sermons; in this case John seems to have been eager to share his inside knowledge of the papal curia with his audience.

At least two of John’s sermons can be dated to his time in Avignon. One was preached to Pope John XXII on or around one of the anniversaries of his election (August 7, 1316). 80 Nold argues that it would have been a great honour for John to have preached to the pope on such an occasion, but he cautions that this should not be interpreted as a sign of any special relationship between John and the pontiff, since this privilege might have been obtained through the mediation of King Robert of Naples. 81 The other sermon was preached for the reception of Michael of Cesena, Minister General of the Franciscan Order from 1316 to 1328, at the

77 Nold, “How Influential,” 650.

78 Nold, “How Influential,” 643; 650.

79 Schneyer no. 96; see Nold, “How Influential,” 644-6.

80 Schneyer no. 97, edited in Nold, “How Influential,” 670-5.

81 Nold, “How Influential,” 638-9.

Dominican convent in Avignon. 82 Käppeli dated this sermon and the one for Pope John XXII to the second half of 1317, speculating that John passed through Avignon on his way back to Naples from Paris. 83 However, there is no evidence that John spent any time in Avignon in 1317, and Nold has persuasively argued that both sermons date instead from ca. 1322-1324. 84

How else did John occupy his time in Avignon? He may have presided over one or two quodlibetal disputations. Patrick Nold has argued that John’s tenth quodlibet dates to late 1322 or early 1323, on the basis of the presence of two questions related to the debates on marriage and apostolic poverty. 85 Nold also suggested that John’s ninth quodlibet “may very well have been disputed in Avignon,” given the close affinity between a pair of questions and John XXII’s consultation on magic of 1320. 86 Whether or not John was presiding over disputations himself, he would certainly have had ample opportunity to participate in scholarly debates. In 1321, Stephen of Kettleburgh, an English doctor of civil law, wrote to John Luttrell, the master of theology who was then Chancellor of the University of Oxford, urging him to come to Avignon as soon as possible, because “our lord the pope, who formerly lavished all his attention on civil lawyers, has now conceived a great and special affection for theologians, and especially for biblical experts.” He advised Luttrell to “come with material for a couple of disputations with the theologians of the Curia [and] I am sure you will get more honour and reward than you have ever had in all your academic exercises.” 87 Even if Stephen’s claims contained some wishful thinking,

82 Schneyer no. 99.

83 Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 62-3.

84 Nold, “How Influential,” 636-8, confirming a suspicion expressed by Samantha Kelly, “Robert of Naples (1309- 1343) and the Spiritual Franciscans,” Cristianesimo nella storia 20 (1999): 41-80, at 52n33.

85 For discussion, see Appendix 2.

86 Nold, “How Influential,” 665-7. As will be discussed in Appendix 2, I am less inclined to accept this hypothesis.

87 Translation by Richard Southern, “The Changing Role of Universities in Medieval Europe,” 134. This letter also serves as the jumping-off point for Piron, “Avignon sous Jean XXII.”

Avignon in the early 1320s was undoubtedly a site of lively theological disputation and broader intellectual exchange. 88

The date John left Avignon is as uncertain as the date he arrived. After Aquinas’s canonization in July 1323, the next place John can be firmly located is Bordeaux, where he attended the Dominican general chapter at Pentecost (June 3) 1324 and helped to elect the Master General Barnabas of Vercelli. John’s presence at this chapter is confirmed by a marginal note in one of the manuscripts of the Dominican general chapter Acta , which lists the names of nine masters of theology who were present at Bordeaux, including “fr. Io. de Neapolim, elector.” 89 One of

John’s sermons is probably connected with this election. 90 Käppeli assumed that John had returned to Naples after Aquinas’s canonization in 1323 and made a separate trip to France the next year for the general chapter. 91 Nold, in contrast, posited that John remained in France between the canonization and the chapter, extending his stay in Avignon into the first part of 1324. 92 When one considers the way that Dominican electors were selected, Käppeli’s hypothesis makes more sense. According to the procedure outlined in the Dominican constitutions, John would have had to have attended his provincial chapter in the Regno and been elected to represent his province at the next general chapter in order to serve as an elector for the Master General. 93 Provincial chapters were held annually, typically in the late summer or early

88 On the culture of the papal court in Avignon under John XXII, see for instance Bernard Guillemain, La cour pontificale d’Avignon: Étude d’une société (Paris: De Boccard, 1962); Jacqueline Hamesse, ed., La vie culturelle, intellectuelle et scientifique à la cour des papes d’Avignon: volume en collaboration internationale (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006); Julien Théry, ed., Jean XXII et le Midi (Toulouse: Privat, 2012).

89 Acta II , 151n8.

90 Schneyer no. 90. Although the rubric calls this a sermon for electing diffinitors, the text clearly indicates that it was for the election of a new Dominican Master General. A f. 59rb: “Omnes ad presens sumus congregati ad eligendum magistrum ordinis...” For further discussion, see below, Chapter 5.

91 Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 52.

92 Nold, “How Influential,” 632.

93 Galbraith, The Constitution of the Dominican Order , 89-96.

40 autumn. 94 Therefore, if the normal procedure for choosing electors was followed, in order to serve as an elector in 1324, John must have been back in the Regno no later than autumn 1323.

Taking together the evidence discussed above, it looks as though John was in Avignon for at most two years, and probably less, since he is attested in Naples on June 25, 1321, and was probably back there by the late summer of 1323. This makes sense if we assume that the main reason that John was in Avignon at all was to promote the canonization of Thomas Aquinas. If he did indeed take over from William of Tocco as procurator in late 1321 or early 1322, we might hypothesize that he left for Avignon shortly thereafter, bringing with him the documents resulting from William’s most recent inquest. Since there is nothing to firmly locate him in Avignon after Aquinas’s canonization, we might also hypothesize that John returned fairly promptly to his home convent in the summer of 1323, following the successful completion of his mission. This success may have prompted his election to attend the next year’s general chapter.

Naples under Robert, ca. 1323/1324-1343

Following the Dominican general chapter at Bordeaux in June 1324, John probably returned directly to Naples. Two sources from early 1325 point to his connections with the Neapolitan royal court. The first is a document dated February 28, in which King Robert of Naples appointed John to a committee to investigate suspected embezzlement from the royal fisc. Robert expressed faith in John’s piety and learning, and that of his co-investigator, Landolfo Caracciolo, the Franciscan minister for the province of Terra Laboris (the province comprising southern Italy). 95 Acknowledging that the provincial minister’s duties might impede Landolfo’s ability to fulfill this office, the king also appointed Giovani Vallone, the lector at the Franciscan convent in Salerno, to stand in when he could not be present. In the document, John is referred to as a master of theology ( doctor sacre pagine ) but not a lector, suggesting that he was not teaching that year. Robert granted John and the other committee members the power to hear confessions from any repentant embezzlers who might approach them, and to deal with them as they judged best for the spiritual health of the criminals and the royal court and fisc. A copy of the king’s

94 Galbraith, The Constitution of the Dominican Order , 54-5.

95 The original document is lost, but a transcription is found in Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 69-70.

41 letter was affixed to the doors of the cathedral of Aversa, and the document’s contents were proclaimed in over a dozen other cities in southern Italy, indicating that the investigators’ authority extended throughout the Regno. The fact that wrongdoers were encouraged to approach the committee members of their own initiative (implying that they would be able to recognize them or know where to find them) suggests that John was a person of some standing and reputation in southern Italy, at least among royal officials. The king seems to have been co- opting the friars’ skills as confessors and their status as men of learning into his framework for administering justice in his kingdom.

A few weeks later, on March 14, 1325, John stood as one of the witnesses to the testament of the logothete and protonotary Bartholomew of Capua. 96 Bartholomew’s will does not appear to survive, but it was obviously complex and its execution was clearly protracted, since Bartholomew died in 1328 and, as stated above, John is mentioned in documents relating to its execution well into the 1330s. 97 His co-executors, also named in these later documents, included another Dominican, Robert of Benevento, who was recorded as prior of San Domenico in Naples in 1331; two professors of civil law, Nicola Pandone of Capua and Adenolfo Cumino; a professor of medicine, Bartholomew of Bisento; and an archdeacon from Capua called Master Benedetto. The fact that John was selected as one of Bartholomew’s executors indicates his proximity to the linchpin of Robert’s administration. Looking at John’s fellow executors for Bartholomew’s testament also shows that he was well-acquainted with some of the masters of law and medicine from the university of Naples.

Several sermons attest to John’s political involvement on behalf of the Angevins during the later 1320s, in the context of the papal-Angevin campaign against Ludwig of Bavaria. Ludwig, who Pope John XXII had excommunicated as a Ghibelline and heretic in 1324, invaded Italy in 1327 and defeated an Angevin army at Rome, where he had himself crowned Holy Roman Emperor

96 On Bartholomew’s long career and these two offices, see the section on 1317-22 above.

97 On the document of April 29, 1331, see Mongelli, Abbazia di Montevergine: Regesto delle Pergamene, p. 211-2, doc. 3268; for one from November 29, 1332, where he is referred to as “Giovanni di Reginella dottore in sacra pagina,” see Nicola Barone, “La Ratio Thesaurariorum della Cancelleria Angioina,” Archivio Storico per le Province Napoletane 11.3 (1886): 431; for one from June 9, 1336, see Jole Mazzoleni, Le Pergamene di Capua II.2 (Naples: L’arte Tip., 1960), p. 70-3, doc. 48.

42 on January 17, 1328. In March, Robert of Naples received news that the pope had granted a plenary indulgence to all who joined the Angevin forces against Ludwig, who by then was threatening to invade the Regno. 98 The pope assured that these soldiers would earn the same indulgence as those who fought for the Church in the Holy Land. 99 Publication of this crusade was limited to regions of Italy friendly to the papacy, including the Regno, where it met with some success. 100 Robert’s son Charles, Duke of Calabria, had the crusader’s cross pinned to his garment by the Archbishop of Capua, and Robert claimed that the preaching against Ludwig had induced many counts, barons, and nobles of the Kingdom of Naples to follow suit. 101 He might have been a little less enthusiastic the next year, when he had to issue a decree allowing the companions of a friar preaching the crusade to carry weapons in order to defend themselves, presumably against persons resistant to crusade preaching. 102 Dominican support for the papal- Angevin alliance is indicated both by the fact that provincial chapters in the Roman province repeatedly exhorted conventual priors to ensure the preaching of papal crusades, and the fact that Ludwig of Bavaria ordered that Dominican friars who published papal decrees against him ought to be expelled from their convents. 103

John’s sermon collection provides further evidence of local Dominican support for this crusade. In the spring of 1328, he preached as part of a procession beseeching God to protect the army led by Charles of Calabria, which was setting off to fight the forces of Ludwig of Bavaria. 104 His

98 Norman Housley, The Italian Crusades: The Papal-Angevin Alliance and the Crusades Against Christian Lay Powers, 1254-1343 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 120.

99 Housley, Italian Crusades , 128.

100 Housley, Italian Crusades , 113.

101 Housley, Italian Crusades , 137; 158.

102 Housley, Italian Crusades , 142.

103 Housley, Italian Crusades , 117.

104 Schneyer no. 104. This sermon and the one preceding it, also labelled “In processione pro salute exercitus,” are edited and discussed in Boyer, “Processions civiques.” The majority of Schneyer no. 104 is translated, with a brief introduction, by Samantha Kelly in Medieval Italy: Texts in Translation , ed. Katherine L. Jansen, Joanna Drell, and Frances Andrews (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 138-41.

43 sermon does not make reference to the plenary indulgence, but it does affirm that the Duke of Calabria’s army and the Duke himself are “people of God,” since they are fighting in the service of the Church against a notorious enemy of the Church who has been excommunicated and condemned by the pope as a heretic. 105 John also used this opportunity to praise the sanctity of the Angevin dynasty, drawing attention to Charles of Calabria’s family ties to the two Saints Louis (King Louis IX of France and King Robert’s brother Louis of Toulouse). 106 In the sermon he preached following Charles’ untimely death in late 1328, John again stressed this saintly family connection, and praised the deceased for the love of God he displayed in fighting the enemies of the church. 107

A third sermon associated with the campaign against Ludwig of Bavaria dates from the summer of 1330. In defiance of Pope John XXII, Ludwig had overseen the election of an antipope, the Franciscan Nicholas V (Peter of Corvara/Pietro Rinalducci), who was consecrated on May 12, 1328, at St. Peter’s in Rome. When Ludwig withdrew to Germany in early 1330, however, Nicholas capitulated to John XXII and agreed to renounce his claim to the papacy. He travelled to Avignon and made a solemn abjuration before the pope in August. 108 At some point shortly thereafter, John preached a sermon in Naples publicizing the abdication of “antipope Peter,” whom he described as someone who used to be a great sinner, but who is now doing penance. 109 He elaborated that Peter was guilty of both heresy and schism, but had spontaneously put aside his schismatic ways, abjured all heresy, and confessed his guilt before the pope. 110 John

105 Schneyer no. 104, ed. Boyer, “Processions civiques,” p. 165 § 7.

106 Schneyer no. 104, ed. Boyer, “Processions civiques,” p. 166 § 7. See also Kelly, The New Solomon , 127-8.

107 Schneyer no. 36, A f. 24vb-25va.

108 Amedeo De Vincentiis, “Niccolò V, antipapa,” in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (2013) 78, http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/antipapa-niccolo-v_(Dizionario-Biografico) .

109 Schneyer no. 108, A f. 72ra: “Ergo gaudium est fidelibus Christi super uno peccatore penitentiam agente. Unus autem, id est singulariter magnus peccator olim, nunc autem penitentiam agens, est Petrus antipapa.”

110 Schneyer no. 108, A f. 72ra-b: “Quantum ad primum est sciendum quod Petrus predictus duplicem iniustitiam in genere commisit, scilicet heretice infectionis et sismatice divisionis. [...] Petrus autem predictus adhesit hereticis dampnatis et consensit in eorum heresim dampnatam credendo et asserendo quod Christus et apostoli nullum ius habuerunt in rebus quibus utebantur. [...] Petrus autem predictus commisit iniustitiam contra papam et ecclesiam totam usurpando sibi falsum nomen et gradum seu officium pape, faciendo que spectant ad solum papam, scilicet

44 proclaimed that the pope had remitted Peter’s sins, ensuring that he would come to heaven, and that this should be a cause for joy, since there ought to be joy amongst all faithful Christians whenever a sinner repents. 111 Throughout John’s sermon, the repentant antipope serves as a model for all sinners, but despite this pious message, this was also a highly political sermon, aimed at publicizing the success of the papal-Angevin campaign.

In his sermon about the antipope’s abjuration, John specifically accused Peter of holding and asserting the condemned heresy that Christ and the apostles did not own the goods that they used. This was a heresy he was accustomed to arguing against. As mentioned above, John was one of the many theologians consulted by Pope John XXII in 1322 on the question of apostolic poverty, and he reworked his response several times following the initial consultation. 112 In spelling out the heresy that Peter was accused of in his sermon of 1330, John may have been trying to send a warning to members of the royal court and others in Naples with Spiritual Franciscan leanings. Samantha Kelly has convincingly argued that earlier depictions of King Robert’s court as a hotbed of Spiritual Franciscan heresy are greatly exaggerated. 113 Nonetheless, while Robert seems to have had no particular Spiritual Franciscan sympathies, his wife Sancia certainly did. In 1329 she had installed two noted supporters of the Spiritual Franciscans at Santa Chiara: her younger brother Philip of Majora, a long-time friend of the Spiritual Franciscan leader Angelo Clareno, and Andreas de Gagliano, who had just been relieved of his office as minister of the Franciscan province of Penna on suspicion of associations with Michael of Cesena, and who quickly rose to the status of queen’s counsellor, chaplain, and secretary. 114 By the end of 1329, Philip was preaching publicly against Pope John

faciendo cardinales et alios officiales ecclesie Romane, archiepiscopos faciendo et ceteros prelatos, bullando litteras cum falsa bulla papali, et tales litteras diversis concedendo, et quantum in eo fuit ecclesiam Christi scidit.”

111 Schneyer no. 108, A f. 72rb-va: “Petrus predictus sponte rediit ad gremium ecclesie, dimisso sismate, et venit ad summum pontificem, et omnem heresim adiuravit coram eo, et omnem predictam culpam seu iniustitiam suam humiliter recognovit et confessus est. [...] Christus autem deus remittit omnem culpam ipsam recognoscenti et con|fitenti et petenti [...] ergo decuit quod etiam papa Petro peccatori penitenti remitteret culpas commissas.”

112 Nold, “How influential,” 646-63.

113 Kelly, “Robert of Naples (1309-1343) and the Spiritual Franciscans”; see also Kelly, The New Solomon , 74-90.

114 Ronald G. Musto, “Queen Sancia of Naples (1286-1345) and the Spiritual Franciscans,” esp. 195-7 and 199- 200.

XXII, possibly with Andreas’ help. 115 In 1331, the pope wrote to Sancia, disturbed that “some mendicants” in Naples were preaching that Christ and the apostles did not own anything individually or in common, and also denigrating papal authority. Sancia called a meeting of most of the leading ecclesiastical figures in Naples, including John, and had them assemble the friars under their charge and briskly investigate whether this was true. Andreas would face a second investigation several years later, the details of which need not concern us here. 116 The main point is that John was aligning himself against the Spiritual Franciscans and their associates around the time that they were beginning to gather in Naples. This may be taken as a sign of his closer affiliation with Robert, who “took a neutral and largely passive stance” in this affair, than with Sancia, with whom there is no evidence John ever had much interaction. 117

In 1332, John weighed in on another major theological controversy, this one sparked by two sermons delivered by Pope John XXII in late 1331. In these sermons, the pope asserted that the souls of the dead in heaven, even the saints, would not see God until after the Last Judgement. This was dodgy theology, even heresy in the eyes of many, and the pope’s claims sparked immediate condemnation from theologians across Europe. 118 John’s disputed question on the beatific vision, responding to the question “Whether the souls of the saints, separated from their bodies prior to the general resurrection, see the divine essence clearly or openly or beatifically,” comes out of this context. 119 In opposition to the pope, John argues that thanks to the grace of

115 Unfortunately, the sermon does not seem to survive. Musto, “Franciscan Joachimism at the Court of Naples, 1309-1345: A New Appraisal,” Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 90 (1997): 419-86, at 423n13, argues that the text previously identified as this sermon, printed in Felice Tocco, Studii Francescani (Naples: Francesco Perrella, 1909), 297-310, is actually a letter from Angelo of Clareno to Philip.

116 On these investigations, see Edith Pásztor, “Il Processo di Andrea da Gagliano,” Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 48 (1955): 252-97.

117 Kelly, “Robert of Naples (1309-1343) and the Spiritual Franciscans,” 67.

118 On the controversy and its theological background, see Christian Trottmann, La vision béatifique: des disputes scolastiques à sa définition par Benoît XII (Rome: École française de Rome, 1995); Isabel Iribarren, “Theological Authority at the Papal Court in Avignon: The Beatific Vision Controversy,” in La vie culturelle, intellectuelle et scientifique à la cour des papes d’Avignon , ed. Jacqueline Hamesse (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), 227-301.

119 The earliest version of this text is found in N, f. 155ra-160rb; others appear in T, f. 183ra-186vb, labelled as Questio Paricularis 1, and in Gravina, p. 346-355, labelled as Disputed Question 41. An edition based on all three versions is found in Prospero T. Stella, “Giovanni Regina di Napoli, O.P., e la tesi di Giovanni XXII,” 63-88.

God, human souls do not require bodies in order to see the divine essence, and souls in paradise enjoy this vision even now. He adds that it is heretical to argue that separated souls do not enjoy the beatific vision or suffer the torments of Hell or Purgatory prior to the general resurrection.

Some scholars have suggested that this text originated as a treatise that was submitted to the pope, much like John’s earlier consilia on marriage and apostolic poverty, but there is no evidence that John ever sent this text to the Holy See, and more recent research places the work’s composition in Naples. 120 Marc Dykmans dated it to the initial part of the controversy, on the grounds that John is engaging with the pope’s sermons, but not the material that the pope sent to King Robert of Naples in September 1332. 121 Although it is not clear whether John’s question was ever read by the pope, the similarities between it and the king’s treatise on the beatific vision strongly suggest that Robert was aware of John’s work, or at least that the two were working with the same set of sources. Prospero Stella, on close examination of both texts, argued that Robert was not simply copying or expanding on John’s question; rather, it appears that both texts draw on a common source, such as a florilegium that gathered together authorities on the subject. 122 Christian Trottmann supports this hypothesis, adding that at least one other text associated with this controversy (a report by Jacques Fournier) contains the same series of authorities as those shared by John’s disputed question and the king’s treatise. 123 It seems fair to conclude that John was an active participant in the debate, and very likely a consultant to the king, as the controversy gripped the Angevin court in 1332-4. 124

Trottmann tentatively suggested that John disputed a quodlibetal question along these lines in Paris in December 1332. His evidence comes from the Sentences commentary of Arnaud de

120 For a summary of the debate, see Nold, “How influential,” 663-5.

121 Marc Dykmans, La vision bienheureuse. Traité envoyé au pape Jean XXII (Rome: Presses de l’Université Grégorienne, 1970), 84.

122 Stella, “Giovanni Regina di Napoli, O.P., e la tesi di Giovanni XXII,” 90-6.

123 Trottmann, La vision béatifique , 574-5.

124 This controversy also had a political dimension; Kelly, The New Solomon , 88-9 argues that Robert leveraged John XXII’s vulnerability resulting from this controversy to negotiate the acquittal of two of Queen Sancia’s chaplains who had been accused of heresy.

Clermont and a treatise by an anonymous Carmelite bachelor, both of which refer to a lost quodlibetal question disputed before 30 bachelors at the Sorbonne by an unnamed Dominican who declared that the pope’s opinion was heretical.125 However, his identification of this Dominican with John is improbable. Nothing suggests that John returned to Paris after 1317, and his sermon collection contains two funeral sermons for Philip of Anjou, Prince of Taranto, a younger son of Charles II who died on December 23, 1332, and was buried at San Domenico Maggiore, which would seem to place John in Naples at this time. 126 As Trottmann acknowledges, the anonymous Dominican’s position, as described by these authors, resembles not just John’s position, but also those of other Dominicans, such as Durand of St.-Pourçain, so it seems fair to assume that this mysterious scholar was someone other than John. 127

After a hiatus of about a decade, John seems to have returned to disputing quodlibets in Naples around the same time as he became engaged in the beatific vision controversy. One of the questions in his eleventh quodlibet contains a reference to his treatise on the beatific vision, suggesting that this quodlibet dates from 1332 or thereafter. 128 The question concerns whether demons were punished immediately after their fall or whether their punishments will be delayed until after the Last Judgement – a question closely related to the central issue of the beatific vision controversy. This may indicate that it was debated not long after John composed his question on the beatific vision, since this was clearly a hot topic in Naples at the time. The Naples manuscript of John’s quodlibets also supports the hypothesis that John’s eleventh quodlibet was composed not long after his treatise, since this quodlibet appears, in somewhat rough form, in the same sextern of N as a heavily-annotated copy of John’s question on the

125 Trottmann, La vision béatifique , 415; 575.

126 Schneyer nos. 25 and 26. John also preached for the translation of his remains (Schneyer no. 59) and for the anniversary of his death (Schneyer no. 141). Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 61. In Schneyer no. 25, John makes clear that he preached the sermon at the site of the prince’s tomb: A f. 18va: “Omnes ad presens sumus congregati ad exsequias principis Tarentini, qui in vita sua fuit princeps et amicus dei, et elegit post mortem corpus suum sepeliri inter electa sepulcra generis sui que sunt apud nos; et idcirco fratres huius conventus eum alloquendo congrue possunt dicere sibi verba primo proposita...”

127 Trottmann, La vision béatifique , 415.

128 Quodl. XI.7, found only in T f. 166vb-167rb, and edited in Stella, “Giovanni Regina di Napoli, O.P., e la tesi di Giovanni XXII,” 96-9. The reference occurs on p. 98, line 2.

48 beatific vision. Thomas Turley, building on the work of Prospero Stella and Anneliese Maier, argued that the texts in this sextern were entered chronologically as John was working on them. 129 John’s twelfth and thirteenth quodlibets both contain references to Quodl. XI, and Quodl. XIII also refers to Quodl. XII, indicating these last two quodlibets must date from after 1332. 130 Does this renewed burst of scholarly activity indicate that John again took up a teaching position at San Domenico later in life? Unfortunately, the lack of records from San Domenico during this period makes it impossible to say for certain.

Other sources attest to John’s pastoral ministrations to the Neapolitan nobility during the last decade of Robert’s reign. In addition to the memorial sermons for Philip, Prince of Taranto, noted above, John’s sermon collection contains memorial sermons for Hugh de Baux, Charles II’s chamberlain and grand seneschal of the Regno (d. mid-1334); 131 John of Durazzo, another son of Charles II (d. 1335); 132 and Bartolomeo Brancaccio, Archbishop of Trani and vice- chancellor of the Regno (d. November 1341). 133 In 1335, John served as an executor for the testament of the viscount Bertrand of Lautrec, whose sarcophagus is now in the Museo Abbaziale di Montevergine; in 1341 he was co-executor of the testament of Riccardo Scillato of Salerno, a knight, chamberlain, and royal familiar.134 Wills and burials were a major source of income for the medieval mendicant orders, to such an extent that art historian Caroline Bruzelius has argued that they were a driving force in architectural planning, with mendicant churches

129 Thomas Turley, “An Unnoticed Quaestio of Giovanni Regina di Napoli,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 54 (1984): 281-91, 282-4.

130 Friedman, “Dominican Quodlibetal Literature,” 461.

131 Schneyer no. 27. The sermon is edited and thoroughly discussed in Boyer, “Les Baux et le modèle royal.”

132 Schneyer no. 58; see Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 61, as well as D’Avray, Death and the Prince , 111n182; Boyer, “Vertus privées et bien public,” 419; Boyer, “Les Baux,” 445.

133 Schneyer no. 24. Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 61.

134 Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 53. Käppeli did not transcribe these testaments, but gave only the references to the Angevin registers and their dates: September 20, 1335 for Bertrand of Lautrec and 17 June or July 1341 for Riccardo Scillato.

49 being designed as ‘hangars’ for graves by the late thirteenth century. 135 John was clearly in demand as a preacher and executor, and these activities would have helped, directly or indirectly, to fund the fabric and daily life of his convent.

Taken together, these sources also give the impression that John was associating with some of the leading political figures and intellectuals affiliated with the court of King Robert of Naples. A summary of a now-lost document from the Angevin Registers reports that in 1336 John was a member of the royal court, serving as a royal counselor and keeper of accounts. 136 In this document, he was listed alongside the physician Niccolò da Reggio, who translated a large number of medical texts from Greek into Latin, and served as a personal physician to Robert and other members of the royal family, such as Philip of Taranto. 137 Another professor of medicine, Matteo of Platamone, served as John’s co-executor for the testament of Riccardo Scillato of Salerno. 138 As mentioned above, John’s fellow executors for the testament of Bartholomew of Capua included a third professor of medicine with close ties to the royal court: Bartholomew of Bisento, who assisted Robert of Naples at the end of his life and was appointed to the small group of advisors to the king’s young heir Johanna.139 Among the other executors for Bartholomew’s testament were two professors of civil law. Little is known about Nicola Pandone of Capua, but Adenolfo Cumino is well-attested as not only a professor, but also a royal administrator, especially in the later part of Robert’s reign and the first few years of

135 Bruzelius, Preaching, Building, and Burying , 151.

136 Barone, “La Ratio Thesaurariorum,” ASPN 11.3 (1886), p. 585, referring to Reg. Ang. 314, f. 110v. Unfortunately, Barone did not transcribe the document, but merely noted that in the year 1336 “Nicola di Reggio fisico e Giovanni de Regina, dell’ordine de’ predicatori, maestro in sacra pagina, regio consigliere, scrittore nell’uffizio di contabilità” belonged to the royal court.

137 On Niccolò’s career and translations, see Roberto Weiss, “The translators from the Greek of the Angevin court of Naples,” Rinascimento 1 (1950): 195-226, reprinted in Weiss, Medieval and Humanist Greek: Collected Essays (Padova: Antenore, 1977), 108-133, esp. 125-32. See also Giuseppe Pezzi, “La vita e l’opera di maestro Nicolao da Reggio,” in Atti della IX Biennale della Marca e dello studio firmano per la storia dell’arte medica (Fermo: Benedetti e Pauri, 1971), 229-33.

138 Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 53.

139 Ingeborg Walter, “Bartolomeo da Bisento,” in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani 6 (1964), http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/bartolomeo-da-bisento_(Dizionario-Biografico) .

Johanna’s. 140 Clearly, John was well-acquainted with the Neapolitan political and intellectual elite.

It is puzzling that John’s sermon collection does not contain a single funeral or memorial sermon for King Robert of Naples. Given John’s numerous ties to the royal court and his extensive experience in memorial preaching for the Angevin dynasty, including for Charles II, one would think that he would have been a logical choice. However, John’s sermones de mortuis do not include any sermons for men named Robert, kingly or otherwise, and while he has several sermons for unnamed “nobles” and “princes” (often identifiable), he does not have any for unnamed “kings.” At least one other Neapolitan Dominican, Federico Franconi, did preach as part of Robert’s funeral rites, but if John preached at any point during the two weeks of obsequies that followed Robert’s death, it went strangely unrecorded. 141

Last years: Naples and a brief trip to Avignon under Johanna, ca. 1343- 1348

Robert’s death in January 1343 ushered in an era of political instability for the Kingdom of Naples. He was succeeded by his seventeen-year-old granddaughter Johanna, who would rule the kingdom of Naples for the next four decades. His will designated Johanna as the ruler of the kingdom and her fifteen-year-old husband Andrew of Hungary as her prince consort, but it also appointed a regency council to rule the kingdom until Johanna turned 25. 142 Multiple factions also vied to exert influence over the rule of the kingdom: Provençal and Italian courtiers who supported Johanna; the Hungarians who had accompanied Andrew to Naples, who saw Robert as a usurper of his nephew Carobert of Hungary and Andrew as the rightful heir to the kingdom;

140 Salvatore Fodale, “Cumano, Adenolfo,” in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani 31 (1985), http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/adenolfo-cumano_(Dizionario-Biografico) .

141 Federico Franconi’s sermon is edited in Jean Paul Boyer, “Une oraison funèbre pour roi Robert de Sicile, Comte de Provence,” Provence historique 195-196 (1999): 115-31, at 128-31. It is also discussed in D’Avray, Death and the Prince , 107-111. The fact that Robert was buried in the Franciscan church of Santa Chiara might have something to do with the lack of a sermon from John, although friars from other orders were clearly invited to preach there. Like John, Federico was associated with the royal court, and his other funeral and memorial preaching was for the Neapolitan elite.

142 Émile G. Léonard, Histoire de Jeanne I re , Reine de Naples, Comtesse de Provence (1343-1382), vol. 1 (Paris: Imprimerie de Monaco, 1932), 193-226.

51 male descendants of Philip of Taranto and John of Gravina, both younger sons of King Charles II, who resented Andrew and had hoped to accede to the throne by marriage or a form of succession that favoured male heirs. Johanna and Andrew, who had both already reached the age of discernment, resented the regency council for treating them as children, and Pope Clement VI, who saw it as a challenge to his suzerainty over the Kingdom of Naples, was sympathetic. The rift between Johanna and her husband (whom she had reportedly disliked and actively mocked ever since they were engaged as children) grew deeper as Andrew attempted to assert his own power beyond the status of consort. It was not long before violence erupted in the streets. 143

As factional conflicts escalated in Naples, John unequivocally allied himself with Johanna. As the queen’s chaplain and familiar, he received an annual pension of six uncie from November 1343 until at least 1347. 144 The money, which appears to have been a bequest from Robert, was meant to go towards clothing, and was supposed to come from the portion of goods confiscated by the inquisition that was owed to the royal curia – incidentally, the same source of funds as the money for books that John had received from Charles II while studying in Bologna. 145 Inquisitorial resources seem to have dried up during this period, since in 1345 John submitted a petition to the queen requesting that the money be taken instead from the tax on the dyers’ guild of Naples, due to a shortfall in inquisitorial confiscations. 146 John’s reference to the dyers’ tax was probably not coincidental. Dyeing was one of the trades that Jews in southern Italy were

143 Elizabeth Casteen, From She-Wolf to Martyr: The Reign and Disputed Reputation of Johanna I of Naples , (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2015), 32-40.

144 Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 53n28 lists the relevant documents (now lost), dating from November 5, 1343, November 2, 1345, June 5, 1346, and March 6, 1347. No payment is recorded for 1344, but this may simply be due to a gap in the records.

145 See above. For the connection to Robert, see the next note.

146 Monti, “Intorno al Santo Offizio nel regno di Napoli,” 288. Unfortunately, Monti only quoted this document in part, noting that it recorded that “sin dal novembre 1343 [Giovanni Regina] aveva avuto da Re Roberto, sua vita durante, ‘pro vestibus seu indumentis suis’, concessione di sei once d’oro all’anno, ‘de pecunia proventuum composicionum et condenpnacionum factarum et faciendarum Inquisicionis officij racione de porcione videlicet Regiam seu Curiam exinde contingente,’ cioè dalla terza parte dei beni confiscati agli eretici, giusta il privilegio di Carlo II [...] Ma egli ci fa anche sapere che ‘de defectu pecunie composicionum et condenpnacionum huiusmodi nequit satisfieri sibi integre de predictis uncijs auri sex sibi solvi provisis’, onde richiede alla Regina di disporre il pagamento dell’annua somma di su i proventi della Gabella della Tintoria di Napoli. La Regina, in data 2 novembre, acconsente, scrivendo in pari data, negli stessi termini, anche agli Inquisitori.”

52 associated with throughout the later Middle Ages, so much so that the dyers’ tax was frequently joined to the tax on Jews. 147 Jewish converts to Christianity in the Regno also continued to be involved in the dye trade. 148 John is never called an inquisitor in any of the surviving documents that mention him, 149 but he was clearly aware of the financial resources that were available to the inquisition, and he may have seen the Jews or New Christians of Naples as falling under its purview. The source of these funds aside, the fact that John continued to be paid this annual pension, probably up until the time of his death, is testimony to his alignment with the queen.

During the early 1340s, John seems to have been taking stock of his career and working to preserve his accomplishments for posterity. Sometime between 1341 and 1344, he oversaw the collection of his sermons from at least the last three decades in a high-quality manuscript still preserved in Naples (A). A similar impulse to gather up his life’s works may have been behind the creation of the omnibus collection of his first twelve quodlibets, his disputed questions, and a handful of other texts, now found in the Tortosa manuscript (T). 150 Yet, as discussed in more detail in Appendix 1, he continued to add to his sermon collection, and several of these late sermons attest to his active political support for Johanna. The sermon for the reception of a Cardinal Legate sent from the Vatican was almost certainly preached on the arrival of Cardinal Aymeric of Chalus, whom Pope Clement VI dispatched to Naples as his legate in 1344. 151 Although Johanna was resistant to this imposition, she needed papal support, and John’s sermon

147 There was a precedent for funds from this tax being assigned to ecclesiastical officials; see Georges Yver, Le Commerce et les Marchands dans l’Italie Méridionale au XIIIe et au XIV e Siècle (Paris: A. Fontemoing, 1903), 90.

148 Benjamin Scheller, Die Stadt der Neuchristen: konvertierte Juden und ihre Nachkommen im Trani des Spätmittelalters zwischen Inklusion und Exklusion (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2013), 219.

149 Nor is his name among the list of inquisitors compiled by Gennaro Maria Monti, “Nuovi documenti sulla inquisizione nel regno di Sicilia da Carlo I a Roberto,” Da Carlo I a Roberto di Angiò: Ricerche e Documenti (Trani: Vecchi, 1936), 243-65, at 245-8.

150 See Appendix 1 for descriptions of both manuscripts.

151 Schneyer no. 134, “In receptione cardinalis legati de latere,” A f. 112va-b; see Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 67. On Aimeric’s legation, see Léonard, Histoire de Jeanne , vol. 1, 341-421.

53 declares the legate’s arrival a happy event that is useful to the whole kingdom, and flatters the legate’s great authority. 152

Two other documents attest to John’s continued presence in Naples during 1344. The first speaks to his ability to exploit his relationship with the queen in order to advance family interests: on May 4, 1344, he intervened with Johanna on behalf of his nephew, Rainaldo di Giorgio, who was accused of killing a man named Iacobus Magnus. Rainaldo was absolved shortly thereafter, and in granting this request, the queen acknowledged the services that the supplicant had rendered to her grandfather (i.e. King Robert of Naples) and referred to John as a loyal and devoted follower (fidelis et devotus noster ). 153 The second document, which, exceptionally, is still extant, simply lists John among the friars of San Domenico, who represented one side of a financial dispute with the bishop of Scala. John is called a master of theology, and his name occurs directly after that of the subprior Guido de Acerris, indicating his high standing within the convent. 154

The political situation in Naples reached a crisis point in September 1345, when Johanna’s consort Andrew was gruesomely murdered at a royal hunting retreat in nearby Aversa. Popular opinion blamed the queen’s supporters for Andrew’s death, and Johanna’s brother-in-law Charles of Durazzo took the opportunity to paint a picture of a network of conspirators. As a result of his investigations, a number of members of Johanna’s inner circle were tortured and

152 Schneyer no. 134, A f. 112va-b: “Vos autem venerabilis pater et domine estis legatus de latere domini pape, et idcirco de adventu vestro ad regnum istud vere dici potest verbum assumptum, Benedictus qui venit in nomine domini , in quo tanguntur tres cause propter quas adventus vester est letus et gratus toti regno [...] Adventus autem vester est multum utilis toti regno, quia venistis propter bonum et honorem et commodum totius regni, propter quod antequam veniretis potuistis vere scribere et dicere toti regno illud Exo. 20 veniam ad te et benedicam tibi . Tertia causa | est auctoritas quasi immensa [...] Vos autem estis auctoritatis quasi immense, quia estis in nomine domini, hoc est cum auctoritate summi pontificis tanquam eius legatus de latere. [...] Et propter hanc magnam vestram auctoritatem venimus ad vos, primo ut debitam reverenciam exiberemus tanquam vestri devoti filii et subditi; secundo ut orationum suffragia offerremus (temporalia enim non habemus, sed spiritualia que queritis et que haberemus offerrimus); tertio ut ordinem vestre paternitati et dominationi recommendaremus ubique terrarum, et specialiter in regno isto.”

153 Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 53-4. It is not clear whether Magnus’ death was related to the ongoing political violence in Naples or something else altogether.

154 Naples, Biblioteca della Società Napoletana di Storia Patria, Perg. SDM VI.70. The relevant portion is transcribed in Käppeli, “Dalle pergamene,” 291, doc. 550.7. Rosalba di Meglio is currently in the process of editing all the surviving documents from San Domenico Maggiore housed in the BSNSP.

54 publicly executed in the summer of 1346. 155 As the Angevin princes vied for power in the weeks after Andrew’s murder, Johanna requested papal permission to marry her cousin Robert of Taranto. When the pope refused, she subsequently requested to marry his brother Louis of Taranto in the autumn of 1346. Clement VI also refused to grant permission for this match, but Johanna and Louis were secretly married in defiance of his wishes on August 22, 1347. Things went from bad to worse when Louis of Hungary took this marriage as an excuse to invade the kingdom of Naples during the winter of 1347. 156

John appears to have remained loyal to Johanna throughout these trials. In May 1346, he was named as part of a committee overseeing road repairs in Naples alongside three other Dominican friars and an oblate, indicating that Johanna continued to employ members of religious orders for secular offices as part of her administration, much as her predecessors had done.157 Perhaps in recognition of his persistent loyalty, Johanna asked Pope Clement VI to make John a papal chaplain, a request that was granted on July 8, 1347. 158 (It seems likely that this was an honorary title rather than an office he ever actually fulfilled. 159 ) Less than a year later, John accompanied the queen, who was pregnant with Louis’ child, when she fled for Avignon in advance of the Hungarian occupation of Naples. 160 His sermon collection contains a sermon preached to the pope in the presence of the Queen of Sicily, which was almost certainly delivered before

155 Casteen, From She-Wolf to Martyr , 45-7.

156 Casteen, From She-Wolf to Martyr , 47-8.

157 Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 54, citing a lost document dated May 27 1346. On the broader context of this practice, see Hubert Houben, “Religious in Secular Offices in Late Medieval Southern Italy,” in Churchmen and Urban Government in Late Medieval Italy, c. 1200-c. 1450 , ed. Frances Andrews and Maria Agata Pincelli (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 307-18.

158 Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 54.

159 On the role of the papal chapel during the Avignon period, see Guillemain, La cour pontificale d’Avignon, 360- 62. John XXII instituted a separate category of honorary chaplains who were not normally resident at Avignon.

160 On Johanna’s flight from Naples, see Léonard, Histoire de Jeanne , vol. 2, 26-33; for her stay in southern France, 52-143. See also Casteen, From She-Wolf to Martyr , 48-50.

Clement VI upon Johanna’s arrival in Avignon on March 15, 1348. 161 John emphasizes the queen’s status as a papal vassal and the great distance she has travelled; he makes no mention of Louis, who had arrived in Avignon the day before. Instead, he depicts the queen as seeking coronation and papal counsel, and pointedly refers to the kingdom of Naples as “yours and hers.” 162 Johanna and Louis, having obtained a papal dispensation for their marriage, returned to Naples in mid-August 1348, after selling the city of Avignon to the papacy in order to finance the voyage home. 163 From all appearances, John also returned to Naples around the same time; the very next sermon in his collection was preached in Naples on the occasion of a procession for the sake of peace. 164

John’s date of death remains uncertain. Käppeli argued that he probably did not live past 1350.165 This conjecture is based on the assumption that the sermons after the index in John’s sermon collection were indeed added in chronological order, as a sort of sermon diary for the last years of his life. The sermon for the sake of peace is followed by one for the death of a Dominican bishop named John, whose subject remains frustratingly obscure. 166 The next is for the twenty-first Sunday after Trinity, which fell on November 9 in 1348, and the one after is for the third Sunday of Advent (in 1348, December 14). 167 These are followed by two anniversary sermons, the first for an unnamed “great lord” who John confidently asserts is in Purgatory, and

161 Schneyer no. 136, A f. 113va-114ra. Most of the sermon, except for the last 11 lines, is published in Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 70-1.

162 See below, Chapter 6.

163 Casteen, From She-Wolf to Martyr , 49.

164 This sermon was skipped by Schneyer, but occupies f. 114ra-115ra in the manuscript, between Schneyer nos. 136 and 137. On the dating of this sermon, see Boyer, “Processions civiques et prédication,” 136. The Neapolitan context is made clear in John’s introduction, A f. 114ra-b: “Omnes ad presens sumus congregati ad rogandum deum pro pace Ierusalem mistice, id est civitatis Neapolitane, que est capud istius regni, sicut olim Ierusalem fuit capud regni Ierusalemitani...”

165 Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 55.

166 Schneyer no. 137, A f. 115ra-vb, “In morte fratris Iohannis episcopi.” See below, Ch. 5. There is no evidence that John of Naples was ever made a bishop, so this should not be considered a sermon for John’s own funeral.

167 Schneyer nos. 138 and 139.

56 the second for Philip of Taranto, who died on December 23, 1332. 168 The final text in the collection as it stands is an incomplete sermon for the feast of the Lord’s Supper, or Holy Thursday, which would bring us up to April 9, 1349.169 However, marginal annotations elsewhere in the manuscript indicate that this sermon was originally followed by at least three others: a legal graduation sermon, a funeral sermon for a deceased noble, and a sermon for the twenty-second Sunday after Trinity. 170 Assuming that all of these were added in chronological order, the final sermon would date to November 8, 1349; assuming that this was the last of the sermons entered in the collection, John presumably died around the end of 1349 or the beginning of 1350. He may have fallen victim to the Black Death (which some contemporaries saw as a divine punishment for Johanna’s sins) but he may simply have died of old age; by 1350, he would have been at least 70 or 75 years old. 171

Themes

Three main themes emerge from this biography, each of which will be explored in greater detail in one or more of the coming chapters. Perhaps the most prominent is John’s lifelong relationship with the Angevin dynasty. John enjoyed the patronage of three successive Angevin rulers of Naples. As will be seen in the final chapter of this thesis, he repaid this debt not only with sporadic administrative work, but also by employing his talents as a preacher and scholar to help articulate and disseminate key elements of Angevin propaganda, including the myth of a saintly Angevin bloodline and a theory of kingship that placed the monarchs above the laws of their kingdom but subject to the pope.

Another theme that lasts from John’s first appearance in the records to his last is his identity as a Dominican friar. John did not only preach or act on behalf of the Angevin monarchs; he was also

168 Schneyer nos. 140, “In anniversario alicuius magni domini” and 141, “In anniversario Philippi principis Tarentini.”

169 Schneyer no. 142.

170 See Appendix 1 for discussion. The existence of the third sermon is indicated by a marginal note on f. 108rb next to the index entry for a sermon for the twenty-second sermon after Trinity on the theme Omne debitum dimisi tibi (Matt. 18:32): “Item de eodem temate idem sermo cum aliquibus aditionibus post titulos . q .”

171 For this interpretation of the Black Death, see Casteen, From She-Wolf to Martyr , 49.

57 concerned with maintaining the life of his own order. The penultimate chapter of this thesis will explore some of the aspects of his preaching directed towards fellow members of the Order of Preachers. John’s Dominican identity is also evident in his interest in pastoral care, which comes across partly through his preaching and partly through his scholarly writings on cases of conscience, which will be discussed in Chapter 4.

The third dominant theme is that John was a lifelong scholar, not only at the University of Paris, but also in Bologna, Avignon, and especially Naples. This aspect of his biography has left the largest quantities of written traces – quodlibets, disputed questions, academic sermons – deriving from a period of several decades. The next three chapters will investigate different aspects of John’s scholarly identity: first, his self-image as a teacher and master of theology; second, the way he incorporated medicine into his theological teaching; and third, the relationship between his quodlibets and the literature of pastoral care.

1.2 John’s Naples

Much of what follows will be concerned with ideas. But the next few pages are intended as an inoculation against the all-too-easy tendency when doing intellectual history to forget that the “thinkers” of the ideas we study were real people, who walked the streets of real cities, travelled for days and weeks on the roads and paths and waterways between them, ate real food, had real relationships with others. Since the Neapolitan context of many of John’s works is a particular focus of this dissertation, it seems worthwhile to devote some attention to the landmarks of Naples as he knew it, including San Domenico, Castel Nuovo, and the convents of the other mendicant orders. 172

San Domenico Maggiore

Of the convent of San Domenico Maggiore, John’s home for most of his life, little of what he would have seen and touched has been preserved. Archaeological excavations at the Franciscan convent of San Lorenzo Maggiore can provide some hints about the kinds of objects he might have interacted with on a daily basis. For example, John and his fellow friars probably ate off

172 For a recent overview of the development of the urban geography of Naples during the Angevin period (and beyond), see Anna Giannetti, “Urban Design and Public Spaces,” in Naples , 46-100.

58 proto-majolica dishes similar to the late-thirteenth- and early-fourteenth-century examples discovered there: glazed earthenware decorated with human and animal figures, geometric shapes, or foliage, in a limited palette of muted green, yellow, blue, red, black, and white. 173 If anything, the largest extant body of material culture that John would have known is the books that formed part of the convent library, many of which are housed today in the Biblioteca Nazionale in Naples. 174 Only a handful of thirteenth- and early-fourteenth-century devotional and artistic objects from San Domenico survive; these will be discussed below. Most of the convent’s medieval architectural and decorative features were unfortunately destroyed in a mid- nineteenth-century redecoration. In the words of art historian Caroline Bruzelius, “One has the nagging sense that this is a central monument, but there is today little left to see.” 175

Most of the present basilica, located in the heart of the old city of Naples, originated under Angevin patronage during John’s lifetime. 176 Charles II, then still a prince, laid the first stone in January 1284, but construction probably did not begin in earnest until at least a decade later, and the church was not completed until the mid-1320s. For the first half of John’s career, therefore, the church of his home convent would have been under construction. Shortly before he left Naples for Paris, he might have admired the new frescoes in the Brancaccio family chapel, one of the medieval portions of the church that survives today. Attributed to the Roman painter Pietro Cavallini, who was working for the king of Naples in 1308, these frescoes include depictions of

173 Examples from the collection of the Museo dell’opera di San Lorenzo Maggiore include images of fish, birds, fantastic creatures, and in one case a man and woman in an amorous embrace. For discussion, see Maria Vittoria Fontana and Giovanna Ventrone Vassallo, eds., La ceramica medievale di San Lorenzo Maggiore in Napoli , 2 vols. (Naples: Istituto universitario orientale, 1984), especially the chapter by Ventrone Vassallo in vol. 1 and associated plates.

174 Thomas Käppeli, “Antiche biblioteche domenicane in Italia,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 36 (1966): 5- 80, at 30-45 identifies a number of entries in the early modern catalogues from San Domenico with extant manuscripts. Obviously, not all of these were present in the convent library during the first half of the fourteenth century, but some of them certainly were.

175 See Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 95-6.

176 The site belonged to the hospital of an older church, Sant’Angelo a Morfisa, which formed part of a Benedictine monastery that the Dominicans had been granted in 1231. Before the Benedictines, it had belonged to the Basilians. The church was re-dedicated to St. Dominic in 1255. See Caroline Bruzelius, Preaching, Building, and Burying: Friars and the Medieval City (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), 122; Elizabeth Nogan Ranieri, “The Basilica of San Domenico Maggiore in Naples: The Art, Tradition, and Power of a Sacred Space” (PhD diss., University of Texas at Dallas, 2017), 1-6.

59 scenes from the lives of Saints Mary Magdalene, Andrew, and John the Evangelist. 177 One panel near the top of the left wall contains an image of John the Evangelist being immersed in a vat of boiling oil – an event which John of Naples describes in both of his surviving sermons in the apostle’s honour. 178 These sermons make no explicit reference to these paintings, and John’s sermon collection gives no indication of the location of their delivery. However, one might hypothesize that if he did deliver these sermons in the church of San Domenico, he would have directed his audience’s attention to the striking image of the naked apostle half-immersed in the vat before the enthroned emperor. 179

The extent to which Cavallini or his followers decorated other areas of the church around 1308 is unknown. The Roman painter may also have been responsible for the fresco depicting an enthroned Mary cradling the infant Christ in the chapel of the d’Aquino family, which was subsequently covered by the tomb of Giovanna d’Aquino (d. 1343) and related artworks towards the end of John’s life. 180 Other patrons and artists had their impact on the stones of the church as

177 Cathleen A. Fleck, “The Rise of the Court Artist: Cavallini and Giotto in Fourteenth-Century Naples,” in Art and Architecture in Naples, 1266-1713: New Approaches , ed. Cordelia Warr and Janis Elliott (Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell, 2010), 460-83, esp. 464-7; see also Warr and Elliott’s introduction to the same volume, p. 3, as well as Ranieri, “The Basilica of San Domenico Maggiore in Naples,” 69-70 and 167-8, Fig. 9-10.The frescoes have not been securely ascribed to Cavallini, but are attributed to him on the basis of their similarity to his Roman works. The chapel may in fact have been commissioned by the Caracciolo family; see Serena Romano, “Patrons and Paintings from the Angevins to the Spanish Hapsburgs,” in Naples , 171-232, at 176.

178 Schneyer nos. 9 and 10, A f. 6vb-8ra and 8rb-9ra. The longer account of this story, drawn from the liturgy for the Feast of St. John Before the Latin Gate and perhaps the Golden Legend , is found in Schneyer no. 10, A f. 8rb- 9ra: “Quantum autem ad tertium, est sciendum quod beatus Iohannes fuit a Christo elevatus seu exaltatus, et in presenti et in futuro: in presenti quidam quia fecit eum apostolum, ut patet in Epistolis, et evangelistam, ut patet in Evangelio, et prophetam, ut patet in Apocalisim, et martirem, saltim voluntate, ut dixit ei Christus, Matt. 17[=Matt. 20:23], Calicem quidem meum bibetis etc. , quia propter insuperabilem evangelizandi constantiam fuit a Domiciano Cesare in Pathmos insulam religatus, et postea in ferventis olei dolium missus, in quo tamen divina se protegente gratia tam illesus exivit quam a corruptione carnis fuerat alienus. | Fuit etiam a Christo in presenti sublimatus multis et magnis miraculis, quia quatuor mortuos suscitavit, venenum sine lesione bibit, virgas, lineas, et lapides communes in aurum et gemmas preciosas convertit.”

179 On the interaction between late medieval sermons and visual art, see Miriam Gill, “Preaching and Image: Sermons and Wall Paintings in Later Medieval England,” in Preacher, Sermon and Audience in the Middle Ages , ed. Carolyn Muessig (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 155-80.

180 Ranieri, “The Basilica of San Domenico Maggiore in Naples,” 63-5 and 166, Fig. 8. The remains of the fresco, which obviously used to be larger, are visible in the lunette above Giovanna’s tomb, where they were revealed by the removal of a panel with a different Marian image, the so-called Mater Omnium panel (ca. 1345), which is now in the Museo di Capodimonte, Naples.

60 well as the decoration of its walls. In the later decades of his life, John must have passed countless times through the portal constructed in 1325 under the patronage of Bartholomew of Capua, which was likely executed by one or more of the Sienese sculptors who were active in Naples at the time. 181 We should imagine John’s home church, therefore, as not only a venue for preaching, but also as a space in which the Neapolitan nobility expressed their piety through patronage, bringing in artists from beyond the Kingdom of Naples.

Elsewhere in San Domenico, John may have contemplated the small early-thirteenth-century crucifix that, according to later traditions, spoke to Thomas Aquinas, and before which Aquinas was said to have levitated in prayer. 182 Although he was surely familiar with this object, it is uncertain whether he would have associated it with the story of Aquinas’s levitation, since he did not make any reference to this story in his deposition for the canonization inquest, and there is some disagreement in the early lives of St. Thomas as to whether this miracle took place in Naples or Paris. 183 At some point, he probably worshiped before a polyptych containing an image of St. Dominic which, according to later traditions, was painted from life and brought to Naples by the original founders of the convent in 1231 – although, again, it is not clear whether he would have personally attached to it this significance. 184 During his last years, he might also have been able to gaze upon the panel depicting Mary nursing the infant Christ that was painted by the southern Italian artist Roberto d’Oderisi for the tomb of Giovanna d’Aquino. 185 These

181 Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 161-4.

182 Ranieri, “The Basilica of San Domenico Maggiore in Naples,” 59; 67-8, and Fig. 5, p. 163.

183 Edmund Colledge, “The Legend of St. Thomas,” in St. Thomas Aquinas, 1274-1974: Commemorative Studies , ed. Armand A. Maurer (Toronto: PIMS, 1974), 12-28, at 22-5.

184 Ranieri, “The Basilica of San Domenico Maggiore in Naples,” 70-72; Fig. 11, p. 169. Although Ranieri seems relatively open to this story in the body of her thesis, suggesting that the gilding and bejewelled nimbus might have been added later, after Dominic’s canonization, she dates the work to ca. 1290 in her appendix, and I am inclined to follower the latter date.

185 Ranieri, “The Basilica of San Domenico Maggiore in Naples,” 64-5 and Fig. 4, p. 163; Nicolas Bock, “Una Madonna dell’Umiltà di Roberto d’Oderisio: titulus, tema e tradizione letteraria,” in Le chiese di San Lorenzo e San Domenico: gli ordini mendicanti a Napoli , ed. Serena Romano and Nicola Bock (Naples: Electa Napoli, 2005), 145- 71. There is some question, however, as to whether Giovanna’s tomb and the painted panel associated with it were constructed right after her death in 1345, or several decades later; in the latter case, John would not have lived to see them.

61 kinds of artworks can give us a sense of the images of Christ, Mary, and the saints that John would have been familiar with.

The convent of San Domenico Maggiore was located in the seggio di Nido , one of the five civic administrative regions of Naples, which corresponded roughly to the north-west quadrant of the city, and was associated with the landed nobility. 186 The nobility of the Nido took a proprietary interest in the convent and its church, with a number of them choosing to be buried there during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. One such family was the Brancaccio, one of the leading noble clans in the seggio di Nido , and also one of the major donors to San Domenico, who funded, among other things, the aforementioned chapel. One of John’s sermones de mortuis , as mentioned above, can be identified as a sermon for the funeral of a leading member of this family, Bartolomeo Brancaccio, whose tomb survives in San Domenico Maggiore. 187 Another major donor family was the d’Aquino, relatives of St. Thomas, who also founded a family chapel at San Domenico Maggiore by the early fourteenth century. Although none of the visible d’Aquino tombs can be linked to John’s sermons, several sermons in his collection were for members of the family, who were probably also buried in this chapel. 188 A third noble family to choose burial in San Domenico Maggiore was the de Balzo/Baux, who held lands in both Italy and Provence, and who were firmly connected to the Angevins from 1308, when Charles II’s daughter Beatrice married Bertrand III de Baux. The couple built their palace next to the Dominican convent, and Bertrand opted for burial at San Domenico. It seems likely that his brother Hugh, who served as Charles II’s chamberlain, was also buried at San Domenico

186 Together with the neighbouring seggio of Capuana, it was one of the oldest seggi , with the strongest aristocratic associations. In contrast, the seggi of Porto and Portanova, as the names suggest, were located by the sea, and were dominated by mercantile families, or at least families with a history in trade. See Rosalba di Meglio, “Nobilità di seggio e istituzioni ecclesiastiche nella Napoli dei secoli XIV-XV,” in Ordnungen des sozialen Raumes. Die Quartieri,Sestieri und Seggi in den fruehneuzeitlichen Staedten Italiens , ed. Grit Heidemann and Tanja Michalsky (Berlin: Reimer, 2012), 36-41.

187 Schneyer no. 24. Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 61. Other members of the Brancaccio family buried at San Domenico during John’s lifetime include Boffolo (d. 1332), Peter (d. 1338), Landolfo (d. before April 28, 1348), and Thomas (d. after April 28, 1348).

188 Schneyer nos. 18 (“In morte alicuius nobilis”) and 56 (“De Thoma mortuo) both mention their subjects’ family connection to St. Thomas. The former sermon is edited in Boyer, “La noblesse,” 581-3. The tombs presently visible in the d’Aquino chapel include those of the aforementioned Giovanna (d. 1343), as well as a Cristofaro (d. 1342) and a Tommaso who cannot be identified with the Thomas d’Aquino of John’s sermon 56, since he died in 1357.

Maggiore, since, as mentioned above, John preached his funeral sermon. 189 Other noble families who opted for burials in San Domenico included the Capece, Caracciolo, Dentice, Protogiudice, and Vulcano. 190 Some of these nobles chose to take the Dominican habit on their deathbed, a practice also attested in John’s sermons, which will be discussed in Chapter 5. 191

Despite these connections with the local nobility, the convent did not recruit its friars exclusively or even predominantly from these families, at least as far as the patchy documentation suggests. Rosalba di Meglio has observed that friars from noble families make up only a small fraction of the friars from San Domenico whose names are known for the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and those noble friars came predominantly from the seggio di Capuana , to the east of San Domenico, rather than the seggio di Nido . This set it in contrast to mendicant convents in other parts of the city, like San Agostino, located in the southeast, where the friars from noble families tended to come from the nearby seggi of Portanova and Porto – though again these noble friars made up only a small fraction of the convent’s population. 192 Di Meglio claims that the late medieval community at San Domenico was characterized by the presence of friars from various parts of Italy and Europe. 193 However, judging from the names in the surviving documents, the friars of the convent during John’s lifetime were overwhelmingly southern Italian in origin, nearly all coming from Naples itself or places within a 100-kilometre radius of it: Aversa, Acerra, Gaeta, Isernia, Ebuli. 194 At least two seem to have come from Viterbo and Orvieto,

189 Schneyer no. 27, edited and discussed at length in Boyer, “Les Baux.” Ranieri, “The Basilica of San Domenico Maggiore in Naples,” 78.

190 Di Meglio, “Nobilità di seggio e istituzioni ecclesiastiche,” 42.

191 Di Meglio, “Nobilità di seggio e istituzioni ecclesiastiche,” 48n69, lists several documented examples of noble men and women who took the Dominican habit on their deathbed. Most date from the second half of the fourteenth century; the only one from John’s lifetime is Thomas Brancaccio, whose testament is dated April 28, 1348. She also gives a few examples of similar burials at San Lorenzo and San Agostino.

192 Di Meglio, “Nobilità di seggio e istituzioni ecclesiastiche,” 49-51. Di Meglio is quick to point out that there are too many gaps in the record for a systematic analysis, so these patterns may be coincidental.

193 di Meglio, Ordini Mendicanti , 132.

194 This claim is based on the names in the documents printed in Käppeli, “Dalle Pergamene.”

63 slightly further afield.195 Of the lay brothers who, according to the Dominican constitutions, cooked, cleaned, and in general performed the physical work essential to maintaining the life of the convent, even less is known than about the friars; presumably most were of local origins. 196 Friars did not necessarily leave their family connections, prejudices, or feuds behind when they made their profession, and it seems safe to assume that John’s noble origins would not have gone unnoted by his spiritual brothers in Naples.

The city

Walking the streets of Naples, which probably had a population of around 31-34,000 at the turn of the fourteenth century and grew rapidly during his lifetime,197 John would have passed merchants and money lenders eager to make a profit in this major port city. About a twenty- minute walk to the south-east of San Domenico was a large piazza known as the Campo Moricino, formerly a beach, which had been the designated market square since the time of King Charles I. On the west side of the piazza, he would have seen the church, hospital, and cemetery complex of Sant’Eligio, founded in the 1270s by a confraternity of French merchants. 198 In the surrounding neighbourhoods, armourers, drapers, tanners, and curriers plied their trades. Along the shore, close to the port, were distinct communities of French, Genoese, Tuscans, Catalans, and others, many engaged in long-distance trading and banking operations. 199 Grain was a major export, especially to Florence (itself under Angevin protection for a period during John’s

195 Käppeli, “Dalle Pergamene,” 288: A document from 1335 names a “fr. Dominicus de Viterbio.” Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Rare Book & Manuscript Library, MS LJS 361 was copied in 1327 by a “Gentile de Urbeveteri” while he was a student at San Domenico in Naples, according to notes on the inside of the front cover and on f. 46r.

196 On the role of lay brothers in mendicant life, see Asunción Lavrin, “Lay Brothers: The Other Men in the Mendicant Orders of New Spain,” The Americas 72.3 (2015): 411-38; see also Augustine Thompson, Dominican Brothers: Conversi, Lay, and Cooperator Friars (Chicago: New Priory Press, 2017).

197 Eleni Sakellariou, Southern Italy in the Late Middle Ages: Demographic, Institutional and Economic Change in the Kingdom of Naples, c. 1440-c. 1530 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 94-5. By 1350, the population of Naples may have reached as high as 100,000, outstripping Paris. See Musto, “Introduction: Naples in Myth and History,” 4.

198 Giannetti, “Urban Design and Public Spaces,” 49; Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 14-23.

199 Yver, Le Commerce et les Marchands , 176-7.

64 lifetime). 200 The importance of this commodity can be detected in some of John’s writings on economic subjects: John’s Quodl. V.13 concerns a ship leaving port heavily laden with grain, and Quodl. IV.18, on the just price, uses grain as a sample commodity. Many of the merchants John passed in the street would have spoken with more familiar accents too; recent studies point to the importance of local and regional trade for the southern Italian economy during this period. 201 Some of the traders John would have encountered in the market might have preferred to speak Greek, since even in the early fourteenth century a number of communities in Calabria and Apulia continued to speak Greek and practice the Greek rite, looking to the Patriarch in Constantinople for spiritual guidance while nominally professing allegiance to the Pope. 202 John does not appear to have engaged much with the southern Italian Greek community, however, since apart from passing references to married Greek priests in two of his quodlibetal questions, Greek Christians are absent from his works. 203

Closer to home, barely ten minutes’ walk south-east of San Domenico, was the main synagogue for Naples’ well-established Jewish community. The inhabitants of this neighbourhood would not have looked favourably upon John in his Dominican habit; during the 1290s, many Jews in southern Italy, including Naples, were forced to convert to Christianity. It is not clear whether John was personally involved in these persecutions, but some of his fellow friars at San

200 David Abulafia, “Southern Italy and the Florentine Economy, 1265-1370,” The Economic History Review, New Series 34.3 (1981): 377-88; Marie D’Aguanno Ito, “Orsanmichele – The Florentine Grain Market: Trade and Worship in the Later Middle Ages,” (PhD diss., Catholic University of America, 2014) esp. 289-312.

201 Alexander Harper, “Patronage in the Re-Christianized Landscape of Angevin Apulia: the Rebuilding of Luceria sarracenorum into Civitas Sanctae Mariae ,” (PhD diss, University of Toronto, 2014), 13; Sakellariou, Southern Italy in the Late Middle Ages , 37-8.

202 Roberto Weiss, “The Greek Culture of South Italy in the Later Middle Ages,” Proceedings of the British Academy 37 (1953), 23-50; reprinted in Weiss, Medieval and Humanist Greek: Collected Essays (Padua: Antenore, 1977), 13-43, esp. 19-22.

203 Quodl. X.23, N f. 25rb; T f. 159vb: “Non potest dici primum, quia sacer ordo, nisi emittatur votum continentie, non tollit, sed stat simul cum matrimonio, ut patet in ecclesia orientali seu grecorum.”; Quodl. XII.13, T f. 178va: “Sed contra est, quia ordo facet cum sit sacramentum est maioris perfectionis quam quecumque religio. Sed papa potest dispensare in voto continentie sollempnizatus in susceptione sacri ordinis, ut patet in sacerdotis grecis coniugatis; ergo et potest dispensare in eodem voto sollempnizato in professione religionis.”

Domenico certainly were. 204 According to David Abulafia, there was only a period of a year or two during the 1290s “in which it was impossible to live openly as a Jew in the Regno ,” and tax records from 1294-5 indicate that there was still a small community of Jews living in Naples itself. 205 Elsewhere in the city, John might have encountered the victims of another religious persecution enacted by Charles II: in 1300, the city of Lucera, the last Muslim settlement on the Italian mainland, located about 150 miles from Naples, near Foggia, was destroyed on the king’s orders. While some of the highest-ranking Muslim knights were able to retain some their property and status by converting to Christianity, most of Lucera’s 10,000 or so inhabitants were sold into slavery, many in Naples. 206 Inter-religious slavery continued to be a feature of Neapolitan life throughout the fourteenth century. Passing through Naples on her way back from Jerusalem in 1373, Saint Birgitta of Sweden harangued the Christians of Naples for buying infidel slaves and not even bothering to baptize or try to convert them, and for treating their slaves so badly that they became suicidal. 207 John alluded to the destruction of Lucera in one of his disputed questions, arguing that a Christian king should not employ Muslim mercenaries if

204 David Abulafia, “Monarchs and Minorities in the Christian Western Mediterranean Around 1300: Lucera and its Analogues,” in Christendom and its Discontents: Exclusion, Persecution and Rebellion, 1000-1500 , ed. Scott L. Waugh and Peter D. Diehl (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 234-63, esp. 251-6; Joseph Shatzmiller, “Les Angevins et les juifs de leurs états: Anjou, Naples, et Provence,” in L’État Angevin: pouvoir, culture, et société entre XIII e et XIV e siècle: acts du Colloque international (Rome: École Française de Rome, 1998), 289-300; Benjamin Scheller, “The Materiality of Difference: Converted Jews and Their Descendants in the Late Medieval Kingdom of Naples,” The Medieval History Journal 12.2 (2009): 405-30; Scheller, Die Stadt der Neuchristen ; Nadia Zeldes, “The Legal Status of Jewish Converts to Christianity in Southern Italy and Provence,” California Italian Studies 1.1 (2010): 1-17; Joseph Starr, “The Mass Conversion of Jews in Southern Italy (1290-1293),” Speculum 21.2 (1946): 203-11.

205 Abulafia, “Monarch and Minorities,” 255.

206 David Abulafia, “Monarchs and Minorities,” esp. 235-236; Julie Anne Taylor, Muslims in Medieval Italy: The Colony at Lucera (New York: Lexington Books, 2003), esp. ch. 8; Taylor, “Lucera Sarracenorum: A Muslim Colony in Medieval Christian Europe,” Nottingham Medieval Studies 43 (1999): 110-25; Brian A. Catlos, Muslims of Medieval Latin Christendom, c. 1050-1614 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 123-7; Pietro Egidi, “La colonia sarracena di Lucera e la sua distruzione,” Archivio storico per le province napoletane 36 (1911): 597- 694; 37 (1912): 71-89; 38 (1913): 681-707; 39 (1914): 697-766; Harper, “Patronage in the Re-Christianized Landscape of Angevin Apulia.”

207 Sancta Birgitta, Revelaciones, Book VII , ed. Birgir Bergh (Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell, 1967): 28:9-17, pp. 204-6. Birgitta does not condemn slavery entirely: she asserts that those who purchase slaves with the intention of converting them and instructing them properly as Christians, and who intend to free them at the time of the master’s death or before, will be rewarded by God.

66 his ancestors had previously destroyed a Muslim city. 208 Otherwise, as I have argued elsewhere, his occasional discussions of Jews and Muslims do not seem to be based on interactions with real people so much as stereotypes that were widespread in the theological literature of Latin Christendom at the time. 209 Consequently, it seems reasonable to assume that John did not interact much with local religious minorities – or considered such interactions too mundane to be worthy of mention.

Castel Nuovo

In all likelihood, John walked more frequently to the south of San Domenico and a little to the east, towards Castel Nuovo, the massive French-style castle founded by Charles I near the shore of the Bay of Naples. 210 Castel Nuovo served as the royal residence and seat of royal power in Naples, which the Angevins had designated the administrative centre of the kingdom. Bruzelius describes it as “one of the earliest instances of a fortified ‘pleasure residence’ surrounded by fountains, ‘beverelli,’ [circular towers] and courtly mansions on the periphery of a capital city.” 211 Construction began around the beginning of the fourteenth century on several grand residences with lavish walled gardens in the immediate residence of Castel Nuovo, two intended for princes Philip of Taranto and John of Gravina, both of whom John would later memorialize in sermons. 212 The castle, together with these residences and the enormous monastery of Santa

208 DQ 38 [32], “Utrum rex fidelis Christianus, pro defensione iusta Reipublice, in defectu necessarie gentis armigerorum fidelium, possit et debeat, secundum Christianam religionem, uti infidelibus, ut Saracenis stipendariis ad ipsum venientibus in iusta defensione predicta,” translated in The Cambridge Translations of Medieval Philosophical Texts, Volume Two: Ethics and Political Philosophy , ed. Arthur Stephen McGrade, John Kilcullen, and Matthew Kempshall (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 326-48. Gravina p. 328b; T f. 280rb: “Maxime autem videtur cavendum in talium Saracenorum auxilio confidere principi cuius progenitores Saracenis aliquod nocumentum intulissent, vel in terra propria aliquam civitatem destruendo, vel in terris ipsorum eos invadendo, quia cum omnes ubicumque sint, estiment se unum populum. Probabile est quod libenter vindicarent in filio quod gens ipsorum ubicumque alibi ab eius progenitoribus passa est.”

209 Kirsten Schut, “Jews and Muslims in the Works of John of Naples,” Medieval Encounters (forthcoming).

210 Giannetti, “Urban Design and Public Spaces,” 53-5.

211 Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 43; on the palace’s two gardens, see also Giannetti, “Urban Design and Public Spaces,” 58. Barone, “La Ratio Thesaurariorum della Cancelleria Angioina,” Archivio Storico per le Province Napoletane 11.3 (1886), 426 records a payment for the construction of a fountain in the royal garden, which was to be used to water the trees in the garden with the help of aqueducts.

212 Giannetti, “Urban Design and Public Spaces,” 54.

Chiara, founded in 1310, pulled the centre of attention in the city towards the southwest, away from the historic city centre and the cathedral. 213

John must have been familiar with the chapels in Castel Nuovo. The largest of these was the palatine chapel begun by Charles II, which Serena Romano describes as “almost a cathedral inside the royal residence.” 214 In the late 1320s, Robert (or perhaps his son Charles of Calabria) invited the Florentine artist Giotto to Naples to decorate it with a cycle of Old and New Testament scenes, only small fragments of which survive. It was a “vast single hall, large enough to accommodate the royal household and court.” 215 The staff of the royal chapel, who typically numbered around 20 during Robert’s reign, were housed in a tower in Castel Nuovo, and the master of the chapel seems to have also been the head of the royal library. Some chapel personnel are recorded as copying books for the king, although a separate residence was also set up elsewhere in Naples for scribes employed by the monarch. 216 If John was granted access to the royal library, he would have been able to study, or at least admire, an impressive collection of liturgical, theological, philosophical, legal, medical, scientific, and historical works, not only in Latin, but also in French and Italian, including recent translations into Latin from Arabic, Hebrew and Greek, some richly decorated. 217

To a certain extent, Castel Nuovo was a centre for intellectual life in the city, especially under King Robert of Naples, who in the words of Darlene Pryds, “fused the royal court and studium .” 218 The monarch was the head of the university in Naples, and Robert took those duties particularly seriously, personally granting degrees and preaching in honour of new masters and on other ceremonial occasions such as the beginning of the academic year. At least one

213 Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 153.

214 Romano, “Patrons and Paintings,” 182-3.

215 Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 104.

216 Kelly, The New Solomon , 63-4.

217 Coulter, “The Library of the Angevin Kings at Naples”; Weiss, “The translators from the Greek of the Angevin court of Naples”; Kelly, The New Solomon , 26-31.

218 Pryds, “Court as Studium ,” 354.

68 graduation ceremony, that of the Franciscan master of theology Andrew of Perugia in 1332, is known to have taken place in the great hall at Castel Nuovo; on this occasion, King Robert also preached in his honour. 219 Robert also assumed the persona of a scholar himself, disputing and determining his own scholastic question, “Whether human law contains anything contrary to divine law,” at Castel Nuovo, probably on January 24, 1325. 220 As Pryds points out, “[t]he renown of the king preaching at one’s inception is indubitable; the prestige of hosting an academic ceremony and assuming the role of a magister could be equally majestic.” 221 As Samantha Kelly has argued, Robert’s scholarly activities were part of a concerted effort to embody the ideal of the wise king. 222 Robert’s disputation is especially significant because it was a way for the monarch to demonstrate his virility as well as his erudition, via “a spectacular tournament of words” 223 or “single combat with the tools of reason.” 224 By the early fourteenth century, debate was also a well-established feature of courtly entertainment. 225 Taking into consideration the prestigious, ceremonial (not to mention theatrical) nature of the quodlibet, and

219 Pryds, “Court as Studium ,” 352. The records state clearly that Andrew disputed and determined his first question as a master during the second week of Advent 1332, in the great hall of Castel Nuovo. It is not clear how often such ceremonies were held here; Andrew may have been a special case, since his promotion to master was requested personally by Pope John XXII, contingent upon his examination by a panel of masters and other experts (including King Robert).

220 Pryds, The King Embodies the Word , 77-81; Kelly, The New Solomon , 245. On the heavily Thomistic content of the questio , which survives in two manuscripts, see Jean-Paul Boyer, “Une théologie du droit. Les sermons juridiques du roi Robert de Naples et de Barthélemy de Capoue,” in Saint-Denis et la royauté. Études offertes à Bernard Guenée , ed. François Autrand, Claude Gauvard, and Jean-Marie Moeglin. (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1999), 647-59, at 650-1.

221 Pryds, “Court as Studium ,” 354. See also Pryds, The King Embodies the Word , ch. 4.

222 Kelly, The New Solomon , esp. ch. 6.

223 Enders, “The Theater of Scholastic Erudition,” 344.

224 Ruth Mazo Karras, From Boys to Men: Formations of Masculinity in Late Medieval Europe (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003), 92. Pryds, however, notes that there is no evidence that other scholars took part in the king’s disputation. Either this means that the written version was edited in order to remove signs of debate, or, as Pryds suggests, the king “avoided the actual ‘dangers’ of the ‘joust’” while still retaining “the trappings of the intellectual tournament,” thereby displaying his learning without risking public embarrassment. See Pryds, The King Embodies the Word , 78.

225 Alex J. Novikoff, The Medieval Culture of Disputation: Pedagogy, Practice, and Performance (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 147-55.

69 the Neapolitan king’s keen interest in scholarly affairs, it is tempting to speculate that John might have been invited to hold some of his disputations at Castel Nuovo.

Of course, the royal castle was not only home to the king and a handful of scholars. Visiting Castel Nuovo during the 1330s, John might have encountered King Robert’s grandchildren, the future queen Johanna I and her sister Maria, playing with the wooden horses the king had purchased for them, snacking on the quince paste that Johanna liked, or conversing with Luchina, Johanna’s dwarf, who was provided on one occasion with a dress of emerald green wool. 226 He might also have run across Johanna’s betrothed, Andrew of Hungary, playing with his model galley and toy weapons, walking his dogs, or sipping on the infusions of rose, chamomile and borage flowers which were ordered for him, perhaps due to an illness. 227 He surely joined the king in praying for the princesses’ health. When the two girls suffered from smallpox in the winter of 1335-6, Robert feared for their lives, and distributed alms to the poor of Naples for their sake. 228

Beyond the royal family, Castel Nuovo would have been frequented by, and in some cases was home to, other members of the nebulously-defined royal court. There was significant overlap between the royal household and the administration in Naples. John is sometimes deemed a royal familiar in the records, but this title does not tell us very much. His fellow familiares included members of Robert’s private household, such as his treasurer, surgeon, and chaplains, as well as government officials, military captains, greater and lesser clerics, and distinguished theologians, preachers, artists, and scholars, not all of whom even lived in Naples. 229 Samantha Kelly characterizes Robert’s court as a series of overlapping circles, none of which were fully closed. It included members of the religious studia (such as John) as well as the university. Medical and legal scholars served the king in a variety of functions, with civil lawyers rising especially high in the administration of the royal treasury and chancery, often also serving as ambassadors. Local

226 Léonard, Histoire de Jeanne , vol. 1, 166-7.

227 Léonard, Histoire de Jeanne , vol. 1, 168.

228 Léonard, Histoire de Jeanne , vol. 1, 167-8.

229 Kelly, The New Solomon , 56-7.

70 ecclesiastical authorities, such as the archbishop of Naples and the heads of important monasteries like the Benedictine abbey of Cava, served as royal counsellors and officials. In most cases, these officials came and went, and they often simultaneously held other positions, such as teaching posts or ecclesiastical offices. Being one of Robert’s courtiers was typically not a full-time job. Nonetheless, a significant number of people gathered around the monarch. When the king moved to Avignon in 1318, a list of 236 individually named royal attendants who would accompany him was drawn up. This tally does not include the “great number” of unnamed lesser attendants such as smiths and launderers, nor the others (like John) who would join the king at a later date in Provence, and perhaps also a separate retinue for Queen Sancia. 230 John might have passed any number of these people on his visits to Castel Nuovo.

The wider circles of this court included several important early Renaissance literary figures. Although he never mentions him and his prose style certainly shows none of his influence, there is a good chance that John knew, or at least knew of, Giovanni Boccaccio. 231 As is well known, Boccaccio spent some of his formative years in Naples, where in addition to apprenticing in his father’s company (the Bardi bank) he attended lectures in canon law at the University of Naples and socialized with the aristocracy and royal court, especially through the influence of his friend, Niccolò Acciaiuoli. John may have also encountered Petrarch during the latter’s visit to Naples in 1341. Prior to being crowned poet laureate in Rome in a theatrical revival of classical tradition, Petrarch wished to be examined, and he claimed that King Robert of Naples was the only man capable of judging his worthiness for this honour. King Robert invited him to Naples for the examination, which took place over three days. 232 Samantha Kelly argues that Petrarch’s visit was not, as some scholars would have it, a tipping point between the dominance of two

230 Kelly, The New Solomon , 68-9, drawing on the summary of the now-lost document in Camillo Minieri-Riccio, “Genealogia di Carlo II d’Angiò,” Archivio Storico per le Province Napoletane 7 (1882): 469-72.

231 Federico Canaccini, “Giovanni Regina: A Theologian at the Court of King Robert in Naples During Boccaccio’s Time,” Heliotropia 15 (2018), 161-72.

232 Kelly, The New Solomon , 44. See also Sara Sturm-Maddox, “ Altissima verba : The Laureate Poet and the King of Naples,” Viator 43.1 (2012): 263-288.

71 distinct “scholastic” and “humanist” cultures at Robert’s court; rather, it points to the continuity between “medieval” and “Renaissance” culture. 233

Other ecclesiastical foundations in Naples

Besides Castel Nuovo, John’s main landmarks in Naples likely included the major ecclesiastical foundations. Caroline Bruzelius writes of a project of “urban renewal” begun under Charles II following his return to Naples in 1294, which turned Naples into a city of artisans and artists, with scaffolding everywhere and the sounds of construction ringing through the streets. Other projects included “draining the swamps, repairing the aqueducts, and reconstructing the harbour,” as well as strengthening the city’s walls and arsenals, paving roads, and moving noxious industries such as tanning and linen-works.234 These building works were carried out by a diverse workforce. During the 1320s, Tuscan sculptors were brought in to work on tombs and portals at San Domenico, among other locations. Transalpine architects, carpenters, and building masters were brought in to work at various sites in southern Italy; for instance, a Eudes de Crespy, builder, is reported at Naples in 1317. 235 Part of this project of urban renewal involved the reconstruction of the cathedral under the direction of the archbishop Filippo Minutolo and his successor, James of Viterbo. Bruzelius sees this reconstruction as one that blended old and new elements, sensitive to the distinguished early Christian past of the site and the city (Naples was home to several early Christian saint-bishops) while also housing chapels dedicated to more recent donors, including members of the Angevin royal family and Archbishop Minutolo himself. 236 Construction on this restoration project proceeded quickly. When John returned from Paris, he would have come home to a new cathedral, which had already been consecrated for several years. 237 Refinements continued to be made in the coming years: in 1322, King Robert of Naples ordered that an ancient bronze horse sculpture that stood in front of the cathedral – a relic

233 Kelly, The New Solomon , 47-9.

234 Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 77-79; see also Giannetti, “Urban Design and Public Spaces,” 47-58.

235 Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 155.

236 Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 78-95.

237 Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 85. The new cathedral was consecrated in 1314.

72 from the long-lost temple to Neptune – should be melted down for bells. 238 One can only speculate about the nature of John’s reaction, as a native Neapolitan, to the destruction of the venerable cathedral and the many ancient tombs and artworks it contained. 239

John would certainly have visited the other male Dominican convent in Naples, San Pietro Martire, which was situated near the port. 240 It was probably a bit shabby compared to his home convent; although it was consecrated in August 1303, parts remained incomplete into the 1340s, and it was badly damaged by flooding, possibly due to a tidal wave, during a major storm in 1343. 241 While there, he might have had a chance to admire the triptych depicting St. Dominic and scenes from his life that was painted by Giovanni da Taranto in 1305. 242

John also must have visited the female Dominican convent of San Pietro a Castello, located close by Castel Nuovo. 243 This convent was founded in 1301 by Queen Maria of Hungary and her husband, King Charles II of Naples. Its immediate purpose was to provide an aristocratic residence for two female relatives of the royal couple who had recently arrived in Naples as widows. Charles’ sister Isabella, who had previously been married to Maria’s brother, the Hungarian King Ladislaus IV, had been repudiated by her husband and imprisoned in a Dominican convent so that he could marry a Cuman woman, Aydua; widowed after his

238 Giannetti, “Urban Design and Public Spaces,” 55.

239 On what was lost in the process of this rebuilding, see Romano, “Patrons and Paintings,” 171-2.

240 Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 96-8, reports that the area “was known as Calcaria because it was here that the lime-making furnaces were located,” and that in previous centuries the spot had been occupied by the Muslim population brought in by Bishop Anastasius II in the ninth century.

241 Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 98.

242 Ranieri, “The Basilica of San Domenico Maggiore in Naples,” 71; Fig. 15, p. 173.

243 On the convent’s location, see Antonella Ambrosio, “ Oratrices nostrae. Un’esperienza monastica nella Napoli di fine Medioevo” (PhD thesis, Università degli Studi di Palermo, 2001), 55-66. This convent is sometimes mistakenly described as being located in Castel dell’Ovo, the ancient castle on a little peninsula to the west of Castel Nuovo, formerly an island called Megaride. Although one of the earlier iterations of the Benedictine monastery had indeed been located in this castle, the monks had moved to the mainland by the twelfth century at the latest. Their mainland site was an open field outside the city walls when it was first selected, but by the time it was requisitioned by the queen the monastery was located in the new heart of the Angevin capital, bordering on Castel Nuovo.

73 assassination in 1290, she seems to have returned to Naples around the beginning of 1301. 244 Maria’s younger sister Elizabeth had also had a tumultuous life: as a small child, she had been placed in a Dominican convent in Buda with close ties to the Hungarian royal court (the same one in which Isabella would later be imprisoned). However, in 1287 she was abducted by her brother, King Ladislaus, and married off to a Bohemian aristocrat, Zaviš Rosenberg. 245 Following his execution in 1290, she returned to the monastery, and may have travelled to join her sister in Naples together with Isabella; at any rate, she is attested there from January 1302. 246

In a rather high-handed move, Queen Maria wrote to the pope, requesting that the ancient Benedictine monastery of San Pietro a Castello in Naples be handed over to the Dominicans for a new female foundation. In February 1301, Benedict VIII obliged, and ordered that the unfortunate monks, victims of their prime location close to Castel Nuovo, be reassigned to three other monasteries in Naples, leaving their rather ample patrimony behind to support the incoming nuns. In order to flesh out this new foundation, sisters were brought in from the convent of Sant’Anna in Nocera, the Dominicans’ largest female convent in southern Italy, and the closest to Naples. 247 Women from families close to the royal court also joined the convent, making it an elite community that flourished throughout the fourteenth century and beyond. The destruction of the original convent in the early fifteenth century means that only a few hints survive about what it might have looked like during its earliest years. Records from Queen Maria’s account books suggest it would have been furnished in a style to suit its royal

244 Ambrosio, “ Oratrices nostrae ,” 72, makes the plausible suggestion that she made the journey with one of the numerous diplomatic missions (at least one of which included Isabella’s own chaplain) that travelled between Naples and Hungary in the chaotic years following Ladislaus’ death, as Maria attempted to assert her claim to the Hungarian throne.

245 The word “abduction” does seem appropriate here; according to a contemporary archbishop who protested against this breach of monastic vows (and other aspects of Ladislaus’ rule), Ladislaus boasted, “If I had fifteen or more sisters in as many cloistered communities as you like, I would snatch them from there to marry them off licitly or illicitly; in order to procure through them a kin-group who will support me by all their power in the fulfilment of my will ... I am the law over myself and I will not suffer to be confined by the laws of some priests.” (quoted in Nora Berend, At the Gate of Christendom: Jews, Muslims, and “pagans” in medieval Hungary, c. 1000-c. 1300 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 176.) According to some traditions, she also married the king of Serbia, Stefan Uroš II Milutin, but the evidence for this is less conclusive.

246 Ambrosio, “ Oratrices nostrae ,” 69.

247 Ambrosio, “ Oratrices nostrae ,” 69.

74 inhabitants. For instance, she commissioned a silver gilt arm reliquary of St. Blaise from the same goldsmiths responsible for the jewel-studded reliquary bust of San Gennaro that survives in the cathedral treasury in Naples, and her accounts also record expenses paid for building work done on the room in which Isabella used to reside. 248 John’s sermons for the visitation of female convents, for the profession of Dominican nuns (some of whom are explicitly identified as noble), and his sermons in memory of Elizabeth of Hungary, all discussed in Chapter 5, were probably preached at San Pietro a Castello.

Naples was also home to major convents for the other main mendicant orders during John’s lifetime. The Franciscans, like the Dominicans, had multiple Neapolitan houses. The oldest was Santa Maria la Nova, a community formerly known as Santa Maria di Palazzo, which had been displaced in 1279 by the construction of Castel Nuovo and resettled by Charles I on a piece of land located about 220 m north of the castle, closer to the city. 249 Much larger was the convent of San Lorenzo Maggiore, built on top of an ancient Roman market, itself built over even older Greek ruins. The church was based on a sixth-century basilica, which was given to the Franciscans in 1234. Whereas Santa Maria di Palazzo had been founded outside the city in 1216, reflecting the eremitical side of the early Franciscan mission, San Lorenzo was located in the city centre. Its location was also one of political importance for one of the old Neapolitan seggi .250 This convent housed the Franciscan studium in Naples, which was the closest to San Domenico of any of the other mendicant studia , just a five-minute walk to the east, in the direction of the cathedral. In the thirteenth century, the convent is estimated to have housed approximately 70-90

248 Matthew J. Clear, “Maria of Hungary as queen, patron and exemplar,” in The Church of Santa Maria Donna Regina: Art, Iconography and Patronage in Fourteenth-Century Naples , 45-60, at 54. Clear incorrectly transcribes the source for the building work as referring to work taking place “in domo in qua consuerit habitare quondam Domine Elizabet sororis dicte regine,” but in fact the source to which he refers, Camillo Minieri-Riccio, Studi storici su’fascicoli angioini dell’archivio della Regia Zecca di Napoli (Naples: Alberto Detken, 1863), 37, summarizing lost fragmentary documents from the Neapolitan archives, actually reads, “Pro certa fabrica facta in monasterio S. Petri ad Castellum in domo in qua consuevit habitare quondam Domina Isabella soror dicate Reginae,” i.e. the queen’s sister-in-law Isabella, rather than her biological sister Elizabeth, whose anniversary is referred to a few lines down.

249 Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples, 27.

250 di Meglio, “Nobilità di seggio e istituzioni ecclesiastiche,” 39.

75 friars. 251 Lectors at this studium included Guglielmo da Sarzano, who came to Naples in 1316, and Giacomo Bianco d’Alessandria, as well as Andrew of Perugia, the aforementioned master of theology whose inception ceremony was held in Castel Nuovo in 1332, all of whom were closely connected to the royal court. 252 Francis of Marchia is identified as a lector there in 1321, when he and John were appointed to examine a lawsuit concerning an inheritance dispute in the family of Bartholomew of Capua. 253 Bruzelius suggests that a portion of the church of San Lorenzo was devoted to an Angevin family chapel, containing, among others, the tomb of Catherine of Austria (d. 1323), the first wife of Robert’s son Charles of Calabria. 254 The church was probably under construction off and on during John’s lifetime. Starting around the beginning of 1324, the addition of a trio of family chapels belonging to the Da Capua necessitated a fundamental reconstruction of the building.255

To the south of San Domenico was another, even larger Franciscan complex: the double convent of Santa Chiara, built to house both a community of Poor Clares and a community of Franciscan friars. Queen Sancia of Mallorca, the wife of Robert of Naples, was especially invested in the patronage of this foundation, declaring that she planned to retire there. 256 Santa Chiara was intended as a home for those inclined towards the Spiritual wing of the order, which espoused a strict definition of apostolic poverty, claiming that Christ and the apostles owned nothing, either individually or in common. The double convent was envisioned as a return to the earliest Franciscan model of piety, and the form of the church itself may have been inspired by Joachite

251 Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 50-3.

252 Kelly, The New Solomon , 37-8, 68, 105-6.

253 See above, note 66.

254 Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 64-5.

255 Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 65-6.

256 Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 138-9. In 1310, Sancia dedicated her dowry to the project, specifying that she would retire there after the king’s death. In 1317, she requested papal permission to leave her husband and enter the monastery, but this request was denied. She wrote a revised version of the rule by which the Clarissan sisters would live, and wrote an “obsessive” number of letters to popes Clement V and John XXII, seeking permissions and indulgences for the project. The papal responses to these letters are usually addressed to her alone, and refer to the convent as “ opus manuum suarum ,” indicating that she was seen as the chief mover behind its construction.

76 ideas. 257 The convent became a politically charged site during the conflict between the papacy and the Spirituals: after a decade of papal letters condemning Robert and Sancia’s protection of the Spiritual Franciscans, Pope Benedict XII ordered in 1335 that the Franciscans clothed in the “short, dirty, and unaccustomed” habits of the Spirituals should be expelled from Santa Chiara. 258 Nonetheless, as early as the 1320s, it was becoming a royal necropolis, and King

Robert was buried behind the altar of the church of Santa Chiara in 1343. 259

When John returned to Naples from Paris, he would have found newly established groups of Franciscans and Clarissans living in the midst of a major construction project, probably in pre- existing buildings, on the newly requisitioned area a little to the southwest of San Domenico. He would have had ample opportunity to observe the building works on this site over the next two decades, since he would have had to walk past them on his way to Castel Nuovo. 260 It is impossible to say what he thought as the massive, boxy new church rose from the ground, larger than San Domenico and larger even than the newly renovated cathedral, coming to dominate the city skyline, as it does even today. One might hazard a guess, however, as to what John thought about Sancia’s commitment to the Spiritual Franciscans. Judging by his contributions to the papal consultation on apostolic poverty of 1322 and subsequent debates on the subject, John was no friend of the Spirituals. He took a harder line than the other Dominicans who were involved in the same consultation, including Hervaeus Natalis and Durand of St.-Pourçain, arguing that the Franciscan assertion that Christ and the apostles had no dominium over goods, but only a simple

257 Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 145-50.

258 Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 239n115.

259 Sancia, on the other hand, was buried in an analogous position behind the altar of the church of Santa Croce, another Franciscan double convent which she had established to the west of Castel Nuovo in 1338. See Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 150-1.

260 Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 140-3. Work on the roof was underway by the 1320s; according to an inscription on the bell tower, the church was covered with lead in 1338 and consecrated in 1340.

77 use of fact, is heretical because it explicitly contradicts Scripture. 261 John preferred to employ a definition of poverty that covered both the Franciscans and the Dominicans. 262

Naples was also home to a large Augustinian convent, located to the north-west of the Campo Morincino, about a ten-minute walk from San Domenico. The complex of San Agostino included in addition to the church, “two cloisters, one large and one small, eight small dormitories, a library, archive, and other practical structures that served the needs of the community, the faculty, and the students.” 263 The only part of these medieval structures to remain intact is the chapter house, which Bruzelius argues was still under construction into the mid-fourteenth century. 264 The studium of San Agostino seems to have been a major educational centre. A document from 1332 recording a donation to the Neapolitan Augustinians lists the names of a master of theology, no fewer than five lectors, and two students, one of whom was from the province of Cologne. 265 With so many lectors at one time, one can only assume that the convent was home to many more students than those named. Major Augustinian theologians active in Naples during John’s lifetime included James of Viterbo, who served as archbishop from 1302 until his death in 1307 or 1308, Augustine of Ancona, who composed his monumental Summa de ecclesiastica potestate in Naples under Robert’s patronage during the mid-1320s, and Dionigi of Borgo San Sepolcro, who is best known for his associations with Petrarch and Boccacio. It is striking that all three of these men ended up in Naples at Robert’s request, and like John they served the royal court in a variety of ways. 266

261 For John’s involvement in this debate, see Nold, “How influential,” 646-63. For a fuller discussion of the papal consultation, see Nold, Pope John XXII and his Franciscan Cardinal .

262 Nold, “How influential,” 648.

263 Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 26.

264 Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 25-7.

265 Rosalba di Meglio, Ordini Mendicanti, Monarchia e Dinamiche Politico-Sociali a Napoli , 132, referring to the transcription in Saturnino Lopez, “De conventu S. Augustini Neapolitano. Documenta et notitiae,” Analecta Augustiniana 12 (1927-8): 128-46, at 141. The master of theology was Roger of Lavello, the lectors Robert de Sancto Bono, G. de Massilia, Pax de Neapoli, Simon of Marchia, and Clemens de Narnia.

266 Kelly, The New Solomon , 38-40. In addition to the secondary literature on these authors cited by Kelly, see Antoine Côté and Martin Pickavé, eds., A Companion to James of Viterbo (Leiden: Brill, 2018), and Saak, High Way to Heaven .

The fourth major mendicant order, the Carmelites, had a church and convent on the other side of the Piazza del Mercato from the Augustinians. They possessed a miraculous image of the Virgin, which brought in pilgrims and donations. 267 The Carmelites were later to adopt the formal educational structure of the studium generale than the other mendicant orders, and their studium in Naples was probably established only in 1333. 268 It is difficult to determine the extent of the interactions between the studia of the different mendicant orders in Naples. Could friars from one convent attend lectures at another? Would friars from other convents attend quodlibetal disputations like John’s, which were more ceremonial and public occasions than regular lectures? Could friars from different convents visit each other’s libraries? Did they borrow books from each other? Further study of the manuscript evidence might shed some light on that last question, at least, but at present it is impossible to say.

John probably had few interactions with the monastic orders who also had seats in Naples, such as the Carthusians, whose Certosa di San Martino, located near a royal palace on a hill with stunning views of the city, was founded under the patronage of Prince Charles of Calabria in 1325. 269 Of the three main mendicant orders, the Franciscans appear to have been the ones with whom he had the most contact. His sermon collection contains three sermons for receiving the Franciscan Minister General. Nold argues convincingly that one of these (Schneyer no. 99) was preached in Avignon in honour of Michael of Cesena, ca. 1322-4. 270 The timing of the others is less certain, although Schneyer no. 98 can probably be linked to Michael as well, since John alludes to the Minister General’s election in absentia, and Michael was elected in this fashion at the Franciscan general chapter in Naples in May 1316. 271 In this sermon, John also praises the

267 Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 23-5.

268 D’Alatri, “Panorama geografico, cronologico e statistico,” 70.

269 Charlotte Nichols, “Ecclesiastical Architecture and the Religious Orders,” in Naples , 101-170, at 145-7. Construction proceeded slowly, and the convent was not consecrated until 1368.

270 Nold, “How influential,” 636-8, correcting Käppeli’s dating of 1317.

271 Schneyer no. 98, A f. 66vb: “Quantum autem ad secundum est sciendum quod pater reverendus potest dici esse dei tripliciter [...] secundo electione et promotione, id est a deo electus ad tantum gradum in ecclesia dei. Regula enim Christi est, Matt. 18[:20], Ubi sunt duo vel tres congregati in nomine meo, ibi sum ego in medio eorum ; ergo multo magis Christus fuit in medio fratrum tot congregatorum in capitulo generali a quibus absens electus fuit.”

Minister General for putting an end to an unspecified litigious disturbance concerning the Dominican order, with the pithy remark that if there is sometimes conflict amongst angels, it is no wonder that there is sometimes discord amongst men, as perfect as they may be. 272 Given its location after the index, John’s third sermon for receiving the Franciscan Minister General (Schneyer no. 135) likely dates from the mid-1340s, and was therefore probably delivered in honour of Fortanerius Vassali. In the latter sermon, John asserts that the Franscians and Dominicans are more brothers than the religious of any other orders: the founders of these orders were contemporaries and close friends, and the Dominican constitutions mandate that Francisans should receive greater hospitality than the members of any other order, and that the Franciscan Minister General should be received in Dominican convents with greater honour than the prelates of other orders. 273

When speaking to a primarily Dominican audience in the presence of the Franciscan Minister General, John is effusive in his praise of the Franciscan order. One does wonder, however, whether his emphasis on the sheer number of Franciscans, which he places before their achievements in preaching, teaching, and holiness of life, was something of a backhanded compliment. 274 In sermons for a purely Dominican audience, such as the visitation sermons that

272 Schneyer no. 98, A f. 66vb-67ra: “Quantum autem ad tertium est | sciendum quod N. potest dici esse ordini nostro in bonum tripliciter, scilicet primo orationum suffragia iniungendo fratribus ordinis sui pro bono statu ordinis nostri, per quorum orationes non est dubium ordinem nostrum in bono statu observari et de bono in melius continue augeri [...] Secundo turbationum litigia precidendo; revera si inter angelos beatos est quandoque pugna, ut patet Dan. 10, saltim secundum expositionem Gregorii 17 Moralium, non est mirum si inter viatores quantumcumque perfectos est aliqualiter quandoque discordia, quam tamen precidit quantum in se est N. tanquam bonus pater ubicumque invenit. [...] Tertio dilectionis indicia ostendendo ubicumque, scilicet potest ordinem promovendo et consolando.”

273 Schneyer no. 135, A f. 113rb: “Fratres enim minores et fratres predicatores sunt quodam speciali modo confratres plusquam religiosi quorumcumque aliorum ordinum inter se vel ad ipsos comparati. Quod revera habent a primis progenitoribus seu fundatoribus talium ordinum, hoc est a sanctis Dominico et Francisco, qui fuerunt contemporanei et inter se familiares amici, ut patet ex legendis ipsorum, et in constitutionibus fratrum predicatorum mandatur de solis fratribus minoribus plusquam de aliis religiosis cuiuscumque alterius ordini quod ylariter et caritative in conventibus nostris recipiantur, et quod pie et honeste procurentur sicut et fratres nostri. Et in eisdem constitutionibus dicitur de solo ministro generali fratrum minorum plusquam de alio prelato cuiuscumque alterius ordinis quod possit dare licentiam loquendi in mensa fratribus ordinis nostri secum comedentibus, sicut magister ordinis predicatorum. | Propter hanc confraternitatem et communem patrem hic presentem quam et quem habent fratres minores et fratres predicatores potest eis simul acceptis vere dici illus Matt. 23[:8-9], Omnes vos fratres estis; unus est enim pater vester .”

274 Schneyer no. 98, A f. 66va-b: “Quantum ad primum est sciendum quod magne auctoritatis est esse generalem ministrum, id est pastorem et prelatum, tanti et talis ordinis sicut est ordo fratrum minorum, propter tria. Primo quia est ordo multum numerosus; inter omnes enim ordines multum habundavit, habundat, et habundabit per dei gratiam

80 will be discussed in Chapter 5, he pays more attention to the things that distinguish the Dominicans from other orders, including the Franciscans, such as the Dominicans’ special commitment to preaching. Apart from the Franciscans, John does not refer to any other mendicant orders by name, suggesting that his claims about the special closeness between the Dominicans and Franciscans may have had some basis in reality.

1.3 Conclusion

My goal in this sketch of Naples as John would have known it has been to underscore the vibrancy of Neapolitan culture during the first half of the fourteenth century. The Naples John knew was the capital of a major European kingdom, ruled by a line of monarchs who claimed a special holy status, pledged allegiance to the pope (who resided in their territory), and engaged in conspicuous displays of wealth and magnificence. It was a bustling Mediterranean port, from which ships laden with grain sailed north to feed the city-states of central and northern Italy, and in which groups of merchants from Provence, northern Italy, and the Iberian peninsula maintained their quarters. The ties between Naples and the rest of Italy were cultural as well as economic, with artists and sculptors as well as merchants and bankers moving back and forth between the regions. At the royal court, legal and medical scholars rubbed shoulders with masters of theology, many of whom taught at the studia of the mendicant orders. The monarch with whom John was associated for the longest, King Robert of Naples, assiduously cultivated the image of a wise and pious ruler, to the benefit of scholars and churchmen like John. As we turn to analyzing John’s written works in the following chapters, it is worth remembering this context.

in multitudine personarum, et collegium quanto est numerosius, tanto ceteris paribus est honorabilius. Sed quia habere multos non virtuosos in aliquo collegio est multiplicare gentem et non magnificare letitiam, ut dicitur Ysa. 9[:3], idcirco dico secundo quod est ordo virtuosus, scilicet et quoad institutionem, quia a sancto et in sanctis statutis et sancta regula fundatus et institutus, et quoad ob|servationem seu conversationem, quia est sancte conversationis, ut de se patet, quod dici non potest de ordine seu religione collapsa. Est etiam ordo virtuosus et quoad virtutes theologicas et morales, et quoad intellectuales, quia personas habuit, habet, et habebat semper dei gratiam multas valde preditas sancta vita, magna sapientia, et aliis multis et magnis gratiis gratis datis. Sed quia secundum Ieronemum in Epistola ad Paulinum, capitulo quarto, ‘Sancta rusticitas solum sibi prodest et quantum edificat ex vite merito ecclesiam Christi tantum nocet si destruentibus non resistat,’ idcirco tertio est ordo fructuosus et exemplo conversationis et verbo predicationis et scripto sancte instructionis.” A similar passage appears in Schneyer no. 135, A f. 113ra-b; in this sermon, the section extolling the virtues of the Franciscan order is immediately followed by the passage on the similarity between the Franciscans and Dominicans quoted in the previous note.

Chapter 2 John as a Teacher of Theology

As discussed in the previous chapter, John taught theology on and off, both at the Dominican studium generale in Naples and at the University of Paris, from the first decade of the fourteenth century into at least the late 1330s. How did he conceive of his discipline? In one sense, the striking diversity of topics covered in his quodlibets and, to a lesser extent, his disputed questions can be taken as evidence of what he thought theology was: an all-encompassing discipline, which dealt not only with the mysteries of the Trinity, but also with the nature of the created world, and the ethics of day-to-day human interactions. Only very rarely did he declare a subject to be outside his purview as a theologian, as he did in a quodlibetal question about how to punish someone who is guilty of conjuring demons and baptizing images in order to harm another person. There, John demurs that determining penalties is more the job of a canonist than a theologian. 1 Direct discussions of theology can be found in two main places in John’s works. The first is the group of questions from his quodlibets and disputed questions dealing with theology as a science, all of which originate from his time in Paris. These include a series of questions from his quaestiones disputatae about the nature of theology – is it a science, is it speculative or practical, is it subalternated to other sciences, and so forth 2 – and a question from his first Paris quodlibet that is also mainly concerned with the definition of theology and its scientific character. 3 In Naples, John’s discussions of theology appear not in disputations, but

1 Quodl. IX.25, T f. 150ra: “Talis ergo, quia baptizavit ymagines, est puniendus ut sacrilegus summo et pessimo genere sacrilegii, et quia optulit sacrificium demoni, est puniendus ut ydolatra, et quia consuluit, invocavit, et coniuravit demones, est puniendus ut superstitiosus pessimo genere superstitionis. Que autem sint iste pene non pertinet determinare ad theologum, sed magis ad canonistam, quia tales pene sunt de iure positivo.” Nonetheless, he goes on to give references to discussions of the punishments for sorcery and sacrilege in John of Freiburg’s Summa Confessorum and Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae ; see below, Ch. 4. For discussion of this question, see my article “Jews and Muslims in the Works of John of Naples,” Medieval Encounters (forthcoming).

2 DQ 17 [1], “Utrum preter doctrinas humano studio et ingenio adinventas fuerit necessaria aliqua alia divinitus inspirata”; DQ 18 [2], “Utrum doctrina sacre pagine sit scientia proprie dicta”; DQ 19 [3], “Utrum doctrina sacre pagine sit speculativa vel practica”; DQ 20 [4], “Utrum Deus sit subiectum theologie sub ratione absoluta, qua Deus, vel sub ratione aliqua speciali, utpote sub ratione qua restaurator, vel glorificator”; DQ 21 [5], “Utrum doctrina sacre pagine subalternetur alicui alteri scientie, vel aliqua alia subalternetur sibi.”

3 Quodl. VI.1, “Utrum scientia theologie possit communicari puro viatori.” A large portion of this question, transcribed from Vat. lat. 772, is printed in D. Jean Leclercq, “La théologie comme science d’après la littérature quodlibétique,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 11 (1939): 351-74, at, 367-70.

82 83 rather in the principia , or introductory lectures, to courses he taught at the Dominican studium generale in Naples, which are found towards the end of his sermon collection. A full account of my reasoning for understanding these texts as opening lectures can be found in Appendix 2. Some of John’s principia treat individual books of the Bible (Isaiah, Matthew, John), or Peter Lombard’s Sentences , but most deal with theology in general.

John uses rather different terminology for his subject in these two types of sources, suggesting that his theological teaching in Naples was more concerned with scriptural interpretation, and his scholastic disputations in Paris were more concerned with the rational investigation of divine matters, often by engaging with the theories of contemporary theologians. There could of course be a great deal of overlap between these activities; it is a matter of difference in emphasis, not kind. The principia are probably the more useful source for investigating what John’s theological teaching would have looked like in Naples. The questions about the nature of theology that John discussed in his disputed questions were very traditional by the early fourteenth century, discussed as a matter of course in commentaries on the prologue to Peter Lombard’s Sentences .4 Since all would-be masters of theology had to comment on this text, we should view treatments of these questions as a sort of standardized test. Repeated discussions of questions like “is theology a science?” may speak to existential concerns among later medieval theologians about the legitimacy of their discipline and its place within the university. But they also point to the fact that being able to map out the major debates around this kind of question and provide an answer of one’s own was a step on the road to recognition as a master of theology or man of learning. When discussing the science of theology in his principia , John does not always hold strictly to the positions he defended in his disputed questions, suggesting that these Parisian debates do not provide the last word on what masters of theology thought they were doing when they taught theology elsewhere.

4 These debates have received a great deal of scholarly attention. Stephen F. Brown’s work on this subject is worthy of special mention. An overview appears in the introduction to Philosophy and Theology in the Long Middle Ages: A Tribute to Stephen F. Brown , edited by Kent Emery, Russell Friedman, and Andreas Speer (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 1- 15, at 8-11; see also Stephen F. Brown, “Landolfo Caracciolo on the Scientific Character of Theology,” Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie Médiévales 82.2 (2015): 241-69.

John’s treatment of these standard questions, like those of other early-fourteenth-century Dominicans, is embroiled in the ongoing process of working out the legacy of Thomas Aquinas. When John explicitly defended the order of the disputed questions on theology, he was defending not only his own decision, but also that of Aquinas, as the seventeenth-century editor of John’s disputed questions points out in the margin.5 John placed the question of theology’s necessity before the question of whether it is a science, just as Aquinas had done in the prologue to the first book of his Sentences commentary and at the beginning of his Summa Theologiae . Even more than Aquinas, John’s formulation of the subsequent four questions resembles that of Hervaeus Natalis in the second redaction of his Sentences commentary, which was composed ca. 1304-7, just a few years before John arrived at Paris to read the Sentences himself. 6 As Johannes Beumer observed over sixty years ago, John’s responses to these questions differed significantly from those of Thomas Aquinas, demonstrating that John was not a slavish follower of the theology of the saint he helped to canonize. 7 Most strikingly, John rejected Aquinas’ view of theology as a science subalternated to the science of the saints. As is usually the case, John’s rejection of Aquinas’ opinion is cautious and respectful, but his skepticism about Aquinas’ position is unmistakeable.

After discussing John’s employment of the terms theologia and doctrina sacre pagine in his scholastic questions and principia , and contrasting the accounts of the science of theology that he gives in these two groups of sources, this chapter will examine the way that John defended orthodoxy – mainly but not exclusively identified with the teachings of Thomas Aquinas – in the classroom. I will conclude with a discussion of John’s self-image as a teacher, drawing on the reflections on teaching that appear in his principia and quodlibets.

5 DQ 17 [1], Gravina, p. 144a, in marg.: “Auctor defendit etiam ordinem doctrinae Sancti Thomae.”

6 This resemblance was observed by Mikołaj Olszewski, Dominican Theology at the Crossroads: A Critical Edition and Study of the Prologues to the Commentaries on Peter Lombard’s Sentences by James of Metz and Hervaeus Natalis (Münster: Aschendorff, 2010), 332-3, n. 2. Cf. John’s DQ 18 [2], 19 [3], 20 [4], and 21 [5] and questions 1, 6, 2, and 3, respectively, from the second redaction of Hervaeus’ prologue, which Olszewski edits.

7 Beumer, “Die Kritik des Johannes von Neapel O.P. an der Subalternationslehre des hl. Thomas von Aquin.”

2.1 The language of theology

An analysis of the language John employs for the discipline of theology suggests that he thought he was doing slightly different things in his principia and scholastic questions. Both are aimed at enhancing his audience’s knowledge of God, but the principia focus more on the study of Scripture, whereas the disputed questions are more concerned with philosophical argumentation. According to their rubrics, eight of the principia in John’s sermon collection (Schneyer nos. 113- 120) concern theologia . Yet this term appears only rarely in the texts of these principia ; much more frequently, John refers to the subject under discussion as sacra pagina or doctrina sacre pagine . Intriguingly, the situation is reversed in John’s disputed questions. Although the titles of several of his disputed questions involve doctrina sacre pagine , John speaks almost exclusively of theologia in his responses. 8 In questions about theologia , whether in his disputed questions or his quodlibets, he tends to stick to the term theologia throughout. 9 The term theologia thus dominates John’s disputed questions and quodlibets in a manner comparable to the way that sacra pagina dominates the principia . John’s imprecision in his use of these terms is not unusual; it was fairly typical in this period to use theologia and doctrina sacre pagine as synonyms to denote a discipline that covered the study of the Bible and philosophical proofs about God. 10

However, John typically uses sacra pagina to refer specifically to the Bible. In one principium , he speaks of sacra pagina being divided into the Old Law and the New Law. 11 In another, he

8 Responding to DQ 18 [2], “Utrum doctrina sacre pagine sit scientia proprie dicta,” John speaks purely of theologia . In the next question, DQ 19 [3], “Utrum doctrina sacre pagine sit speculativa vel practica,” he uses the term doctrina sacre pagine only in the response to one argument; in the rest of the question, he uses theologia . Likewise, he uses theologia exclusively in responding to DQ 21 [5], “Utrum doctrina sacre pagine subalternetur alicui alteri scientie, vel aliqua alia subalternetur sibi.”

9 See DQ20 [4]; Quodl. VI.1.

10 Mariken Teeuwen, The Vocabulary of Intellectual Life in the Middle Ages (Turnhout: Brepols, 2003), 379-81; see also Stephen F. Brown, “Theology and Philosophy,” in Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide , ed. F. A. C. Mantello and A. G. Rigg (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1996), 267-87, and related bibliography.

11 Schneyer no. 114 (theology), A f. 82rb: “tota sacra pagina in legem veterem et novam dividitur sicut integrales partes”

86 says that the different books of sacra pagina (here used interchangeably with sacra scriptura ) are different “generations” of divine wisdom, and enjoins his listeners to apply themselves to their study and memorization. 12 He calls Moses and the evangelists writers of sacra pagina ,13 and calls the gospel a part of sacra pagina as well. 14 In several places, he stresses that doctrina sacre pagine is a product of divine inspiration or revelation. 15 In his principium on the book of Isaiah, he contrasts his present subject (referred to only as hec doctrina ) with other sciences, including “the part of metaphysics which is called theology,” saying that his present subject concerns God insofar as he exceeds all powers of rational investigation. 16 The dominance of the term sacra pagina in John’s theological principia suggests that the Bible was central to John’s theological teaching in Naples, alongside other texts such as Peter Lombard’s Sentences . In one principium , he asserts that the Sentences contain the whole doctrina theologica in a summary

12 Schneyer no. 115 (theology), A f. 85rb: “Quantum autem ad tertium sciendum quod diverse generationes divine sapientie sunt diversi libri sacre scripture qui a divina sapientia procedunt sicut a primo originali principio, de quibus exponi potest illud Ysa. 41[:4], quis hec , scilicet libros sacre pagine, operatus est et fecit vocans generationes a principio, ego dominus primus et novissimus . Hiis generationibus tunc adimplemus cum eorum studio diligenter intendimus et illud quod in eis intelligimus memorie commendamus.”

13 Schneyer no. 119 (theology), A f. 89rb: “quia scilicet situs, id est ardor desiderii, quo sitimus ad deum fontem vivum, non restringitur in nobis nisi Moyses, scriptor sacre pagine, sibi deo revelante percussisset bis silicem, id est solidam scripture veritatem, sub duplici sensu, literali scilicet et spirituali, ystorico et mistico, nobis tradidisset.” Schneyer no. 127 (Matthew), A f. 99vb: “Quamvis verba proposita satis congrue possunt competere cuilibet scriptori sacre pagine, ut satis patuit per precedens principium, specialiter tamen videntur posse congruere illis qui sacra evangelia scripserunt, qui inter scriptores sacri canonis primatum tenere videntur.”

14 Schneyer no. 118 (theology), A f. 91rb, chapter appendix, § 21.

15 Schneyer no. 113 (theology and the Sentences ), A f. 78va: “ Deus deorum dominus loqutus est , doctrinam scilicet sacre pagine dictando et inspirando”; Schneyer no. 114 (theology), A f. 81rb-va: “Doctrina sacre pagine, que est a deo immediate inspirata et dictata scriptoribus sacri canonis, est nobilissima respectu omnium aliarum que sunt humano studio et ingenio adinvente” and a near-identical passage in Schneyer no. 119 (theology), A f. 92ra; Schneyer no. 120 (theology), A f. 94ra: “Doctrina autem sacre pagine est vere verbum dei utpote a deo loquentem immediate dictata et eius scriptoribus inspirata.”; Schneyer no. 129 (John), A f. 102vb: “Oportuit igitur ad hoc quod assentiremus hiis que fidei sunt, que principaliter in hac doctrina sacre pagine continentur, quod ipse deus esset immediate docens scriptores sacri canonis, scilicet vel interius inspirando vel exterius revelando.”

16 Schneyer no. 126 (Isaiah), A f. 98vb: “Quantum ad primum, est sciendum quod cetere scientie sunt vel de creaturis, ut naturalis, moralis, etc.; vel de deo quantum ad ea que de eo per rationem naturalem investigari possunt, ut deum esse unum etc., ut pars metaphysice que dicitur theologia; hec autem de deo quantum ad ea que omnem naturalem rationis investigationem excedunt, ut deum esse trinum, incarnatum, etc.”

87 fashion, because Peter Lombard distilled the truth of sacra pagina from the works of different doctors who had come before him. 17

The greater emphasis on Scripture in John’s principia as compared to his disputed questions is probably attributable to the different institutional contexts in which these texts were produced. John’s students at the Dominican studium in Naples would have been less advanced than those at Paris. A tiny fraction might subsequently be sent on to Paris for further studies, but for the majority of friar-students, this would be the highest level of education they would receive in preparation for a career of preaching, pastoral care, and perhaps some lower-level teaching. While the masters at Paris were struggling to discover all that they could about God using reason, these friars would be working to instruct ordinary Christians in the fundamentals of the Christian faith, and John’s instruction was meant to help them in this task. The disputed questions and quodlibets that John determined at Paris, on the other hand, were partly a teaching exercise, but partly also a demonstration of a new master’s intellectual prowess, and to a certain extent a test of his skills. It is important not to overstate the differences between theological education in early-fourteenth-century universities and mendicant studia . “Philosophical theology” and scriptural study overlapped substantially in practice, and both played an important role in both settings. 18 But John’s works suggest that the emphasis was more on the former at the university and more on the latter in the Dominican studium .

2.2 John on the science of theology

In his disputed questions, as mentioned above, John treated a series of questions on the science of theology that had become standard by the early fourteenth century: Is theology a science? Is it speculative or practical? Is its subject-matter God insofar as he is God, or according to some

17 Schneyer no. 121 ( Sentences ), A f. 95ra-b: “[...] Magister Sententiarum in hoc opere ex diversis libris atque sententiis predecessorum doctorum veritatem sacre pagine magis elucidatam et quasi expressam breviter compilavit omnibus superfl|uitatibus quasi uvarum corticibus reseratis et universis theologis ad discendam et quasi degustandam proposuit.”

18 James R. Ginther, “There is a Text in this Classroom: The Bible and Theology in the Medieval University,” in Essays in Medieval Philosophy and Theology in Memory of Walter H. Principe, CSB: Fortresses and Launching Pads , ed. Carl N. Still (Aldershot-Burlington: Ashgate, 2005), 31-51; Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent” , esp. ch. 3-5 and ch. 7.

88 more restricted definition? Is theology subalternated to any other science, and are any other sciences subalternated to it? Looking at these questions, we can see John participating in a well- established, even ritualistic, pattern of debate. His lengthy discussions of the opinions of other theologians (usually not named, but often readily identifiable) show that he was aware, directly or indirectly, of the contributions of a large number of scholars. In these texts, we can see evidence of an evolving Dominican school of thought that did not seek to fossilize Aquinas’ teachings, but rather to interpret and build on them while responding to critics from within and without the order. Only a few traces of these debates show up in John’s theological principia , however. Judging by the principia , these debates about the nature of theology may have been less important in a mendicant studium than they were at the University of Paris.

Theology as a science

In the first part of his response to the disputed question about whether theology is a science, John defines science properly speaking, following Aristotle, as “an intellectual habit of necessary conclusions necessarily deduced from necessary principles.” 19 He devotes the second part of the question to discussing two opinions to which he does not subscribe. The first of these is the Thomistic view of theology as a science subalternated to the science of the saints.20 (One science is said to be subalternated to another when its premises are found in the other science, like optics is subalternated to geometry because geometry contains the premises on which the science of optics is based.) John’s response to this view, which he rejects because he believes it is based on a misunderstanding of how subalternation works, will be discussed below.

19 DQ 18 [2], T f. 205rb; Gravina p. 148a: “Ex hiis ergo omnibus concludere possumus quod scientia proprie accepta est habitus intellectualis conclusionum necessarium necessario deductarum ex principiis necessariis, et ista notificatio scientie patere potest per Philosophum, primo Posteriorum et sexto Ethicorum .”

20 DQ 18 [2], T f. 205rb; Gravina p. 148a: “...circa hanc questionem sunt due opiniones quas non credo veras. Prima est quod ista doctrina est scientia proprie dicta, subalternata tamen scientie beatorum.” In Gravina’s edition, the next line includes a reference to Aquinas’s Disputed Question 14, a. 9, ad arg. 3 which is absent in T. Since Aquinas is referred to as “Frater Thomas,” this line was probably included in the lost manuscript on which the early modern edition was based, but its omission in T means that this opinion is not explicitly ascribed to Aquinas in this manuscript.

John also considers and rejects the opinion that theology is well and truly a science because although we hold the articles of faith by faith, their truth can also be demonstrated for us. 21 John concentrates on the position of some holders of this opinion – identified in the margin of T as Henry of Ghent – that the human intellect can have three kinds of acts with respect to God (and in fact with respect to anything that can be known), namely, seeing, understanding, and believing, which require the supernatural infusion of three different kinds of light. According to this view, the blessed in heaven see God by the light of glory, apprehending him immediately with their intellects. The simple faithful believe in God on the basis of the testimony of others, to which their intellects assent, seeing by the light of faith. Those who are learned in theology see by a third kind of “middle light” that allows them to understand the terms of which the articles of faith are composed, from which they are able to deduce further conclusions. 22 John is notably harsher in his rejection of this position than Aquinas’, calling this third kind of supernatural light “entirely fictitious.” 23 Among other things, he objects to the exceptionalist thinking that the theory of the “middle light” promotes, reminding his audience that the Creed was composed not

21 DQ 18 [2], T f. 205va-b; Gravina p. 149a: “Alia opinio est quod dicit quod hec doctrina est vere et proprie scientia, quia de articulis fidei quamvis habeamus fidem, possumus tamen |T| de eiusdem habere scientiam per demonstrationem ipsos probantem acquisitam.”

22 DQ 18 [2], T f. 205vb; Gravina p. 149b-150a: “Quidam alii [T in marg. : Henricus de Gandavo] eandem opinionem quantum ad conclusionem tenentes eam aliter declarant et confirmant. Dicunt enim quod intellectus humanus triplicem actum respectu divinorum habere potest, sicut et respectu aliorum cognoscibilium, scilicet videre, intelligere, et credere. Videre enim [T add. intelligitur] secundum eos est rem per intellectum immediate apprehendere, quomodo beati vident deum in patria. Credere autem est per testimonium alterius per intellectum alicui assentire, quomodo credunt in deum fideles simplices. Intelligere autem est ex uno aliud cognoscere, quasi ‘intus legere,’ scilicet in principiis conclusiones, in significatis terminorum prima principia, et sic de aliis, quomodo secundum eos intelligunt articulos fidei illi qui sunt multum docti in hac scientia. Et quia diversa cognitio diversum lumen requirit, idcirco secundum eos secundum actum triplicem intellectus predictum [T: predicti] triplex lumen a deo diversis infunditur, lumen scilicet glorie quantum ad beatos, lumen fidei quantum ad simplices fideles, et lumen quoddam medium supernaturale quantum ad magistros huius scientie, in quo lumine cognoscunt terminos ex quibus componuntur articuli fidei, ex qua notitia tandem deveniunt in intelligentiam et evidentiam ipsorum articulorum.”

23 DQ 18 [2], T f. 206ra-b; Gravina p. 151a: “Sed hec opinio videtur posse improbari tripliciter: primo quantum ad hoc, quod ponit lumen predictum spirituale; secundum ostendendo quod lumen supernaturale predictum et intelligentia ei correspondens non potest simul stare cum fide et lumine fidei; tertio ex hoc patebit quod hec doctrina non est scientia sic, sicut ab eis ponetur esse scientia, scilicet tan|T|quam habens evidentiam principiorum. Primum istorum, scilicet quod ponere tale lumen sit omnino fictitium, probari potest per sex rationes...”

90 only for the sake of people learned in theology, but also for everyone else, including the simple faithful. 24

John’s own response to this question depends on the precise way in which we are speaking about theology. He notes that this discipline contains some lessons that it has in common with the science of metaphysics, such as that God is one, and some lessons that are unique to it, such as that God is triune, incarnate, and so forth. So his response to the question of whether theology is a science is subdivided on the basis of this distinction. With respect to the propositions that it shares with metaphysics, John says, theology is really and truly a science in a strict sense, since these sorts of propositions can be proved demonstratively. 25 Considering the proofs that are unique to theology, however, we must distinguish further between theology considered in itself and considered with respect to us. Considered in itself, theology is also properly and strictly speaking a science, since it contains necessary conclusions necessarily deduced from necessary principles (i.e. the articles of faith). 26

Considered with respect to us, on the other hand, one must make further distinctions. If we are talking about the principles of theology, which are the articles of faith, we can say that theology is a science properly and strictly speaking regarding their possibility, but not their existence. In other words, through theology we can demonstrate that the articles of faith do not contain contradictions and that they are absolutely possible. However, we cannot prove that they are true; we cannot have demonstrative proof, for instance, of the Trinity or of the Incarnation. Because of

24 DQ 18 [2], T f. 207ra; Gravina p. 154b, ad arg. 1: “...dicendum quod symbolum compositum est non solum propter doctos in theologia, sed etiam propter alios quoscunque simplices fideles...”

25 DQ 18 [2], T f. 206va-b; Gravina p. 152b-153a: “Quantum ad tertium principale dicendum est quod hec doctrina habet quedam documenta communia cum metaphysica, ut deum esse unum, actum purum, etc., et quedam specialia, ut deum esse trinum, incarnatum, etc. Quando ergo queritur utrum sit scientia, dicendum per distinctionem quod quantum ad prima documenta est scientia proprie et stricte, quia predicta prima documenta demonstrative probantur, et per consequens sciri possunt, quia scientia est |T| effectus demonstrationis, ut supra dictum est.”

26 DQ 18 [2], T f. 206vb; Gravina p. 153a: “Si autem loquamur de theologia quantum ad secunda documenta, iterum subdistinguendum est, quia aut loquimur de ea secundum se, aut per comparationem ad nos. Si loquamur primo modo, dicendum est quod est scientia, quod probari potest ad presens triplici ratione, et unica auctoritate, et unico exemplo...”

91 this lack of evidence, theology is not, strictly speaking, a science for us in this life. 27 Finally, John says that theology is also a science properly and strictly speaking with respect to its conclusions, since its conclusions follow necessarily from its principles. 28 Thus, although he lists a number of ways in which theology is properly and strictly speaking a science, John ultimately denies that it is a science for us.

John’s conclusion that theology is not a science for us is a notable departure from the position of Thomas Aquinas. It is, however, in keeping with the teachings of some early-fourteenth-century Dominicans, especially Hervaeus Natalis, whose lectures John almost certainly heard in Paris. In the second redaction of the prologue to his commentary on the Sentences , Hervaeus argued that theology is properly speaking neither a science nor a subalternated science, although it can be called a science broadly speaking, and has more in common with a subalternated science, broadly speaking, than with other kinds of science. According to Hervaeus, a science properly speaking, subalternated or not, requires “manifest evidence of its principles.” Theology does not have this; therefore it is not a science. Broadly speaking, however, it can be called a science, because a theologian knows more than ordinary Christians about how to expound scriptural authorities and resolve objections, and he possesses certain knowledge of the consequences that follow from the principles of theology, such as that if the Son of God was a man, he must have had a soul. 29 John similarly concedes we can speak broadly of a science concerning the articles of faith, in the sense that a theologian does not just believe in the articles, but also knows where to find them in Scripture and how to understand and explain them; he also knows that one does

27 DQ 18 [2], T f. 206vb-207ra; Gravina p. 153b: “Si autem loquamur de hac doctrina per comparationem ad nos, aut loquimur de ea quantum ad sua principia, id est articulos fidei, aut quantum ad conclusiones. Si loquamur primo modo, hoc etiam potest esse dupliciter, quia aut loquimur quantum ad articulorum possibilitatem, aut quantum eorum existentiam. Si primo modo, sic dicendum est quod hec doctrina est proprie et stricte scientia. Demonstrative enim probatur et per consequens scitur quod quicquid contradictionem non implicat est absolute possibile esse, et quod nullus articulus contractionem aliquam implicat; ergo etc. Si autem loquamur de articulorum |T| existentia, sic dico quod hec doctrina non est scientia proprie et stricte, quia cum articuli sola fide teneantur quod sic sint, et per consequens sunt inevidentes. Non [T: nec] potest de eis esse scientia que in sui ratione includit evidentiam, ut supra declaratum est.”

28 DQ 18 [2], T f. 207ra; Gravina p. 154a: “Si vero loquamur de hac doctrina quantum ad suas conclusiones, sic etiam dicendum est quod est scientia proprie et stricte. Scimus enim quod conclusiones huius doctrine necessario sequntur ex suis principiis.”

29 Hervaeus Natalis, Commentarius in Sententias, Prologus (redactio secunda) , q. 1, in Olszewski, Dominican Theology at the Crossroads , p. 123-4, lines 389-400.

92 not contradict another, and how to respond to objections that might be raised against them. 30 Some other aspects of John’s question are also in keeping with Dominican traditions. For instance, Henry of Ghent’s theory of the three lights was repeatedly singled out for criticism by Dominicans commenting on the Sentences around the beginning of the fourteenth century, such as John Quidort of Paris, William Peter of Godino, James of Metz, and Hervaeus Natalis, although Mikołaj Olszewski has observed that there is a good deal of variation in the ways in which these theologians rejected Henry’s theory. 31 And, of course, the problem of how to interpret Aquinas hung over all these authors’ accounts of the scientific nature of theology.

Given the views on the scientific character of theology expressed in his disputed question, one can see why one of the audience members at John’s first quodlibetal disputation after he became a master inquired whether the science of theology can be communicated to anyone in this life. 32

There, John reiterates that theology is a science in itself, but not with respect to us. 33 It would be the same with geometry, if no one could understand its principles: in such a situation, geometry would still be a science in itself, but not with respect to us. 34 In response to the main question, John argues that in the common course of things, the knowledge of theology that an ordinary living man can have is not science strictly speaking, because its principles – the articles of faith – are not evident to him. However, God can and sometimes does make those principles evident to a living man, like he did with the apostle Paul. In such a case, we could properly say that a living

30 DQ 18 [2], T f. 207ra; Gravina p. 154a: “Potest tamen de articulis fidei quantum ad eorum existentiam haberi scientia largo modo accepta. Theologus enim, supra communem fidem quam habent omnes fideles de articulis fidei, scit in quibus locis scripture sint scripti, qualiter intelligi et exponi debeant, scit etiam quod unus non contradicit alteri, scit etiam qualiter responderi debeat ad omnia que possent obici contra eos, et multa similia numerari possent.”

31 Olszewski, Dominican Theology at the Crossroads , 289-91.

32 Quodl. VI.1; see above, note 3.

33 Quodl. VI.1, in Leclercq, “La théologie comme science,” 370; N f. 80rb; T f. 55vb: “Ergo illa doctrina debet dici scientia secundum se proprie dicta, cuius principia sunt per se nota [NT add. et magis nota] secundum se, quamvis non quoad nos, quod [NT: que] erat maior; sequitur ergo conclusio quod hec doctrina est secundum se scientia, licet non quoad nos, quantum est de communi cursu.”

34 Quodl. VI.1, in Leclercq, “La théologie comme science,” 369; N f. 80ra-b; T f. 55va: “Geometria enim esset secundum se scientia, dato quod principia eius |N| nemini essent evidenta, quia haberet conclusiones neccessarias neccessario deductas ex principiis necessariis.”

93 man has a science of theology. 35 Ultimately, therefore, John is pessimistic about whether, barring a miracle, theology can really be communicated to any living person. This is not a denigration of the abilities of human teachers so much as a statement about the nature of theology itself. The fact that we must hold the principles of theology on faith in this life illustrates their supreme dignity and elevation. Since human cognition is based on the senses, things that are above and beyond the perception of our senses, such as divine things, cannot be known by us in this life. Part of the theologian’s duty is to instruct others in the faith that there is a way for human beings to know these things in the future.

In his principia , John is somewhat looser in his use of the term scientia , referring to theology as a science in passing on multiple occasions. In some cases, he seems to be using the term interchangeably with doctrina .36 Explaining the ways in which theology can and cannot be properly called a science was obviously not a topic for principia ; these texts simply take it for granted that it is one.

Theology: practical or speculative?

What kind of a science is theology? As was customary, one of the disputed questions in this sequence deals with whether theology is a speculative or a practical science, or in other words, whether it deals with contemplation or action. Before presenting his own opinion on this subject, John considers and rejects three others. The first is actually a group of opinions belonging to those who hold that theology is neither speculative nor practical, but rather something else. Some

35 Quodl. VI.1, N f. 80rb: “Quantum autem ad tertium, quod est principale quesitum, dicendum est quod quamvis de communi cursu doctrina theologie quam habet purus viator non sit scientia quoad eum stricte loquendo, de nomine scientie sicut loquitur Philosophus primo Posteriorum et sexto Ethicorum , propter inevidentiam articulorum, tamen deus de potentia absoluta potest facere quod puro viatori sint articuli fidei evidentes, et per consequens quod talis sit scientia proprie dicta quad talem, quod potest probari multipliciter. Primo quia eadem certitudine aliquis est certus de re presente dum est presens et de absente dum est absens, si eius recordatur. Sed Paulus in raptu fuit certus de hiis que sunt fidei certitudine evidentie, et non solum fidei, et eorum recordabatur postea non solum in communi, ut quidam dicunt, sed etiam in speciali...”

36 E.g. Schneyer no. 113 (theology and the Sentences ), A f. 78vb-79ra: “Secundo, hec doctrina est comunissima sine personarum acceptione. Communicat se quippe hec scientia indifferenter omnibus, ut parvulis [...] et magnis [...] | [...] Hanc autem communicabilitatem habet hec scientia a sua causa efficiente, quod deus est.”; Schneyer no. 116, A f. 86rb: “Quantum ad primum, est sciendum quod quamvis omnis scientia sit intellectus illustrativa generaliter, utpote effectus luminis intellectus agentis [...] tamen hec doctrina potest dici illustrativa intellectus specialiter propter duo...”

94 people (most notably Giles of Rome, although John does not name him here) hold that it is an affective science, aimed at love of God. 37 Others say that it is a contemplative science, aimed not just at speculation, but at a particular kind of speculation that is ordered towards love. 38 John, however, argues that all sciences must be either speculative or practical. 39 Theology is no exception.

Next, John tackles the view that theology is simply or principally a practical science, a view which was commonly associated with Franciscans, including John Duns Scotus, Peter Auriol, and John of Reading.40 This does not seem to be tenable either, John argues, because the principal subject of theology is God, whom we contemplate, but do not act upon. Although some of theology’s secondary objects of consideration, such as virtuous and vicious human acts, are directed towards action, its principal object of speculation is God and the angels. Furthermore, theology is the noblest science, and speculative sciences are nobler than practical ones; therefore, it must be speculative. 41

37 DQ 19 [3], T f. 210ra; Gravina p. 164b: “Quantum autem at tertium est sciendum quod circa hanc questionem sunt tres opiniones quas non credo veras. Prima est que dicit quod ista doctrina non est nec speculativa, nec practica, et hii subdividuntur. Quidam enim dicunt quod non est practica, nec speculativa, sed affectiva, quorum rationes omnes per quas hanc opinionem confirmant reducuntur ad quatuor prima argumenta facta in obiciendo.” Proponents of this view included Giles of Rome; see Aegidius Romanus, In primum librum Sententiarum (Venice 1521, repr. Frankfurt: Minerva, 1968), prol. 4, q. unica, f. 8ra.

38 DQ 19 [3], T f. 210ra; Gravina p. 164b: “Alii dicunt quod non est speculativa, nec practica, sed est contemplativa; hoc autem probant specialiter per unam rationem, qua fuit quinta in obiciendo.” John may have had in mind the opinion of William of Ware. See Josip Percan, OFM, Teologia come ‘scienza pratica’ secondo Giovanni di Reading: studio e testo critico (Grottaferrata: Ad Claras Aquas, 1986), 215n.

39 DQ 19 [3], T f. 210ra; Gravina p. 164b: “Sed neutra istarum opinionum stare potest, quod probari potest ad presens multipliciter, primo ostendendo quod omnis scientia, et universaliter omnis doctrina, per per consequens ista, est speculativa vel practica.” He goes on to present three further arguments against one or both of these opinions.

40 Percan, Teologia come ‘scienza pratica’ , 217.

41 DQ 19 [3], T f. 210vb; Gravina p. 167a-b: “Alia opinio est quod ista scientia est simpliciter vel principaliter practica. [...] Sed hec opinio improbari potest tripliciter. Primo sic: Scientia cuius obiectum principale est tantum speculabile a nobis, et non operabile, est principalius speculativa quam practica, quia a subiecto est primordialis et radicalis denominatio scientie speculative et practice, ut supra probatum est. Sed Deus, qui est principale subiectum huius scientie, est tantum a nobis speculabilis, et non operabilis. Ergo etc. Preterea, scientia cuius principalis speculatio ex se non est ordinabilis ad opus aliquod est princiaplius speculativa quam practica, sicut patet per ea que probata sunt de distinctione scientie speculativa et practica. Sed principalis speculatio huius doctrine ex se non est ad aliquod opus ordinabilis, sicut est speculatio de deo, quod est unus et trinus, de angelis, et similibus, quamvis speculatio aliqua secundaria huius doctrine sit ordinabilis ad opus, sicut speculatio que est de actibus humanis

John then turns to the opinion that theology is speculative simpliciter and practical secundum quid . 42 According to this opinion, the principal end of theology is cognition of the truth that can be had about God in this life. Virtuous acts are only a means to this end, since the mind calmed and quieted from the passions by the virtues is better disposed to contemplating divine things in this life. 43 John argues, however, that theology is not only concerned with practical matters (by which he has in mind the virtues and vices) in a secondary way. For one thing, the divine precepts and prohibitions were not put in place for the sake of worldly contemplation, but rather for the sake of God himself. We should not fulfill the divine precepts for the sake of having a more perfect kind of contemplation in this life, nor for the sake of the reward of the beatific vision that we expect to receive for them in the afterlife (since this would be mercenary!) but rather for the sake of God alone. 44 For another thing, theological speculation is reserved only for the learned few, whereas virtuous and vicious acts are prescribed and prohibited for all, and it would be inappropriate to say that everyone should follow these precepts for the sake of a goal

virtuosis et vitiosis, que est secundaria respectu prime speculationis, sicut subiectum eius, et secundario subiectum huius scientie respectu subiecti prime speculationis, quod est Deus. Ergo ista scientia est principalius speculativa quam practica. Preterea, dignissima scientiarum non est scientia practica totaliter, seu principaliter. Sed hec est dignissima omnium scientiarum. Ergo etc.”

42 This opinion was defended by Robert Cowton, OFM, in the prologue to his Sentences commentary; see Cowton, Sent. prol. q. 7 n. 46-55, ed. Hermann Theissing, Glaube und Theologie bei Robert Cowton OFM (Münster: Aschendorff, 1969), BGPTM 42.3, p. 311.

43 DQ 19 [3], T f. 211ra; Gravina p. 168a: “Alia opinio est quod hec scientia est simpliciter speculativa, et secundum quid [T: secundum quid autem] practica, quia secundum hanc opinionem finis huius scientie, ut practia est, est sicut propter finem eiusdem scientie, ut speculativa est. Dicunt enim isti quod principalis finis theologie est cognitio veritatis que potest haberi de deo in via, cum ista scientia sit de deo ut de principali subiecto. Operatio autem secundum virtutem, que est finis eius ut practica, consideratur in hac doctrina ad hoc, quod intellectus sedatus a passionibus, et quietatus per ipsas virtutes, sit magis aptus ad speculandum in via divina.”

44 DQ 19 [3], T f. 211ra; Gravina p. 168a-b: “Actus humani sic considerantur in hac doctrina: ut precipiuntur seu prohibentur in ipsa. Sed non precipiuntur ut faciendi vel vitandi propter speculationem vie, sed magis ut faciendi vel vitandi propter deum, sicut propter finem. Ergo et sic in ipsa considerantur. [...] Minor declaratur, quia actus humani qui fierent propter solam speculationem vie sicut propter finem non essent dicendi virtuosi, sed magis vitiosi, quia haberent pro fine aliquod creatum, quod esset peccare mortaliter; ratio enim peccati mortalis consistit in coversione ad bonum commutabile, ut ad finem. Non ergo debemus adimplere divina precepta propter speculationem perfectiorem habendam in via, nec [Gravina: vel] solum etiam propter mercedem quam expectamus in patria, que est aperta dei speculatio et fruitio (de quo magis videtur), quia hoc est mercenarium, sed magis debemus ipsa adimplere propter deum solum, utpote quia a deo precepti, vel propter divinam gloriam et bonitatem que in eis maxime relucet, vel quia per contrarium offenderetur divina bonitas.”

96 that can be attained only by a few. 45 Furthermore, John argues, the consideration of moral matters belongs more to a theologian than a philosopher. The philosopher studies morals in isolation, but the theologian studies them in relation to a higher end, making his science superior. 46 Overall, therefore, it is inappropriate to say that theology is only practical secondarily and secundum quid .

Finally, John presents his own opinion, arguing that theology is both speculative and practical, although it could be considered more speculative than practical depending on one’s manner of speaking. 47 Theology considers both speculative things, such as that God is three, simple, pure act, and so forth, and practical things, such as virtuous and vicious human acts, as well as the act of loving God – and it considers the latter in themselves, not just for the sake of speculation. 48 Because it considers both speculative and practical matters as ends rather than means, John

45 DQ 19 [3], T f. 211ra; Gravina p. 168b: “Speculatio huius doctrine, que est habitus acquisitus, convenit solum paucis, scilicet in ipsa studentibus. Actus autem virtutum et vitiorum precipiuntur et prohibentur generaliter omnibus. Ergo inconvenienter dicitur quod exercendi sunt propter speculationem huius scientie. Alias deberent precipi et prohiberi solum in hac doctrina studentibus; aliis autem frustra preciperentur. Precipiuntur autem omnibus, etiam fide carentibus, qui peccant mortaliter divina precepta transgrediendo, quamvis actus eorum si fide careant, quantumcumque sint virtuosi in genere, imperfecti iudicandi sint, non tamen mali vel peccata.”

46 DQ 19 [3], T f. 211ra-b; Gravina p. 168b: “Magis pertinet ad theologum considerare moralia quam ad philosophum, quod patet ex duobus. Primo quia moralia fidelium sunt eminentiora ex se. Secundo quia ad perfectiorem finem ordinantur, scilicet ad eterna beatitudinem. Sed philosophus per se et principaliter determinat de moralibus, faciens specialem doctrinam de eis. Ergo multo magis theologus debet per se et principaliter determinare de virtutibus, et universaliter de tota mo|T|rali materia, non solum propter speculationem perfectiorem habendam in via, vel etiam in patria.”

47 DQ19 [3], T f. 211rb; Gravina, p. 168b: “Quantum autem ad quartum principale, quid scilicet tenendum sit de veritate huius questionis, tres conclusiones declarande sunt et probande. Prima est quod hec doctrina est speculativa et practica; secunda quod aliquo modo dicendum est quod hec doctrina est principaliter speculativa et principaliter practica, et aliquo modo quod hec doctrina est principalius [Gravina: principaliter] speculativa quam practica; tertia quod non obstante quod est speculativa et practica, est una eo modo quo quelibet aliarum scientiarum dicitur una.”

48 DQ19 [3], T f. 211rb; Gravina, p. 169a: “Illa doctrina que est de aliquibus tantum speculabilibus et de aliquibus operabilibus propter se, et non solum propter speculationem eorum que sunt tantum speculabilia [T add. considerat], dicenda est esse speculativa et practica. Ista maior propositio patet ex supradictis [T: Ista patet per probata in prima parte huius determinationis]. Sed hec doctrina est huiusmodi. Considerat enim quedam pure speculabilia, ut deum esse trinum, et simplicem, actum purum, etc.; considerat etiam per se quedam a nobis operabilia, ut actus humanos virtuosos vel vitiosos, quos considerat non propter speculationem eorum que sunt tantum speculabilia in hac doctrina, ut supra probatum est. Considerat etiam deum inquantum est attingibilis a nobis, non solum actu speculationis, sed etiam actu dilectionis, utpote quod deus est summum bonum in se, noster creator, redemptor, etc., quod etiam pertinet ad scientiam practicam, ut supra declaratum est. Ergo hec doctrina ratione prime considerationis dicenda est simpliciter speculativa; ratione autem secunde et tertie dicenda est esse simpliciter practica.”

97 argues, theology is both speculative and practical simpliciter . It is speculative insofar as God is only an object of speculation for us, and practical insofar as God is the rule for all our actions. 49

John clarifies that we can compare speculative and practical theology to one another on the basis of their ends, their subjects, or their considerations. It is true that if we are comparing subject to subject, or consideration to consideration, theology is more principally speculative than practical. John says that God is more properly the subject of this science than human actions, like “fire” is a more appropriate name for fire itself than for something that has been set alight. 50 Comparing their objects of consideration, theology again seems to be more principally speculative than practical, both because God is a more worthy object of consideration than any human act, and because virtuous acts depend on God as their first and final cause, and knowledge of God needs to precede knowledge of virtuous acts. Speculative theology thus seems to come before practical theology – as John notes is the common order of subjects followed by Peter Lombard and other doctors in their Summae .51 However, if we are comparing ends, theology is simply and

49 DQ19 [3], T f. 211rb; Gravina, p. 169a: “...aliquid est pure speculabile quod non est regula alicuius a nobis operabilis, ut triangulum habere tres angulos, et de tali per consequens est scientia solum speculativa. Quoddam aliud scibile est quod est a nobis operabile, sive sit aliqua operatio nostra, ut citharizatio, vel actus virtutum et vitiorum, sive sit aliquid a nobis constitutum per nostram operationem, seu inquantum tale attingibile a nobis alio actu, quam actu speculationis, ut domus, etc., et de tali est scientia pure practica. Quoddam tertium scibile est quod secundum se est a nobis tantum speculabile, sed cum hoc est regula omnium actionum nostrarum, ut deus, qui est regula actuum nostrorum, precipiendo, prohibendo, et propter quem sicut propter finem omnes actus humani faciendi sunt, vel vitandi. Et de tali scibili, inquantum est in se maxime speculabile, est scientia speculativa; inquantum autem est regula actuum nostrorum modis supradictis, est de eo scientia practica. Et de tali scibili est hec scientia, quod patet ex nominis ethimologia; dicitur enim theologia, id est [T: quasi] sermo de deo. Ergo hec doctrina est scientia speculativa et practica.”

50 DQ 19 [3], T f. 211rb-va; Gravina p. 169a-b: “Ad evidentiam autem secunde conclusionis sciendum est quod theologia speculativa potest comparari ad seipsam ut est practica tripliciter, scilicet vel comparando finem unius ad finem alterius, vel subiectum ad subiectum, vel considerationem ad considerationem. [...] |T| Si autem comparetur una ad aliam secundum subiectum, sic dicendum est, quod principalius est speculativa quam practica, quia principalius considerat de deo secundum se quam de humanis actibus. Sicut enim metaphysica principalius considerat de substantia quam de accidente, quia substantia magis participat rationem entis, quod est principale subiectum metaphysice, quam accidens, sic et in proposito, cum deus secundum quod est quoddam ens in se perfectissimum verius participat rationem subiecti huius scientie, quod deus est, quam actus humani, qui sunt solum quedam divina, sicut magis proprie dicitur ‘ignis’ illud quod est ignis quam illud quod est ignitum tantum. Dicendum est quod hec doctrina principalius considerat de deo quam de humanis actibus.”

51 DQ 19 [3], T f. 211va; Gravina p. 169b: “Si autem comparetur consideratio unius ad considerationem alterius, sic dicendum est, quod principalior et prior est consideratio theologie speculative quam practice, et hoc dupliciter secundum duplicem modum prioritatis. Primo siquidem quantum ad dignitatem: sicut enim deus est aliquid dignius et eminentius quam actus humani, sic et consideratio que est de deo quam illa que est de actibus humanis est dignior et eminentior. Scientie enim, secundum Philosophum in principio primi De anima , dignitatem habent a suis subiectis. Secundo quantum ad dependentiam [T add. quandam] unius ab alia: actus enim virtuosi a deo dependent

98 principally speculative and simply and principally practical, because both contemplation and action in this science are directed towards the same end. 52 John goes on to argue that while theology is both speculative and practical, it is nonetheless a single, unified science in the same way that other sciences are, because it has a single, unified subject, namely God. 53

John’s treatment of this question falls into a Dominican tradition going back to Aquinas, and his arguments follow those of Hervaeus Natalis quite closely at points. Aquinas asserted that theology was both a speculative and a practical science, though more speculative than practical, and that it is a unified science, with a unified subject. 54 In his Sentences commentary, Hervaeus developed a defense of this view, responding especially to the critique of Godfrey of Fontaines, who held that asserting that theology is principally practical and principally speculative prevents one from saying it is unified. 55 Like Hervaeus, John argues that the unity of a science depends on the unity of its subject, rather than its end. 56 Olszewski has observed that early-fourteenth- century Dominicans like James of Metz and Hervaeus Natalis devoted greater attention than their Dominican predecessors to the criteria for determining whether theology is practical or

quantum ad suum esse, ut de se patet, utpote a deo sicut a prima causa existentes, et propter deum sicut propter ultimum finem faciendi, et quantum ad cognosci. Prius enim debemus habere notitiam de deo, propter quem actus virtuosi faciendi sunt, quam de ipsis actibus virtuosis, qui faciendi sunt propter deum, quem ordinem tenet Magister in libris Sententiarum [T: libro suo Sententiarum], et tenent communiter doctores in summis suis.”

52 DQ 19 [3], T f. 211rb; Gravina p. 169a-b: “Si comparetur finis unius ad finem alterius, et loquamur de principalitate que est secundum causam finalem, prout finis dicitur pirncipalior hiis que sunt ad finem, et scientia que est de fine dicitur principalior ea que est de hiis que sunt ad finem, secundum doctrinam Philosophi in principio primi [T: in prologo] Ethicorum , sic dicendum est, quod hec doctrina est simpliciter et principaliter speculativa et simpliciter et principaliter practica, quia, ut declaratum est in reprobatione quarte opinionis, operatio virtuosa, que est finis theologie practice, non est sicut propter finem propter speculationem, que est finis theologie speculative; immo est propter deum solum sicut propter finem. Et multo minus speculatio dicenda est esse propter operationem, ut declaratum est in reprobatione prime et secunde opinionis.”

53 DQ 19 [3], T f. 211va; Gravina p. 170a: “Cum igitur huius doctrine sit unum subiectum, scilicet deus, sub cuius ratione comprehenduntur omnia de quibus determinatur in hac doctrina, dicendum est quod hec doctrina est una eo modo quo quelibet aliarum scientiarum, non obstante quod alius finis videtur esse eius ut est speculativa et alius ut est practica.”

54 Aquinas, Summa Theologiae , I, 1, 3-4.

55 Olszewski, Dominican Theology at the Crossroads , 328.

56 DQ 19 [3], Gravina p. 170a; cf. Olszewski, Dominican Theology at the Crossroads , p. 163, lines 267-296, especially the argument that even if ethics existed for the sake of metaphysical speculation, it would not be the same science as metaphysics.

99 speculative. 57 John follows this pattern of increasing interest in the criteria, devoting the first two sections of his disputed question to the sub-questions of how practical and speculative sciences are distinguished from each other (he argues that they are distinguished by their ends) and whether theology should be called a speculative or practical science on the basis of its ultimate, heavenly end, or its proximate, earthly end (he argues for the latter).

Several of John’s principia assert that the science of theology is both speculative and practical. For instance, one of his principia on the Gospel of John notes that insofar as it is speculative, the end of theology ( doctrina sacre pagine ) is to give intellectual assent to matters of faith, and insofar as it is practical, its end is to love God.58 Similarly, one of his principia on theology asserts that theology’s end insofar as it is speculative is knowledge of divine truth (as much as can be had through faith in this life), and its end insofar as it is practical is love of divine goodness. 59 Another claims that theology is both speculative and practical, but postpones discussion of whether it is more principally one or the other, perhaps leaving that for another class. 60 For the most part, therefore, the principia take the notion that theology is both practical and speculative as a given, much like they take for granted the idea that it is a science. However, unlike the question of whether theology is a science, we do have a hint that John might have further discussed the relationship between practical and speculative theology with his students in Naples. Considering that most of these students were being trained for an active life of pastoral

57 Olszewski, Dominican Theology at the Crossroads , 329-30.

58 Schneyer no. 129 (John), A f. 103va; B f. 116va: “Quantum autem ad quartum, est sciendum quod finis speculative scientie proprius et immediatus est notitia eorum que sunt in scientia; finis autem practice est operatio. Hec autem doctrina est speculativa et practica. Finis igitur eius ut est speculativa est per intellectum assentire hiis que fidei sunt, que directe traduntur in hac scientia, secundum illud Io. ultimo 19[:35], Hec autem scripta sunt ut credatis ; ut autem est practica est deum diligere, 1 Tim. 1[:5], Finis precepti est caritas de corde puro et consciencia bona et fide non ficta , scilicet mandatis dominicis obtemperando; Iac. 1[:22], Estote factores verbi et non auditores tantum .” [The texts of B and A have many minor divergences in this section, so for the sake of brevity this transcription is based on A.]

59 Schneyer no. 114 (theology), A f. 83rb: “Finis autem doctrine sacre pagine ut est speculativa est agnitio divine veritatis, qualis potest haberi in via per fidem, secundum illus Io. ultimo [19:35], Hec autem scripta sunt ut credatis etc. ; ut autem est practica est dilectio divine bonitatis, secundum illud prime ad Thim. 1[:5], Finis precepti est caritas de corde puro et consciencia bona et fide non ficta .”

60 Schneyer no. 118 (theology), A f. 90vb-91ra; B f. 115ra, chapter appendix § 19.

100 care, it stands to reason that they would have wanted to know more about the relationship between speculative theology and its real-world applications.

The subject-matter of theology

John argues that theology is a fully practical and fully speculative science. But what does this science actually deal with? His disputed question on the subject-matter of theology assumes that theology deals with God, and inquires more precisely whether God is the subject of theology insofar as he is God ( qua deus ) or according to some special definition (e.g. qua restorer, qua glorifier, etc.). 61 The main target of this question is the Augustinian theologian Giles of Rome, who famously argued that theology deals with God insofar as he is man’s restorer and glorifier, differentiating it from the broader science of metaphysics, which deals with God more generally. 62 Giles’ theory was a frequent target of criticism among Dominican theologians of this period, and John, like his predecessors, argues instead that the subject of theology is God absolute , qua deus .63

Before dealing with Giles’ theory, however, John devotes a lengthy subsection to clarifying what it means to be the subject-matter ( subiectum ) of a science, arguing that the subject-matter is whatever that science is first and principally about. This should not be confused with the matter (materia ) of the science, which is whatever falls under its consideration in any way. 64 He also

61 DQ 20 [4], “Utrum Deus sit subiectum theologie sub ratione absoluta, qua Deus, vel sub ratione aliqua speciali, utpote sub ratione qua restaurator, vel glorificator.”

62 On Giles’ theory, and the controversy about it carried on during the last quarter of the thirteenth century by Henry of Ghent and Godfrey of Fontaines, see Paul Nash, “Giles of Rome and the Subject of Theology,” Mediaeval Studies 18 (1956): 61-92 and Concetta Luna, “Una nuova questione di Egidio Romano De subjecto theologiae ,” Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 37 (1990): 397-439; 38 (1991): 129-72.

63 Olszewski, Dominican Theology at the Crossroads , 300. John’s conclusion to this question is as follows, T f. 214rb; Gravina p. 179b-180a: “Si enim nihil aliud a deo potest esse subiectum vel pars subiecti istius scientie, ut patet ex improbatione prime et secunde opinionis, nec etiam potest esse eius subiectum deus sub aliqua speciali ratione, ut patet ex improbatione tertie opinionis, consequens est quod subiectum eius sit deus sub ratione absoluta, qua deus, quod etiam de levi probari posset per multas rationes adductas contra predictas opiniones; improbatio enim falsitatis est approbatio veritatis.”

64 DQ 20 [4], T f. ; Gravina p. 173b: “Quantum ad primum sciendum est quod hic non loquimur de subiecto in quoe est habitus scientie, quia hec est intellectus possibilis; nec de hoc aliquis dubitat. Sed loquimur de subiecto de quo, seu circa quod, est scientia, quod aliquo nomine dicitur obiectum scientie, quod in hoc differt a materia scientie, quia materia scientie dici potest quicquid cadit qualitercumque sub consideratione scientie. Subiectum autem seu obiectum scientie est illud de quo per se primo et principaliter considerat scientia; nec in hoc est aliqua discordia

101 discusses and rejects several other opinions, or classes of opinions, about the subject-matter of theology. The first is a group of three classic authorities who appear to say that theology’s subject-matter is God together with some other things: Peter Lombard’s claim in the first book of the Sentences that the subject-matter of theology is the Trinity, created things, and signs; Hugh of St. Victor’s claim in De sacramentis that the subject-matter of theology is Christ and the sacraments; and Cassiodorus’s opinion, expressed in his commentary on the Psalter, that the subject-matter of theology is Christ in the broadest sense, including his head and members, who are the faithful of the Church. 65 John says that all of these doctors were speaking of theology’s matter, rather than its subject, which is nothing other than God. 66 Even in rejecting this first group of opinions, John takes a dig at Giles, pointing out that his arguments that a science can only have one subject, which he adduced against these opinions, also work against those who claim that God is the subject of theology insofar as he is man’s restorer and glorifier. 67

Next, John considers and rejects the opinions of those who say that the subject-matter of theology is divine being insofar as it is knowable though revelation. 68 He may have had in mind the opinion of the English Dominican Thomas Sutton, who argued that the subject of theology was just this in his Quaestiones in Sententias , a work defending Aquinas against Franciscan critics, which was probably composed just around the time John was in Paris. 69 Sutton in turn

inter doctores, sed in hoc concordant omnes, sed in modo hoc declarandi et probandi differunt.” One of the ways of proving this that John rejects is identified in the margin of T as belonging to Giles of Rome: “T f. 212va; Gravina p. 173b: “Quidam enim dicunt quod subiectum et materia scientie dicuntur ad similitudinem subiecti et materie rerum naturalium, quod sic declarant...” John argues instead, T f. 212vb; Gravina p. 175ra: “subiectum scientie dicitur ad similitudinem obiecti alicuius potentie.”

65 DQ 20 [4], T f. 213ra-b; Gravina p. 176a.

66 DQ 20 [4], T f. 213rb; Gravina p. 176b: “Ergo predicti doctores non loquntur de subiecto huius scientie proprie dicto, sed solum de eius materia.”

67 DQ 20 [4], T f. 213rb; Gravina p. 176b: “Ex primis autem duabus rationibus istarum quattuor patere potest quod etiam male dicunt qui ponunt quod subiectum huius scientie est deus inquantum est noster restaurator et glorificator.”

68 DQ 20 [4], T f. 213rb; Gravina p. 176b-177a: “Secunda opinio principalis est dicentium quod subiectum huius scientie est ens divinum cognoscibile per revelationem.”

69 Klaus Rodler, “Thomas Sutton on Theology as a Science: An Edition of Questions 1, 3, and 4 of Sutton’s ‘Cowton Critique’,” in Philosophy and Theology in the Long Middle Ages: A Tribute to Stephen F. Brown , edited by

102 was following Aquinas, who argued in his Sentences commentary that the subject of theology can be said to be “divine being insofar as it is knowable through inspiration.” 70 John, perhaps acting out of deference, makes no allusion to either author here. Against this opinion, John argues that something that a science determines only accidentally and in relation to something else is not its subject, and that the capacity to be revealed or inspired to someone else is a relation, not something real. As with the previous opinion, he points out that his arguments are also effective against several other incorrect positions. His targets in this section include those who say that the subject-matter of theology is the good of salvation or the works of restoration (the latter identified in the text as Hugh of St. Victor and the former probably John Pecham) 71 as well as those who say that the subject-matter of theology is God insofar as he represents for us the necessities of salvation. 72

Finally, John turns to the opinion alluded to in the main question, that the subject-matter of theology is God insofar as he is man’s glorifier, and not simply insofar as he is God. 73 In T, a marginal notation attributes this opinion to Giles.74 John presents two different ways of responding to this opinion, first arguing that the subject of theology is in fact God qua deus , and second showing that even if God were the subject of theology according to some special definition, it would not be insofar as he is man’s glorifier or redeemer, but rather something

Kent Emery, Russell Friedman, and Andreas Speer (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 591-622. For Sutton’s claim that “subiectum theologiae est ens divinum cognoscibile per revelationem,” see q. 3, p. 607, lines 8-9.

70 Aquinas, Super 1 Sent. q. 1, a. 4.

71 DQ 20 [4], T f. 213rb-va; Gravina p 177a: “Per quam etiam rationem improbari posset quedam alia opinio, que ponit subiectum huius scientie esse |T| bonum salutare, et opinio etiam Hugonis de Sancto Victore super Angelica Ierarchia [Gravina: Caelesti Hierarchia], ubi dicit quod subiectum huius scientie sunt opera restaurationis.” Cf. John Pecham, Super I Sent. , q. 1, f. 2, quoted in Engelbert Krebs, E. Hervaeus Natalis (O.P.), Theologie und Wissenschaft nach der Lehre der Hochscholastik an der Hand der bisher ungedruckten Defensa doctrinae D. Thomae des Hervaeus Natalis , Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters 11.3-4 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1912), 54; Hugh of St. Victor, In Hierarchiam Coelestem , I.1, PL 175, 937.

72 DQ 20 [4], T f. 213va; Gravina p 177a: “Et per has duas ultimas rationes improbari etiam posset illud quod quidam dicunt, quod subiectum huius scientie est deus inquantum est representans nobis ea que sunt nobis necessaria ad salutem; hec enim representatio nihil est aliud quam revelatio vel inspiratio.”

73 DQ 20 [4], T f. 213va; Gravina p. 177b: “Tertia opinio est quorundam dicentium quod subiectum huius scientie est deus sub aliqua ratione speciali, inquantum scilicet est noster glorificator, et non sub ratione absoluta, qua deus.”

74 T f. 213va, in marg.: “Eg”

103 else. 75 One of his arguments in support of this second way of responding to Giles highlights the importance of the Bible and the Sentences in John’s conception of theology. John argues that theology is more concerned with speculation about God insofar as he is three-and-one, the creator, and so forth, than it is concerned with God as the glorifier of mankind. This is apparent from the Bible and the Sentences ; after all, only part of Book IV of the Sentences deals with God as Glorifier, whereas the whole of Books I and II consider God as Trinity and Creator. He draws a comparison with moral science, arguing that just as moral science would proceed badly if its practitioners wrote a great deal about the powers of the soul, which are the subjects of the virtues, but little about the virtues themselves, so theology would proceed badly if it dealt primarily with God as Glorifier and neglected his other aspects. 76 For John it is unthinkable that the Sentences could contain such a diligent and exquisite treatment of matters that ought to be dealt with only in passing. One of his problems with Giles’ view, therefore, is that it appears to call into question the value of the core texts of this discipline. 77

75 75 DQ 20 [4], T f. 213va; Gravina p. 177b: “Sed ista opinio stare non potest, quod potest ad presens patere duplici via in genere: primo ostendendo quod deus sub nulla ratione speciali, sed sub ratione absoluta, qua deus, est subiectum huius scientie; secundo ostendendo quod esto quod deus esset subiectum huius scientie sub ratione aliqua speciali, quod illa ratio non esset glorificatoris vel restauratoris [Gravina: glorificationis vel retaurationis], sed aliqua alia.”

76 DQ 20 [4], T f. 213vb; Gravina p. 178a-b: “Si subiectum huius doctrine esset deus secundum quod glorificator, et non secundum quod deus, hec doctrina non esse bene tradita. Hec est inconveniens; ergo illud ex quo sequitur. Probatio consequentie: principalior et maior speculatio in omni scientia debet esse de subiecto suo quam de quocumque alio. Sed in hac doctrina principalior et maior speculatio est de deo secundum quod trinus et unus, secundum quod creator, et secundum omnia alia que ei attribuuntur, quam speculatio que est de deo solus secundum quod est glorificator, ut patet ex canone biblie, et ex libro Magistri Sententiarum, in cuius toto primo et secundo agit de deo quantum ad predicta omnia; in ultima autem et modica parte quarti de deo secundum quod glorificator. Cum tamen si deus secundum quod glorificator esset subiectum, deberetur esse e converso, quia illud quod est per se est potius et prius eo quod est per accidens. Unde sicut male traderetur scientia moralis si multa scriberentur de potentiis anima, que sunt subiecta virtutum (propter quod de eis ad moralem secundum quod huiusmodi per accidens pertinet determinare), pauca autem scriberetur de virtutibus (de quibus per se determinare debet), sic hec doctrina a simili esset male tradita. Sicut enim moralis non debet determinare de potentiis anime nisi modicum quantum necesse est ipsas cognoscere ad habendum scientiam de virtutibus, sic et in proposito si deus secundum quod glorificator esset subiectum theologie, theologus non deberet in tantum ad predicta omnia suam considerationem extendere; nec deberet de predictis omnibus tam diligentem et exquisitum tractatum facere, sed solus deberet quasi pertranseunter [Gravina: per transennam] tam modicam considerationem de deo habere quantum necessaria esset ad habens notitiam de deo secundum quod est noster restaurator et glorificator.”

77 For John’s attitude towards Peter Lombard and the Sentences , see Kirsten Schut, “The Next Best Thing to a Saint? Peter Lombard and the Sentences in the Principia of John of Naples,” Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie Médiévales 84.2 (2017): 343-81.

104

In his principia , John repeatedly asserts that the subject of theology is God, not only because of the etymology of the term, but also because all that this science deals with falls under an account of God, and because God is the subject of the articles of faith, which are the principles of this science. 78 Most of his principia include a discussion of the subject-matter of theology, or the subject-matter of the particular text with which the principium deals, under the heading of the material cause. (Nearly all of his principia describe the text or subject in question according to its Aristotelian causes. 79 ) In the principia , John is less concerned with defining the subject of theology precisely as God qua Deus , as he does in the disputed question. In one instance, he says that theology concerns “the highest matters, namely God and divine things,” which looks rather like some of the opinions that the subject of theology is God with some other things, which he rejected in the disputed question. 80 It is worth noting that John’s aim in this part of the principium is to demonstrate the “ineffable profundity” of theology, and it is therefore in his interests to portray the subject of theology as broadly as possible. The breadth and profundity of theology is a repeated theme in the sections of the principia dealing with the material cause. One of the ways that John praises theology is by demonstrating its all-encompassing nature. It is probably fair to say that in such cases he was dealing with the matter of theology (everything that falls in any way under its consideration), rather than its subject strictly speaking. John’s principia are quite unconcerned with the distinction between subject and matter that he drew at the start of his disputed question.

78 Schneyer no. 113 (theology and the Sentences ), A f. 79vb: “Unde hoc pronomen ‘tuum’ ad presens deum significat, qui est principale subiectum huius scientie, ut communiter dicitur et de levi probari posset, tum quia ab eo hec doctrina theologia nominatur, tum quia sub eius ratione comprehenduntur omnia de quibus tractat hec scientia, tum quia, ut per se patet, est subiectum omnium articulorum fidei qui sunt principia huius scientie.” Similar remarks appear in Schneyer no. 115 (theology), A, f. 84ra, and in Schneyer no. 129 (John), A f. 103rb; in B, this section is cross-referenced to Schneyer no. 113. Schneyer no. 114 (theology) is also cross-referenced to Schneyer no. 113, and Schneyer nos. 116 (theology) and 117 (theology) are cross-referenced to Schneyer no. 115.

79 On the ‘Aristotelian prologue’ as a broader phenomenon, see Alastair J. Minnis, Medieval Theory of Authorship (Aldershot: Wildwood Press, 1984), 28-9.

80 Schneyer no. 120 (theology), A f. 94va: “Hec doctrina est de altissimis, id est de deo et rebus divinis.” In DQ 20 [4], as mentioned above, John rejects the opinions of those who say that the subject of theology is God and some other things; see Gravina, p. 176. However, in a different disputed question, John does define theology in precisely this way; see DQ 17 [1], Gravina p. 144b: “Hec autem doctrina est de maxime necessariis, scilicet, de deo et rebus divinis. Continet etiam infallibilem veritatem, magis quam alia scientia; est enim de veritate increata, que est infallibilior omni creata...”

105

Subalternation

In several questions, John takes on Aquinas’ conception of theology as a science subalternated to the science of the saints. As mentioned above, his first attack on this view comes in his disputed question about whether theology is, properly speaking, a science. John argues that the Thomistic view of theology as a science subalternated to the science to the saints is correct if it is understood properly, but it really seems to depend upon a misunderstanding of the nature of a subalternated science.81 In a later question, John defines a subalternating science as a one that contains the knowledge propter quid for something of which the subalternated science only has knowledge quia .82 This can happen on the level of particular proofs: for instance, medicine says that ( quia ) a circular wound is difficult to cure; geometry says why this is so ( propter quid ). However, John says that this kind of subalternation of one minor point to another does not make the whole science of medicine subalternated to geometry. Properly speaking, one science is subalternated to another when its principal proofs have this kind of relationship. This can happen in three ways. 83 The first is when one science contains knowledge of an end and another concerns things that are directed towards that end; in this case, the science containing knowledge of things directed towards the end ( quia ) is subalternated to the science containing knowledge of

81 DQ 18 [2], T f. 205rb; Gravina p. 148a-b: “Sed quamvis hec opinio vera sit si bene intelligatur, ut patebit per sequentia, si tamen intelligatur secundum sensum verborum, videtur improbari posse, et specialiter quantum ad hoc quod dicit, quod de ratione scientie subalternate est quod procedat ex principiis non in ipsa notis, sed in aliqua superiori scientia, scilicet subalternante.” This concern for the precise interpretation of the words may be an echo of Hervaeus Natalis, Commentarius in Sententias, Prologus (redactio prima ), q. 1, in Olszewski, Dominican Theology at the Crossroads , p. 94, lines 427-431: “Non enim credo quod reverendus doctor frater Thomas crediderit theologiam esse scientiam etiam subalternam proprie dictam, licet verba videantur hoc sonare, cum ipse in Secunda secundae et in Quaestionibus disputatis sine aliqua distinctione ponat quod fides et scientia non possint esse simul de eodem.”

82 DQ 21 [5], T f. 215a; Gravina p. 183a: “Illa ergo scientia sibi alteram subalternat, proprio modo de subalternatione loquendo, que dicit propter quid eorum quorum alia dicit quia, et hic modus subalternationis accipitur secundum quandam dependentiam subalternate scientie a subalternante, sicut imperfecti a perfecto.”

83 DQ 21 [5], T f. 215a; Gravina p. 183a: “Potest autem una scientia dicere propter quid eius cuius alia dicit quia dupliciter, scilicet vel quantum ad aliquod particulare documentum, ut geometria dicit propter quid vulnera circularia curantur difficilius, cuius medicina dicit quia – et hoc non facit subalternationem totius scientie ad scientiam; totum enim non denominatur ab aliqua modica parte sui, sed in tali processu est fallacia secudnum quid et simpliciter, ut Philosophus docet in libro Elenchorum – vel quantum ad principalia documenta scientie, scilicet quantum ad scientie principia, in quibus virtute tota scientia continetur, et hoc facit subalternationem proprie dictam totius scientie ad scientiam, quod etiam potest esse tripliciter.”

106 the end itself ( propter quid ). 84 The second way is when one science deals with a subject as a whole and the other deals with the same subject in a more specific, applied way. The latter is subalternated to the former, like optics to geometry, or music to arithmetic. 85

The third kind of subalternation actually deals more with kinds of knowledge than with science properly speaking: John says that one type of knowledge is subalternated to another when both deal with the same subject, but one (knowledge of the how – propter quid ) is more perfect than the other (knowledge that – quia ). Only knowledge propter quid is science, properly speaking, for John, so he says that in this case we are really talking about the subalternation of experiential knowledge (scientia experimentalis ) to real science. For John, this is the way that practical medicine is subalternated to speculative medicine, and the way navigation is subalternated to astrology, and knowledge of how to play an instrument to musical theory.86

How does this relate to theology? In the next section of the disputed question on subalternation, John discusses three sub-questions: whether theology is subalternated to the science of the blessed, whether it is subalternated to any human science, and whether any other sciences are subalternated to it. The first is a clear reference to Aquinas’ theory of subalternation, and John’s answer is firmly negative: although it might seem that theology is subalternated to the science of

84 DQ 21 [5], T f. 215a; Gravina p. 183a: “Primo quia una est de fine, alia de eo quod est ad finem, quia enim ratio eorum que sunt ad finem sumenda est a fine, idcirco finis dicit propter quid eorum que sunt ad finem.”

85 DQ 21 [5], T f. 215a-b; Gravina p. 183a-b: “Secundo modo una scientia proprie alteri subalternatur quando una est de subiecto aliquo communi et formaliter sumpto, alia est de eodem contracto ad aliquam materiam specialem [T: sensibilem], ita tamen quod tale contractum non sit sicut species vel pars integralis eius quod contrahit [...] Non autem hec contractio debet esse per quodcumque extrinsece nature [...] Nec debet essec ontractio per aliquid quod sit sicut extraneum ab eo quod contrahit [...] |T| Sed debet esse contractio per aliquid cuius sit contracti ratio quantum ad suas passiones reddi possit per ea que eidem conveniunt ut non est [T: ut est non] contractum [...] et de hoc modo subalternationis Philosophus loquitur primo Posteriorum , ponens exemplum de perspectiva respectu geometrie, et musica respectu arithmetice [T: arismetice].”

86 DQ 21 [5], T f. 215rb; Gravina p. 183b: “Tertio modo una notitia alteri subalternatur quando de eodem subiecto eodem modo accepto et quantum ad eandem passionem sunt due certe notitie, una perfectior, scilicet propter quid, et alia minus perfecta, scilicet quia. [...] predictum duarum notitiarum sola notitia propter quid est scientia proprie dicta; non autem notitia quia, propter quod secundum hunc modum non est proprie subalternatio scientie ad scientiam, sed magis alterius certe notitia, scilicet experimentalis, ad scientiam, secundum quem modum subalternatur navalis astrologie, et practica musice, que cognoscit experientia auditus consonantias, subalternatur musice scientie, et hunc etiam modum subalternationis tangit Philosophus primo Posteriorum , ponens predicta dua exempla, et secundum hunc modum medicina experimentalis seu practica subalternari videtur medicine speculative, que est scientia.”

107 the saints in all three of the ways discussed above, it is in fact subalternated in none of them. 87 After rejecting this idea, John adds a fourth manner of subalternation, according to which the obscure knowledge, or faith, of the subalternated science is subordinated to the clear knowledge of the subalternating science, like the faith of the student who believes what his teacher says is subalternated to the master’s knowledge of the subject that he teaches. In this way, theology is subalternated to the certain knowledge of the blessed, since what they see clearly, we believe on the basis of what has been revealed through them. However, John does not think that this fourth mode of subalternation undermines his assertion that theology, properly speaking, is not subalternated to the science of the blessed. At the outset, he notes that this mode of subalternation only relates to theology accidentally, since it is based on the perspective of the knower rather than the thing known. (He suggests that this is why Aristotle did not mention it.) Moreover, like the third mode of subalternation described above, this one does not concern a subalternation of one science to another, but rather the subalternation of a different sort of habitus (namely, our faith) to the science of the blessed. Also like the third way, it seems to concern two sorts of knowledge of the same subject, one clearer than the other, since the blessed know God through the beatific vision more clearly than we do through theology. 88 Properly speaking, then, theology is in no way subalternated to the science of the blessed.

87 DQ 21 [5], T f. 215rb; Gravina p. 184a-b: “...posset videri alicui quod hac scientia subalternaretur scientie beatorum omnibus tribus modis predictis. Primo siquidem quantum ad finem, quia speculatio vie, seu fides, que est finis huius scientie, videtur ordinari sicut ad finem ad speculationem patrie [...] Secundo quantum ad subiectum, quia beati plura cognoscunt de deo, et in deo, quam cognoscamus nos [...] Item terio quantum ad modum, quia scientia beatorum est perfectior quam nostra, ut de se patet, ergo etc. Sed dicendum hiis non obstantibus quod nullo horum trium modorum, si proprie accipiantur, ei subalternatur, quod patet discurrendo per singulos...”

88 DQ 21 [5], T f. 215va; Gravina p. 184b-185a: “Sed preter tres modos predictos est alius quartus [G: Quartus est] qui accipitur ex parte scientis, qui per consequens per accidens se habet ad scientiam, propter quod eum Philosophus pretermisit, secundum quem notitia obscura, que est fides, subalternatur clare, que est certa scientia, ut fides discipuli qui credit verbis magistri subalternatur scientie doctoris, et hoc modo hec doctrina subalternatur scientie beatorum; quod enim beati vident nos credimus, revelationi nobis facte per eos per fidem adherentes. Hic autem modus convenit cum omnibus tribus predictis in hoc, quod sicut scientia subalternata quocumque modo predictorum trium procedit ex principiis evidentibus quantum ad propter quid, non in ipsa, sed in superiori scientia, scilicet subalternante, que tamen creduntur ab habente scientiam subalternatam tantum, habere propter quid et esse evidentia in superiori scientia, sic et hec doctrina procedit ex articulis fidei tanquam ex suis principiis, que per fidem supponuntur esse veri et evidentes beatis, quibus vere sunt evidentes, nobis autem sunt inevidentes. Et sicut scientia subalternans tradit principia scientie subalternate probans ipsa, sic et nos habemus articulos fidei per revelationem nobis traditos a scientia beatorum. Convenit autem specialiter hic modus subalternationis cum tertio predictorum trium dupliciter. Primo quia in illo tertio modo non erat subalternatio scientie ad scientiam, sed alicuius alterius habitus ad scientiam, et similiter in proposito est subalternatio fidei nostre ad certam notitiam quam habent beati.

108

To the question of whether theology is subalternated to any other human science, John also responds in the negative. Theology is not subalternated to any human science in the first or second of the ways described above because its end is not ordered towards any of theirs and its subject is not a part of any of their subjects. Nor is it subalternated in the third way, since no human science can say propter quid of the articles of faith, which are the principles of theology. 89 Much of his response to this question is occupied with dealing with the opinion that theology is subalternated to metaphysics in the second or third way, but John ultimately rejects both of these views.

Finally, John considers whether other human sciences are subalternated to theology, and he rejects this theory also. 90 Although created things, which are the subject of other human sciences, are ordered towards God as their end, other human sciences do not consider them in this way, so these sciences not subalternated to theology in the first of the three ways described above. Nor are they subalternated in the second way, since their subjects are either broader than that of theology, like the subject of metaphysics, which is being in general, or they are totally different, like the subjects of all other sciences; in no case is the subject of another human science a narrower consideration of some aspect of the subject of theology. Human sciences cannot be subalternated to theology in the third way either, because it is not relevant to theology to give the propter quid of the proofs of other sciences. The sorts of things transmitted in other sciences are either things for which a propter quid cannot be given, like the first principles, or things for which a propter quid can be obtained through the exercise of natural reason, like the principles

Secundo quia secundum illum tertium modum, de eodem secundum idem erant ambe notitie, una tamen alia perfectior et clarior, et similter in proposito eadem que beati clare vident de deo nos credimus.”

89 DQ 21 [5], T f. 215vb; Gravina p. 185b: “...sciendum est quod hec doctrina non subalternatur alicui humane scientie speciali primo vel secundo modo predictorum trium, ut de se patet. Non enim finis huius scientie ordinatur ad finem alicuius ipsarum, nec subiectum huius est pars in modo [G om. in modo] subiecti alicuius earum. Nec etiam alicui ipsarum subalternatur tertio modo, quia nulla ipsarum dicit propter quid de articuli fidei, in quibus ut in principiis tota ista scientia continentur.”

90 DQ 21 [5], T f. 216r; Gravina p. 186b: “...sciendum est quod posset videri alicui quod hec scientia sibi humans scientias subalternet primo modo subalternationis et tertio [...] sed dicendum his non obstantibus quod hec scientia nullo predictorum trium modorum sibi humanas scientias subalternat, ut patet per modos singulos discurrendo...”

109 of music or optics. It does not pertain to theology, which is based on divine revelation rather than natural reason, to provide the propter quid of these principles. 91

In summing up his response to the question on subalternation, John adds a coda based on yet another understanding of the term. At the outset of this question, before distinguishing the three modes of subalteration properly speaking, he had noted that we can also talk of subalternation improperly, on the basis of its etymology. Since “subalternation” literally refers to one thing being under another, in this improper sense, one science could be said to be under another as a part of a whole, or because it is less worthy than the other. 92 John says that theology is not a part of any science, and nor are any other sciences a part of it. But it is less perfect and has less dignity than the science of the blessed, and it is worthier and more perfect than all other human sciences. In this improper sense, then, we could say that theology is subordinated to the science of the blessed, and that all other sciences are subordinated to it. Properly speaking, though, neither is the case. 93 This section seems to be an attempt to salvage something of Aquinas’ view

91 DQ 21 [5], T f. 216r; Gravina p. 186b-187a: “Non enim primo modo, quia quamvis creata, que sunt subiecta aliarum scientiarum, secundum se ordinentur ad deum sicut ad finem, non tamen secundum quod subiciuntur considerationi ipsarum, cum alie scientie nihil de tali ordinabilitate considerent [...] Non etiam hec [T om. hec] sibi alias subalternat secundo modo, ut de se patet, quia nullius alterius scientie subiectum est aliquid contractum respectu subiecti huius scientie, sed vel est aliquid magis commune, ut subiectum metaphysice, vel est aliquid omnino diparatum, ut subiecta aliarum scientiarum specialium. Non etiam sibi alias subalternat tertio modo, quia cum hec doctrina sit solumn de hiis que nobis sunt necessaria ad salutem, que [T: omnia autem nobis neccessaria ad salutem] sufficienter in illa [T: ipsa] traduntur, non pertinet ad ipsam dicere propter quid de documentis aliarum scientiarum. Et preterea ea que traduntur in aliis scientiis aut sunt talia de quibus propter quid reddi non potest, ut sunt prima principia, aut sunt talia de quibus propter quid reddi potest, scilicet [T: sed] per rationem naturalem, ut sunt principia musice, et perspective, et cetera. Hec autem doctrina innititur divine revelationi et non naturali rationi, propter quod ad ipsam non pertinet propter quid de talibus principiis assignare.”

92 DQ 21 [5], T f. 214vb; Gravina p. 182b: “...sciendum est quod nos possumus loqui de subalternatione dupliciter, scilicet vel quantum ad ethimologiam nominis, seu illud a quo nomen imponitur, quod idem est, vel quantum ad nominis significationem, seu illud ad quod nomen imponitur, quod etiam idem est. Si loquamur primo modo, sic dicendum est, quod cum subalternatio importet aliquid esse sub altero, quot modis una scientia potest esse sub altera, tot modis potest dici una alteri subalternari. Potest autem una scientia esse sub altera aut sicut pars integralis sub toto, ut scientia libri De Celo sub philosophia naturali; aut sicut pars subiectiva sub toto suo, secundum quem modum consuevit dici aliqua scientia determinata alicui parti philosophie supponi, quod videtur secundum vocabulum idem importare quod subalternari; aut secundum aliquam dignitatem, ut philosophia naturalis respectu metaphysice. Omnibus igitur hiis modis potest dici una scientia subalternari quantum ad ethimologiam nominis subalternationis. Sed nullus horum modorum subalternatio proprie dici potest quantum ad nominis significatum...”

93 DQ 21 [5], T f. 216rb; Gravina p. 187b: “Patet ergo quid dicendum sit de subalternatione proprie dicta huius scientie ad scientiam beatorum, et ad humanas scientias, et humanarum ad ipsam. Si autem loquamur de subalternatione improprie dicta, patet quod hec doctrina nullius alterius est pars, nec e converso. Est autem indignior et imperfectior simpliciter scientia beatorum, dignior autem et perfectior omnibus humanis, primo quantum ad finem, secundo quantum ad subiectum, et tertio quantum ad certitudinem adhesionis, quamvis quantum ad

110 of subalternation, but John is clear that this account can only be salvaged if one employs an improper definition of the word.

Structurally, John’s question on subalternation is strikingly similar to the corresponding questions in the Sentences commentaries of Dominicans who were active at Paris just before him, including John Quidort, James of Metz, and Hervaeus Natalis. All of these theologians begin by defining subalternation and distinguishing three ways in which it can take place. They then consider the same sub-questions as John does: whether theology is subalternated to the knowledge of the blessed, whether it is subalternated to any human science, and whether theology subalternates other sciences. The three types of subalternation properly speaking that John distinguishes are similar to those enumerated by these earlier Dominicans, but do not map onto them exactly. Like James and Hervaeus, John concludes that theology is subalternated to the knowledge of the blessed as faith to science, but he goes futher than these authors in calling this an improper use of the term subalternation. Like John, the other Dominicans paid special attention to the opinion that theology is subalternated to metaphysics, a position which they ultimately rejected, and they also argue (against Henry of Ghent) that theology does not subalternate other sciences. 94 As with the previous questions in this series, it seems that John was working within a well-established Dominican tradition that prescribed not only the questions to be discussed, but also the main points that should be covered in responding to them and the conclusions that should be reached, which showed deference to Aquinas while also correcting or updating his theories on certain points.

Theology vs. other sciences

The concept of subalternation never appears in John’s principia , but he does discuss at several points the relationship between theology and other sciences. Unsurprisingly, he holds that theology is the best and highest subject of human studies. In a principium on the second book of the Sentences , he contrasts the rewards of the secular sciences and theology: students of the former receive prebends and temporal promotions, but students of the latter receive the

certitudinem evidentie alie hanc excedant, quod tamen non est propter eius imperfectionem, sed propter nostram, qui eam imperfecte habemus...”

94 Olszewski, Dominican Theology at the Crossroads , 302-10.

111 inheritance of eternal beatitude that is owed to the sons of God. Those who abandon the study of Scripture should be considered bastard sons of God, and will presumably be denied this inheritance. 95 Comparisons between theology and other sciences can be found in many of the other principia too. John frequently praises theology for the fact that it comes directly from God, unlike other sciences, of which God is only indirectly the author. Sacra pagina is revealed by God and therefore contains nothing but truth. Other sciences, however, are found out by human reason, which is fallible, and therefore they can contain errors. 96 Some principia suggest that the reader run through the types of errors that can be found in different sciences when speaking to a live audience, suggesting that John had a standard list of the deficiencies of secular sciences in mind, which was perhaps too obvious to even bother writing down.97 In the principia on individual books of the Bible, John narrows in on the idea of Scripture as directly inspired by God. When discussing the efficient cause of their subjects, most of these principia distinguish

95 Schneyer no. 123 ( Sentences , book 2), A f. 97va-ra: “Quantum autem ad tertium est sciendum quod inter scientias tanto aliqua est sublimior quanto eius finis fuerit excellentior. [...] Finis autem huius secundi libri, sicut et totius huius doctrine, est eterna felicitas. [...] Hic autem fructus seu finis tangitur cum dicitur ut det illis hereditatem , ubi intelligendum quod quamvis eterna felicitas sit hereditas omnium fidelium generaliter [...] potest tamen dici hereditas quodam speciali modo studentium in sacra pagina, cuius ratio est quia hereditas proprie debetur filiis, secundum illud Gal. 4[:7], Si filius, et heres . Filii autem dei generaliter sunt omnes qui sunt in gratia [...] Specialiter autem videntur esse vacantes studio sacre pagine utpote quodam speciali modo conformes filio dei naturali. [...] Hec figuratum est Gen. 25, ubi legitur quod Abraam , id est deus, filiis ancillarum , id est secularium scientiarum, iuxta illud Prov. 9[:3], misit ancillas suas etc., largitus est munera , scilicet prebendarum et promotionum temporalium. Sed filio libere , id est studenti in hac doctrina, que sola est causa sui, lar|gitus est hereditatem . De hac hereditate dicitur Ecclus. 24[:27] hereditas mea super mel et favum . Ad quam nos perducat, etc.” For John’s views on why bastard/natural sons should not be allowed to inherit from their parents, see Quodl. V.16, Quodl. VII.14, and Quodl. VIII.27.

96 E.g. Schneyer no. 126 (Isaiah), A f. 98vb; B f. 116vb: “Dictum est enim quod cum cetere scientie sint humana ratione investigate, hec est de a deo nobis revelatis. Ratio autem humana et falli potest et fallere. Deus autem nec falli potest, nec fallere. Ergo in aliis scientiis potest inveniri falsitas; non autem in ista.” Another example is Schneyer no. 114 (theology), A f. 81rb-va: “...est sciendum quod ea que sunt immediati effectus dei sunt perfectiora ceteris sui generis productis a creatis agentibus [...] Doctrina sacre pagine, que est a deo immediate inspirata et dictata scriptoribus sacri canonis, est no|bilissima respectu omnium aliarum que sunt humano studio et ingenio adinvente.” A similar passage appears in Schneyer no. 117 (theology), A f. 88rb-va: “...est sciendum quod ea que sunt immediati effectus dei sunt perfectiora omnibus sui generis productis a creaturis agentibus [...] Omnes autem alie | doctrine sunt a deo sicut a prima causa quantum ad veritatem quam continent [...] Sed hec doctrina est a deo sicut a causa immediata, ut dictum est; ergo est omnium perfectissima.” Variations on these themes can also be found in Schneyer nos. 113, 118, 119, and 129.

97 Schneyer no. 113 (theology and the Sentences ), A f. 78va: “...est sciendum quod cetere scientie tanquam a puro homine adinvente, qui et falli potest et fallere, multos errores continent, vel continere possunt, ut probari posset per singulas scientias discurrenti.” An identical statement appears in Schneyer no. 114 (theology), A f. 81va, and Schneyer no. 119 (theology), A f. 91va.

112 between the text’s principal author (God) and its ministerial or instrumental author (Isaiah, the evangelists, etc.). 98 John also asserts in a few principia , following Augustine, that theology exceeds all other sciences because it is the most ancient: God revealed himself to the authors of Scripture before the earliest philosophers, Greek or Egyptian, came on the scene. 99

Another area in which John frequently says theology exceeds other sciences is in the way that its core text, Scripture, contains multiple senses. Other sciences deal only with the literal meanings of words, and since human authors can only think of one thing at a time, their writings can only have the meaning intended by the author as he wrote. But God understands all things at once, and so in Scripture even the literal senses of words can have multiple meanings, and not only the words themselves, but even the things signified by those words can signify other things.100 In one principium , John likens the literal sense of Scripture to milk, the food of infants, which easily refreshes the simple. 101 Extending the metaphor, he says that a doctor of theology ‘milks’ Scripture for its historical and literal sense, which can be easily be digested by simple Christians, even when it has been coagulated into ‘cheese’, as when doctors give the same passage multiple

98 By the fourteenth century, it had been standard for at least a hundred years to describe the “twofold efficient cause” of Biblical texts, with God as the first auctor and the human author as a secondary auctor moved by God. See Minnis, Medieval Theory of Authorship , 79-80.

99 Schneyer no. 118, A f. 89vb; B f. 114va, chapter appendix § 9. Another reference to this passage from De civitate dei 18.38 appears in Schneyer no. 114, A f. 81va.

100 Schneyer no. 113 (theology and the Sentences ), A f. 80rb: “...hec doctrina est maxime capacitatis super omnes alias humanas scientias quantum ad suam formam vel modum quo traditur et exponitur. In aliis scientiis siquidem sole voces significant; in hac autem non solum voces significant, quantum ad sensum litterale vel ystoricum pertinet, sed etiam ipse res significate per voces aliquid aliud designant, quod pertinet ad sensum spiritualem vel misticum.” Below, f. 80vb: “In una enim littera alterius cuiucscumque scientie non nisi una vera expositio potest dari, quam scilicet illius auctor intendit, qui etsi posset multa scire, non tamen potest intellegere actu nisi unum solum, ut in Topicis dicit Philosophus, propter quod et unum solum per unam litteram potest intendere, quod scilicet actu eam scribens intellexit. Auctor autem huius doctrine deus est, qui omnia simul suo intellectus comprehendit. Unde non est incongruens, ut etiam Augustinus dicit, 12 Confessionum , si etiam sensum litteralem sensum in una eius littera plures sint sensus...”

101 Schneyer no. 113 (theology and the Sentences ), A f. 80va: “Sensum siquidem litteralem tangit Sapiens in hoc quod dicit qui vehementer emungitur [Prov. 30.33] eo quod sicut per corporalem emunctionem ab animali exprimitur lac cum facilitate, quod est colore album et est cibus parvulorum, sic per litteralem expositionem nobis satis faciliter quantum precipue ad multos libros scripture sacre divina veritas propalatur, que etiam in multis cripture locis ad modum coloris albi spiritualiter satis est paula, qua etiam simplices et parvuli reficiuntur in ecclesia.” Cf. 1 Cor. 3:2, lac vobis potum dedi non escam nondum enim poteratis sed ne nunc quidem potestis adhuc enim estis carnales .

113 literal meanings. 102 The spiritual or mystical sense, on the other hand, he compares to blood, which is hidden but essential: just as man’s corporeal life depends on blood, man’s spiritual life depends on Scripture. One can draw this vital blood from Scripture when, after expounding the literal sense, one comes to the mystical sense. 103

When speaking of the multiple senses of Scripture, John typically employs a twofold division between the literal/historical and spiritual/mystical senses. Only in one case does he allude to other accounts of the multiple senses of Scripture, briefly mentioning Augustine’s fourfold division (literal/historical, allegorical, tropological/moral, and anagogical), and Hugh of St. Victor’s account of the multiple modes of signification (words, things, and properties). 104 John is more interested here in demonstrating the manifold depths of Scripture than engaging with these divisions in a substantial way. The main point is that Scripture contains more than any text composed by a human author, and that theology therefore contains more than any other science, making it uniquely adapatable to those of different abilities. Some principia praise theology for its broad ‘communicability’ in comparison to other sciences: whereas other sciences are learned only by a few, and with difficulty, the doctrine of faith is freely communicated to all. John plays upon Isaiah 55:1, “‘All who are thirsty, come to the waters,’ namely of sacred Scripture, ‘and he that does not have money, hurry,’ with eagerness for study, ‘come,’ with preparation of the soul, ‘buy,’ with the labour of study, ‘without any exchange.’” 105 Although clearly preparing a student

102 Schneyer no. 113 (theology and the Sentences ), A f. 80vb: “Sacra siquidem scripturam tunc eius doctor ut lac mulget cum eam secundum sensum ystoricum et litteralem exponit, ut possit ad modum lactis a parvulis, id est a simplicioribus Christianis, interiori intellectu et affectu faciliter degustari. Tunc etiam littera sacre pagine coagulatus ut caseus cum in una et eadem littera assignantur ab eius doctoribus exponens multiplices etiam litterales, in quo etiam transcendit omnes alias humanas scientias.”

103 Schneyer no. 113 (theology and the Sentences ), A f. 80vb: “per sanguinem, in quo vita corporalis hominis videtur consistere [...] potest satis congrue ad presens intellegi sensus spiritualis sacre pagine, a quo spiritualis vita hominis dependere videtur. [...] Tunc ergo elicitur sanguis scripture postquam vehementer emungitur, cum post litteralem eius expositione ad sensum aliquod misticum pervenitur.”

104 Schneyer no. 118 (theology), A, f. 90ra-b; B, f. 114va, chapter appendix § 11, referring to the beginning of Augustine’s De genesi ad litteram and the beginning of Hugh’s De sacramentis . This section of the principium contains a milk metaphor similar to the one from Schneyer 113.

105 Schneyer no. 119 (theology), A f. 92rb: “Quantum autem ad tertium est sciendum quod cum cetere doctrine a paucis et post longum tempus et multum laborem sciantur, ut experientia docet, doctrina fidei indifferenter omnibus se communicat, ut parvulis, Prov. 9[:4], Si quis parvulus est, veniat ad me et bibat , et magnis, Prov. 8[:4], O viri, ad vos clamito , et infra, [Prov. 8:6] Audite me quoniam de rebus magnis loqutura sum . [...] Sic igitur patet quod

114 audience for this “labour of study,” John also reminds his listeners that Scripture freely offers itself even to children.

John repeatedly comments on how theology and/or Scripture contains many more useful things than any other science. In one principium he enumerates them, elaborating on 2 Tim. 3:16-17 (“All Scripture, divinely inspired, is useful to teach, to argue, to correct, to instruct in justice, so that the man of God may be perfect, trained for every good work.”) 106 John demonstrates that Scripture contains lessons for teaching the ignorant about matters such as the Trinity and the Incarnation; efficacious arguments for convincing those in error; harsh corrections for those who persist in evil; and perfect instructions for those who persevere in the good, such as the Ten Commandments, counsels of the evangelists, and so forth. 107 In the B version of this principium , he sums up this list by saying that the lessons or proofs ( documenta ) overlap with logic ( scientiae doctrinales ), the arguments overlap with linguistic sciences, and the corrections and instructions overlap with moral sciences. In the A version, both the proofs and arguments are said to overlap with sciences of reason ( scientiae rationabiles ). John’s conclusion in both versions is the same, however: Scripture contains much that is useful for perfecting man with respect to his will, his actions, and his reason. 108 Other principia on theology make the same point more briefly, stating that this doctrine “contains all that is useful for man to know that is in other sciences, and many other things that are not found in other sciences.”109 In this sense, as in many others, theology surpasses all other sciences.

omnibus hec doctrina se communicat, propter quod et omnis invitat ad se. Ecclus. 24[:26], Transite ad me omnis qui concupiscitis , et Ysa. 55[:1], Omnes sitientes venite ad aquas , scilicet sacre scripture, et qui non habetis argentum properate , cum studii aviditate, venite , cum animi preparatione, emite , cum studii labore, absque ulla commutatione . Hanc autem communicabilitatem habet a suo efficiente, scilicet deo, cum enim effectus imitetur suum efficiens quantum potest; deus autem omnibus bonitates et perfectiones suas communicat [...] Propter hoc igitur et hec doctrina omnibus se communicat.” A nearly-identical passage, minus the comparison to other sciences, appears in Schneyer no. 113 (theology and the Sentences ), A f. 78vb-79ra.

106 Schneyer no. 118, A f. 90va; B f. 114vb, chapter appendix § 12.

107 Schneyer no. 118, A f. 90va-b; B f. 114vb, chapter appendix § 14-17.

108 Schneyer no. 118, A f. 90vb; B f. 114vb-115ra, chapter appendix § 18.

109 Schneyer no. 119 (theology), A f. 92vb-93ra: “Tamen hec doctrina potest dici intellectus illustrativa propter duo: primo quia continet omne quod est in aliis scientiis utile homine ad sciendum, et multa alia que in aliis scientiis non reperiuntur. [...|...] secundo quia per hanc doctrinam pervenitur ad patriam claritatis eterne.” The same line appears in Schneyer no. 116 (theology), A f. 86rb-va.

115

2.3 Defending orthodoxy in the classroom

John’s quodlibets show evidence of a persistent concern, both in Paris and in Naples, for policing the boundaries of orthodoxy when it comes to teaching. In Paris, during John’s first quodlibetal disputation after he became a master, someone asked whether the teachings of “brother Thomas” could be licitly taught at Paris with regard to all of his conclusions. 110 In his response to this question, John argues that none of the articles condemned by the Bishop of Paris Étienne Tempier are contrary to the teachings of Aquinas, and therefore those teachings can licitly be taught at Paris and anywhere else. In the course of his response, John systematically goes through a list of condemned articles that might appear to be contrary to Aquinas’s teachings and demonstrates that there is in fact no conflict between them. The resulting text was clearly welcomed by some of his contemporaries, as this question seems to have been one of John’s most popular works in the Middle Ages, circulating not just as part of the quodlibet, but also separately in several other manuscripts. 111 As Prospero Stella has shown, John engaged in this project in other quodlibetal questions too, referring to over twenty individual articles. 112 John’s ability to quote various articles from Tempier’s list, even in his early quodlibets, before he became involved with the campaign for Aquinas’ canonization, shows that the after-effects of the Condemnation of 1277 lasted well into the fourteenth century.

In a later quodlibetal disputation in Naples, someone posed the question of whether a theologian can defend creation. 113 The initial arguments frame a debate between philosophers and theologians. The pro argument asserts that philosophers generally hold that nothing can be made from nothing, and that a theologian cannot defend anything that contradicts the common position

110 Quodl. VI.2. The question has been published twice, first by Carl Jellouschek, “Questio Magistri Ioannis de Neapoli, O. Pr., ‘Utrum licite possit doceri Parisius doctrina fratris Thomae quantum ad omnes conclusiones eius’ hic primum in lucem edita,” Xenia Thomistica , vol. 3 (Rome: Typis Polygottis Vaticanis, 1925), 73-104, who based his edition on just five manuscripts, and again by Stella, in “Gli ‘articuli,’” who took into account fourteen.

111 The question appears independently in Pamplona, Catedral 28, f. 153-7; Paris, BnF lat. 14549, f. 131ra-131vb; Paris, Bibl. de l’Univ., 198, f. 397ra-398rb; Troyes, Bibl. Mun. 774, f. 229-232; Vienna, Dominikanerkloster, 13, f. 98va-103ra.

112 Stella, “ Gli ‘articuli,’” 57-67.

113 Quodl. X.9, “Utrum theologus possit defendere creationem,” published in Mantovani, “‘ Veraciter, sed non evidenter ’,” 471-4.

116 of the philosophers; the sed contra argues that a theologian can defend anything that faith tells us must be firmly held to be true. 114 Indeed, this had been a contentious issue in Latin philosophy and theology ever since the translation of Arisotle’s Physics in the twelfth century, and propositions relating to the eternity of the world were repeatedly condemned by the thirteenth- century bishops of Paris. John argues that a theologian can defend the sort of creation ex nihilo described in the book of Genesis “truthfully, but not evidently” ( veraciter, sed non evidenter ). In other words, he holds that a theologian cannot clearly refute the objections against this sort of creation, but he can defend it truthfully on the authority of Sacred Scripture. 115 This less-than- satisfying response illustrates one of the difficulties of working with a science that is not really a science for us in this life: even though one has access to the truth thanks to the authority of Scripture, one sometimes has to admit that one cannot explain why some of those truths are true.

John’s participation in the two Dominican commissions to investigate the Sentences commentary of Durand of St-Pourçain, discussed in the previous chapter, had given him some experience in determining what a theologian could and could not teach. John’s irritation with Durand is apparent even in quodlibets disputed back in Naples. A good example is his Quodl. VIII.29, on whether it is licit to steal (or rather “liberate by theft”) a Christian who is enslaved to a Saracen. 116 Most of John’s response is occupied with another, related question: whether a Christian can ever legally be the slave of a non-Christian. The first opinion that John presents on the latter question is quoted almost verbatim from a passage of the second recension Durand’s Sentences commentary asserting that the Church cannot free a slave who has recently converted to Christianity from his infidel master unless that master attempts to undermine his conversion, or disturbs him with blasphemy, since as a rule infidels do not deserve to lose their dominion over slaves solely on account of their infidelity. 117 This position was cited on both of the error

114 Mantovani, “‘ Veraciter, sed non evidenter ’,” 471.

115 Mantovani, “‘ Veraciter, sed non evidenter ’,” 474.

116 Quodl. VIII.29, “Utrum liceat accipere furto Christianum existentem in servitute Saraceni.” A transcription of this text appears in the appendix to this chapter, and a fuller discussion of this question can be found in my article “Jews and Muslims in the Works of John of Naples,” forthcoming, Medieval Encounters .

117 See chapter appendix, § 11-14.

117 lists that John helped to draw up. The first commission commented, “It is not safe to say this” (“ Non est tutum hoc dicere ”) and the second pointed out that it contradicted several statements by Aquinas. 118 The tone of John’s rejection of this first position in his quodlibetal question suggests that the memory of his conflict with Durand was still fresh. “He who says that the church cannot make this statute,” John declares, “speaks badly, and those who say this seem to speak easily, only having looked at a few things, or if they did look at them, it seems that they simply contradict the church regarding these statutes.” 119 After listing a plethora of canon law citations for instances in which the church has in fact made this kind of statute, John reminds his audience that it should be believed that the Church is ruled by the Holy Spirit and cannot err, so it should be supposed that whatever statutes it has made have been instituted licitly and legally. Non est tutum hoc dicere indeed!

John must have been aware of other friars who ran afoul of the Dominican order’s attempts to consolidate the position of Thomas Aquinas as the voice of orthodoxy in the classroom. In 1344, the Dominican general chapter removed one Thomas of Naples from his post as lector at San Domenico Maggiore in Naples as punishment for contradicting Aquinas in his lectures and frequently teaching many other “dangerous” things. 120 One wonders whether John had anything to do with the report on Thomas’s teachings that made its way to the general chapter at Le Puy- en-Vélay. The dismissal of this errant Neapolitan lector was in keeping with the decree of the Dominican general chapter of 1313, which prohibited all friars from holding any position

118 First list, a. 37 (Koch, “Die Magister-Jahre,” p. 61): “Eadem d. [44] a. 3 dicit, quod per ordinacionem Ecclesie conversus ad fidem non potest licite nec iuste absolvi a servitute vel subiectione qua subicitur principi infideli, nisi talis princeps niteretur eum trahere ad infidelitatem vel alias eum iquietaret per contumelias creatoris, et quod princeps infidelis non meretur tale dominium solum propter suam infidelitatem.” The committee commented, “Non est tutum hoc dicere.” Second list, a. 117 (Koch, “Die Magister-Jahre,” p. 94): “Eadem d. [44] a. 3 recitat quoddam dictum Thome 2a 2e q. 10 a. 10, quod iuste per ordinacionem ecclesie habentis auctoritatem dei infidelis conversus ad fidem potest absolvi a servitute vel subieccione qua subicitur principi infideli; et probat quod ecclesia hoc non potest licite et iuste, nisi talis princeps nititur eum trahere ad ifidelitatem nec pateretur eum quietum esse sed inquietaret ut per contumelias illatas creatori. Ibidem eciam reprobat hoc, quod Thomas dicit eodem articulo, quod princeps infidelis meretur amittere tale dominium propter infidelitatem suam.”

119 Quodl. VIII.29, chapter appendix, § 37.

120 Acta II, 1344, p. 303: “Cum intellexerimus fide digno relatu fratrem Thomam de Neapoli, lectorem Neapolitanum, non solum contra doctrinam eximii doctoris sancti Thome, sed et multa periculosa frequencius docuisse, ipsum a dicta lectoria absolvimus, nichilominus imponentes eidem, ut articulos sibi per fratrem Nicholaum diffinitorem provincie regni exhibendos in scholis solempniter et publice revocet aut declaret.”

118 contrary to Aquinas in lectures and disputations, and instructed that offending lectors should be removed from their posts. 121 The same chapter also strengthened the mid-thirteenth-century decree requiring all friars to submit their writings to their provincial prior or the Master General for examination before disseminating them outside the order by requiring all texts to go through the Master General himself. 122 The institutional and intellectual contexts in which John and his students were working placed a high value on orthodoxy and conformity, so it is no wonder that questions about correct teaching were raised in his quodlibetal disputations.

2.4 Teaching Theology

How did John conceive of himself as a teacher? Reflections on teaching, and especially on teaching theology, can be found both in John’s principia and his quodlibets. In one of his quodlibetal questions from Naples, which concerned whether it is licit to induce someone to listen to one’s teaching, John characterizes teaching as an act of charity. He calls teaching the ignorant a form of spiritual alms, analogous to the distribution of corporeal alms like food and drink. 123 Since it is licit to induce someone to receive corporeal alms, and the spiritual is superior the corporeal, John argues, it is all the more licit to induce those in need – i.e., in a state of ignorance – to receive teaching, just as it is permissible to induce them to receive other spiritual alms like counsel and consolation. He also draws a parallel with the religious life, arguing that just as religion perfects man with respect to his will, so teachings (doctrina ) perfect him with respect to his intellect. 124

121 Acta II, 1313, p. 64-5; Mulchahey, “First the Bow Is Bent ,” 154-5.

122 Acta II, 1313, p. 65; Mulchahey, “First the Bow Is Bent ,” 156.

123 Quodl. V.14, T f. 51vb; N f. 76rb: “Respondeo, quantum est ex genere suo, licitum est cuilibet doctori alium inducere ad se audiendum in doctrina sua, quod potest ad presens probari tripliciter. Primo quia elemosina spiritualis est preferenda corporali. Sed licet inducere ad recipiendum a se elemosinam corporalem, ut pastum, potum, et huiusmodi. Docere autem ignorantem est elemosina spiritualis; ergo etc. Et confirmatur ratio, quia etiam alios elemosinas spirituales licet inducere ad recipiendum, ut consilium, consolationem, et huiusmodi.”

124 Quodl. V.14, T f. 51vb; N f. 76rb: “Secundo quia communiter dicitur quod licet inducere ad ingressum religionis, quamvis non symoniace, vel coacte, vel mendaciter. Sed sicut religio perficit hominem quantum ad voluntatem, sic et doctrina quantum ad intellectum, ergo etc.”

119

In multiple principia , John states that every doctor of theology should aim to enlighten his hearers with knowledge of divine truth and inflame them with love of charity though his teaching. In order to do so effectively, the doctor must first be imbued with these two characteristics himself; indeed, he must stand out above his audience in these areas. 125 As John states in the protheme to his principium on theology and the Sentences ,

No one can enlighten others with knowledge of truth or inflame them spiritually with the fire of charity unless he himself has been enlightened with knowledge of the same truth and inflamed with the fire of the same charity. But every doctor of the sacred page ought to aim for these things as the end of his teaching: namely, that he might enlighten his listeners with the knowledge of truth and inflame them with the love of charity. [...] Therefore any preacher or doctor will not be able to fulfil his office suitably and fruitfully unless he has previously had the aforesaid things in himself. 126

John sometimes links the goals of a teacher with those of a preacher. He divides the protheme into three parts, based on the three conditions that any “preacher or doctor” ought to possess in order to effectively exercise his office: knowledge of divine truth, love of fraternal charity, and total perfection in both. 127 In a later section of the same principium , he compares the voice of a

125 Schneyer no. 115 (theology), A f. 83vb: “Doctor ergo sacre pagine debet esse non solum dei notitia illustratus, sed etiam amoris dei incendio inflamatus [...] doctor sacre pagine, qui debet alios de divinis instruere et ad dei amorem quantum potest inducere, debet in hiis duobus, scilicet in dei cognitione et dilectione quandam preheminenciam singularem habere pre ceteris.”

126 Schneyer no. 113 (theology and the Sentences ), A f. 76vb-77ra: “...nullus potest illustrare alios notitia veritatis vel calefacere spiritualiter incendio caritatis, nisi fuerit in seipso eiusdem veritatis notitia illustratus et eiusdem caritatis incendio inflamatus. | Hec autem duo debet doctor quilibet sacre pagine pro fine sue doctrine tendere, ut scilicet audientes notitia veritatis illustret, et amore caritatis inflammet, ut melius patebit in prosecutione sermonis. Igitur predicator vel doctor aliquis non poterit congrue et fructuose suum officium exercere nisi predicta prius in seipso prehabeat.” Cf. Schneyer no. 129 (John), A f. 102rb: “nullus potest alios instruere notitia veritatis et calefacere amore caritatis, nisi habeat hec duo que debet quilibet doctor sacre pagine pro fine doctrine sue intendere, ut scilicet auditores notitia veritatis illustret et amore caritatis inflammet.” The text in B is a little different: “Sic et spiritualiter nullus potest alios illustrare notitia veritatis et calefacere amore caritatis nisi prius fuerit in se eiusdem veritatis notitia illustratus et eiusdem caritatis incendio inflammatus. Hec autem duo debet doctor quilibet sacre pagine pro fine sue doctrine intendere.”

127 Schneyer no. 113 (theology and the Sentences ), A f. 76vb-77ra: “ Secundum hoc igitur in hiis verbis tanguntur tres conditiones per ordinem quas debet habere predicator et doctor quilibet ad hoc, quod congrue possit suum officium exercere. Debet siquidem habere primo divine veritatis agnitione, quod tangitur cum dicitur sermo dei ; secundo fraterne caritatis dilectionem, ignitus ; tertia totalem in predictis perfectionem, omnis .” John employs a similar division in the protheme to Schneyer no. 115 (theology), A f. 83va-b: “ In verbis secundo propositis tres conditiones tanguntur | per ordinem quas debet habere quilibet doctor sacre pagine, sine quibus non posset congrue et fructuose suum officium exercere, scilicet divine veritatis agnitio, eloquium domini ; divine caritatis dilectio, inflamavit ; singulis in istis perfectio, eum .”

120 teacher or preacher to the sound of a silver bell, which reaches many through the help of God. 128 Elsewhere, he describes his task as both teaching and preaching, noting that both require divine assistance. 129 These kinds of statements demonstrate the close affinity between teaching and preaching in John’s mind, and they are probably also related to the fact that his students were preachers-in-training.

John does not depict teaching as a purely spiritual and pastoral activity, however. In multiple places he defends the temporal rewards that come from teaching, such as wealth and honour. In a quodlibetal question about whether it is a greater sin to deprive a man of honour or money that is owed to him, John defines honour as the act of showing reverence in testimony of someone’s virtue. 130 For example, a wise man is said to be owed the honour of the magisterium !131 John argues that it is licit for a man to seek the honour of the doctorate for himself, if he knows that he has sufficient wisdom to deserve it, unlike ecclesiastical offices, which require a perfection of charity that no one can know for certain that he has. 132 In this, he was echoing Thomas

128 Schneyer no. 113 (theology and the Sentences ), f. 79ra: “ Argentum enim inter omnia metalla est maxime sonorum, propter quod et eius sonus ad plurium auditus pervenit cum sonat. Sic et vox predicatoris et doctrina doctorum sacre pagine iam per dei gratiam ad omnes pervenit, secundum illud Ps. [18:5] In omnem terram exivit sonus eorum et in fines orbis terre verba eorum. De hoc argento dicebat Sapiens Prov. 10[:20] Argentum electum lingua iusti. Et significanter dicit iusti . Non enim est congruus auditor vel doctor huius doctrine nisi iustus.”

129 Schneyer no. 116 (theology), A f. 85vb: “Debet a deo humiliter petere doctor seu predicator quicumque qui vult aliis divina verba proponere.”; Schneyer no. 126 (Isaiah), A f. 98va: “Ego ad presens quod vidi circa librum Ysa. prophete, id est intellexi, intendo narrare , id est vobis proponere [...] Nec sufficio ex me sine auxilio dei aliquid divinum etiam cogitare, et multo maius predicare.”

130 Quodl. II.21, N f. 40ra; T f. 17va: “...cum honor, ut communiter dicitur, sit exibitio reverentie in testimonium virtutis, dupliciter potest dici aliquis privare aliquem honore, scilicet proprie, ei debita reverentiam non exibendo, et improprie, scilicet privando aliquem gradu et statu propter que ei honor debetur, ut magisterio, vel aliqua alia dignitate.”

131 Quodl. II.21, N f. 40ra-b, T f. 17va: “Alio modo potest dici aliquis honor debitus alicui, vel pecunia, in sua causa, ut scilicet dicatur honor debitus illi in quo est causa propter quam talis honor debetur alicui, secundum quem modum dicimus quod scienti debetur honor magisterii, et habenti vitam et scientiam et rite electo | debetur honor alicuius ecclesiastice dignitatis.”

132 Quodl. V.14, N f. 76rb-va; T f. 51vb: “Tertio [licitum est cuilibet doctori alium inducere ad se audiendum in doctrina sua] quia ratio eorum que sunt ad finem sumenda est a fine. Sed talis inductio videtur quantum est ex se ordinari ad bonum finem licitum ad petendum, scilicet communicationem scientie sue et profectum aliorum. Emolumentum etiam temporale, si inten|dit ex labore consequi, est finis licitus et bonus. Honor etiam talis est licite appetibilis, sicut et honor doctoratus; alias neminem liceret [NT add. liceret in marg. ] appetere, vel pro se petere, licentiam legendi, contra doctrinam communem [T add. sancti in marg. ] Thome quolibet tertio, articulo nono. Secus

121

Aquinas’s response to a quodlibetal question on whether it is licit for someone to seek the license in theology on his own behalf; Aquinas argued that, although it would be wrong for someone to seek the master’s chair presumptuously, there is nothing vicious in a learned man seeking the license in order to communicate his wisdom to others, which is a laudable and charitable act. 133 Below, John also argues that it is licit for someone to seek an academic degree (or even an ecclesiastical post) of which he is commonly judged to have been unjustly deprived. 134 John’s use of the magisterium as an example in this question is quite telling, considering that he was not yet a master of theology himself at this time of this quodlibetal disputation. 135

John was not blind to the risks for sin inherent in pursuing teaching positions. In one of his election sermons, he names the lectorate, alongside the office of prior, as an example of a status in which someone might seek vain glory. 136 In a sermon delivered in Paris in honour of St. Peter, John criticizes those who seek pre-eminence among literate men, chasing after doctorates and licenses in various faculties. Even there, however, he notes that while this is illicit for those who are insufficient to the task, or for those who seek to obtain such positions while thinking only of the praise and glory they will obtain in doing so, it is permissible for men who are up to the task and doing it for the right reason, namely aiding others in their spiritual progress. 137 In the earlier quodlibetal question, John cautions that it is illicit to induce someone to hear one’s teaching out

est de honore prelature, ad quem requiritur perfectio caritatis, quam nullus potest scire per certitudinem se habere, sicut potest scire de scientia; ergo etc.”

133 For discussion, see Wei, “The Self-Image of the Masters of Theology,” 410-11.

134 Quodl. II.21, N f. 40rb-va; T f. 18rb: “Ad argumentum factum in contrarium, dicendum quod aliquem honorem potest aliquis licite petere, utpote magisterium, supposita sufficentia quam potest | aliquis scire se habere pro certo. Secus est de prelatione, quia nullus potest scire se esse in caritate, que in habente prelationem debet esse. Credo etiam quod aliquis licite possit repetere magisterium, vel prelationem, qua esset iniuste privatus iudicatio communiter omnium.”

135 For discussion of the dating of John’s quodlibets, see Appendix 2.

136 Schneyer no. 88, A f. 57va: “...mundana affectione caret accedens ad hanc electionem que ad presens incumbit, qui non est inanis glorie cupidus, hoc est qui nec gradum aliquem honoris non habitum ambit, utpote prioratum, lectoriam, et huiusmodi, de quo possit et velit inaniter glorari, nec in habito remanere cupit...”

137 P8, BnF lat. 14799, f. 173va; BnF lat. 14973, f. 141r [variant readings indicated in this order]: “Alii sunt qui potissime hanelant habere preeminentiam inter litteratos homines, appetentes scilicet doctoratus et licentias in diversis facultatibus, que appetere, etsi sit licitum homini sufficienti, si hoc ordinat ad animorum profectum, est tamen/autem illicitum homini insufficienti, vel qui talia ordinat ad gloriam et/vel laudem propriam.”

122 of an excessive love of honour and temporal rewards, and one of the medieval readers of the Naples manuscript of his quodlibets was sufficiently struck by this remark to make note of it in the margin. 138 But he holds that a moderate love of honour, as a sign of virtue, is entirely permissible, and it is definitely licit for masters to be honoured, since they possess wisdom and perform the virtuous act of helping others to acquire it. Nowhere does John address the question of whether masters of theology will gain an aureola in heaven like virgins and martyrs – a popular topic of discussion in late-thirteenth-century quodlibetal debates at Paris, but since masters from Aquinas and Henry of Ghent to Rénier of Clairmarais responded in the affirmative, it seems unlikely that he would have broken with this tradition. 139

Interestingly, John also defends the high social status and other worldly rewards that are due to masters of subjects other than theology. Both of his graduation speeches for students in medicine refer repeatedly to the honor of the magisterium or the master’s chair, with one noting that it is the highest of all human honours. 140 In the version of his principium on medicine found in B, John makes the remarkable assertion that even though men of learning ( scientes et litterati ) should not aim for worldly promotions as the end of their wisdom, such promotions are nonetheless owed to them according to divine and human law. (The principium in John’s sermon collection omits the reference to human and divine law, but still asserts that learned men are owed such promotions.) Expounding Ecclesiasticus 38:3, “The skill of the physician shall exalt his head, and in the sight of great men he will be praised,” John says,

Or this ‘exaltation of the head’ may be understood in the literal sense as some sort of temporal promotion, which, even if wise and literate men should not aim for it as the end of their wisdom, is nonetheless owed to them by divine and also human law, and which

138 Quodl. V.14, N f. 76va; T f. 52ra: “Tertio [esset illicitum inducere aliquem ad audiendum se in aliqua doctrina] si talis inductio procedet ex inordinato et nimio affectu honoris et emolumenti temporalis.” Note in the lower margin of N f. 76va, keyed to a cross in the left margin near this passage: “Nota quod qui propter nimium affectum honoris vel luctus temporalis inducit aliquis ad audiendum se in sua doctrina peccat.”

139 Wei, “The Self-Image of the Masters of Theology,” 402-3.

140 Schneyer no. 110 ( Sermo ad magistrandum in medicina Matheum ), A f. 73ra-b; B f. 117rb: “Inter omnes autem honores humanos honor cathedre magistralis debet maximus reputari, cuius ratio est quia secundum doctrinam Sapientis, Prov. 8[:11], melior est sapientia cunctis operibus pretiosissimis, et | omne desiderabile ei non potest compari ; igitur et honor qui debetur alicui ratione sapientie, cuiusmodi est honor cathedre magistralis, preferendus est cuilibet alteri honori qui competeret alicui rationi cuiuscumque habundancie temporalis.”

123

they also do achieve in fact in many cases. For if honour is the reward of virtue, as the Philosopher says in the first book of the Ethics ,141 and according to book 6 some of the virtues are moral and some intellectual, such as learning, art, prudence, wisdom, and understanding, 142 it is apparent that some sort of temporal promotion and exaltation is owed to all sorts of learned men, and especially doctors. And this is what the Wise One says in Ecclus. 11[:1]: ‘The wisdom of the humble shall exalt his head, and shall make him sit in the midst of great men.’ And he speaks well when he says ‘the humble,’ for humble and low-born men are frequently exalted on account of their wisdom. Or perhaps he says this because, as I have already said, literate men ought not to aim for such promotions as the end of their learning, for this would pertain to ambition and pride. 143

John imagines a world of meritocracy in which learning can serve as an agent of social mobility. He may have had in mind the numerous examples of scholars who King Robert of Naples personally invited to his court, some of whom were rewarded with salaries, ecclesiastical benefices, official positions, and other “temporal exaltations” as a direct result of dedicating scholarly works to the king, or another powerful person like the pope. 144 Not all of these men were of truly humble birth, and since many scholars in this period came from noble backgrounds, we should perhaps regard John’s claim that leaning can lift one up from the lowest status with a critical eye. 145 (In the version of this principium found in B, John remarks in the next section that the praises of low-born men are of little value, since they are prone to deception. 146 If the words of common people carry so little weight, one wonders how a wise one would manage to procure social advancement.) Nonetheless, he was certainly writing in an environment in which scholarly achievements could and did lead to real-world benefits. Even as John cautions his audience about the risks of pride and ambition, he clearly believes that it is right and just and of the appropriate order of things for wise men to be rewarded for their learning with worldly promotions.

141 Actually Aristotle, Ethica IV.3, 1123b35; cf. Auctoritates Aristotelis 237, no. 68.

142 Cf. Aristotle, Ethica VI.3, 1139b15-17; cf. Auctoritates Aristotelis 240, no. 108.

143 Schneyer no. 112, appendix to Chapter 3, 11.1 § 10; 11.2 § 7.

144 For examples, see Kelly, The New Solomon , ch. 2, esp. p. 29-31; 33-41; 60-8.

145 On the social backgrounds of university scholars in this period, see for instance William J. Courtenay, Parisian Scholars in the Early Fourteenth Century: A Social Portrait (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), ch. 6.

146 Schneyer no. 112 (medicine), B f. 118vb; see appendix to Chapter 3, 11.1 § 6.

124

2.5 Conclusion

John’s principia and his scholastic questions, especially the ones disputed at Paris, show two different sides of his activities as a teacher of theology. The principia testify to his theological lectures within the context of a Dominican studium , leading students through reading the Bible and the Sentences , attempting to fire up their enthusiasm for the subject and their love of God. His claims for the superiority of theology over other sciences and warnings to students who abandon the study of Scripture in favour of secular learning may have been especially pertinent in a city like Naples, where students of theology at the mendicant convents would have had to constantly resist the lure of the more lucrative secular sciences that their peers studied at the local university. Two questions from John’s earliest quodlibets, both dealing with whether the time of Christ’s incarnation can be proved through the Old Testament, give a sense of what his lectures on the Bible might have looked like: in this case, tapping into a vein of anti-Jewish exegesis that was well-established at Paris, but eschewing the more virulent conclusions of some of his colleagues.147 So does the exposition on the Lord’s Prayer contained alongside the principia in his sermon collection, and at the very end of T: a line-by-line, word-by-word commentary that highlights the multiple layers of meaning in this text. 148 As I will argue at greater length in the next chapter, many of John’s quodlibetal questions about human bodies, which at first strike one as medical in nature, may in fact have been aimed more directly at interpreting the Bible and the Sentences .

Moral theology also certainly played a central role in John’s teaching in Naples, as will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. He alludes to the “science of the virtues and vices” in the

147 Quodl. I.13 and Quodl. II.5. Both are edited in Mantovani, “Due questioni inedite di Giovanni di Napoli su temi gioachimiti.” In my forthcoming article “Jews and Muslims in the works of John of Naples,” I argue that these texts might be better understood within the adversus Iudaeos tradition, but this does not necessarily exclude the possibility that they were also influenced by the millenarian thought associated with Joachim of Fiore, as Mantovani’s article suggests.

148 Schneyer no. 130, A f. 103vb-106vb; T f. 296vb-297vb (incomplete, probably missing one folio). Recent studies of late medieval exegetical works on the Lord’s prayer emphasize the fluidity of this genre. It was not uncommon for scholars to extract their lectures on the relevant portion of Matthew and rework them as sermons, pamphlets, or other catechetical or pastoral works that could be disseminated to a broader audience. So John’s text may be several steps removed from his classroom lectures. See Saak, Catechesis in the Later Middle Ages I , 29-31, and Gilbert Dahan, “L’exégèse du ‘Notre Père’ au XII e siècle: quelques lignes générales,” in Le Pater Noster au XII e siècle: Lectures et usages , ed. Francesco Siri (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015), 9-15.

125 course of his response to a question from his fifth quodlibet about whether it is licit to teach sophistries ( cavillationes ).149 The initial arguments and John’s response consistently use the more pointed term “ cavillationes iuris ” (legal sophistries), which suggests that the question was asked with an anti-jurist slant. 150 However, John responds that teaching legal sophistries is not in and of itself evil; rather, it is good and licit. 151 For one thing, learning sophistries contributes to knowledge, and all knowledge helps to perfect the intellect. 152 For another, if teaching legal sophistries was evil, then teaching about other sins would be too, which is clearly false, since this would make all teaching about the vices and virtues illicit – an absurd conclusion for any preacher or theologian. 153 Furthermore, it is good and licit to teach what is useful to know, and it is clearly useful to know sophistries and other sorts of sins because one cannot avoid something that one does not even know about. John points out that plenty of other good and licit sciences teach bad things so that they can be avoided: for this reason, logic teaches fallacies and tricks; grammar teaches improper formations; rhetoric uses weak examples; logic teaches faulty means of argumentation. 154 There is nothing wrong with using these sorts of negative examples as a

149 Quodl. V.15: “Utrum liceat docere cavillationes.”

150 The phrase cavillationes iuris was perhaps first used by Quintilian as an unfavourable description of the work of jurists, and Roger Bacon used the same term to harangue jurists for their sophistries, deceits, and abuses. See Serena Querzoli, “ Materia and officia of rhetorical teaching in Book II of the Institutio oratoria ,” in Quintilian and the Law: The Art of Persuasion in Law and Politics , ed. Olga Eveline Tellegen-Couperus (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003), 37-50, at 48-9; Roger Bacon, Opus Tertius , in Fr. Rogeri Bacon Opera Quaedam Hactenus Inedita , ed. J.S. Brewer (London: Longman, 1859), 85: “Utinam igitur excludantur cavillationes et fraudes juristarum, et terminentur causae sine strepitu litis, sicut solebant esse ante quadraginta annos. O si videbo oculis meis haec contingere! Nam si strepitus juris removeretur, et cavillationes, et abusus juristarum, tunc laici et clerici haberent justitiam et pacem.”

151 Quodl. V.15, N f. 52ra; T f. 76va: “Respondeo, docere cavillationem iuris quantum est ex genere suo non est malum; immo est bonum et licitum.”

152 Quodl. V.15, N f. 52ra; T f. 76va: “Primo quia communicare aliquid alicui ad perfectionem pertinens non est malum. Sed scire cavillationes est aliquid ad perfectionem pertinens, sicut et omnis scientia est perfectiva intellectus, ergo etc.”

153 Quodl. V.15, N f. 52ra; T f. 76va: “Secundo quia si docere cavillationem iuris esset malum, pari ratione et docere alia peccata et mala. Sed hoc est falsum. Sic enim periret tota scientia et doctrina de vitiis, et tota esset illicita et per consequens de virtutibus, quia eadem est scientia contrariorum, ergo etc.”

154 Quodl. V.15, N f. 52ra-b; T f. 76va: “Preterea, quod expedit scire, expedit docere, et per consequens est bonum et licitum. Sed expedit scire cavillationes et cetera peccata, quia quod nescitur non potest bene vitari, ergo etc. Et confirmatur ratio quia etiam logica, que est scientia bona et licita, docet fallacias et cautelas diversas, ut patet in 8 Topicorum, et in toto libro Elenchorum; sicut igitur gramatica docet congruum et incongruum, ut congruitas servetur

126 teaching device. John concedes that it would be illicit to teach sophistries to a student who had said that he wanted to learn them in order to put them into practice, or if the teacher had other reasons to think that this material would give the student an opportunity to sin. And it would obviously be a sin to spend too much time on this sort of thing. 155 But he stresses that it is impossible to have a complete knowledge of logic, rhetoric, or civil law, all of which are good things, without a full knowledge of opposites. 156

Similarly, theologians ought to have a thorough knowledge of sins in order to effectively perform their task. In his principium on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, John asserts that the office of theologians “is to ‘strip’ those who have been struck by the devil with a wound of mortal sin, leading them to lay bare their sins through the sacrament of confession, by declaring what is properly a wound of mortal sin and what is not.” 157 He makes a similar claim in a sermon for the occasion of the first mass of a new priest. A priest, John asserts, as a physician of souls, ought to have knowledge of sins. He needs to know which sins are mortal and which are venial, and how to distinguish between different kinds of mortal and venial sins, as well as how to determine which penances should be imposed for different kinds of sins, and how to appropriately adapt those penances to the conditions and circumstances of different sinners. He should also know about the sacraments, the Ten Commandments, and other things pertaining to

in loqutione et incongruitas vitetur, et rethorica ornatum et eius defectum; sic et logica, que est rationalis scientia, ad ratiocinandum inventa, docet ratiocinari recte et non recte, ut per rectam ratiocinationem homo ad |N| veri cognitionem perveniat, et falsam ratiocinationem vitando errorem falsitatis evitet.”

155 Quodl. V.15, N f. 76vb; T f. 52ra-b: “Posset tamen esse malum et peccatum docere tales cavillationes iuris in aliquo casu, utpote docere illum qui diceret se velle addiscere talia ut in exequtione poneret, vel de [T add. hoc] quo hoc probabiliter crederetur, quod esset dare ei occasionem peccandi. Illicitum etiam esset nimium temporis in talibus occupare, vel in aliquo alio casu. Simpliciter [T add. tamen] in genere suo hoc non est illicitum seu peccatum; |T| immo est bonum et licitum, ut supra probatum est.”

156 Quodl. V.15, N f. 76vb; T f. 52rb: “Vel dicendum quod docere propter faciendum opus est malum, sed docere ad vitandum, et quia scire talia est aliqualiter ad perfectionem intellectus, quia sine notitia talium non potest haberi perfecta notitia logice, vel rethorice, vel iuris civilis, est bonum et licitum, ut supra declaratum est.”

157 Schneyer no. 121 ( Sentences ), A f. 95ra; B f. 115rb: “Pharao autem, qui interpretatur denudans percussos, designat universitatem theologorum, quorum officium est percussos a demone vulnere peccati mortalis denudare, eos ad patefactionem suorum peccatorum inducendo per sacramentalem confessionem, declarando scilicet quid sit proprie vulnus peccati mortalis, et quid non,” ed. in Schut, “The Next Best Thing to a Saint?”, p. 379, lines 42-46.

127 the faith. 158 John never describes his task as a master of theology using the metaphor of the architect and artisan that was so popular among contemporary theologians at Paris. 159 Perhaps he and his Dominican students were too engaged in the hands-on work of pastoral care to consider themselves above it.

John’s principia give the impression that subtle debates about the nature of theology of the sort that were carried out at the University of Paris had little relevance for the kind of theological teaching that went on in a Dominican studium . In his principia , John takes for granted that theology is a science, and that it is both speculative and practical, and he makes no mention of the problem of subalternation. His discussions of the subject-matter of theology in the principia are looser and more all-encompassing than those in the disputed questions. As we head into the next two chapters, it is worth bearing in mind the way he introduced theology to his Neapolitan students, as a science containing all the useful parts of other sciences, and many other useful things besides.

158 Schneyer no. 93 ( In missa sacerdotis novi ), A f. 62vb: “...sacerdos tanquam medicus animarum debet habere notitiam culparum, que sunt anime infirmitates, distinguendum scilicet culpam mortalem a veniali, et mortales inter se, et etiam veniales, et debet scire que penitentia pro qua culpa est imponenda, quia diversis penitentibus sunt diverse penitentie iniungende secundum diversitatem culparum, et aliarum conditionum peccantium seu circumstantiarum, sicut peritus medicus dat diversas medicinas et dietas diversis infirmis. Debet etiam scire ut possit animabus consulere, alia ad fidem pertinentia, utpote sacramenta ecclesie, precepta decalogi, et alia hiuismodi.”

159 See above, introduction.

Appendix to Chapter 2

This appendix includes a typical principium on theology and a quodlibetal question that shows John in conversation with both Thomas Aquinas and Durand of St. Pourçain. As discussed further in Chapter 4, Quodl. VIII.29 also has links to the literature of pastoral care.

Schneyer no. 118: Principium on theology 1

1 Aliud principium super theologia 2

2 Annuntiabo tibi quod expressum est in scriptura veritatis . Dan. 10[:21]. Narrabo et annuntiabo et exaudiet vocem meam . Ps. [54:18] Secundum doctrinam Crisostomi super Mattheum, pater non libenter exaudit orationem quam filius non dictavit. 3 Ergo ab opposito concludendo dicere possumus quod pater libenter exaudit orationem quam ipse filius nobis ut faceremus dictavit et docuit. Docuit autem nos ipse dominus, inter alia per suum apostolum Iacobum, ab ipso orando petere sapientiam, ubi ipsa indigemus propter aliquid quod nobis immineat faciendum. Si quis inquid beatus Iacobus, primo capitulo sue canonice [= Iac. 1:5], vestrum indiget sapientia, postulet a deo qui dat omnibus affluenter et non improperat. In tali igitur petitione debemus supponere ab ipso domino exaudiri, et hoc est quod dicitur post 4 verba

predicta, et dabitur ei .5 Inter omnes autem actus humanos in quibus homo sapientia indigere videtur, videtur esse actus docendi, et precipue sacram paginam, in qua vera sapientia continetur, secundum illud Deut. 4[:6], hec est vestra sapientia et intellectus coram populus . Impossibile est enim aliquem docere alium sapientiam quam non |A f. 88vb| habet. Omnis autem sapientia a domino deo est , ut dicitur Ecclus. 1[:1]. Ubi

1 A f. 88va-91rb; B f. 114ra-115ra

2 B Principium super tota theologia

3 John Chrysostom, Opera Imperfecta , Homily 14 on Matthew; cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II a-II ae q. 83, a. 16, arg. 3.

4 B quod subditur pro

5 B add.: si quis , inquid, vestra indiget sapientia , etc.

128 129

igitur alicui incumbit proponere aliis aliquid ad sacram doctrinam pertinens, debet una cum ipsis sapientiam a deo orando petere cum summa fiducia impetrandi. Et hoc est quod ait Psalmus in verbis secundo propositis: Narrabo , inquid, etc. In quibus verbis primo 6 Psalmus describitur actum theologice lectionis ab omnibus quam plurimum venerandum, cum dicit Narrabo etc.; secundo promittit fructum divine exauditionis a nobis orationibus impetrandum, cum subdit, et exaudit vocem meam .

3 Actus siquidem theologice lectionis pulcre descibitur sub nomine narrationis, eo quod in sacra pagina multe narrantur ystorie propter simpliciores qui ipsius divine veritatis non possent esse capaces nisi eis per modum narrationis parabolice proponatur, unde 1 Paralip. 16[:9] dicitur Narrate omnia mirabilia eius . Describitur etiam sub nomine annuntiationis: narrabo , inquid, et annuntiabo , eo quod sicut melius in sermonis prosequtione patebit. Doctor sacre pagine ad modum nuntii omnia ex alterius persona proponit, dei, scilicet, qui est ipsius auctor principalis, et doctor, unde et alibi dicebat Psalmus idem ad deum loquens [Ps. 88:2]: Annuntiabo veritatem tuam , a te, scilicet inspiratam, in ore meo .

4 Secundo promittitur fructus divine exauditionis a nobis orationibus impetrandus, cum subdit exaudiet etc. Exaudiet , dicitur Iudith 4[:12], dominus preces vestras si manentes permanseritis in orationibus . Ex verbis igitur Psalmis sumpta fiducia rogabimus si placet in principio matrem illius qui est dei virtus et dei sapientia secundum Apostolum 1 Cor. 1[:24], quatinus a suo filio nobis impetrare dignetur aliquid sue sapientie, sic quod valeam proponere quod cedat ad dei laudem, sacre pagine commendationem, et nostrem salutem, et hedificationem, et loco orationis quilibet dicat quod sibi placet.

5 Annuntiabo tibi etc. Sicut dicit Boethius tertio De consolatione , inserta est nobis boni verique cupiditas, 7 cui etiam consonat dictum Philosophi primo Metaphysice : omnes,

6 A in marg. : Divisio prothematis

7 cf. Boethius, Consolatio Philosophiae , III.2 prosa: “est enim mentibus hominum veri boni naturaliter inserta cupiditas.”

130

inquid, homines natura scire desiderant. 8 Complementum autem huius cupiditatis seu desiderii nobis naturaliter |A f. 89ra| inserti ad cognoscendum verum, et maxime primum verum, cuius anima capax, est eo quod ad ymaginem et similitudinem eius est creata, ut habitur 14 9 De Trinitate .10 Non est expectandum ab aliqua notitia |B f. 114rb| humanitus acquisita. Omnis enim cognitio humanitus aquisita habetur vel per doctrinam vel per inventionem. Neutro autem modo perfecta dei notitia in hac vita ab homine potest haberi. Visus enim, qui inventioni 11 et experientie maxime deseruit, ad primam veritatem secundum se non attingit. Deum enim nemo vidit umquam , ut dicitur Io. 1[:18]. Et ipsamet veritas Moyses dixit Exo. 33[:20], Non videbit me homo et vivet , quamvis enim ex visibilibus que facta sunt aliqua invisibilia dei intellecta conspiciantur, ut habetur ad Rom. 1[:20]. Sapientiam tamen dei in misteriis absconditam, id est dei filium a patre personaliter distinctum et pro nobis incarnatum, quam sapientiam predestinavit deus ante secula in gloriam nostram. Nemo principium huius seculi , id est philosophorum, cognovit ex visibilibus, nec cognoscere potuit, ut dicitur 1 Ad Cor. 2[:8]. Auditus autem qui ad doctrinam magis confert naturaliter ab humana inventione dependet, quod enim omnis auditu didicit. Hoc prius alius per experientiam adinvenit, et quia ‘brevis vita et experimentum fallax,’ 12 ut alibi dicitur, immo quicquid scimus vel scire nos credimus per propriam inventionem et per alterius doctrinam humanam est imperfectum, quia ad cognitionem prime veritatis est insufficiens et multis erroribus permixtum, quod probat dissonantia opinionum et utique non potest verum esse quod dissonat vero. Vero enim omnia concordant, ut dicitur primo Ethicorum .13 Non est ergo expectandum complementum humani desiderii, maxime quoad cognitionem prime veritatis ab humana inventione vel

8 Aristotle, Metaphysica I.1, A1, 980 a 21; cf. Auctoritates Aristotelis , p. 115, no. 1.

9 B 4

10 Augustine, De Trinitate 14.8.11.

11 B visioni

12 Hippocrates, Aphorisms , 1.1.

13 Aristotle, Ethica ad Nicomachum I.8, 1098 b. 10-11; cf. Auctoritates Aristotelis , p. 233, no. 15.

131

doctrina. Et immo deus, cuius perfecta sunt opera, qui desiderium cognoscendi seipsum nobis inseruit ad complementum huius desiderii ultra id ad quod potest humanum ingenium naturaliter pertingere, quedam de seipso revelavit, que quidem non manifeste intelliguntur, sed quasi audita creduntur, fides enim est ex auditu; auditus autem per verbum dei , ut dicitur Ro. 10[:17]. Et hoc traditur 14 in sacris scripturis, quod figuratum fuit Num. 20[:1-11], ubi dicitur |A f. 89rb| quod sitivit populus in deserto donec Moyses de mandato domini virga percussit bis silicem et egresse sunt aque largissime ita ut biberet populus et iumenta , quia scilicet sitis, id est ardor desiderii quo sitimus ad deum fontem vivum, non restringitur in nobis nisi Moyses scriptor sacre pagine sibi deo revelante percussisset bis silicem, id est solidam scripture veritatem sub duplici sensu, litterali, scilicet, et spirituali, ystorico et mistico, nobis tradidisset. Sic enim egrediuntur aque largissime, id est affluencia doctrine, ita ut in mistico et spirituali reficiantur maiores qui per populum, in literali vero et ystorico minores qui per iumenta figurantur, et immo anime sitienti et desideranti videre vultum viri Salamonis, in quem desiderant etiam angeli prospicere , ut dicitur primo Petri 1[:12]. Ad temperamentum desiderii proponitur verbum assumptum: Annuntiabo tibi quod expressum est in scriptura veritatis . In ea enim videtur deus quantum patitur status presentis vite, in speculo, scilicet, et enigmatice, quia videre facie ad faciem solum est illorum qui sunt sicut angeli dei in celis.

6 In quibus quidem verbis commendatur sacra scriptura quantum ad quattuor, in quibus alias scientias antecellit, et primo 15 a celsitudine auctoris, quoad cause efficientis preeminentiam; secundo ab aptitudine facilitatis, quoad forme evidentiam; tertio a latitudine capacitatis, quantum ad materie continentiam; quarto a plenitudine utilitatis, quoad finis excellentiam. Et sic in efficiente invenitur sublimitas excessiva, in causa formali facilitas instructiva, in materiali capacitas contentiva, in finali utilitas completiva. Primum notatur in verbo annuntiationis, cum dicitur annuntiabo ; nuntius enim, ut iam predictum est, nomine alterius loquitur; secundum in vocabulo

14 B hec traduntur

15 A in marg. : Divisio thematis

132

expressionis, cum additur quod expressum est ; tertium est in absoluto nomine scriptura ; quartum in coniuncto cognomine veritatis .

7 16 Quantum ad primum est sciendum quod sacra scriptura non fuit humanitus inventa, sed divinitus inspirata. Sicut enim in formis perficientibus materiam supprema est per |A f. 89va| creationem, scilicet anima intellectiva, que est aliquo modo in genere substantiarum intellectualium, sicut materia prima in genere corporalium sensibilium, ut dicit Commentator super 3 De anima ,17 sic et in doctrinis supprema non est ab

inventione humana, sed ab extrinseco deo revelante inspirata. 18 Et hoc innuitur in verbo annunciationis. Nuntius enim a semetipso non loquitur, sed quod ei imponitur a mittente. Sic scriptores sacri canonis non sunt a seipsis loquti, sed prout spiritus sanctus dabat eloqui illis , ut dicitur Act. 2[:4]. Hoc habemus figuratum Eze. 3[:17], ubi ex persona dei ad prophetam dicitur, fili hominis speculatorem dedi te domui Israel, audies verbum ex ore meo et annuntiabis eis ex me . Ad cuius auctoritatis expositionem 19 est notandum quod ex hac preeminentia cause efficientis consurgit triplex privilegium sacre scripture, quod notatur in auctoritate predicta, scilicet quod est superior ratione, quod notatur cum dicitur fili hominis ; quod est prior duratione, quod notatur cum subditur speculatorem dedi te ; quod est firmior adhesione, quod notatur cum subiungitur audies etc.

8 20 Primo dico quod hec doctrina est superior ratione, et hoc notatur cum dicitur filii hominis . Homo enim cetera animalia in ratione et intellectu excellit. Sic a simili et doctor huius doctrine cunctos alios doctores in rationis claritate et certitudine

16 A in marg. : Primum principale

17 Averroes, In De anima III comm. 5.

18 B has for this sentence: Sicut enim in formis perficientibus materiam supprema non educitur de materia, sed a creante inducitur, ita in scientiis perficibilibus animam que est aliquo modo in genere intellectualium, sic materia prima in genere corporalium sensibilium, ut dicit Commentator super tertio De anima , supprema non est ab inventione humana, sed ab extrinseco deo revelante inspirata.

19 A in marg. : Expositio auctoritatis

20 A in marg. : Primum privilegium

133

antecellit, propter quod et doctor huius scripture soli comparatur, et hec doctrina sapientia |B f. 114va| nuncuptaur Ecclus. 27[:2]: Homo sanctus in sapientia manet sicut sol . Sol enim omnes planetas et stellas alias excedit in luminis claritate; immo omnes ab eo lumen recipiunt. Sapientia etiam secundum Philosophum, 6 Ethicorum , omnes alias intellectuales virtutes excedit, et secundum eundem ibidem, sapientia capud scientiarum dicitur. 21 Dicitur autem in auctoritate preallegata doctor huius doctrine non solum homo, sed filius hominis – fili , inquid, hominis – ut per hec detur intelligi quod debet esse imitator et factor eorum que docet. Interpretatur enim filius qui fit ut ille qui custodit legem . Dicitur Prov. 27[= Prov. 28:7] eam, scilicet, opere adimplendo, filius sapiens est . Excedit autem hec doctrina alias |A f. 89vb| in rationis certitudine 22 , non quidem quantum ad evidentiam 23 obiecti – Deum enim nemo vidit unquam , ut preallegatum est, quod est principale obiectum huius doctrine – sed quia, ut Augustinus dicit ad Marcellum, si contra scripturas ratio redditur, quantumcumque acuta sit, vera esse non potest. 24 Et tota causa est quia auctoritas divina, cui tota sapientia scripture innititur, superior est omni humana ratione, utpote a supremo culmine prime veritatis descendens.

9 25 Secundo, hec doctrina est prior duratione, quod notatur cum subditur speculatorem dedite . Speculator enim proprie dicitur qui ex alto prospiciens citius advenientes videt quam alii. Sic et notitia huius doctrine prius pervenit ad homines quam aliarum scientiarum, cuius ratio est quia huic scientie attribuitur illud quo fides saluberrima gignitur, nutritur, defenditur, et roboratur, ut habetur ab Augustino, 14 De Trinitate .26 Fide autem placuerunt deo quicumque ab initio placuerunt ei: Abel, Enoch, Noe,

21 Aristotle, Ethica ad Nicomachum , VI.7, 1141 a 19-20; cf. Auctoritates Aristotelis , p. 240, no. 113.

22 B claritate

23 B essentiam

24 Augustine, Epistola 143.7.

25 A in marg. : Secundum privilegium

26 Augustine, De Trinitate 14.1.3.

134

Abraham, et ceteri, ut dicit Apostolus ad Hebr. 11, et immo hiis omnibus aliquid revelatum est quod ad sacram scripturam pertinet, que fidei innititur, propter quod auctores eius antiquitate 27 precesserunt omnes mundi philosophos, non solum grecos,

sed etiam egyptios, ut dicit Augustinus, De civitate dei , libro 18, capitulo 38. 28 Doctores igitur sacri eloquii speculatores possunt non incongrue nuncupari. De quo speculatore exponi posset illud Ys. 21[:6-8], quasi sint verba ex parte humani generis ipsum deum dominum deprecantis: pone speculatorem et quod viderit annunciet , et paucis interpositis, ex persona speculatoris subditur: super speculam domini ego sum stans iugiter per diem , quantum ad doctores novi testamenti; et subditur et super custodiam meam ego sum stans totis noctibus , quantum ad doctores veteris testamenti, quibus, scilicet, 29 nondum apparuerat sol iustitie Christus deus noster.

10 30 Tertio, hec doctrina est firmior adhesione, quod notatur cum subditur audies etc. Quelibet enim alia doctrina adheret adinventis virtute luminis intellectus agentis, qui quidem et falli potest et fallere. Hec autem doctrina adheret articulis fidei nobis a deo |A f. 90ra| mediante lumine gratie revelatis, quibus per consequens falsitas 31 subesse non potest. Et hoc notatur cum dicitur audies etc. Fides enim est ex auditu, ut preallegatum est. Unde et doctor sacre pagine dicere posset illud Ys. 21[:10], Que audivi a domino exercituum deo Israel annuntiavi vobis. Et hoc de primo membro principali.

11 32 Secundo commendatur a facilitate instructiva quoad forme evidentiam ibi quod expressum est . Quod enim exprimitur de profundo rei ad exterioris superficiei planum

27 B propter quod actores eius ministerialis antiquitate

28 Augustine, De civitate dei , 18.39.

29 B quo scilicet tempore nondum

30 A in marg. : Tertium privilegium

31 B falsiter

32 A in marg. : Secundum principale

135

deducitur. Sic a simili et scriptura sacra planissima est in neccessariis et profundissima in misteriis. Propter primum istorum omnibus se offert et offendit superbos, quia, scilicet, scriptores sacri canonis usi sunt verbis ut videtur valde simplicibus sententiis valde similibus. Primum istorum videtur pretendere quandam simplicitatem secundum quandam superfluitatem, sicut obicit Paulo Seneca in quadam epistola ad Paulum. Sed advertendum est in hoc scripturam sacram esse mire virtutis, cum enim scriberent et docerent quicquid erat affectui carnali contrarium. Quero quomodo sapientia philosophorum, eloquencia rethorum, potentia tyrannorum, verbis tam simplicibus subcuberit, et ea receperit que tradebantur per homines tam simplices et elingues. Nec est aliud nisi quia placuit deo, non in doctis humane sapientie verbis, sed per stulticiam predicationis, et verbis simplicibus salvos facere credentes. Et quamvis scriptura sit planissima in neccessariis, est tamen profundissima in misteriis, quod declarat signorum multiplicitas, scilicet vocum, rerum, et proprietatum, ut dicit Hugo, De sacramentis , libro primo, in principio. 33

Intellectuum infinitas, 34 quot enim sensus potest elicere doctor catholicus, tot intellexit principalis auctor, scilicet spiritus sanctus, secundum Augustinum duodecimo Confessionum .35 Sensuum multiplicitas habet enim hec scriptura quattuor sensus seu modos exponendi, qui sunt ystoricus vel literalis, allegoricus, tropologicus vel moralis, et anagogicus, |A f. 90rb| ut docet Augustinus Super Genesim ad litteram , in principio,36 et propter hoc de hac scriptura posset intelligi mistice quod scribitur in

Proverbis, Prov. 30[:33] 37 Qui fortiter premit ubera ad elicendum lac exprimit butirum . Per duo enim ubera ad presens intelligo vetus et novum testamentum, et hec ratione spiritualis nutrimenti quod in se continet. De quibus uberibus exponi posset illud Can. 1[:1]: Meliora sunt |B f. 114vb| ubera tua vino , qui revera spiritualis cibus

33 Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis 1.1.

34 B In intellectum etiam infinitas

35 Augustine, Confessiones , 12.

36 Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram , 1.1.

37 B 31

136

quem ubera sacre scripture, id est novum et vetus testamentum, continent. Notitia, scilicet divinorum, omnem corporalem delectationem excedit, que nomine vini intelligitur, quod letificat cor hominis. Per lac autem, quod est cibus parvulorum, potest intelligi sensus litteralis sive ystoricus sacre scripture, quo simplices reficiuntur. Hoc lacte Apostolus Corinthios paverat quibus dicebat 1 Ad Cor. 3[:2], tanquam parvulus in Christo, id est simplicibus et imperfectis, lac potum dedi vobis non escam . Per butirum autem, quod est delectabile condimentum, potest intelligi sensus spiritualis sive misticus delectans nostrum interiorem hominem atque spiritualiter reficiens, de quo butiro posset exponi illud Ys. 7[:15]: butirum dicitur ibi de sancto viro, et mel comedet . Sanctus enim vir tunc butirum et mel comedit cum in misticis expositionibus sacre pagine interius reficitur et delectatur. Qui ergo fortiter premit ubera ad eliciendum lac exprimit butirum , quia a duobus uberibus sacre scripture, veteri, scilicet, et novo testamento, exprimitur cum omni facilitate lac, cibus parvulorum, quoad intellectum sanctorum ystoricum, sed cum difficultate exprimitur butirum, delectabile condimentum, quia cum labore pervenitur ad intellectum misteriorum spiritualium spiritualiter mentem reficientium. Et hoc est quod dicit glosa, verba predicta exponens. Ubera premis fortiter dum sacri eloquii verba subtili intellectu pensas, qua pressione dum lac queritur butirum invenitur, quia dum nutriri vel tenui intellectu litterali, scilicet, querimus ubertate interne pinguedinis, id est spirituali et mistico sensu vegetamur. Sic ergo possumus dicere cum |A f. 90va| Gregorius in Moralibus quod scriptura sacra superficie littere simplices refovet, sed misteriis prudentes exercet. 38 Et hoc de secundo principali.

12 39 Tertio commendatur a latitudine capacitatis quantum ad materie continentiam, quod notatur in absoluto nomine scripture. Absolute enim nomen scripture sibi vendicat, quia quicquid alibi recte scribitur vel docetur totum deseruit sacre scripture et famulatur. Si autem noxium est ibi dampnatur; si autem utile est ibi invenitur, ut dicit

38 Gregory, Moralia in Job 1.4.

39 A in marg. : Tertium principale

137

Augustinus in fine secundi De doctrina Christiana .40 De hac scripture latitudine dicitur 2 Ad Tim. 3[:16]: Omnis scriptura dicitur ibi divinitus inspirata utilis est ad docendum, ad arguendum, ad corripiendum, ad erudiendum in iustitia, ut perfectus sit homo dei ad omne opus bonum instructus . Ubi 41 primo materie continentiam in generali proponit, omnis scriptura dicitur ibi divinitus inspirata ; secundo eam in speciali exponit, utilis est etc.

13 42 Quantum ad primum est sciendum quod quamvis omnis veritas a quocumque dicatur a spirito sancto sit, ut dicit Ambrosius in glosa exponens illud 1 Ad Cor. 12[:3], Nemo potest dicere dominus Iesus nisi in Spiritu Sancto , eo quod omnis veritas humanitus inventa invenitur ab homine in virtute luminis intellectus agentis, quod est quedam participatio divini luminis, specialiter tamen ista scriptura dicitur divinitus inspirata eo quod est ab ipso deo sanctis hominibus revelata. Spiritu enim sancto inspirati loquti sunt sancti dei homines , ut dicitur 2 Pet. 1[:21].

14 43 Sequitur autem in principali auctoritate utilis est etc., in quo in speciali tangitur latitudo sue capacitatis, ut dictum est. Continet enim hec doctrina altissima documenta ad instruendum nescientes, ut de fide trinitatis, de incarnatione filii dei, et similia. Et quantum ad hoc dicetur ad docendum , glosa ‘nescientes.’ Unde dicebat Ps. [17:36] ad deum loquens, disciplina tua , a te, scilicet, inspirata, ipsa me docebit .

15 Secundo continet efficatissima argumenta ad convincendum errantes, sicut Apostolus ex resurrectione Christi efficatissime arguit, 1 Ad Cor. 15, resurrectione mortuorum contra Saduceos, et quantum ad hoc dicitur 44 ad arguendum de |A f. 90vb| Syon

40 Augustine, De doctrina Christiana 2.42.63.

41 A in marg. : Divisio auctoritatis

42 A in marg. : Primum

43 A in marg. Secundum

44 B subditur

138

dicitur Ys. 2[:3-4] exibit lex et verbum domini de Ierusalem , et statim immediate subditur, iudicabit gentes et arguet populos multos .

16 Tertio continet acerbissimas punitiones ad puniendum in malo persistentes, sicut patet Matt. 25[:41]: Ite maledicti in ignem eternum , et similia. Et quantum ad hoc subditur et coripiendum , unde dicebat Apostolus, 1 Ad Cor. 10[:11], Scripta sunt , inquid, hec loquens ad litteram de scriptis in canone biblie, ad correctionem nostram, in quos fines seculorum devenerunt .

17 Quarto continet perfectissimas eruditiones ad informandum in bono perseverantes, sicut 10 precepta decalogi, consilia evangelistica, et similia. Et quantum ad hoc subditur ad erudiendum . Cor sapientis , dicitur Prov. 16[:23], per quem doctor sacre pagine potest intelligi, erudiet os eius , in bono scilicet perseverantis.

18 Maxime igitur continentie est hec scriptura, que continet tam altissima documenta et efficacissima argumenta, in quo convenit cum scientiis rationabilibus, tam acerbissimas correctiones et perfectissimas eruditiones, in quo convenit cum scientiis moralibus. 45 Et quia parum valeret si |B f. 115ra| ista omnia contineret nisi ex hoc in

nobis utilitas aliqua sequeretur, idcirco subiungitur tertio 46 utilitas in auctoritate proposita. Ut perfectus sit , inquid, homo dei quantum ad voluntatem interiorem. Matt. 5[:48] dicitur Estote perfecti sicut et pater vester celestus perfectus est . Ad omne opus bonum , quantum ad actionem exteriorem. Unde Prov. 14[:23] dicitur, In omni opere bono erit habundantia . Instructus , quantum ad rationem superiorem. Intellectum dicitur in Ps. [31:8] tibi dabo et instrua te . Et hoc de tertio principali.

19 47 Quarto commendatur a plenitudine utilitatis quoad causam finalem in adiuncto cognomine veritatis . Proximus enim finis sacre scripture est agnitio veritatis

45 B has: que continet tam altissima documenta, in quo convenit cum scientiis doctrinalibus, tam efficatissima argumenta, in quo convenit cum scientiis sermotinalibus, tam acerbissimas correctiones et perfectissimas eruditiones, in quo convenit cum scientiis moralibus.

46 A in marg. : Tertium

47 A in marg. : Quartum principale

139

pertinentis ad fidem et mores. Utramque enim veritatem sacra scriptura propter suam perfectionem complectitur, unde Augustinus 48 : tam creator quam creatura ‘in hac nobis proponitur, ut ille cognoscatur’ – ecce quod pertinet ad speculationem – ‘ille diligatur’ |A f. 91ra| – ecce quod pertinet ad affectionem vel operationem – ‘qui et hanc creavit, et illam inspiravit.’ 49 Ob hanc causam est speculativa et practica. Sed quid principalius nichil ad presens. Finis autem remotus est beatitudo. Quorum utrumque tangit Apostolus 1 Ad Tim. 3 [=1 Tim. 2:4], loquens de ipso inspiratore sacre scripture, qui vult omnes homines salvos fieri – ecce finis remotus 50 – et ad agnitionem veritatis venire – ecce finis propinquus. Sed et ipsa beatitudo non est aliud quam cognitio veritatis secundum illud Io. 17[:3], hec est vita eterna ut cognoscant etc . De hoc fine sacre scripture dicitur Ecclus. 24[:32] 51 , hec omnia liber vite et testamentum altissimi et agnitio veritatis . In quibus verbis Sapiens tangit expresse predictum triplicem finem sacre scripture. Primo 52 enim per hanc doctrinam sublimamur quantum ad premium per eterne felicitatis adeptionem, et quantum ad hoc dicit liber vite . Secundo inflammamur quantum ad affectum per divine bonitatis dilectionem, et quantum ad hoc subdit et testamentum altissimi . Tertio illustramur quantum ad intellectum per divine veritatis agnitionem, et quantum ad hoc subiungit et agnitio veritatis .

20 53 Primo dico quod per hanc doctrinam sublimamur quantum ad premium per eterne felicitatis adeptionem, et quantum ad hoc dicit liber vite , glosa, ‘id est vetus et novum testamentum,’ quod quidem liber vite dicitur, quia in ipso scribuntur ea per quorum observantiam ad eterne vite felicitatem perducimur. Unde dicitur Baruc 4[:1], hic est

48 B Spat. vac. 5 litt.

49 cf. Augustine, De Trinitate , 2.1.

50 B ultimus

51 B de hoc fine sacre scripture, cognitione, scilicet, veritatis, videtur loqui Ecc. Ecc. 24

52 A in marg. : Divisio auctoritatis

53 A in marg. : Primum

140

liber mandatorum dei, et lex que est in eternum , et subdit, omnes qui tenent eam ad vitam , scilicet eternam, perducentur; qui autem dereliquerint eam in mortem , scilicet pertrahentur vel dampnabuntur.

21 54 Secundo per hanc doctrinam inflammamur quantum ad affectum per divine bonitatis dilectionem. Et quantum ad hoc subdit et testamentum altissimi . Sicut enim quis moriens testamentum condit, in quo aliqua observanda heredibus mandat et precipit, sicut patet 3 Reg. 2, de David respectu Salamonis, et de Tobia, Tob. 4, sic et dominus Iesus Christus, qui hic altissimus dicitur, secundum illud Ps. [91:9] Tu autem altissimus in eternum domine , m-|A f. 91rb|-orti appropinquans preceptum dilectionis nobis tradidit, quod quidem in sacro evangelio continetur. Unde dicitur Io. 15[:12], hoc est preceptum meum, ut diligatis etc. Sacra igitur pagina, et precipue evangelium, testamentum potest non incongrue nuncupari. Hoc est illud testamentum de quo dicitur Ecclus. 45[:30], Statuit illi testamentum pacis . Hoc testamentum longe ante dominus nobis promiserat per Baruc prophetam, dicens, Baruc 2[:35], statuam illis , fidelibus, scilicet, testamentum alterum , a veteri, scilicet, eo quod vetus est timoris, novum est amoris, sempiternum , quia caritas numquam excidit , ut dicitur 1 Ad Cor. 13[:8], et quia huic nullum alterum debet succedere, ut dixerunt quidam heretici, ut sim illis in deum, et ipsi erunt mihi in populum . Quia qui manet in caritate, in deo manet, et deus in eo , ut dicitur 1 Io. 4[:16].

22 55 Tertio per hanc doctrinam illustramur quantum ad intellectum per divine veritatis agnitionem, et quantum ad hoc subiungit et agnitio veritatis . De hoc fine loquitur Apostolus ad Eph. 4[:11], dicens ipse , inquid, scilicet deus, dedit quosdam quidem apostolos, quosdam autem prophetas, alios vero evangelistas, alios autem pastores et doctores , per quos ad litteram intelliguntur diversi scriptores sacre pagine, et subdit [Eph. 4:13] inter alias utilitates scripture istorum in unitatem fidei et agnitionis filii

54 A in marg. : Secundum

55 A in marg. : Tertium

141 dei , et parum infra [Eph. 4:15], veritatem autem facientes in caritate vivamus , hic scilicet vita gratie, et in futuro vita glorie, ad quam nos perducat etc.

142

Quodl. VIII.29: Whether it is licit to liberate by theft a Christian who is enslaved to a Saracen 56

1 Vicesima nona questio est utrum liceat accipere furto Christianum existentem in servitute Saraceni.

2 Et primo videtur quod sic, quia secundum iura liberandus est homo de manu calumpniantis. Sed Saracenus presumendus est esse non solum calumpniator, set etiam oppressor talis Christiani quem retinet in servitute, ergo licite et meritorie potest etiam furto de servitute tali liberari.

3 Sed contra, quia secundum Augustinum in quadam epistola ad Bonifacium, et habetur 23, 57 questione prima, ‘servanda est fides etiam hosti,’ [Dec. Grat. C. 23 q. 1 c. 3.] et per consequens Saracenis qui sunt hostes Christianorum. Sed non servaretur ei fides si existens in servitute eorum furto de tali servitute liberaretur, ergo etc.

4 Respondeo, ad evidentiam huius questionis duo videnda sunt principaliter. Et primum est utrum fidelis seu Christianus possit de iure esse servus hominis infidelis. Secundum est principale quesitum.

5 Quantum ad primum, est sciendum quod in duobus ad hoc pertinentibus omnes doctores concordant.

6 58 Et primum est quod si fides precedit, non potest de iure seu licite sequi servitus, hoc

est quod infideles nullum DOMINIUM SEU PRELATIONEM DE NOVO possunt licite habere 59 super iam existentes fideles, et hoc satis rationabiliter secundum doctores. CEDIT

60 ENIM HOC IN SCANDALUM ET PERICULUM FIDEI . DE FACILI ENIM ILLI QUI SUBDUNTUR

56 N f. 147vb-148va; f. 12ra-vb, incomplete (= Na); T f. 133rb-134ra

57 T 33 58 Passages in SMALL CAPS are verbatim from Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II a-II ae , q. 10, a. 10.

59 T Cederet

60 Na et in periculum

143

61 ALIORUM IURISDICTIONI IMMUTARI POSSUNT AB EIS QUIBUS SUBSUNT UT SEQUANTUR

EORUM IMPERIUM , ut patet in libro Regorum in multis locis. Secundum illud Ecclus. 10[:2], secundum iudicem populi, sic et ministri eius, et qualis rector civitatis, tales et inhabitantes in ea, nisi tales qui 62 subsunt fuerint magne virtutis, et similiter infideles contempnunt fidem si cognoscant defectus fidelium. Et immo Apostolus prohibet 1 63 Ad |Na f. 12rb| Cor. 6[:1-6] fideles contendere in iudicio coram iudice infideli, ET

IMMO NULLO MODO PERMITTIT ECCLESIA QUOD INFIDELES ACQUIRANT DOMINIUM

SUPER FIDELES , VEL QUALITERCUMQUE EIS PREFICIANTUR IN ALIQUO OFFICIO , ut patet 54 distinctio, capitulo ‘mancipia Christiana’ [Dec. Grat. D. 54, c. 13], et in capitulo immediate sequenti, ‘nulla officia’ [Dec. Grat. D. 54, c. 14], et Extra , ‘de iudeis et saracenis’, ‘cum sit nimis absurdum,’ [X 5.6.16] et ‘ex speciali,’ [X 5.6.18] et in multis aliis capitulis eiusdem rubrice.

7 Secundum est quod si servitus vel subiectio quecumque precedit fidem, utpote quia subditus conversus est ad fidem, et non princeps, sicut in primativa ecclesia passim fiebat, vel servus convertitur et non dominus, sicut et adhuc fit alicubi de servis iudeorum, non est |T f. 133va| ipso facto de iure divino talis servus vel subditus a servitute vel subiectione liberatus seu absolutus. Et ratio est, secundum doctores, quia

DOMINIUM ET PRELATIO INTRODUCTA SUNT EX IURE HUMANO; DISTINCTIO AUTEM

FIDELIUM ET INFIDELIUM EST EX IURE DIVINO . IUS AUTEM DIVINUM , QUOD EST EX

GRATIA , NON TOLLIT IUS HUMANUM , QUOD EST EX NATURALI RATIONE . ET IDEO |N f.

148ra| DISTINCTIO FIDELIUM ET INFIDELIUM SECUNDUM SE CONSIDERATA NON TOLLIT

DOMINIUM ET PRELATIONEM .

8 Sed in tertio ad hoc pertinente discordant doctores, scilicet utrum ex statuto ecclesie, si servitus precedit fidem, hoc est si aliquis infidelis existens servus alterius infidelis

61 Na iuriditioni

62 T quibus

63 Na contempnere; N contendere corr. ex contempnere – a sign that N is copying from Na?

144

convertitur ad fidem, domino eius infideli remanente per talem conversionem efficiatur liber.

9 Et sunt de hoc tres opiniones, quia aliqui 64 dicunt quod ecclesia non potest hoc

statuere si dominus pateretur eum esse 65 quietum, nec traheret ad infidelitatem, quod probatur quadrupliciter.

10 66 Primo quia in eo in quo communicant fideles cum infidelibus nec est distinctio unius ab alio, nullus potest privari iure suo propter culpam infidelitatis; sed in dispositione bonorum temporalium que pertinent ad secularem principatum non differunt fideles ab infidelibus, sed eadem observanda sunt erga fidelem et infidelem; ergo princeps vel dominus propter culpam infidelitatis preexistentis non potest iuste privari iure suo quod habebat super suum subditum quantumcumque subditus convertatur ad fidem.

11 Secundo quia illicitum est quod infideles , qui numquam susceperunt fidem, compellantur ad fidem; sed si ecclesia privaret principem infidelem iure suo quod habet super subditos vel servos, ipsis conversis ad fidem, compelleret ipsum ad fidem per amissionem bonorum suorum; poss ent enim plures vel omnes subditi et servi ad fidem converti et tunc princeps amitteret totum principatum vel partem principatus, nisi converteretur , ergo etc.

12 Tertio quia si unus coniugum convertatur ad fidem altero 67 in 68 infidelitate permanente , si infidelis consentit habitare cum fideli absque eo quod pertrahat

64 Na; N; T in marg .: Durandus; in N , the word opinio, underline and in a different hand, comes before Durandus.

65 N om. esse

66 Passages in bold can all be found in Durand, Super II Sententiarum , Book II, d. 44, q. 3; cf. Durandi de Sancto Porciano Scriptum Super IV Libros Sententiarum, Distinctiones 39-44 Libri Secundi , ed. Massimo Perrone (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 156-8, lines 204-271. All four arguments also appeared in the first recension, although slightly earlier and in a different order; see idem, 152-5.

67 N altera

68 N om. in

145

ipsum ad infidelitatem, et absque blasphemia creatoris 69 , non solvitur vinculum matrimonii inter ipsos; ergo similiter si princeps vel dominus infidelis exigit a subdito vel servo facto christiano solum illud quod pertinet ad ius sui dominii, nec nititur ipsum pertrahere ad infidelitatem per blasphemias creatori illatas, tenetur ei subditus obedire.

13 Quarto quia idem iudicium videtur esse de pecunia et de obedientia. Sed fides suscepta neminem absolvit a debito pecunie , ergo nec a debito obedientie .

14 Sed contra hanc opinionem 70 potest argui multipliciter. Primo quia illud |Na f. 12va| quod ecclesia statuit supponendum est quod potuerit licite et de iure statuere, quia in talibus credendum est quod ecclesia regatur a spiritu sancto, et per consequens errare non possit. Sed ecclesia statuit quod infidelis existens servus alterius infidelis, si vult baptizari, liber sit a tali servitute in multis casibus, secundum quod infra patebit in hanc eadem questione. Et hoc statutum expressum est 54 distinctione, capitulo ‘firmitatem’, et in tribus sequentibus [Dec. Grat. D. 54 c. 15-18], et Extra ‘de iudeis’, capitulo primo [X 5.6.1] et secundo [X 5.6.2] et ultimo, [X 5.6.19] et quod plus est non permittitur fideli pro aliquo servitio stare seu permanere in domo hominis infidelis, ut patet Extra ‘de Iudeis’, ‘Iudei sive Saraceni’ [X 5.6.5], et ‘ad hoc omnibus’ [X 5.6.8]. Ergo male dicitur quod ecclesia non potuerit hoc statuere, et dicentes hoc videntur quod ad pauca respicientes de facili enuntiant, quia non respexerunt predicta statuta, aut si respexerunt, videntur ecclesiam quantum ad talia statuta simpliciter reprobare.

15 Preterea, magis timendum est de scandalo et periculo fidei in illo qui est de |T f. 133va| novo ab infidelitate conversus ad fidem quam in alio fideli, et maiores defectus possunt apparere in tali de novo converso quam in alio. Sed propter ista duo non permittitur infidelis habere de novo aliquod dominium seu prelationem super fideles, ut ipsi etiam |N f. 148rb| dicunt in eadem questione, et alii etiam doctores, ut

69 T salvatoris

70 N in marg. : improbatio

146

supra dictum est. Ergo propter eadem duo rationabiliter statutum est ab ecclesia, ut patet in predictis capitulis et decretalibus, quod servus infidelis, si ad fidem convertitur, sit liber a tali servitute.

16 Preterea, infidelis propter demeritum sue infidelitatis meretur amittere omnem potestatem et dominium quod habet super fideles, et ecclesia potest hoc statuere, quia licet ecclesia non habeat iudicare de hiis qui foris sunt infligendo eis penas spirituales quarum non sunt capaces, vel imponendo regulam religionis, tamen potest eis infligere penas temporales, ut patet Extra , ‘de Iudeis’, ‘postulasti,’ [X 5.6.14] et in multis aliis decretalibus. Ergo male dicitur quod ecclesia non possit statuere hoc quod predictum est.

17 Et ad rationem primam opinionis predicte 71 dicendum est per interemptionem maioris, quia ecclesia potest privare infideles iure suo in eo in quo communicant fideles cum infidelibus si illud cedit in periculum fidei et scandalum, sicut est 72 in proposito.

18 Ad secundam dicendum quod ecclesia non compellit principem vel dominum infidelem ad fidem liberando servos vel subditos eius a tali servitute vel subiectione, quia adhuc talis princeps vel dominus potest remanere in sua infidelitate, unde hoc non est compellere eum ad fidem, sed est fidei periculum et scandalum precavere.

19 Ad tertiam dicendum per interemptionem minoris, quia si unus coniugum convertitur ad fidem, alio in infidelitate permanente, conversus liberatur ab obligatione qua ei debitum tenebatur reddere, et ei cohabitare, ut patet in quarto Thome 73 , distinctio 39, articulo quarto, in solutione principali. Nec permittitur fidelis conversus cohabitare infideli nisi infidelis velit converti, ut patet ibidem, articulo tertio, in solutione secundi argumenti. Licet si infidelis vult cohabitare fideli sine contumelia creatoris, et

71 N in marg.: Responsio ad rationes opinionis

72 T om. est

73 T Sancti Thome

147

sine hoc, quod pertrahat eum ad infidelitatem, fidelis discedens ab infideli non possit alteri nubere, ut patet ibidem articulo quinto, in solutione principali. Vel dicendum quod non est tanta subiectio unius coniugum ad alium sicut est servi ad dominum, et immo probabilius servus traheretur ad infidelitatem domini, quam unus coniugum ad infidelitatem 74 alterius.

20 Ad quartam |Na f. 12vb| rationem dicendum quod non est simile de pecunia et de obedientia, quia in solutione pecunie nullum periculum imminet vel scandalum fidei, sicut est in obedientia vel subiectione servi ad dominum.

21 Secunda opinio 75 circa hoc est quod licet ecclesia possit statuere de servis omnium infidelium quod si volunt converti ad fidem sint liberi a tali servitute, tamen hoc

ECCLESIA QUANDOQUE FACIT , QUANDOQUE NON FACIT , quia IN ILLIS INFIDELIBUS QUI 76 TEMPORALI SUBIECTIONE SUBICIUNTUR ECCLESIE ET MEMBRIS EIUS , ut sunt Iudei,

HOC IUS ECCLESIA STATUIT , UT scilicet SERVUS IUDEI STATIM FACTUS CHRISTIANUS A

SERVITUTE LIBERETUR , in certis casibus qui infra exprimentur; IN ILLIS VERO

INFIDELIBUS QUI TEMPORALITER ECCLESIE VEL EIUS MEMBRIS NON SUBIACENT , sicut sunt Saraceni, predictum ius ecclesia non statuit. Et hoc est opinio fratris 77 Thome 78 in Secunda Secunde, questione 10, articulo 10. Et fuit opinio Hostiensis, quam probat per multas auctoritates, scilicet per Apostolum ad Eph. 6[:5], servi obedite dominis carnalibus , glosa: ‘etiam infidelibus’; et 1 Ad Tim. 6[:1-2], quicumque sunt sub iugo servi dominos suos omni honore dignos arbitrentur (et quod loquatur de infidelibus patet per hoc quod subdit: qui autem fideles habent dominos, non contempnant etc.); et 1 Pet. 2[:18] dicitur servi, subditi estote in omni timore dominis, non tantum bonis et modestis, |T f. 134ra| sed etiam discolis. Sed licet plures decretales |N f. 148va| in

74 Na add. in marg. in ‘John’s hand’: unus coniugum ad infidelitatem

75 N in marg. : secunda opinio

76 T iurisdictione

77 T Sancti

78 N in marg.: opinio sancti Thome; T Sancti Thome

148

quibus predictum ius statuitur videantur loqui de servis iudeorum tantum, tamen Extra , ‘de Iudeis et Saracenis,’ in decretali que incipit ‘Iudei sive Saraceni,’ [X 5.6.5] expresse statuitur de utrumque ex equo quod nec pro servitio vel aliqua causa quelibet Christiana mancipia in domibus permittantur habere.

22 Et immo est tertia opinio, 79 que est Raymundi in summa sua, liber primo, titulo

80 predicto ‘de Iudeis et Saracenis,’ scilicet quod INFIDELIS SERVUS IUDEI , sive

Saraceni indifferenter, SI FIERI VELIT CHRISTIANUS , ERIPITUR STATIM IN LIBERTATEM ,

NULLO PREDICTO DATO , SI FUERIT VERNACULIS , ID EST IN SERVITUTE NATUS , aut

emptus causa servitii. Si autem fuerit emptus ad mercandum, tenetur eum INFRA TRES 81 MENSES exponere ad vendendum, infra quos SI NON EXPOSUERIT EUM VENALEM ET

82 ILLE VULT FIERI CHRISTIANUS INFRA ILLUD SPATIUM VEL ETIAM POST LIBERATUR ,

NULLO PREDICTO DATO . SED SI INFRA ILLUD SPATIUM NON STETIT PER DOMINUM QUO

MINUS VENDIDERIT EUM LIBERATUR DATO PRETIO 12 solidorum, ut patet 54 distinctione, capitulo ‘firmitatem,’ [Dec. Grat. D. 54 c. 15] et Extra , ‘De Iudeis et Saracenis’, ‘nulli Iudeo’ [X 5.6.19]. Quere hanc opinionem perfectius in Summa Confessorum , libro primo, titulo quarto, capitulo tertio et sextadecimo et septimadecimo. 83 Et hec opinio videtur probabilior propter decretalem predictam ‘Iudei sive Saraceni etc.’

23 Ad auctoritates autem preallegatas quas Hostiensis adducit pro sua opinione, dicendum quod loquntur pro statu ecclesie primitive, quando non erat hoc statutum, et

79 N in marg. : tertia opinio et vera 80 Passages in SMALL CAPS are verbatim from Raymond of Penyafort, Summa de Paenitentia , I.4.6. Cf. Raymond of Penyafort, Summa de Paenitentia , ed. Xaviero Ochoa and Aloisio Diez (Rome: Commentarium pro religiosis, 1976), 313-15.

81 Na; N exposuit

82 T Christianus fieri

83 cf. John of Freiburg, Summa Confessorum , I.4.16-17, f. 12ra-b, which contains the same argument drawing heavily on Raymond. The relevance of chapter 3 is not obvious.

149

loquntur in communi de infidelibus, non plus de gentili quam de Iudeo. Et hoc de primo principali.

24 Quantum autem ad secundum principale, quod est principale quesitum, dicendum 84 quod aut est servus de iure, utpote secundum primam opinionem quando dominus non nititur trahere eum ad infidelitatem, vel si est servus Saraceni vel alterius gentilis, secundum opinionem secundam, vel infra tres menses si est emptus ad mercandum a Iudeo, secundum opinionem tertiam, aut est servus de facto solum 85 et non de iure, scilicet extra istos casus. Si est servus de iure, peccat furto subtrahens ipsum et non dans pecuniam, et tenetur ad restitutionem, non persone, propter periculum anime eius, set pretii. Si autem est servus solum de facto, dicendum 86 quod non peccat si rectam habuit intentionem; immo meretur propter duo: primo quia liberavit hominem de servitute iniusta; secundo quia precavit periculo fidei eius, ut patet per predicta. Et per consequens non tenetur tali ad aliquam satisfactionem, quia iniuste detinebat eum, nec erat servus eius de iure, sed solum de facto, ut supponitur. Et quia tertio opinio est probabilior, quantum videtur mihi ad presens, immo absolute dicendum est quod occulte subtrahens Christianum existentem in servitutem hominis infidelis non peccat, dummodo det pretium in casu in quo emptus esset ad mercandum, et fuisset infra tres menses exponitus ad vendendum. Et hunc casum ponit Raymundus, et sic determinat libro 1, capitolo 1, ‘de pena furti,’87 et sic etiam determinatur in Summa Confessorum ,

libro secundo, titulo 6, capitulo 9. 88 Et hoc de secundo principali, et de toto.

84 T dicendum est

85 Na ends here + catchword et non de iure

86 T dicendum est

87 cf. Raymond, Summa de Paenitentia , II.6.11, 535-6.

88 cf. John of Freiburg, Summa Confessorum , II.6.9, f. 82vb

150

25 Ad argumentum factum in contrarium in obiciendo, dicendum quod quantum ad illicita non est servanda fides hosti, etiam in promissis, secundum illud 89 ‘in malis promissis rescinde fidem.’ Illicitum autem esset ei qui posset Christianum existentem in servitute infidelis liberare si non liberaret ipsum propter periculum fidei illius qui existit in tali servitute, ut supra declaratum est, et immo quantum ad hoc non est ei fides servanda.

89 N: add. in marg., keyed to a mark next to the deleted text “intelligatum proverbi propter”: libro de sinonimis, et habetur in decretis 22, questione X; T has in the main text : Ysidorus in libro de Synonimis, et, and add. in marg., keyed to a mark after ‘et’ : habetur in decretis 22 questione 4

Chapter 3 Medicine and Theology in John’s Works

Medicine was one of the disciplines from which medieval theology routinely incorporated the ‘useful’ bits. Medicine and theology – like medicine and religion more broadly – were intimately entwined in medieval intellectual culture. 1 Even as the rise of universities increasingly led to the separation of masters of medicine and theology into separate faculties, many thirteenth- and fourteenth-century university-educated theologians also spent some time studying medicine, at the very least as part of an arts degree.2 As Danielle Jacquart points out, theologians of this period viewed medicine as complementary to natural philosophy.3 Theologians needed to consult medical authorities in order to produce up-to-date theories about everything from human sexuality 4 to physiognomy and religious difference 5 to blood relics and Christology. 6 Physicians routinely served as expert witnesses in canonization trials, as they did in legal inquests.7 The

1 See, for instance, Peter Biller and Joseph Ziegler, eds., Religion and Medicine in the Middle Ages (York: York Medieval Press, 2001).

2 On the development of these respective faculties, see Nancy Siraisi, “The Faculty of Medicine,” and Monika Asztalos, “The Faculty of Theology, in A History of the University in Europe: Volume 1:Universities in the Middle Ages , edited by Hilde de Ridder-Symoens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 360-87 and 409-41.

3 Danielle Jacquart, “Medicine and Theology,” in Crossing Boundaries at Medieval Universities , ed. Spencer E. Young (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 213-26.

4 E.g. Jacqueline Murray, “Sexuality and Spirituality: The Intersection of Medieval Theology and Medicine,” Fides et historia 23:3 (1991): 20-36; Catherine Rider, Magic and Impotence in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

5 E.g. Resnick, Marks of Distinction ; Peter Biller, “Proto-Racial Thought in Medieval Science,” in The Origins of Racism in the West , ed. Miriam Eliav-Feldon, Benjamin Isaac, and Joseph Ziegler (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 157-80; Geraldine Heng, The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 15-16.

6 Caroline Walker Bynum, Wonderful Blood: Theology and Practice in Late Medieval Northern Germany and Beyond (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007), especially chapters 4-5.

7 On the general phenomenon, see Joseph Ziegler, “Practitioners and Saints: Medical Men in Canonization Processes in the Thirteenth to Fifteenth Centuries,” Social History of Medicine 12:2 (1999): 191-225; for discussion of an example from John’s lifetime, see Didier Lett, “ Judicium Medicine and Judicium Sanctitatis : Medical Doctors in the Canonization Process of Nicholas of Tolentino (1325): Experts Subject to the Inquisitorial Logic,” in Church and Belief in the Middle Ages: Popes, Saints, and Crusaders , ed. Kirsi Salonen and Sari Katajala-Peltomaa (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2016), 153-69. For physicians’ roles as expert witnesses in contemporary law courts, see Joanna Carraway Vitielo, “Forensic Evidence, Lay Witnesses and Medical Expertise

151 152 growth of Aristotelianism in university medicine as well as theology meant that medical masters and theologians around the beginning of the fourteenth century were working within a similar frame of reference, using language that was mutually intelligible.8 Like theologians, doctors and medical masters benefited from papal and royal patronage – not least at the Angevin court in Naples and the papal court in Avignon, the two courtly environments with which John was most familiar. 9

This chapter examines the relationship between medicine and theology in John’s works. This topic has already received some study. In the mid-1990s, Peter Biller observed that John’s quodlibets contain a wide range of questions on medicine and the body, broadly construed. 10 Biller’s brief introduction, based only on the question titles printed by Glorieux, was never meant to be more than an invitation to research, but it was almost two decades before another scholar did more than simply cite this cursory study and actually looked at the texts of some of the questions Biller had pointed out. Aurélien Robert’s chapter on medicine and theology at the Angevin court in Naples went beyond Biller’s study by also taking into account the graduation speeches for medical students and the principium on medicine from John’s sermon collection (although he was unaware of the presence of a second copy of these texts in B). 11 Robert also connected John’s writings on medicine, and those of other theologians such as James of Viterbo and Augustine of Ancona, to recent studies of the self-image of Parisian masters of theology. He argued that the Italian theologians who were active at the Angevin court in Naples, like the theologians at Paris, saw themselves as universal experts and attempted to set boundaries on the

in the Criminal Courts of Late Medieval Italy,” in Medicine and the Law in the Middle Ages , ed. by Wendy J. Turner and Sara M. Butler (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 133-56.

8 E.g. Cornelius O’Boyle, “Discussions on the Nature of Medicine at the University of Paris, ca. 1300,” in Learning Institutionalized: Teaching in the Medieval University , ed. John Van Engen (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000), 197-227.

9 Robert, “Médicine et théologie”; Piron, “Avignon sous Jean XXII, l’Eldorado des théologiens”; Peregrine Horden, “Medicine at the Papal Court in the Later Middle Ages: a Context for Simon of Genoa,” in Simon of Genoa’s Medical Lexicon , ed. Barbara Zipser (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013), 15-29.

10 Peter Biller, “Introduction: John of Naples, Quodlibets, and Medieval Theological Concern with the Body,” in Medieval Theology and the Natural Body , ed. Peter Biller and A. J. Minnis (Woodbridge: York Medieval Press, 1997), 3-12.

11 Robert, “Médicine et théologie,” 319-24.

153 fields of academic knowledge. But while Parisian theologians were mostly interested in establishing their authority in philosophy and law, the Italian masters – especially John – attacked some of the claims made by contemporary physicians, such as their description of the relationship between soul and body, or their definition of pain. 12 Robert also argued that some of John of Naples’ quodlibetal questions were anticipating the errors that local doctors might fall into and critiquing suspect ideas that were being defended at the universities of Bologna and Padua, which might be transmitted to Naples by travelling scholars. 13

I do not dispute Robert’s thesis that John, like many other thirteenth- and fourteenth-century theologians, claimed authority over other disciplines, including medicine. But I am skeptical of his contention that such claims were aimed directly at doctors. Instead, I think that John’s discussions of medicine can be made sense of within the context of Dominican education. This chapter begins by considering the possibility that John might have taught medicine in a dedicated fashion at the Dominican studium in Naples, as suggested by the inclusion of a principium on medicine alongside the principia on theology discussed in the previous chapter. I argue that there was nothing preventing him from doing so, and that the principium appears to be directed towards an audience of friars. The next section takes a closer look at the very positive way John talks about medicine and doctors, especially in the B version of the principium and graduation speeches, noting places where his praises of medicine and doctors echo his praises of theology and prelates. In the second half of the chapter, I provide several examples of medical topics discussed in John’s quodlibets and show how he uses them to help elucidate Christian doctrines and also sometimes employs them in his sermons. Rather than trying to steer doctors out of error, as Robert suggests, I think that John’s quodlibetal questions on medical topics are primarily aimed at helping Dominican friars to understand core texts like the Bible and Peter Lombard’s Sentences and preparing them to be effective preachers.

12 Robert, “Médicine et théologie,” 324-35.

13 Robert, “Médicine et théologie,” 347.

154

3.1 John as a teacher of medicine?

The very first principium in John’s sermon collection deals not with theology, but with medicine. It appears immediately after two graduation speeches for medical students, which were probably delivered in Naples. All three of these texts are also found together in B, alongside several of the theological principia discussed in the previous chapter. This raises an intriguing question: could John have been teaching medicine as well as theology in Naples?

Relatively little is known about the extent to which medieval friars studied, taught, and practiced medicine. 14 The study and practice of medicine by clerics was somewhat contentious in the later Middle Ages, as indicated by the repeated legislation issued on the subject by popes, ecclesiastical councils, and Dominican provincial and general chapters – although these authorities’ main problem seems to have been with religious leaving their houses to study secular sciences rather than with the study of those sciences in and of themselves. 15 In her foundational monograph on Dominican education, Michèle Mulchahey minimizes the role of medicine, which does not even make an appearance in the volume’s index.16 Yet Joseph Ziegler has shown that some late-thirteenth and early-fourteenth-century Italian preachers, including Dominican friars such as Giovanni da San Gimignano, a contemporary of John of Naples who served as lector in several Dominican convents in central and northern Italy, employed sophisticated medical exempla and referred to recognized medical authorities in the manuals they composed for fellow preachers. 17 And, as mentioned above, Aurélien Robert has recently argued that theologians active in Naples during the early fourteenth century took a particular interest in medicine, and asserted their authority, as universal experts, to challenge physicians’ conclusions on topics such

14 Angela Montford, Health, Sickness, Medicine and the Friars in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), provides a sense of the range of possibilities, not only of medical teaching and learning among the friars, but also of the role of medicine in their daily lives, with special reference to Bologna.

15 Darrel W. Amundsen, “Medieval Canon Law on Medical and Surgical Practice by the Clergy,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 52.1 (1978): 22-44; reprinted in Amundsen, Medicine, Society, and Faith in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), 222-47.

16 Mulchahey, “First the Bow Is Bent .”

17 Joseph Ziegler, Medicine and Religion c. 1300: The Case of Arnau de Vilanova (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), esp. 176-213.

155 as the relationship between body and soul, the nature of pain, and matters of medical ethics. 18 Given this context, it does not seem out of the question that John might have lectured on medicine himself.

The interpretation of John’s principium on medicine that I am proposing – that, like the principia on theology and the Sentences , it was an opening lecture for the start of a new course – differs from the understandings of this text put forward by Käppeli and Robert. Käppeli was skeptical of John’s authorship of the medical graduation speeches and principium because the speaker in one of the graduation sermons clearly identifies himself as a doctor of medicine passing on his chair to his student, and there is no evidence that John ever held such a chair. 19 Nonetheless, he allowed for the possibility that John might have composed these texts as models for a professor of medicine. As discussed in Chapter 1, there is good evidence that John knew several of the medical masters in Naples personally, including Bartholomew of Bisento, Matteo of Platamone, and Niccolò da Reggio, so I think it is certainly possible that one of these men or their colleagues, aware of John’s reputation as a preacher and shy about his own rhetorical skills, might have asked John to compose some graduation speeches on his behalf.

Robert also agreed that John probably composed the graduation speeches to be delivered by a medical master. However, he argued that John might have actually delivered the principium himself to an audience of medical students, perhaps as a sermon to open the academic year. 20 This is a plausible suggestion. It is evident that preaching to university communities was not

18 Robert, “Médicine et théologie.”

19 Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 64-66. Near the end of the sermon for Nicholas (Schneyer no. 111), the preacher remarks, A f. 75rb: “Dico igitur ego N. ad te, Sume etc. , scilicet mihi in magisterii cathedra succedendo. Et quia mos erat antiquitus sanctus et bonus ut filius succedens patri ab eo benediceretur [...] idcirco ego te mihi in cathedra succedentem benedico, dicens illud quod dixit David, 3 Reg. 2 [= I Reg. 1:48], benedictus dominus deus qui dedit hodie filium meum , id est in medicinali scientia discipulum, sedentem in solio meo , id est in magistrali cathedra, videntibus oculis meis , cuius domini dei benedicto patris et filii et spiritus sancti descendat super te et maneat semper.”

20 Robert, “Médecine et théologie,” 319-24. Robert did note that a “John of Naples” was recorded to have been examined in Naples and granted the licence to practice medicine in 1307, but he wisely did not argue that this John could be conclusively identified with our theologian. It goes without saying that John was an extremely common fourteenth-century name, and there is no indication that the physician receiving the licence was a friar, as we know John was already at that date.

156 restricted to scholars in fourteenth-century Naples. King Robert of Naples himself, who, as the reigning monarch, was the head of the Neapolitan university, is known to have preached sometimes at the beginning of the academic year, and he conferred degrees and delivered inception speeches on several occasions. 21 In one instance, he preached a sermon to the masters and students of the medical school at Salerno at a gathering during Lent. 22 We have evidence of Dominicans elsewhere delivering sermons to students in medicine; the collection of ad status sermons compiled by Humbert of Romans between 1266 and 1277 contains a model sermon of just this sort. 23 It would thus not have been out of order or without precedent for John to have addressed medical scholars in his own right as a preacher.

However, both Käppeli and Robert were unaware that a second copy of the medical principium can be found in B. Unlike the graduation sermons, which are almost identical, the two copies of the principium differ substantially. The version in B is approximately a third longer than the version in A, largely due to the inclusion of a protheme that is almost a word-for-word match for the protheme to one of John’s theological principia (Schneyer no. 118). 24 In addition to strengthening the case for John’s authorship of this text, the similarities between Schneyer no. 118 and the B version of the medical principium suggest that they served similar functions. John describes his task in almost identical ways: relating what pertains to the praise of God, the commendation of medical science or sacra pagina , and the consolation or salvation and edification of the present company. 25 A similar passage is also found in his principium on

21 Pryds, “Court as studium,” 343-56, and The King Embodies the Word , 63-75; 127 (for an edition of Robert’s inception sermon for the Franciscan theologian Andrew of Perugia). 22 On King Robert’s sermon, which survives, see Robert, “Médecine et théologie,” 316-19, as well as Pryds, The King Embodies the Word , 75-7.

23 Ziegler, Medicine and Religion , 1-2; 20-21; 314; Robert, “Médecine et théologie,” 324-5.

24 See the appendix to this chapter for a transcription of both versions of Schneyer no. 112, and the appendix to Chapter 2 for a transcription of Schneyer no. 118.

25 cf. Schneyer no. 112 (medicine), B f. 118ra, chapter appendix 11.1 § 4 and Schneyer no. 118 (theology), A f. 88vb; B, f. 114ra: appendix to Chapter 2, 8.1 § 4.

157 theology and the Sentences. 26 If I am correct in understanding the theological principia as opening lectures to courses delivered at the Dominican studium generale in Naples, it seems reasonable to suggest that John composed the principium on medicine for the same purpose.

Would anything have prevented John from lecturing on medicine in Naples? As Darrel Amundsen has pointed out, twelfth- and thirteenth-century restrictions on the study of medicine by regular clergy never barred religious from studying medicine within their own convents. 27 But it is unclear how much of this kind of study actually took place. Some Dominican officials clearly had problems with friars studying medicine. A provincial chapter held in Barcelona in 1299 declared, “as religious and those in holy orders are prohibited from the study of civil law and also medicine” – with no mention of where such studies might be taking place – “we wish and instruct that friars shall not study these subjects nor shall they in any way enter into medicine or secular causes because of the scandal it may cause to the Order.” The chapter did, however, provide an exception for friars who had already devoted three years to studying law or medicine before joining the Dominicans ( in seculo ).28 Angela Montford appears to read this text as normative for the order as a whole, but in fact it applied only to the Dominican province of Spain, and was issued by a provincial chapter that seems to have been especially worried about friars neglecting their theological studies. 29 Dominican general chapters repeatedly cautioned that friars should not risk scandal by practicing medicine if they had not been trained in it prior to entering the Order, which suggests that practical medical training was not available to professed

26 Schneyer no. 113 (theology and the Sentences ), A f. 77ra-b: “Ipsum igitur deum in principio | sermonis invocabimus quatinus mihi aliquid sue gratie dignetur infundere ad hoc, quod propere valeam quod cedat ad sui laudem, sacre pagine doctrine commendationem, et presentis societatis consolationem et hedificationem.”

27 Amundsen, “Medieval Canon Law on Medical and Surgical Practice by the Clergy,” 38.

28 Translation by Angela Montford, “‘Brothers who have Studied Medicine’: Dominican Friars in Thirteenth- Century Paris,” Social History of Medicine 24.3 (2011): 535-53, at 536; the original can be found in Célestin Douais, ed., Acta capitulorum provincialium ordinis fratrum praedicatorum: première province de Provence, province Romaine, province d’Espagne (1239–1302) , (Toulouse: Privat, 1894), II.648.

29 Montford, “‘Brothers who have Studied Medicine’,” 536; Montford, Health, Sickness, Medicine and the Friars , 112. Another admonition from the same chapter deprived friars who did not attend theology lectures at their conventual schola of their daily wine ration, and another required brothers to seek permission from the prior provincial to study natural philosophy, claiming that friars frequently neglect theology to study this subject.

158 friars. 30 But these kinds of prohibitions did not preclude Dominican friars from studying theoretical or speculative medicine within their own convents.

Medicine was not officially part of the Dominican educational curriculum. However, there was a certain amount of overlap in the texts falling under the umbrella of arts and natural philosophy that were studied in Dominican studia and by medical students at the medieval universities, particularly when it came to Aristotle. Medical faculties sometimes took advantage of local friars’ expertise; in Pavia, for instance, John’s contemporary confrère Galvano of Fiamma (1283- 1344) sometimes taught Aristotle’s Physics to local medical students while serving as lector in theology at the Dominican convent. 31 There is no evidence that John was ever asked to do something similar in Naples, but clearly the option was available. Medicine could also be useful for theologians and preachers, be it for explicating questions arising from core texts such as the Bible and the Sentences , or as a source of exempla to employ in sermons, and it is likely in this sense that John would have taught medicine to friars in Naples. I do not claim that the principium on medicine definitively proves that John was teaching medicine in Naples, either to medical students or to friars. But I think it is fully possible that a Dominican teacher like John might have seen fit to lecture on medicine in a theologically-tinged way.

The B version of the medical principium in particular seems aimed at a theologically-minded audience. The discussion of medicine’s divine origins in B, which is approximately twice as long as the corresponding passage in A, includes a substantial amount of exegesis, repetitive at times, and reading much like a biblical commentary:

For the Highest created him . Gloss: ‘for the utility of others.’ And after the aforesaid words it is added, let him not depart from you , namely [let not] the physician [depart from you] in your illness, offended by your disobedience, since his works are necessary .

30 See, for instance, the admonitions and denunciations of the general chapters of 1293 ( Acta I, 268.32-4), 1323 (Acta II, 146.28-31), 1336 ( Acta II, 239.31-7), and 1337 ( Acta II, 250.4-6). The 1293 admonition required only that friar-practioners have had sufficient instruction, whereas the one from 1336 specified that they should have received the licence in medicine. In 1343, this restriction was tightened so that friars required a special licence from their provincial prior to practice medicine among the laity ( Acta II, 286.10-18). For a full list of medieval Dominican chapter legislation relating to medical practice, see Angela Montford, “Dangers and Disorders: The Decline of the Dominican Frater Medicus ,” Social History of Medicine 16.2 (2003): 169-91, Appendix A, p. 184-7.

31 Gundisalvo Odetto, “La cronaca maggiore dell’ordine domenicano di Galvano Flamma,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 10 (1940): 297-373, at 299.

159

Gloss: ‘for the sick that they might be healed, and for the healthy lest they fall sick.’ And the Wise One in the same chapter, Honour the physician on account of necessity . Gloss: ‘of the body.’ And it is added, for the Highest created him . Gloss: ‘for the utility of others. And this is the argument for why it is licit for medicines to be used even by religious. For even Isaiah bound a plaster of figs to Hezekiah in Isaiah 38[:21]. But an objection is raised about St. Agatha, who said to St. Peter, “[I have never procured carnal] medicine [for my body].” I respond: the privileges of a few do not make common law.’ Ecclus. 38[:2]: For all healing is a gift from God, and he , namely the doctor, shall receive a gift from the king .32

The compressed question about whether it is licit for religious persons to use medicine was probably drawn from the early Dominican biblical commentator Hugh of St. Cher, 33 perhaps via Humbert of Romans, who followed this passage in the section of his commentary on the Rule of St. Augustine dealing with when and how medicines should be administered to religious persons. 34 It is hard to imagine this kind of exegetical content appealing to an audience of medical students, and the inclusion of the question from Hugh’s gloss about the use of medicines by religious suggests that John was addressing an audience of friars. Working with this hypothesis, let us take a closer look at the way John describes the science of medicine and its relationship to other sciences.

3.2 John on the science of medicine

John talks about medicine in a strikingly positive way, which is interesting, given the existence of a non-negligible strand of ambivalent and suspicious attitudes towards medicine and physicians in theological discourse around the turn of the fourteenth century. 35 The B version of the medical principium is organized around the ways in which medicine surpasses other practical

32 Schneyer no. 112, B f. 118rb-119ra, chapter appendix 11.1 § 12.

33 Cf. Hugh of St. Cher, Postillae in totam Bibliam (Venice: N. Pezzana, 1703), f. 243v-244v. Hugh’s gloss on Etenim illum creavit Altissimus (ed. cit., f. 243vb) reads “ad aliorum utilitatem. Et est hic argumentum quod medicis licet uti religiosis. Unde et Isaias emplastrum caricarum alligavit Ezechiae, Is. 38 d. Sed obiicitur de B. Agatha, quae dixit B. Petro: Medicinam carnalem corpori meo nanquam exhibui. Responsio. Priviligia paucorum non faciunt legem communem. Contra infirmitates corporis apponunt medici medicamenta diversa, cibos, potus, emplastra, unguenta. Similiter faciunt medici spirituales, et quanto pretiosior est amina corpore, tanto medicus spiritualis magis honorandus est medico corporali.”

34 Humbert of Romans, Opera de Vita Regulari , ed. Joachim Joseph Berthier (Paris: Befani, 1889; repr. Turin: Marietti, 1956), Vol. 1, p. 388-9 (= Expositio Regulae Beati Augustini , c. 128).

35 Ziegler, Medicine and Religion , 237-240.

160 and speculative sciences, and the B version of one of the graduation speeches claims that medicine is the best of all human sciences because its subject, the human body, is the noblest of all created bodies. 36 One could argue that John was simply using the kind of hyperbolic language that was called for by the types of ceremonial occasions for which these works, particularly the graduation speeches, were composed. The fact that he systematically toned down this language when including these works in his sermon collection suggests that even he found these statements a bit over-the-top. However, John continued to praise medicine for some of the same reasons in one of his quodlibetal questions, suggesting that he genuinely held medical science in high regard. John praises medicine in much the same way as he praises theology – for its divine origins, for its utility to human beings, for the reliable manner in which it is transmitted – and he describes physicians, much like he describes prelates, as agents of God who ought to be obeyed.

In the B version of the principium on medicine, John says that one science can be called worthier than another on account of the dignity of its subject, the certitude of its manner of transmission, or the utility of its end. The first two apply especially to speculative sciences and the third to practical ones. Here, as in the other version of the principium and the two graduation speeches, John asserts that medical science is partly speculative and partly practical, and he argues that medicine exceeds many other sciences in all three respects. The subject of medicine, “man insofar as he is a body, or rather the human body,”37 is a thing of great dignity and excellence, for the human body takes its existence from a very noble form: the rational soul. 38 It bears a strong similarity to the simple heavenly bodies, since out of all bodies which are capable of generation and corruption, it possesses the best and most balanced complexion. 39 The human body also has a number of perfections that make it superior to those of other animals: it has the

36 Schneyer no. 110 (Matthew), B f. 117va: “Hec autem scientia est excellentissima super omnes humanas scientias, et hoc ratione subiecti [...] Subiectum autem huius scientie est nobilissimum, id est homo, qui secundum omnes philosophos et theologos nobilitate nature creaturas cunctas corporales excedit.”

37 Schneyer no. 112, B f. 119ra, chapter appendix 11.1 § 13; A f. 76va, chapter appendix 11.2 § 10.

38 Schneyer no. 112, B f. 119ra, chapter appendix 11.1 § 14; A f. 76va, chapter appendix 11.2 § 8.

39 Schneyer no. 112, B f. 119ra, chapter appendix 11.1 § 14; A f. 76va-b, 11.2 § 10. For an overview of the concept of complexion (the arrangement of the four elementary qualities – a key concept in scholastic medicine), see Nancy G. Siraisi, Medieval and Early Renaissance Medicine: An Introduction to Knowledge and Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 101-4.

161 best sense of touch and the proportionally largest heart and brain (which are the noblest and second-noblest organs), and stands erect, unlike other beasts, which stoop to face the ground. 40 In both versions of the principium , John also manages to work in a reference to the common medical and theological belief that the male body is more perfect than the female, via a bit of linguistic interpretation of the theme. 41

In addition to having a very excellent subject, the science of medicine is transmitted in a very reliable way compared to other sciences, John argues. In the first place, it comes from God, not just because God is the first principle of every branch of knowledge, but also because God is the principal healer of all spiritual and bodily infirmities and the one who confers on natural things the powers of healing the human body or preserving its health. The human founders of medical science – in the A version, John lists Apollo, Hippocrates, Galen, and Avicenna – are merely its immediate efficient causes; the first principle of medical science is God. 42 Because it originates in the divine intellect, medicine is based on a level of truth and certainty comparable to theology. 43 John does not explicitly draw this parallel, but the way he describes medicine’s divine origins in the B version of the medical principium echoes the way he talks about theology in several of his other principia .

John also commends medical science for the way it is passed down from one human being to another. In the A version of the principium , he argues that medicine deserves to be called a discipline because it proceeds in a scientific manner, “namely by defining, dividing, and proving conclusions by necessary or probable reasons, and it does not proceed in a narrative manner, like legal science.” 44 The introduction to the B version, however, picks up the word “narration” in the

40 Schneyer no. 112, B f. 119ra, chapter appendix 11.1 § 14; A f. 76vb, chapter appendix 11.2 § 10.

41 In the version in B, this occurs at the beginning of the third principal part; in A, the parallel passage is placed after the account of the human body’s perfections. Cf. Schneyer no. 112, B f. 119ra, chapter appendix, § 13 and A f. 76vb, chapter appendix, § 10.

42 Schneyer no. 112, A f. 76rb-va, chapter appendix, § 9; cf. B f. 118vb, chapter appendix, § 12.

43 Schneyer no. 112, B f. 118vb, chapter appendix, § 12.

44 Schneyer no. 112, A f. 75va-b, chapter appendix, § 3.

162 biblical protheme, saying that the act of reading scientifically is beautifully described as a kind of narration because medicine narrates many examples for the sake of simple people who would not be capable of understanding its speculative truth unless it was explained to them through concrete examples. 45 This passage is an adaptation of a corresponding passage in praise of theology from Schneyer no. 118, where John says that the act of reading theologically is beautifully described as narration because Scripture narrates many stories for the sake of simple people who would be incapable of understanding divine truth unless it was expressed in parables. 46 When adapting the medical principium for inclusion in his sermon collection, John seems to have removed the protheme containing this passage and added the dig against legal science instead.

John maintains the position that medicine is a more reliable science than law in a question from his eighth quodlibet on whether knowing law or medicine is better for the health of the soul. 47 There, John concedes that legal science is more prone to error than medicine, since jurists must form their conclusions on the basis of human testimony, which is often fallible, whereas physicians rely on natural signs, which are only rarely deceptive. However, he asserts that this weakness is insufficient to prove that learning medicine is better for the good of the soul. 48 All else being equal, he argues, it is better to know law than medicine: law is better for the common good, and it is directed towards a higher end, since virtue (which law seeks to encourage) is a perfection of the soul, whereas health (the goal of medicine) is merely a perfection of the body. 49 Moreover, it is worse for a man to be vicious than sick, because vice is contrary to reason, which is what makes human beings resemble God and sets them apart from beasts; not so with bodily

45 Schneyer no. 112, B f. 118ra, chapter appendix 11.1 § 3.

46 Schneyer no. 118, A f. 88vb; B f. 114ra, appendix to chapter 2, 8.1 § 3.

47 Quodl. VIII.38, N f. 151vb-152ra; T f. 137rb-va: “Utrum magis expediat salute anime scire leges quam medicinam.” For a transcription, see chapter appendix, 11.4. On the similarity of this question to one in Augustine of Ancona’s Summa de ecclesiastica potestate , completed in Naples by 1326, see Robert, “Médicine et théologie à la cour des Angevins de Naples,” 327-9.

48 Quodl. VIII.38, N f. 152ra; T f. 137va, chapter appendix 11.4 § 10. The initial argument to which this passage is responding is § 3.

49 Quodl. VIII.38, N f. 152ra; T f. 137rb, chapter appendix 11.4 § 4.

163 health. 50 Interestingly, John makes no pronouncement about the superiority of theology to both disciplines in his response to this question, but rather treats them both as worthy areas of study in their own right. 51

In contrast to the argument for the superiority of law over medicine put forward in the quodlibetal question, John argues in both versions of the principium that medicine aims at a very great end. In the B version, he identifies its intrinsic end as the illumination of the intellect concerning matters such as human anatomy, complexion, and the powers of natural things from which man can receive or be preserved in health, as well as the proportions of these things which should be administered to different kinds of people under different circumstances. 52 Its extrinsic end is practical: the health of human bodies, which is the best and most useful good for human beings. 53 In the A version of the principium , John tones down this statement somewhat, stating that medicine’s ultimate goal – health – is a very great good among merely corporeal goods. 54

Similar statements can be found in the two graduation speeches for students of medicine. The B version of the sermon for the medical student named Matthew claims that medicine surpasses all human sciences because its subject – the human body – is the noblest of all created bodies. 55 The sermon for the student named Nicholas in the same manuscript states that the end of medicine insofar as it is a practical science, namely the health of the human body, is the most useful and

50 Quodl. VIII.38, N f. 152ra; T f. 137va, chapter appendix 11.4 § 7.

51 This positive attitude towards law is also striking, given the amount of criticism directed at lawyers by theologians (including several Dominicans) and others during the later Middle Ages, on which see James Brundage, The Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 477-87.

52 Schneyer no. 112, B f. 118va, chapter appendix 11.1 § 8; cf. A f. 75vb, chapter appendix 11.2 § 5.

53 Schneyer no. 112, B f. 118va, chapter appendix 11.1 § 11.

54 Schneyer no. 112, A f. 76rb, chapter appendix 11.2 § 8.

55 Schneyer no. 110 (Matthew), B f. 117va: “Hec autem scientia est excellentissima super omnes humanas scientias, et hoc ratione subiecti [...] Subiectum autem huius scientie est nobilissimum, id est homo, qui secundum omnes philosophos et theologos nobilitate nature creaturas cunctas corporales excedit.”

164 the highest of all other corporeal ends. 56 Again, these passages are more restrained in the versions of these speeches found in John’s sermon collection. In the first, John calls medicine “excellent among many sciences” rather than “the most excellent,” and its subject “very noble” rather than “the noblest.” 57 In the second, the words “and the highest” have been expunged. From all appearances, John or whoever compiled this collection saw a need to rein in his most extravagant praises of medical science.

Both versions of the principium display a very positive attitude towards doctors as well as medicine. Both take as their theme Ecclus. 38:3-4, “The discipline of the physician shall exalt his head, and in the sight of great men he will be praised. The Most High created medicines from the earth, and a prudent man will not abhor them.” 58 These verses are drawn from a longer biblical passage beginning with a directive to “honour the physician on account of his necessity, for the Most High created him” 59 Theological commentaries on this passage typically proposed a spiritual reading in addition to or instead of the literal one, emphasizing the superiority of spiritual physicians to corporeal ones. 60 However, John takes a resolutely literal approach; as discussed in the previous chapter, he even suggests that the physician’s “exaltation” could refer to the temporal rewards that are justly owed to men of learning. 61 In wrapping up both versions of the principium , John returns to the last part of his biblical theme, observing that it is well said that a prudent man does not abhor medicine. Continuing with the theme of prudence, he cites Prov. 11:12, “a prudent man will keep silent”, glossing it in B, “by obeying the physician in all

56 Schneyer no. 111 (Nicholas), B f. 118ra: “Finis autem medicinalis scientie ut est practica est utilimus et ultimus inter omnes alios fines corporales, scilicet sanitas humani corporis.”

57 Schneyer no. 110 (Matthew), A f. 73vb-74ra: “Hec autem scientia est excellens inter multas scientias, et hoc ratione subiecti [...] Subiectum autem huius scientie est multum nobile, id est homo, qui secundum omnes philosophos et theologos in nobilitate nature creaturas cunctas corporales excedit.”

58 Ecclus. 38:3-4: Disciplina medici exaltabit capud illius, et in conspectu magnatorum collaudabitur. Altissimus creavit de terra medicinam, et vir prudens non aborrebit illam.

59 Ecclus. 38:1: Honora medicum propter necessitatem: etenim illum creavit Altissimus .

60 On the Glossa Ordinaria and other theological exegesis of Ecclesiasticus 38, see Ziegler, Medicine and Religion , 230-5.

61 See above, Chapter 1, section 7.

165 things.” 62 In A, the closing argument for obeying the physician is even stronger: John glosses vir prudens tacebit with “namely, by not contradicting the physician, but obeying him as an agent of God.” 63 In both versions, he rounds out the conclusion by returning to the claim that medicine was created by God, eliding it into a closing prayer.

Who were the doctors that John was encouraging his audience to obey as divine agents? Friars in need of medical care could be treated by their convent’s infirmarius or frater medicus , which were distinct offices, with the latter referring especially to friars who had studied and practiced medicine before joining the Dominicans, and whose skills were put to use by their order. 64 Over the course of the fourteenth century, Dominicans increasingly sought medical assistance from secular physicians, often those associated with the local university when one was available, as it was in Naples. 65 Dominican normative sources, such as Humbert of Romans’ commentary on the

Rule of St. Augustine, stressed the need for friars to submit to the authority of their physicians. 66 Obedience was of course a key virtue for friars, as for other religious, and in a number of his sermons John draws attention to its value in fostering humility and combatting sinful desires for honour. 67 Doctors, either fellow friars or external physicians, were just one of several groups to whose authority friars were supposed to practice submitting.

John’s striking description of the physician as an agent of God is reminiscent of the way he describes prelates in some of his other sermons. 68 There are some similarities between the roles:

62 Schneyer no. 112, B f. 119ra, chapter appendix, § 15.

63 Schneyer no. 112, A f. 76vb, chapter appendix, § 10.

64 Montford, Health, Sickness, Medicine and the Friars , 65-133.

65 Montford, Health, Sickness, Medicine and the Friars , 133-162.

66 Montford, Health, Sickness, Medicine and the Friars , 137-9.

67 E.g. Schneyer no. 74 (a visitation sermon for the third Sunday after Trinity), A f. 47rb-va: “Quantum ad primum est sciendum quod humiliare se est actus multum virtuosus, quia humilitas est custos omnium virtutum [...|...] Humiliant autem se subditi sub potenti manu dei cum se submittunt potestati et auctoritati sui prelati, qui gerit vices dei, ei obediendo, quia obedire est actus humilitatis,” and Schneyer no. 60, appendix to Chapter 5, § 7.

68 For example, in a number of the visitation sermons (e.g. Schneyer nos. 61, 64, 70, 70a, 78, 82, 83) John speaks of himself as a vicar of Christ ( vicarius Christi ), and in Schneyer 89 (for the election of diffinitors), he says that any ecclesiastical judge needs to be a vicar of God: A f. 57vb: “Sed omnis iudex ecclesiasticus secundum quod

166 one uses God-given powers to enhance others’ physical health; the other to enhance their spiritual health. Indeed, as will be discussed below, John employs medical metaphors in almost all of his visitation sermons, likening the visiting prelate to a doctor checking up on his patients and dispensing medicine in the form of penance. 69 There too, he stresses the need for obedience, as well as honesty when it comes to disclosing the spiritual illness of sin. 70 These parallels between the offices of prelates and physicians may go some way towards explaining John’s exceptionally high praise for medicine. But its utility was also doubtless a contributing factor.

3.3 Medicine’s utility for theologians

If John was indeed teaching medicine to Dominican friars in Naples, it was almost certainly medical theory. At the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Augustinian theologian (and Archbishop of Naples) James of Viterbo, responding to a quodlibetal question about whether medicine would have been necessary if man had not sinned, argued that medicine is useful today for perfecting the intellect as well as for preserving health, and would have been required for man’s intellectual perfection even prior to the Fall. 71 In the later Middle Ages, medicine was

huiusmodi gerit vices dei. Ergo diffinitor capituli provincialis ad quem spectat diffinire et iudicare de omnibus fratribus et factis totius provincie vice dei tanquam dei vicarius debet esse amicus dei.”

69 A concise example in the first principal part of Schneyer no. 70 (a visitation sermon for a Sunday within the octaves of Easter) reads, A f. 44va: “Quantum ad primum est sciendum quod medicus corporalis venit ad infirmum ut sciat eius morbum per dictum suum et aliorum circumstancium, et per signa exteriora, scilicet urinam, pulsum, colorem, et huiusmodi. Sic et medicus spiritualis, id est prelatus, debet personaliter venire ad collegium sibi subditum, ut predicta personarum collegii et per mores extrinsecos eorundem possit scire spiritualem morbum, id est peccatum.” Variations on this analogy will be discussed in greater detail in the section on John’s visitation sermons in Chapter 5.

70 For instance, Schneyer no. 66 (a visitation sermon for the first Sunday after the octaves of Epiphany), which concentrates on obedience throughout, contains the following passage, A f. 42va-b: “Quantum autem ad quartum est sciendum quod salus anime est magis sollicite procuranda quam salus corporis. Sed infirmus prudens propter acquirendam salutem corporis et periculum mortis vitandi absque omni dilatione facit dietam et sumit medicinam a perito medico ordinatam. Ergo et prudens subditus propter salutem anime sue procurandam et propter vitandum periculum mortis culpe et gehenne debet absque omni dilatione prelato suo celeriter obedire faciendo abstinentias et alias penitentias, que sunt quedam anime medicine secundum etiam Philosophum in secundo Ethicorum .”

71 James of Viterbo, Quodl. IV.18, “Utrum, si homo non peccasset, utilis fuisset consideratio medicorum, et utrum indiguisset adminiculo artis medicinae,” ed. Eelcko Ypma, in Jacobi de Viterbio O.E.S.A. disputatio quarta de quolibet (Würzburg: Augustinus-Verlag, 1975), 63-6. For discussion, see Robert, “Médicine et théologie,” 325; Joseph Ziegler, “Medicine and Immortality in the Terrestrial Paradise,” in Religion and Medicine in the Middle Ages (Woodbridge: York Medieval Press, 2001), 201-42, at 201-2.

167 simply “part of the general knowledge of learned men.” 72 This was especially true among mendicant friars; as Angela Montford points out, “[e]ducation was central to Dominican life and Dominican theologians valued the acquisition of a certain amount of theoretical medical knowledge, along with astrology and astronomy, as a vehicle to improve their preaching and the cure of souls.” 73 The next few sections of this chapter contain some examples of medical questions from John’s quodlibets that likely arose from the study of standard Dominican theological texts such as Peter Lombard’s Sentences and Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae , and some examples of his sermons that employ medical analogies on similar topics.

Food, radical moisture, and the truth of human nature

Questions about digestion and nutrition are scattered throughout John’s quodlibets, many of which bear a strong resemblance to questions frequently found in Sentences commentaries. By the early fourteenth century, questions about how the human body digests food – whether it even incorporates anything at all – were a traditional part of commentaries on the Sentences.74 The standard problem arose from Book 2, d. 30, c. 15, where, in a discussion of the transmission of original sin, Lombard asserts that food is not incorporated into what he calls the truth of human nature ( veritas humanae naturae ). Rather, he argues that the whole human substance comes from Adam, and that nothing external is incorporated into it. Lombard seems to regard all human growth as a kind of miracle, likening it to the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib, or the miracle of the loaves and fishes. He concedes that food does enter into flesh and blood, but claims that these are ultimately superfluous to human nature, since all that will be resurrected in the future is the truth of human nature that has been passed down from Adam and Eve. Food is not truly incorporated into the human body; rather, the truth of human nature is entirely inherited from Adam and grows through self-multiplication. In accounting for human growth and nutrition, two

72 Iona McCleery, “Saintly physician, diabolical doctor, medieval saint: exploring the reputation of Gil de Santarem in Medieval and renaissance Portugal,” Portuguese Studies 21 (2005): 112-25, at 120.

73 Montford, “Dangers and Disorders,” 172.

74 Philip Lyndon Reynolds, Food and the Body: Some Peculiar Questions in High Medieval Theology (Leiden: Brill, 1999); Joseph Ziegler, “ Ut dicunt medici : Medical Knowledge and Theological Debates in the Second Half of the Thirteenth Century,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 73.2 (1999): 208-37, esp. 211-28.

168 key elements of Christian doctrine were thus at stake: the transmission of original sin and the resurrection of the body.

Unsurprisingly, many commentators on Lombard were puzzled by his account of human growth and nutrition. The question “Whether food is incorporated into the truth of human nature” became a standard part of Sentences commentaries, and also appeared in other theological genres such as disputed questions and quodlibets. By the end of the thirteenth century, most theologians rejected Lombard’s view entirely, or at least in part. In the thirteenth question of his second quodlibet, John addresses precisely this question, and summarizes some of the key views on the subject in the course of his response. 75 He presents two anonymous opinions which he says he does not believe to be true. The first is more or less that of Peter Lombard, which Philip Lyndon Reynolds terms “physical traducianism”: when one man begets another, part of his matter detaches from him and is informed with a soul, and this matter is multiplied in itself, without the addition of any other matter. 76 According to this theory, all of the matter of all human beings was once a part of Adam, the first man. Food is taken into the body only as fuel for the body’s natural heat, acting as a sort of buffer, so that the heat will consume the food and not the matter that is essential to the human being. 77

75 Quodl. II.13, N f. 35va-36va; T f. 13va-14rb: “Utrum alimentum convertatur in veritatem nutriti, et specialiter hominis.” John’s contribution to this debate has perhaps been overlooked because Glorieux transcribed the title of Quodl. II.13 as “Utrum alimentum convertatur in virtutem nutriti et specialiter hominis” [emphasis mine]. Subsequent scholars have accepted this reading; Peter Biller, in “John of Naples, Quodlibets and Medieval Theological Concern with the Body,” translates the question title as “Whether food is converted into the strength of the [one who is] fed, and specially [into the strength] of man.”) However, the discussion of truth in the first part of the question indicates that the correct reading is ‘veritatem ’ and not ‘ virtutem. ’ The scribe in this section of N frequently writes ‘ virtutem ’ instead of ‘ veritatem ’, but the Tortosa manuscript clearly has “ veritatem ” in the title of this question.

76 Reynolds, Food and the Body , 6.

77 Quodl. II.13, N f. 35vb; T f. 13va: “...circa hanc questionem sunt due opiniones quas veras non credo. Prima est que ponit quod pars materie hominis generati cum generat ab eo deciditur et anima informatur, que tandem multiplicatur in se ipsa absque additione alterius materie, sic quod secundum istam opinionem tota materia omnium hominum fuit sub forma primi hominis, nec alicuius cibi materia de novo incipit esse sub forma cibati, sed cibus solum assumitur ut fomentum caloris naturalis, scilicet ad hoc, quod calor naturalis cibum consumens non consumat materiam [N: naturam] que informatur forma nutriti, sicut plumbum adiungitur argento cum in fornace prohicitur ad hoc, quod plumbum et non argentum ab igne consumatur.”

169

The second opinion that John presents aligns with the position of Bonaventure, which Reynolds calls the “mixed theory.” According to this theory, the offspring does not get its matter from the father; rather, in the first instance the child’s soul is united to matter that is distinct from that of the parent. Since there is not enough of this matter to make a full-grown person, other matter has to be brought in to allow for growth, and this is done through the conversion of food into flesh. But the matter that is brought in through food pertains to human nature only in a secondary way. The matter to which the soul is first united is what pertains principally to human nature. There are thus two sorts of matter in the human body, which are more and less integral to the human being. 78

John rejects each of these views comprehensively, attacking them individually, and then both at once. In an unusually didactic structure, he also lists four differences between the first two positions. After these lengthy rebuttals, very little space is granted to the third, correct opinion. John states that food is in fact truly converted into the truth of the nature of the person who eats it, insofar as the food’s matter is stripped of its form by the power of the body’s natural heat and the vegetable soul, and informed instead with the soul of the person who eats it. When food is perfectly converted and assimilated to the body of the person who eats it, its matter is in no way distinct from the matter of the person’s body; rather, the two are completely united. 79 This opinion is more or less that of Thomas Aquinas. 80 John seems to have also relied on Aquinas for

78 Quodl. II.13, N f. 36ra; T f. 13vb: “Alia opinio est que ponit quod anima prolis a principio unitur alteri materie a materia que est sub forma generantis, et talis materia cui primo unitur hec anima principaliter pertinet ad humanam naturam. Sed quia huius materia non sufficit ad debitam hominis quantitatem, idcirco secundum hanc opinionem requiritur quod adveniat aliqua alia materia per conversionem alimenti in substantiam nutriti, quantum sufficit ad debitum augmentum, et hanc materiam dicunt secundario pertinere ad naturam nutriti, quia non requiritur ad primum esse eius, sed ad quantitatem tantum.”

79 Quodl. II.13, N f. 36va; T f. 14rb: “Hiis ergo opinionibus dimissis, dicendum quod alimentum convertitur vere in veritatem nature nutriti, inquantum materia alimenti, expoliata forma alimenti virtute caloris naturalis et anime vegetalis, vere informatur anima nutriti, et per consequens efficitur totaliter unum cum eius materia, sic quod post conversionem et assimilationem perfectam cibi ad cibatum, in nullo sunt distincte et due materie.”

80 Aquinas discusses this question in Super Sent. Bk. 2, d. 30, q. 2, a. 1, Summa Theologiae Iª q. 119 a. 1, and Quodl. VIII.3. A thorough analysis of his view can be found in Reynolds, Food and the Body , ch. 13.

170 at least some of his information about the other opinions, since several lines from his presentation of the second opinion are almost word-for-word for Aquinas’s in the Summa .81

In his rejection of the second position in Quodl. II.13, John abruptly introduces the terms humidum radicale and humidum nutrimentale . The concept of a “radical moisture” that is essential for life and slowly consumed by the body’s natural heat had become increasingly important for European physicians and philosophers during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, following the translation of Avicenna’s Canon of Medicine into Latin. 82 The terms humidum radicale and humidum nutrimentale appear to have been introduced by Peter of Spain in his commentary on Aristotle’s De longitudine et brevitate vitae .83 Albertus Magnus played an important role in introducing the terms into theological discourse, and by the late thirteenth century, the concept was commonly employed by theologians in Sentences commentaries. 84 In Quodl. II.13, John identifies the matter that is passed on from the parents, according to the second opinion, as humidum radicale , and the matter that comes from food as humidum nutrimentale . He argues that this opinion destroys the animal’s power for nutrition, since nutrition requires something to be lost and replaced with something else, but according to this opinion the humidum radicale is not lost and cannot be replaced with humidum nutrimentale , which even occupies a different part of the body. 85

81 Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Iª q. 119 a. 1 (in the course of presenting the second opinion): “ Sed quia huius modi materia non sufficit ad quantitatem debitam, requiritur ut adveniat alia materia per conversionem alimenti in substantiam nutriti, quantum sufficiat ad debitum augmentum. Et hanc materiam dicunt secundario pertinere ad veritatem humanae naturae, quia non requiritur ad primum esse individui, sed ad quantitatem eius.” [emphasis mine]. Cf. the passage in John’s quodlibet, quoted in n. 78 above.

82 Michael McVaugh, “The ‘Humidum Radicale’ in Thirteenth-Century Medicine,” Traditio 30 (1974): 259-83.

83 Michael Dunne, “‘The causes of the length and brevity of life call for investigation’: Aristotle’s De longitudine et brevitate vitae in the 13 th and 14 th Century Commentaries,” in Vita longa. Vecchiaia e durata della vita nella tradizione medica e aristotelica antica e medievale: atti del convegno internazionale, Torino, 13-14 giugno 2008 , ed. Chiara Crisciani, Luciana Repici, and Pietro B. Rossi (Florence: SISMEL edizioni del Galluzzo, 2009), 121-47, at 132-3.

84 Ziegler, “ Ut dicunt medici ,” 218-19.

85 Quodl. II.13, N f. 36ra-b; T f. 14ra: “Sed nec hec opinio stare potest propter tria [...|N|...] Secundo quia secundum hanc opinionem, quamvis salvetur uirtus generativa animalis, tamen destruitur virtus nutritiva et augmentativa. Nichil enim nutritur proprie nisi cuius aliquid deperditur et aliquid loco eius restauratur. Sed secundum hanc opinionem humidum radicale, cui scilicet primo anima unitur, in nullo vivente animali deperditur et per aliud humidum nutrimentale restauratur; immo ab ipso distinguitur etiam situ. Tale etiam humidum non augetur proprie,

171

In Quodl. II.13, John discusses radical moisture only when refuting opinions that he holds to be incorrect. However, his own views on what this moisture was and the role it played in the human body can be found in other quodlibetal questions. For example, a question from his fifth quodlibet considers whether humidum radicale can be restored. 86 In responding, John begins by discussing the three ways in which radical moisture can be distinguished from non-radical moisture. According to one definition, humidum radicale is the part of the body that is truly informed with the form of the living creature, or which is actually a part of it, like flesh and bone, whereas humidum nutrimentale refers to parts of the body that are not fully integrated, like humours that come from food that has not yet been fully digested. According to this definition, the question of whether humidum radicale can be restored can be reformulated as “whether food can be truly converted into the nature of the living creature” – almost the same as the question that was discussed in Quodl. II.13. 87 According to the second definition, humidum radicale and humidum nutrimentale identify principal and less-principal parts of the body: humidum radicale means a member such as a hand or foot; humidum non radicale or nutrimentale means something like a bit of flesh, which does not constitute a principal part of the body. According to this definition, asking whether humidum radicale can be restored is the same as asking whether a hand or foot that has been lost in some way can be restored. However, John argues that this is a bad definition, and was not what the questioner meant anyway. 88

The third way of distinguishing humidum radicale and humidum nutrimentale , which John says is more in keeping with the intention of the person who raised the question, is that humidum radicale is the moisture that comes from one’s parents, whereas humidum nutrimentale comes from food. According to this definition, the question can be reformulated as the very same question that was asked in Quodl. II.13: “whether food can truly be converted into the truth of the nature of the living creature.” If the humidum radicale that comes from the parents cannot be

quia illud proprie augetur cuius augetur quelibet pars, ut probatur primo De generatione. Non autem dicitur aliquid proprie augeri cui fit additio alicuius alterius post additionem ab eo distincti, ergo etc.”

86 Quodl. V.10, N f. 74ra-va; T f. 49rb-vb: “Utrum humidum radicale possit restaurari.” For a transcription, see the appendix to this chapter.

87 Quodl. V.10, N f. 74ra; T f. 49va, chapter appendix, § 4-5.

88 Quodl. V.10, N f. 74ra; T f. 49va, chapter appendix, § 6.

172 restored, food cannot truly be converted into the truth of the nature of the living creature; if nutrition does restore it, food must actually be converted into the truth of the creature’s nature. 89

In response to the main question, John argues that humidum radicale and humidum nutrimentale are indistinguishable after nutrition has taken place, and since everyone agrees that humidum nutrimentale is restored, humidum radicale must be too. 90 One of his arguments in support of this position makes direct reference to the contentious passage of Peter Lombard’s Sentences , which he says is widely disproved. The common opinion, which accords with Aristotle, is that the matter of the humidum radicale that comes from the parents belonged to food before it was incorporated into the parent’s bodies; it is not the case that the same matter was originally part of the first man. 91

Food brings new matter into the body, and thereby contributes to the replenishment of humidum radicale , which is continuously consumed by the body’s natural heat. However, John adds that humidum radicale in this sense cannot be perfectly restored, at least with respect to its ability to convert food. 92 It is obvious that the human being, like any animal, gradually loses its ability to convert food over the course of its lifetime. At the beginning of an animal’s life, its power of conversion is so strong that it is able to take in enough food for both nourishment and growth. After a while, the animal stops growing because it is only able to take in enough food to sustain itself through nutrition. When it grows old, it is not even able to do this sufficiently, which is why people and other animals grow thinner and weaker in old age. Death occurs when the body is finally unable to assimilate any food at all. 93 Following Aristotle, John likens the body to wine that loses its strength when it is diluted with water. Over time, the incorporation of food weakens

89 Quodl. V.10, N f. 74ra; T f. 49va, chapter appendix, § 7.

90 Quodl. V.10, N f. 74ra-b; T f. 49va, chapter appendix, § 8; 11.

91 Quodl. V.10, N f. 74rb; T f. 49vb, chapter appendix, § 16.

92 Quodl. V.10, N f. 74rb; T f. 49va-b, chapter appendix, § 17.

93 Quodl. V.10, N f. 74rb; T f. 49vb, chapter appendix, § 17.

173 and adulterates the body so that it is eventually completely inhospitable to the soul. 94 Food sustains the body, but also contributes to its eventual demise.

It is also in the context of death that John makes reference to humidum radicale in a third question, Quodl. III.22, which asks whether a man can live forever.95 There, John gives a fuller account of death as the result of the body being rendered inhospitable to the soul. He states that since it is against the soul’s natural appetite to be separated from the body, this must only occur if the body somehow becomes unfit for the soul. This can happen in three ways: through violence, like the damage done by a sword; through the action of the body’s natural heat on the humidum radicale , like in hunger and thirst; or through the weakening of the body’s natural powers, like in old age. 96 Before the Fall, the bodies of Adam and Eve were protected from all three of these misfortunes by God’s power. Divine providence protected them against accidents and provided them with human reason, which allowed them to avoid dangers. Food and drink granted protection against the action of the body’s natural heat on its humidum radicale . And the tree of life protected against weakening of the body’s natural powers, although it did not confer immortality; Adam and Eve would have had to keep eating from it periodically in order to remain alive.97 In this question, John takes it as an established biological fact that the

94 Quodl. V.10, N f. 74rb-va; T f. 49vb, chapter appendix, § 19.

95 Quodl. III.22, N f. 51rb-vb; T f. 27vb-28rb: “Utrum homo possit perpetuari in vita.”

96 Quodl. III.22, N f. 51rb-va; T f. 27vb: “...cum anima naturaliter appetat esse in corpore disposito ad ipsam, utpote eius forma et hominis pars, et per consequens contra appetitum eius naturalem sit separari a corpore, numquam a corpore separatur nisi propter aliquam indispositionem ipsius corporis contrariam naturali dispositioni quam anima requirit in corpore. Cum igitur hominis coruptio consistat in separatione anime a corpore, dicere possumus quod generalis causa coruptionis hominis est alteratio corporis humani a naturali et propria dispositione in innaturalem, propter quam redditur inhabile ad hoc, quod in eo sit anima. Hec autem indispositio potest causari tripliciter, scilicet vel ab aliquo lesivo exterius, ut a ferro dividente continuum vel quocumque |N| corpus inordinate alterante, vel secundo propter actionem caloris naturalis in humidum radicale, ut in fame et siti, vel tertio propter debilitationem naturalis virtutis, ut in senio.”

97 Quodl. III.22, N f. 51va; T f. 27vb: “Hec autem tres indispositiones generaliter quidem fuissent prohibite inesse humano corpori per virtutem anime supernaturalem sibi a deo collatam per quam potuisset omnem indispositionem et alterationem talem ab humano corpore impedire. Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus in libro De questionibus novi et veteris testamenti. Specialiter autem preservatum fuisset ab omni exteriori lesivo, partim quidem per divinam providentiam, que sic ipsum tuebatur ut nihil tale coruptionem ei ex improviso occurreret; partim vero per humanam rationem, per quam vitasset quecumque lesiva talia et non incurisset. Contra autem coruptionem que est per actionem caloris naturalis in humidum, sicut est in fame et siti, subvenisset homo sibi per cibum et potum. Contra autem coruptionem que est per debilitationem virtutis naturalis, sicut apparet in senio, subventum fuisset homini per lignum vite.”

174 consumption of food preserves the body’s humidum radicale from being consumed by its natural heat, although it is not clear here whether he thinks that food is replenishing the humidum radicale , as in the view he espouses in Quodl. V.10, or whether he thinks that the food is consumed instead of the humidum radicale , as in the second view presented and rejected in Quodl. II.13.

John’s use of the term humidum radicale in these questions should not be taken as a sign of specialized medical knowledge. By the time he was writing, theologians had been using the concept for nearly a century to explain human growth, aging, and the digestion of food. Indeed, theologians’ misuse of the concept of humidum radicale seems to have prompted the medical professor Arnau of Villanova to compose a Libellus de humidum radicali around the beginning of the fourteenth century. 98 One of the questions Arnau discusses is close to the one raised in John’s Quodl. V.10: Can humidum radicale be restored through nutrition? John’s conclusion is basically the same as the one Arnau puts forth in his Libellus , perhaps indicating that he was slightly more in touch with contemporary medical theories than some of his fellow masters of theology.

Even more examples of questions relating to matters of digestion and nutrition could be cited from John’s quodlibets. Quodl. I.9, for instance, concerns whether a food’s qualities can remain in the body of someone who is nourished by it; John argues that the same quality can remain in species, but not in number. 99 The sed contra for this brief question cites two sayings attributed to Galen: first, that a woman who eats a poisonous herb becomes poisonous herself, and second, that men acquire different complexions from the different foods they eat. 100 John’s response,

98 McVaugh, “The ‘humidum radicale,’” 280-3.

99 Quodl. I.9, T f. 3va: “Utrum qualitas nutrimenti maneat in nutrito. [...] Nam primum ostendit quod qualitas nutrimenti non eadem numero maneat in nutrito; secundum autem quod maneat eadem specie.”

100 Quodl. I.9, T f. 3va: “Sed contra est dictum Galieni de muliere nutrita de quadam erba venenosa, que mulier facta est venenosa per talem nutritionem quod non videtur posse verificari nisi qualitas nutrimenti veneni remansisset in muliere nutrita. Preterea, Galienus dicit quod secundum diversitatem ciborum homines diversas complexiones contrahunt, scilicet melanchoniam etc., quod non videtur esse nisi qualitas cibi maneat in cibato.” The story of the so-called venemous virgin, or poison maiden, had ancient Greek (pre-Galenic) roots. John probably encountered it via the popular pseudo-Aristotelian Secretum Secretorum , or via a Latin medical writer such as Peter of Spain, who cited Avicenna’s example of a girl nourished on a poison who becomes poisonous herself as part of his discussion of whether poison can nourish the human body in his commentary on the Dietarum universalium and

175 however, only makes reference to Aristotle and sense experience; he claims that we see that those who are nourished always develop worse and weaker complexions over time, which must be due to some quality of the food they eat. 101 Changing complexions come up again in Quodl. IX.16, where John defines complexion as the arrangement of the elements, humours, and qualities in the human body, and argues that this can and does change. 102 Another question from the same quodlibet asks whether the generative and nutritive powers are the same, echoing some of the problems discussed above.103 For John, like most theologians of his day, these problems typically arose out of commentaries on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, and they were more concerned with the doctrines of original sin and the resurrection than with how human bodies work in this life.

Applying medical theories to theological doctrines: the resurrection, the Eucharist, and the blood of Christ

Similar issues are responsible for the bizarre question about cannibalism that appears just prior to the question on complexion in John’s ninth quodlibet: whether the human flesh eaten by a cannibal will be ressurected to the body of the man who was eaten, or the one who ate it. 104 This was actually an ancient problem stemming from objections to the doctrine of the resurrection, and John responds by extensively quoting Augustine’s response to the question from De civitate dei 22.20. 105 The same problem appears in the initial argument of Quodl. II.13, which posits that

Dietarum Particularium of Ishaq al-Israeli. See Frederick W. Gibbs, Poison, Medicine, and Disease in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe (New York: Routledge, 2019), 80; 164-8.

101 Quodl. I.9, T f. 3va: “Secundo, hoc apparet ex eo quod videtur ad sensum. Videmus enim nutritum semper in processum temporis peioris et debilioris complexionis esse, quod non esset nisi a nutrimento immutaretur a sua propria qualitate.”

102 Quodl. IX.16, T f. 146vb-147ra: “Utrum homo possit mutari de una complexione in aliam. [...] Respondeo, supposito significatio vocabuli, quod nomine complexionis intelligitur compositio quatuor elementorum, scilicet determinata proportionem, et quatuor humorum, ex quibus | componitur corpus hominis, scilicet sanguinis, melancolie, colore, et fleumatis, et quatuor qualitatum, dicendum quod homo potest mutari et mutatur de facto de una complexione in aliam.”

103 Quodl. IX.19, T f. 147rb-vb: “Utrum potentie generativa et nutritiva sint eadem.”

104 Quodl. IX.15, T f. 146vb: “Utrum materia nutriti de carnibus hominis resurgat in homine nutrito vel in illo cuius fuerunt carnes.”

105 On the history of this debate, see Caroline Walker Bynum, “Material Continuity, Personal Survival, and the Resurrection of the Body: A Scholastic Discussion in its Medieval and Modern Contexts,” History of Religions 30.1

176 food cannot be converted into the truth of the nature of the human being because if this were so, the flesh that was eaten by a cannibal would be resurrected to the cannibal and not his victims, and so it would be impossible for the victims to be resurrected, since there would not be any other matter to form their bodies. 106 John responds that, “as is commonly said,” the matter of a man who had dined exclusively on human flesh would be resurrected to the bodies of the people whom he ate, because the matter belonged more principally to them, at least for a time. For the cannibal, God could supply some matter from elsewhere, and this would not destroy his numerical unity, just as matter comes and goes from a man’s body throughout his life, and he remains the same man, since he is always governed by the same form. 107 (The problem of how a cannibal would end up meriting resurrection in the first place is left unexplored.)

In Quodl. VII.6, John discusses the even stranger problem of the child of a cannibal, who also only eats human flesh. In this, he was perhaps inspired by Aquinas, who in multiple works brought up the example of a man who only ate human flesh – or who only ate embryos! – who begets a child with semen derived from the flesh of other human beings. 108 John, unusually, considers a female cannibal. He argues that if such a woman had a child who consumed nothing but human flesh, then in the resurrection both the matter supplied by the mother and the matter

(1990): 51-85; Bynum, The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 200-1336 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995).

106 Quodl. II.13, N f. 35va; T f. 13va: “Et primo videtur quod non. Supponamus enim quod aliquis homo fuerit nutritus de carnibus hominum. Si tales carnes fuissent converse in naturam nutriti, videtur quod oportet dicere quod materia talium carnium in resurrectione esset sub forma nutriti seu in homini nutrito, et per consequens homines quorum carnes fuissent cum tali materia non possent resurgere, sed ut videtur non est dare aliam materiam cum qua resurgerent, ergo videtur quod resurrectio generalis omnium salvari non possit si nutrimentum in nutriti naturam convertitur. Sed illud est impossibile, ergo etc.”

107 Quodl. II.13, N f. 36va; T f. 14rb: “Ad argumentum factum in oppositum, dicendum sicut communiter dicitur quod materia que fuit sub forma talis hominis qui semper cibatus fuit de hominum carnibus resurget sub formis illorum quorum carnes fuerunt, sub quibus scilicet formis hec materia prius fuit, propter quod ad veritatem nature illorum videtur principalius, saltim tempore, pertinere. In illo autem sic cibato, erit aliqua alia materia aliunde sumpta virtute dei, per quam erit utilis omnium resurrectio. Nec propter talem materiam impeditur hic homo quod non sit idem numero, quia cum materia una sit omnium generabilium et coruptibilium secundum essentiam suam, nec distinctionem aliquam habeat nisi a forma, si est eadem forma simpliciter debet iudicari eadem materia. Unde, secundum Philosophum secundo De generatione, caro secundum materiam advenit et recedit continue, seu fluit et refluit, quia tamen manet eadem materia secundum speciem, id est secundum formam substantialem, idem homo numero simpliciter per totam vitam esse dicitur.” In both manuscripts, a marginal annotation beside this passage instructs the reader to see more on this problem in Quodl. IX.15.

108 Aquinas, Super Sent. IV, d. 44, q. 1, a. 2, q a 4, and Summa Contra Gentiles IV.81. For discussion of these passages, see Reynolds, Food and the Body , 391-5.

177 that came from the food that the child ate would end up with the bodies of the people that he and his mother ate, and his body would be made of some other matter. 109 The quodlibetal question is actually about individuation, and John employs this example to show, as Aquinas had argued, that although the matter might be changed, the same individual can remain. 110 These strange problems draw some of the implications of contemporary theories of digestion to their limits, applying them to the Christian doctrine of the bodily resurrection.

Theories of nutrition and digestion also had relevance for thinking about the Eucharist. John’s Quodl. X.16 concerns whether a consecrated host can nourish. 111 The sed contra claims that people who eat such hosts on a daily basis will live. 112 The questioner may have had in mind the numerous examples of saintly women (and occasionally men) who were said to have subsisted on nothing but the Eucharist. 113 John prefaces his response with a discussion of the things that are required in order for food to nourish, familiar from his earlier discussions of food and nutrition: the natural heat of the one who has nourished must change and corrupt the food; new flesh must be generated; and the food must act in the body of the one who is nourished. 114 He

109 Quodl. VII.6, edited in Prospero Stella, “Zwei unedierte Artikel”; T f. 96v: “...si aliqua mulier de carnibus humanis nutriretur, sic quod materia fetus fuisset sub forma substantiali alicuius hominis et cari de talis prolis continue de humanis carnibus vesceretur, constat quod in resurrectione finale materia talis prolis esset sub formis hominum illorum de quorum carnibus talis proles nutrita fuisset, et mater eius pasca, et per consequens sub forma talis prolis esset alia materia isto modo ab ei que prius fuit sub eadem forma, et tamen talis esset idem numero homo qui fuit propter unitatem materialem forme substantialis et propter unitatem numeralem materie personem.”

110 For more on John’s theory of individuation, see Martin Pickavé, “The Controversy over the Problem of Individuation in Quodlibeta (1277-ca. 1320): A Forest Map,” in Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages , vol. 2, 17-79, at 75-8.

111 Quodl. X.16, N f. 20ra-21ra; T f. 155vb-156va: “Utrum hostia consecrata comesta possit nutrire.”

112 Quodl. X.16, N f. 20ra; T f. 156ra: “Sed contra, quia comedens tales hostias cotidie viveret. Ergo nutriretur, et non nisi de talibus hostiis. Ergo talis hostia nutrit.”

113 Caroline Walker Bynum, “Fast, Feast, and Flesh: The Religious Significance of Food to Medieval Women,” Representations 11 (1985): 1-25, at 3, counts at least thirty women and two men between late antiquity and the fifteenth century “who were reputed to eat nothing at all except the eucharist.”

114 Quodl. X.16, N f. 20ra-b; T f. 156ra: “Respondeo, ad evidentiam huius questionis est sciendum primo quod ad hoc, quod aliquis cibus vel potus nutriat, quatuor requiruntur, scilicet quod alteretur a calore naturali nutriti alteratione que magis facta abicit a substantia; et quod corrumpatur, quia secundum Augustinum in libro De vera religione ‘alimenta carnis corrupta in fabricam membrorum migrant’; et tertio quod caro nutriti ex eo generetur, quia nutritio non est sine aliquali generatione, ut patet in secundo De anima et in primo De generatione ; et quarto quod agat in nutritum, quia quicquid est citra orbem lune patiendo agit, et econverso, cuius signum est in proposito, quia virtus animalis in principio vite est sic fortis quod sufficit ad nutritionem et augmentum, et postea ad nutritionem

178 argues that while the body of Christ cannot undergo such indignities, being impassible, the sacramental species that are also present in the host can nourish thanks to divine power, which, among other things, creates new matter in the person who consumes a consecrated host. 115

Christ’s body, and especially his blood, was also the subject of a series of questions in John’s thirteenth quodlibet, where the concept of the truth of human nature crops up again. In his response to the first question in this series, on whether the blood of Christ was personally united to the word of God, John begins by discussing two sub-questions: first, whether human blood is informed by the rational soul and participates in the truth of human nature, or whether it is informed by some other substantial form; and second, whether the blood of Christ specifically was informed by the rational soul and pertained to the truth of human nature. 116 He notes that there are two opinions about the first question. Some – notably, Thomas Aquinas in his Sentences commentary and the Summa – respond affirmatively, while others say that matter is actually governed by a series of different substantial forms on the way from being converted from food into flesh. The proponents of the second view include most philosophers and doctors, according to John, and he attempts to reinterpret Aquinas’ words in line with this position. 117 In

tantum, et postea nec ad hoc perfecte sufficit, ut patet in senibus, unde tunc homo attenuatur, et tandem de talis virtus nihil potest convertere, ut in decrepitis, et tunc homo deficit et moritur. Et ratio est quia talis virtus per continuam actionem in nutrimentum patitur ab eo et debilitatur et |N| tandem deficit.” A marginal note in T next to the beginning of this passage reads “quere de hoc supra, quodlibet 5 o, questione 9 a” (probably meaning Quodl. V.10, discussed above).

115 Quodl. X.16, N f. 20va; T f. 156rb: “Tertium principaliter declarandum est an ex speciebus sacramentalibus possit aliquid generari, ut caro nutriti, vel vermis, et huiusmodi. Et dicendum sunt duo circa hoc. Et primum est quod naturaliter nihil potest ex talibus speciebus generari [...] Secundum est quod divina virtute potest ex eis generari aliqua substantia.”

116 Quodl. XIII.4, N f. 167ra-b (acephalous, beginning near the start of the second principal part); T f. 292rb-vb, labelled as the first of three “questiones de sanguine Christi”, “Utrum sanguis Christi fuerat unitus personaliter verbo dei”: “Quantum ad primum sciendum est quod de sanguine humano an informetur anima rationali et participat ad veritatem humane nature, vel informetur aliqua alia forma substantiali sunt due opiniones [...] Secundo principaliter inquirendum est an sanguis Christi unitus eius corpi fuerit unitus personaliter verbo dei, et quidem si sanguis informatur anima rationali et spectat ad veritatem humane nature.”

117 Quodl. XIII.4, T f. 292rb: “Quidam dicunt quod informatur anima rationali et pertinet ad veritatem humane nature, cuius opinionem videtur esse sanctus Thome de Aquino in tertia parte Summe , q. 55 a [= q. 54], articulo 3 o, in quo querit utrum corpus Christi resurrexerit integrum, in solutione tertii argumenti, dicit quod sanguis pertinet ad veritatem humane nature, et in scripto super quarto Sententiarum , d. 44 a, articulo 2 o, q. 3 a, in qua querit utrum humores resurgant in corpore, insolutione tertii argumenti, dicit quod quatuor humores predicti perficiuntur ab anima rationli homine. Alii dicunt oppositum. Dicunt enim quod ante perfectam conversionem cibi in cibatum materia transit de forma extrema cibi in formam cetremam cibati per multas formas substantiales mediantes in sibi[?] forme predictorum quatuor humorum et quedam alie post ipsas, quam opinionem communiter tenent

179 responding to the second sub-question, John argues that blood and the other four humours are necessary accidents for human beings, and as a necessary accident, Christ’s blood would have been united to the word of God, even though was not informed by his rational soul.118 Medical theories could therefore be useful for understanding Christ’s humanity as well as ordinary human beings. In short, there are many reasons why John might have wanted to explain the processes of nutrition and digestion to students who were grappling with key theological concepts. If his principium on medicine was indeed the start of a course at the Dominican studium generale in Naples, one might imagine that he would have devoted one or more lectures to these topics.

Death: A warning to doctors, or another theological problem?

Aurélien Robert sees John’s quodlibetal questions on death (Quodl. III.22, IV.7, and V.10) as pointed reminders to physicians that it is impossible to prolong human life forever. 119 This may indeed have been part of his intention, but it would be an overstatement to suggest that John’s responses to these questions were directed exclusively towards physicians. In Quodl. III.22, the question on whether a man can live forever already discussed to a certain extent above, John responds that it is not clear whether this question is about the immortality that can be granted to man supernaturally, as it was to the first man in his prelapsarian state and will be in the

filosophi et medici, secundum quam opinionem possent exponi predictam verba sancti Thome, dicendo quod sanguis spectat in homine ad veritatem humane nature, non quantum ad essentiam hominis aliquid materia eius et forma, sed quantum ad actualem existentiam seu vitam...”

118 Quodl. XIII.4, N f. 167ra; T f. 292va: “...partes etiam accidentales hominis sunt duplices, quia quedam sunt sine quibus homo non potest esse seu vivere, quasi spectantes ad eius esse seu vitam, ut sunt quatuor humores predicti, et quedam sunt sine quibus homo potest esse seu vivere quasi spectantes ad bene esse et ornatum ipsius, ut sunt capilli et unges et huiusmodi. Et sunt predicti quatuor humores et capilli et unges et huiusmodi partes hominis, quia sunt partes corporis humani, non quod est informatum anima rationali, quia totum includit partes suas integrales. Corpus autem humanum informatum anima rationali excludit omnia talia que non sunt informata anima rationali. Sed sunt partes corporis humani, quod est aggregatum ex corpore informato anima rationali, et ex omnibus talibus dicuntur etiam ambe partes predicte partes accidentales et non essentiales, quia non sunt partes essentie hominis, nec eas includunt, quia non informantur anima rationali capilli et ungues, et etiam quatuor humores predicti secundum opinionem secundam. [...] Dei filius univit sibi personaliter totam humanam naturam quantum ad omnes partes hominis, non solum essentiales duplices supradictas, sed etiam quantum ad partes accidentales neccesario requisitas ad esse seu vitam hominis. Sed tales partes accidentales sunt predicti quatuor humores, ut patet ex predictis; ergo tales humores sunt uniti personaliter verbo deo.”

119 Robert, “Médicine et théologie,” 339n171.

180 resurrection, or whether it is about human beings according to their nature in this present life. 120 His confusion may be willful, intended to draw out all the possibilities for discussion. But the result is that over half of his response is dedicated to describing how Adam and Eve were able to sustain their lives in Eden, using the tree of life, and how mankind would still have this ability to live forever if it had not been for original sin (as long as God still willed to grant men eternal life, of course).

In the same question, John also describes how immortality in the final resurrection will differ from life in Eden: human bodies will be incorruptible and impassible, either because the glory of the soul will ‘overflow’ to prevent all change in the body, or because the soul will have such perfect dominion over the body that it will be able to prevent any unnatural change or suffering. Eating from the tree of life will no longer be necessary. Only then does he turn to proving that man cannot live forever in this present life, relying upon Aristotle to show that the human body, being subject to generation and change, and being composed out of contraries, is naturally corruptible. The main point of the question is summed up in the last line of John’s response: it is true that death is a punishment for sin and that it is natural to human beings. 121 Doctors are never mentioned; the only allusion to medicine is the inclusion of “certain remedies” ( quedam medicinalia ) in a list of things that help to preserve human life at present, along with food and drink and the avoidance of external threats. 122 In short, the question is far more concerned with showing the impact of original sin than warning doctors against hubris.

120 Quodl. III.22, N f. 51rb; T f. 27va: “Respondeo, dubium in hac questione quantum ad eius intellectum videtur facere immortalitas que concessa legitur primo homini et que expectatur post resurrectione, et ideo ad questionem istam dicendum est quod aut questio intellegitur de eo quod potest concedi a deo homini supernaturaliter, aut de eo quod contingit homini secundum suam naturam.”

121 Quodl. III.22, N f. 51vb; T f. 28ra-b: “Primo homini supra naturam suam fuit concessum si non peccaret quod posset non mori, ut supra declaratum est, quo peccante illud donum fuit ei subtractum, et remansit homo in puris suis naturalibus, unde utrumque |T| verum est, scilicet quod mors est pena peccati et quod nihilominus est homini naturalis.”

122 Quodl. III.22, N f. 51va; T f. 28ra: “...sicut etiam homo ad presens conservatur in vita principaliter quidem per virtutem naturalem anime dantis esse corpori, et secondario per cibum et potum et quedam medicinalia et fugam exterioris nocivi.”

181

Doctors do make an appearance in a similar question from John’s fourth quodlibet, on whether any death is natural. 123 One of the initial arguments claims that the doctors say that all illnesses and accidents are against nature because they lead to death. 124 To this, John responds that this argument shows only that death is never natural in the sense that it is the end towards which a particular nature tends. 125 All natural things naturally seek or tend towards existence, and since death is the opposite of existence, and natural things cannot tend towards opposites, death can never be natural in this sense. 126 John says that death through old age is more natural than death from sickness or violence, because death through old age is a more necessary and inevitable consequence of corruptible natures; all other kinds of deaths can be avoided, but this one cannot. 127 He does not mention doctors at all in his response to this question, making this a very subtle rebuke if it was directed towards doctors at all.

Similarly, in Quodl. V.10, on whether humidum radicale can be restored, the initial argument is based on the opinion of unspecified medici : according to the doctors, the most natural kind of death occurs because of the total consumption of the radical moisture, in such a way that if this moisture were not consumed, a man would be able to live forever, unless he encountered a violent death. According to this initial argument, this is an impossible consequence – it is impossible for human beings to naturally live forever in the present life – and so the antecedent,

123 Quodl. IV.7, N f. 57ra-va; T f. 33ra-b: “Utrum mors aliqua sit naturalis.”

124 Quodl. IV.7, N f. 57ra; T f. 33ra: “...secundum medicos morbus et omne accidens est contra naturam; nec dicuntur talia contra naturam nisi propter mortem ad quam perducunt. Ergo multo magis mors est contra naturam; nec per consequens est naturalis.”

125 Quodl. IV.7, N f. 57va; T f. 33rb: “Prima enim duo argumenta probant que nulla mors est naturalis tanquam intenta a natura particulari.”

126 Quodl. IV.7, N f. 57rb; T f. 33rb: “Tertia conclusio est quod nulla mors est naturalis tanquam intenta a natura particulari, quia tendentia et inclinatio naturalis, que est nature intentio, non potest esse ad opposita. Sed omnia naturalia naturaliter appetunt esse et in ipso conservari, ut patet secundo De anima , et in principio quarti Methaphysicarum . Unde et in principio Ethicorum dicitur quod omnia bonum appetunt. Prima autem bonitas rei est eius esse. Ipsi autem esse et conservationi opponuntur mors seu coruptio, ergo etc.”

127 Quodl. IV.7, N f. 57rb; T f. 33rb: “Quinta conclusio est quod mors que accidit ex senio est magis naturalis quam illa que accidit ex morbo vel aliquo modo violento, quia illa coruptio que magis neccessio et inevitabiliter vel inseparabiliter consequitur naturam eius quod corumpitur est magis naturalis secundum illam communem regulam, si simpliciter ad simpliciter et magis ad magis. Sed huius est mors que accidit ex senio. Omnis enim alia mors potest evitari, ista excepta. Ergo etc.”

182 namely that radical moisture can be restored, must also be impossible. 128 John’s response to this question does not actually discredit the doctors’ assertion that natural death occurs through consumption of the radical moisture. He argues that radical moisture can be restored, but it is restored only imperfectly, in such a way that human beings gradually lose their ability to digest food, and so eventually die. As in Quodl. IV.7, the doctors alluded to in the initial argument are not brought up again in the response. It thus seems unlikely that these questions were principally intended as a corrective for physicians who were overstepping their bounds, as Robert suggested.

Instead, these questions have much more to do with a long-standing tradition of biblical commentaries and philosophical and theological speculation. As Joseph Ziegler has observed, the notion that Adam and Eve were immortal in Eden was a Christian interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures, and one that thirteenth- and fourteenth-century theologians often tried to explain with reference to contemporary medical theories in their commentaries on the second book of Peter Lombard’s Sentences .129 These kinds of discussions were not restricted to Sentences commentaries; already in the twelfth century, for instance, Hildegard of Bingen had attempted an analysis of Adam’s humours. The prominent Franciscan biblical commentator Nicholas of Lyra, a contemporary of John of Naples, provided a similar explanation to the one found in John’s Quodl. III.22 of the role played by the tree of life in restoring the moisture Adam had lost through the action of natural heat to its former perfectly balanced state. 130

The concept of natural death, discussed in several of John’s quodlibets, could be encountered in both medical and philosophical authorities. Both actually went back to the same source: Aristotle’s tract On Youth, Old Age, Life and Death, and Respiration . Avicenna had expanded upon this text in his Canon of Medicine , and it was also included in the collection of short natural philosophy tracts known as the Parva naturalia , which were made newly accessible in the Latin

128 Quodl. V.10, N f. 74ra; T f. 49rb: “Et primo videtur quod non, quia si humidum radicale posset restaurari, homo posset perpetuari in vita, quia secundum medicos mors maxime naturalis contingit propter consumptionem totalem humidi radicalis, sic quod stante tali humido et non consumpto, homo vivit nisi interim eveniret mors violenta. Sed consequens est impossibile, scilicet homines posse naturaliter in vita presenti perpetuari. Ergo et antecedens etiam est impossibile, scilicet humidum radicale posse restaurari.”

129 Ziegler, “Medicine and Immortality in the Terrestrial Paradise.”

130 Ziegler, “Medicine and Immortality in the Terrestrial Paradise,” 208-9.

183

West by the full translation of William of Moerbeke, completed around 1260-70. 131 The question of whether any death is natural occurred repeatedly in late medieval commentaries on Avicenna’s Canon composed by physicians, including Gentile da Foligno (d. 1348). But it was also a standard question in commentaries on the Parva naturalia written by natural philosophers from around 1300 onward. 132 The title of John’s Quodl. IV.7, “ Utrum mors aliqua sit naturalis ,” corresponds exactly to the title of one of the questions on Aristotle’s De iuventute et senectute composed around 1310 by the Parisian arts master Henricus de Alemannia, as well as a question from the closely-related series of questions on the same text by John of Jandun. 133 The Parva naturalia were part of the curriculum for the first year of studies at a Dominican studium naturarum in the Roman provence at the beginning of the fourteenth century, and they were bound together with the De anima in several Dominican manuscripts from this period. 134 Given the ubiquity of references to Aristotle in John’s Quodl. III.22, and in his quodlibets more generally, and the almost total absence of references to medical authorities in his works, it seems very likely that this question stemmed from a reading of Aristotle within the Dominican studium system. Peter Lombard, Aquinas, and Aristotle, then – three authorities guaranteed a place in any fourteenth-century Dominican classroom – could have provided ample material for a course on medicine as it fell under the auspices of the broader Dominican educational programme.

Medicine in John’s sermons

Study, wrote the thirteenth-century Master General Humbert of Romans, is not the goal of the Dominican Order, but it is extremely necessary for its real ends: preaching and the care of

131 Karine van’t Land, “Long Life, Natural Death: The Learned Ideal of Dying in Late Medieval Commentaries on Avicenna’s Canon,” Early Science and Medicine 19 (2014): 558-83, at 561-3; Pieter de Leemans, “ Parva naturalia , Commentaries on Aristotle’s,” in Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy. Philosophy between 500 and 1500 , ed. Hendrik Lagerlund (Dordrecht: Springer, 2011), 2:917-923.

132 van’t Land, “Long Life, Natural Death,” 567.

133 Erkki I. Kouri and Anja Inkeri Lehtinen, “Disputed Questions on Aristotle’s De iuventute et senectute , De respiratione, and De morte et vita by Henricus de Alemannia,” in Sic itur ad astra: Studien zur Geschichte der Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften: Festschrift für den Arabisten Paul Kunitzsch zum 70. Geburtstag , ed. Menso Folkert and Richard Lorch (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000), 362-75, at 369.

134 Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent,” 270.

184 souls. 135 Looking at John’s sermons provides further insight into why medicine was a useful branch of knowledge for theologians. In addition to aiding in the interpretation of core texts, medicine was a rich source of images and analogies that could be used in preaching. Echoes of John’s discussions of food and nutrition can be found in several of his sermons. For instance, a sermon for the election of diffinitors for a provincial chapter opens with an analogy between the digestion of corporeal food and the word of God:

As it is with food of the flesh, so it is in its own way with the food of the mind, i.e. the word of God. But food of the flesh that is hungrily consumed, and retained, and converted into flesh by the power of natural heat, confers life to the flesh, as experience teaches; therefore the word of God that is hungrily consumed by devout listening, and retained in the stomach of memory by continuous meditation, and converted into works through holy operation by the power of spiritual heat, i.e. love of the Lord, confers life to the mind. 136

John claims that experience, rather than book-learning, is what teaches that natural heat is what transforms food into flesh, but his discussion of the working of spiritual heat on the food of the Word within the “stomach of memory” is clearly influenced by the theories discussed above. Another sermon for the same purpose draws a parallel between corporeal food and the Eucharist: just as physical food sustains bodily life, so the spiritual food of the Eucharist sustains spiritual life. 137 John argues that the works of grace are no less perfect than the works of nature. Just as nature has provided corporeal food for the body so that what is lost on a daily basis through natural heat may be restored and the body preserved from death, so God has provided spiritual

135 Humbert of Romans, Expositio super constitutiones fratrum praedicatorum , in Humbertus de Romanis, Opera de vita regulari , vol. 2, ed. Joachim Joseph Berthier (Paris: Befani, 1889; repr. Turin: Marietti, 1956), 1-178, at 41.

136 Schneyer no. 86, A f. 55ra: “Sicut est de cibo carnis, sic suo modo est de cibo mentis, id est verbo dei. Sed cibus carnis avide assumptus et retentus et virtute caloris naturalis in carnem conversus confert vitam carni, ut experientia docet. Ergo verbum dei avide sumptum per devotam auditionem et in stomaco memorie retentum per iugem meditationem, et virtute caloris spiritualis, id est amoris divini, conversum in opus per sanctam operationem, confert vitam menti...”

137 Schneyer no. 89, A f. 58rb-va: “Sicut sumptio alimenti corporalis supponitur in sumente corporalem vitam, unde secundo De anima alimento uti ponitur inter opera vite, sic | et sumptio alimenti spiritualis supponitur vitam spiritualem. Alimentum autem spirituale est caro Christi contenta in sacramento, Io. 6[:56] Caro mea vere est cibus et sanguis meus vere est potus ; vita autem spiritualis est per dei amorem, prima Io. 3[:14], Translati sumus de morte ad vitam quoniam diligimus; qui non diligit manet in morte .”

185 food, in the form of the Eucharist, to restore that which is lost by the heat of concupiscence that leads to venial sins, thereby preserving us from the death of sin and hell. 138

One of John’s Paris sermons also makes reference to the consumption of the body’s internal moisture by natural heat. John draws a comparison between the effects of fear on the body and the spiritual effects of fear of God. In someone who is afraid, the natural heat withdraws from the extremities into the internal organs, causing thirst, as this heat consumes the radical moisture, and the expulsion of bodily superfluities such as urine and the stomach contents. Likewise, when someone fears God, their spiritual heat, or love, withdraws from worldly things towards God, who is more internal to the soul than it is to itself. This leads those who fear God to thirst for God and divine things and give away things that they do not need as alms, like expelling superfluities from the body. 139 This rather infelicitous image similarly draws on contemporary medical theory, although here again John attributes his knowledge of these bodily processes to experience and the senses rather than book-learning.

John also employed theories of digestion and nutrition when engaging in biblical exegesis. In his exposition of the Lord’s Prayer, John addresses a problem faced by all medieval commentators on this text: the competing translations of the Greek epiousios , the adjective describing the bread. In the Vulgate, the request in Matthew 6.11 is for “ panem nostrum superstantialem ”, whereas in

138 Schneyer no. 89, A f. 58vb: “Non enim minus perfectum est opus gratie quam nature. Sed natura providit corpori de nutrimento corporali ad restaurandum illud quod cotidie in nobis deperditur ex calore naturali, et per consequens ad preservandum a morte naturali; ergo decuit quod deus provideret homini de aliquo alimento spirituali ad restaurandum illud quod in eodem perditur ex calore concupiscentie per peccata venialia que diminuunt saltim fervorem caritatis, et per consequens ad preservandum a morte culpe et gehenne.”

139 P5, Paris, BnF, lat. 14799, f. 162vb: “...in timente, ut experientia docet et ad sensum apparet, calor convertitur et retrahitur seu contrahitur ab exterioribus ad interiora, et maxime ad membra nutritiva, ad quam retractionem secuntur duo. Primum est sitis, propter consumptionem humidi interius a predicto calore, unde timentes sitiunt, et precipue in maximis timoribus situs apparet in illis qui ducuntur ad mortem. Secundum est emissio superfluitatum, ut urine, et solutio ventris. Sic et in timente deum timore facto casto et filiali qui permanet in seculum seculi calor spiritualis, id est amor, retrahitur ab exterioribus istis, scilicet divitiis et deliciis, honoribus et pompis mundanis, que attingunt hominem solum secundum aliquid extrinsecum, id est corpus, ad deum, qui est interior anime quam ipsa sibi, ad quam retractionem sequitur sitis dei et divinorum (Ps. [41:3], sitivit anima mea ad deum fontem vivum ; Mattt. 5[:6], beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt iustitiam , etc.), et emissio superfluitatum (Phil. 3[:8], omnia aribitratur sum ut stercora, scilicet ut Christum lucrifaciam ; prima Ad Thim. 6[:8], habentes alimenta, et quibus tegamur, hiis contenti simus ; Luc. 11[:41], quod superest, date elemosinam et ecce omnia munda sunt vobis , quasi dicat sicus emissis superfluitatibus corporis liberum corpus remanet et mundatum et purgatum, sic et anima, data elemosina, timor sibi predictus habet ad verum amorem divinum, sine quo nullum oportet bonum quantumcumque bonum bene potest fieri...” A slightly condensed version also appears in Rome, BAV, Borgh. 247, f. 161r.

186

Luke 11.3, it is “ panem nostrum cotidianum.”140 John treats both versions as valid, and goes for a harmonizing interpretation. Bread can be called “supersubstantial” because it is added to the substance of our bodies by virtue of the converting power of our natural heat. Likewise, God adds whatever man needs for the sustenance of present life to the substance of our bodies. The bread can also be called “daily” because man needs corporeal food on a daily basis in order to replenish the humours that are continuously consumed by the body’s natural heat. John is engaging here in summary fashion with a subject that he discussed at far greater length in his quodlibets. 141

John’s sermons sometimes deal with illness and death as realities rather than metaphors. For instance, one of his procession sermons was preached on behalf of an unnamed lord who was suffering from some sort of severe, life-threatening illness. 142 In the first principal part of the sermon, John declares that illness, like death, is a natural defect, as well as a punishment for

140 It is unclear whether John’s Expositio , found in both his sermon collection and after the index in T, was intended to be a sermon, exegetical treatise, classroom text, or something else. On the fluid nature of texts of this genre, see Saak, Catechesis in the Later Middle Ages I , 29-31; Dahan, “L’exégèse du ‘Notre Père’.”

141 A f. 105ra; T f. 297rb: “Secundum intelligendum est quod panis, id est cibus corporalis, dicitur supersubstantialis quia virtute caloris naturalis conversus superadditur substantie corporis nostri. Ea etiam quilibet homo indiget ad substentationem presentis vite superadditur a deo substantie corporis nostri primo nobis a deo data, sicut ipse de talibus dicit, Matt. 6[:33], hec omnia adicientur vobis. Dicitur etiam panis, id est cibus corporalis, cotidianus quia homi indiget eo cotidie propter continuam consumptionem humoris corporis nostri a calore naturali.”

142 Schneyer no. 105, A f. 69vb-70rb, “Sermo in processione pro sanitate alicuius infirmi.” Towards the end of the sermon, John describes “Lord N.” as “sick almost to death.” A f. 70rb: “...dato quod dominus N. infirmetur, et usque ad mortem, per orationem devotam si deo placebit eius vita prolongabitur in presenti...” Boyer, “Processions civiques et prédication,” 136, suggests that it was preached for a king or some other member of the royal family, which is plausible, since John refers to the subject as “our head”. See A f. 70ra-b: “Quantum autem ad tertium est sciendum quod proverbialiter dicitur ‘cum capud est languidum cetera membra dolent.” Unde | infirmitas domini nostri N., nostri capitis, debet a nobis extimari nostra...”

187 original sin. 143 A similar statement appears in the first of his funeral sermons. 144 Both echo the position expressed in his quodlibetal questions on death discussed above, that death is both natural and a punishment.

A conventional set of medical metaphors concerning sin as spiritual illness and the priest or prelate as a doctor of souls, dispensing the spiritual medicine of penance, also appear in a number of John’s sermons, especially those composed for visitations. One of the most important goals of a visitation, according to John, is the expulsion of sins from the community that is being visited. He most frequently describes this using a medical analogy: a sick man who wants to be healed explains his illness to a skilled physician who visits him, and takes the medicine that the physician instructs, and so is healed. Mortal sin is a spiritual sickness, and just as physical sickness is caused by an excess and disorder of some humour, so mortal sin is caused by an excess and disorder of the love of creatures. The sinner must explain this spiritual sickness to his visiting prelate and devotedly accept and perform the penance that he imposes, and in this way

143 Schneyer no. 105, A f. 70ra: “Quantum ad primum, est sciendum quod infirmitas est defectus naturalis, sicut et mors, quia continuata perducit ad mortem. Omnis enim passio magis facta abicit a subiecta, ut alibi scribitur. Mors autem est naturalis homini, sicut et nativitas. Sicut enim omne coruptibile est generabile et econverso, sic et omne quod nascitur moritur et econverso, ut patet in plantis et animalibus et huiusmodi. Est etiam infirmitas pena propter inobedientiam primorum parentum illata homini, sicut fames et sitis et huiusmodi, quia supra natura gratiose collatum est homini a deo quod nichil posset contingere in eius corpore contra naturalem appetitum anime, nec in aliis inferioribus ipsius contra naturalem appetitum superiorum quamdiu eius suppremum, id est mens, esset deo subiecta in statu innocentie; sed mente deo rebellante per inobedientiam sequta est tanquam pena rebellio inferiorum hominis ad superiora, ut scilicet multa eveniatur in inferioribus contra appetitum superiorum. Predicti autem defectus sunt in corpore hominis contra naturalem appetitum anime, que tales defectus naturaliter refugit, ut de se patet et quilibet in se experitur.”

144 Schneyer no. 16, A f. 13rb: “Quantum ad secundum, est sciendum quod mors est homini naturalis et penalis. Primum declaratur sic: omne quod generatur et post generationem continue mutatur de dispositione naturale ad innaturalem, que mutatio est alteratio, que magna facta abicit a subiecta naturaliter corumpitur, ut patet in primo Celi et Mundi. Sed homo nascitur et secundum corpus continue alteratur in peius [...] ergo mos est homini naturalis [...] Est etiam mors homini penalis quia primi parentibus in statu innocentie collatum fuit divinitus supernaturalibus si non peccarent pro se et suis posteris donum iustitie originalis quoad animam, et quoad corpus donum immortalitatis quo possent non mori, et perdita innocentia per inobedientie culpam, subtractum est eis et suis posteris in penam talis culpe utrumque donum, et remanserunt in solis naturalibus et de immortalibus modo exposito fact sunt mortales.”

188 he will be healed. 145 Nearly all of the variations on this analogy include a reference to the saying

“penances are a sort of medicine,” which John attributes to Aristotle. 146

John embroiders this analogy to varying degrees in different sermons. In some cases, he states that mortal sin is not just any sickness, but leprosy, and like physical leprosy, it renders the sinner abominable to God, angels, and men. 147 The prologue to one sermon details a threefold likeness between physical leprosy and sin: in addition to the parallel between the ways that leprosy and mortal sin make man abhorrent, John compares the infectious nature of leprosy and mortal sin, and the separation from the church and its rewards that both entail. 148 By John’s time, the characterization of sin as spiritual leprosy was a commonplace in theological writings and literature, with significant social repercussions. 149

145 To give just one example, from Schneyer no. 62, A f. 40ra: “Quantum ad primum est sciendum quod infirmus volens sanari explicat perito medico qui visitat ipsum morbum suum et suscipit medicinam ab eo ordinatam et sic sanatur. Spiritualis morbus est omnis culpa mortalis. Sicut enim corporalis morbus causatur ab aliquo humore superfluo et inordinato, colera, scilicet, sanguine, fleumate, vel melancolia, sic omne peccatum mortale causatur ex superfluo et inordinato amore creature, quia in omni peccato mortali aversio a bono incommutabili est formale, et conversio ad bonum commutabile est materiale.” Similar passages can be found in Schneyer nos. 64, 66, 67, 68, 70, 70a, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, and 83.

146 cf. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics , II.3, 1104b.15-18. The line was frequently employed by Aquinas, e.g. Super Sent. , lib. 3, d. 19, q. 1, a. 3, qc. 2; Summa Theologiae II a-II ae , q. 99, a. 4.

147 Schneyer no. 62, A f. 40ra: “Et mortalis culpa est non quicumque morbus, sed lepra, utpote ad modum lepre reddens peccatorem abhominablem deo et sanctis angelis et hominibus, iuxta illud Osee 9[:10], facti sunt abhominabiles sicut ea que dilexerunt , et Ps. [118:163] in persona cuiuslibet sancti dicit, Iniquitatem odio habui et abhominatus sum . Hunc morbum peccator debet explicare prelato suo se visitanti, qui gerit vicem Christi, qui de se dicit Matt. 9[:12], Non est opus valentibus medicus, sed male habentibus , et debet devote suscipere et facere ab eo sibi imposita penitentiam, que est quedam spiritualis medicina (‘Pene enim sunt quedam medicine’ secundum Philosophum in secundo Ethicorum ), et sic talis leprosus mundabitur seu sanabitur, sicut etiam Christus dominus dicit primis prelatis ecclesie, id est apostolos, Matt. 10[:8], leprosos mundate .”

148 Schneyer no 67, A f. 42va: “Inter lepram carnalem et culpam mortalem est triplex similitudinem. Et prima est quia sicut lepra reddit hominem abhominabilem corporaliter, sic et mortalis culpa spiritualiter deo et sanctis omnibus angelis et hominibus [...] Secunda est quia ad modum lepre inficit conversatores cum peccatoribus [...] unde et doctores dicut quod scandalum est dictum vel factum minus rectum prebens alteri occasionem ruine. Tertia est quia separat a consortio ecclesie militans quantum ad meritum in presenti (existens enim in peccato mortali non est particeps cuiuscumque boni spiritualis quod fiat in ecclesia) et ecclesie triumphantis in futuro quantum ad premium [...] sicut lepra separat a consortio hominum.”

149 See, for instance, Saul Nathaniel Brody, The Disease of the Soul: Leprosy in Medieval Literature (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974), 107-46; David Nirenberg, Communities of Violence: Persecution of Minorities in the Middle Ages , new ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015), 57.

189

Elsewhere, John concentrates on the causes of sickness. Sometimes he devotes more attention to physical sickness, for instance explaining that bodily illness is caused by an internal superfluity of some humour (choler, melancholy, phlegm, or blood) and an external superfluity, such as an excess of food, drink, heat, cold, work, sleeplessness, abstinence, and so forth. 150 In other cases he pays more attention to the causes of spiritual sickness, or sin, saying for example that just as bodily sickness is caused by a disorder of the humours, so sin is caused by a disorder of the powers of the soul, namely when the will and the senses are not subordinated to right reason. 151 This account of the cause of sin accords with John’s discussions of sin in his quodlibets. The first part of Quodl. XI.5, for instance, is devoted to proving that sin occurs in the will when there is a defect in the intellect, such as ignorance, faulty knowledge, or error. 152 This fault in the intellect leads to an excessive love of created things, which causes spiritual sickness just like an excess of one humour leads of physical sickness. 153

Sometimes, instead of concentrating on the sickness in this analogy, John focuses on the role of the patient/sinful religious subject. He emphasizes the need for haste, saying that in order to regain bodily health and avoid the danger of death, a prudent invalid will observe the diet and take the medicine prescribed to him by a skilled doctor without delay. Since the health of the soul should be sought even more than the health of the body, a prudent subject, in order to avoid the danger of mortal sin and Hell, should obey his prelate immediately in performing the

150 Schneyer no. 82, A f. 52va: “Sicut enim infirmitas corporalis causatur ex aliqua superfluitate intrinseca alicuius humoris, scilicet colore, melanconie [ sic. ], fleumatis, et sanguinis, et extrinsica cibi, vel potus, vel laboris, vel caloris, vel frigoris, vel vigilie, vel abstinencie, et huiusmodi, sic peccatum mortale causatur ex superfluo amore rerum extrinsecarum mundanarum, scilicet diviciarum, deliciarum, et honorum, quia omne peccatum consistit formaliter in aversione affectus a bono incommutabili, et materialiter in conversione ad bonum commutabile.”

151 Schneyer no. 72, A f. 46rb: “...et infirmus spiritualiter est peccator, quia sicut carnalis infirmitas causatur ex deordinatione humorum, qui sunt partes corporis et continuata perducit ad mortem, sic peccatum causatur ex deordinatione potentiarum anime, que sunt eius partes, dum scilicet voluntas et sensualitas non subiciuntur recte rationi, et peccatum continuatum perducunt ad mortem gehenne.”

152 Quodl. XI.5, T f. 166ra; N f. 165vb: “Primo probandum est quod non potest esse peccatum in voluntate nisi in intellectu sit aliquis defectus ignorancie, que est carencia scientie habitualis, vel in considerationis, que est carencia notitie actualis, vel erroris, qui est apprehensio falsa qua aliquod falsum apprehenditur ut verum.”

153 Schneyer no. 64, A f. 41rb: “Morbus autem spiritualis est culpa mortalis, quia sicut corporalis morbus causatur ex aliquo superfluo humore et ex deordinatione humorum, sic et peccatum causatur ex superfluo amore creature et ex deordinatione potentiarum anime, que sunt eius partes, dum scilicet sensualitas non subdictur volutati nec volutas rationi.”

190 abstinences and other penances that he prescribes. 154 One sermon breaks the patients’ behaviours down into a three-stage process: the sick person first relates the entirety of his illness to his visiting doctor, next observes the diet and takes the medicines that the doctor gives him, and then, when he has regained his health, observes the rules of the regimen of life that the doctor ordains for him. Likewise, the spiritually sick subject ought to first relate the faults of himself and others to his visiting prelate, next devotedly accept and perform the abstinences and other penances that the prelate prescribes, and finally observe the laws and ordinances that his prelate has imposed on the community as a whole, or him specifically. 155

In other sermons, John describes the same relationship from the perspective of the doctor/visiting prelate. He emphasizes the need for personal visitation and observation. Just as a doctor of bodies personally comes to the patient so that he can discover his illness through his words and circumstances and through external signs such as urine, pulse, and colour, a prelate, as a spiritual doctor, ought to visit his subjects personally in order to learn their sins by listening to them and

154 Schneyer no. 66, A f. 42va-b: “Quantum ad quartum, est sciendum quod salus anime est magis sollicite procuranda quam salus corporis. Sed infirmus prudens propter acquirendam salutem corporis et periculum mortis vitandum absque omni dilatione facit dietam et sumit medicinam a perito medico | ordinatam. Ergo et prudens subditus propter salutem anime sue procurandam et propter vitandum periculum mortis culpe et gehenne debet absque omni dilatione prelato suo celeriter obedire faciendo abstinentias et alias penitentias, que sunt quedam anime medicine secundum etiam Philosum in secundo Ethicorum .”

155 Schneyer no. 74, A f. 47va: “Quantum autem ad tertium, est sciendum quod sicut est de infirmo corporaliter, sic suo modo debet esse de subdito si est infirmus in mente. Infirmus autem corporaliter qui vult sanitatem tria facit, quia medico se visitanti refert totam infirmitatem suam, secundo facit dietam et sumit medicinam a medico sibi datam, et tertio sanitate recuperata servat regulas ad regimen vite pertinentes ab eo sibi ordinatas. Sic et infirmus spiritualiter subditus si vult sanitatem mentis spirituali medico, id est prelato, se visitanti debet exponere seu referre culpas suas et aliorum, et devote suscipere et facere abstinentias et alias penitentias sibi pro culpis suis a prelato impositas, et tertio debet debote servare leges et ordinationes sui prelati in communi omnibus vel in speciali sibi soli a prelato impositas.”

191 observing their behaviours. 156 He often uses this as an opportunity to highlight the similarity between the prelate and Christ, noting that Christ called himself a spiritual doctor. 157

It is noteworthy that John consistently chose to employ the very ancient metaphor of the priest as a spiritual physician, rather than the increasingly popular model of the priest as a spiritual judge, which was popularized in part by Raymond of Penyafort. 158 Curiously, the metaphor of the spiritual physician, although ubiquitous in John’s visitation sermons, is almost totally absent in his sermons for other occasions. A rare exception is a sermon for a dead man named Philip, in which John uses an extended analogy about medicine and craftsmanship for confession, contrition, and satisfaction in the course of a discussion of dying well:

The name Philip in Greek translates to the Latin ‘mouth of the lamp’ or ‘mouth of the hands.’ And someone who wants to die well ought to be a lamp burning past sins by abhorring them in contrition, and a mouth by showing them to his priest in confession, and a hand by applying himself to good works in satisfaction. With respect to the first of these, it should be known that the first thing that ought to be done by a doctor for the health of the body is the expulsion of the vicious humour, without which the remaining

156 Schneyer no. 70, A f. 44va: “Quantum ad primum est sciendum quod medicus corporalis venit ad infirmum ut sciat eius morbum per dictum suum et aliorum circumstancium, et per signa exteriora, scilicet urinam, pulsum, colorem, et huiusmodi, sic et medicus spiritualis, id est prelatus, debet personaliter venire ad collegium sibi subditum, ut per dicta personarum collegii et per mores extrinsecos eorundem possit scire spiritualem morbum, id est peccatum.”; Schneyer no. 70a, A f. 45ra: “Quantum ad primum est sciendum quod medicus corporalis visitans infirmum satagit cognoscere eius morbum per dictum suum et aliorum circumstantium et per signa exteriora, ut per colorem, et urinam, et pulsum, et huiusmodi, et postea data medicina sanat ipsum, sic et medicus spiritualis, id est Christus et prelatus eius vicarius, visitans subditum debet conari scire eius spiritualem morbum, id est peccatum per dictum suum et aliorum et per conversationem seu observancias regulares exteriores, et postea sanare eum, data sibi spirituali medicina, id est pententia.”

157 E.g. Schneyer no. 64, A f. 41rb: “Spiritualis autem medicus est Christus, sicut ipse se vocat, Matt. 9[:12], Non est opus valentibus medicus etc., et Augustinus super Iohannem de eo dicit ‘magnus de celo venit medicus, quia magnus ubique iacebat egrotus.’ Hic medicus visitat predictum egrotum cum peccatorem subditum visitat prelatus, Christi vicarius, qui debet per preceptum et iniunctionem investigare et scire morbum talis infirmi per dictum suum et aliorum, et postea dare spiritualem medicinam, id est penitenciam condignam, quia ‘pene sunt quedam medicine,’ ut patet secundo Ethicorum , et sanabit ipsum, quod tangitur cum tali dicitur Ave , id est sine ve culpe. Apoc. 8[:13] Ve, ve, ve , scilicet triplicis culpe cordis, oris, et operis, vel in deum, in seipsum, et in proximum, vel concupiscencie carnis, concupiscientie oculorum, et superbie vite, habitantibus in terra , id est habentibus inordinatum amorem ad terrena.”

158 Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent in Study--,” 535. On the traditional concept of penance as spiritual medicine, see John T. McNeill, “Medicine for Sin as Prescribed in the Penitentials,” Church History 1 (1932): 14-26. On the increasingly popular juridical model, see Goering, “The Internal Forum and the Literature of Penance and Confession,” Traditio 59 (2004): 175-227, reprinted and updated in The History of Medieval Canon Law in the Classical Period, 1140-1234 , ed. Wilfried Hartmann and Kenneth Pennington (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2008), 349-428.

192

diet, unctions, rubbings, and these sorts of things will be of little or no use; so too the first thing that ought to be done for recovering the health of the soul when it has been lost is the expulsion of sins, which takes place through contrition, without which the remaining goods, whatsoever they may be, will be of no value for obtaining the blessed life. [...] With respect to the second, it should be known that a craftsman produces his effect by means of a double instrument, namely one conjoined to him, like a hand, and one separate from him, like a feather, or a saw, and things of this sort, and with respect to the doctor, by means of medicine; so too God, the doctor of the soul, heals it by means of the human nature of Christ who has suffered as the conjoined instrument, and by means of the sacrament of penance, that is sacramental confession and absolution, as the separate instrument, in such a way that the merit of Christ’s passion prevails upon or is applied to the sinner by means of this sacrament just like the hand of the workman by means of the separated instrument. [...] With respect to the third, it should be known that a medicine that is capable of expelling an illness ought to be opposed to the humour that is the cause of the illness. But the principle of spiritual illness, that is sin, is, as is clear from 1 John [2:16] concupiscence of the flesh , that is pleasures, to which are opposed fasting, by which word is mean everything that afflicts the flesh, and concupiscence of the eyes , that is riches, to which is opposed alms, namely feeding the hungry, and the other six things which are commonly enumeration, and pride of life , that is honours and pomps, to which is opposed prayer, in which the soul humiliates itself before God. [...] Therefore the aforesaid three things, namely, fasting, almsgiving, and prayer, which are the three parts of satisfaction, spiritually heal the soul.159

Other analogies involving doctors crop up occasionally, as in one of the sermons for the feast of St. John the Evangelist, which states that God does not give worldly things to those who seek them, just as a pious physician withholds what an invalid seeks when he knows that the patient

159 Schneyer no. 54 (On a dead man named Philip), A f. 34rb-va: “Quantum ad primum est sciendum quod Philippus grece interpretatur latine ‘os lampadis’ vel ‘os manuum.’ Et volens bene mori debet esse lampas ardens culpas preteritas abhorrendo in contritione, et os ipsas presbitero ostendendo in confessione, et manus bonis operibus insistendo in satisfactione. Quantum ad primum horum, est sciendum quod primum faciendum a medico pro sanitate corporis est expulsio pravi humoris, sine quo reliqua dieta, unctiones, et confricationes, et huiusmodi parum aut nihil valent, | sic et primum faciendum pro sanitate anime amissa recuperanda est expulsio peccati, que est per contritione, sine qua reliqua bona quecumque nichil valent ad obtinendam vitam beatam [...] Quantum autem ad secundum, est sciendum quod artifex producit effectum suum mediante duplici instrumento, scilicet coniuncto, ut manu, et separato, ut penna, vel serra, et huiusmodi. Et quantum ad medicum mediante medicina, sic et deus medicus anime sanat ipsam mediante humana natura Christi passi, tanquam instrumento coniuncto et mediante sacramento penitentie, id est sacramentali confessione et absolutione, tanquam instrumento separato, sic quod meritum passionis Christi valet seu aplicatur peccatori mediante tali sacramento sicut manus artificis mediante instrumento separato. [...] Quantum autem ad tertium, est sciendum quod medicina expulsiva morbi debet contrariari humori qui est causa morbi. Principium autem spiritualis morbi, id est peccati, est ut patet per prima Io. 3[ =2:16] concupiscentia carnis , id est delicie, quibus opponitur ieiunium, quo nomine intelligitur omne que est carnis afflictivum, et concupiscentia oculorum , id est divitie, quibus opponitur elemosina, scilicet pascere exurientem, et alie sex que communiter numerantur, et superbia vite , id est honores et pompe, quibus opponitur oratio, in qua anima humiliat se deo [...] Ergo predicta tria, scilicet ieiunium, elemosina, et oratio, que sunt tres partes satisfactionis, spiritualiter animam sanant.”

193 wants something that is bad for him. 160 These kinds of analogies do not rely on any specialized medical knowledge, but rather on what Joseph Ziegler calls the “powerful and ancient congruence between God or Christ [or his ministers] and the expert practitioner” in medicine. 161

John was certainly not the only Dominican to see medicine as a useful source of materia praedicabilia . The early Dominican theologian Roland of Cremona wrote around 1230 in a commentary on Job about the value of medicine as a source of morals and allegories for preachers to use in sermons. 162 Around forty years later, a model sermon for students in medicine by the Dominican Master General Humbert of Romans argued that medicine is valuable because it teaches about the wretchedness and fragility of the human body, allows the practitioner to perform acts of mercy, and provides guidance for spiritual medicine. 163 Giovanni da San Gimignano, the Italian Dominican contemporary of John of Naples mentioned near the beginning of this chapter, composed a very popular Summa de exemplis et rerum similitudinibus for the use of preachers. 164 This encyclopedic work consisted of ten books devoted to different scientific fields, with the sixth presenting dozens of didactic exempla involving the human body. Giovanni saw medicine and natural philosophy as effective sources of spiritual lessons based on concrete natural facts. 165 John’s use of medicine in his sermons is actually rather superficial compared with Giovanni’s elaborate analogies, which tended to do things like equate the four types of stomach ache to the four kinds of penitence, or the kidneys to the saintly teachers of the Church, complete with parallels between their functions.166 But we might imagine texts like

160 Schneyer no. 9 (St. John the Evangelist), A f. 7rb: “Temporalia enim petenti sepe deus non concedit, sciens quod ei non expediunt, sicut pius medicus non dat infirmo petenti quod ei non expedit.”

161 Ziegler, Medicine and Religion , 212.

162 Montford, Health, Sickness, Medicine and the Friars , 111; Montford, “Dangers and Disorders,” 172; A. Dondaine, “Un commentaire scriptuaire de Roland de Crémone: le livre du Job,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 11 (1941),:109-37, at 128.

163 Ziegler, Medicine and Religion , 1-2, with an edition of Humbert’s sermon in Appendix III, p. 314-5.

164 Printed at Antwerp in 1583 and discussed at length in Ziegler, Medicine and Religion .

165 Ziegler, Medicine and Religion , 200-1.

166 Ziegler, Medicine and Religion , 277-93.

194

Giovanni’s Summa , or one of the many other encyclopedic works and florilegia that often found a place in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Dominican libraries, being used to teach friars how to use medical exempla to their best advantage when explaining Christian truths.

3.4 Conclusion

Disciplinary boundaries such as those between theology and medicine remained decidedly fuzzy at the start of the fourteenth century. The quodlibetal questions and sermons discussed in this chapter illustrate some of the ways in which theology could encompass medical topics. For scholars who truly believed that a thorough understanding of creation was necessary in order to understand the word of God, it made perfect sense to investigate the workings of the human body as part of their effort to comprehend Scripture and the questions that it raised. For preachers looking to engage their listeners, medicine served as a valuable source of images and information, especially in a region such as southern Italy, with its strong tradition of learned medicine. Another area of overlap between medicine and theology, which will be discussed at length in the next chapter, is the realm of medical ethics, which belonged to the broader field of pastoral care. John may have tried to assert his authority in some areas of medical learning, but he definitely claimed the right to speak authoritatively on matters pertaining to the spiritual health of doctors and patients.

Aurélien Robert has shown that questions that were common in contemporary medical debates, such as whether the Avicennian specific form governed the complexion of the body, and whether pain is caused by the dissolution of a continuum, show up not only in John’s quodlibets, but also in the quodlibets of two other theologians with close ties to Naples: the Franciscan Francis Caracciolo and the Augustinian James of Viterbo. In their responses to these questions, Robert argues, all three theologians demonstrate a greater awareness of contemporary medical debates than their contemporary Parisian colleagues. 167 However, he also notes that John does not explicitly cite Galen or Avicenna when discussing these questions. 168 The same is true for other of John’s quodlibetal questions that also appeared in medical commentaries, such as Quodl.

167 Robert, “Médecine et théologie,” 329-335.

168 Robert, “Médecine et théologie,” 332-3.

195

X.13, on whether males or females develop faster in the womb, which is very similar to a question discussed by a contemporary northern Italian physician, Mondino de Liuzzi, in his commentary on the chapter of Avicenna’s Canon dealing with the generation of the embryo. 169 John and Mondino both argue that the male fetus develops faster, in part because of the male’s hotter nature and the stronger, more vigorous act associated with his generation. But Mondino uses Galen, Aristotle, Hippocrates and other works of Avicenna in the course of his response, whereas John restricts himself to Aristotle and several biblical commentaries. Most tellingly, John’s calculations of the number of days required for different stages of fetal development are all taken from Peter Comestor and Augustine. 170 The only hint of awareness of the medical discourse appears in the sed contra , with a vague reference to “the common saying of the doctors and philosophers, who say that the male is formed more quickly.” 171

Further examples of questions from John’s quodlibets that echo questions from contemporary medical commentaries could be cited, such as Quodl. I.10, on whether the sense of touch is a single, unified sense, Quodl. XIII.7, on whether natural heat is greater in boys or youths, and Quodl. IV.6 and XI.8, on whether elements can act and be acted upon in a mixture.172 But

169 Quodl. X.13, N f. 19ra-b; T f. 155rb-va, “Utrum masculus citius formetur in utero quam mulier”; cf. Mondino dei Liuzzi, Expositio super capitulum de generatione embrionis Canonis Avicenna cum quibusdam quaestionibus , ed. R. M. Vico, Fonti Per la Storia d’Italia 118 (Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo, 1993), 67-76: “Utrum masculus citius informetur in utero quam femella.” Peter Biller noted the similarities between these questions in “John of Naples, Quodlibets, and Medieval Theological Concern with the Body,” 5n11.

170 Quodl. X.13, “N f. 19rb; T f. 155rb-va: “Dicit autem Magister Ystoriarum super Leviticum 12, ubi agit de purgatione post partum, quod caro masculi formatur in 40 diebus, femine autem in 80. Alii autem dicunt quod caro masculi formatur in 46 diebus, sic quod 6 diebus est sub forma lactis, 9 autem sub forma sanguinis, 12 autem sub forma masse, 18 autem organizatur; unde versus: ‘sex in lacte dies, ter sunt in sanguine terni, bis seni carnem, ter seni membra figurant,’ quod aliqualiter innuit |T| Augustinus super illud Iohannis 2[:20], quadraginta sex annis etc., ubi dicit quod sexies quadraginta sex, id est novem menses, et 6 dies, complent tempus formationis corporis humani in utero; et idem dicit quarto De trinitate, capitulo quinto. Et possunt hec dicta concordari ad invicem dicendo quod caro masculi, que organizatur citius, organizatur in 40 diebus; que autem tardius in 46. Omnium autem aliorum organizatur in aliquo medio die inter istos duos terminos.”

171 Quodl. X.13, N f. 19ra; T f. 155rb: “Sed contra est dictum commune medicorum et philosophorum qui dicunt quod citius formatur masculus.”

172 Cf. Siraisi, Taddeo Alderotti and His Pupils , 336, referring to Taddeo, Isagoge , f. 365rv (Utrum sensus tactus sit plures sensus; Utrum tactus sit in toto corpore); 320 and 322, referring to Taddeo, Aphorismos , f. 16-7 (Utrum calor iuvenis sit maior calore pueri) and f. 72 (Utrum etas iuventutis sit etas temperata), and Bartolomeo da Varignana, De complexionibus , f. 70rv (Utrum equalis sit caliditas in puero et iuvene); and 309, referring to Turisianus, Plusquam , 1.15 (Utrum elementa remaneant similiter in mixto).

196 overall, the level of medical knowledge displayed in John’s quodlibeta is entirely in keeping with his status as a theologian educated within the Dominican system. It is certainly possible that these questions were raised by friars who had studied some medicine, or who wanted to be sure that doctors and medical professors in Naples were teaching the truth. But they could easily have been inspired by reading texts that were traditionally found in Dominican libraries and classrooms. John’s response to the question about the sense of touch, for instance, is mainly devoted to interpreting passages from Aristotle’s De anima . Medically-oriented passages of Aristotle, Aquinas, Lombard, and other authorities may have caught his students’ eyes precisely because of the prominence of medical teaching and learning in Naples. But rather than thinking of John as embroiled in debates with doctors, it seems more reasonable to imagine him expounding on traditional theological authorities such as the Bible, Peter Lombard, and Aristotle, within an environment that was open to medical learning, perhaps as part of a dedicated couse, but certainly as part of his regular theological teaching.

Appendix to Chapter 3

This appendix includes the two versions of John’s principium on medicine, as well as two of the quodlibetal questions discussed in the chapter above. The beginning of the longer (B) version of the principium should be compared with the opening of Schneyer no. 118, the principium on theology found in the appendix to Chapter 2.

Schneyer no. 112: Principium on medicine: Longer (B) version 1

1 Principium super medicina

2 2Narrabo et annuntiabo et exaudiet vocem meam . In Ps. [54:18]. Dicit Chrisostomus

super Mattheum quod pater non libenter exaudit orationem quam filius non dictavit. 3 Ergo ab oppositis concludendo dicere possumus quod pater libenter exaudit orationem quam ut faceremus ipse filius nobis immineat faciendum. Si quis , inquid beatus Iacobus, primo capitulo sue canonice [= Iac. 1:5], vestrum indiget sapientia, postulet a deo qui dat omnibus affluenter, et non improperat . In tali igitur petitione debemus supponere ab ipso domino exaudiri, et hoc est quod subditur post verba predicta: et dabitur ei . Si quis , inquid, vestrum etc. Inter omnes autem actus humanos in quibus homo sapientia indigere videtur, est docere alios, vel aliis aliquid scientificum proponere . Impossibile est enim aliquem docere alium sapientiam quam non habet. Omnis autem sapientia a domino deo est , ut dicitur Ecclus. 1[:1]. Ubi igitur alicui incumbit proponere aliis aliquid ad aliquam doctrinam pertinens, debet una cum ipsis sapientiam a deo orando petere cum firma fiducia impetrandi. Hoc est igitur quod ait Psalmus in verbis secundo propositis: Narrabo , inquid, etc. In quibus verbis primo describit actum scientifice lectionis ab

1 B f. 118ra-vb

2 Cf. § 2-4 of this version of the principium with Schneyer no. 118, § 2-4 (see appendix to Chapter 2). Passages in bold mark significant divergences from Schneyer no. 118.

3 John Chrysostom, Opera Imperfecta , Homily 14 on Matthew; cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II a-II ae q. 83, a. 16, arg. 3.

197 198

omnibus quam plurimum venerandum, cum dicit Narrabo etc.; secundo promittit fructum divine exauditionis a nobis orationis impetrandum, cum dicit et exaudiet etc.

3 Actus quidem scientifice lectionis pulcre describitur sub nomine narrationis, eo quod hec scientia est multorum exemplorum narrativa, et hoc propter simpliciores qui ipsius veritatis speculative non possent esse capaces, nisi eis per exempla sensibilia exponatur. Unde et doctoribus cuiuscumque scientie dici posset illud Paralip. 1 [16:9] Narrate omnia mirabilia eius , scilicet scientie. Describitur etiam sub nomine annuntiationis, eo quod doctor cuiuscumque scientie ad modum nuntii omnia ex alterius persona proponit, dei, scilicet, qui est principalis doctor et magister omnis scientie. Unde et dicebat alibi idem Psalmista ad deum loquens: Annuntiabo veritatem etc. [Ps. 88:2]

4 Secundo promittitur fructus divine exauditionis a nobis orationibus impetrandus, cum subdit et exaudiet etc. Exaudiet , dicitur Iudith 4[:12], dominus preces uestras si manentes permanseritis in orationibus. Ex verbis igitur Psalmis sumpta fiducia rogabimus si placet in principio matrem illius qui est dei virtus et sapientia, 1 Cor. 1[:24], quatinus a suo filio nobis impetrare dignetur aliquid sue sapientie, sic quod valeam proponere quod cedat ad dei laudem, medicinalis scientie commendationem, et presentis societatis consolationem. Et loco orationis quilibet dicat quod sibi placet.

5 Disciplina medici etc. Secundum quod potest haberi a Philosopho, 3 De anima , scientiarum duplex genus est. Quedam enim dicuntur speculative et quedam practice, quarum differentia posset tripliciter accipi. Uno modo ex parte subiecti, ut scilicet si dicatur scientia speculativa que est de rebus que non sunt ad homine operabilis, ut philosophia naturalis, practica autem que est de rebus ab homine operalibus, ut methaphisice. Secundo ex parte modi sciendi, ut scilicet dicatur scientia speculativa que procedunt modo speculativo, diffiniendo, dividendo, et ultima eius predicata considerando. Puta si edificator consideret domum. Hoc enim est operabili a modo speculativo considerare et non secundum quod operabilia sunt. Operabile enim est aliquid per applicationem materie ad formam non per resolutionem compositi in principia ultima formalia. Practica autem dicatur scientia que considerat modo practico, utpote qualiter et quomodo debeat domus fieri, sicut considerat illa que edificatam communiter nuncupant. Tertio ex parte finis, nam intellectus speculativis differt a practico fine, ut dicitur tertio

199

De anima .4 Intellectus enim practicus ordinatur ad finem |B f. 118va| operationis. Finis autem speculationis est consideratio veritatis.

6 Secundum autem tres modos predictos distinguendo speculativum a practico tripliciter consuevit aliqua scientia dignior alia nuncupari. Alteri scilicet aliqua scientia aliam transcendere dicitur propter subiecti vel materie dignitatem, aliquando propter modi tradendi certitudinem, aliquando propter finis intenti utilitatem. Primis duobus modis maxime una speculativa scientia aliam transcendere dicitur, quos modos expresse ponit Philosophus in principio primi De anima , dicens bonorum honorabililum notitiam 5 (Glosa: id est scientia speculativam), opinantes magis autem alteram altera, aut secundum certitudinem, et hoc quantum ad secundum modum predictorum, aut ex eo quod meliorum et honorabiliorum est, et hoc quantum ad primum modum. Tertio modo dicitur una scientia practica aliam transcendere, ut haberi potest a Philosopho in prologo Ethicorum , propter finis intenti utilitatem. Quanto enim finis intentus ulterior, tanto scientia practica dignior, sicut polis militari et militaris equestri, ut ipse ibidem ponit exemplum.

7 Cum igitur medicinalis scientia sit secundum aliquantum sui partem speculativa et secundum aliquam practica, secundum utrumque partem tribus modis predictis multas scientias non immerito antecellit. Bene igitur ad comendationem ipsius assumuntur verba proposita que scripta sunt Ecclus. 38[:3-4], si diligenter attendimus tria predicta satis ponantur expresse, quamvis retrogrado ordine: tangitur siquidem in verbis predictis primo utilitatis magnitudo, et hoc quoad finis excellentiam, in hoc quod dicitur disciplina medici ; secundo cognitionis certitudo quoad forme vel modi evidentiam, in hoc quod additur, altissimus creavit etc .; tertio tangitur materialis altitudo quoad subiecti preeminentiam, in hoc quod subditur, et vir prudens etc .

8 Primo dico quod tangitur in verbis predictis utilitatis magnitudo quoad finis excellentiam in hoc quod dicitur disciplina etc., ubi notandum quod duplex finis tangitur in hiis verbis,

4 Aristotle, De anima III.10, 433 a 14; cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, 1. 79, a. 11.

5 Aristotle, De anima I.1, 402 a 1; cf. Auctoritates Aristotelis 174, no. 1.

200

scilicet intrinsecus, qui est capitis exaltatio, in hoc quod dicitur exaltabit , et extrinsecus, qui est a magnatibus collaudatio, in hoc quod additur et in conspectu etc. Tangitur siquidem finis intrinsecus medicine in hoc quod dicit exaltabit . Finis siquidem medicine intrinsecus, sicut et cuiuslibet alterius scientie, est illustratio intellectus de suo subiecto et de hiis que in ipsa scientia continentur, ut verba gratia de dispositione humani corporis et complexione, de virtutibus rerum naturalium ex quibus potest homo sanitatem recipere vel in sanitate etiam conservari, debita proportione predictarum virtutum ad corpus humanum secundum diversitatem etatum, complexionum, locorum, et rerum et similibus. Hic autem finis potest intelligi in hoc quod dicitur exaltabit etc.

9 Disciplina , inquid, etc. Per capud enim potest non incongrue ad presens intellegi intellectus humanus, tum propter ordinem, tum propter perfectionem, tum propter virtutem. Propter ordinem siquidem eo quod, sicut caput est prima pars humani corporis, et ceteris membris preeminet naturali ordine, sic et intellectus secundum communiorem et veriorem opinionem ceteris anime potentiis, cuius probatio propter brevitatem dimittatur ad presens. Propter perfectionem autem quia in caput vigent omnes sensus interiores et exteriores, cum in ceteris membris sit solus tactus; sic etiam intellectus noster est omnium rerum naturalium naturaliter cognoscitivus, ceteris potentiis cognoscitivis circa aliqua obiecta particularia, puta colores, sonos, et similia limitatis. Unde Philosophus, tertio De anima : intellectus agens est quo est omnia facere; intellectus possibilis est quo est omnia fieri. 6 Propter virtutem autem quia sicut gubernatio ceterorum membrorum est a capite in suis actibus propter vim sensitivam et motivam ibi dominantem, sic gubernatio aliarum anime potentiarum est ab intellectu naturaliter. Unde dicit Philosophus, secundo Politicarum , quod rationaliter dominatur concupiscibili et irascibili principatu politico. 7

10 Huius autem capitis intellectus, scilicet exaltatio, quantum ad presens nihil aliud est quam ipsius de aliquibus speculabilibus contemplatio. Per hanc enim videtur ad res suppremas in toto universo, ad substantias scilicet separatas, et primam causam, per quandam

6 Aristotle, De anima III.5, 430 a 10-15; cf. Auctoritates Aristotelis , p. 186, no. 149.

7 Aristotle, Politica , I.5, 1254 b 2-5; cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae , I 1. 81, a 3, ad 2; I a-II ae , q. 17, a. 7; q. 56, a. 4, ad 3; q. 58, a. 2, etc.

201

assimilationem et imitationem quodammodo elevari et exaltari. De hac exaltatione videtur loqui Sapiens in proverbis, Prov. 4[:5], ubi cum precepisset, dicens posside sapientiam, posside prudentiam , subdit [Prov. 4:8-9], arripe illam et exaltabit te, et glorifacaberis ab ea, cum eam fueris amplexatus , et subdit dabit capiti tuo augmentum gratiarum . Vel per hanc capitis exaltationem potest ad litteram intelligi quecumque promotio temporalis, quam etsi scientes et litterati non debeant pro fine sue scientie intendere, debetur tamen eis de iure divino et etiam humano, quam etiam ut in pluribus assequuntur de facto. Si enim honor est premium virtutis, ut dicit Philosophus in Ethicis ,8 |B f. 118vb| et virtutum secundum eundem quedam sunt morales, quedam intellectuales, ut scientia, ars, prudentia, sapientia, intellectus, patet quod quibuscumque scientibus debetur de iure, et maxime doctoribus, quecumque temporalis promotio et exaltatio. Et hoc est quod dicit Sapiens, Ecclus. 11[:1]: sapientia humiliati exaltabit capud illius et in medio magnatorum consedere illum faciet . Et bene dicit humiliati . Frequenter enim humiles et parvi ex genere propter scientiam exaltantur. Vel forte hoc dicit quia, ut iam dixi, litterati viri non debent tales promotiones pro fine sue scientie intendere. Hoc enim ad ambitionem et superbiam pertineret.

11 Secundo tangitur finis extrinsecus medicine, qui est a magnatibus collaudatio, in hoc quod subditur et in conspectu etc. Ubi concedit[?] quod sicut habetur a Philosopho, Ethica 1, 9 differentia est inter laudabilia et honorabilia. Laudabilia enim dicimus que ad finem aliquem bonum et utilem ordinantur. Laudamus enim bonum equum quando bene currit. Honorabilia autem dicuntur que sunt bona et excellentia propter seipsa. Honoramus enim fines. Scientiarum autem, ut iam dictum est, quedam sunt practice et quedam speculative. Quedam scilicet ordinantur ad opus, quedam scilicet ad nihil aliud extrinsecum ordinantur. Scientie igitur speculative debent dici honorabiles proprie; scientie autem practice laudabiles, inter quas tanto aliqua debet dici laudabilior, quanto ordinantur ad meliorem et utiliorem finem. Inter omnes autem fines optimus et utilimus videtur esse, scilicet homini, finis medicinalis scientie, sanitas scilicet humani corporis.

8 Aristotle, Ethica ad Nicomachum , IV.3, 1123 b 35; cf. Auctoritates Aristotelis , p. 237, no. 68.

9 cf. Aristotle, Ethica ad Nicomachum I.12, 1102 a I-4, 1101 b 12-18.; Aquinas, Sententia De anima , 1.1.3.

202

Unde dicitur Ecclus. 30[:15-16], melior est corpus validum quam census immensus , et subdit, non est census super censum salutis corporis, et non est oblectatio super cordis gaudium , quod quidem causat predictam sanitas. Bene igitur de medicinali scientia secundum quod practica dicit Sapiens quod in conspectu etc., ubi apparet magna laus medicine, quia non a quibuscumque, sed a magnatibus commendatur. Modicus est enim commendari a quibuscumque simplicibus et plebeis, qui decipiuntur frequenter, sed magnum est laudari a magnatibus, quorum verbum autenticum debet esse et ab omnibus approbari. Item non ab uno, qui forte posset decipi, sed a multis, immo ab omnibus, ut indefinita. Hec equipolleat verbi: in conspectu , inquid, etc. De hac medicine collaudatione exponi posset illud quod dicit Sapiens, Ecclus. 39[:4]: In medio , inquid, magnatorum ministrabit, et in conspectu presidis apparebit , quod de medico maxime verificatur ad litteram. Et subditur paucis interpositis [Ecclus. 39:12], collaudabunt multi sapientiam et usque in seculum non delebitur . Et hoc de primo membro principali.

12 Secundo tangitur in verbis propositis cognitionis certitudo, et hoc quoad forme vel modi evidentiam, in hoc quod subditur, altissimus etc. Ubi concedit[?] quod certitutudo uniuscuiuscumque scientie maxime ex intellectu tradentem vel docentem scientiam dependere videtur. Quanto enim intellectus adinvenieret vel traderet scientiam fuerit perspicatior, tanto scientia est in veritate sua certior, ut per se patet. Intellectus autem divinus in perspicatione et veritate ceteros alios intellectus creatos in infinitum excedit. Doctrinam igitur ab ipso traditam oportet necesssario esse verissimam et certissimam, utpote qui nec falli potest nec fallere. Bene igitur dictum est quod in hoc quod dicit Sapiens in verbis propositis, quod medicinam creavit altissimus, tangitur cognitionis istius scientie certitudo. Dicitur autem creasse altissimus medicinam, in primo quidem tanquam tribuens rebus naturalibus virtutem sanandi corpus humanum, secundum quem intellectum videtur Sapiens hic ad litteram loqui. Unde dicit Glosa predicta verba exponens, medicinam , ‘id est herbas, radices, et fructus medicinosos ad salutem hominem.’ Secundo tanquam principaliter sanans ipsum corpus humanum. Est enim medicus sicut instrumentum nature, vel potius actoris nature, dei, scilicet, qui est principalis sanans in tuis[?]. Unde Ecclus. 38[:9] dicitur, fili in tua infirmitate non despicias teipsum medicum , contempnendo vel de salute desperando, sed ora dominum et ipse curabit te. Glosa: ‘ab omni infirmitate spirituali et corporali.’ Tertio tanquam

203

doctrinam medicinalem eius inventoribus et quibuscumque eam scientibus tribuens. Si enim omnis sapientia a domino deo est , ut dicitur Ecclus. 1[:1], quanto magis hec doctrina tam hominibus utilis. De hac medicine causalitate ad litteram loquitur Sapiens Ecclus. 38[:11-12]: da , inquid, infirmum alloquens, locum medico , ei onorando, etenim illum creauit altissimus ‘ad salutem infirmorum. Licet enim solo verbo curare posset omnem morbum, tamen voluit per homines curare homines ut inter eos mutua caritas servaretur.’ Verba sunt Glose. Et subditur, etenim illum creavit altissimus . Glosa: ‘ad aliorum utilitatem.’ Et subditur |B f. 119ra| post predicta verba, non discedat a te , scilicet infirmo medicus offensus propter tuam inobedientiam, quia opera eius sunt neccessaria . Glosa: infirmis ut sanifiant et sanis ne egrifiant. Et Sapiens in eodem capitulo: honora medicum propter neccessitatem . Glosa: ‘corporis.’ Et subditur, etenim illum creauit altissimus . Glosa: ‘ad aliorum utilitatem. Et est hoc argumentum quod medicinis uti licet etiam religiosis. Unde et Ysayas emplaustum caricarum alligavit Ezekie, Ys. 38[:21]. Sed obicitur de beata Agatha que dixit beato Petro “medicinam etc.” Respondeo: priuilegia paucorum non faciunt legem communem.’ Ecclus. 38[:2]: a deo est omnis medela, et a rege recipiet donationem , scilicet medicus.’ 10 Et hoc de secundo membro principali.

13 Tertio tangitur in verbis propositis materialis altitudo, quoad subiecti preeminentiam, in hoc quod dicitur et vir prudens etc. Ubi concedit[?] nomine viri utriusque hominis sexus frequenter datur intelligi, secundum illud Ps. [1:1], Beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum etc., quod totum utrique sexui videtur competere, cuius ratio est quia omnis denominatio fit a digniori. Sexus autem virilis naturaliter dignior et perfectior est mulieribus. Homo autem secundum corpus, vel potius corpus humanum, est subiectum medicinalis scientie. Illud enim est subiectum uniuscuiuscumque scientie speculative vel practice cuius passionem contemplatur speculativa scientia, vel efficit practica. Sanitatem autem, quam speculatur medicina secundum quod speculativa, et efficit secundum quod practica, proprie subiectum est corpus humanum. Ipsius igitur est subiectum corpus humanum, quod etiam satis probari posset per multa dicta Ysidori, 4 libro Ethimologiarum , que propter brevitatem dimittantur ad presens.

10 Cf. Hugh of St. Cher, Postillae in totam Bibliam (Venice: N. Pezzana, 1703), f. 243v-244v.

204

14 Huius autem subiecti, humani scilicet corporis, dignitas et excellentia patere nobis potest ex tribus precipue: Primo quidem ex comparatione eius ad animam qua informatur, cum enim tota dignitas et nobilitas materie ex forma pensanda sit, a qua habet etiam entitatem. Patet quod materia informata forma nobilissima debet etiam nobilissima iudicari. Forma autem qua informatur corpus humanum est nobilissima, scilicet anima rationalis. Ipsum igitur est quantum ad hoc nobilissimum. Secundo hoc ipsum patere nobis potest ex comparatione ipsius ad corpus celeste cui assimilatur. Quanto enim aliquid magis assimilatur suppremo et nobilissimo sui generis, tanto ipsum est superius et nobilius. Corpus autem humanum inter omnia inferiora corpora generabilia et corruptabilia maxime assimilatur corpori celesti, quod est suppremum simpliciter inter omnia corpora. Est enim corpus humanum optime complexionis, utpote maxime redacte ad medium, et per consequens maxime a contrariis remotum, in quo quodammodo assimilatur corporibus celestibus, quod est ab omnium partium contrariet remotum. Corpus igitur humanum inter omnia inferiora corpora est nobilissi. 11 Tertio hoc ipsum patet si considerentur perfectiones ipsius quibus perficitur. Est enim corpus humanum optimi tactus inter omnia animalia, ut habeter a Philosopho, 2 De anima ,12 et ex precedentibus posset probari. Habet etiam homo proportionabiliter maximum cor inter omnia animalia, quod est principalior et nobilior pars humani corporis. Habet etiam homo maximum cerebrum inter omnia animalia, secundum quantitatem sui corporis, et hoc propter mitigationem caloris naturalis qui est in cordis, et etiam ut liberius in eo perficerentur operationes virium interiorum sensitivarum, que sunt neccessarie ad intellectus operationem, quod cerebrum est valde nobile membrum inter alia. Est etiam corpus humanum stature recte et non ad terram depresse sicut corpora ceterorum animalium. Ipsum igitur humanum corpus est nobilissimum inter alia corpora.

15 Ex quibus omnibus concludere possumus quod bene dictum est quod altitudo subiecti medi scientie tangitur in hoc quod dicitur et vir prudens non aborrebit illam , scilicet medicinalem scientiam vel medicinam, quia, ut habetur a Philosopho 6

11 Ink spot .

12 Aristotle, De anima II.9, 421 a 18-22; cf. Auctoritates Aristotelis , p. 182, no. 98.

205

Ethicorum , prudentis est eligere conferentia ad finem aliquem. 13 Ergo et medicinalem scientiam vel medicina, que maxime confert homini ad salutem corporis, que est finis multorum actuum humanorum. De hoc subiecto exponi posset illud quod dicit Sapiens Prov. 11[:12] vir , inquid, prudens tacebit , medico scilicet obediendo universaliter. Et 2 Mach. 3[:17] de quodam dicitur circumfusa erat viro mestitia quedam et horror corporis. Bene igitur dicitur in principali auctoritate et vir prudens non abhorrebit illam , medicinam scilicet vel medicinalem scientiam, quam, ut in eadem auctoritate dicitur, creauit altissimus , deus scilicet, de quo dicebat Ps.[91:9] tu autem altissimus in eternum domine . Huic altissimo domino sit honor et gloria per infinita seculorum secula. Amen.

13 Aristotle, Ethica ad Nicomachum VI.5, 1140 a 24.

206

Schneyer no. 112: Principium on medicine: Shorter (A) version 1

1 Principium super medicina

2 Disciplina medici etc. Ecclus. 38[:3]. Secundum Philosophum in primo Posteriorum , scire arbitramur unumquodque, cum causam cognoscimus, propter quam res est, et quoniam illius causa est,2 et idem etiam fere quantum ad verba dicit idem Philosophus in

principio libri Physicorum ,3 ex quibus verbis clare patet quod notitia omnis rei dependet ex notitia causarum. Et ratio est quia, sicut dicit idem Philosophus in secundo Metaphysice ,4 eadem sunt principia esse et veritatis seu cognoscibilitatis, sic quod a quibus res dependet quantum ad esse, dependet etiam quantum ad cognosci. Sed omnis res dependet quantum ad esse a causibus suis; ergo et dependet quantum ad cognosci a causibus suis. Et idcirco, ut habeantur aliqualiter notitia scientie medicinalis, congrue videntur assumpta verba primo proposita, in quibus scientia medicinalis describitur quantum ad quatuor causas suas: 5 primo quantum ad formalem claritatem, cum dicitur disciplina medici ; secundo quantum ad finalem bonitatem, cum additur exaltabit capud illius et in medio magnatorum collaudabitur ; tertio quantum ad effectivam celsitudinem, cum subditur altissimus de terra creavit medicinam ; quarto quantum ad subiectivam magnitudinem, cum adiungitur et vir prudens non orrebit eam .

3 6Quantum ad primum est sciendum quod sicut subiectum scientie non dicitur esse illud in quo est scientia, quia hoc est unum omnium scientiarum, scilicet intellectus, sed illud de quo tractat scientia, sicut ens seu corpus mobile dicitur esse subiectum philosophie

1 A f. 75va-76vb

2 Aristotle, Analytica posteriora , I.2, 71 b 9-12.

3 Aristotle, Physica , I.1, 184 a 12-14.

4 Aristotle, Metaphysica , II.1, 993 b 30-31.

5 In marg. : Divisio

6 In marg. : Primum principale

207

naturalis, et quantitas continua geometrie, et discreta arismetice, et sic de aliis, sic et forma scientie non est dicendum aliquid inherens ipsi scientie sicut forma inest subiecto suo seu materie, cum scientia sit quedam forma simplex. Nec substernatur alicui tanquam subiectum eius seu materia. Sed forma seu causa formalis scientie cuiuscumque dicitur communiter a doctoribus esse modus quo talis scientia traditur, seu secundum quem procedit et tractat de subiecto suo. Doctrina autem medicinalis tradita est et procedit modo scientifo, scilicet diffiniendo, dividendo, et probando conclusiones per rationes neccessarias vel probabiles, et non procedit modo narrativo, ut doctrina |A f. 75vb| legalis et consimiles. Ergo predictus modus scientificus dicendum est esse forma seu causa formalis medicinalis scientie seu doctrine, quod innuitur in verbis propositis cum dicitur disciplina medici , quia nomine discipline communiter accipitur seu intellegitur doctrina scientifico modo tradita et procedens que etiam vocatur scientia, ut quilibet scolaris volens in ipsa doceri petat ipsam a deo et a suo magistro, dicendo illud Ps. [118:66] Disciplinam et scientiam doce me . Et hoc de primo.

4 7Quantum autem ad secundum est sciendum quod intellectus speculativus differt a

practico fine, ut dicitur in tertio De anima .8 Et similiter scientia speculativa differt a practica fine, quia scilicet finis scientie speculative est solum unus, scilicet speculatio. Finis autem scientie practice est duplex, scilicet immediatus, qui est speculatio, et ultimatus, qui est operatio a quo et denominatur practica, hoc est operativa. Scientia autem medicinalis est scientia practica, ut communiter dicitur, et idcirco duplex est finis eius, scilicet immediatus, qui est speculatio veritatis de rebus quas considerat, seu de subiecto suo et ad ipsum spectantibus, et operatio sanitatis, qui est finis ultimatus. Et utrumque finem tangit Sapiens in verbis primo propositis, 9 quia quantum ad primum dicit exaltabit capud illius ; quantum autem ad secundum addit et in medio magnatorum collaudabitur .

7 A in marg. : Secundum principale

8 Aristotle, De anima , III.10, 433 a 14.

9 A in marg. : Subdivisio

208

5 10 Quantum ad primum horum est sciendum quod finis immediatus scientie medicinalis est, ut predictum est, speculari seu scire spectantia ad medicinalem scientiam, ut complexionem, dispositionem, et omnes conditiones corporis humani, virtutes rerum naturalium ex quibus corpus hominis potest sanitatem recipere, seu in sanitatem conservari, et proportionem ipsarum ad corpus humanum. Hic autem finis tangitur cum dicitur exaltabit capud illius . Per capud enim ad presens intelligo intellectum propter tria:

6 Primo quia sicut capud preheminet omnibus partibus corporis, non solum situ, sed etiam dignitate, sic et intellectus est dignior omnibus potentiis anime secundum communiorem opi-|A f. 76ra|-nionem. Secundo quia sicut in capite vigent omnes sensus interiores et exteriores, in aliis autem membris est unus solus sensus, scilicet tactus, sic et intellectus est cognoscitivus omnium, secundum illud Philosophi in tertio De anima : intellectus possibilis est quo est omnia fieri; intellectus autem agens quo est omnia facere. 11 Omnis autem sensus est cognoscitivus solum alicuius obiecti limitati et determinati, ut visus coloris, auditus soni, et sic de aliis. Tertio quia sicut gubernatio ceterorum membrorum aliqualiter dependet a capite propter vires sensitivas in eo vigentes, ut predictum est, sic et intellectus principatur concupiscibili et irascibili principatu politico, ut dicitur in primo Politice .12

7 Cuius capitis exaltatio est veritatis speculatio, per quam assimilatur deo et substanciis separatis, et ad eas per quandam similitudinem quodammodo elevatur. De hac exaltatione videtur loqui Sapiens in proverbiis, Prov. 4[:5], ubi cum precepisset dicens posside sapientiam, posside prudentiam ; subdit [Prov. 4:8] accipe illam et exaltabit te et glorificaberis ab ea cum eam fueris amplexatus , et subdit [Prov. 4:9] dabit capiti tuo augmentum gratiarum . Vel per hanc capitis exaltationem potest ad litteram intelligi quecumque promotio temporalis, quam etsi scientes et litterati non debeant pro fine sue

10 A in marg. : Primum

11 Aristotle, De anima , III.5, 430 a 10-15.

12 Aristotle, Politica I.5 1254 b 2-5; cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae , I 1. 81, a 3, ad 2; I a-II ae , q. 17, a. 7; q. 56, a. 4, ad 3; q. 58, a. 2, etc.

209

scientie intendere, debetur tamen eis de iure divino et etiam humano, quam ut in pluribus assequuntur de facto. Si enim honor est premium virtutis, ut dicit Philosophus in primo Ethicorum ,13 et virtutum, secundum eundem in 6, 14 quedam sunt morales, quedam intellectuales, ut scientia, ars, prudentia, sapientia, et intellectus, patet quod quibuscumque scientibus, et maxime doctoribus, debetur temporalis promotio et exaltatio. Et hoc est quod dicut sapiens Sap. 11[:1]: Sapientia humiliati exaltabit capud illius . Frequenter enim humiles et parvi ex genere propter scientiam exaltantur. Vel forte hoc dicit quia, ut iam dixi, litterati viri non debent pro fine sue scientie tales pro-|A f. 76rb|-motiones intendere. Hoc enim ad ambitionem et superbiam pertineret.

8 15 Quantum autem ad secundum predictorum duorum est sciendum quod, ut predictum est, finis ultimatus scientie medicinalis est operatio sanitatis, que inter bona mere corporalia est multum magnum bonum, iuxta illud Ecclus. 30[:15-16], melius est corpus validum quam census immensus , et subdit non est census super censum salutis corporis et non est oblectatio super cordis gaudium , quod scilicet causat sepe sanitas. Hic finis tangitur in verbis propositis cum de medicina seu medico dicitur in medio magistratorum collaudabitur . Secundum enim Philosophum in primo Ethicorum ,16 differentia est inter honorem et laudem, quia honor debetur hiis que sunt excellentia et bona secundum se; laus autem debetur hiis que sunt ad finem seu bona propter aliud, sicut laudamus bonum equum quia bene currit. Scientie autem speculative sunt appetende propter se, hoc est propter ipsum scire. Scientie autem practice appetuntur propter operationem. Ergo scientie speculative debent dici honorabiles, iuxta illud Philosophi in principio primi De anima ,17 bonorum honorabilium notitiam opinantes, id est scientiam speculativam, ut communiter exponitur; scientie autem practice debent dici laudabiles. Scientia autem

13 Actually Aristotle, Ethica ad Nicomachum , IV.7, 1123 b 35; cf. Auctoritates Aristotelis p. 237, no. 68.

14 Aristotle, Ethica ad Nicomachum , VI.2, 1139 a 1-3.

15 A in marg. : Secundum

16 Auctoritates Aristotelis , p. 234, no. 21; cf. Aristotle, Ethica ad Nicomachum , I.12, 1101b 12-18; 1102 a 1-4.

17 Aristotle, De anima , I.1, 402 a 1.

210

medicinalis est practica, ut predictum est. Ergo scientia medicinalis et medicus, secundum quod huiusmodi est multum laudandus, non solum ab uno, sed etiam a multis seu omnibus, non solum parvis, sed etiam magnis, propter finem tam excellentem, ut predictum est, sicut est operatio et conservatio sanitatis, iuxta illud Ecclus. 11[:1] in medio magistratorum consedere illum faciet , scilicet scientia seu sapientia scientem seu sapientem, ut ibi ad litteram intelligitur, et Ecclus. 39[:4] dicitur in medio magnatorum ministrabit, et in conspectu presidis apparebit , quod de medico maxime verificatur ad litteram. Et subditur paucis interpositis [Ecclus 39:12], collaudabunt multi sapientiam eius . Et hoc de secundo principali.

9 18 Quantum autem ad tertium principale est sciendum quod, licet principium effectivum immediatum medicinalis |A f. 76va| scientie fuerit aliquis homo, ut Appollo, Ypocras, Galienus, Avicenna, et ceteri doctores medicine, principium tamen primum est ipse deus dupliciter in genere: Primo siquidem modo communi secundum quem est principium omnis scientie et sapientie create eam omnibus eius inventoribus vel ipsam habentibus seu scientibus tribuendo iuxta illud Ecclus. 1[:1], omnis sapientia a domino deo est , et Iac. 1[:5], si quis indiget sapientiam postulet a deo qui dat omnibus affluenter . Secundo modo speciali, et hoc dupliciter: Primo quia deus est principale sanans omnes infirmitates, non solum mentales, set etiam carnales, et homo medicus sanat tanquam instrumentum nature seu actoris nature, hoc est dei, de quo dicitur homini in Ps. [102:3-4] Qui sanat omnes infirmitates tuas qui redimit de interitu vitam tuam , et Ecclus. 38[:9] dicitur fili in tua infirmitate non despicias te ipsum, sed ora dominum et ipse curabit te . Glosa: ‘ab omni infirmitate spirituali et corporali.’ Secundo conferendo virtutes rebus naturalibus sanandi corpus humanum et conservandi ipsum in sanitate, et sic videtur loqui Sapiens in themate proposito cum dicit altissimus de terra creavit medicinam . Glosa: ‘id est herbas radices et fructus medicinoses ad salutem hominum.’ Iuxta illud Ecclus. 38[:11-12], Da locum medico, etenim illum creavit altissimus. Non discedat a te, quia opera eius sunt neccessaria , et infra, eodem capitulo [Ecclus. 38:1], honora medicum propter neccessitatem, etenim illum creavit altissimus . Et hoc de tertio principali.

18 A in marg. : Tertium principale

211

10 19 Quantum autem ad quartum principalem est sciendum quod subiectum medicinalis scientie est homo secundum corpus, vel magis corpus humanum, cuius ratio est quia illud est subiectum scientie practice cuius passionem talis scientia cognoscit et efficit. Sed scientia medicinalis cognoscat et facit sanitatem corporis humani, que est eius passio. Ergo scientie medicinalis subiectum est corpus humanum, cuius dignitas apparet in multis. Primo in hoc, quod eius forma est nobilissima, scilicet anima intellectiva. Tota enim entitas et dignitas actualis materie est a forma. Secundo in hoc, quod est optime complexionis, utpote maxime remote a contrariis et redacte ad medium, in quo assimilatur quodam modo suppremo corpori, scilicet celesti, quod |A f. 76vb| non est compositum ex contrariis. Tertio in hoc, quod est stature recte et non depresse ad terram, sicut sunt corpora animalium brutorum, et habet proportionabiliter maximum cor, quod est principalior et nobilior pars corporis, et proportionabiliter maximum cerebrum, quod post cor est pars multum nobilis corporis, quia in eo sunt omnes vires sensitive interiores ad deserviendum cognitioni intellective. Est etiam optimi sensus tactus, ut patet in secundo De anima ,20 qui est principalis inter omnes sensus exteriores, et communis quasi toti corpori. Hoc subiectum in verbis propositis tangitur cum ultimo dicitur et vir prudens non aborrebit eam , scilicet medicinam, ut nomine viri intelligatur uterque sexus, quia denominatio est a digniori, et sic etiam accipitur tale nomen in multis locis sacre scripture, iuxta illud Ps. [1:1], beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum etc., et quia ad prudentem spectat eligere conferentia ad aliquem finem, ut patet in 6 Ethicorum . Medicinalis autem scientia et medicina confert seu est utilis homini ad sanitatem. Idcirco bene dicit Sapiens in verbis propositis vir prudens non aborrebit eam . Prov. 11[:12] dicitur vir prudens tacebit , medico scilicet non contradicendo, sed obediendo vice dei, de quo dicitur, ut supra allegatum est, Ecclus. 38[:1], etenim illum creavit altissimus , qui vivit et regnat etc.

19 A in marg. : Quartum principale

20 Aristotle, De anima II.9, 421 a 18-22.

212

Quodl. V.10: Whether radical moisture can be restored 1

1 Decima questio est utrum humidum radicale possit restauri.

2 Et primo videtur quod non, quia si humidum radicale posset restaurari, homo posset perpetuari in vita, quia secundum medicos, mors maxime naturalis contingit propter consumptionem totalem humidi radicalis, sic quod stante tali humido et non consumpto homo vivit nisi interim eveniret mors violenta. Sed consequens est impossibile, scilicet homines posse naturaliter in vita presenti perpetuari. Ergo et antecedens etiam est impossibile, scilicet humidum radicale posse restaurari.

3 Sed contra, secundum Philosophum in primo De generatione , nutrimentum assimilatur nutrito post perfectam nutritionem perfecta assimilatione. 2 Sed hoc non esset |T f. 49va| verum nisi humidum radicale posset restaurari, quod enim primum nutritur est humidum radicale, ergo etc.

4 Respondeo, ad evidentiam huius questionis sciendum est quod humidum radicale potest distingui a non radicali tripliciter.

5 Primo ut dicatur humidum radicale illud quod est vere informantium forma viventis, seu quod est actu eius pars, ut actu caro, os, et huiusmodi; nutrimentale autem quod est in via ut sit talis, ut humores qui non sunt adhuc actu pars viventis propter defectum perfecte conversionis. Et sub hoc sensu accipiendo humidum radicale et nutrimentale 3, non esset aliud querere quod propositum est in titulo questionis nisi querere utrum cibus possit vere converti in naturam viventis, de quo quid tenendum sit patebit per ea que infra dicuntur

6 Secundo modo potest intelligi humidum radicale et 4 nutrimentali ut dicatur humidum radicale illud quod est principalis pars corporis, ut manus, pes, et huiusmodi; pars autem

1 N f. 74ra-va; T f. 49rb-vb

2 Aristotle, De generatione et corruptione I.5, 321 b 35-322 a 16.

3 N nutrimentum

4 N a

213

non principalis, ut modica caro et huius dicatur humidum non radicale. Et secundum hunc modum accipiendo humidum radicale, nihil aliud queretur in titulo questionis nisi utrum pes et huiusmodi deperdita per abscisionem et arefactionem vel alio modo possit restaurari. Sed iste sensus est primo malus in se. Humidum enim radicale distinguitur contra nutrimentale. Sed non potest dici magis caro humidum radicale quam manus et pes et huiusmodi, ergo etc. Et preterea, manus et pes et huiusmodi partes principales consistunt ex partibus minus principalibus, unde forma numquam in eis radicaretur sicut in subiecto, nisi etiam esset eodem modo in partibus minus principalibus. Non est autem iste intellectus querentis, nec etiam questionis. Constat enim quod manus perdita non potest restaurari, quia non est in homine virtus restaurativa eius, sicut est carnis et ossis et huiusmodi.

7 Tertio modo potest distingui humidum radicale a nutrimentali magis secundum intentionem querentis, ut humidum radicale dicatur humidum quod trahitur a parentibus; nutrimentale autem quod advenit ab alimentis. Secundum quem modum accipiendo humidum radicale, dicendum ad propositam questionem quod si humidum radicale sic acceptum non potest restaurari, cibus non potest vere converti in veritatem 5 nature viventis; si autem potest restaurari, et cibus potest vere converti. Unde idem est querere secundum hunc sensum propositam questionem et querere utrum cibus possit vere converti in veritatem 6 nature viventis.

8 Ad cuius questionis evidentiam tria principaliter sunt facienda. Quia primo probandum est quod post nutritionem hec duo humida, scilicet radicale et nutrimentale, non distinguntur, quod potest ad presens probari dupliciter:

9 Primo quia cum mixtio sit miscibilium alteratorum unio, ut patet per Philosophum in primo De generatione ,7 ad rationem vere mixtionis requiritur quod mixta post mixtionem

5 N virtutem

6 N virtutem

7 Aristotle, De generatione et corruptione I.10, 328 b 22; cf. Auctoritates Aristotelis , p. 168, no. 18.

214

sint unum et non distincta, ut apparet de elementis in corporibus mixtis. Sed nutritio non est sine mixtione nutrimenti |N f. 74rb| cum nutrito, ut patet in primo De generatione ,8 ergo etc.

10 Secundo quia saltim in principio vite animalis nutritio est cum augmento. Sed in augmento quod auget non est distinctum ab aucto, quia augmentum proprie acceptum non est per appositionem minimi iuxta minimum, sed per perfectam unionem aucti cum augente, et e converso, ergo etc.

11 9Secundo principaliter est probandum quod humidum radicale, acceptum modo exposito, restauratur quantum ad quod quid est, quod potest probari multipliciter.

12 Primo, ex predictis humidum enim nutrimentale restauratur, ut omnes dicunt. Sed humidum radicale post nutritionem est perfecte unum cum nutrimentali, ut supra probatum est, ergo etc.

13 Preterea, vivens a principio vite nutritur et augetur. Sed nihil nutritur nisi cuius aliud deperditur, et aliud loco eius restauratur, ut patet per Philosophum in primo De generatione .10 Nihil etiam augetur |T f. 49vb| proprie, ut patet per eundum ibidem, 11 per appositionem alicuius post additionem distructi in natura et quiditate ab eo cui additur, ergo etc.

14 Tertio quia illud idem humidum quod consumitur restauratur. Sed si calor naturalis continue consumit humidum in quo est, magis consumet humidum radicale, in quo est principaliter quam aliud, ergo etc.

15 Preterea, si humidum radicale sic acceptum non restauratur per nutritionem sic quod alimentum nec naturam et quiditatem eius accipiat, vivens erit unum per accidens, utpote

8 Aristotle, De generatione et corruptione I.5, 322 a 7-11.

9 N in marg. : Secundum principale

10 Aristotle, De generatione et corruptione I.5, 322 a 5-8.

11 Aristotle, De generatione et corruptione I.5, 320 b 30-35.

215

compositum ex habentibus diversas quiditates et formas substantiales. Hoc autem est inconveniens dicere, ergo etc.

16 Preterea, aut illud humidum radicale modo exposito, id est humidum quod trahitur a parentibus, advenit ex cibis secundum communem doctrinam, et secundum doctrinam Philosophi in libro De generatione , et tunc pari ratione materia alterius cibi potest esse sub illa forma, aut illud humidum fuit actu pars generantis. Et tunc rediret opinio Magistri Sententiarum quam ponit in tricesima distinctione secundi libri, 12 que communiter

improbatur, tum 13 quia absque multiplicatione non potuit esse tanta materia sub forma primi parentis, nec materia multiplicari potest nisi per additionem alterius materie, vel per rarefactionem, que non apparet (secundum enim Augustinum decimo Super Genesim , nihil est absurdius quam putare ullum esse corpus quod manente nature sue quantitate undique crescat nisi rarescat 14 ), tum quia constat quod tunc quando deciditur non est actu

pars, quia enim homo prius vivit vita vegetativa, postea sensitiva, postea intellectiva, 15 ut

apparet per Philosophum in libro De generatione .16 Ergo solum est dicendum quod tale humidum quandoque fuit sub forma hominis, et pari ratione cibus generatus ex corpore hominis mediate vel immediate poterit vero[?] esse sub forma eius.

17 17 Tertio principaliter est probandum quod humidum radicale acceptum modo exposito non potest restaurari quantum ad perfectam virtutem conversivam, quod apparet ad sensum. In principio enim vite animalis, virtus conversiva est sic fortis quod sufficit ad nutrimentum et ad augmentum; postea autem sufficit ad nutrimentum tantum; postmodum autem nec ad hoc perfecte sufficit, ut apparet in senibus, unde tunc homo

12 Peter Lombard, Sent. II.30, cap. 15.

13 NT add. tum in marg.

14 Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram , X.26.45.

15 NT add. postea intellectiva in marg.

16 Aristotle, De generatione animalium II.3, 736 a 35-36; b 1-2, 12-13, 14-15; cf. Auctoritates Aristotelis , p. 225, no. 203.

17 N in marg. : Tertium principale

216

attenuatur et tandem talis virtus nihil potest convertere, unde tunc homo deficit et moritur. Ratio autem huius est duplex:

18 Prima quia omne agens naturale citra orbem lune patitur, et per consequens quantum ad potentiam per quam agit, debilitatur. Virtus ergo conversiva cibati per continuam actionem in cibum debilitatur, et tandem deficit, et tunc est defectus in restauratione, et animal moritur.

19 Secunda ratio est quia illud quod per nutritionem advenit tanquam extra, nec nature a principio, nec sic recipit perfecte dispositiones cibati sicut erant in ipso ante nutritionem. Tales enim dispositiones possunt magis et minus recipere, quamvis non quod quid est, et per consequens quantum ad tales dispositiones nutrimentum continue diminuitur et deficit tandem, sicut et vinum quantum |N f. 74va| ad suam fortitudinem per admixtionem aque, unde tandem corpus est totaliter indispositum respectu anime, et animal moritur, quia ad diminuationem talium dispositionum sequitur etiam diminutio virtutis conversive alimenti. Et per hoc patet ad questionem simul et ad argumentum.

217

Quodl. VIII.38: Whether it is better to know law or medicine 1

1 Tricesima octava questio est utrum magis expediat saluti anime scire leges quam medicinam.

2 Et primo videtur quod plus expediat scire medicinam, quia illam scientiam plus expedit scire per quam homo preservatur ab ultimo malorum et conservatur in eo quod est maxime appetendum. Sed per scientiam medicinalem homo preservatur a morte, que est ultimum terribilium, secundum Philosophum in tertio Ethicorum ,2 et conservatur in vita, quam naturaliter quilibet summe appetit, ut experientia docet, et ista non fiunt per scientiam legalem, ergo etc.

3 Sed contra, scientiam in qua non de facili erratur magis expedit saluti anime scire quam oppositam. Sed talis est scientia legalis respectu medicinalis, |N f. 152ra| quia iudex iudicat secundum allegata et sic non errat in iudicando; medicus autem iudicat secundum signa exteriora, que frequenter sunt deceptoria, ut experientia docet, ergo etc.

4 Respondeo, dicendum est quod plus expedit ceteris paribus saluti anime scire leges quam medicinam, quod probatur sic: illam doctrinam plus expedit saluti anime scire que est utilior et magis expediens rei publici. Sed doctrina legum est huiusmodi respectu doctrine medicinalis, ergo etc. Maior patet; minor probatur quia finis legislatoris est cives facere bonos, ut patet per Philosophum in decimo Ethicorum ,3 non solum secundum unam virtutem, sed etiam secundum omnes, quia iustitia legalis precipit actus omnium virtutum, ut dicitur in quinto Ethicorum .4 Finis autem medicine est sanitatem introducere et introductam conservare. Sed virtus est preferenda sanitati, et generaliter bonum anime bono corporis, ut dicitur in primo Ethicorum ,5 quod etiam patet dupliciter:

1 N f. 151vb-152ra; T f.137rb-va

2 Aristotle, Ethica ad Nicomachum III.9, 1115 a 33-34; cf. Auctoritates Aristotelis , p. 236, no. 56.

3 cf. Aristotle, Ethica ad Nicomachum II.1, 1103 b 3-4.

4 Aristotle, Ethica ad Nicomachum V.6, 1134 a 31-32.

5 Aristotle, Ethica ad Nicomachum I.8.

218

5 Primo quia melioris perfectabilis est melior perfectio, ut dicit Commentator super 6 Ethicorum .6 Sed anima, cuius perfectio est virtus, est aliquid melius quam corpus, cuius perfectio est sanitas, ergo etc.

6 Secundo quia finis est potior eo quod est ad finem. Sed bonum anime est finis boni corporis, ut dicitur in primo |T f. 137va| Ethicorum ,7 quia bona exteriora sunt sicut propter finem propter bona corporis, et hoc propter bona anime, sicut et anima est finis corporis, ut dicitur in secundo De anima ,8 ergo etc.

7 Preterea, illud est melius et magis eligendum cuius oppositum est peius et magis fugiendum. Sed peius et magis fugiendum est homini esse vitiosum quam esse infirmum, cum primum opponatur bono rationis, a qua habet homo quod sit homo, et secundum quam homo est ad ymaginem dei et excedit bruta; non sic secundum, ergo etc

8 Preterea, inter omnes scientias practicas politica est prior et dignior et finis aliarum, ut patet in prologo Ethicorum et Politice .9 Sed utraque hec doctrina est practica, et legalis reducitur ad politicam sicut eius pars; non autem medicalis, ergo etc.

9 Ad argumentum factum in obiciendo, in contrarium dicendum per interemptionem minoris, peius enim et magis fugiendum est vitium, a quo preservat scientia legalis, ut patet per Philosophum in decimo Ethicorum ,10 quam mors corporalis, a qua preservat

scientia medicinalis, et etiam quam simpliciter non esse. Unde 11 Ieronomus dicit super Mattheum, exponens illud Matt. 26[:24], bonum erat ei etc., ‘multo melius esset non

6 I have not identified the reference.

7 Aristotle, Ethica ad Nicomachum I.8, 1098 b 12-15.

8 Aristotle, De anima II.4, 415 b 9-11.

9 Aristotle, Ethica ad Nicomachum I.2, 1094 1 27-29; Politica , I.1, 1252 a 3-6.

10 Aristotle, Ethica ad Nicomachum X, passim. 11 N Ideo

219

subsistere quam male subsistere.’ 12 Et per oppositum, virtus in qua conservat scientia legalis est maius bonum quam vita corporalis, in qua conservat scientia medicinalis.

10 Argumentum autem factum in contrarium non sufficienter probat conclusionem, quia, sicut dicitur in primo Topicorum , neque enim omnio persuadebit rector, nec medicus sanabit, sed si ex contingentibus nihil obmiserit, sufficienter eum habere disciplinam discimus. 13 Unde sufficit medico quod bene cognoscat signa infirmitatis et per talia iudicet, sicut et iurista etiam iudicat secundum exterius apparentia, scilicet allegata et probata. Et sicut signa exteriora secundum que medicus iudicat sunt frequenter falsa et deceptoria, sic etiam et testimonia humana, secundum que iudicat iurista, et multo magis, quia signa exteriora secundum que iudicat medicus sunt signa naturalia, que ut in pluribus sunt vera, licet raro et in paucioribus sint falsa et decipiant. Verba autem, que sunt signa et testimonia secundum que iudicat legista, frequenter sunt falsa et per consequens deceptoria, ut experientia docet cotidie.

12 Jerome, Commentarium in Mattheum IV.26.24.

13 Aristotle, Topica I.3, 101 b 8-9; cf. Auctoritates Aristotelis p. 322, no. 4.

Chapter 4 Practical Theology: The Quodlibets of John of Naples and Pastoral Care

The title of this chapter is a nod to Leonard Boyle, who largely pioneered the modern academic study of what he termed pastoralia .1 Boyle pointed to the proliferation of a broad range of Latin and vernacular texts concerned with the cura animarum (care of souls) during the later Middle Ages, especially in the wake of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, including a large number of texts aimed at helping priests learn how to better administer confession, compose sermons, and perform other pastoral duties. One genre that particularly attracted his attention was the confessors’ manual. In contrast to the somewhat mechanical approach of earlier penitentials, which had a venerable history going back to the early Middle Ages, the manuals that started to be produced around the beginning of the thirteenth century shared a common concern with treating the penitent’s particular circumstances, and took into account new developments in law and theology. 2 In a seminal article, Boyle drew attention to the role that one of the most influential examples of these manuals – the Summa Confessorum of the Dominican John of Freiburg, composed around 1298 – played in popularizing the moral teachings of thirteenth- century theologians, most notably those of Thomas Aquinas, especially as expressed in the Secunda Secundae and in his quodlibets. 3 As Boyle had observed not long before, quodlibets in

1 For an evaluation of Boyle’s work, see Joseph Goering, “Leonard E. Boyle and the Invention of Pastoralia ,” in A Companion to Pastoral Care in the Late Middle Ages (1200-1500) , ed. Ronald J. Stansbury (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 7- 20; for an introduction to the genre, see Goering, “Pastoralia: The Popular Literature of the Care of Souls,” in Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide , ed. F. A. C. Mantello and A. G. Rigg (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1996), 670-6, as well as Boyle, “The Fourth Lateran Council and Manuals of Popular Theology,” in The Popular Literature of Medieval England , ed. T. J. Hefferman (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1985), 30-43, and Boyle, “ Summae Confessorum ,” in Les genres littéraires dans les sources théologiques et philosophiques médievales: définition, critique et exploitation (Leuven: Institute d’Études Médiévales de l’Université Catholique de Louvain, 1982), 227-37.

2 Boyle, “ Summae Confessorum,” 227. On the early medieval tradition of penitential literature, see, for instance, Rob Meens, Penance in Medieval Europe, 600-1200 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014) and Abigail Firey, ed. A New History of Penance (Leiden: Brill, 2008).

3 Boyle, “The Summa confessorum ” of John of Freiburg and the Popularization of the Moral Teaching of St. Thomas and Some of His Contemporaries,” in St. Thomas Aquinas, 1274-1974: Commemorative Studies , ed. Armand A. Maurer et al. (Toronto: PIMS, 1974) 2:245-68, reprinted in Boyle, Pastoral Care, Clerical Education and Canon Law, 1200-1400 (London: Variorum, 1981). In “The Quodlibets of St. Thomas and Pastoral Care,” The Thomist 38 (1974): 232-56 (reprinted in Pastoral Care, Clerical Education and Canon Law ), at 253-4n61, Boyle briefly notes that John of Freiburg also used the quodlibets of Peter of Tarantaise and Ulrich of Strasbourg, and that

220 221 general “reflect an abiding interest among the students in the cura animarum ” and the quodlibets from Aquinas’s second Parisian period in particular have an especially high number of practical ethical questions. 4 In summary form, many of these questions found a wide circulation in the late Middle Ages through their inclusion in John of Freiburg’s Summa and subsequent pastoral works based upon it.

Aquinas was by no means the only author to discuss moral questions in his quodlibets. Even a quick skim of Glorieux’s La littérature quodlibétique reveals that many quodlibetal authors discussed a broad range of ethical questions and questions relating to the practice of pastoral care. This is no great surprise, since, as Boyle points out, “a large proportion of the students in the theological faculties of Paris, Oxford, and elsewhere, was engaged in or destined for pastoral care at one level or another.” 5 Some theology students at Paris clearly had a special interest in collecting quodlibetal questions on moral issues, as manuscripts such as Paris, BnF lat. 15350 and Paris, BnF lat. 15850 attest. 6 To be sure, some masters of theology were more practically- minded than others, and Boyle suggests, quite reasonably, that an audience’s perception of a presiding master’s specialty would have influenced the kinds of questions that were proposed in a quodlibetal disputation. 7 Timing may also have played a role: Sylvain Piron may well be right that questions on cases of conscience were especially common in quodlibetal disputations held during Lent, “the season of the yearly compulsory confession,” although with precise dates unavailable for many quodlibets, this hypothesis is difficult to confirm. 8 At any rate, it is well established that questions on practical matters such as economics, marriage, and sexuality all

other writers of pastoral manuals also drew on quodlibetal literature: the Franciscan Summa astesana used Henry of Ghent’s quodlibets, and the Manipulus curatorum of Guido de Monte Rocherii used those of Godfrey of Fontaines.

4 Boyle, “The Quodlibets of St. Thomas and Pastoral Care,” 242-3.

5 Boyle, “The Quodlibets of St. Thomas and Pastoral Care,” The Thomist 38 (1974), 232-56 (reprinted in Pastoral Care, Clerical Education and Canon Law ), at 243.

6 Thomas Sullivan, “The Quodlibeta of the Canons Regular and the Monks,” in Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages, Volume 2 , 359-400, at 363-9, and Sylvain Piron, “Nicholas of Bar’s Collection,” in Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages, Volume 2 , 333-43.

7 Boyle, “The Quodlibets of St. Thomas and Pastoral Care,” 240.

8 Piron, “Nicholas of Bar’s Collection,” 337.

222 appear quite frequently in quodlibetal debates, as do questions about the behaviour of people from particular walks of life, such as parents, bishops, students, and kings. 9 Although many quodlibetal questions make no explicit reference to confession, Ian Wei argues that “[t]he relentless consideration of small circumstantial variations pertaining to a specific sin” that we find in these works “really only makes sense in this setting.” 10

4.1 Pastoral themes in John’s quodlibets

Roughly a third of John’s quodlibetal questions deal with matters of practical ethics, many in a manner that is well described as a “relentless consideration of small circumstantial variations pertaining to a specific sin.” To give just one example, John’s Quodl. X.26 deals with the case of a citizen of one city who has sworn allegiance to a prince of the same city. He knows that the city is plotting against the prince and the prince against the city; who should he inform first? John’s response is based on a seven-fold distinction of possible circumstances: either both plots are just, or both are unjust, or the prince’s is just and the city’s unjust, or vice versa, or there is doubt about both, or there is doubt about the prince’s, or there is doubt about the city’s. He provides solutions for all circumstances, and also distinguishes between what should be done if the prince is in charge of just the city in question as opposed to a whole kingdom. 11 This was clearly not a response to a query about a contemporary political situation, or if it was, John ignored the particulars of the situation and treated the immediate political context merely as a jumping-off point for exploring a range of possible circumstances in which political obedience and personal conscience might come into conflict.

9 E.g. Marmursztejn, L’autorité des maîtres ; Wei, Intellectual Culture ; Wei, “Discovering the Moral Value of Money: Usurious Money and Medieval Academic Discourse in Parisian Quodlibets,” Medieaevalia 33 (2012): 5-46; Giovanni Ceccarelli, “‘Whatever’ Economics: Economic Thought in Quodlibeta ,” in Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages I , 475-505; Roberto Lambertini, “Political Quodlibeta ,” in Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages I, 439-474; Ruth Mazo Karras, “Using Women to Think with in the Medieval University,” in Seeing and Knowing: Women and Learning in Medieval Europe, 1200-1550 , ed. Anneke B. Mulder-Bakker (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), 21–33.

10 Wei, Intellectual Culture , 242.

11 See appendix to Chapter 6.

223

A handful of John’s quodlibetal questions actually do evoke the context of confession by explicitly discussing how a person ought to be counselled. One example appears in a question from his eighth quodlibet: whether someone who vows to fast on the feast of some saint is bound to fast when that feast day falls on a Sunday. Again, John’s response considers a number of possible situations: either this person had vowed to perform an afflictive fast (i.e. a fast performed with the goal of mortifying the flesh) or an exultative one (i.e. a fast that seeks to elevate the mind to God, observed due to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit rather than the instruction of the Church), or he did not have a specific kind of fast in mind when he made the vow, or he was thinking of both kinds at once. 12 All else being equal, John argues, everyone should be advised to conform to the universal day of fasting prescribed by the Church, rather than performing unusual observances on their own. 13 Although he could have stopped his response here, he goes on to list for his audience a number of cases in which it would be illicit to fast on a Sunday: if one pertinaciously held the erroneous belief that one will not be compensated for the utility of the fast by observing the feast; if one were to hold Sundays in contempt, thinking them a day more worthy of fasting than of celebration; if one wished to imitate heretics in doing this, or to go against Christian customs.14 He backs each one up with one or more citations from Aquinas and the Decretum , making the question into a useful reference tool.

12 Quodl. VIII.35, N f. 150rb-va; T f. 135vb-136ra: “Respondeo, ad evidentiam huius questionis sciendum est quod secundum Augustinum in libro De consensu evangelistarum , duplex est ieiunium, scilicet afflictionis et exultationis, et est triplex differentia inter ea quantum spectat ad presens [... |NT| ...] Quo supposito, dicendum est ad questionem per distinctionem, quia aut talis vovens intendit vovere ieiunare primo ieiunio, scilicet propter carnis afflictionem, aut secundo, scilicet propter mentis maiorem elevationem, aut neutro, quia de neutro cogitavit quando vovit, aut utroque, quia vovit ieiunare propter utrumque predictorum.”

13 Quodl. VIII.35, N f. 150va; T f. 136ra: “Ceteris enim paribus, sicut est in proposito, magis est consulendum unicuique quod conformet se quantum ad diem universali ecclesie in ieiunando quam quod sit singularis.”

14 Quodl. VIII.35, N f. 150va-b; T f. 136ra-b: “Sciendum tamen est quod tale ieiunium quod fieret in die dominica esset omnino illicitum in multis casibus. Primo si ieiunans adeo |N| pertinaciter teneret ieiunium quod non crederet posse recompensari utilitatem ieiunii per devotionem festi. Quere de hoc in quarto Sententiarum fratris Thome, distinctione 15 a, articulo tertio, ‘de ieiunio,’ questione secunda, in solutione questionis. Secundo, si hoc faceret in contemptum diei dominice, iudicans talem diem magis aptum ad ieiunandum et affligendum carnem quam alium, unde dicitur in decretis, d. 30, ‘si quis’ [=D. 30, c. 17]: ‘tanquam hoc continencie convenire iudicans die dominica ieiunaverit in eiusdem diei contemptum anathema sit.’ Tertio, si hoc faceret aliquo errore deceptus, volens in hoc imitari hereticos, unde dicitur distinctione eadem ‘si quis presbiter propter publicam penitentiam a sacerdote acceptam absque aliqua [N: alia] neccessitate die dominica pro quadam religione ieiunaverit sicut Manichei anathema sit,’ et De consecratione d. 3 [c. 15] dicitur sic: ‘ne quis ieiunet die dominica causa timoris aut persuasionis, nec habitent in cubiculorum latibulis ac montium qui in suspicionibus perseverant, sed exemplum ac preceptum custodiant sacerdotum.’ Quarto si intenderet solum per hoc facere contra consuetudinem populi

224

A similar problem from John’s eleventh quodlibet involves conflicting vows: if someone has vowed both to eat no bread on the feast of St. Lawrence (“who was baked like bread on a fire”!) and to fast on bread and water on Fridays, which vow should he observe if that feast falls on a Friday? 15 John begins by criticizing the questioner’s assumption that such a man is only bound to fulfill one of these vows, pointing out that if he can fulfill both without risk of death or serious illness, he is bound to do so. 16 Turning then to the main question, he distinguishes between whether the man made one vow before the other, or made both at the same time. Supposing that this man is in sufficiently frail health that he cannot fulfil both vows at once, he is bound to fulfill the one that he made first. If he made both vows at the same time, he is free to choose to observe whichever one he likes. 17 Here, John informs his audience that such a person should be counseled to observe the fast which will be better and more virtuous. This could either be the one which is more difficult and causes more suffering, or the one which is performed with the greatest devotion; if a choice must be made, the latter is to be preferred. 18

John adds a further sub-question, of the sort with which a confessor might follow up on this advice: whether such a person would be obliged to commute the neglected vow into some other

Christiani, que pro lege habenda est secundum Augustinum. Quere in Secunda secunde , q. cxlvii, articulo quinto, in solutione ultimi argumenti. Unde dicit Ieronomus in quadam epistola ad Lucinium, |T| et habetur in decretis, d. 76, capitulo ‘utinam’ [= D. 76, c. 11], ‘non dico quod festivis diebus ieiunandum putem, sed unaqueque provincia habundet in suo sensu et precepta maiorum leges apostolicas arbitretur.’”

15 Quodl. XI.16, T f. 170vb: “Utrum vovens non comedere panem in festo sancti Laurencii, qui fuit assatus ad ignem sicut panis, et ieiunare in pane et aqua in feria sexta, si tale festum est in feria sexta teneatur adimplere votum facilius de duobus predictis vel difficilius.”

16 Quodl. XI.16, T f. 171ra: “Respondeo, in hanc questione unum supponitur, scilicet quod talis non teneatur implere ambo vota, sed unum solum, et aliud queritur, scilicet quod de duobus teneatur adimplere: utrum illud quod est facilius vel illud quod est difficilius. [...] Quantum ad primum, est sciendum quod aut talis potest ambo vota adimplere sine periculo mortis vel gravis infirmitatis, aut non. In primo casu dicendum quod talis tenetur ambo adimplere. [...] In secundo autem casu non tenetur ambo adimplere, sed unum solum.”

17 Quodl. XI.16, T f. 171ra: “Quantum autem ad secundum, quod est principale quesitum, distinguendum est, quia aut talis fecit talia duo vota ordine quodam temporis, unum scilicet ante aliud, aut fecit ea simul. In primo casu dicendum est quod supposito quod talis non possit ambo adimplere, tenetur adimplere illud votum quod prius fecit [...] In secundo autem casu dicendum est quod talis potest adimplere illud votum de duobus quod placet sibi.”

18 Quodl. XI.16, T f. 171rb: “Consulendum tamen esset tali quod adimpleret illud ieiunium quod melius esset et virtuosius, quod posset esse dupliciter: aut quia esset maioris afflictionis seu penalitatis (virtus enim est circa difficile et arduum, ut patet in secundo Ethicorum ), aut quia esset maioris devotionis. Et si unum ieiunium esset maioris devotionis et aliud maioris afflictionis, esset preferendum illud quod est maioris devotionis propter duo [...]”

225 good work, or to postpone it to another day. 19 He argues that if it is certain that this person could not observe both vows without risking serious illness or death, there is no need to perform this kind of make-up work. But if there is any doubt about the seriousness of his condition, he should either perform the fast on another day or commute it to another pious act, in order to avoid the risk of eternal damnation for breaking his vow. 20 The pastoral context becomes clear again at the end of the question, where John cautions that this person should not take such extraordinary measures of his own accord, but must rather seek permission from his prelate, as is required for all dispensations or commutations of vows. 21

A third example of a reference to counsel appears towards the end of the nineteenth question of John’s second quodlibet, which involves a very different kind of life-and-death situation: whether it is a sin for a man to kill his daughter and her lover upon catching them in the act of adultery. 22 Before responding to this question, John makes several preliminary points. He first distinguishes between precepts, prohibitions, and permissions: a precept is either good in itself or because it is a precept; prohibitions concern things that are bad either in themselves or because they are prohibited; permissions are granted for things which are bad in themselves but are

19 Quodl. XI.16, T f. 171ra: “Tertio, inquirendum est utrum illud votum quod talis vovens non tenetur adimplere de predictis duobus teneatur commutare in aliquod aliud bonum opus, vel in alium diem prolongare.”

20 Quodl. XI.16, T f. 171rb: “Quantum autem ad tertium principale distinguendum est quod impossibilitas adimplerendi sine periculo mortis seu gravis infirmitatis talia duo vota aut est certa aut est dubia. In primo casu dicendum est quod illud de duobus quod non adimplet talis vovens non tenetur in aliud diem prolongare, aut in aliud opus virtuosum commutare. [...] Si autem talis impossibilitas adimplendi ambo vota est dubia, dicendum est quod talis vovens illud ieiunium quod non potest adimplere tenetur in alium diem prolongare, aut in aliquod aliud bonum commutare, cuius ratio est quia existens in dubio an transgrediatur votum [ damage to ms. ] peccet mortaliter et incurrat dampnationem eternam tenetur se ponere in tuto, ut scilicet votum non transgrediatur.”

21 Quodl. XI.16, T f. 171rb-va: “Ergo in tali dubio talis vovens tenetur ieiunium quod non adimplet prolongare aut commutare, non propria auctoritate, sed | prelati sui, que requiritur ad omnem dispensationem vel commutationem vota, ut patet in Secunda secunde , q. 88, articulo duodecimo.” It is worth noting that this whole question has a rather legalistic tone. The sed contra draws a parallel between actions “in foro iudicialis” and vows “in foro conscientie” [T f. 170vb-171ra] and John’s supporting argument for the point that one must fulfill the vow that was made first relies on an analogy with marriage law: contracting and consummating a marriage can override a simple promise to enter religion that was made at an earlier time, but it cannot cancel out a pre-existing solemn vow.

22 Quodl. II.19, N f. 39ra; T f. 16va: “Utrum puniatur a deo seu peccet ille qui occidit filiam in adulterio deprehensam et adulterum,” edited in the appendix to this chapter. For a history of the legal treatment of this question in Italy, see Eva Cantarella, “Homicides of Honor: The Development of Italian Adultery Law over Two Millenia,” in The Family in Italy from Antiquity to the Present , ed. David I. Kertzer and Richard P. Saller (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991), 229-46.

226 permitted by a law that allows them to remain unpunished. 23 He also notes that although well- founded human laws which accord with the divine precepts and prohibitions are binding even in the forum of conscience, human laws permit many things that divine law prohibits. 24 A third preliminary point is that private persons must not kill wrongdoers unless they are acting on behalf of a public person, for the sake of the common good. 25

Turning to the main question, John responds that if human laws permitted but did not encourage such a murder, the killer would not be excused from sin. However, if the laws actively conferred upon such a man the authority to kill adulterers caught in flagrante , he would no more commit a sin than a judge who imposes the death penalty on a criminal. If there is any doubt as to the meaning of the law on this point, someone who goes ahead and commits this kind of murder anyway would sin gravely because one ought to always choose the safer course of action. John diligently goes through the relevant passages of the Codex Justinianus and argues that the law does seem to grant someone who catches an adulterer in the act the authority to kill. Therefore, someone committing such a murder would not sin if he acted out of a simple zeal for justice – but he would do better to abstain from such a killing on account of the doubt which might exist about his motivations. And this, John concludes, is what should be counselled to everyone as the safest and best course of action. 26 This last remark really makes no sense unless we imagine him addressing an audience of men who anticipated being in a position to give counsel to others, such as through confession, preaching, or teaching.

Other questions in John’s quodlibets concern penance and confession directly. The final question in his eighth quodlibet, for instance, deals with whether someone existing in a state of mortal sin

23 Quodl. II.19, N f. 39ra; T f. 16va, chapter appendix, § 5-6. In N, this passage was marked out for special attention.

24 Quodl. II.19, N f. 39ra-b; T f. 16va-b, chapter appendix, § 7.

25 Quodl. II.19, N f. 39rb; T f. 16vb, chapter appendix, § 8.

26 Quodl. II.19, N f. 39rb-va; T f. 16vb, chapter appendix, § 9.

227 will be damned if he intends to confess during Lent but dies before then. 27 John’s response distinguishes between whether this person was intending to remain in a state of sin up until Lent, and then change his ways and confess, or whether he was intending to avoid all sin because it displeased him, but planning to defer his confession up until Lent. 28 In the first case, the sinner would of course be damned, but in the second, he would not. One of John’s supporting aguments draws a parallel with baptism: baptism is even more necessary than confession, since it is required for everyone, not just those who have sinned. But it is licit for those who have not yet been baptized but wish to do so to defer their baptism for a good reason; in the primitive church, baptism was delayed until adulthood, and various popes have specified Easter and Pentecost as the two times of year when baptisms should be celebrated. If such an important sacrament as baptism can be delayed in some circumstances, it must be licit to delay confession until Lent. 29

John notes, however, that there are four cases in which a sinner must confess immediately. First, one must confess if one is about to receive a sacrament, such as the Eucharist or ordination. Second, the Church has decreed that Christians must not delay their confessions beyond Lent (and here he cites the relevant decree of the Fourth Lateran Council, Omnis utriusque sexus , which was subsequently included in the Liber Extra ). Third, if one is in danger of death, one must confess, since to do otherwise would appear to be an expression of contempt for the sacrament. And finally, a man is bound to confess if he has committed a sin for which he cannot

27 Quodl. VIII.40, N f. 152rb-vb; T f. 137vb-138rb: “Quadragesima et ultima questio est utrum existens in peccato mortali et proponens in quadragesima confiteri et interim decedens dampnetur.”

28 Quodl. VIII.40, N f. 152rb; T f. 137vb: “Quantum ad primum distinguendum est, quia aut talis proponit esse in peccato usque ad quadragesimam, et tunc confiteri, aut proponit cavere omne peccatum mortale quia displicet ei peccatum preteritum, sed confessionem differt usque ad quadragesimam.”

29 Quodl. VIII.40, N f. 152va; T f. 138ra: “Secundo quia maioris neccessitatis est baptismus, qui est neccessarius absolute quoad omnes, secundum illud Io. 3[:5], nisi qui renatus fuerit etc., quam confessio sacramentalis, que est neccesssaria ex suppositione, scilicet peccati mortalis. Sed non baptizatus volens baptizari licite potest baptismum differre, sicut in primitiva ecclesia ex causis rationabilibus baptismus differebatur quoad adultos. Unde dicit Leo papa, et habetur De consecratione , distinctione 4 [= Dec. Grat., De cons. 4.12]: ‘duo tempora, id est pascha et penthecostes, ad baptizandum a romano pontifice legitime sunt prefixa. Unde quia manifestissime patet baptizandis in ecclesia electis hec duo tempora de quibus loquti sumus esse legitima, dilectionem vestram movemus ut nullos alios dies huic observancie misceatis.’ Et distinctione 5 [= Dec. Grat., De cons. 5.7]: ‘Ut episcopi duobus temporibus, pascha videlicet et penthecostem, celebrari debet baptismus.’ Unde Augustinus et quidam alii leguntur usque ad certum tempus laudabiliter distulisse baptismum. Ergo et ille qui peccavit mortaliter licite potest etiam usque ad quadrigesimalam confessionem differre.”

228 receive absolution except from a certain authority, and that authority is present and he does not expect to see him in the future; wasting this opportunity again seems to be a sign of contempt for the sacrament. Nonetheless, John adds, delaying one’s confession might actually be meritorious and even praiseworthy in some cases, as for instance if one were to put off one’s confession in order to confess to a more prudent priest, or at a holier time. 30 Gratian had already allowed laity the possibility of confessing to someone other than their parish priest if he was incompetent, and the coming of the friars in the thirteenth century had presented the laity in many parts of Europe with the possibility of choosing alternative and often better-educated confessors, stirring up conflicts between mendicants and secular clergy that were still ongoing by John’s time. 31 The note about choosing a more prudent confessor may be a subtle dig at the secular clergy; at any rate, it seems likely that John and his students would have imagined themselves to be confessors who were worth waiting for.

Other examples of questions about penance and confession could be cited. A question from John’s sixth quodlibet considers whether a second sacrament follows when one confesses the same sin twice. 32 One question from Quodl. XII addresses the ancient problem of whether a priest who is in a state of mortal sin can grant absolution to others, and the next deals with whether a prelate can grant a priest the power to absolve him of his sins. 33 Quodl. X.17 asks whether alms are more meritorious than fasting; John argues that fasting is preferable to alms,

30 Quodl. VIII.40, N f. 152va-b; T f. 138ra: “Econtra autem per accidens posset esse talis dilatio meritoria, si ad hoc differret: |N| ut prudentiori confiteretur, vel devotius propter sacrum tempus. Unde generaliter intendendum est quod sicut dicit Philosophus in 8 Physicorum , voluntas non retardat facere opus volitum nisi propter causam aliquam. Unde si causa dilationis talis est laudabilis et meritoria, et dilatio etiam erit laudabilis et meritoria. Si autem causa dilationis est peccatum mortale vel veniale, et dilatio etiam erit peccatum veniale vel mortale.”

31 Overviews of this competition and the papal legislation resulting from it are numerous; a recent example is William H. Campbell, The Landscape of Pastoral Care in Thirteenth-Century England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 140-5.

32 Quodl. VI.13, N f. 99vb-100vb; T f. 75va-76va: “Tertiadecima questio est utrum secundo confitens eadem peccata consequetur aliquid sacramentum.” John’s response is mostly directed against the opinion of “quidam moderni” – identified as Scotus in the margins of N and T – who denied that a second sacrament would follow from a second confession.

33 Quodl. XII.16, T f. 181rb-vb: “Sextadecima questio est utrum sacerdos existens in peccato mortali possit alium confitente sibi absolvere a peccato mortali.”; Quodl. XII.17, T f. 181vb-182vb: “Decimaseptima questio est utrum prelatus possit dare potestatem alicui sacerdoti quod absolvat ipsum prelatum a peccatis suis.”

229 but prayer is better than both. 34 Quodl. XII.15 concerns whether someone commits a new mortal sin every time he eats during a fast, something that was apparently a matter of debate in early- fourteenth-century Paris, since a marginal annotator in T commented that John’s position was contrary to that of Durand of St.-Pourçain. 35 In a similar vein, Quodl. III.18 asks about the benefits of performing something for which an indulgence has been granted multiple times. 36

Questions of this sort are usually located towards the end of John’s quodlibets, suggesting that they were purposefully grouped together during the editorial process, perhaps for ease of reference. In the introductions that survive for Quodlibets II through XII, they are usually described as questions concerning human acts (virtuous, vicious, licit, obligatory), or concerning certain statuses of human beings (secular, clerical, religious; or, occasionally, good and evil). 37 It is striking that almost none of these kinds of questions appear in the two quodlibets that John debated in Paris as a new master of theology (VI and VII). This suggests that his non-Parisian audiences were more interested in the cura animarum than his audiences in Paris. When one considers that John’s non-Parisian quodlibets were probably debated before an audience that consisted mostly of Dominican friars, this is not terribly surprising. However, since it is well- established that Parisian scholars also had a strong interest in pastoral matters, it is strange that

34 Quodl. X.17, N f. 21ra-va; T f. 156va-157ra: “Decimaseptima questio est utrum elemosina sit magis meritoria seu satisfactoria quam ieiunium. [...] Dicendum quod oratio est preferenda ieiunio et elemosine, et ieiunium elemosine, quod potest ad presens probari multipliciter...”

35 Quodl. XII.15, T f. 180rb-181rb: “Quintadecima questio est utrum in ieiunio ecclesie vel quocumque alio ieiunio quod quis vovisset comedens tertia vel quarta vice committat novum peccatum mortale.” John responds affirmatively, but a marginal note indicates that this was one of the points on which he differed from Durand of St.- Pourçain: T f. 180va, in marg: “Oppositum dicit Durandus.” Cf. Durand, Quodl. Aven. III.5, in Prospero T. Stella, ed., Magistri D. Durandi a Sancto Porciano Ordinis Praedicatorum Quolibeta Avenionensia tria, additis correctionibus Hervei Natalis supra dicta Durandi in primo Quolibet (Zürich: Pas-Verlag, 1965), 275-80; Durand, Super Sent . IV d. 15, q. 11 (Venice 1571), f. 335r-v.

36 Quodl. III.18, N f. 49vb-50rb; T f. 26rb-va: “Questio 18 a est utrum faciens pluries illud pro quo datur indulgentia pro qualibet vice eam optineat.”

37 Quodl. II-IV and VII-XI all describe the practical questions as concerning human acts in some way. The category of “human acts” gets sub-divided in a few different ways; the most common are variations on “virtuous and vicious acts” and acts pertaining to the “ ratio meriti, ratio demeriti, ratio liciti, ” and “ratio debiti .” The introductions to Quodl. V, VII, and XII all make reference to particular human statuses: secular, clerical, and religious. Quodl. XII, unusually, describes the questions as pertaining to good men, evil men, and “the sacramental absolution by which a good [man] is made from a bad man.” Quodl. VI has only one pastoral question (VI.13), and it is introduced as part of a group of questions on “supernatural accidents pertaining to the state of life.”

230 these kinds of questions did not form a bigger part of his magisterial quodlibetal disputations in Paris, especially since he had already proven himself capable of answering them in his first five quodlibets.

A full analysis of John’s pastoral teaching is well beyond the scope of this dissertation. Instead, in the remainder of this chapter I will attempt to shed some light on the relationship between John’s quodlibets and the literature of pastoral care. Since the publication of Boyle’s article on Thomas Aquinas and John of Freiburg, little work has been done to further investigate the relationship between quodlibets and pastoral literature, despite the fact that both genres have received a good deal of study in recent years. On the whole, the relationship between John’s quodlibets and the literature of pastoral care is best described as symbiotic. Confessors’ manuals drew on works by theologians and jurists, but they were also used as textbooks in the mendicant schools. In the first part of this chapter, I will argue that many of John’s quodlibetal questions were inspired by similar questions in pastoral texts that held an important place in the Dominican curriculum, such as the Summae of Raymond of Penyafort and John of Freiburg. But the transfusion between these genres did not only go one way. As with Aquinas (though to a lesser extent), a number of John’s quodlibetal questions were picked up by later writers of confessors’ manuals and incorporated into a tradition of pastoral handbooks that persisted for several centuries after his death. The second part of this chapter will discuss some examples of this phenomenon, which constitutes the most enduring part of John’s legacy. The third section will take a closer look at John’s quodlibetal questions about doctors and medical ethics and the way they were employed by later pastoral writers.

4.2 Quodlibetal questions inspired by pastoral literature

In the few cases where they appear, overt references to confessors’ manuals are an obvious indication of a question’s connection to earlier pastoral texts. Such references appear in only six of John’s quodlibetal questions, but nonetheless, these examples provide insight into the wide range of pastoral topics that could be touched on: marriage, usury, warfare, magic, Christian- Muslim relations. John explicitly cites two pastoral manuals in his quodlibets, often quite precisely: Raymond of Penyafort’s Summa de casibus , and John of Freiburg’s Summa

231

Confessorum .38 By the early fourteenth century, both were canonical works in the Dominican education system. During the thirteenth century, Dominican officials repeatedly recommended Raymond’s Summa (composed ca. 1225) as a textbook for young priests and reference work for convent libraries, and the work was found in convents across the order. John of Freibug’s Summa confessorum , a reworked and updated version of Raymond’s Summa took the place of Raymond’s Summa as the Dominicans’ preferred text within a few years of its composition (ca. 1297-8). Both were repeatedly listed as important textbooks in Dominican normative sources, alongside the Bible, Peter Lombard’s Sentences , and Peter Comestor’s Historia Scholastica , marking their status as core texts. 39 It was probably through these manuals and other collections of “cases of conscience” that the friars learned much of their canon law and moral theology, in the process of honing their skills as confessors. 40

Sometimes, John uses the confessors’ Summae as sources for definitions and points of law. Two examples of this can be found in Quodl. IX.25, which asks what punishment should be imposed on someone guilty of invoking, conjuring, and consulting demons and baptizing images in order to kill or harm someone. John argues that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime. A baptizer of images should be punished for committing the worst kind of sacrilege, whereas someone who conjures and consults demons should be punished for the worst kind of superstition. As to the precise nature of those punishments, John demurs that determining those kinds of penalties seems to belong more to a canon lawyer than to a theologian like himself. However, he points out that the penalties for sorcery can be found in the Summa Confessorum and the Decretum , and those for sacrilege can also be found in the Summa Confessorum , as well as Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae .41 A little later, while arguing that the person in question should

38 John sometimes refers to Raymond by name, but he only ever refers to John of Freiburg’s Summa Confessorum by its title.

39 Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent” , 538-9; 546-8.

40 Joseph Goering, “What the Friars Really Learned at Oxford and Cambridge,” in Philosophy and Theology in the Studia of the Religious Orders and at Papal and Royal Courts , 33-47.

41 Quodl. IX.25, T f. 150ra: “Pena enim debet proportionari culpe, secundum illud Deut. 25[.2], pro mensura peccati erit et plagarum modus , et Apoc. 18[.7], quantum glorificavit se et in deliciis fuit, tantum date ei tormentum et luctum . Talis ergo, quia baptizavit ymagines, est puniendus ut sacrilegus summo et pessimo genere sacrilegii, et quia optulit sacrificium demoni, est puniendus ut ydolatra, et quia consuluit, invocavit, et coniuravit demones, est

232 not be punished as a heretic or infidel, John cites Raymond of Penyafort on the definitions of apostasy and heresy. 42 Similarly, in Quodl. VIII.34 he quotes John of Freiburg, who was in turn following Hostiensis, on the four cases in which one does not have to return something that has been left in his keeping. 43 John argues that none of the four cases apply in the situation described in the quodlibetal question: whether, when two cities are at war, a citizen of one city is required to return weapons that a citizen of the other city had deposited with him for a long time. John also uses the confessors’ manuals as a source for the opinions of other scholars, as in Quodl. X.18, where he acknowledges that there are a variety of opinions about whether it is licit for a king to permit his subjects to practice usury, which can be found in the Summa Confessorum. 44

In other cases, however, John points his audience to a fuller discussion of his main question, or a related sub-question, in Raymond’s Summa or in the Summa Confessorum , alerting them to the fact that the same question, or a very similar one, had already been discussed in one or both of these collections. 45 For example, a subsection of Quodl. VIII.29 (which asks whether it is licit to

puniendus ut superstitiosus pessimo genere superstitionis. Que autem sint iste pene non pertinet determinare ad theologum, sed magis ad canonistam, quia tales pene sunt de iure positivo. De pena autem sortilegiorum queratur in Summa Confessorum, libro primo, capitulo undecimo, questione 24, et 26, questione 5. De pena autem sacrilegii queratur eodem libro, capitulo 13, questione 4, et Secunda Secunde, questione 99, articulo 4.” Cf. John of Freiburg, Summa Confessorum (Lyon: Iacobus Saccon, 1518) I.11.24, fol. 32vb, and I.13.4, fols. 36vb-37ra; Dec. Grat. C. 26 q. 5; Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II a-II ae , q. 99, a. 4, ed. cit. vol. 9, pp. 349a-350b.

42 Quodl. IX.25, T f. 150rb: “Sed sacrificans demoni vel ydolo non ex infidelitate sed ex alia causa, utpote timore mortis vel ex alia causa huiusmodi, non est iudicandus esse apostata a fide aut hereticus, ut patet per Raymundum in summa sua, libro primo, capitulo ‘de appostate,’ capitulo septimo et capitulo quinto.” Cf. Raymond of Penyafort, Summa de Paenitentia I.7.5 and I.7.7, ed. Xaviero Ochoa and Aloisio Diez, 333-6.

43 Quodl. VIII.34, N f. 150ra; T f. 135va: “Et confirmatur ratio quia solum in quattuor casibus secundum iura res deposita non debet restitui deponenti. Quorum primus est cum quis gladium deponit, demum factus furiosus, ipsum repetit [...] Secundus est si deponens fuerit deportatus nam bona eius in publicum deferuntur [...] Tertius est quando fur deponens et dominus rei deposite concurrunt in petitione, quia tunc potior est causa domini [...] Quartus est cum fur rem furtivam deponit apud illum cui subripuit vel apud proprietarium. Quere de hoc in Summa Confessorum libro secundo, titulo sexto, q. 23. Sed nullus de istis quattuor casibus est in proposito, ergo etc.” Cf. John of Freiburg, Summa Confessorum , II.6.23, f. 83vb.

44 Quodl. X.18, “Et licet de hoc sint opiniones inter doctores, ut patet in Summa Confessorum, libro secundo, titulo septimo, questione 43, tamen videtur dicendum quod hoc liceat principi.” Cf. John of Freiburg, Summa Confessorum , II.7.43, f. 87vb. For more on this question, see below, Chapter 6.

45 Quodl. VIII.29, appendix to Chapter 2, § 22 and 24; Quodl. X.18, T only, f. 157va: “Quere de hoc casum diversam secundum diversos doctores in Summa Confessorum, libro primo, titulo 35, q. 38.” and below, N f. 22rb and T f. 157va: “Et licet de hoc sint opiniones inter doctores, ut patet in Summa Confessorum, libro secundo, titulo

233 steal – or, more precisely, “liberate by theft” – a Christian who is enslaved to a Saracen), is devoted to another, related question: Whether a Christian can ever legally be the servant of a non-Christian. 46 John responds that there is a general consensus among “all doctors” that Christians cannot be enslaved by non-Christians if faith precedes servitude, and that if servitude precedes faith, conversion to Christianity does not automatically set one free. However, there is disagreement as to whether, in the case of a non-Christian servant of a non-Christian master, the servant should be made free if he converts and his master does not. John presents three opinions, the third of which is a compressed quotation of Raymond of Penyafort, which he concludes by telling the reader to seek a fuller version of this opinion in the Summa Confessorum .47 John says that he thinks this position is the most likely, preferring it to the opinions of Durand of St.- Pourçain, which he refutes at length, and of Hostiensis and Aquinas, which he rejects more gently. 48

Below, when dealing with the main question, John also points his readers to treatments of the same problem by Raymond of Penyafort and John of Freiburg. 49 Tracing these references, we find that both Raymond of Penyafort and John of Freiburg discussed the question of those who steal Christian captives from pagans in order to restore them to freedom in the sections of their Summae devoted to thefts. John of Freiburg noted that his response accorded with the opinion of his teacher, Ulrich of Strasbourg, who authorized the stealing of Christian captives during a just war in his De Summo Bono .50 The question was clearly a well-worn one in Dominican circles throughout the thirteenth century. It was discussed by members of other orders too; for instance,

septimo, questione 43, tamen videtur dicendum quod hoc liceat principi.”; Quodl. X.28, N f. 30ra and T f. 162vb: “Quere hunc casum in Summa Confessorum libro secundo titulo 5 questione 23.”

46 A fuller discussion of this question can be found in my article, “Jews and Muslims in the Works of John of Naples,” forthcoming in Medieval Encounters .

47 Quodl. VIII.29, appendix to Chapter 2, § 22.

48 Quodl. VIII.29, appendix to Chapter 2, § 22; below, § 24, John says that the third opinion “est probabilior quantum videtur mihi ad presens.” As is his usual practice, John does not wholeheartedly commit to an opinion that goes against Aquinas, but hedges his bets, saying that his preferred opinion is more probable as far as he is concerned at present.

49 Quodl. VIII.29, appendix to Chapter 2, § 24.

50 Ulrich von Strassburg, De Summo Bono VI, 1-3 (1-6), ed. Sabina Tuzzo (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 2011), 163.

234 in the mid-1230s, the Franciscan Jean de la Rochelle included among a group of questions on thefts in his Summa de vitiis a question on those who steal Christian captives from Saracens, and the problem was also treated in later Franciscan pastoral manuals such as the early-fourteenth- century Summa de casibus conscientiae of Astesanus of Asti. 51

John of Naples’s quodlibetal question differs slightly from the questions posed in these pastoral manuals, all of which refer to the Christians as captives, and most of which devote a good deal of attention to the different standards of behavior for times of truce and war. In contrast, John’s quodlibetal question is concerned with Christian servitude more broadly, and he makes no mention of war or truce. Nonetheless, his references to Raymond of Penyafort and John of Freiburg make clear that his response is grounded in this tradition. And the fact that this question is described in the introduction to John’s quodlibet as primarily concerning theft, and placed alongside another stealing-related question (Whether it is licit to covertly recuperate something held unjustly by another person, or its equivalent) suggests that like the authors of the Summae , John saw this question as a test case for delimiting the boundaries of permissible behaviour relating to the commandment against theft. 52

Another example of a question where John tells his readers that the same case can be found in a confessors’ manual is Quodl. X.28, which considers whether a woman must reveal to her husband that her son is illegitimate because he is not the father. 53 John’s response concludes with a reference to John of Freiburg’s Summa Confessorum .54 Again, the question in the confessor’s manual is not identical to the one raised in John’s quodlibet, but it is closely related: John of

51 Jean de la Rochelle, Summa de Vitiis , Paris, BnF lat. 16417, f. 151vb-152ra; Astesanus de Asti, Summa de casibus conscientiae (Lyons: Stephen Gueynard, 1519), I.33.3.4-6, f. 48vb.

52 Introduction to Quodl. VIII.29, N f. 129ra; T f. 114vb: “Si autem est ad person extraneam, de hoc querebantur duo, unum de furto [T add. persone], scilicet utrum liceat furto accipere [T: accipere furto] Christianum existente in servitute Saraceni; et aliud de recuperatione rei extrinsece, scilicet utrum liceat rem suam recuperare occulte a detinente eam iniuste vel equivalens.”

53 Quodl. X.28, N f. 29vb-30ra and T f. 162va-b: “Utrum mulier teneatur revelare viro filium ex se illegitime natum.”

54 Quodl. X.28, N f. 30ra and T f. 162vb: “Quere hunc casum in Summa Confessorum libro secundo titulo 5 questione 23.” Cf. John of Freiburg, Summa Confessorum , II.5.23, f. 59va-b.

235

Freiburg discussed what the mother of an illegitimate child should do so that the legitimate heirs will not be deprived of their inheritance. His treatment largely follows that of Raymond of Penyafort, who dealt with the same problem. 55 Both Raymond and John of Freiburg were primarily concerned with inheritance, and their discussions focus on whether and how the woman should inform the illegitimate son, although John of Freiburg did add a passage, following Ulrich of Strasbourg and Hostiensis, about whether the woman should tell her husband. John’s quodlibetal question, in contrast, focuses on the marital relationship. He concludes that the wife is not bound to reveal this to her husband if she has any fear for her own safety or reputation, although she ought to try, insofar as she is able, to convince her husband and son that the latter should enter a monastery, and if she has any financial resources of her own, she ought to provide for him out of those. This question seems to have plagued John’s Neapolitan students, since it was also raised during his first quodlibetal disputation, at least a decade earlier. 56

Silent references to pastoral works also occur throughout John’s quodlibets. In a brief article dealing with two of John’s quodlibetal questions about baptism and godparenthood, Prospero Stella noted another pair of examples of quodlibetal questions with connections to the literature of pastoral care. 57 The first asks whether compaternity is acquired only by the person who lifts the infant from the baptismal font, or also by the one who orders it. 58 The second considers a hypothetical situation in which a man, Peter, lifts a baby, John, from the baptismal font against the will of his wife, Mary, and John’s father, Martin. Are Mary and Peter nonetheless baby

55 John of Freiburg’s response opens with a reference to Raymond, Summa de Paenitentia , II.5.11, 476-7.

56 The treatment in Quodl. I.19 is much briefer, and an annotator in T remarked that a better response could be found in John’s Quodl. X.28: Quodl. I.19, T f. 5rb, in marg.: “Hec questio melius determinatur quolibet X, questione 28.”

57 Stella, “Padrinato e madrinato battesimali,” 410-11.

58 Quodl. III.20, N f. 50vb-51ra; T f. 27ra-vb; edited in Stella, “Padrinato e madrinato battesimali,” 413-5: “Utrum compaternitas acquiratur solum accipienti aliquem de sacro fonte vel etiam mandanti.”

236

John’s godparents in this case? 59 Stella showed that in responding to these quodlibetal questions, John of Naples drew on the treatments of similar questions in Raymond of Penyafort’s Summa de matrimonio and Thomas Aquinas’s Sentences commentary, although he did not refer to either text by name. 60

4.3 Quodlibetal questions picked up by later pastoral writers

Another way of investigating the links between John’s quodlibets and the literature of pastoral care is to examine the way his quodlibetal questions were employed by later pastoral writers. Around a century after his death, John’s quodlibets were being mined by Italian Dominican pastoral authors, who included excerpts in their own works. One example is the fifteenth-century Sicilian Pietro Geremia, whose Libelli are an excellent example of a handbook that was compiled by a preacher for personal use. 61 Of the original five volumes, only three have been identified. Probably an autograph, these manuscripts appear to have been added to over a long period of time. Francesco Migliorino argues that Geremia was inspired by John of Freiburg’s Libellus quaestionum casualium , which predated his Summa Confessorum , although unlike John of Freiburg, he organized his material alphabetically, like the Summa Pisanella of Bartolomeo da San Concordio (1338), which he also cites. Under rubrics such as Abatissa, Absolutio, Laicus, Matrimonium , Odium , Periculum , and so forth, Geremia copied or paraphrased questions by numerous canonists, including those whose lectures he had heard as a law student, as well as civil lawyers and theologians. Among the latter were extracts from the quodlibets of Thomas Aquinas and John of Naples.

I have not examined the manuscripts personally, but Migliorino’s brief study quotes references to John’s Quodl. I.19 and Quodl. X.28, both on whether a wife must reveal to her husband that her

59 Quodl. IX.20, T f. 148va-149ra; edited in Stella, “Padrinato e madrinato battesimali,” 415-7: “Utrum, supposito quod Petrus, contra voluntatem Marie, uxoris sue, susceperit de sacro fonte Iohannem, contra voluntatem Martini, patris ipsius Iohannis, in tali casu Maria sit mater spiritualis Iohannis et Petrus sit compater Martini.”

60 Stella, “Padrinato e madrinato battesimali,” 417-21.

61 Francesco Migliorino, “La parola e le pieghe delle scrittura. I Libelli di Pietro Geremia,” in La memoria ritrovata: Pietro Geremia e le carte della storia , ed Francesco Migliorino and Lisania Giordano (Catania: Giuseppe Maimone, 2006), 75-95.

237 child is illegitimate, 62 as well as Quodl. XI.14 (whether a doctor who knows that death is near for a patient in his care is bound to tell him), 63 and also his Disputed Question 26 [33] (whether a prince can absolve someone who has been justly condemned to death). 64 Geremia may have come across a copy of John’s quodlibets in Bologna, where he had joined the Dominican order as a young law student, and later taught; an early-fifteenth-century inventory of the library of the Bolognese convent of San Domenico included an entry for “I Quodlibeta di Giovanni da Napoli,” although it is impossible to tell whether this manuscript contained all of John’s quodlibets or only some of them. 65 Or he might have encountered a copy in Palermo, where at least one manuscript of John’s quodlibets is known to have been present during the early fifteenth century. 66

Pietro Geremia’s Libelli were never printed, and do not seem to have been copied or used much beyond Geremia’s home convent in Palermo, where at least one of the surviving notebooks was displayed as a quasi-relic after his death. 67 Instead, it was largely through the works of Geremia’s better-known contemporary, archbishop and later saint Antoninus of Florence, that John’s quodlibets entered the pastoral literature. Like Pietro Geremia, Antoninus almost certainly had the opportunity to consult John’s quodlibets directly. The extant Florentine manuscript of John’s quodlibets (F) only contains Quodl. VI and VII and part of Quodl. XIII, but other copies seem to have circulated in Florence during the fifteenth century. 68 Darrel Amundsen has shown

62 Migliorino, “La parola e le pieghe,” 89n74 and n78.

63 Migliorino, “La parola e le pieghe,” 89n79.

64 Migliorino, “La parola e le pieghe,” 94.

65 Zaccagnini, “Le scuole e la libreria del convento di S. Domenico in Bologna,” 292.

66 Henri Bresc, Livre et Société en Sicile (1299-1499) (Palermo: Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani, 1971), 147. Bresc reports on an inventory of the goods of Niccolò Sottile, treasurer ( secreto ) of Palermo, compiled in 1421 and included alongside the will of his son, dated September 17, 1430. The list of books of “Sacra Theologia” includes an entry for “libri Colibeti Fratris Joannis de Neapoli” between parts of Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae and John Duns Scotus’ commentary on the Sentences .

67 Migliorino, “La parola e le pieghe,” 77-8.

68 Raymond Creytens, “Santi Schiattesi O.P., disciple de S. Antonin de Florence,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 27 (1957): 200-318, at 225n127.

238 that John’s quodlibetal questions on abortion (Quodl. X.27) and informing the dying patient (Quodl. XI.14) were both included in Antoninus’s Summa theologica in the section concerning the sins of doctors. Amundsen also identified three other fifteenth- and sixteenth-century pastoral manuals which followed John, “perhaps via Antoninus,” which will be discussed below. 69

Looking beyond the sections of these manuals dealing with doctors that were the focus of Amundsen’s study, however, we uncover a number of other references to John’s quodlibets. For example, in the section on spiritual kinship, Antoninus cites one of the questions about baptism edited in Stella’s article (Quodl. IX.20). 70 Under the heading “ de votis coniugatorum ” he refers to John’s Quodl. VIII.28, which deals with whether those who contract a marriage de facto following a simple vow to enter the religious life can licitly maintain that marriage. 71 The section on testaments includes a reference to John’s Quodl. II.22, about executors who are tardy in carrying out their duties. 72 We find references to John’s Quodl. X.18, on usury; 73 to Quodl.

VIII.26, about a priest who makes a counting error in blessing the hosts for communion; 74 to Quodl. XII.12, on whether someone who has vowed to enter the religious life may delay his entry in order to aid his impoverished parents; 75 to Quodl. XII.13, on whether the pope can grant a dispensation from a solemn vow 76 – and this is by no means an exhaustive list.

John was of course just one of many authors whose works Antoninus pillaged in creating his Summa , and not one of the most prominent. But his inclusion in this popular work, which formed

69 Darrel W. Amundsen, “Casuistry and Professional Obligations: The Regulation of Physicians by the Court of Conscience in the Late Middle Ages,” Transactions and Studies of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia n.s. 3 (1981): 22-39, 93-112, at 103-4.

70 Antoninus, Summa sacrae theologiae (Venice, 1582), book 3, tit. 1, ca. 15, f. 15rb.

71 Antoninus, Summa sacrae theologiae , book 3, tit. 1, ca. 22, § 3 and 4, f. 30vb-31rb.

72 Antoninus, Summa sacrae theologiae , book 3, tit. 10, ca. 22, f. 150ra.

73 Antoninus, Summa sacrae theologiae , book 3, tit. 3, ca. 5, § 7, f. 58va-59ra.

74 Antoninus, Summa sacrae theologiae , book 3, tit. 13, ca. 6, § 2, f. 196vb.

75 Antoninus, Summa sacrae theologiae , book 3, tit. 16, ca. 2, § 1, f. 284ra-b.

76 Antoninus, Summa sacrae theologiae , book 3, tit. 22, ca. 7, q. 12, f. 408ra.

239 the basis for a number of other pastoral encyclopedias over the next several generations, ensured that his words would continue to be copied and read in the coming centuries. John’s determinations to questions first proposed in a fourteenth-century Neapolitan classroom were transmitted, often in increasingly abridged form, across Europe up to the eve of the Protestant Reformation and beyond.

To give an illustration of the variety of questions from John’s quodlibets that the author of a pastoral summa might find useful, let us take a look at the Summa Summarum Sylvestrina, a massive compendium of theological questions arranged alphabetically by topic, which was composed in the early sixteenth century by the Dominican theologian Silvestro Mazzolini da Prierio, sometimes known as Prierias. 77 Prierias is best known as the first theologian to publicly counter the opinions of Martin Luther, and his reputation has rather suffered for it in modern times. But his Summa was a popular text, going through at least forty editions before the end of the sixteenth century. John was far from the only author whose works Prierias employed. 78 Boyle observed that the Summa Sylvestrina drew especially heavily on the Summa confessorum of John of Freiburg for quotations of earlier authors, including Aquinas. 79 Many of Prierias’ citations of John’s quodlibets likewise seem to have come via Antoninus, judging by the frequent references to “Archiepiscopus” in close proximity to John’s name. Prierias may well have also had a chance to view John’s quodlibets himself during the year or so that he spent in Naples, from mid-1494 to mid-1495, attempting to reform the Dominican convents of southern Italy, starting with San Domenico Maggiore. 80 The following chart, based on the 1569 Antwerp edition of the Summa Sylvestrina , gives the headings under which references to works by John

77 For a brief biography, see Michael Tavuzzi, Prierias: The Life and Works of Silvestro Mazzolini da Prierio, 1456-1527 (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1997). According to Tavuzzi, the Summa was completed by 1506 and already circulated in manuscript before its first printing in Bologna in 1514-15; see Tavuzzi, Prierias , 50; 69; 72-3.

78 Tavuzzi, Prierias , 73. In his introduction, Prierias listed as his sources a total of 48 theologians, 113 jurists, and 18 other authors of summae de casibus .

79 Boyle, “The Summa Confessorum of John of Freiburg,” 261.

80 Tavuzzi, Prierias , 25-7.

240 occur, their location in the text, and the question alluded to, which can be straightforwardly identified in most cases. 81

Heading and question, with location of Relevant question by John of Naples the reference to John in the 1569 Antwerp edition

Bellum I DQ38 [32], “Utrum rex fidelis Christianus pro q. 8: Quid liceat in bello iusto? (vol. 1, p. defensione iusta reipublicae, in defectu 93) necessariae gentis armigerorum fidelium possit et debeat secundum Christianam religionem uti infidelibus, ut Saracenis stipendiariis ad ipsum venientibus in iusta defensione praedicta”

Canonizatio sanctorum ? q. 3: Utrum ecclesia possit errare in canonizatione sanctorum (vol. 1, p. 121)

Confessio I Quodl. VIII.40, “Utrum existens in peccato q. 2: Utrum necessarium sit confiteri mortali et proponens in quadragesima confiteri et peccata mortalia statim habita interim decedens dampnetur” opportunitate (vol. 1, p. 163)

Dominium Quodl. X.18, “Utrum princeps peccet q. 4: Que sunt illa in quibus domini concedendo licentiam alicui in terra sua quod temporales hominum delinquere mutuet pecuniam ad usuram” consueverunt? (vol. 1, p. 274)

Eucharistia II Quodl. XI.10, “Utrum hostia consecrata tam q. 7: Utrum sacerdos consecrare possit possit dividi seu teri quod desinat esse corpus unam partem hostiae sine alia, stante Christi” continuitate (vol. 1, p. 340)

Eucharistia II Quodl. VIII.26, “Utrum sacerdos habens coram q. 6: Quid de sacerdote habente coram se se decem hostias et credens esse octo solum, si hostias undecim, intendens consecrare proferat verba consecrationis super omnes cum solum decem ex illis? (vol. 1, p. 340) intentione consecrandi, consecret octo tantum vel omnes”

Medicus Quodl. XI.14, “Utrum medicus precognoscens mortem vicinam infirmi cuius habet curam

81 Silvestro Mazzolini da Prierio, Summa Sylvestrina, que summa summarum merito nuncupatur , 2 vols. (Antwerp: Christopher Plantinus, 1569).

241 q. 3: Quomodo medicus se debeat habere teneatur eam sibi predicere sic quod non in exhibendis medicinis spiritualibus, predicendo peccet mortaliter” cuiusmodi est monitio ad confessionem, praemonitio de futura morte, et huiusmodi (vol. 2, p. 217)

Medicus Quodl. X.27, “Utrum medicus debeat dare q. 4: Quomodo medicus se debeat habere medicinam mulieri pregnanti ex qua sequeretur in conferendis corporalibus medicinis aut mors filii, et si non daret eam sequeretur mors remediis (vol. 2, p. 217) utriusque”

Praeceptum Perhaps one of the questions that includes a q. 3: Quomodo cognosci possit ex alio definition of a precept, such as Quodl. II.19 quam ex verbis statuentis aliquam legem (“Utrum puniatur a deo seu peccet ille qui occidit humanam esse praeceptivam? (vol. 2, p. filiam in adulterio deprehensam et adulterum”) 300) or Quodl. V.12 (“Utrum precepta decalogi possint dispensationem recipere”)

Religio I ? q. 12: Queritur de intellectu constitutionum ordinis praedicatorum (vol. 2, p. 324)

Restitutio V Quodl. IX.22, “Utrum potenti statim restituere q. 3: Utrum restituere teneatur is qui ultra male ablata sufficiat ad salutem anime relinquere necessaria vitae habet quidam ad in testamento quod heredes restituant” aliqualem aut ad totalem decentiam (vol. 2, p. 371)

Restitutio V Quodl. IX.22, “Utrum potenti statim restituere q. 4: Quis dicatur impotens ad male ablata sufficiat ad salutem anime relinquere restituendum impotentia excusante (vol. in testamento quod heredes restituant” 2, p. 371)

Restitutio V Quodl. IX.22, “Utrum potenti statim restituere q. 7: Utrum potenti restituere male ablata male ablata sufficiat ad salutem anime relinquere statim sufficiat ad salutem si testamento in testamento quod heredes restituant” mandet haeredibus ut restituant (vol. 2, p. 372)

Secretum Quodl. X.26, “Quidam civis unius civitatis q. un.: Quando sit revelandum? (vol. 2, p. fidelis et iuratus cuiusdam principis scivit 388) machinationem civitatis contra principe et e converso principis contra civitatem. Queritur cui debeat citius revelare”

242

Testamentum II Quodl. II.22, “Utrum exequtores testamentorum q. 9: Utrum dilatio exequutionis peccent mortaliter non statim exequendo” eleemosynatum praeiudicet animae testatoris (vol. 2, p. 457)

Votum II Quodl. XI.15, “Utrum iurans vel vovens aliquid q. 2: An liget votum conditionatum (vol. virtuosum sub conditione inhonesta, utpote ire ad 2, p. 477) Sanctum Iacobum si prosperatur in furto, vel consequitur voluptatem de muliere non sua, conditione impleta teneatur tale votum implere”

Votum II Quodl. VIII.35, “Utrum vovens ieiunare in festo q. 16: Utrum vovens ieiunare in festo alicuius sancti, si illud festum est in dominica alicuius sancti ad hoc teneatur si eveniat teneatur illa die ieiunare” in dominica (vol. 2, p. 479)

Votum II Quodl. XI.16, “Utrum vovens non comedere q. 17: Quomodo obligetur qui fecit duo panem in festo sancti Laurencii, qui fuit assatus vota diversa, aut etiam in casu ad ignem sicut panis, et ieiunare in pane et aqua repugnantia (vol. 2, p. 479) in feria sexta, si tale festum est in feria sexta teneatur adimplere votum facilius de duobus predictis vel difficilius”

Votum II Quodl. XII.15, “Utrum in ieiunio ecclesie vel q. 20: Utrum poenitere de voto, vel quocumque alio ieiunio quod quis vovisset frangere votum, sit mortale, et toties comedens tertia vel quarta vice committat quoties (vol. 2, p. 480) novum peccatum mortale”

Votum V Quodl. VIII.28, “Utrum contrahentes de facto q. 2: Quid iuris de voto coniugum post votum simplex possint licite matrimonium quantum ad continentiam, quando hoc consummare” votum sequitur matrimonium (vol. 2, p. 487)

Usura I Quodl. XIII.17, “Utrum rem modici precii q. 35: Quid si quis mutuet naviganti vel tradens et vendens alicui pro magno precio nundinas adeunti, recepturus aliquid ultra solvendo in futuro committat usuram, sicut si sortem pro eo quod suscepit in se aliquis vinum tempore vindemiarum quando est periculum pecuniae aut mercium si salvae magnum forum de vino et vinum est modici redierent (vol. 2, p. 494) precii traderet et venderet alicui pro precio magno, quantum valebit in futurum ante vindemias solovendo tali tempore”?

As this list shows, the topics that attracted the attention of pastoral writers like Prierias included wills, vows, usury, and the actions of princes, priests, and doctors.

243

It was perhaps via pastoral Summae like those of Antoninus and Prierias that writers of sermons further afield encountered snippets of John’s works. The Hungarian Franciscan Pelalbertus Ladislaus of Temesvár (1430-1504), for example, devoted much of a sermon on the commemoration on the dead to discussing a number of questions, which he termed “mysteria.” His response to the first – whether executors who do not properly fulfill their duties and neglect to perform suffrages for the souls of the deceased sin mortally – includes a reference to one of John’s quodlibetal questions on this topic: “John of Naples argues in his quodlibets that those executors and heirs who delay greatly in executing [wills] sin mortally, and consequently damnably.” 82 The reference is almost certainly to John’s Quodl. II.22, which, as noted above, was picked up by Antoninus and Prierias. Robertus Caracciolus de Licio (1425-1495), a Neapolitan contemporary of Pelalbertus and fellow Franciscan, may likewise have turned to one of these Summae for John’s distinction between a definition, a precept, and a dispensation, which he employed in a sermon on vows – although he might also have had access to John’s quodlibets themselves. 83 Late medieval theologians clearly found pastorally-minded quodlibetal questions such as John’s useful for composing sermons as well as for preparing to hear confessions.

4.4 Case study: medical ethics

The last section of this chapter will take a closer look at a subset of pastoral questions from John’s quodlibets that have attracted a good deal of scholarly attention. Various scholars, including most recently Aurélien Robert, have remarked upon the presence of an unusual number of questions on medical ethics in John’s quodlibeta. 84 The best-known of these is Quodl. X.27, on whether a doctor ought to administer an abortion in order to save a woman’s life, which is sometimes cited as the

82 Pelbartus de Themeswar, Sermones Pomerii de sanctis II. [Pars aestivalis] (Augsburg, 1502) (unpaginated), sermo LXXXIX: “...ex quibus Iohannes Neapolitanus in Quodlibetis arguit quod peccant mortaliter, et per consequens damnabiliter tales exsecutores et heredes multum differentes exsequi...” Transcription available at http://sermones.elte.hu/pelbart/pa/pa089.php .

83 Cesare Cenci, Manoscritti francescani della Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli (Quaracchi: Typographia Collegii S. Bonaventurae, 1971), vol. 1, p. 531, quotes the relevant passage from Naples, Bibl. Naz., MS VII.F.1: “...tria misteria principalia erunt declaranda, videlicet primum dicitur diffinitio... prohibitio... dispensatio Iohannes Neapolitanus in Quolibet...” The reference might be to John’s Quodl. V.12.

84 Amundsen, “Casuistry and Professional Obligations”; Biller, “John of Naples, Quodlibets and Medieval Theological Concern with the Body”; Robert, “Médecine et théologie,” 335-46.

244

earliest surviving example of a theologian discussing therapeutic abortion. 85 Other cases of conscience concerning doctors include Quodl. XI.14, on whether a doctor ought to inform a terminally ill patient that he is dying, and whether he commits a mortal sin by not telling him, and two adjacent questions from John’s eighth quodlibet. Quodl. VIII.31 deals with a conflict of medical and astrological authority in the case of a doctor-astrologer who judges by astrology that a patient will die if he is bled and by medicine that he will die if he is not bled; Quodl. VIII.32 asks whether a doctor ought to tend first to a Christian or non-Christian if both are in equal need and he cannot tend to both.

Ecclesiastical authorities had been attempting to regulate medical practice since at least the Second Lateran Council in 1139, and by the early fourteenth century confessors’ manuals were increasingly including cases of conscience for doctors, so to have a theologian discussing medical ethics was nothing particularly new. However, Robert argues that the appearance of these questions in quodlibetal disputations marks an important shift in audience: rather than aimed at aiding confessors, or discussing hierarchies of knowledge in the abstract, John’s quodlibetal questions seem to be directed to doctors themselves. 86 Robert hypothesizes that John’s method was to anticipate the sins and errors to which Neapolitan doctors, influenced by the movement of ideas and doctors from northern Italian centres like Bologna and Padua to Naples, might be particularly susceptible. 87

Although Robert has shown convincingly that John was aware of contemporary medical debates and had ties with the faculty of medicine in Naples, as discussed in the previous chapter, I think it is important not to overstate the extent to which these questions were directly addressed to doctors. Robert suggests that John might even have debated these questions at the faculty of medicine in Naples, but this proposition is extremely doubtful. 88 It is important to remember that these questions are scattered between several different quodlibets, and appear alongside other questions on diverse subjects. There are more questions on law than on medicine in each of the

85 E.g. Wolfgang Müller, The Criminalization of Abortion in the West: Its Origins in Medieval Law (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2012), 111: “The ‘miscellaneous academic inquiry’ ( quaestio quodlibetalis ) of Johannes provided late medieval scholasticism with perhaps the first monographic treatment of ‘therapeutic abortion’.”

86 Robert, “Médecine et théologie,” 337.

87 Robert, “Médecine et théologie,” 347.

88 Robert, “Médecine et théologie,” 337.

245 quodlibets in which these questions appear, and still more questions on traditional theological subjects. Quodl. VIII, for instance, which contains two of the questions on medical ethics, also includes questions about the existence and nature of God, the Trinity, creation, angels, the Incarnation, and the beatific vision, as well as questions on inheritance law, marriage, and theft. As noted above, Quodl. VIII.35 speaks directly about how a person ought to be counselled, which is clear evidence for the presence of confessors (or at least those concerned in some way with pastoral care) in the audience.

It is fully possible that physicians were among the audience members who could raise questions at John’s quodlibetal debates. But they most likely would have formed a small part of a diverse audience that was predominantly made up of friars. These questions may have been asked by physicians, and the answers therefore directed at least in part to them, but it is also conceivable – and, in my opinion, more likely – that these questions were raised by priests who anticipated encountering these sorts of problems, or had actually encountered them, while hearing confessions. Closer examination reveals that the medical-ethical questions in John’s quodlibets are answered from the perspective of a man concerned with the care of souls, without giving much attention to the details of the medical issues at hand. The introductions to the quodlibets present these questions as pertaining, like a substantial percentage of John’s other quodlibetal questions, to the licitness or illicitness of various human acts. In some cases, John’s responses seem more interested in drawing out broadly applicable moral principles than in setting codes for the behaviour of physicians.

Choosing between Christians and non-Christians

For instance, Quodl. VIII.32, on choosing between the critically ill Christian and non-Christian, although ostensibly about a moral dilemma faced by doctors, is really more about the relative worth of Christian and infidel lives. John argues that a doctor faced with a choice between treating a Christian and a non-Christian should without question tend to the Christian more quickly, for several reasons. First, greater love should be shown to the better object, which is the Christian. Second, saving the Christian would mean sustaining him in both existence and in grace, which is a better end than only sustaining someone’s existence, as the doctor would be doing if he saved the non-Christian. Third, greater evils should be avoided, and the death of a faithful man is worse than the death of an infidel, because death would deprive a good Christian

246 of the opportunity to earn more merits, but would only impede the infidel from committing further sins – in this sense the latter’s death would actually be a good rather than an evil!

To the objection that the infidel might convert if he were healed, John responds harshly that it would be better for him to die than to live, since he could just as easily persevere in his infidelity and go on to commit more sins, and indeed, this is more likely, since sins that go unconfessed tend to lead to others. 89 Given the presence of small communities of Jews and Muslims in fourteenth-century Naples, as discussed in Chapter 1, it is not inconceivable that physicians in Naples might occasionally have been faced with this kind of choice. However, the doctor is largely incidental to the question, which could just as easily be framed as a dilemma about choosing to save a Christian or non-Christian from any sort of mortal danger.

Medicine vs. astrology

Quodl. VIII.31, in which John weighs in on the growing controversy about the role of astrology in medicine, is also not obviously aimed at a medical audience. 90 The question concerns a conflict of medical and astrological authority, asking whether a patient should be bled if a doctor-astrologer judges by astrology that he will die if he is bled, and by medicine that he will die if he is not bled, for example by incurring quinsy. 91 John responds that it depends on the extent to which this doctor-astrologer is certain about the predictions of these two sciences. If he

89 Quodl. VIII.32, N f. 149va; T f. 135ra: “Et si dicatur quod poterit converti si sanatur, dicendum est quod eadem ratione poterit perseverare in sua infidelitate et per consequens magis peccare. Et hoc est magis presumendum quam primum, quia secundum Gregorium, ‘peccatum quod per penitentiam non deletur mox suo pondere trahit ad aliud,’ et precipue eiusdem speciei. Unde tali melius esset mori quam vivere, ut supra etiam dictum est.”

90 On this controversy, see e.g. Glen M. Cooper, “Approaches to the Critical Days in Late Medieval and Renaissance Thinkers,” Early Science and Medicine 18 (2013): 536-65.

91 Quodl. VIII.31, N f. 149ra-b; T f. 134va-b: “Tricesima prima questio est utrum sit fleubotomandus a medico astrologo ille de quo iudicatur per astrologiam quod si fleubotomatur moritur, et per medicinam quod si non fleubotomatur etiam moritur, utpote quia incurrit squinantiam.” Glorieux, following the introduction to the quodlibet, transcribed the question as “Utrum sit flebotomandus a medico astrologo ille de quo judicatur per astrologiam quod si flebotomatur moritur, et per medicinam quod si non flebotomatur moritur, utpote qui incurrit squalentiam.” (Glorieux, La littérature quodlibétique de 1260 à 1320 , vol. 2, p. 167). Robert, “Médecine et théologie,” 348 follows this reading but does not comment on the puzzling term ‘squalentiam’; Biller, “Medieval Theological Concern with the Body,” 7n21 simply omits the last clause. However, closer examination of the manuscripts clarifies the reading. In both N and T, the introduction to the quodlibet has “utpote quia incurrit squalentiam” – or more probably “squelentiam” – but the question proper has “squinantiam”, namely, quinsy, or some sort of throat swelling or obstruction.

247 is equally certain, or equally doubtful, he should refrain from bloodletting, in order to avoid the risk of being the direct cause of the patient’s death. If he is more certain about the astrological judgement, he should obviously also refrain from bloodletting. If he is more certain about the medical judgement, he ought to go ahead and bleed the patient. John argues that in this case the doctor should not be held responsible if the patient dies, since he was following the safer course of action, according to which it was likelier that the patient would live, even though the doctor could not be completely certain about the outcome. 92

The initial arguments for this question address the relative merits of the sciences of medicine and astrology, with one positing that astrology should be followed in judgements about corporeal things because heavenly bodies are the primary causes of effects on corporeal things, 93 and the other arguing that doctors deal with the elementary qualities and other things that mediate the effects of the heavenly bodies, and so medicine should be followed in matters pertaining to sickness and health, including phlebotomy. 94 John does not side fully with either argument, responding that although the heavenly bodies have greater influence than lower, secondary

92 Quodl. VIII.31, N f. 149ra; T f. 134va: “Respondeo, aut utrumque predictorum duorum, scilicet quod fleubotomando eum moritur secundum iudicium astrologie, et quod non fleubotomando eum etiam moritur secundum iudicium medicine, est certum ex equo et non impedibile; aut utrumque est ex equo dubium et impedibile; aut primum est magis certum et non impedibile quam secundum; aut e converso secundum quam primum. In primo casu dicendum est quod talis medicus astrologus non deberet eum fleubotomare, cuius ratio est quia magis est eligendum non esse causam mortis alicuius quam esse. [...] In secundo etiam casu dicendum est similiter et propter eandem causam, quia utrumque est equum dubium: magis eligendum est non esse causam mortis alicuius quam esse. In tertio etiam casu dicendum est similiter, et multo magis quam in predictis primis duobus casibus, ut de se patet. In quarto autem casu dicendum est quod deberet eum fleubotomare, cuius ratio est quia in dubiis tutior via est tenenda. Sed tutius est eum fleubotomare quam oppositum, quia supponitur quod magis est probabile talem infirmum vivere si fleubotomatur quam si non fleubotomatur, quamvis non sit omniquaque certum, ergo etc. Nec est dicendum in tali casu quod talis medicus occidat talem infirmum, dato etiam quod moriatur, quia ad factum eius magis erat probabile sequi vitam quam mortem.”

93 Quodl. VIII.31, N f. 149ra; T f. 134va: “Et primo videtur quod non, quia ut dicitur prima propositione De causis , ‘causa propria plus influit in effectum cause secunde,’ et per consequens magis est iudicandum de effectu secundum causam primam quam secundum causam secundam. Sed corpora celestia sunt cause prime inter omnes causas corporales. Ergo magis iudicandum est de effectibus qui fiunt infra orbem lune per corpora celestia quam per alias causas corporales. Sed secundum iudicium astrorum talis si fleubotomatur moritur, ergo talis non est fleubotomandus.”

94 Quodl. VIII.31, N f. 149ra; T f. 134va: “Sed contra, corpora celestia sunt causa inferiorum mediantibus causis secundis, utpote sanitatis uel infirmitatis, mediantibus qualitatibus elementaribus et ymaginatione[?] sanitatis uel infirmitatis, et sic medicus per talia media immutabit actiones corporum celestium. Ergo in pertinentibus ad sanitatem uel infirmitatem hominis, inter que est fleubotomia, magis sequendum est iudicium scientie medicinalis quam astrologie.”

248 causes, they are frequently impeded by these secondary causes, so that one heavenly body can impede another through its effects. 95 For the doctor trying to judge a specific situation, there is clearly room for confusion and doubt. In another question in the same quodlibet, discussed in the previous chapter, John concedes that doctors rely on external signs that are frequently deceptive, “as experience frequently teaches.” 96 However, he adds that these natural signs are only rarely false and deceiving in comparison with the words and human testimonies on which a lawyer relies. Medicine is among the more certain sciences, but it is by no means infallible.

Apart from the reference to quinsy in the title, Quodl. VIII.31 is devoid of specific medical terminology. John does not weigh in on situations in which phlebotomy might or might not be advisable, or theorize about the proper treatments for quinsy. In short, this question is doing something quite different from a medical consilium : rather than giving medical advice, John is being asked whether the science of astrology or medicine is more trustworthy. In more general terms, the question is also about how one should proceed when faced with conflicting advice from two different sources of knowledge; John instructs his audience to follow the one that is least prone to error.

Abortion

The main ethical principle that can be extracted from John’s discussions of doctors, according to Robert, is that one should never be the direct cause of a death. 97 This is the conclusion of John’s discussion of abortion in Quodl. X.27. John argues that a doctor should not give medicine to a pregnant woman in order to induce an abortion that would save her life because by doing so he would be the direct cause of the death of the fetus. In withholding the medicine, the doctor would only indirectly be the cause of the woman’s death; the direct cause would be her illness. The only

95 Quodl. VIII.31, N f. 149ra-b; T f. 134va-b: “Ad primum ergo argumentum factum in obiciendo, dicendum quod quamvis corpora celestia plus influant in effectus quam cause secunde inferiores, tamen frequenter impediuntur per |N| predictas causas secundas que etiam agunt in virtute eorum, sic quod unum corpus celeste impediat aliud ab effectu suo, et in quarto casu de predictis supponitur quod sit magis probabile ea impediri quam oppositum. Ad argumentum factum in oppositum, dicendum est quod quamvis ef|T|fectus superiorum impediatur per causas medias, tamen in primis tribus casibus supponitur quod sit equum certum vel dubium, aut magis certum ea non impediri quam impediri.”

96 Quodl. VIII.38, appendix to Chapter 3, § 3.

97 Robert, “Médecine et théologie,” 340.

249 exception would be if the fetus did not yet possess a rational soul. (In another question in the same quodlibet, John argues, on the basis of estimates by Peter Comestor and Augustine, that ensoulment takes place for male fetuses around 40 days after conception, and for females somewhere between 46 and 80 days. 98 ) If the fetus was not yet ensouled, John argues, the medicine would impede its development, but since it would not yet be fully human, the doctor would not be causing the death of a human being by administering an abortifacient. In such a situation, he can and should give the woman the medicine. 99 However, John is very clear that it is better for a doctor to choose to let the illness be the cause of death for both mother and child than to choose to be the cause of the death of the child himself.

Abortion is introduced as an example in quite a different context in John’s disputed question on whether it is licit for a Christian king to use non-Christian mercenaries to fight a just war. One of the initial arguments for the negative position is that one should never choose to be the cause of an evil in order to avoid an evil of which one is not the cause. For instance, the argument goes, one should not procure an abortion for a woman, even if she will otherwise die, because the one

98 Quodl. X.13, N f. 19ra-b; T f. 155rb-va: “Utrum masculus citius formetur in utero quam mulier,” N f. 19rb; T f. 155rb-va: “Dicit autem Magister Ystoriarum super Leviticum 12, ubi agit de purgatione post partum, quod caro masculi formatur in 40 diebus, femine autem in 80. Alii autem dicunt quod caro masculi formatur in 46 diebus, sic quod 6 diebus est sub forma lactis, 9 autem sub forma sanguinis, 12 autem sub forma masse, 18 autem organizatur; unde versus: ‘sex in lacte dies, ter sunt in sanguine terni, bis seni carnem, ter seni membra figurant,’ quod aliqualiter innuit |T| Augustinus super illud Io. 2[:20], quadraginta sex annis etc., ubi dicit quod sexies quadraginta sex, id est novem menses, et 6 dies, complent tempus formationis corporis humani in utero; et idem dicit quarto De trinitate, capitulo quinto. Et possunt hec dicta concordari ad invicem dicendo quod caro masculi, que organizatur citius, organizatur in 40 diebus; que autem tardius in 46. Omnium autem aliorum organizatur in aliquo medio die inter istos duos terminos.”

99 Quodl. X.27, N f. 29va-b; T f. 162rb-va: “Respondeo, dicendum est quod non debet talem medicinam dare, quod potest ad presens probari tripliciter. Primo quia magis est eligendum persone private non esse causam mortis hominis quam esse. Sed dando talem medicinam est causa morti puerperii, tam mortis temporalis quam etiam spiritualis, si fetus |T| habet animam rationalem, sicut suppositur in questione. Non dando autem non est causa mortis medicus, sed morbus. Ergo talis medicus potius debet eligere non dare talem medicinam quam dare. Maior patet, et minor etiam quantum ad primam partem, sed probatur quantum ad secundam, scilicet quod non dando talem medicinam non est causa mortis alicuius. Constat enim quod non est causa directe actu suo, scilicet aliquem interficiendo, nec etiam indirecte seu per accidens, sicut nauta dicitur causa submersionis navis cum potuit et debuit gubernare et non gubernavit, ut dicitur in secundo Physicorum et in quinto Metaphysicorum, quia licet dando potuerit liberare matrem a morte seu preservare, non tamen tenebatur seu debebat; immo non debebat, quia dando esset causa mortis puerperii, ut predictum est, tam corporaliter quam etiam spiritualiter, si puerperium erat animatum anima rationali. Secus autem esset si non esset animatum anima rationali, quia tunc talem medicinam dando licet impediret animationem talis fetus, tamen non esset causa mortis alicuius hominis, et liberaret matrem a morte. Unde in tali casu deberet medicinam dare.” The full question is printed in Wolfgang Peter Müller, Die Abtreibung: Anfänge der Kriminalisierung 1140-1650 (Cologne: Böhlau, 2000), 75-6n14.

250 who procures the abortion would be the direct cause of the child’s death, whereas if the woman does not receive the abortion and dies, her illness or physical weakness would be the cause of her death. Likewise, if a ruler does not defend his territory against invaders, he is not the cause of the harm that comes to the kingdom; the invaders are. But bringing unbelievers into the kingdom would lead to evil, since they might draw Christians away from the faith, especially if they are allowed to take captives in war. 100 (The question seems to concern a case in which a Christian king is waging a just war against a Christian opponent.) The analogy with abortion drops out of the response to this argument, and it is not mentioned anywhere in the body of John’s response to the main question. 101 But it is worth noting that the initial argument is basically the same as the one that John uses in his response to the quodlibetal question on abortion, where he asserts that it is better to choose not to be the cause of someone’s death, and that one should not do evil in order to achieve a good. The quodlibet adds the more nuanced distinction based on the age of the fetus, but assuming that the fetus had a rational soul, someone performing an abortion would be the cause of its death, whereas if he refrained, the cause of the woman’s death would be the illness, and therefore the abortion should not be performed.

Similar reasoning about avoiding being directly responsible for a death is found in John’s response to Quodl. X.20, a question about whether a cruel judge is worse than a lax one. John quotes the Aristotelian dictum that punishments are a sort of medicine, and expands the analogy by asserting that it goes more against the medical art to administer an excessive medicine, from which a patient dies, than to give a weak medicine that fails to prevent the patient from succumbing to the disease. 102 In giving the patient an overly strong medicine, the doctor would

100 DQ 38 [32] Gravina p. 323b-324a; T f. 279ra: “Preterea, homo non debet esse causa mali ut vitet quodcunque malum cuius non est causa, sicut homo non debet procurare abortum mulieris, etiam si deberet mori mulier, quia mortis pueri esset causa; mortis autem mulieris non est causa, sed infirmitas eius. Sed si princeps non defendit rempublicam contra invadentes, non est causa mali reipublice ipse, sed invasor. Admittendo autem infideles est causa alicuius mali, quod inde sequitur; ergo etc.”

101 DQ 38 [32] Gravina p. 329b; T f. 280va-b: “Ad decimum dicendum quod victi a stipendiariis non sunt servi eorum, sed eius cuius auctoritate pugnant stipendiarii; ipsi autem stipendiarii debent esse contenti stipendiis suis [...|T|...] Si tamen timeretur quod ex tali victoria infideles usurparent dominium super fideles, non liceret principi fideli assumere stipendarios infieles.”

102 Quodl. X.20, N f. 23vb; T f. 158va: “Preterea, ‘pene sunt quedam medicine’, ut patet in decimo Ethicorum . Sed plus faceret contra artem medicine dans medicinam excessivam ad quam sequeretur mors quam dans medicinam defectivam que non perfecte sanaret, quia primus est causa mortis directe; non autem secundus, dato etiam quod

251 be the direct cause of the patient’s death, but if he gave the patient a weak medicine and the patient died, the death would be directly caused by the illness and not the doctor. It is better for the doctor to err on the side of caution than to risk harming his patient through his actions. Similarly, John argues, it is better for the judge to err on the side of potential laxness than to impose an overly harsh penalty. John’s principle that doctors should not be the direct cause of death, identified by Aurélien Robert, is actually part of a broader ethical principle that one should not be the direct cause of a wrong, even for the sake of a greater good – a principle that applies as much to rulers and judges as it does to physicians.

Informing the dying patient

The final ethical question about doctors in John’s quodlibets displays an overt concern for the state of the doctor’s soul. Quodl. XI.14 deals with the ever touchy subject of whether to inform a terminally ill patient that he is dying, but the question is framed in terms of the doctor’s potential for sin: “Whether a doctor who knows that death is near for a patient in his care is bound to warn him, in such a way that he would sin mortally by not telling him.” 103 The initial argument in favour of telling the patient is based upon the common view that hearing of one’s approaching death is likely to be detrimental to bodily health. Not telling the patient would therefore be good for his body. However, it is likely that someone who hears of his impending death will repent of his sins and dispose himself to dying well, so telling him would be good for his soul. Since all Christians are bound to love their neighbours’ souls more than their bodies, the doctor ought to tell the patient, and would sin mortally if he did not. 104 This argument basically summarizes the position of Canon 22 of the Fourth Lateran Council, Cum infirmitas , which required doctors to advise their patients to call a priest before administering any physical treatments, “since physical illness is sometimes caused by sin.” The decree is justified with the claim that some people “give up all hope and yield more easily to the danger of death” when their doctor tells them to call a priest. The aim of the Fourth Lateran Council seems to have been to normalize the practice of

mors sequeretur. Sed talis mortis esset causa directe et per se morbus, et non medicus. Ergo magis facit contra iustitiam iudex crudelis inferrens penam excessivam quam iudex remissus inferens penam defectivam.”

103 Quodl. XI.14, transcribed in the appendix to this chapter.

104 Quodl. XI.14, chapter appendix, § 2.

252 calling a priest whenever a patient is undergoing treatment, in the interests of encouraging both spiritual and physical health. 105 John actually refers to this canon, via the Liber Extra , in his response to the main question, arguing that if the law requires doctors to call a confessor when they despair for a patient’s physical health, they should do so all the more when they fear for the fate of a patient’s soul. 106

The sed contra for this question quotes an aphorism of Galen (one of the few named references to a medical authority in all of John’s quodlibets): “No matter how much a physician despairs of his patient’s condition, he must always comfort him and promise him health.” 107 The initial arguments thus seem to set up a conflict between authorities of medicine and canon law. John ultimately solves the question by declaring both to be right, but establishing a clear hierarchy of disciplines which subordinates medicine to theology/canon law. He responds that Galen was speaking purely as a doctor, concerned only with the care of bodies, and in this sense, his advice is perfectly sound; telling the patient may indeed worsen his condition. However, the implication is that a Christian doctor needs to take more than a patient’s physical health into account. 108

John’s response to this question hinges on the doctor’s assessment of his patient’s spiritual health. John presents three possible scenarios. 109 In the first, the doctor thinks that the patient is at risk of dying in a state of sin (maybe he knows that the patient has sins that he has not confessed) and suspects that he has not made a will, meaning that after his death there will be discord and strife among his heirs as they fight to divide up his goods. The doctor is reasonably sure that if he is told that he is dying, the patient will set his affairs in order and dispose himself

105 Robert, “Médecine et théologie,” 335-9. The relevant passage of the canon reads: “quum eos ad infirmos vocari contigerit, ipsos ante omnia moneant et inducant, ut medicos advocent animarum, ut, postquam fuerit infirmo de spirituali salute provisum, ad corporalis medicinae remedium salubrius procedatur, quum causa cessante cesset effectus.”

106 Quodl. XI.14, chapter appendix, § 6.

107 Quodl. XI.14, chapter appendix 16.2 § 3. Danielle Jacquart argues that physicians around the beginning of the fourteenth century considered it more dishonourable to give a prognosis of death and have the patient recover than to predict that a patient would recover and be proved wrong. See Jacquart, “Le difficile pronostic de mort (XIV e- XV e siècles),” Médiévales 46 (2004): 11-21.

108 Quodl. XI.14, chapter appendix, § 9.

109 Quodl. XI.14, chapter appendix, § 4.

253 to dying well. In this case, John argues, the doctor must tell the patient, and would be committing a mortal sin if he did not. Only the doctor has the power in this situation to save the patient from what John calls a double damage: dying in a state of sin, and causing discord among his heirs by dying intestate. 110

On the other hand, the doctor might think that the patient is in a good state of spiritual health and know that he has already made a will and arranged for the disposal of his goods, so that telling him that he is dying would not be very useful for him, and not telling him would cause him little or no harm. John says that in this case the doctor does not have to tell the patient, and he would not be committing a mortal sin if he did not, but he would still do better to tell him. No matter how much this patient might think he has his affairs in order, there is probably still room for improvement, and such a virtuous man would probably dispose himself towards dying even better if he knew that his end was nigh. 111 In the third case, the doctor is uncertain as to the state of his patient’s soul or worldly affairs. John says that in a case of uncertainty the doctor once again must tell the patient, and would be committing a mortal sin if he did not, because there is a good chance that he would be the only one who could save this person from damnation. 112 In responding to the dictum of Galen, John softens his position a little, saying that although a doctor should never lie to a dying patient by with a false promise of recovery, he should nonetheless comfort him and not speak of death unless it would be very beneficial for the patient, as in the first scenario. 113 Remarkably, John seems to be granting physicians the power to judge their patients’ state of spiritual health and act accordingly, independent of the guidance of a priest or theologian.

John describes the physician’s duty to inform a patient that he is dying as similar to the blanket requirement for Lenten fasting. Although fasting, absolutely speaking, is required of all Christians, it can be dispensed with in certain cases, such as if a person is ill and would be

110 Quodl. XI.14, chapter appendix, § 5-6.

111 Quodl. XI.14, chapter appendix, § 7.

112 Quodl. XI.14, chapter appendix, § 8.

113 Quodl. XI.14, chapter appendix, § 9.

254 seriously harmed by it. 114 This remark echoes the advice John gave in other quodlibetal questions, such as Quodl. XII.15 and Quodl. XI.16 (discussed above), the second of which was placed near the question about telling the dying patient in the same quodlibet, as well as the advice he gave in Quodl. XII.13, about whether the pope can grant a dispensation from a vow of continence solemnized by religious profession. 115 These parallels provide further evidence that John was responding to questions about medical ethics in a pastoral frame of mind, rather than speaking to physicians directly.

The later reception of John’s medical-ethical questions

The fact that several of these quodlibetal questions were included in later confessors’ manuals suggests that they helped to fill gaps in the existing penitential literature. Later writers of confessors’ manuals obviously found them useful. Thirteenth-century summae for confessors were inconsistent in their discussions of the sins specific to physicians: Robert of Courson’s Summa (ca. 1208-13) addressed the sins of physicians and surgeons, but Thomas Chobham’s roughly contemporary Summa confessorum (ca. 1215) did not. According to Darrel Amundsen, it was only around the beginning of the fourteenth century that a stable list of professions, frequently including doctors, began to appear in the confessional literature. 116 Late twelfth- and early thirteenth-century discussions of the sins of physicians tended to concentrate on problems with fees. Stephen Langton, following Peter the Chanter, noted that physicians, lawyers, and teachers were permitted to accept moderate salaries without being considered to be “selling the grace of God.” 117 Robert Courson was also concerned with physicians who charged excessive fees. 118 As Amundsen has shown, fourteenth-, fifteenth- and sixteenth-century confessors’

114 Quodl. XI.14, chapter appendix, § 9.

115 Quodl. XII.13, T f. 179ra: “...sicut est de abstinentia a comestione que ordinatur ad conservationem individui, sic est de continentia a matrimonio, quod ordinatur ad conservatione speciei. Sed in abstinentia, sive precepti sive voti, potest et debet fieri dispensatio quando talis abstinentia cederet in malum mortis vel gravis infirmitatis ipsius abstinentis, et econtra comestio cederet ad bonum vite et sanitatis; ergo in continentia quocumque voto emissa potest et debet fieri dispensatio si cedit modo exposito in supradictum malum totius alicuius gentis, et econtra matrimonium cedit in bonum ipsius...”

116 Amundsen, “Casuistry and Professional Obligations,” 252-3.

117 Amundsen, “Casuistry and Professional Obligations,” 261; Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants , 1:125.

118 Amundsen, “Casuistry and Professional Obligations,” 252.

255 manuals feature a broader range of potential sins, including incompetent practice, administering treatments of uncertain efficacy, and the failure to observe obligations to treat patients faithfully, observe professional conduct in relations with fellow physicians, or carry through with the requirement to advise patients to call a confessor, based on Cum infirmitas . John of Naples seems to have played a role in expanding this discourse in two key areas: abortion and informing the terminally ill patient.

Antoninus of Florence was instrumental in ensuring the transmission of John’s teachings on these subjects to a broader audience. In his Summa theologiae (sometimes called the Summa moralis ), Antoninus included a section on “the vices of doctors and their fees.” 119 One of these vices is performing abortions. Antoninus states that a doctor or anyone else who gives a pregnant woman an abortifacient medicine for the purpose of concealing a sin commits a mortal sin themselves. However, if they do this in order to preserve the pregnant woman from the risk of death on account of the pregnancy, Antoninus says that, “following John of Naples in his tenth quodlibet, one must distinguish between the unborn child which is animate and one that has not yet been animated with a rational soul.” 120 He proceeds to quote or closely paraphrase much of the first main point of John’s solution to Quodl. X.27, including the clear statement that if the fetus has not yet been animated with a rational soul, the doctor ought to give the woman the medicine, because doing so would save her from death and would not cause the death of any human being. Antoninus gives no estimate of the time at which ensoulment occurs, and he adds that if there is doubt about whether the fetus possesses a rational soul, giving the medicine would be a mortal sin, because the person giving the medicine would be exposing themselves to the danger of committing homicide. He thus seems to be interested in placing more limits on abortion than John, but nonetheless preserves the injunction to perform an abortion in certain circumstances.

It would seem that Antoninus encountered John’s quodlibets at some point in the four years between writing his Confessionale and the much longer Summa theologica . In the Confessionale

119 Antoninus, Summa sacrae theologiae , Book 3, tit. 7, ca. 2, § 2, f. 88va.

120 Antoninus, Summa sacrae theologiae , Book 3, tit. 7, ca. 2, § 2, f. 88va: “secundum Io. Neapol. in 10 quodlib. distinguendum est de puerperio, quia aut est animatum, aut nondum est animatum anima rationali.”

256

(1473), Antoninus briefly states that a physician commits a mortal sin by giving medicine or advice for the health of the body that might lead the patient’s soul into danger, and one of his examples is giving a pregnant woman medicine that would kill the child for the sake of saving her life. 121 In the section on apothecaries, which immediately follows the one on doctors, Antoninus says that apothecaries sin mortally by selling abortifacient products or teaching someone how to perform an abortion. 122 He gives no exceptions for either case. The Confessionale also does not address the problem of whether to inform a dying patient, whereas the Summa theologica paraphrases John’s quodlibetal question on this topic at some length, including the rebuttal to Galen. 123

Writers of confessors’ manuals were still referring to John and Antoninus on abortion and informing the dying patient well into the early modern period. As seen in the chart above, Prierias included references to both questions in his Summa Sylvestrina a few decades after Antoninus when discussing the sins of doctors. The Iberian canonist and theologian Martín de Azpilcueta (1491-1586), writing in the second half of the sixteenth century, also cited both questions via Antoninus in the section of his Enchiridion sive manuale confessariorum et poenitentium devoted to the sins of doctors and surgeons. 124 Following John and Antoninus, Martín notes that if one believes with a high degree of probability that the fetus does not yet have

121 Antoninus, Confessionale ‘Defecerunt’ (1508), f. 72rb-va: “Si dedit medicinam vel consilium pro salute corporis in periculum tamen anime propter que veniat quis ad peccatum, id est, contra precepta, puta ut fornicetur quis ut evitet certas infirmitates, vel medicinam dat pregnanti ad occidendum puerum pro conservatione matris, vel potum inebriantem, et huiusmodi, mortaliter peccat.” Antoninus is elaborating on Canon 22 of the Fourth Lateran Council, ‘Cum infirmitas ,’ which, among other things, forbids doctors from advising patients to use sinful means to regain physical health.

122 Antoninus, Confessionale , f. 72vb: “Si docent vel vendunt ea que procurant aborsum ad illud faciendum vel vendunt venena his quos credunt abusuros, mortale peccatum est.”

123 Antoninus, Summa theologica book 3, tit. 7, ca. 2, § 4, f. 89rb-va and § 7, f. 91ra.

124 Martín de Azpilcueta, Enchiridion Sive Manuale Confessariorum et Poenitentium (Lyon: Gulielmus Rouillium, 1575), ch. 25, § ‘De peccatis medici et chirurgi,’ q. 4-5, f. 384v-385r: “Qui praegnanti praebet aliquid, quo abortiat, etiam si praebeat, ut eam a morte servet, si credit, vel dubitat, foetum esse animatum, Io. de Neap. in 10 quodl. probatus ab Anton. 3 par. tit. 7. c. 2., et communiter, sed si probabiliter credit, non esse anima rationali animatu, licite poterit illud praebere, quo vitam matris servet, cum non sit culpa mortis alienae nec corporalis nec spiritualis, iuxta eosdem. [...] Et qui credens infirmum moriturum, et quod eius admonitio est multum illi profutura ad exuendum peccatum mortale, et ad testandum, quo rixae grandes inter haeredes impediantur, et neque per se, nec per alium, admonet, ut peccatum exuat, et testetur, Io. Neap. quodl. 11, et Ant. ubi sup. § 7. Dixi (credens, etc.) quia secus si iuste putat, suam admonitionem parum profuturam, quia credit eum in bono esse statu, et de suis bonis testamentum fuisse, secundum eosdem.”

257 a rational soul, it is licit to provide an abortion in order to save the mother’s life, since in this case one would not be guilty of causing the physical or spiritual death of another. However, he does not state explicitly, as John and Antoninus did, that the physician actually ought to give the medicine in such a case.

Around 1600, Catholic theologians began to move away from Aristotelian theories of fetal development in favour of the view that the fetus should be regarded as human from the moment of conception, or mere days thereafter (a view that was first put forward by Protestant scholars), which meant that abortion would be considered homicide in all circumstances. 125 John’s more permissive attitude towards therapeutic abortion seems to have fallen out of favour around this time. Martín de Azpilcueta’s less emphatic endorsement of therapeutic abortion in the case of a not-yet-animated fetus may mark a growing discomfort with John’s views. About a century after Martín, the French Catholic theologian Jean Pontas (1638-1728) cited John’s quodlibetal question on abortion, again via Antoninus, in his massive dictionary of cases of conscience, composed around 1690. 126 But he followed it up with quotations from several more recent theologians who had argued that a woman should never seek an abortion in order to save her life, and concluded that a woman in this situation who is sure that her fetus in not yet animated should commend her life to divine providence rather than seeking an abortion and thereby putting herself at risk of sin. Though increasingly outdated, John’s quodlibetal question was still regarded by certain pastoral writers as worth mentioning some three and half centuries after its composition.

4.5 Conclusion

In this chapter, I have attempted to demonstrate that a large number of John’s quodlibetal questions are best understood within the context of the Dominican order’s mission to train competent preachers, teachers, and confessors. Some of the audience members for his quodlibetal disputations, especially in Naples, seem to have sought John’s advice on questions

125 Müller, The Criminalization of Abortion in the West , 116-22; John Christopoulos, “Abortion and the Confessional in Counter-Reformation Italy,” Renaissance Quarterly 65.2 (2012): 443-84.

126 Jean Pontas, Dictionnaire de cas de conscience ou décisions par ordre alphabétique des plus considérables difficultés touchant la morale et la discipline ecclésiastique (Paris: Le Mercier-Boudet, 1741), I.308-9.

258 that appeared in pastoral manuals, or slight variations on traditional questions; others seem to have turned to him when the existing pastoral literature failed to address their concerns. Closer study would undoubtedly uncover more echoes of earlier pastoral texts in John’s quodlibets, and more instances of later pastoral writers who adapted his quodlibetal questions for their own purposes, and perhaps also cases in which these sources are in dialogue with the fourth book of Peter Lombard’s Sentences and related commentaries. Another avenue for further inquiry is whether quodlibetal disputations held at mendicant studia , where pastoral concerns were perhaps more obviously pressing, tend to exhibit more borrowings from pastoral literature than those held at the University of Paris. John of Naples’ quodlibets are surely not unique in their overlaps with the literature of pastoral care.

Although primarily addressed to the clergy and reflective of their interests, pastoral works can also tell us in a mediated way about the concerns of the laity in the time and place at which they were created. The friars who almost certainly attended John’s quodlibetal debates in Naples would have been inspired not only by their readings, but also by things that they saw in the world around them, and by the problems that the more experienced among them had been presented with during confession. In a recent article, Deeana Klepper has shown how Albert of Diessen, an Augustinian canon regular active during the later fourteenth century, based his Speculum clericorum on traditional models such as John of Freiburg’s Summa confessorum , but also added passages relevant to local concerns – in his case, the outbreaks of anti-Jewish violence that had plagued Bavaria, like other parts of Germany, in recent years. 127 The pastoral questions in John’s quodlibets likewise to a certain extent reflect the concerns of Neapolitan friars and the layfolk they encountered in their daily lives.

John’s sermons suggest that he dealt mainly with the Neapolitan elite, and his pastoral questions do little to challenge this impression. Questions about couples and families could apply to broad swathes of society. 128 But physicians constituted an elite class, and one that was particularly

127 Deeana Klepper, “Pastoral Literature in Local Context: Albert of Diessen’s Mirror of Priests on Christian- Jewish Coexistence,” Speculum 92.3 (2017): 692-723.

128 E.g. Quodl. X.21, N f. 24ra-va; T f. 158vb-159ra: “Utrum parentibus liceat verberare filios,” edited in Stella, “Puer quasi res parentum”; Quod. X.22, N f. 24va-b; T f. 159ra-b: “Vicesima questio est quidam casus talis: Quidam uxoratus vivente uxore promisit cuidam alteri mulieri que ignorabat eum uxoratum quod duceret eam in uxorem, et

259 prominent in Naples during John’s lifetime. Relatively few of the questions in his quodlibets pertain to merchants and bankers; of the two questions about usury, one is concerned with whether a king sins by granting others permission to practice usury in his lands, rather than the moneylenders themselves. 129 Many of his pastoral questions concern layfolk (and occasionally also ecclesiastical prelates 130 ) who owned enough property to be concerned about properly making and executing their testaments. Wills, inheritance, and the behaviour of testators and executors are recurrent topics in John’s quodlibets: in addition to questions about the sins of executors who delay in carrying out their duties 131 and testators who direct their heirs to make restitution of their ill-gotten gains without doing so themselves, 132 we find questions about whether all children are owed equal portions of their parents’ goods according to divine law; 133 about local inheritance customs; 134 about cases in which a father’s desire to leave his wealth to

postea carnaliter cognovit eam. Tandem post sex menses predicta mulier cognovit talem adulterum esse uxoratum, et hoc sibi dixit, qui hoc ipsum tali mulieri de plano confessus est. Sed addidit, ‘promitto tibi quod si illa morietur, post mortem eius te accipiam in uxorem.’ Modo queritur utrum tali uxore legittima defuncta predictus adulter possit talem mulierem accipere in uxorem.”

129 Quodl. XIII.17 (N f. 172vb-173rb; T f. 293vb-294ra: “Utrum rem modici precii tradens et vendens alicui pro magno precio solvendo in futuro committat usuram, sicut si aliquis vinum tempore vindemiarum quando est magnum forum de vino et vinum est modici precii traderet et venderet alicui pro precio magno, quantum valebit in futurum ante vindemias solovendo tali tempore,” transcribed from N in Ovidio Capitani, “La ‘venditio ad terminum’ nella valutazione morale di S. Tommaso d’Aquino e di Remigio de’ Girolami,” Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo 70 (1958): 299-363, at 357-9, is clearly of interest to merchants, but Quodl. X.18 (N f. 21va-23va; T f. 157ra-158ra: “Utrum princeps peccet concedendo licentiam alicui in terra sua quod mutuet pecuniam ad usuram”) is first and foremost about the actions of a prince.

130 Quodl. IV.17, N f. 64rb-va; T f. 39vb-40ra: “Utrum legatum episcopo post eius mortem sit ecclesie vel consanguineorum si moritur ab intestato.”

131 Quodl. II.22, N f. 40va-b; T f. 17vb-18ra: “Utrum exequtores testamentorum peccent mortaliter non statim exequendo.”

132 Quodl. IX.22, T f. 149rb: “Utrum potenti statim restituere male ablata sufficiat ad salutem anime relinquere in testamento quod heredes restituant.”

133 Quodl. V.16, N f. 76vb-78ra; T f. 52rb-53va: “Utrum de iure divino filii habeant equas portiones in bonis parentum,” and Quodl. VII.14, a variant on the same question (“Utrum de iure divino omnes filii habeant equas portiones in bonis parentum”) that is not found in N or T, but appears in other manuscripts such as F, f. 137vb-138va and D, f. 42ra-43ra.

134 Quodl. VIII.27, N f. 10vb-11ra and 146rb-vb; T f. 131vb-132va: “Utrum pater possit exheredare filium licite in terris in quibus est talis consuetudo”; Quodl. VIII.33, N f. 149va-150ra; T f. 135ra-b: “Utrum in terris in quibus, ex consuetudine vel statuto, primogenitus succedit in toto, filius naturalis primogenitus legitimatus post nativitatem secundogeniti debeat succedere, vel secundogenitus.”

260 pious causes comes into conflict with a son or daughter’s right to inherit.135 To the Dominicans of early-fourteenth-century Naples, the average layman was clearly a man of property.

Even the question about whether to tell a patient that he is dying discussed in the previous section could be included on this list, since in this question the state of the patient’s soul is closely linked to the state of his worldly affairs. John imagines that a person who dies without having set his affairs in order will have his possessions scattered after his death, causing grave discord among his heirs. Although it is not so great a penalty as eternal damnation, John characterizes this kind of disorder as a considerable damage ( dampnum notabile ). 136 This emphasis on setting one’s affairs in order is worth considering in the context of the mendicant orders’ well-documented interests in will-making during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The mendicant orders may have played an active role in the revival of will-making during this period; certainly, testaments had become a major source of income for the mendicants by the beginning of the fourteenth century. 137 Consciously or not, by promoting the ideal of setting one’s affairs in order – which in early fourteenth-century Naples would have entailed drawing up

135 Quodl. XIII.18, N f. 173rb: “Utrum pater alicuius intrans monasterium possit privare filium tota hereditate, seu debito bonorum subsidio, et offerre omnia bona sua monasterio quo intrat;” Quodl. XIII.19, N f. 173rb- 174va/Quodl. XI.17, T f. 171va-172vb: “Decimaseptima questio est talis casus: dominus I tradidit dominam F, filiam suam unigenitam, in uxorem comiti C, cum multis pactis, que confirmavit iuramento facto ad sacra dei evangelia corporaliter tacta et concessu regis facto ex certa sua scientia per suas literas patentes cum sigillo suo pendente, inter que pacta fuit quod promisit instituere et instituit heredem predictam filiam suam in omnibus bonis suis feudalibus et burgensaticis stabilibus et mobilibus et per se moventibus que haberet tempore mortis sue, exceptis legatis ponendis in ultimo suo testamento. Et omnia predicta pacta posita sunt in quodam instrumento dotalitio facto de matrimonio supradicto, in quo instrumento inter alia ponitur quod si aliquis defectus apparuerit in posterum in hiis que spectant ad personas predictorum comitis et comitisse, deberent emendari secundum consilium et determinacionem sapientis eligendi ab ipsis comite et comitissa. Dominus autem I predictus in suo ultimo testamento revocavit predictam institutionem heredis et dimisit supradicte filie sue de bonis burgensaticis solum 50 uncias in pecunia et parum de bonis stabilibus, que ambo simul accepta non extimantur esse quinquagesima pars omnium bonorum burgensaticorum ipsius. Et preter multa et magna que idem dominus I erogavit dum viveret parum ante mortem suam, et que legavit distincte in tali testamento, posuit in ipso talem clausulam: ‘Reliqua autem omnia bona mea stabilia et mobilia et se movencia vendantur, et pecunia que habebitur ex vendicione eorum et omnis alia pecunia mea detur per exequtores seu distribuatur pro missis et ad alias pias causas pro anima mea.’ Circa istum casum queritur utrum predicta comitissa succedat virtute provisionis et institutionis heredis supradicte in omnibus bonis burgensaticis patris sui, exceptis legatis distincte positis in tali testamento, vel talia bona burgensatica debeant distribui per exequtores secundum tenorem clausule supradicte.”

136 Quodl. XI.14, chapter appendix, § 8.

137 Bruzelius, Preaching, Building, and Burying , 143-50; Sylvain Piron, “Un couvent sous influence. Santa Croce autour de 1300,” in Économie et religion: l’expérience des ordres mendiants (XIII e-XV e siècle) , ed. Nicole Bériou and Jacques Chiffoleau (Lyon: Presses universitaires de Lyon, 2009), 321-55, esp. 324-30; Michele Bacci, “Les frères, les legs et l’art: les investissements pour l’augmentation du culte divin,” in Économie et religion , 563-90.

261 a will, very likely with one or more mendicant witnesses – as contributing to salvation, John was promoting his own interests and those of his order.

Overall, the texts discussed in this chapter highlight the strong practical element of John’s theological teaching – and of Dominican education more broadly. Their orientation towards the concerns of the wealthy and educated accords well with what is known about the convent of San Domenico Maggiore during John’s lifetime, as described in chapter 1, and illustrates the extent to which those friars were rooted in the particular urban community of early-fourteenth-entury Naples. These questions are also the best source that we have for reconstructing John’s activities as a confessor and a teacher of confessors. His treatments of these questions display a keen interest in attending to the particular circumstances of a situation when advising a course of action, combined with an interest in promoting general principles like avoiding being the direct cause of an evil, even for the sake of a greater good, and conforming to established ecclesiastical practices and seeking guidance rather than striking out on one’s own. Although these questions initially attracted the interest of Italian Dominican pastoral writers, as time went on small extracts found their way into the hands of theologians and canonists from Spain to Hungary, almost certainly thanks to their inclusion in widely-circulated pastoral summae such as the one by Antoninus of Florence. The Dominican studium system served partly to disseminate knowledge from the ‘fountain’ of Paris to more remote convents, and outwards to the laity, and we can see this process at work in John’s quodlibets. But provincial convents were also a place of intellectual creativity, and the wide diffusion of some of John’s pastorally-minded questions illustrates just how far texts and ideas that were deemed useful could travel, even if they originated far from Paris.

Appendix to Chapter 4

This appendix includes two quodlibetal questions discussed in the preceding chapter, one from section 4.1 and the other from section 4.4.

Quodl. II.19: Whether it is a sin to kill a daughter and her lover caught in the act of adultery 1

1 Decimanona questio est utrum puniatur a deo seu peccet ille qui occidit filiam in adulterio deprehensam et adulterum.

2 Et primo videtur quod non, quia dicit Augustinus Contra Bonifacium non videtur peccare qui legis utitur auctoritate. 2 Sed auctoritate legis pater potest predictos occidere. Hoc enim est secundum humanam legem concessum, ergo etc.

3 Preterea, quedam decretalis dicit quod non licet alicui occidere nisi quando habuit gladii potestatem. 3 Sed talis a legibus humanis habet gladii potestatem, ergo etc.

4 Sed contra est, quia aliud est tribunali iudicis temporalis et dei. Ergo quamvis talis non puniatur secundum humanas leges, non est in consequens dicere quod in futuro puniatur a deo.

5 Respondeo, ad evidentiam huius questionis preintelligenda sunt tria.

6 Primum est quod differentia est inter preceptum, prohibitionem, et permissionem, 4 quia preceptum est solum de eo quod est bonum, aut secundum se, aut quia preceptum.

1 N f. 39ra-va; T f. 16va-17ra

2 cf. Augustine, Contra Petilianum, 2.79.176, “Qui peccat, non peccat legis auctoritate, sed contra legis auctoritatem.”

3 cf. Dec. Grat. C. 33 q. 2 c. 6 and c. 12? A closer match is Baldus ad X 2.26.20; see Joseph Canning, The Political Thought of Baldus de Ubaldis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 259: “...ergo non valent statuta permitentia homicidia, quia qui non habet gladii potestatem, et facit homicidia, peccat mortaliter.” Baldus, of course, was born after John debated this quodlibet, but he may have been drawing on an as-yet-unidentified source.

4 N in marg. (text hand) : Nota differentiam inter preceptum, prohibitionem, et promissionem.

262 263

Prohibitio autem est de eo quod est malum, aut de se, aut quia prohibitum. Permissio autem est de eo quod est secundum se malum, quod tamen dicitur permissum secundum aliquam legem, quia secundum illam non est prohibitum, et per consequens secundum talem legem remanet impunitum.

7 Secundo intellegendum est quod sicut in naturalibus quicquid subicitur causalitati cause secunde subicitur causalitati cause prime, et non e converso, quia multa subterfugiunt causalitatem cause secunde que non subterfugiunt causalitatem cause prime, sic et in moralibus, cum lex humana naturaliter subsit legi divine si sit recte posita, cuiusmodi sunt omnes leges humane que sunt ab ecclesia approbate et recepte, quicquid precipitur vel prohibetur secundum tales leges humanas precipitur et prohibetur secundum legem divinam |T f. 16vb| cum huiusmodi leges ut doctores dicunt communiter obligent, etiam in foro conscientie. Multa tamen precipiuntur vel prohibentur |N fol. 39rb| secundum legem divinam que non precipiuntur vel prohibentur, sed potius permittuntur et non puniuntur secundum legem humanam.

8 Tertio intelligendum est quod nulli private persone licet occidere hominem quemcumque malefactorem, sed solum hoc licet persone publice, ut principi vel alteri publicam administrationem habenti. Unde Augustinus dicit primo libro De civitate dei , qui sine aliqua publica administratione maleficum interfecerit velud homicida iudicabitur, et tanto amplius quanto sibi potestatem a deo non concessam usurpare non timuit, 5 cuius ratio potest esse quia occidere quemcumque videtur esse regulariter malum, nec videtur boni rationem habere, nisi inquantum ordinatur ad salutem totius communitatis, cum occisio respectu eius qui occiditur rationem medicine habere non possit, sicut anime pene que infliguntur ad emendationem eius qui punitur, et per consequens quedam medicine debent iudicari, ut Philosophus docet in Ethicis .6 Et immo ad illum solum pertinet malefactorum occidere cui cura boni communis incumbit, ad quem per consequens pertinet iudicare an occisio alicuius bono communitatis expediat vel non, sicut etiam precidere membrum

5 Dec. Grat. C 23 q. 8 c. 33; cf. Augustine, De civitate dei I.21.

6 Aristotle, Ethica ad Nicomachum II, 1104 b 17-18.

264

putridum ad illum medicum pertinet cui committitur cura totius corporis, ad quem per consequens pertinet iudicare an abscisio talis membri expediat saluti totius corporis vel non, et quia eadem est auctoritas legum et principium. Leges enim insituuntur et promulgantur per principem a quo per consequens vim obligandi habent, propter quod etiam lex dicitur quasi iudex inanimatus, et iudex quasi lex animata, ut Philosophus docet in Ethicis .7 Idcirco ille qui occidit aliquem auctoritate legis licite utpote auctoritate principis dicendus est illum occidere.

9 Hiis suppositis, ad questionem propositam per distinctionem dicendum est, quia si per leges humanas solum tali permittitur occidere, a peccato non excusatur, ut patet per predicta in secunda suppositione, et per consequens punitur a deo. Si autem ex verbis legis habetur quod tali non solum permittitur occidere, set etiam confertur auctoritas occidendi sicut iudici talis maleficii, sic dicendum est quod talis non peccat, sicut nec iudex alius qui malefactorem occideit, ut patet per predicta in tertia suppositione. Si autem dubium sit de significatio verborum legis, utrum scilicet per ea permittatur solum tali occidere, vel conferatur auctoritas occidendi, quia in dubiis tutior via eligenda est, talis de hoc dubitans et nihilominus occidens peccaret graviter, proculdubio exponens se periculo peccandi mortaliter. Verba autem legis salvo circa hoc meliori iudicio; sonare videntur quod tali committatur auctoritas occidendi tales sic in adulterio deprehensos. Dicit enim sic lex: ‘ille qui in adulterio deprehensum interfecerit, si eius conditionis fuerit, ut impune occidi potuerit,’ quod aditur in hac lege, ut dicit iuriste, ad excludendum amentes, pueros, parvulos, principes, et huiusmodi, quos etiam in hoc casu non liceret interficere, ‘quod legitime factum est, nullam penam meretur; idemque filiis eius qui patri paruerunt prestandum est.’ [Cod. 9.9.4] Et sequitur in predicta lege ‘sed si legis auctoritate cessante,’ [Cod. 9.9.4.1] id est, si post adulterium perpetratum, ‘inconsulto dolore adulterum interemit quamvis homicidum perpetratum sit, tamen quia nox et dolor iustus factum eius revelat, potest in exilium dari.’ Unde tum quia dicitur hoc occisio legitime facta, tum quia etiam expresse dicitur quod si interficet post ad|N f. 39va|ulterum perpetratum interficet legis auctoritate cessante, et sic exprimit quod interficiendo in

7 Aristotle, Ethica ad Nicomachum V.7, 1132 a 19-22.

265

adulterio deprehensum interficit legis auctoriate, videtur dicendum quod tali non solum permittitur, set etiam commititur auctoritas occidendi. Et sic videtur salva, ut dixi, meliori sententia talis immunis esse a peccato, supposito tamen semper quod hoc faciat ex zelo iustitie simpliciter. 8 Tamen melius faceret, propter dubium quod posset esse quo zelo hoc |T f. 17ra| faceret, quod a tali occisione abstineret. Et hoc ubicuique consulendum esset tanquam melius et magis tutum actum, quamvis, ut supra probatum est, talis occidendo non peccaret.

10 Ad argumentum factum in contrarium, dicendum quod quia aliud est tribunal dei et hominis, multa peccata non puniuntur ab homine iudice, que tamen puniuntur a deo, ut supra declaratum est. Iste tamen occidendo non videtur peccare, ut supra probatum est.

8 N in marg ., text hand: Contrarium tamen dicit Thomas in 4, d. 37, articulo 3 principali; T in marg. : Contrarium tamen dicit sanctus Thomas in 4, d. 37, articulo 3 principali.

266

Quodl. XI.14: Whether a physician has to tell a patient that he is dying 1

1 Quartadecima questio est utrum medicus precognoscens mortem vicinam infirmi cuius habet curam teneatur eam sibi predicere sic quod non predicendo peccet mortaliter.

2 Et primo videtur quod sic, quia quilibet debet diligere magis bonum anime proximi quam corporis. Sed predicendo est ei causa boni anime, quia talis auditi morte probabile est quod penitebit de peccatis suis et disponet se ad bene moriendum. Non predicendo autem est ei causa boni corporis vite, scilicet corporis que posset absevari in ipso propter timorem mortis audite. Ergo tenetur ei predicere, et non predicendo peccat mortaliter.

3 Sed contra est Galen in Anforismis , ubi dicit quod quantumcumque medicus disperet de salute infirmi, semper tamen debet confortare eum et promittere sibi sanitatem. 2

4 Respondeo, aut talis medicus credit verisimiliter quod talis predictio vel loqutio multum prodesset infirmo quantum ad salutem anime et ordinationem de rebus suis, utpote quia credit quod talis infirmus sit in statu peccati mortalis et nihil ordinavit de rebus suis, que distraherentur post mortem, et propter eas esset gravis discensio inter heredes, et credit quod audita morte vicina, disponeret se ad bene moriendum et bene ordinandum de rebus suis; aut credit oppositum, scilicet quod talis loqutio seu predictio parum aut nihil tali infirmo prodesset, et per oppositum tacernitas parum aut nihil obesset, utpote quia credit eum esse in bono statu et bene ordinasse de rebus suis; aut neutrum credit, sed est in dubio de duobus predictis.

5 In primo casu, dicendum est quod ex precepto caritatis talis medicus debet tali infirmo mortem predicere per se vel per alium, et non predicendo peccat mortaliter, cuius ratio est quia multum dampnificans aliquem peccat mortaliter faciendo contra amorem caritativum proximi. Peccatum enim mortale est quod opponitur caritati, et in primo casu predicto,

1 T f. 169vb-170rb

2 Presumably a reference to Galen’s commentary on the Aphorisms of Hippocrates, which formed part of the Articella; I have not yet identified the reference. See also Robert, “Médicine et théologie,” 338n169.

267

medicus non predicendo infirmo mortem multum dampnificat ipsum quantum ad duo predicta, non quidem directe actu suo inferendo dampnum, sed indirecte, |T f. 170ra| quia impedivit eius dampnum quod potuit impedire, et etiam debuit secundum Aristoteles, sicut Aristoteles dicit in secundo Physicorum et in quinto Metaphysice quod nauta est causa subversionis navis quando non impedit eam et potest et debet impedire. 3 Ergo medicus in tali casu non predicendo mortem peccat mortaliter.

6 Quod autem medicus in tali casu debeat predictum duplex dampnum infirmi vitare probatur sic: quando per unum solum de multis potest vitari malum proximi, ille solus debet proximo subvenire, et non subveniendo peccat mortaliter, sicut si per unum solum de multis potest pasci fame moriens, talis debet eum pascere, et non pascendo occidit ipsum et peccat mortaliter, iuxta illud Ambrosius, ‘Pasce te fame morientem; si non pavisti, occidisti.’ 4 Sed solus medicus potest vitare duplex dampnum predictum predicendo mortem, quia ei soli in hac parte credendum est. Ergo debet predicendo mortem tale duplex dampnum vitare. Si tamen multi medici habent curam eiusdem infirmi, uno predicente alii sunt a tali debito liberati, sicut in exemplo predicto uno pascente fame morientem alii sunt a debito pascendi eum liberati. Et confirmatur ratio quia non minus medicus debet procurare salutem anime infirmi cum desperat de salute corporis eius quam cum est in principio infirmitatis. Sed Extra , ‘de penitentiis et remissionibus,’ ‘cum infirmitas ’ [X 5.38.13], districte precipitur medicis corporum ut cum eos ad infirmos vocari contigerit ipsos ante omnia moneant et inducunt ut medicos advocent animarum. Ergo multo magis cum desperant de salute corporali infirmi debent predicendo ei mortem vitare dampnationem anime ipsius in casu predicto primo.

7 In secundo autem casu videtur dicendum oppositum, scilicet quod non tenetur ei mortem predicere et tacendo non peccat, cuius ratio est quia ‘cessante causa cessat effectus,’ ut etiam dicitur in eadem decretali ‘cum infirmitas’ [X 5.38.12]. Sed causa propter quam in primo casu predicto tenebatur predicere est ut vitaret duplex dampnum predictum infirmi

3 Aristotle, Physica II.3, 195 a 13-14; Metaphysica V.2, 1013 b 13-15.

4 cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae , II a-II ae q. 32 a. 5; this saying has been attributed to a variety of patristic authors.

268

talis, que causa non habet locum in secundo casu proposito. Ergo in tali casu non tenetur predicere, licet etiam in isto casu melius faceret predicendo, cuius ratio est quia quantumcumque talis infirmus credat esse in bono statu anime et bene ordinasse de rebus suis, potest tamen quantum ad utrumque proficere et meliorari, iuxta illud Apoc. 22[:11], qui iustus est iustificetur adhuc, et qui est sanctus sanctificetur adhuc , et probabile est quod audita morte vicina, magis se disponeret ad bene moriendum et aliquid forte melius circa res suas ordinari.

8 In tertio casu predicto videtur dicendum quod etiam tenetur predicere, et non dicendo peccat mortaliter, cuius ratio est quia in dubio homo tenetur ex precepto caritatis vitare si potest notabile dampnum proximi. Sed damnpnum eterne dampnationis est maius dampnus quod homo possit incurrere, et dampnum inordinationis rerum exteriorum est etiam dampnum notabile. Ergo in casu dubio, medicus predicendo mortem debet predictum duplex dampnum vitare.

9 Ad argumentum factum in contrarium, dicendum quod in hoc non est standum dicto Galieni, licet sit standum dicto eius in hiis que ad medicinam pertinent. Vel dicendum quod Galienus loquitur ut medicus purus, ad quem nihil spectat considerare de salute anime infirmi vel de ordinatione rerum ipsius, sed solum de salute corporis, cui magis posset obesse quam prodesse mortem predicere infirmo cuius propter timorem mortis vita posset abreviari et mors accelerari. Vel dicendum, et forte in idem redit, quod aliquid absolute debet fieri quod quodam supposito fieri non debet, sicut ieiunare in quadragesima, si ieiunium esset periculosum ratione infirmitatis. Et sic est in propositio: licet medicus non debeat promittere infirmo salutem quam non sperat, debet confortare |T f. 170rb| ipsum et non predicere, set tacere mortem, nisi predictio multum prosit infirmo et taciternitas obsit modo exposito in primo casu predicto.

Chapter 5 Preaching and Dominican Life

The last three chapters have considered John of Naples primarily as a theologian and teacher. I have shown that his teaching at the Dominican studium generale in Naples encompassed a wide range of topics, including ones that might be thought to be off-limits for friars, such as medicine. I have argued that John’s teaching within the Dominican educational system served to disseminate knowledge from the University of Paris to friars in southern Italy, while also updating existing teachings and creating new ones for the needs of his local audience, particularly in the realm of pastoral care. Yet John was not just a scholar and teacher; he was also a Dominican friar, a member of the self-styled Order of Preachers. In earlier chapters, I have explored some of the ways in which preaching figured in John’s teaching activities, and some of the ways in which his preaching was informed by his studies. Some discussion of his political preaching will follow in the next chapter. This one, however, concentrates on the more overtly Dominican aspects of John’s preaching, investigating what his sermons can tell us about Dominican daily life and the role he played in sustaining his order.

Most of the evidence of John’s preaching comes from a single manuscript (A), likely compiled during the early 1340s by John himself, or under his direction, to serve as both a record of his preaching activities and a source of model sermons for other friars of San Domenico Maggiore. The sermons in this manuscript are recorded in a compressed, skeletal form that would surely have been fleshed out in preaching; the not-infrequent cross-references to other sermons in the collection, directions to the reader to elaborate on a given topic, and replacements of personal names with the letter N all indicate that the sermons would not have been delivered as written. It is equally clear that most, if not all, of the sermons were not just composed as models, but were based on sermons that John actually delivered. For one thing, the collection includes numerous references to known people and events. For another, it contains many examples of very similar sermons for the same kinds of occasions, and it seems higly unlikely that someone composing a set of model sermons from scratch would have written (for instance) two dozen different visitation sermons, including several for the same liturgical dates, modulated in subtle ways. John’s sermons conform to the sermo modernus , ‘thematic,’ or ‘scholastic’ sermon model developed and popularized in the thirteenth century by theologians and preachers primarily

269 270 associated with the University of Paris. 1 The basic form of John’s sermons is this: the preacher selected a brief scriptural passage, or theme ( thema ), and sometimes a second one, the protheme (prothema ), to be used as a prologue that leads into a prayer for divine assistance. The theme is then reintroduced and divided into parts ( membra ) that form the basis of the body of the sermon. As they are discussed in turn, these parts are further developed by means of subdivisions and other processes of dilation. (The protheme also sometimes receives this treatment.) The sermon ends with a concluding prayer. John’s method of composing sermons in A conforms closely to the “Type I” sermons described by Yuichi Akae in his excellent study of a similar sermon collection by a later-fourteenth-century Augustinian friar active in England.2

Much of the study of medieval mendicant sermons over the past few decades has focused on preaching as a means of “mass communication” by which friars endeavoured to communicate to Christians at large about everything from marriage norms to crusading to market morality and civic life. 3 Another branch of the scholarship has concentrated on sermons as a literary genre, the proliferation of aids for preachers among the mendicant orders, and the influences of these kinds of handbooks on the friars’ preaching. 4 Next to no attention has been paid to the way friars used preaching as a way to communicate to each other. Yet, as John’s sermon collection

1 Siegfried Wenzel, Medieval Artes Praedicandi: A Synthesis of Scholastic Sermon Structure (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015); Nicole Bériou, L’avènement des maîtres de la parole: La prédication à Paris au XIII e siècle (Paris: Institut d’Éudes Augustiniennes, 1998); David D’Avray, The Preaching of the Friars: Sermons Diffused from Paris Before 1300 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985).

2 Yuichi Akae, A Mendicant Sermon Collection from Composition to Reception:The Novum opus dominicale of John Waldeby, OESA (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015), 138-9.

3 The phrase is David D’Avray’s, from Medieval Marriage Sermons: Mass Communication in a Culture Without Print (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). A few other examples of works in this vein include Christoph T. Maier, Preaching the Crusades: Mendicant Friars and the Cross in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Daniel R. Lesnick, Preaching in Medieval Florence: The Social World of Franciscan and Dominican Spirituality (London: University of Georgia Press, 1989); Bernadette Patton, Preaching Friars and the Civic Ethos, Siena, 1380-1480 (London: Centre for Medieval Studies, Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London, 1992); Xavier Masson, Une voix dominicaine dans la cité: le comportement exemplaire du chrétien dans l’Italie du Trecento d’après le recueil de sermons de Nicoluccio di Ascoli (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2009); Eliana Corbari, Vernacular Theology: Dominican Sermons and Audience in Late Medieval Italy (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013); Jussi Hanska, “Mendicant Preachers as Disseminators of Anti-Jewish Literary Topoi: The Case of Luca da Bitonto,” in From Words to Deeds: The Effectiveness of Preaching in the Late Middle Ages , ed. Maria Giuseppina Muzzarelli (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014), 117-38.

4 Wenzel, Medieval Artes Praedicandi; Akae, A Mendicant Sermon Collection ; and related bibliography.

271 demonstrates, preaching was ubiquitous in Dominican daily life, and a good deal of that preaching was performed in Dominican spaces and/or directed towards an ‘internal’ audience. His cycles of sermons for Sundays and saints ( sermones de tempore and sermones de sanctis ), nearly all of which are known only from the index at the end of A, were probably preached for the most part in his convent church in Naples. In the first part of this chapter, I argue that John’s choice of sermons for saints to be included in his collection reflects the Dominican liturgy and, to a lesser extent, the patterns of piety of his Angevin patrons. Otherwise, it shows few local influences, suggesting that Dominican efforts to standardize the liturgy among their convents were largely successful in southern Italy.

Most of John’s funeral and memorial sermons ( sermones de mortuis ) were probably also preached at San Domenico Maggiore or in other Dominican churches in Naples. Several of the identifiable subjects of his sermons, such as Philip of Taranto (d. December 23, 1332) and Bartolomeo Brancaccio (d. November 1341) are known to have been buried at San Domenico, and Elizabeth of Hungary (d. ca. 1320) was buried at the female Dominican convent of San Pietro a Castello. 5 Several of his other memorial sermons are for men and women who had acted as benefactors of the Dominican order and who were almost certainly buried at San Domenico Maggiore or another Dominican church. Because they have been well-studied by scholars such as Jean-Paul Boyer, David D’Avray, and Samantha Kelly, I will not discuss John’s memorial sermons for the Neapolitan elite in detail, besides making the observation here that these sermons can be read as evidence of one of the main sources of income for the the convents with which John was associated and the wider Dominican order: testamentary bequests and other donations. By preaching in memory of the order’s patrons, John was helping to to uphold one half of the pious bargain these men and women had struck, exchanging material support for the friars in this world for the spiritual assistance of their prayers in the next.

John’s liturgical and memorial preaching was probably aimed at audiences that included both layfolk and friars. 6 But a substantial proportion of his surviving sermons seem to have been

5 For discussion, see Chapter 1 and Appendix 2.

6 In a chapter on the relationship between medieval preaching and liturgy, Nicole Bériou notes that the preaching of the mendicants tended to migrate out of their churches, in an attempt to reach as many people as possible, but this

272 intended solely for Dominican audiences, preached when John was checking up on other convents in the office of visitator and participating in the elections of officials at provincial and general chapters. These sermons show how much one Dominican friar could contribute to the maintenance of the wider order and its local and international structures of governance. In the second part of the chapter, I show that John’s participation in visitations and elections seems to have largely conformed to the directions laid out for the order as a whole by Dominican normative sources.

When read together with other sources, such as John’s memorial sermons for Dominican men and women, from bishops to people who took the Dominican habit on their deathbeds, the visitation sermons yield a good deal of information about John’s views on Dominican identity and the place of women in the Dominican order. The third part of this chapter outlines the characteristics that John considered essential for Dominican life, and the fourth part examines his preaching for and about Dominican nuns. His few visitation sermons for female convents suggest that John did not see a great difference between male and female Dominicans. Although the spiritual care of nuns does not seem to have occupied much of John’s time or mental energy, he does appear to have regarded them as full members of the order. Dominican women in Naples tended to be noble, if not royal, and John’s preaching for and about Dominican nuns stemmed mainly from his ties to the Neapolitan elite. Taken together, the sermons discussed in this chapter demonstrate that a substantial amount of Dominican preaching was aimed inwards, towards other members of the order, rather than society at large. But they also remind us that Dominicans, like other religious, were not separate from the secular world around them, but were born out of it and continued to interact with it and tend to it throughout their lives.

5.1 Sermons for saints

Even in their present mutilated state, John’s sermones de sanctis provide a good deal of insight into Dominican liturgical observances in fourteenth-century Naples. Only the first gathering of this section of John’s sermon collection survives, leaving us with just fifteen examples,

movement out of doors was accompanied by a sacralization of the time and place in which the preaching occurred. See Bériou, Religion et communication: un autre regard sur la prédication au Moyen Âge (Geneva: Droz, 2018) [a reprint of her introduction to Prédication et liturgie au Moyen Âge , 7-22], 59. So in a sense, even if it did not always take place in a Dominican church, much of John’s preaching arguably took place in a Dominican space.

273 approximately 13% of a collection that originally included over a hundred. However, the index to the manuscript allows us to reconstruct the collection’s original scope. 7 The sermons are ordered chronologically, according to the order of the liturgical year, starting from the beginning of Advent, with the feast of St. Andrew (November 30). The selection of saints corresponds closely to the Dominican calendar as it stood in the first decades of the fourteenth century. All of the saints included here were honoured by the Dominicans with a simplex, semiduplex, duplex, or totum duplex feast. 8 The only exception is St. Elizabeth of Hungary, whom the liturgical historian William Bonniwell lists as having only a simple commemoration. 9 It would not be surprising to find that the Dominicans at Naples had elevated her feast, since she was a relative of Queen Maria of Hungary, wife of Charles II and mother of Robert I. Maria worked actively to promote the cult of St. Elizabeth in Naples, sponsoring and perhaps also participating in the selection of images for a fresco cycle depicting scenes from Elizabeth’s life in the church of Santa Maria Donna Regina around 1320. 10 Maria’s son King Robert of Naples also preached in

Elizabeth’s honour, and his wife Sancia expressed her devotion to the saint through patronage. 11 As will be seen below, John helped to promote the cults of several other saints associated with the Neapolitan monarchs.

Some saints received more attention than others in John’s collection. For about a third of the feasts, more than one sermon is listed, and around half of those have three or more sermons. The presence of multiple sermons for a single feast can probably be taken as a sign that the feast held a particular importance for the Dominican convent in Naples. To take the most obvious example, the collection originally contained eight sermons for the feast of St. Thomas Aquinas, in addition

7 See the appendix to this chapter.

8 William R. Bonniwell, A History of the Dominican Liturgy (New York: Joseph Wagner, 1944), 100-111; 201-220.

9 Bonniwell, A History of the Dominican Liturgy , 110.

10 Cordelia Warr, “The Golden Legend and the cycle of the ‘Life of Saint Elizabeth of Thuringia-Hungary,’” in The Church of Santa Maria Donna Regina: Art, Iconography and Patronage in Fourteenth-Century Naples , ed. Janis Elliott and Cordelia Warr (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 155-174.

11 Ottó Gecser, The Feast and the Pulpit: Preachers, Sermons and the Cult of St. Elizabeth of Hungary, 1235- ca.1500 (Spoleto: Fondazione Centro Italiano di Studi Sull’Alto Medioevo, 2012), 124-31. The longer of Robert’s two sermons for Elizabeth is edited on p. 393-426.

274 to the two postulative sermons for his canonization. Given John’s involvement in the canonization process, and the importance of this saint for the Dominicans as well as for the Angevin rulers of Naples, we can assume that these sermons are evidence of his efforts to promote the cult of this new saint. The compiler of the collection clearly thought that its future users would benefit from having a large number of model sermons on Aquinas to choose from.

Although Aquinas is an extreme example, other saints also received special treatment. The next most popular is St. Dominic, with four sermons – unsurprising for a Dominican sermon collection. (St. Francis, in contrast, receives just one.) The third member of the triad of early Dominican saints, Peter Martyr, is represented by three sermons, perhaps attesting both to Peter’s importance for the Dominican order and the Neapolitan Angevins’ particular devotion to his cult. 12 In several existing sermons, John groups together Dominic, Peter Martyr, and Thomas Aquinas as models of Dominican sanctity. In one instance, he compares them to lords who can be called upon for military assistance in the struggle against demons that reaches its climax at the time of death. 13 In another, he discusses the ways in which these human witnesses testified to the glory of the Dominican order and contributed to its development. Dominic, the order’s spiritual father, contributed to the multiplication of its friars; the “egregious doctor” Thomas Aquinas elucidated for them teachings about the word of God; Peter Martyr, who shed his own blood for Christ, inspired them with his own example. 14 It is only to be expected that all three saints would receive special attention in John’s preaching.

12 Although Peter was not one of the dynasty’s most important saints, King Charles I founded the Dominican monastery of St. Peter Martyr in Naples in 1294, and King Robert of Naples preached two sermons for this saint; see Donald Prudlo, The Martyred Inquisitor: The Life and Cult of Peter of Verona († 1252) (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), 143.

13 Schneyer no. 30 (a funeral sermon for an unnamed woman who took the Dominican habit on her deathbed), A f. 21vb: “...quamvis incumbat homini pugna contra spirituales hostes, scilicet demones, per totam vitam [...] tamen hec pugna est maxime circa mortem [...] et ad vincendum in tali pugna multum valet devotio ad religionem et eius sanctos, utpote beatum Dominicum, beatum Petrum Martirem, beatum Thomam de Aquino, et alios fratres ordinis qui sunt in vita beata. Sicut et inter homines habens hostes se potentiores adheret alicui magno et potenti domino ex cuius favore et adiutorio efficitur fortior et potentior, cuius etiam in pugna portat insignia extra, et intra bona arma, sic et presens domina habuit intus spiritualia arma, id est virtutum dona, et extra sancte religionis insignia...”

14 Schneyer no. 60, chapter appendix, § 6.

275

Feasts commemorating events in the life of the Virgin Mary also received a lot of attention in John’s collection: there are four sermons apiece for the feasts of the Annunciation and Assumption, three for the Nativity of the Virgin, and two for the Purification. Feasts in honour of the Virgin were clearly a significant part of the liturgical year at San Domenico. Since Marian devotion was an important aspect of Dominican spirituality, this is not altogether surprising. 15 About a third of the sermons in John’s collection open with a prayer to the Virgin at the end of the protheme.16 The manner of leading into the prayer varies, but John inevitably invites his audience to join him in saying Ave Maria before proceeding to the main part of his sermon. 17 None of his existing sermons allude to the legends about Mary’s special patronage of the Dominican order, but the extent to which prayers to the Virgin were woven into the structure of John’s sermons indicates her special status.

Another saint who was singled out for special attention was “Ludovicus Rex Francorum,” to whom three sermons in the collection were devoted. This was the Capetian King Louis IX, canonized in 1297, whom the Angevins of Naples claimed as one of their saintly ancestors. John does not hesitate to mention this relationship in his sermons for members of the Angevin

15 M. Michèle Mulchahey, Collationes de beata virgine: a cycle of preaching in the Dominican Congregation of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Imola, 1286-1287 (Toronto: PIMS, 1997), 5-6; Hinnebusch, History of the Dominican Order , vol. 1, 342-3.

16 The Ave Maria was also ubiquitous as an opening prayer in the late-thirteenth-century Parisian sermons studied by Nicole Bériou; she suggests the preachers used their prothemes as an opportunity to teach this prayer to the laity. See Bériou, L’avènement des maîtres de la Parole , vol. 1, 260.

17 E.g. Schneyer no. 3 ( De sancta Lucia ), A f. 3ra: “In principio sermonis oremus deum ut emittat lucem gratie sue per quam possim digne et fructuose divinam veritatem dicere in presenti sermone, loco orationis matrem dei salutando et dicendo Ave etc.”; Scheneyer no. 16 ( De mortuis ), A f. 13ra: “Ut in presenti sermone possim benedicere dominum deum digne et fructuose pro impetranda vita divine gratie, loco orationis premittamus salutationem beate Virginis, dicendo Ave etc.”; Schneyer no. 89 ( De electione diffinitorum ), A f. 57va-b: “Volens communicare alteri quod ex se non habet oportet quod prius illud sibi acquirat, quia secundum communem proverbium, nemo dat alteri quod non habet, sicut mater que vult lac communicare puero prius oportet quod comedendo illud acquirat. Notitia autem divinorum in scriptura dicitur lac, 1 Ad Cor. 3[:1-2], Tanquam parvulis in Christo lac potum vobis dedi , quam predicator ex se non habet, 2 Ad Cor. 3[:5], Non quod sufficientes simus cogitare aliquid a nobis quasi ex nobis , sed eam a deo acquirit per devotam orationem, que secundum Damascenum est ascensus mentis in deum. Ysa. 2[:3], Venite, ascendamus ad montem domini, et docebit nos vias suas . Ergo, si predicator vult auditoribus communicare notitiam divinorum, debet predicationem precedere predictus ascensus mentus in deum per devotam orationem, secundum quod ei dicitur in verbis secundo propositis [Isa. 40:9], ascen |de tu qui evangelizas . Exo. 34[=24:12] dixit deus Moysi, Ascende ad me et dabo tibi legem ac mandata que doceas filios Israel . Predicationem igitur incumbentem loco orationis more solito precedat devota salutatio virginis Marie, dicentes Ave etc.

276 dynasty, so it stands to reason that the saint’s own feast day would be a special event in Naples. 18 Louis was also commemorated by the Dominicans in Paris, who had close ties to the French crown, and one of John’s surviving sermons from another manuscript indicates that he was chosen to preach in honour of this saint in Paris. 19 The same sermon might have been copied into John’s collection, as one of the sermons for Louis listed in the index is on the same theme, Mark 7:37, “He did all things well” (“ Bene omnia fecit ”).

Intriguingly, John’s collection does not contain any sermons for the other St. Louis (Louis of Toulouse, the son of Charles II and brother of King Robert, who was canonized in 1317), even though he refers to the “two new saints Louis” in several of his sermons for members of the Angevin dynasty. 20 According to Samantha Kelly, the second St. Louis was popular in Provence and central Italy at the time of his canonization, but his cult was less popular in southern Italy, where it did not really take off until the fifteenth century. Louis was a Franciscan, and in southern Italy, the royal family seems to have promoted his cult mainly via fellow members of his order, for instance by building chapels devoted to him in the churches of Santa Chiara and San Lorenzo in Naples. 21 However, Kelly may be downplaying Louis’ lack of popularity a little

18 On the cult of St. Louis in the Kingdom of Sicily, see Gaposchkin, The Making of Saint Louis , 85-6. See also D’Avray, Death and the Prince , 122-3.

19 On this sermon, which is found in Paris, BnF lat. 14799, f. 161rb-163rb, and can be dated to August 25, 1314, see Hauréau, Notices et extraits , vol. 3, 94-5. Hauréau says that most of the sermon “n’est pas que du verbiage,” along with some rude comments about Italian preachers of the period, but he does print a passage that pertains to St. Louis. On the promotion of Louis’ cult via the Dominicans at Paris, see Gaposchkin, The Making of Saint Louis , 77-82.

20 Schneyer no. 25 (probably for Philip of Taranto, d. 1332), A f. 18va: “Arbor bona potest dici domus Francie, que est bona et quoad deum, utpote amatrix et defensatrix ecclesie, de qua de novo duo sancti Ludovici canonizati sunt, scilicet Rex Francie et episcopus Tholosanus, et quoad mundum, utpote inter omnes domos mundi excellenter nobilis.”; Schneyer no. 36 (probably for the anniversary of Charles of Calabria, d. 1328), A f. 25rb: “...ferrum forte fuerunt sancti Ludovicus Rex Francie et Ludovicus episcopus Tholosanus, ambo fortes in amore dei, quibus fuit iunctus carnali origine et mentis dilectione et devotione dominus N.”; Schneyer no. 58 (for the translation of the remains of John, Duke of Durazzo, a younger son of Charles II, d. 1335), A f. 36vb-37ra: “Et utramque bonitatem habuit dominus N., quia fuit filius regis et frater regis de domo nobilissima Francie per lineam rectam seu masculinam ortus, de qua domo fuerunt | duo sancti de novo canonizati, scilicet Sanctus Ludovicus episcopus Tholosanus, qui fuit frater ipsius, et sanctus Ludovicus rex Francie, qui fuit frater primi regis Karoli avi eius.”; Schneyer no. 104 (for a procession for the safety of the army of Charles of Calabria, 1328), A f. 69vb: “Dominus dux est de domo Francie, que super omnes domos mundi fuit et est magis sancta, et eius proavus impugnavit et debellavit hostes ecclesie et expulit de regno Sicilie, et de eius domo preter alios fuit duo sancti de novo canonizati, scilicet sanctus Ludovicus rex Francie, et sanctus Ludovicus frater domini nostri regis.”

21 Kelly, The New Solomon , 102.

277 too much; in 1303-4, the Augustinian bishop of Naples, James of Viterbo, preached multiple sermons in honour of Louis of Toulouse, and in his autograph record of one of these he accidentally and prematurely referred to him as a saint. 22 This fact suggests that Louis’ cult extended beyond the bounds of his order in Naples, even prior to his canonization, which makes the absence of any sermons devoted to him in John’s collection all the more striking. Further examination of contemporary sermon collections by other Neapolitan preachers might help to determine whether the orders divided up their efforts in promoting Angevin saints.

John does seem to have participated to some extent in the promotion of the cult of another saint dear to the Angevins of Naples: Mary Magdalene. 23 His sermon collection originally contained two sermons for her, but this modest offering is augmented by the multiple references to the saint in his memorial sermons for King Charles II. In these sermons, John makes much of the fact that Charles died on May 5, the same day that the relics of Mary Magdalene were discovered and translated, in one case memorably describing Charles as magnetically attached to the saint. 24 As with Louis of Toulouse, the cult of Mary Magdalene saw greater success in Provence than in the Kingdom of Sicily. Charles II had in fact tried to rename the church of San Domenico in honour of Mary Magdalene, but the name never stuck. 25 The low number of sermons for Mary Magdalene as compared to Dominic and Thomas Aquinas is probably a sign of the lukewarm response to this initiative among the Dominicans in Naples.

22 David Anderson, “‘Dominus Ludovicus’ in the Sermons of Jacobus of Viterbo (Arch. S. Pietro D. 213),” in Literature and Religion in the Later Middle Ages: Philological Studies in Honor of Siegfried Wenzel , ed. Richard Newhauser and John Alford (Binghamton, N.Y.: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1995), 275-95.

23 See Jansen, The Making of the Magdalen , 307-8; D’Avray, Death and the Prince , esp. 105, 123, 148-9, and 187- 8.

24 Schneyer no. 37, A f. 25vb-26ra: “Quantum autem ad secundum, est sciendum quod lapis magnes per virtutem occultam attrahit ferrum, et non solum unum, sed duo si unum contingit alius, ut patet in acubus. Lapis autem spiritualis est Christus [...] cuius virtus occulta attractiva est divina potentia quam habet eandem cum patre. [...] Ferrum autem, quod est fortissimum inter omnia metalla, est caritas [...] et quantum spectat ad presens, ferrum forte est beata Maria Magdalena, que fuit fortis in amore dei [...] unde et a monumento dominico discipulis recedentibus non recessit. Cui fuit unitus per amorem et devotionem N.[i.e. Charles], propter quod revelationem divina eius corpus invenit, et eius reliquias multum honoravit auro et lapidibus pretiosis per diversas partes multum decorando, propter quod petra Christus primo ad se traxit beatam Mariam Magdalenam et ea mediante regem N. eadem die qua eius corpus invenit, scilicet quinta Madii, ut sic beata Maria Magdalena suis meritis eadem die transferret eius animam | et honoraret, quia ipse transtulit eius corpus et honoravit...”

25 Jansen, The Making of the Magdalen , 320.

278

Another possible sign of a connection between John’s sermons and the piety of the Angevin monarchs is the presence of two sermons for St. Agnes. Around 1320, a new set of frescoes for the renovated church of Santa Maria Donna Regina, including a cycle of six scenes from the life of St. Agnes (an unusual subject in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Italian art), were completed under the patronage of Queen Maria of Hungary, together with the cycle of scenes from the life of St. Elizabeth mentioned above. 26 Although this was a Franciscan church, and it should not be assumed that John’s sermons bear any strong connection to the frescoes, Maria could easily have made her devotion to these saints known to John, since like him, she was heavily involved in promoting the case for the canonization of Aquinas, just around the time that the rebuilding of Santa Maria Donna Regina was completed. 27

John explicitly played up a saint’s local connections at times. In a sermon for St. Nicholas, he alludes to the presence of the saint’s relics within the Kingdom of Naples. The basilica of St. Nicholas in Bari was a major southern Italian pilgrimage site, and received special attention from the Angevins, starting with Charles I. 28 John remarks on both of these features, saying that the king of Sicily has the right of patronage ( ius patronatus ) for the church of St. Nicholas, and that while Christians in all lands celebrate the feast of this saint, it brings great honour to the people of the Kingdom of Sicily that the saint’s relics reside in their lands, “for the sake of adoring which men from all over the world flow almost continuously to this kingdom.” 29 In contrast,

26 Cathleen A. Fleck, “‘To exercise yourself in these things by continued contemplation’: Visual and textual literacy in the frescoes at Santa Maria Donna Regina,” in The Church of Santa Maria Donna Regina: Art, Iconography and Patronage in Fourteenth-Century Naples , 109-128, esp. 120-5.

27 Samantha Kelly, “Religious patronage and royal propaganda in Angevin Naples: Santa Maria Donna Regina in context,” in The Church of Santa Maria Donna Regina: Art, Iconography and Patronage in Fourteenth-Century Naples , 27-43, at 34-5.

28 On the importance of the international pilgrimage centre of St. Nicholas of Bari from the late eleventh century onwards, see Paul Oldfield, Sanctity and Pilgrimage in Medieval Southern Italy, 1000-1200 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 202-8. On Angevin patronage of this site, see Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples , 36.

29 Schneyer no. 2 (St. Nicholas), A f. 2ra-b: “Judith 15[:10]: Tu gloria Ierusalem , id est domini nostri regis Sicilie et Ierusalem, ad cuius magnam gloriam spectat quod sancti Nicholai ecclesia eius peculiaris est capella habens in ea ius patronatus | presentans et conferens dignitates talis ecclesie. Tu letitia Israel , id est populi fidelis Christiani qui ubique terrarum in hoc festo letatur. Tu honorificentia populi nostri , id est populi regni Sicilie, ad cuius magnus honorem spectat quod habet in terra sua tam pretiosas reliquias propter quas adorandas ad regnum ipsum confluunt quasi continue homines de toto mundo.”

279 although the Sicilian martyr Saint Lucy receives three sermons in John’s collection, which may speak to the strength of the local cult, John concentrates in all three on the suitability of the saint’s name, playing on the imagery of light ( lux – Lucia ) and does not mention her relatively local origins. 30 The island of Sicily had, however, been lost to the Angevins in the late thirteenth century with the War of the Sicilian Vespers, so perhaps this saint’s origins could not be said to bring honour to the so-called Kingdom of Sicily in the same way as Nicholas’ remains.

There is a complete absence in John’s collection of sermons for local saints who were not part of the Dominican calendar, such as the saintly bishops who loomed large in early medieval Neapolitan hagiographies, like Agrippinus and Januarius (also known as San Gennaro, with whom liquefying blood miracles would be associated later in the fourteenth century). Even St. Peter, who according to local legend was responsible for converting Naples to Christianity, receives no special treatment, at least in terms of number of sermons. 31 On the whole, therefore, John’s sermons for saints are highly reflective of his Dominican identity. To the extent that they reflect local Neapolitan/southern Italian piety, they are more reflective of his connections with the Angevin rulers of Naples than of more popular local cults.

5.2 Preaching and Dominican administration

After the sermones de tempore , de sanctis , and de mortuis , the largest category of sermons in John’s collection is the group of 24 sermons for visitations of convents. 32 The visitation played a key role in maintaining Dominican institutional organization. The constitutions of 1228 ordained that each provincial chapter (held annually in each province) should elect four friars as visitatores , each responsible for visiting a portion of the convents in their province before the

30 All three are actually extant; see Schneyer nos. 3-5, A f. 3ra-4va. The third is highly derivative, with the protheme cross-referenced to Schneyer no. 4, the second principal part to the first principal part of Schneyer no. 3, and the first principal part cross-referenced to sermons on St. Matthew and St. Elizabeth, both of which are listed in the index, but no longer extant.

31 On the cult of the Neapolitan bishops, see Oldfield, Sanctity and Pilgrimage , 26-7. For traditional Neapolitan saints, see Samantha Kelly, The Cronaca di Partenope: Introduction to and Critical Edition of the First Vernacular History of Naples (c. 1350 ) (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 46-7.

32 Schneyer nos. 61-83, plus one sermon that Schneyer skipped, located on f. 44vb-45rb between Schneyer nos. 70 and 71, which I refer to as Schneyer no. 70a.

280 next provincial chapter. As the number of convents grew, the rules were relaxed to allow provinces to appoint as many visitatores as they saw fit; as early as 1253, the province of Provence was appointing eight. Visits to convents were not supposed to last more than three days. During this time, the visitor presided over a “chapter of faults” in which the friars and prior of the convent gathered to confess their own faults and those of others. The visitor had the power to correct faults and impose punishments, but he could not make any legislative changes to the convent’s constitution. At the next provincial chapter, each visitor was supposed to deliver a report, in person or in writing, on the state of the convents he had visited. 33 In this way, a relatively consistent standard of discipline could (ideally) be maintained throughout the order.

Visitatores were not the only Dominican officials to perform visitations. Provincial priors were also enjoined to visit all the convents of their provinces on an annual basis, or to send others to perform these visitations in their place. Ideally, therefore, each convent would receive two visitations per annum, one from the provincial prior or his representative, and one from the visitator assigned to that convent by the provincial chapter. These visitations would look fairly similar, although the provincial prior had more powers than the visitatores and could therefore make changes on the spot. 34 Although he frequently speaks of himself in these sermons as performing a visitatio , John never refers to himself as a visitator . He does frequently refer to himself in the first person as a prelate, and in one case an ecclesiastical judge. 35 It is possible that he was sometimes acting as the representative of a provincial prior or in some other capacity. There is no evidence that he ever served as provincial prior himself, although the list of provincial priors for the province of the Regno for the fourteenth century has not been reconstructed in full. 36

33 Galbraith, The Constitution of the Dominican Order , 155-62.

34 On the powers of the provincial prior, see Galbraith, The Constitution of the Dominican Order , 126-8. These included confirming elections of priors, accepting bastards into the order, giving a convent permission to run up major debts, giving friars permission to preach beyond the limits of their convent, to leave the province, or go to the Papal Curia, and moving friars from one house to another.

35 Schneyer no. 63, A f. 40va: “Et idcirco propositum verbum, quod ad litteram est verbum Christi, ut patet per ea que ibi precedunt et sequuntur, potest esse verbum cuiuslibet ecclesiastici iudicis generaliter, et meum specialiter...”

36 Käppeli, “Dalle pergamene di S. Domenico di Napoli,” 319-23.

281

Directly following the visitation sermons, a shorter sequence of election sermons indicates that John also took part on a number of occasions in the election of Dominican officials, including diffinitors for provincial chapters and even the Master General of the order. Dominican provincial chapters were held annually, typically in the late summer or early autumn. John’s sermons for provincial chapters were meant to be delivered around the twelfth and seventeenth Sundays after Trinity, placing them in August/September and September/October, depending on the year. 37 The Roman province generally preferred to hold its provincial chapters in September, and these sermons suggest that the province of the Regno may have followed suit. 38 Every convent in the province was required to send to the provincial chapter their prior, as well as a socius elected in the conventual chapter by a majority of at least 50%. The socius was supposed to act as the mouthpiece of his convent, bringing a report on the prior as well as any petitions, letters, etc. from the brothers of his house. Other attendees included the province’s preacher- generals, and possibly the visitors. By the early fourteenth century, the number of friars attending a provincial chapter could be well over 100; unsurprisingly, the location rotated from year to year so that no convent received the burden of hosting too frequently.

The chapter was presided over by the provincial prior, and in order to conduct business efficiently, a small governing body of four friars, known as diffinitores, was elected at an early stage in the meeting, probably before the official opening of the chapter. 39 At least two of John’s sermons were delivered immediately prior to these elections. 40 Some of his other election

37 The rubric for Schneyer no. 86, A f. 55ra-56ra, suggests that it was for the election or visitation of a prelate, but the main text referes clearly ot the election of diffinitors for a provincial chapter; the rubric reads, “Dominica 12 a post trinitate, de epistola, de eadem materia,” referring to the rubric of the previous sermon, “De eodem [i.e. in electione alicuius prelati] vel in receptione alicuius prelati.” But the main text specifies the occasion more precisely, A f. 55rb: “Sed quia ad presens incumbit electio diffinitorum, ad quos pertinet de tota provincia ordinare, regere, et gubernare, satis congrue videtur assumptum thema propositum de epistola sequentis dominice...” The theme (2 Cor. 3:6) was taken from the Epistles reading for the twelfth Sunday after Trinity. Schneyer no. 89, A f. 57va-59rb, is labelled as being for the election of diffinitors, A f. 57va: “Dominica 17 post trinitate, de electione diffinitorum,” and the main text clarifies that these diffinitors were for a provincial chapter, A f. 57vb: “Ad presens incumbit electio diffinitorum capituli provincialis...”

38 Galbraith, The Constitution of the Dominican Order , 55.

39 Galbraith, The Constitution of the Dominican Order , 53-85.

40 Schneyer no. 86, A f. 55rb: “Et quia ad presens incumbit electio diffinitorum ad quos pertinet de tota provincia ordinare, regere, et gubernare, satis congrue videtur assumptum thema propositum de epistola sequentis dominice...” The theme (2 Cor. 3:6) was taken from the Epistles reading for the twelfth Sunday after Trinity. Schneyer no. 89, A

282 sermons may also also have stemmed from provincial chapters, but they have been generalized to the point that it is difficult to discern the precise nature of the occasions for which they were originally composed. One, included in the same section under the running title “ De electione ,” but simply labelled as a sermon for the fourteenth Sunday after Trinity, gives the reader the the option of selecting the appropriate words, making the sermon adaptable for multiple occasions: “we are all gathered at present to elect p. or d.” – presumably standing for “a prelate” or “diffinitors.” 41

Another sermon in this sequence derives from a Dominican general chapter in which a new Master General of the order was elected. 42 John is known to have participated in at least one such election: that of Barnabas of Vercelli at the general chapter of Bordeaux in June 1324.43 To serve as an elector, John would have had to have first attended his provincial chapter and been elected to represent his province at the next general chapter. 44 Perhaps his sermon for consenting to an election is related to this occasion. 45 Curiously, the rubric dates John’s election sermon for the Master General to the twentieth Sunday after Trinity – a date which typically lands in mid- autumn (October 28 in 1324). According to the Dominican constitutions, general chapters were supposed to meet annually at Pentecost, giving friars from far-flung provinces sufficient time to

f. 57vb: “Ad presens incumbit electio diffinitorum capituli provincialis, per quam electi statim ascendunt superius, id est omnibus fratribus provincie preferuntur, utpote eorum iudices et diffinitores.”

41 Schneyer no. 87, A f. 56rb-57rb. The rubric simply reads, “Dominica 14 a post trinitati, de epistola.” Below, f. 56rb: “Omnes ad presens sumus congregati ad eligendum p. vel d., qui de hiis que pertinent ad bonum statum p. et ad eius profectum vel defectum (si quis esset, quod absit) debemus diligenter inquirere et iudicare...”

42 Schneyer no. 90, A f. 59rb-60va. Although the rubric calls this another sermon for electing diffinitors, the text clearly indicates that it was for an even rarer occasion: the election of a new Dominican Master General. A f. 59rb: “Omnes ad presens sumus congregati ad eligendum magistrum ordinis, ad quam electionem rite et meritorie facidendam est neccesse gratia spiritu sancti...”

43 One of the manuscripts of the acta for this chapter contains a marginal addition, “In isto capitulo fuit electus in magistrum ordinis reverendus pater frater Barnabas Lombardus,” followed by a list of masters of theology who were present, including “fr. Io. de Neapolim.” See Acta II, p. 151 n. 8.

44 Galbraith, The Constitution of the Dominican Order , 89-96.

45 Schneyer no. 92, A f. 61rb-62rb: “Sermo ad consentiendum confirmationi in prelatum.” The sermon leaves the precise nature of this prelateship vague, and is organized around the notion that religious prelates are the servants of their subjects, A f. 61rb: “Et idcirco ego, olim existens subditus, et prebendo assensum confirmationi de me facte prelatus factus, dicere possum cum apostolo thema proposita cum essem liber etc. [1 Cor. 9:19], ubi duo tanguntur, scilicet status subiectionis appetendus, cum essem liber , et gradus prelationis metuendus, omnium me servum feci .”

283 travel between provincial and general chapters. 46 The rubric therefore places the sermon in quite the wrong season. The best explanation I can offer for this anomaly is that it was a result of the editing that went on during the compilation of John’s sermon collection. Perhaps the theme for the sermon, “Be filled with the Holy Spirit” [Eph. 5:18], was initially chosen without reference to the place of this epistle in the Dominican liturgy, and the connection with the reading for the twentieth Sunday after Trinity was only made later.

Taken together, the election and visitation sermons provide insight into John’s participation in the higher levels of Dominican administration. They are particularly valuable because relatively few sources relating to Dominican visitations, elections, and provincial and general chapters survive. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the incriminating nature of their contents, no examples of medieval Dominican visitations records have come to light. Most of our knowledge of how provincial and general chapters worked comes from the legislation, encyclical letters, and similar material issued by the councils themselves. Humbert of Romans’ De officiis Ordinis , a treatise on the offices of the Order of Preachers written by the fifth Dominican master-general, is another source of information about both visitations and chapters. Humbert almost certainly composed the text while he was master-general (1254-1263), probably after 1257. It was a work of practical advice, not meant to be legally binding, but still widely read. 47 But, like the constitutions and legislative material emanating from the councils, it tells us more about ideals than practice. Reading John’s sermons together with these sources allows us to evaluate the extent to which some of those ideals were carried out in a particular time and place.

Visitations

Although the earliest Dominican constitutions instructed that doctors of theology, like priors, were not to be elected visitors under any circumstances, presumably in order to conserve

46 Galbraith, The Constitution of the Dominican Order , 101.

47 Edward Tracy Brett, Humbert of Romans: His Life and Views of Thirteenth-Century Society (Toronto: PIMS, 1984), 134-5.

284 resources, this rule was clearly being flaunted by John’s time. 48 However, what information can be gleaned from John’s sermons suggests that his visitations generally followed the suggestions given by Humbert of Romans in his De officiis Ordinis for how a visitation should proceed. 49 For instance, Humbert enjoins the visitor to select a time when it would be possible to gather all or most of the friars of the convent, and to forewarn the convent of the date of his visitation. In order to ensure maximum attendance, a visitation should not fall too close to a provincial or general chapter, when friars might be travelling. In John’s sermon collection, the rubrics associate each visitation sermon with a particular point in the liturgical year, in almost all cases a Sunday, and the theme is typically drawn from the Dominican lectionary for that day. The dates tend to be grouped in series of continuous or nearly continuous Sundays: one group in Advent, 50 another in the season after Epiphany, 51 a small group after Easter, 52 a large series at the beginning of the Trinity season, 53 and a smaller one at the end. 54 Although this does not provide enough information to allow us to date the sermons precisely, it does give us a sense of the times of year at which John performed his visitations, with one cluster in the period from November through to the end of January or the beginning of February, and another in the summer, approximately June through August. 55 Assuming that the provincial chapter for the province of the Regno was held in the fall, this is exactly the pattern that we would expect.

48 Galbraith, The Constitution of the Dominican Order , 155; Antonius Hendrik Thomas, Constitutiones antiquae ordinis fratrum praedicatorum (1215-1237): Kritische tekst met toelichtingen betreffende bronnen en tijd van ontstaan (Leuven: Dominikanenklooster, 1965), d. II, c. 19, p. 59.

49 Humbert of Romans, De officiis Ordinis , 350-6. The following description of the visitator ’s duties is based on this work unless otherwise noted.

50 Schneyer nos. 61-63, for the first, third, and fourth Sundays of Advent, plus Schneyer no. 64, which is suggested as being for Wednesday of the fourth week of Advent, or any Saturday of Advent, or for Annunciation Sunday. Schneyer no. 65, intended to be delivered within the Octave of Christmas, could also be included in this group.

51 Schneyer nos. 66-69, for the first, second, third, and fourth Sundays after the Octave of Epiphany.

52 Schneyer nos. 70, for the Octave of Easter, and 70a and 71, both for the first Sunday after the Octave of Easter.

53 Schneyer nos. 72-79, for the first, second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, and eighth Sundays after Trinity.

54 Schneyer nos. 80, for the twenty-second Sunday after Trinity, 81 and 82, both for the twenty-third, and 83, for the twenty-fourth.

55 For further discussion of the dating of these sermons, see Appendix 2.

285

Humbert provides the visitor with an opportunity for preaching shortly after his arrival, saying that the visitor should begin his visitation by calling the convent’s inhabitants together in a chapter. If he wishes, he may then make a brief collatio to the brothers about some useful spiritual matter, recommend to their prayers the names of whomever he might wish, and give injunctions and admonitions pertaining to his office, if it seems expedient to do so. If nothing else is required, the visitor should next enjoin his audience to tell him whatever their consciences dictate must be said for the good of the order, either in the chapter or outside it, depending on the nature of the business. Humbert notes that it is also customary to admonish the brothers not to speak out against anyone else out of any motivation other than sincere fraternal charity and love of the order, and not to hold back from saying something on account of love or fear of some person, or any other less-than-pious cause. He also encourages the visitor to assess the situation and, if it seems expedient, to enjoin the prelates and the brothers not to act harshly later on account of things that may be said against anyone in a good and customary manner. The brothers should also be warned to take care not to say useless things, and that they should conduct themselves modestly in speaking out, and diligently observe the form of the constitutions. Exactly what and how much the visitor should say at this point Humbert leaves to that friar’s discretion, saying that it should depend on the circumstances and the state of the convent.

John often speaks of himself as arriving or intending to perform a visitation, which indicates that most of his visitation sermons came from the beginning of a visitation. 56 He typically used the visitation sermons as an occasion to reflect on the purpose of his visit and the features of a good prelate and community of friars. His preferred admonitions involved obedience, which is a central theme in several of his visitation sermons. Many of the sermons, after a brief introduction, employ a threefold division exploring the spiritual fruits that a prelate’s visit should produce in his subjects. The precise terminology varies, but these usually include the expulsion of sins, a renewal of the subjects’ love of God, and a strengthening of their virtues, including

56 For instance, Schneyer no. 65, A f. 41vb: “Quia res utilis et fructuosa communiter ab omnibus amatur et affectatur, ut visitatio quam ad presens facere intendo a vobis suscipiatur libenti et devoto animo, congrue videtur assumptum thema propositum...”; Schneyer no. 66, A f. 42rb: “Et quia ego prelatus vester indignus propono ad presens vos visitare...”; Schneyer no. 70, A f. 44ra: “Et idcirco thema propositum, quod literaliter dicitur de Christo domino suos discipulos visitante, potest exponi mistice de me, vestro prelato indigno, ad vos pro visitatione veniente...”; Schneyer no. 70a, A f. 44vb: “Quia res utilis despicitur et abicitur, et e contra utilis amatur et desideratur, ut presens visitatio devote a vobis suscipiatur, congure videtur assumpta verba proposita...”

286 adherence to the order’s rule. Other aspects of a good visitation that are also sometimes treated include the appropriate length of time for the visit, and the spiritual perfection of the visiting prelate. 57 Occasionally, John focuses on just one aspect of the purpose of the visitation, such as encouraging obedience 58 or charity. 59

Sermons like these helped John to justify the visitation to an audience of potentially recalcitrant friars and lay out his expectations for how the visitation would proceed. He claims that everyday experience teaches that religious who are not visited by their prelates gradually slide from bad to worse; in contrast, visitations help them to proceed from good to better by strengthening their adherence to the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience which they made at the time of their profession. 60 In some cases, he also enjoins the friars to tell him about their own sins and the sins of others, so that the visitation will be productive. 61 John often frames the visitation as an act of loving, paternal correction. 62 In one example, he concludes his sermon by quoting 1 John 1:7: “Beloved, let us love one another , namely prelates their subjects and vice versa, and let subjects love each other, by revealing to their prelate their own faults and those of others, since charity is

57 Both in Schneyer no. 71.

58 Schneyer no. 66.

59 Schneyer no. 72.

60 Schneyer no. 65, A f. 41vb-42ra: “Quantum ad primum est sciendum quod, ut cotidie experimur, religiosi qui non visitantur per prelatos suos cotidie paulatim defluunt de malo in peius, sed econtra qui visitantur sistunt in bono virtutis et sancte religionis, et cotidie proficiunt de bono in melius, quod non est propter aliud nisi quia per visitationem confirmantur et conservantur in sancta religione, quod tangit Apostolus cum de eis dicit Abnegantes secularia desideria [Tit. 2:12], hoc est eorum que sunt in seculo seu in mundo, scilicet divitiarum, deliciarum, et honorum seu pomparum, de quibus dicitur 1 Io. 2[:16] Omne quod est in mundo etc., que tria religiosi abnegant per tria vota que emittunt profitendo religionem et adimplent in religione perseverando, scilicet per votum paupertatis desiderium divitiarum, per votum autem castitatis desiderium deliciarum, per votum autem obedientie et humilitatis desiderium honorum seu pomparum, adimplendo scilicet illud quod Salvator dicit Luc. 9[:23], Si quis vult post me venire, abneget semetipsum , scilicet quantum ad tria bona, videlicet exteriora et corporis et anime, et tollat crucem suam , id est penitentiam | seu religionem sanctam.” A similar passage occurs in the protheme to Schneyer no. 71, the second principal part of Schneyer no. 76, and the second principal part of Schneyer no. 78.

61 E.g. Schneyer no. 74, A f. 47va: “Bonus prelatus per visitationem suam debet pro fine intendere auferre peccata subditorum [...] quod auferre non potest nisi cognoscat [...] Non potest ea cognoscere per seipsum inmediate, quia non potest adesse presens super omnibus dictis et factis subditorum suorum. Ergo oportet quod cognoscat ea per ipsemet subditos referentes ei culpas proprias et aliorum ad suam iniunctionem.”

62 While John sometimes describes himself as a brother to the friars of the convent he is visiting (e.g. Schneyer nos. 72, 75), he more frequently compares the prelate’s status to that of a father (e.g. Schneyer nos. 80, 81, 84, 87, 92).

287 from God.” 63 Sermons like these played an important role in setting the tone for the potentially fraught and acrimonious events that would follow.

During some visitations, John may have tried to soften the blow by turning the critical attention on himself; several sermons imagine the biblical theme being spoken by the subjects to the visiting prelate, so that the sermons focus more on the ideal attributes of a prelate than on what will be required of the subjects themselves. 64 A good prelate, according to John, is kind, authoritative, and fair. His judgements are based on sound knowledge, and the care that he provides for his subjects is useful to them. He possesses a plenitude of power, but nonetheless he is his subjects’ servant. Overall, he is an imitator and vicar of Christ. 65 As will be seen below, John advocated similar ideals for elected officials within the Dominican order.

After delivering his opening address, Humbert suggested, a visitor should give friars some time to speak with him in private. If it seems necessary, he can even call up some of the more discrete and worthy brothers and ask them briefly about the state of the convent, even if they do not come to him freely. Humbert encourages the visitor to forestall those who seem prepared to speak openly about something which should not be said in public, and to warn people who speak to him in private about things that should be aired in public that in so doing they have not yet properly liberated their souls from guilt. After having given the brothers a chance to talk to him privately, the visitor was supposed to call the friars together again and hold a “chapter of faults.” A similar chapter was held in Dominican convents on a regular basis throughout the year, presided over by the conventual prior. Humbert enjoined visitors to observe the proper procedures and to proceed with moderation, lest the visitation – which was instituted for the sake

63 Schneyer no. 81, A f. 52va: “Prima Io. 4[:7]: Karissimi diligamus nos invicem , scilicet prelati subditos et econverso, et subditi mutuo se invicem, revelando prelato defectus suos et aliorum, quia caritas ex deo est, qui vivit et regnat etc.”

64 Schneyer nos. 67, 68, 69, 80.

65 E.g. Schneyer no. 67, A f. 42vb-43ra: : “Proper hanc triplicem convenienciam [inter lepram carnalem et culpam mortalem] thema propositum, quod dixit leprosus Christo domino de monte descendenti et ad se venienti, potest dicere peccator subditus prelato suo gerenti vicem Christi se visitanti, Si vis etc. [Matt. 8:2] , ubi tria tanguntur spectantia ad prelatum visitantem subditos, scilicet benignitas affectionis, Si vis ; auctoritas prelationis, potes ; | utilitas curationis, me mundare. ” For other parallels between the prelate and Christ, see Schneyer nos. 63, 67, 68, 69, 74, 75, 77, and 80.

288 of correcting evils – become an occasion for excesses. He should manage the time well, commend good conduct and chastise bad behaviour, and impose penances with foresight and justice, stricter than would be imposed for the same faults in ordinary conventual chapters, lest the practice of visitation fall into contempt. Humbert emphasizes the visitor’s need for discretion. His main goal should be for his visitation to be followed by the correction of excesses, leading to peace and tranquility.

References to private consultations and the chapter of faults can be detected in a few of John’s visitation sermons. Towards the end of one sermon, for instance, John states that a prelate heals his subjects’ mental illness, i.e. sin, by listening to them in private and in a public chapter, and by punishing and correcting the wicked and consoling the virtuous. 66 In another, he says that a successful visitation requires both that the prelate go to his subjects, entering their chapter and publicly and privately investigating their faults, and that the subjects be well-disposed to obey his precepts, ordinances, and warnings. 67 One of his sermons argues that a visiting prelate should try to ensure that his subjects have peace with themselves, with God, and with each other, since peace is an effect of love, and the Rule of St. Augustine which the Dominicans follow basically boils down to the love of God and neighbours. 68 The visitation is meant to help solve problems; it should not leave discord in its wake.

66 Schneyer no. 81, A f. 52va: “...quia secundum Philosophum in secundo Ethicorum , ‘penitentie sunt quedam medicine,’ scilicet sanative infirmitatis mentalis, que est peccatum. Et ista tria que predicta sunt prelatus attingit seu adipiscitur visitando, quia audiendo primo in privato ad partem subditos, et postea in capitulo publico, pervenit ad hoc, quod cognoscit merita et demerita subditorum suorum, et viciosos punit et corrigit, et virtuosos consolatur, et promovet utrosque sicut filios sibi karissimos diligendo.”

67 Schneyer no. 67, A f. 43ra-b: “Sicut in naturalibus, ut dicitur in primo De generatione, requiritur ad agendum preter potentiam activam agens debita aproximatio agentis ad passum et debita habilitas seu dispositio passum, sic in moralibus preter auctoritatem prelati duo requiruntur, et primum est quod prelatus aproximet se subditis ad eos eundo et capitulum intrando | et ipsos et eorum culpas in privato et in publico investigando, videndo, et audiendo; secundum est quod subditus sit bene dispositus ad obediendum suo prelato, id est eius preceptis, ordinationibus, admonitionibus, et huiusmodi.”

68 Schneyer no. 70, A f. 44vb: “Quantum autem ad secundum est sciendum quod prelatus religiosus visitans subditos debet principaliter et quasi solum conari quod subditi servent statuta sue religionis. Principali autem statuta regule beati Augustini, que est regula ordinis nostri, sunt amor dei et proximi, ad que duo quasi omnia statuta nostri ordinis reducuntur. Unde dicitur in principio dicte regule ‘ante omnia, fratres karissimi, diligatur deus, deinceps proximus, etc.’ [ Regula Sancti Augustini , 1] Pax autem est effectus amoris; quilibet enim habet pacem cum illo quem diligit. Ergo prelatus visitans subditos ad hoc deberet conari: ut habeant pacem, scilicet secum per tranquillitatem conscientie, et cum deo, et inter se per stabilitatem amicitie, ut possit eis dicere illud Io. 14[:27] pacem relinquo vobis; pacem meam do vobis .”

289

In addition to helping to maintain discipline within the convents of a given region, visitors acted as the eyes and ears of provincial chapters (and, by extension, general ones, since provincial chapters were supposed to forward serious concerns to the next general chapter). 69 They were supposed to inquire about how each convent performed the divine offices, and what went on in the studium . Humbert instructed the visitor to perform a sort of census of the convent, asking questions about the friars’ skills, their morals and those of their surrounding community, and the convent’s demographics, provisions, and general mood. If a visitor did indeed ask all of the questions that Humbert suggested, he would have been able to deliver a detailed report on the makeup of the convent and its spiritual and material strengths, weaknesses, and needs. This information would allow him to advise the prior provincial and diffinitors of the next provincial chapter about what should be adjusted for this convent: Should a bright friar be sent elsewhere for further schooling? Should a troublesome friar be moved, or relieved of his office? Should the convent be allocated more material resources, or does it have some to spare? Does it need to recruit more friars who are able to preach in the local language? Visitors were not allowed to make these kinds of changes themselves, but Humbert advises the visitor do as much good as his office permits.

The visitor also performed an important function in communicating norms and maintaining standardized texts throughout the order. According to Humbert, every visitor should bring with him good copies of the Dominican rule and constitutions, the acts of the provincial and general chapters (or at least the most recent ones), and anything else sent by the provincial and general chapters, such as encyclical letters from the master-general, or special instructions for a particular region or convent. In each convent, he should have the texts from the most recent general and provincial chapter read aloud to as many friars as possible, and he should make all of these texts available for copying, or for correcting the convent’s own copies. In addition, the visitor should investigate the convent’s library, ensuring that each convent possessed sufficient numbers of well-corrected copies of the necessary liturgical and scholastic books. Ideally, the visitors would ensure that friars were informed of new administrative developments and that they

69 There seems to have been some variation in practice about whether visitors attended provincial chapters in person or entrusted their reports to their conventual prior, his socius , or some othe representative; see Galbraith, The Constitution of the Dominican Order , 160-1.

290 were working with the most up-to-date versions of the Order’s legislation, liturgy, and learned texts.

Unfortunately, if John fulfilled these functions, his sermons bear no traces of it, and they do not go into detail about the kinds of investigations he intended to perform. He does not say, for instance, whether he planned to inquire about whether anyone had slandered Thomas Aquinas, or lectured in ways that contradicted his teachings – two lines of inquiry that visitors were repeatedly enjoined to pursue during the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. 70 Sometimes, he singles out specific aspects of the Dominican Rule for particular attention. In one example, he argues that two precepts set the Dominican order apart from others. The first is their special commitment to poverty: although all religious orders, including monastic ones, reject personal ownership of goods, the Dominicans also refuse to take income from annual rents, which sets them apart from non-mendicant orders. The second precept, which sets them apart from other mendicant orders, is their special commitment to preaching. A visiting prelate should therefore take special care to make sure that the friars of a convent are poor in the appropriate way, and that they preach freely and frequently. 71 It is probably fair to assume that his ensuing visitation would have investigated the convent’s performance on these two fronts. On the whole then, it seems that John’s visitations largely conformed to the ideal practices set down by Humbert of Romans over half a century earlier.

70 Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent ,” 144-5; 147.

71 Schneyer no. 62, A f. 40rb-va: “Quantum autem ad tertium est sciendum quod quilibet prelatus religiosus visitans subditos ad hoc conari debet et conatur, ut servent statuta sue religionis, inter que sunt duo precipua in ordine nostro, scilicet fratrum praedicatorum, per que distinguitur ab aliis ordinibus. Et primum est quedam specialis voluntaria paupertas, scilicet abdicatio reddituum seu proventuum annualium, per quam distinguitur ab omnibus ordinibus non mendicantibus, licet omni religioni, etiam monachorum, sit communis paupertas, que est abdicatio in singulari dominii cuiuscumque rerum temporalium seu proprietatis, sicut dicitur Extra , ‘De statu monachorum,’ c. ‘Cum ad monasterium’ in fine: ‘Abdicatio proprietatis sicut et custodia castita|tis adeo annexa est regule monachali, quod contra eam nec summus pontifex poterit indulgere.’ [X 3.35.6] Secundum est evangelizare seu predicare verbum dei, ad quod videtur principaliter ordo noster institutus, a quo nuncupatur ordo fratrum predicatorum, in quo et distinguitur ab aliis ordinibus etiam mendicantium. Ergo in ordine nostro prelatus visitans ad hoc conari debet: ut subditi quos visitat servent omnia statuta ordinis, et precipue duo predicta, scilicet ut sint modo exposito voluntarii pauperes, et libenter ac frequenter evangelizent seu predicent verbum dei.”

291

Elections

As discussed above, John’s sermon collecton also includes several examples of sermons meant to be preached immediately before the election of the small governing body of diffinitors for Dominican provincial chapters. In these election sermons, John describes the diffinitors’ functions briefly: they have the power to judge others and teach them religious matters, 72 to impose corrections and regulate moral matters, 73 and to pass legislation and judgement concerning all the deeds and brothers of the entire province. 74 In her study of medieval Dominican administrative structures, Georgina Galbraith described the diffinitors’ activities as ideally falling into five main categories: legislative, administrative, spiritual, judicial, and taxative. 75 John lists some of these activities in one of his sermons: the elect are granted the powers of binding and loosing, of imposing ordinances and admonitions; of correcting priors or absolving them from their duties; of appointing lectors; of moving friars from one convent to another; of enjoining the friars to pray for certain people or causes. 76 Clearly, their election was a weighty matter, and while it is unknown how John was selected to give these sermons, it must have been a great honour.

In addition to describing the diffinitors’ functions, John used these sermons to enumerate some of the qualities that they and their electors should possess. He enjoins his audience to elect friars who lack affection for worldly things and are moved only by divine impulsion, so that they do

72 Schneyer no. 86, A f. 55va: “Et spirituales debent esse diffinitores, qui habent alios iudicare et instruere ea que religionis sunt.”

73 Schneyer no. 86, A f. 55va: “Nemo dat quod non habet, ut patet de igne calefaciente aquam, et de sole illuminante aerem. Sed ad diffinitores pertinet aliis communicare spiritualia, ut correctionem, morum ordinationem et huiusmodi; ergo ipsi debent esse maxime spirituales.”

74 Schneyer no. 89, A f. 57vb: “omnis vicarius cuiuscumque domini congruum est et rationabile quod sit eius amicus. Sed omnis iudex ecclesiasticus secundum quod huiusmodi gerit vices dei. Ergo diffinitor capituli provincialis, ad quem spectat diffinire et iudicare de omnibus fratribus et factis totius provincie, vice dei tanquam dei vicarius debet esse amicus dei.”

75 Galbraith, The Constitution of the Dominican Order , 75-84.

76 Schneyer no. 87, A f. 56va: “Sed per electionem canonicam, si sequatur confirmatio, confertur spiritualis potestas electo ligandi et solvendi, faciendi ordinationes et monitiones, corrigendi priores, absolvendi priores, instituendi lectores, amovendi fratres, iniungendi orationes, et huiusmodi.”

292 not ordain anything for the sake of any carnal, worldly, or private love, but only for the love of God. 77 In all their ordinances, the diffinitors ought to aim for the good of the friars of their province. 78 Moreover, they should keep their eyes on God as the end of all their activities, like an archer keeps his eye on the target. 79 The electors, for their part, must put aside all disordered passions and love of homeland or persons, as well as all thoughts of past or hoped-for benefits (a lightly veiled allusion to bribery) and be moved only by God. 80 Stability, one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, is desirable for both electors and elect: anyone lacking the Holy Spirit is easily swayed by temptation and human persuasion, like a weathervane (“the rooster placed on the belltower”) is moved by every breath of wind, whereas someone filled with the Holy Spirit is stabilized and firmly moved towards the good. 81 These kinds of remarks echo Humbert’s

77 Schneyer no. 86, A f. 55vb-56ra: “Si igitur diffinitor et iudex quicumque debet sequi in iudicando in|stinctum et impulsionem divinam, ut probatum est supra, sequitur quod debet etiam carere carnali et mundana affectione, ut scilicet nichil diffiniat propter amorem aliquem carnalem mundanum, vel privatum quemcumque, sed solum propter amorem dei.” Schneyer no. 88 (a variation on Schneyer no. 87) expands thus on the lack of worldly affection, A f. 57va: “Mundana affectione caret accedens ad hanc electionem que ad presens incumbit, qui non est inanis glorie cupidus, hoc est qui nec gradum aliquem honoris non habitum ambit, utpote prioratum, lectoriam, et huiusmodi, de quo possit et velit inaniter gloriare, nec inhabito remanere cupit.”

78 Schneyer no. 86, A f. 56ra: “Finis autem diffinitionum debet esse bonum fratrum provincie qui diffiniuntur, quia in rebus perfectis idem est principium et finis, ut patet in figura circulari. Sed diffinitores fiunt a fratribus provincie seu eliguntur; ergo bonum fratrum provincie tanquam finem in suis diffinitionibus debet intendere.”

79 Schneyer no. 89, A f. 59ra-b: “...sicut in artificialibus nullus potest bene sagittare nisi respiciens signum quam est sagittationis terminus, sic et in moralibus nullus potest se bene dirigere in agendis nisi respiciens finem et terminum actionis [...] ergo tertium | necessarium assumendo ad diffiniendum et iudicandum fratres provincie est aspectus directe intentionis, ut scilicet in suis diffinitionibus nichil intendat, nichil aspiciat ut finem suarum diffinitionum, nisi deum.”

80 Schneyer no. 87, A f. 57rb: “Quantum autem ad secundum principale est sciendum quod, sicut dicitur ad Reg. 8[:14], Quicumque spiritu dei aguntur, hii filii dei sunt ; unde agi seu impelli ad bona opera est proprium filiorum dei. Sed per electionem eligentes efficiuntur spirituales filii electi, qui vice dei efficitur eorum spiritualis pater. Ergo ad electionem rite faciendam debent electores moveri et impelli a spiritu dei. [...] Quantum autem ad tertium est sciendum quod Boethius in fine primi De consolatione comparat affectionem mundanam inordinatam aeri nubiloso impedienti illuminationem que fit ab astris, et mari tempestuoso impedienti aspectum profundi, et saxo lapideo impedienti rectum cursum fluvii. Sic et inordinata passio impedit tam cognitionem veri quam etiam operationem boni seu electionem. Accedens igitur ad canonicam electionem, si vult bene videre de quo plus expedit communitati cui est preficiendus eligendus et recte eligere, debet carere omni inordinata passione et amore patrie vel persone, beneficii recepti vel recipiendi...”

81 Schneyer no. 87, A f. 57ra: “...anima carens spiritu sancto tanquam non bene in deo stabilita movetur a bono proposito per omnem temptationem et humanam suasionem, sicut gallus positus super campanile movetur ad omnem ventum. Sed econtra anima habens in se spiritum sanctum stabilitur ab eo in bono, et stabiliter seu firmiter movetur et impellitur ad bonum, sic quod per nullam temptationem vel humanam suasionem movetur a bono.”

293 recommendations that diffinitors should proceed in a manner that is mature, modest, and humble, yet also just and strict, without making special allowances for or against any person, convent, province, nation, acting always with pious zeal and discretion. 82

As in his election sermons for diffinitors, John pronounces in his sermon for the election of the Dominican Master General that the appropriate candidate for such an election needs to be moved by the Holy Spirit, lacking in worldly affection, and wary of human persuasions and enticements. He should care for the good of the whole order, rather than any personal interest. 83 Likewise, an elector acts rightly when he is moved by nothing but himself and the Holy Spirit; attempts at persuasion or compulsion such as prayers, promises, threats and so forth, are antithetical to canonical elections. 84 The presence of these kinds of warnings in John’s sermons is a reminder that elections could be highly contentious occasions, ripe for possibilities of backroom dealing, collusion, and other abuses. Provincial chapter acts, where they survive, confirm that various election tampering schemes were attempted by wayward fourteenth-century friars – and these were only the ones who got caught. 85 This limited evidence suggests that John’s appeals to his audiences to put away their own interests and look to God and the good of the order were not just empty platitudes.

5.3 Dominican identity

A funeral sermon for a Dominican bishop that was inserted after the index in John’s collection is a reminder that while offices within the order were coveted, a friar’s sights could be set even

82 Humbert of Romans, De officiis Ordinis , 340-1.

83 Schneyer no. 90, A f. 60ra-b: “Finis autem omnis electionis canonice est bonum illorum quos electi habent regere. Ergo tale bonum debet intendere volens recte eligere, ut scilicet eli|gat illum de quo credat quod omnibus pensatis plus expedit communitati ordinis.”

84 Schneyer no. 90, A f. 60va: “...humana suasio seu inductio per preces, promissa, minas, et huiusmodi opponitur debite et canonice electioni, cuius ratio est quia eligere est actus liberi arbitrii. Liber autem movetur a seipso, in quo differt a servo, qui ad aliquid faciendum movetur a domino. Ille igitur vere et per consequens debite et canonice eligit qui ad eligendum movetur a se et a spiritu sancto, qui est intimior anime nostre quam ipsa sibi; et per oppositum, qui ad eligendum ab alio extrinseco inducitur seu suadetur modis illicitis predictis non vere, et per consequens debite et canonice eligit, sed magis in eligendo violentatur.”

85 Vargas, Taming a Brood of Vipers , 130-4.

294 higher. 86 John had participated in episcopal elections before; his collection also includes a sermon for persuading someone who has been elected archbishop to take up the office. 87 On that occasion, he attempted to persuade the archbishop-elect that if he does his job well, a spiritual leader will guide not just himself, but also the Christians in his charge to salvation, suggesting that this reward would enable the reluctant prelate to bear the burdens of his office patiently. 88 The memorial sermon indicates that brother John the bishop had made his profession as a Dominican friar in his youth. 89 The sermon includes a reminder that according to canon law, a member of a religious order who is made a bishop does not cease to be a member of that order, but is still bound to observe all aspects of its rule. John praises the late bishop for doing just that, noting that observance of this rule is a great tribulation or affliction of the flesh, “as those who experience it daily know.” 90 Yet the rewards of this life of penances, vigils, abstinence, and other

86 Schneyer no. 137, A f. 115ra: “In morte fratris Iohannis episcopi.” I have not been able to identify the Dominican Bishop John who was the subject of this sermon. One candidate is the Dominican archbishop of Otranto, previously archbishop of Corfu, who died in 1345, and whose goods were subjected to the papal right of spoil, although if I am correct in hypothesizing that the sermons after the index were added in chronological order, this sermon must date from after the middle of 1348. For John of Otranto, see Daniel Williman, The Right of Spoil of the Popes of Avignon, 1316-1415 (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1988), 154.

87 Schneyer no. 91 ( Sermo ad inducendum aliquem electum quod consentiat electioni ), A f. 60vb: “Reverende domine N., causa adventus nostri ad vos est ut prebeatis assensum electioni facte de vobis ad archiepiscopatum ecclesie N.”

88 Schneyer no. 91, A f. 61ra: “...licet regimen omnem spirituale sit honerosum, tamen talis fructus debet inducere ad tale onus patienter portandum [...] Sed prelatus est dux populi Christiani in itinere presentis vite; ergo terminum vite beate, si bene regit, tandem attinget cum populo sibi subiecto.”

89 Schneyer no. 137, A f. 115rb-va: “...Dominus N. fuit perfectus non solum perfectione communi virtutis, ut iam declaratum est, que perfectio est neccessitatis, sed etiam perfectione speciali sacre religionis, que est superarrogationis, quia fuit religiosus professus a iuventate sua, et status religionis secundum communem doctrinam est status perfectionis non communis omnibus, sed specialis quibusdam, scilicet religiosis, sicut de paupertate quam profitentur omnes religiosi inter alias observantias dixit Christus cuidam, Matt. 19[:21], Si vis perfectus esse, vade et vende omnia que habes, et veni sequere me , quod tangitur in verbis primo propositis de ipso cum fratribus eiusdem ordinis dicitur frater noster , quibus et | ei simul vere dici potest illud Matt. 23[:8-9], Omnes vos fratres estis; unus est enim pater vester qui in celis est , scilicet beatus Dominicus, et de eisdem dici potest illud Ps. [132:1], Ecce quam bonum et quam iocundum habitare fratres in unum , scilicet sacrum collegium seu ordinem sacrum fratrum predicatorum.”

90 Schneyer no. 137, A f. 115va: “...religiosus factus episcopus non desinit esse, sed permanet religiosus eiusdem religionis cuius fuit, sicut dicitur in decretis sextadecima, questione prima [=Dec. Grat., C 16 q. 1 c. 3], ‘De monachis qui diu morantes in monasteriis si postea in clericatus ordines pervenerunt statuimus non debere eos a priori proposito discedere.’ Ergo religiosus factus episcopus tenetur ad omnes observancias regulares que non impediunt pontificale officium, sicut est continentia, paupertas, et alia huiusmodi, et per consequens portare habitum sue religionis, qui est talis obligationis signum. Et sic servavit observancias regulares ordinis sui dominus N., secundum quod sciunt qui noverunt vitam ipsius, quod tangitur de eo in verbis primo propositis cum dicitur quod

295 regular observances are great, so the virtuous bishop will surely be joining his brothers in the blessed life, if he is not already there. 91

Judging by this sermon, penance and abstinence were central to John’s conception of Dominican identity. One of his visitation sermons asserts that every form of religious life prescribes some observances that help men live soberly, such as fasting and abstinence, some that help them live piously, such as prayers and genuflections, and some that help them live justly, such as penances imposed for sins. 92 Elsewhere, he states that the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience are so integral to religious life that they cannot even be dispensed with by the pope. 93 These three vows appear repeatedly in John’s sermons for and about Dominican men and women, where he reminds his audience that these vows help religious persons to cultivate perfection by counteracting worldly desires. In a sermon in memory of a dead friar named Peter, for instance, John notes that in taking the habit this man

cast off things pertaining to lust of the flesh, or delights, through the vow of chastity, and things pertaining to the lust of the eyes, or riches, through the vow of poverty, and things pertaining to pride of life, or honours and pomps, through the vow of obedience or humility. 94

fuit particeps, scilicet fratrum ordinis sui, in tribulatione , hoc est in dicipline regularis observatione, quod, ut sciunt qui experiuntur cotidie, est magna carnis afflictio seu tribuation.”

91 Schneyer no. 137, A f. 115vb: “Sed status religionis est status penitentie, et vigilie, et abstinentie, et alie regulares observancie religiosorum sunt opera penitentie. Ergo dominus N., qui fuit particeps fratrum sui ordinis in discipline regularis observatione in presenti vita [...] est nunc particeps eorumdem fratrum in re vel in certa spe in vita beata in regno celorum.”

92 Schneyer no. 65, A f. 42ra: “Sed in omne religione sunt quedam observancie per quas homo vivit sobrie, ut ieiunia, et abstinencie, et huiusmodi, et quedam per quas vivit pie, ut divine laudes, et genuflexiones, et inclinationes, et huiusmodi, et quedam per quas vivit iuste, ut pene statute pro culpis commissis.”

93 Schneyer no. 96, A f. 64rb: “...qui tria vota [i.e. paupertatis, castitatis, et humilitatis] sic sunt omni religioni inseperabiliter et essentialiter annexa quod sine eis nulla religio est nec esse potest, etiam per dispensationem summi pontificis.”

94 Schneyer no. 51 (De eodem, i.e. De Petro mortuo), A f. 33rb: “Despectio igitur terrenorum est neccessaria cuilibet adulto ad ingrediendum civitatem supernam, que fuit in presenti defuncto, sicut ostendit in devota susceptione habitus religionis, in qua abiciuntur pertinentia ad concupiscentiam carnis, seu delicie, per votum castitatis, et pertinentia ad concupiscentiam oculorum, seu divitie, per votum paupertatis, et pertinentia ad superbiam vite, seu honores et pompe, per votum obedientie seu humilitatis.” [cf. 1 John 2:16]

296

Since all religious, monks as well as friars, made the same three vows, what made the Dominicans special? As noted above, John argued that the Dominicans’ special commitment to poverty, exemplified by their rejection both of personal ownership of goods and of annual rents, together with their special commitment to preaching, distinguished them from other mendicant and non-mendicant orders. 95 In a sermon for the profession of a Dominican nun, he likens the Dominican order to a house. Its foundation is the rule of St. Augustine, which is approved throughout the church. Its walls are the Dominican constitutions, which elevate the Dominicans by rendering them more perfect than members of other religious orders. The roof which completes the structure is the body of ordinances issued by the general, provincial, and conventual chapters, along with prelates such as the masters, provincial priors, and convetual priors and prioresses. 96 John concludes this simile by noting that the pefect Domincan nun, dwelling securely within this house of God, is a servant to all of these authorities, underscoring the importance of obedience for all Dominicans, but especially women.

5.4 Preaching for Dominican nuns

Medieval Dominican officials and regular friars were, broadly speaking, ambivalent about the role of women in their order. Although women had joined Dominic’s movement in its earliest years, they posed a variety of problems for its administrators. What use were women, who according to these churchmen could not preach or sustain the rigours of intellectual combat, to an order devoted to preaching and disputing with heretics? It was one thing for men to embrace voluntary poverty and wander around begging for their sustenance – quite another for women to do the same. To many early Dominican friars, the only respectable solution seemed to be to set up Dominic’s female followers in a traditional monastic arrangement, living a life of enclosure and prayer. To their supporters, Dominican nuns were to be the order’s spiritual arm,

95 See above, section 18.1.

96 Schneyer no. 94, A f. 63ra: “Habet enim persona religiosa ad modum templi seu domus dei propositum ingrediendi: religionem pro fundamento, et ingressum ipsum pro pariete, et pro tecto quod complete domum habet professionem. Et specialiter in ordine predicatorum habet pro fundamento firmo regulam beati Augustini, valde in tota ecclesia approbata, et pro pariete qui elevat domum habet constitutiones que reddunt fratres predicatores perfectiores aliis habentibus eandem regulam, et pro tecto quod complet domum habet ordinationes capitulorum generalium, provincialium, et conventualium, et prelatorum ordinis, scilicet magistri, prioris provincialis, et conventualis, et priorisse, quas omnes servans est perfecta religiosa.”

297 contributing to the friars’ mission with the force of their prayers. To their detractors, the nuns were a distraction and drain on resources, if not an outright temptation to sin. 97 Since scholarly interest in medieval Dominican nuns tends to focus either on the earliest years of the order 98 or or the Observant reforms of the late fourteenth, fifteenth, and early sixteenth centuries, 99 John’s sermons occupy an understudied position between two controversial periods in the history of Dominican female monasticism. 100

By John’s time, approximately a century after Dominic, nuns were a firmly established part of the order. However, the cura monialium plays only a small part in his works. Nuns are never mentioned in his scholastic questions, and show up only occasionally in his preaching. Like so many medieval friars, John seems to have regarded nuns as a bit of an afterthought. In part, this might have been because they were someone else’s responsibility. John’s name does not appear in the (admittedly incomplete) list of priors that can be reconstructed for the local female Dominican convent, San Pietro a Castello, during its first five decades. 101 There is also no

97 Continued ambivalence about the role of women in the order has affected the historiography on this subject. In surveys such as Hinnebusch’s The History of the Dominican Order , women are typically relegated to a single chapter near the end. As yet, there is still no thorough study of the history of Dominican nuns, although there are some recent shorter summaries, such as Sigrid Hirbodian, “Die Dominikanerinnen – ein Überblick,” in Die deutschen Dominikaner und Dominikanerinnen im Mittelalter , ed. Sabine von Heusinger, Elias H. Füllenbach, Walter Senner, and Klaus-Bernward Springer (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2016), 21-36 and Sylvie Duval, “Comme des anges sur terre”: les moniales dominicaines et les débuts de la réforme observante, 1385-1461 (Rome: École française de Rome, 2015), 24-104.

98 E.g. Guido Cariboni, “Problemi d’identità. Le prime comunità femminili legate ai predicatori tra distinzione e appartenenza,” Revue Mabillon , n.s. 20 (2009): 151-72; Julie Ann Smith, “Prouille, Madrid, Rome: the evolution of the earliest Dominican Instituta for nuns,” Journal of Medieval History 35.4 (2009): 340-52 and other articles by the same author, including “ Clausura Districta : Conceiving Space and Community for Dominican Nuns in the Thirteenth Century,” Parergon 27.2 (2010): 13-36 and “‘The Hours that They Ought to Direct to the Study of Letters’: Literate Practices in the Constitutions and Rule for the Dominican Sisters,” Parergon 31.1 (2014): 73-94; Steven Watts, “‘Let us run in love together’: Master Jordan of Saxony (d. 1237) and the participation of women in the religious life of the Order of Preachers,” (PhD diss., University of St. Andrews, 2016).

99 Recent examples include Huijbers, Zealots for Souls ; Jones, Ruling the Spirit ; Duval, “Comme des anges sur terre .”

100 There are some recent studies of Dominican nuns during the first half of the fourteenth century, but they tend to focus on Germany, e.g. Meri Heinonen, “Men in the Communities of Dominican Nuns – Sister-Books Discussing Priests and Friars,” Journal of Religious History 40.4 (2016): 589-609.

101 The following sequence of priors can be reconstructed on the basis of Antonella Ambrosio, Il monastero femminile domenicano dei SS. Pietro e Sebastiano di Napoli: Regesti dei documenti dei secoli XIV-XV (Salerno: Carlone, 2003): Ponzio, detto Coci (1301-2); Rolando de Grassa (1303-5); Matteo di Penne (1311); Benedetto de

298 evidence that he was one of the friars who lived within its cloister walls to assist in administering the sacraments to the nuns and helping to manage their affairs with the outside world. 102 He may have performed the occasional visitation there, but the small number of visitation sermons for female houses in his collection suggests that this was not a frequent occurrence. Nonetheless, from all appearances John considered women integral to the order.

Nuns as part of the Dominican order

Despite the presence of around half a dozen female Dominican monasteries in southern Italy in the early fourteenth century, just two of John’s 24 visitation sermons are for nuns. 103 Only one of those is explicitly identified as such by the rubric. 104 Another seems to have been regarded as adaptable for either a male or female audience, since it opens by saying that “any prelate visiting his subjects, namely brothers or sisters, should intend as the goal of his visitation that his subjects love God, if they did not love him already, and if they did love him, that they love him more, and truly, not falsely.” 105 It seems likely that this sermon was originally written for a female audience, since the first principal part discusses religious recluses ( religiose recluse ), saying that they ought to love God even more than others. 106

Both of these sermons share a number of similarities with John’s other visitation sermons. Both employ the analogy of the visiting prelate as a doctor coming to heal the sickness of mortal sin,

Pescolo (1313-14); Andrea di Sessa (1317-1323); Pietro di Piedimonte (1324 and 1328); Pietro di Fondi (1324; 1329-30; 1334); Matteo di Casoria (1340); Pietro (1343); Galgano de Itro (1345); Cristoforo de Campomellis (1351).

102 Ambrosio, “ Oratrices nostrae ,” 91.

103 Gerardo Cioffari, Storia dei Domenicani nell’Italia meridionale , vol. 1: Il medioevo (Naples: Editrice domenicana italiana, 1993), 98.

104 Schneyer no. 82, A f. 52va-53ra: “Eadem dominica [=23 a post Trinitati], de eadem epistola, in visitatione alicuius monasterii sororum.”

105 Schneyer no. 73, A f. 46vb: “Prelatus quicumque visitans subditos, fratres scilicet vel sorores, pro fine visitationis debet intendere ut subditi deum diligant, si non dilexerunt, et si dilexerunt, quod magis diligant, et vere, non ficte.”

106 Schneyer no. 73, A f. 46vb: “Quantum ad primum, est sciendum quod religiose recluse debent pre ceteris deum amare.”

299 and the penances he imposes as medicines. As in many of the male visitation sermons, John also discusses the rule whose observance he is coming to check up on, concentrating on the integral vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. In one of the nuns’ sermons, he adds a few features particular to the nuns’ lives: vigils, abstinences, and, most notably, perpetual enclosure. 107 Even the bridal imagery that John employs in the sermon for nuns or friars also makes an appearance in one of his male visitation sermons, alongside more conventionally masculine analogies of warfare and horses. 108 The fact that John appears to have regarded this sermon as suitable for either a male or female audience suggests that he did not see a great gulf between the men and women of the Dominican order, at least when it came to considering them as subjects to be visited.

One of the more unusual features of John’s sermon for the visitation of a female convent is its emphasis on the figure of St. Dominic. Reflecting on and imitating Dominic’s life, he suggests in the third part of the sermon, will lead to glory:

Our father St. Dominic sustained many great labours on behalf of God, especially in regular observances, as is apparent from looking at his Legend. Those who are similar to him with respect to his labours in the present will be similar to him through his merit and prayers in the future with respect to his reward, so that he could say the words of the lord Christ who said to God the Father in John 17[:24]: Father, I wish that those who you gave to me might also be with me where I am , that is, in the blessed life. 109

107 Schneyer no. 82, A f. 53ra: “Persone autem sancte et religiose laborant in bonis que dei sunt operandis, ut in renunciandis affectu et effectu mundi divitiis per votum paupertatis, et carnis deliciis per votum castitatis, et honoribus et pompis per votum obedientie et humilitatis et aliis regularibus observanciis, ut est perpetua clausura, abstinentie, vigilie, et huiusmodi.” On the importance of enclosure for female Dominican life, see Smith, “ Clausura Districta .”

108 Schneyer no. 73, A f. 46vb-ra: “…religiose recluse debent pre ceteris deum amare propter duo: primo quia sunt eius sponse, iuxta illud Apostoli, secunda ad Cor. 10 [=2 Cor. 11:2], Despondi vos uni viro , etc. Omnis enim sponsa honesta et munda diligit suum sponsum.” Cf. Schneyer no. 61, A f. 39rb: “…sponsa sciens se debere visitari a sponso, si prudens est, purgat omnem maculam seu immunditiam a facie, seu manibus, vel quacumque parte persone sue. Anima sancta, et precipue religiosa, est sponsa Christi, cui desponsatur in profesione religionis [...] Hanc sponsam Christus | visitat in visitatione prelati, qui est Christi vicarius. Ergo persona religiosa, sciens se debere visitari a prelato suo, debet omnem maculam culpe abicere a facie, id est mente, et manibus, id est operibus, et quacumque parte anime sue talem culpam prelato suo simpliciter confitendo, et omnem penitentiam pro ea ab ipso sibi imposita humiliter sustinendo et faciendo.”

109 Schneyer no. 82, A f. 53ra: “...Beatus Dominicus pater noster multos et magnos labores sustinuit propter deum, et precipue in observanciis regularibus, ut patet eius legendam intuenti, cui similes quantum ad tales labores in presenti erunt; per eius merita et orationes similes in futuro quantum ad premium, ut ipse possit dicere illud Christi

300

This image of Dominic as a spiritual father recalls the beginning of the sermon, where John imagines that the theme, Help those women who have laboured with me [Phil. 4:3], might be spoken by St. Dominic about the sisters of his order to any prelate intending to visit them. 110 Although the nuns obviously could not imitate Dominic in all of his activities, they could take inspiration from his devotion to the religious life, prayer, and so forth. The reference to Dominic’s legend suggests that the contemplation of texts about the order’s founder might have formed part of the nuns’ spiritual life. In the sermon for nuns or friars, John also alludes to St. Catherine, quoting from the responsa for the liturgy of her feast. 111 Occasional references to other saints’ lives and to the liturgy also appear in John’s other sermons. But their presence here may tell us something about the place of such oral and written texts in the nuns’ world.

John’s description of St. Dominic as “our father” unequivocally included the women he was addressing within the order. Similarly, his sermon for a lady who took the Dominican habit on her deathbed argues to a presumably all-Dominican audience that this woman can be called “our sister” because she shares the same parents: Dominic and his religion. 112 In the latter sermon John is responding not to friars who are skeptical about treating this woman as part of the order

domini quod dixit deo patri, Io. 17[:24], Pater quos dedisti mihi volo ut ubi ego sum et illi sint mecum , scilicet in vita beata. Ad quam nos perducat, etc.”

110 Schneyer no. 82, A f. 52va-b: “Adiuva illas que mecum laboraverunt . Ad Phil. 4[:3]. Verba proposita secundum sensum litteralem sunt apostoli Pauli alloquentis de quibusdam sanctis dominabus quedam suum subditum et discipuli nomine Germanum. Sed secundum sensum spiritualem possunt esse verba beati Dominici alloquentis de sororibus sui ordinis prelatum quemcumque eiusdem ordinis ipsas visitare volentem, ei dicendo Adiuva etc. | ubi tali prelato primo iniungitur a beato Dominico visitatio bona et fructuosa, cum dicitur adiuva illas ; secundo exponitur conversatio sancta et virtuosa sororum, scilicet quas visitare debet, cum additur que laboraverunt ; tertio exprimitur imitatio pulcra et gratiosa, scilicet beati Dominici, cum ipse de se loquens addit mecum .”

111 Schneyer no. 73, A f. 47vb-47ra: “Ergo tales persone quodam speciali modo debent diligere deum, et precipue cum visitantur a suo prelato, qui quantum | ad hoc gerit vices dei, propter quod cum visitantur a prelato debent extimare quod visitentur a deo et amentur, sicut et beata Katerina cum esset in carcere reclusa fuit a Christo visitata et amata, sicut cantatur de ipsa sponsus amat sponsam, salvator visitat ipsam . [cf. Breviarium iuxta ritum Sacri Ordinis Praedicatorum (Tournay: Desclée, 1894), p. 904, in the sixth responsum for the feast of St. Catherine]”

112 Schneyer no. 30, A f. 21va: “...soror alicuius potest dici aliqualiter existens ex eadem matre sed ex diverso patre, sed perfectius potest dici soror existens ex eodem patre et diversa matre, quia pater est perfectius principium prolis quam mater, utpote principium activum. Perfectissime autem soror dicenda est existens ex utroque eodem parente, patre scilicet et matre, quo modo domina N. potest dici soror nostra, habens scilicet eundem patrem, beatum Dominicum, et eandem matrim, ipsius religionem, sicut ostendit habitus quem in morte recepit.”

301 because of her sex, but rather to those who are dubious about her tardy profession or who simply did not know who she was:

We are all gathered at present for the funeral rites of Lady N., of whom, if asked by someone who did not know who she was and what she was like, any friar of the order could respond with the proposed theme, She is a sister and a mother . [Matt. 12:50] 113

A similar strategy is used for the introduction to one of the sermons for men who took the habit on their deathbed:

At present it is incumbent upon me to preach a sermon about the present deceased for whose funeral rites we have gathered, about whom, if I were asked by brothers who did not know him, I might answer with the proposed words, John, your brother [Rev. 1.9].114

Deathbed profession, not gender, was the controversial issue here. 115

As discussed above, one of John’s visitation sermons could apparently be made to suit either a male or female audience with little adjustment. A similar notion of equivalence between male and female Dominicans is apparent in John’s sermons for men and women who took the Dominican habit on their deathbed. 116 In all cases, John employs a military analogy in response to critics who wonder what good taking the habit on the deathbed will do for the deceased, if they were not a member of the order in life. 117 Just as a prudent knight carries concealed

113 Schneyer no. 30, A f. 21va: “Omnes ad presens sumus congregati ad exequias domine N, de qua si peteretur ab aliquo eam non cognoscente que et qualiter fuisset, respondere posset quilibet frater ordinis thema propositum, soror et mater est. ”

114 Schneyer no. 44, A f. 29vb: “Ad presens incumbit sermo de presenti defuncto ad cuius exequias congregati sumus, de quo si interrogarer a fratribus qui non noverunt ipsum, responderem verba proposita, Iohannes etc. [Rev. 1:9]”

115 On the history of this practice and some of the criticims levelled against it in the Middle Ages, see Louis Gougaud, “Deathbed Clothing with the Religious Habit,” in Gougaud, Devotional and Ascetic Practices in the Middle Ages, trans. G. C. Bateman (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd., 1927), 131-45. See also Jean Leclerq, “La vêture ‘ad succurrendum’ d’après le moine Raoul,” Analecta Monastica 3 (1955): 158-68.

116 Schneyer no. 32 (De Andrea mortuo), Schneyer no. 44 (De Iohanne mortuo), and Schneyer no. 30 (De sorore ordinis mortua).

117 Schneyer no. 30, A f. 21va-22ra: “Perfectissime autem soror dicenda est existens ex utroque eodem parente, pater scilicet et matre, quo modo domina N. potest dici soror nostra, habens scilicet eundem patrem beatum Dominicum, et eandem matrem ipsius religionem, sicut ostendit habitus quem in morte recepit. Sed dicet aliquis | quid hoc ei profuit, cum non fuerit soror ordinis in vita? Ad quod potest dici quod profuit sibi propter duo...” Schneyer no. 32, A f. 22vb-23ra: “Apostoli autem fuerunt pauperes et per totum mundum fidem predicantes, ut patet

302 weapons and openly-displayed insignia when he has to fight, so a prudent Christian should take up the internal weapons of the virtues and the external insignia of a religious habit when death, the time for a spiritual fight against demons, draws near. The sermon for the unnamed woman also alludes to the intercession of Dominican saints, such as Dominic, Peter Martyr, and Thomas Aquinas, who John likens to great lords whose favour and assistance makes one stronger in battle. 118 Dying in a habit, John argues, makes one more able to resist and repel the demons and emerge victorious from the spiritual battle that will occur at the time of death. He employs this martial imagery regardless of the gender of his subject, suggesting that all religious persons’ souls are in the same position when it comes to facing the demons after death. 119 John sometimes adds a second benefit conferred on those who take the habit on their deathbed: they will receive the prayers of the fellow members of their order, and a share of the merits obtained through their good works. He emphasizes that in this they are like any other brother or sister of the order. 120

Nuns and nobility

Most of John’s interactions with Dominican nuns seem to have come through his connections with the Neapolitan nobility. Two of his three sermons for the occasion of new nuns’ professions

in actibus apostolorum. Unde multum congrue designant fratres predicatores, quorum habitum assumpsit N. Et si dicatur quid ei hoc profuit, dicendum quod multum...” A similar question is implied in Schneyer no. 44.

118 Schneyer no. 30, A f. 22ra: “et ad vincendum in tali pugna multum valet devotio ad religionem et eius sanctos, utpote beatum Dominicum, beatum Petrum Martirem, beatum Thomam de Aquino, et alios fratres ordinis qui sunt in vita beata. Sicut et inter homines habens hostes se potentiores adheret alicui magno et potenti domino, ex cuius favore et adiutorio efficitur fortior et potentior, cuius etiam in pugna portat insignia extra, et intra bona arma, sic et presens domina habuit intus spiritualia arma, id est virtutum dona, et extra sancte religionis insignia, sicut et beatus Martinus voluit mori in cinere et cilicio.”

119 This accords well with the views of scholars such as Penelope D. Johnson, who argues on the basis of her study of 11 th -13 th c. nunneries in northern France that nuns “probably saw themselves less consciously as women than as religious persons who happened to be female.” See Johnson, Equals in Monastic Profession: Religious Women in Medieval France (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 229, and all of ch. 7, “Religious person rather than woman.”

120 Schneyer no. 30, A f. 21va: “Secundo, hoc ei profuit quia habet specialem partem in omnibus bonis que fiunt per totum ordinem, sicut et alie sorores ordinis. Cant. 8[:8]: Quid faciemus sorori nostre in die , scilicet obitus sui, quando alloquenda est , scilicet a deo animam eius iudicante et ad vitam beatam perducente in re vel in certa spe.”; Schneyer no. 44, A f. 30ra: “...que assumptio valuit sibi ad duo: Primo ut fratres libentius et ferventius orarent pro ipso et suis sufragiis adiuvarent, secundum illud Prov. 18[:19], frater qui adiuvatur a fratre quasi civitas firma .”

303 are for women explicitly identified as noble, 121 and his sermon collection contains one or two sermons in memory of Elizabeth of Hungary, sister of King Charles II’s wife Maria, and a prominent early member of San Pietro a Castello. 122 There is no evidence that Elizabeth was ever elected prioress of San Pietro a Castello, as some historians have claimed. 123 But she undeniably held a pivotal role in the community during its early years, perhaps acting, as Rosalba di Meglio suggests, as a charismatic spiritual leader. 124 Given the history of San Pietro a Castello, the only Dominican nunnery in Naples, and presumably the one with which John had the most contact, the prominence of nobility in his sermons for nuns is unsurprising. 125

John’s profession sermons stress the great sacrifices that these elite women were making by entering the religious life. The two explicitly for noblewomen draw a contrast between good and bad noble girls: bad or vain girls are ashamed to enter religion because they believe they will be deprived and humiliated by doing so (which John acknowledges is true, at least with regard to this world), whereas good ones rejoice at the prospect of entering to their lord Christ and of humiliating themselves in the present so they will be rewarded by God in the future. 126 Of

121 Schneyer no. 95 ( in professione alicuius sororis ); Schneyer no. 95 ( in ingressum alicuius nobilis puelle ad ordinem ); Schneyer no. 96 ( in professione alicuius puelle nobilis ).

122 Schneyer no. 40 ( De Helizabet mortua ) and Schneyer no. 60 ( In translatione corporis sororis Helizabeth ).

123 The sequence of known prioresses for San Pietro a Castello, reconstructed on the basis of Ambrosio, Il monastero femminile , is as follows: Perna (1302); Maddalena de Ronca (1305); Giovanna Pagano di Nocera (1317); Magalda (1319, probably the same as the next prioress); Maddalena Dentice (1319-1336); Agnese (1343); Angelica (1345); Isabella (1351).

124 Di Meglio, Ordini mendicanti , 60.

125 See above, Chapter 1.

126 Schneyer no. 95, A f. 63rb-va: “Ma|gna differentia est quantum spectat ad presens inter generosam puellam malam et generosam puellam bonam, quia prima verecundaretur intrare religionem quamcumque, quia extimaret intrando se multum deprimi et humiliari, quod verum esset quantum ad mundum, quia per talem ingressum subtraherentur sibi omnia que faciunt personam magnam secundum mundum, quia sic intrando oporteret quod careret mundi divitiis per votum paupertatis, et carnis deliciis per votum castitatis, et motibus propriis per votum obedentie et humilitatis. Econtra autem generosa puella bona non verecundatur intrare religionem propter duo: primo quia intrando credit intrare ad Christum dominum suum; secundo quia sic se humiliando in presenti sperat a deo multum honorari in futuro, et utrumque verum est, ut infra diceretur et probabitur.” A similar passage appears in Schneyer no. 96, A f. 64ra: “Magna differentia est quantum spectat ad presens inter generosam puellam vanam et generosam puellam bonam, quia prima vereretur profiteri religionem quamcumque quia in hoc crederet multum deprimi et humiliari; secunda autem libenter et audacter profitetur religionem sanctam et approbatam propter duo:

304 course, John immediately flatters his audience in both cases by confirming that the woman in honour of whom he is preaching is the good sort of noble girl. He promises that both women will receive two crowns in heaven: the golden crown of the beatific vision and the aureole honouring their virginity. 127

For John, the monastic life – assuming that one follows through with keeping one’s vows, of course – seems to ensure a guaranteed path to heaven. This is because persons who have made religious vows earn supererogatory merits by observing the rules of their religion, above and beyond the common merits obtained by observing the divine commandments, which are required for everyone. 128 In all three profession sermons, John explains that religious profession functions as a sort of second baptism and absolution of sins.129 Small wonder, then, that people like the men and women memorialized in some of John’s funeral sermons sought the habit even on their deathbeds.

primo quia eam profitendo credit intrare ad Christum dominum; secundo quia se humiliando in presenti expectat certitudinaliter a deo honorificari in futuro, ut utrumque infra declarabitur.”

127 Schneyer no. 96, A f. 65ra: “Ergo sorori professe pro tam magno merito debetur multum magnum premium, scilicet preter coronam auream que est dei aperta cognitio et perfecta dilectio et beata fruitio, corona aureola que est gaudium quod habet de virginitate sua, et de omnibus aliis bonis suis supererogationis”; Schneyer no. 95, A f. 63vb: “honorificabit me , id est sublimabit usque ad coronam duplicem vite beate.”

128 Schneyer no. 96, A f. 64vb: “...soror professa est magni meriti apud deum, quia supra meritum commune, quod est neccessitatis et consistit in observantia divinorum preceptorum, est in ea meritum speciale quod est supererogationis, et consistit in observantia divinorum consiliorum et statutorum regularium que servat ex voto sollempni emisso in professione.”; Schneyer no. 95, A f. 63va: “...puella ingrediens religionem quamcumque esset bona bonitate communi, que est neccesitatis, utpote habens gratiam dei, tamen per talem ingressum fieret bona bonitate speciali, que est supererogationis, quod potest probari sic: persone sancte communiter dicuntur antonomice persone bone. Sed puella per ingressum religionis fit sancta, id est divinis serviciis mancipata, quantum ad omnia bona sua, scilicet exteriora et corporis et anime, per tria vota predicta. Ergo puella per ingressum religionis fit sancta et beata.”

129 Schneyer no. 94, A f. 63ra: “Ad modum enim sponse benedicitur in consecratione vel professione, et recipit a sponso Christo tunc magnum donum gratie baptismalis, ut legitur in Vitis Patrum et habetur in Secunda Secunde, q. ultima, articulo tertio, in solutione 3 argumenti”; Schneyer no. 95, A f. 63vb: “Legitur enim in Vitis Patrum et introducitur in Secunda Secunde q. ultima, articulo tertio, in solutione tertii argumenti, quod cuidam sancto patri divinitus est revelatum, quod persona religiosa in professione sua consequitur gratiam baptismalem, scilicet perfecte absolutionis ab omni culpa et pena”; Schneyer no. 96, A f. 64ra-b: “...in Vitis Patrum legitur et introducitur in Secunda Secunde, q. ultima, articulo tertio, in solutione tertii argumenti, quod cuidam sancto patri divinitus revelatum est quod persona proficens sanctam religionem in professione et per professione consequitur plenissimam absolutionem ab omni culpa et ab omni pena tantam quantam consequitur persona | que baptizatur in baptismo et per baptismum.”

305

For the notion of profession as a second baptism, John cites in all three cases the Lives of the Desert Fathers and – very precisely – Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae . Clearly he did not feel the need to moderate his scholastic vocabulary (or citation style) when addressing a female monastic audience. The scholastic tone is particularly pronounced in his third profession sermon, where, as Patrick Nold has demonstrated, John recycled a portion of the revised Dicta he submitted to Pope John XXII as part of the consultation preceding the papal bull Antique concertationi . John employs a series of canon law citations, culminating in a reference to “a certain new decretal issued and published at the Roman Curia by Pope John XXII.” 130 John uses these sources to argue that the nun’s religious profession surpasses priestly ordination because an unconsummated marriage can be dissolved by monastic profession, but not by the taking of holy orders.

Admittedly, the profession sermons may have been aimed at an audience that consisted of more than just nuns and friars. By the early modern period, convent entry ceremonies had become festive occasions reminiscent of weddings, attended by friends and family, and celebrated by songs and poems that helped to popularize the monastic life and raise the profile of individual convents. 131 But scholastic citations also appear in John’s visitation sermons, which were almost certainly directed at an audience solely of nuns. His visitation sermon for a female convent includes a reference to Aristotle’s Ethics , as well as Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy ,132 and the one for nuns or friars includes a Greek etymology and a reference to the De Anima .133 None of these citations are philosophically complex, but they do suggest that the nuns would have at

130 Nold, “How influential,” 644-6. The relevant passage of Schneyer no. 96 is edited and translated on p. 645-6.

131 Veronika Čapská, “Framing a Young Nun’s Initiation: Early Modern Convent Entry Sermons in the Habsburg Lands. Vestiges of a Lost Oral Culture,” Austrian History Yearbook 45 (2014): 33-60; Abigail Brundi, “On the Convent Threshold: Poetry for New Nuns in Early Modern Italy,” Renaissance Quarterly 65:4 (2012): 1125-65.

132 Schneyer no. 82, A f. 52vb: “...ad quam infirmitatem sanandam debet primo tali medico talis infirmus seu infirma culpam suam detegere, iuxta illud Boecii in primo De Consolatione , ‘Si opem medicantis expectas, necesse est ut vulnus detegas,” et secundo debet devote suscipere et facere abstinentias sibi a prelato impositas tanquam dietam, et alias penitentias tanquam medicinam, quia et secundum Philosophum in secundo Ethicorum , ‘pene sunt quedam medicine.’”

133 Schneyer no. 73, A f. 47ra: “Spiritualis arbor est homo, sicut dicebat quidam Mar. 8[:24], video homines quasi arbores . Unde et greco vocabulo homo vocatur arbor translata, quia, ut dicitur in secundo De anima , ‘Radices sunt ori similes.’”

306 least known who these philosophers were – or that John simply could not be bothered to adapt his style when addressing a female monastic audience. But since Neapolitan noble culture was thoroughly literate and multilingual, it stands to reason that the elite women who formed the core of San Pietro a Castello would have been conversant with Latin learned culture. 134

Elizabeth of Hungary and a whiff of sanctity

For the first two decades of its existence, the female monastic community at San Pietro a Castello was home to Elizabeth of Hungary. In a document of 1308, King Charles II granted a privilege of some fishing rights along the coast near Naples to the monastery, “in whose cloister resides our beloved sister the venerable lady Elizabeth, daughter of the King of Hungary of good memory, and other monastic women, living under the rule of St. Dominic.” 135 Elizabeth stands out in this text as the most important woman in the convent. Another document from eleven years later lists Elizabeth’s name even before those of the prioress Magalda and the prior Andreas de Suessa, indicating her prominent status.136 Antonella Ambrosio’s re-dating of the latter document indicates that Elizabeth did not die in 1313, as various historians have claimed without evidence, but was still alive on September 20, 1319. 137 She probably died soon after this

134 Cathleen A. Fleck makes a similar argument about the literacy of nuns at the similarly aristocratic Clarissan convent of Santa Maria Donna Regina in “‘To exercise yourself in these things by continued contemplation,’” 110- 11.

135 Naples, Biblioteca della Società Napoletana di Storia Patria, Perg. di S. Pietro a Castello 9.CC.I.5, catalogued in Ambrosio, Il monastero femminile , p. 9-10, no. 25: “Sane ad monasterium sancti Petri ad Castellum de Neapoli, quod sub speciali nostra protectione ac defensione consistit, pium habentes devotionis affectum, in cuius claustrali ambitu venerabilis mulier domina Elisabeth, filia bone memorie Regis Ungarie, soror nostra dilecta, alieque monastice mulieres degunt sub beati Dominici confessoris regula ipsum gratiosis favoribus libenter prosequimur...”

136 Naples, Biblioteca della Società Napoletana di Storia Patria, Perg. di S. Pietro a Castello 9.CC.I.14; Ambrosio, Il monastero femminile , p. 14, no. 42: “Elisabeth clare memorie illustrio Regio Ungarie filia, Magalda dei gratia monasterii sancti Petri ad Castellum de Neapoli ordinis predicatorum humilis priorissa, ac Conventuo sororum monalium eiusdem monasterii, et frater Andreas de Suessa, eiusdem ordinis, prior Conventus prefati monasterii, tenore presentium notum facimus universis earum seriem inspecturis, tam presentibus quam futuris...”

137 Elizabeth’s death date is given as ca. 1313 in sources such as Tanja Michalsky, Memoria und Repräsentation: die Grabmäler des Königshauses Anjou in Italien (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 278, and Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 61. Other historians have given later dates, also without explaining why: Gábor Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses: Dynastic Cults in Medieval Central Europe , trans. Eva Pálmai (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 262 says that Elizabeth died in 1323, and Di Meglio, Ordini mendicanti , 59 claims that she died in 1326. For the document cited in the previous note, Ambrosio argues for a date of 1319 rather than 1305 or 1343 on the basis of the indiction and the names of the priors mentiond in the document, who are attested in other documents from 1319-22; see Ambrosio, Il monastero femminile , 14.

307 document was issued, since in 1322 the accounts of the Dowager Queen Maria recorded expenses paid for the anniversary of her sister Elizabeth. 138 Although some Hungarian historians have claimed that Elizabeth returned to her first convent in Hungary and died there, there is no clear evidence for this tradition, and the fact that Maria’s accounts specify that Elizabeth’s body was buried in the church of San Pietro a Castello strongly suggest that she died in Naples. 139

John’s memorial sermons certainly help to support the image of Elizabeth as a charismatic leader. The first, a memorial sermon for a Dominican nun named Elizabeth, speaks of the deceased as a friend of God, who spurned earthly things through the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, and perpetually occupied herself in good works. 140 This rather generic description cannot be definitively identified with Elizabeth of Hungary, but since it is one of John’s only memorial sermons for women and his collection contains another sermon for the translation of the body of “sister Elizabeth,” who is clearly identified as the daughter of the King of Hungary, Boyer is probably right to say that the first sermon was for this Elizabeth as well. 141 In the latter sermon, Elizabeth is remembered as something like the convent’s founder: John says that the monastery was given to the sisters of the order “in the sight of her person,” and it is therefore fitting for the sisters to transfer her body from a low and humble place into a high and

138 Michalsky, Memoria und Repräsentation , 279, citing Minieri-Riccio, Studi storici su’fascicoli angioini dell’archivio della Regia Zecca di Napoli , 37, who quotes from a now-lost document: “Pro expensis factis in anniverario quondam dominae Elisabet sororis dictae reginae, cuius corpus sepultum fuit in ecclesia s. Petri ad Castellum.” Unfortunately, the month and day of Elizabeth’s anniversary were not specified. Michalsky dates the document to 1320, but Minieri-Riccio reports that these accounts came from a year in the fifth indiction, which would make 1322 make more sense.

139 Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 62, noted the existence of this tradition and suggested that Elizabeth’s body might have been transported at some later point to the island monastery in Budapest where she grew up. The assertion that she returned to die in Hungary is still repeated even in more recent publications like Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses , 262, and Gábor Klaniczay, Ildikó Csepregi, and Bence Péterfi, eds. The Oldest Legend: Acts of the Canonization Process, and Miracles of Saint Margaret of Hungary , trans. Ildikó Csepregi, Clifford Flanigan, and Louis Perraud (Budapest - New York: Central European University Press, 2018), 192-3n52. No supporting evidence is given for this statement in either case, and in the latter source the name of the Neapolitan convent is incorrectly given as “Santa Maria dei Castelli.”

140 Schneyer no. 40, A f. 27vb: “...et in despectu talium, scilicet terrenorum, et affectu divinorum, consistit spiritualis perfectio, quod fuit in presenti defuncta, quia despexit divitias per votum paupertatis, et delicias per votum castitatis, et honores et pompas per votum obedientie...”

141 Boyer, “Vertus privées et bien public,” 416. Elizabeth and the unnamed woman who took the habit on her deathbed commemorated in Schneyer no. 30 are the only female subjects of memorial sermons in John’s collection.

308 honourable one, so that they might hold her constantly in their memories with praises and prayers. 142 References in this sermon to Aquinas as a saint who has been canonized by the

Church indicate that the translation of Elizabeth’s remains must have taken place after 1323. 143

Other than referring to it as a tomb, John’s sermon gives no details about the new place to which the sisters were moving Elizabeth’s body. 144 It may well have resembled the elevated tombs created for various members of the Angevin dynasty in Naples under King Robert’s patronage, often by the workshop of the Sienese sculptor Tino di Camaino. 145 Tombs of this sort survive in San Domenico Maggiore for the subjects of John’s other two translation sermons, John of Durazzo (d. 1335) and Philip of Taranto (d. 1332), both younger sons of Charles II and Maria of Hungary. 146 Elizabeth’s tomb might have borne greater resemblance to her sister Maria’s own funeral monument, completed between February 1325 and May 1326, which dominates the interior of the small Clarissan church of Santa Maria Donna Regina, on which Maria focused much of her patronage activities later in life. 147 Another possible point of comparison is the tomb created for Queen Sancia of Majorca (d. 1345) in the early 1350s, which reflected her entry into Franciscan convent of Santa Croce di Palazzo in Naples after her husband Robert’s death with a dramatic depiction of the queen presiding over a feast of loaves and fishes while clothed in nun’s robes, with her crown at her feet.148

142 Schneyer no. 60, chapter appendix, § 7.

143 Michalsky, Memoria und Repräsentation , 114, argues that it occurred sometime during the 1330s, given the dates of most of the other sermons in John’s collection, which is certainly a plausible suggestion.

144 Schneyer no. 60, chapter appendix, § 7.

145 Michalsky, Memoria und Repräsentation , 278-9.

146 The sermons in question are Schneyer nos. 58 (John of Durazzo) and 59 (Philip of Taranto); John’s sermon collection also contains three funeral and anniversary sermons for Philip (Schneyer nos. 25, 26, and 141). For discussion of the tombs, see Michalsky, Memoria und Repräsentation , 310-4 and 320-4.

147 Tanja Michalsky, “ Mater serenissimi principis : The tomb of Maria of Hungary,” trans. Alexandra Gajewski, in The Church of Santa Maria Donna Regina, 61-77, and Michalsky, Memoria und Repräsentation , 289-97.

148 Aislinn Loconte, “Constructing Female Sanctity in Late Medieval Naples: The Funerary Monument of Queen Sancia of Majorca,” in Representing Medieval Genders and Sexualities in Europe: Construction, Transformation, and Subversion, 600-1530 , ed. Elizabeth L’Estrange and Alison More (London: Routledge, 2011), 107-25; Francesco Aceto, “Un’opera ‘ritrovata’ di Pacio Bertini: il sepolcro di Sancia di Maiorca in Santa Croce a Napoli e la questione dell’ ‘usus pauper’,” Prospettiva 100 (2000): 27-35. The tomb was destroyed in the nineteenth century,

309

John’s translation sermon for Elizabeth describes her as an exemplary nun and implies that her noble birth and high status made her virtues all the more valuable. 149 The sermon plays up Elizabeth’s noble heritage. As in his translation sermons for the two Angevin princes, John asserts that there are two types of goodness, both of which the deceased possessed: extrinsic goodness of the flesh, which belongs to those of noble birth, and intrinsic, mental goodness, which belongs to the virtuous. 150 He employs an analogy also found in both of his translation sermons for the Angevin princes: just as something in a high place, be it lovely as light or ugly as a gibbet, can be seen by many, so the deceased’s high birth and worldly status meant that their goodness or wickedness could be observed by many. 151 The analogy was probably adapted from one of his memorial sermons for King Charles II, where John elaborated that spiritual goodness in a person of high status is not only widely noticed, but also serves as an example for many, making the good works of persons of high status worth much more than those done by private persons. 152 Likewise, one of his sermons for a noblewoman’s monastic profession suggests that the woman’s heavenly reward will be due in part to the number of others she has led down the same path through her own example. 153

but it can be partially reconstructed from the drawings of the eighteenth-century French historian Jean Baptiste Seroux d’Agincourt in Vat. lat. 9840, f. 58v-59r.

149 On the broader associations between nobility and hereditary sanctity in fourteenth-century Naples, see Boyer, “La noblesse,” esp. 570-3.

150 Schneyer no. 60, chapter appendix, § 4.

151 Schneyer no. 60, chapter appendix, § 5. An identical passage appears in Schneyer no. 58 (John of Durazzo), A f. 37ra, and Schneyer no. 59 (Philip of Taranto), A f. 37vb.

152 Schneyer no. 39, A f. 27rb: “...existens in loco eminenti a pluribus videri potest, sive tale quid sit pulcrum ad videndum, ut lumen, sive sit turpe, ut patibulum. Sic et spiritualiter bonum et malum existens in persona constituta in dignitate aliqua seculari vel ecclesiastica pluribus innotescit et a pluribus trahitur ad exemplum. Et per consequens si est male dicendum est esse peius quam si esset in aliqua privata persona, quia ad plures diffunditur; et per oppositum, si est bonum dicendum est esse melius. Dominus autem Karolus fuit persona magne dignitatis, scilicet regalis, et idcirco talis singularis eius dignitas ostendit predicta bona opera, scilicet caritatis, que fuerunt in ipso fuisse multo meliora quam si ipsemet non fuisset rex.”

153 Schneyer no. 95, A f. 63vb: “...de ea dici possit illud Ecclus. 15[:2] obviabit illi , scilicet Christo ad se in morte venienti, quasi mulier honorificata , scilicet multarum quas cum auxilio dei sui exemplo inducet ad sanctam religionem.”

310

Unfortunately, John’s sermon does not go into much detail about Elizabeth’s virtues. He asserts that religious persons possess a special virtue which consists in obeying the statutes of their order, and Sister Elizabeth, even beyond fulfilling her order’s statutes, did many other good things which were specific to herself. At this point, the preacher would have enumerated Elizabeth’s good deeds, but in order to save space, and perhaps also because they were too well- known to bother recording, this list was omitted in the manuscript. 154 Part of her virtues certainly stemmed from her dramatic shift in worldly status. In the third and final part of his translation sermon, John returns to Elizabeth’s noble birth, observing that if she had remained in the world she would have been a great queen, with many worldly riches, delights, and honours, yet she chose to give all these up through her profession to the religious life, opting to be poor and suffer many torments of the flesh and submit to the authority of all the prelates of the order. 155 As one of his profession sermons puts it, a noblewoman who enters the religious life deprives herself for the sake of God of everything that makes a person great in this world. 156

John’s reference to Elizabeth performing works that went beyond fulfilling the statutes of her order is interesting because it calls to mind descriptions of two of her saintly female ancestors. Elizabeth of Thuringia-Hungary (d. 1231 and canonized in 1235) was the daughter of King Andrew II of Hungary, and joined the Franciscans after the death of her husband Louis of Thuringia, leading a brief and austere life under the direction of her confessor, Conrad of Marburg. 157 Her cult was actively promoted in Naples during John’s lifetime, as mentioned above, and Elizabeth was the only saint honoured in John’s sermon collection whose feast was still observed by the Dominicans with just a simple commemoration. Other royal tombs in

154 Schneyer no. 60, chapter appendix, § 4.

155 Schneyer no. 60, chapter appendix, § 7.

156 Schneyer no. 96, A f. 64vb: Sed soror profitens multum se humiliat propter deum profitendo, quia per tria vota predicta privat se omnibus, hoc est tribus bonis que faciunt personam magnam in mundo, scilicet mundi divitiis, et carnis deliciis, et actibus propriis. Ergo dignum et iustum est quod exaltetur a deo in futuro.”

157 Ottó Gecser, in his study of Elizabeth of Thuringia-Hungary’s cult, suggests that Maria of Hungary’s sister may have been the holy Dominican nun depicted in a miniature in the initial of the vespers antiphon for the feast of St. Elizabeth in an Italian Dominican antiphonary completed in the second half of the 1330s, Houghton Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, MS 1943.1866; see Gecser, The Feast and the Pulpit , 110.

311

Naples incorporated statues of this saint, and it seems very likely that the younger Elizabeth’s tomb would have alluded to her namesake. 158

In many ways, an even closer model for the younger Elizabeth would have been Margaret of Hungary, daughter of King Bela IV, niece of Elizabeth of Thuringia-Hungary, and Maria and Elizabeth’s aunt. Having been promised to God by her parents before her birth in exchange for the liberation of the Hungarian kingdom from the Mongols, Margaret was placed as a small child in a Dominican monastery constructed expressly for her on an island in the middle of the Danube, close to the Hungarian royal residence in Buda. She died there in 1270 at the age of 28, after a short life of harsh asceticism and resisting her father’s attempts to remove her and have her enter into dynastic marriages. 159 For a variety of reasons, the case for her canonization, launched in 1276, stalled at the papal court and did not achieve success until 1943, despite periodic efforts by Hungarian monarchs to revive it throughout the fourteenth century. 160 This did not stop the spread of her cult in Hungary and abroad, including the dissemination of a legend that Margaret had received the stigmata, which appears to have circulated in Italy during the mid-fourteenth century. 161 Legends based on the copious documentation of her canonization inquests proliferated, and in the later 1330s, the Hungarian queen commissioned a tomb in Margaret’s island monastery in Buda, by then a central site for her veneration, from Tino di Camaino or his workshop, very likely inspired by the same sculptor’s Angevin tombs in Naples. 162 She too might have featured in some way on Elizabeth’s tomb in San Pietro a Castello.

158 Gecser, The Feast and the Pulpit , 124-5.

159 Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses , 206.

160 Gábor Klaniczay, “Efforts at the Canonization of Margaret of Hungary in the Angevin Period,” trans. Alan Campbell, The Hungarian Historical Review 2.2 (2013): 313-40.

161 Klaniczay, “Efforts at the Canonization of Margaret of Hungary,” 324-5.

162 Viktória Hedvig Deák, “The Birth of a Legend: The so-called Legenda maior of Saint Margaret of Hungary and Dominican Hagiography,” Revue Mabillon n.s. 20 (= t. 81) (2009): 87-112; Klaniczay, “Efforts at the Canonization of Margaret of Hungary,” 322-3. The queen in question, Elizabeth Piast of Poland, was the fourth wife of Carobert, son of Charles II and Maria of Hungary’s eldest son Charles Martel. Through his grandmother’s efforts, Carobert had been established on the Hungarian throne.

312

According to Gábor Klaniczay, Margaret of Hungary seems to have been “expressly brought up to aspire to be worthy of the saintly dynasty into which she was born.” 163 The same might be said for Elizabeth, who was placed in her aunt’s monastery when she was about four years old. Her depositions for Margaret’s canonization inquest testify to her affection for her older relative, as well as an awareness of her ascetic practices: among other things, she recalled running to Margaret laughing as a little girl, putting her hand on her back, and feeling her hair shirt, as well as seeing her hands bleeding as she washed dishes, swept the convent, and prepared fish in icy conditions when they were on duty week together. 164 Margaret died when Elizabeth was in her mid-teens, and there is a childish tone to some of her memories of her aunt, such as a recollection of getting bored by Elizabeth’s lengthy prayers and leaving to go to sleep. However, she seems to have sincerely believed in Margaret’s sanctity, recounting several personal experiences of miraculous healings that she attributed to Margaret’s intercession. While we have no way of knowing whether she, like Margaret, scrubbed her fingers raw in service to her sisters, or sought permission to wash and kiss the feet of all the nuns of the monastery, drying them with her veil, as Margaret did each year, Elizabeth would certainly not have had to look far for models of female sanctity when engaging in the virtuous acts beyond the fulfillment of her order’s rule to which John alludes in his sermon. 165

The very act of translation, moving a corpse into a grander and more visible tomb, would undoubtedly have encouraged for John’s audience a certain amount of conflation with a type of canonization. 166 In the early Middle Ages, translation had functioned as a recognition of a deceased person’s sanctity, and even after the development of the official process of papal canonization during the central Middle Ages, translation was still frequently conflated with

163 Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses , 229-30.

164 For Elizabeth’s depositions, made in 1276 when she was 21 years old, see Klaniczay, Csepregi, and Péterfi, eds., The Oldest Legend , 193-203.

165 Ambrosio, “ Oratrices nostrae ,” 267-70, emphasizes the parallels between Elizabeth and Margaret, and the convents of San Pietro a Castello and the Dominican convent in Buda where Elizabeth grew up.

166 Boyer, “Vertus privées et bien public,” 430.

313 canonization on the popular level. 167 The creation of an elaborate tomb could coincide with the launching of an effort to promote a would-be saint’s canonization, as it did in Genoa for Margaret of Brabant in 1313 168 and in Naples for Queen Sancia of Majorca in 1352.169 John, who had testified for the canonization inquest of Thomas Aquinas and travelled to Avignon as chief procurator for the cause, was unlikely to confuse the simple translation of remains with the long and intensely bureaucratic process of papal canonization. And there is no evidence that such an effort was ever launched on Elizabeth’s behalf. Nonetheless, in the imaginations of his audience members, a translation ceremony must still have been redolent of sanctity, especially when combined with a sermon of the sort John gave.

That said, however, it is worth emphasizing that John makes no mention of the purported saintliness of Elizabeth’s Hungarian ancestors in his sermons, apart from discussing the goodness associated with nobility in general. In fact, unlike some of the other Angevin publicists who promoted the concept of the beata stirps , John never mentions the saints of the Arpád dynasty in any of his works. 170 Elizabeth’s translation sermon would have been a logical place to do so; his equivalent sermon for John of Durazzo draws attention to the recent canonization of two saints from the deceased’s family: Prince John’s own brother Louis of Toulouse, and King Louis IX of France, the brother of his grandfather King Charles I of Naples. 171 Yet in the parallel passage in Elizabeth’s sermon, John does not mention the saints among her ancestors. The reference to the “right or masculine line” ( lineam rectam seu masculinam ) in John of Durazzo’s sermon may provide a clue as to why: perhaps John believed hereditary sanctity could only pass through the male line. The absence of any mention of Elizabeth’s close connections with the blessed Margaret is particularly striking, and may indicate that John also held a conservative

167 André Vauchez, Sainthood in the later Middle Ages , trans. Jean Birrell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 19-20; 26-32; Robert Bartlett, Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things?: Saints and Worshippers from the Martyrs to the Reformation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013), 282-95.

168 Michalsky, “ Mater serenissimi principis ,” 70.

169 Loconte, “Constructing Female Sanctity in Late Medieval Naples,” 112-3.

170 Boyer, “Vertus privées et bien public,” 428.

171 Schneyer no. 58, A f. 36vb-37ra; see above, section 17.

314 attitude about the possibility of female Dominican sanctity, more characteristic of thirteenth- century friars, who basically ignored women’s cults. 172 His sermon for the woman who took the Dominican habit on her deathbed refers to saints Dominic, Peter Martyr, Thomas Aquinas, “and other brothers of the order who are in the blessed life,” implicitly excluding female saints such as Margaret. 173 And his visitation sermon for a female convent encourages the nuns to imitate “our father” Dominic, rather than any exemplary Dominican women whose experiences might have been closer to the nuns’ own.

5.5 Conclusion

In previous chapters, I have treated John as a teacher of theology. I have highlighted some of the areas of his thought that show a particularly Neapolitan influence, such as his interest in medicine, and others that are characteristically Dominican, such as his focus on pastoral care. This chapter has dealt with John’s preaching, that most characteristically Dominican activity, with an emphasis on sermons that were delivered in Dominican spaces and to Dominican audiences. A complementary image of John emerges from these sources. Clearly, when picturing the life of a master of theology like John, it would be a mistake to imagine him only writing, lecturing, or presiding over disputations. We should also imagine him on the road – always with at least one companion – travelling through the countryside on his way to one convent or another, laden with official texts and private messages. We should imagine him standing before the assembled members of a convent as he began his visitation, some shifting guiltily, some rapt at the arrival of an outsider, some bursting to confess their sins or snitch on those of others, moved by piety, malice, or a bit of both. We should strive to imagine his reaction at being elected to represent his convent to his order’s superiors; imagine his Neapolitan accent among the voices of friars gathering from across Christendom to elect a new leader. We should consider what it would have been like for a friar accustomed to the homosocial environments of convent and university to gaze out at a gathering of cloistered women, knowing that he was one of only a

172 Deák, “The Birth of a Legend,” 104-8.

173 Schneyer no. 30, A f. 21vb: “...et ad vicendum in tali pugna multum valet devotio ad religionem et eius sanctos, utpote beatum Dominicum, beatum Petrum Martirem, beatum Thomam de Aquino, et alios fratres ordinis qui sunt in vita beata.”

315 few men to penetrate those walls. Many of the sermons discussed in this chapter also demonstrate the extent to which John, as a theologian and a friar, was embedded in a particular political context. I have discussed some of the ways in which he employed his rhetorical skills and authority in the spiritual realm in support of the Angevin rulers of Naples, promoting the cults of dynastic saints and possibly even attempting to establish new ones, as in the case of Elizabeth of Hungary. The next and final chapter will explore some of the other ways in which John’s scholarship and sermons helped to support the reigning dynasty.

Appendix to Chapter 5

Partial transcription of the index to John’s sermon collection

Located on f. 107ra-110vb of A, and written in the same hand as the main text, the index illustrates the original scope of John’s sermon collection. What follows is a transcription of the section on sermons for saints. Where these are extant, I have indicated their location in the main collection and the number assigned to them by Schneyer.

|f. 108rb|

Incipit tabula super sermones de sanctis.

De sancto Andrea. Ascendam in palmam . [Cant. 7:8] 1

De sancto Nicholao. Tu autem in sancto habitas . [Ps. 21:4] 2

De sancta Lucia. Lux oriri visa est . [Esth. 8:16] 3

Item de eadem. Facta est lux . [Gen. 1:3] 4

Item de eadem. Vidit deus etc. [Gen. 1:4] 5

De sancto Thoma apostolo. Vidi dominum . [Gen. 32:30] 6

De beato Stephano. Elegerunt Stephanum . [Act. 6:5] 7

Item alius sermo de eodem festo. Stephanus plenus gratia etc. [Act. 6:8] 8

1 Schneyer no. 1, A f. 1ra-vb.

2 Schneyer no. 2, A f. 1vb-3ra.

3 Schneyer no. 3, A f. 3ra-vb.

4 Added in the margin in the same hand, rubricated in the same way as the main text. Schneyer no. 4, A f. 3vb-4rb.

5 Schneyer no. 5, A f. 4rb-va.

6 Schneyer no. 6, A f. 4va-5rb.

7 Schneyer no. 7, A f. 5rb-6ra.

8 Schneyer no. 8, A f. 6ra-vb.

316 317

In festo sancti Iohannis evangeliste. Puer Israel et ego dilexi eum . [Os. 11:1] 9

Item in eodem festo alius sermo. Ad preceptum tuum elevabitur . [Job 39:27] 10

In festo sanctorum innocentum. Ascendet in montem domini innocens . [Ps. 23:3] 11

Item in eodem festo alius sermo. Ascenderunt in montem Syon . [1 Macc. 5:54] 12

Item in eodem festo alius sermo. Pueros percusserunt gladio . [Job 1:15] 13

De beato Thoma archiepiscopo Cantuariensi. Bonus pastor . [John 10:11] 14

De beato Silvestro. Pontifex sanctus . [Hebr. 7:26] 15 De sanctis Fabiano et Sebastiano. |f. 108va| Iustorum anime in manu dei sunt . [Sap. 3:1] De sancta Agnete. Inveni quem diligit anima mea . [Cant. 3:4] Item de eadem alius sermo. Non est mortua puella etc. [Matt. 9:2] In festo sancti Vincentii martiris. Vincenti dabo manna absconditum . [Apoc. 2:17] In conversione sancti Pauli. Convertit mare in aridam . [Ps. 65:6] In festo purificationis beate virginis Marie. Suscipe hanc benedictionem . [I Sam. 25:27] Item in eodem festo alius sermo de evangelio. Dies purgationis Marie . [Luc. 2:22] In festo sancte Agathe. Non vereatur bona puella etc. [Jud. 12:12] In festo cathedre sancti Petri. Sedens in cathedra sapientissimus . [II Sam. 23:8] In festo sancti Mathie. Vocavi eum et benedixi ei et multiplicavi eum etc. [Is. 51:2] Sermo postulativus canonizationis sancti Thome de Aquino. Dedit abyssus vocem suam . [Hab. 3:10]

9 Schneyer no. 9, A f. 6vb-8ra.

10 Schneyer no. 10, A f. 8ra-9ra.

11 Schneyer no. 12 [ sic .], A f. 9ra-vb.

12 Schneyer no. 11 [ sic. ], A f. 9vb-10rb.

13 Schneyer no. 13, A f. 10va-11rb.

14 Schneyer no. 14, A f. 11rb-12ra. Catalogued in Roberts, Thomas Becket in the Medieval Latin Preaching Tradition , no. 25, p. 76. On p. 32-3, Roberts notes that John’s sermon uses the most common theme among the 184 sermons on Thomas Becket that she surveyed (of these, John 10:11 is used in 18 cases), and that it is an example of the popular theme of Thomas Becket as the Good Shepherd.

15 Schneyer no. 15, A f. 12ra-vb (incomplete). Discussed in Boyer, “Spirituel et temporel,” 273.

318

Item alius de eadem materia. Ad preceptum tuum elevabitur aquila . [Job 39:27] 16 Item in festo ipsius sancti Thome. Quasi vas auri solidum etc. [Ecclus. 50:10] Item in eodem festo. In medio ecclesie apperiet . [Ecclus. 15:5] Item in eodem festo. Unus est magister vester etc. [Matt. 23:8] Item in eodem festo. Qui fecerit et docuerit . [Matt. 5:19] Item in eodem festo. Honora patrem tuum . [Ex. 20:12 et aliis locis ] Item in eodem festo. Requiem dabit tibi . [Is. 58:11] Item in eodem festo. Transfiguratus est ante eos . [Matt. 17:2] Item in eodem festo Odor filii mei etc. [Gen. 27:27] 17 De beato Gregorio. Beatus homo qui audit . [Prov. 8:34] In festo sancti Benedicti. Benedixi ei et erit benedictus etc. [Gen. 27:33] In festo anunciationis beate Marie Virginis. Audierant quod visitasset . [Ex. 4:31] Item de eodem festo alius sermo de evangelio. Ave gratia plena . [Luc. 1:28] Item de eodem festo alius sermo. Introivit semel in sancta . [Heb. 9:12] 18 Item idem sermo abreviatus et aliqualiter variatus est in fine post titulos, et sermone de sancta Martha. 19 |f. 108vb| In festo sancti Ambrosii. Qui sequitur me . [John 8:12]

16 This may have been the sermon that Peter Canterii, OP, preached before the pope in John’s place because John had fallen sick; see Nold, “How Influential,” 632n18, quoting the “Récit anonyme,” in Fontes Vitae S. Thomae Aquinatis , 514: “Post dominum papam, predicavit fr. Petrus Canterii de ordine Predicatorum, tanquam qui negocium ducebat, quia magister Iohannes de Neapoli, procurator negocii sancti Thome, iacebat infirmus; et predicavit de hoc themate, inter omnes alios eleganter: Ad preceptum tuum elevabitur aquila, et in arduis ponet nidum suum [Job 39:27]” None of the other sermons listed in this account have the theme of the previous sermon, so its origins remain a mystery.

17 In the left margin, in a different hand, keyed to a mark at the end of the previous entry. This is Schneyer no. 113, A f. 112ra-va. This sermon is published in Taurisano, Discepoli e biografi , 68. According to a note in the margin next to the beginning this sermon, its delivery was intended to coincide with the Saturday of the second week of Lent; see f. 112ra: “Sabbato septimane secunde quadrigesimale, de lectione misse.”

18 A sermon on the same theme for Passion Sunday and the feast of the Annunciation is found in Paris, BnF lat. 14799, f. 164ra-b. The same sermon appears in Paris, BnF lat. 14973, f. 150r-152v, just labelled “De annunciatione domini.”

19 In the lower margin, in line with the bottom of this column, rubricated and in the same hand as the main text. This is Schneyer no. 132, A f. 111va-112ra.

319

De sancto Georgio. Usque ad mortem . [multis locis ] In festo sancti Marchi evangeliste. Ascendit leo de cubili suo . [Jer. 4:7] In festo sancti Petri martiris. Hic est qui venit per aquam . [I Joh. 5:6] Item in eodem festo alius sermo. Ecce equus albus . [Apoc. 6:2 sive Apoc. 19:11] Item in eodem festo. Petrus sequebatur eum . [Matt. 26:58] In festo apostolorum Philippi et Iacobi. Per fidem vicerunt . [Heb. 11:33] In festo inventionis sancte crucis. Effodientes thezaurum . [Job 3:21] In festo corone domini. Coronam de spinis . [Matt. 27:29 sive John 19:2] 20 In festo sancti Iohannis ante portam latinam. Protegetur sub tegmine . [Ecclus. 14:27] In festo translationis sancti Dominici. Enoch placuit deo . [Ecclus. 44.16] In festo sancte Barnabe. Erat vir bonus . [Act. 11:24] De sanctis Gervasio et Protasio. Multe tribulationes iustorum . [Ps. 33:20] In festo nativitatis beati Iohanne Baptiste. Fuit homo missus a deo . [John 1:6] Item in eodem festo. Gaudium est angelis . [Luc. 15:10?] Item alius sermo de eodem. Multi in nativitate eius gaudebunt . [Luc. 1:14] In festo sanctorum Iohannis et Pauli. Sunt eunuchi qui se. [Matt. 19:12] In festo apostolorum Petri et Pauli. Princeps et maximus . [II Sam. 3:38] Item in eodem festo. Assumpsit Ihesus Petrum . [Matt. 17:1 sive Marc. 9:1] In commendatione sancti Pauli. Bonum certamen certavi etc. [II Tim. 4:7] In festo sancte Margareta. Pretiosa margarita etc. [Matt. 13:46] In festo Sancte Marie Magdalene. Optimam partem elegit . [Luc. 10:42] Item in eodem festo alius sermo. Remittuntur ei . [Luc. 7:47] In festo sancti Iacobi apostoli. Occidit Iacobum fratrem etc. [Act. 12:2] De sancta Martha. Diligebat Ihesus Martham . [John 11:5] 21

De sancta Anna. Anne dedit patrem suam . [I Sam. 1:5] 22

20 In the lower margin, rubricated and in the same hand as the main text, more or less in line with the bottom of this column, and keyed to a mark beside this entry.

21 Schneyer no. 131, A f. 110vb-111ra A note above this sermon on f. 110vb indicates its proper location: “Iste sermo debet esse supra inter sermones de sanctis immediate post festum sancti Iacobi.”

22 This entry was initially miscopied and crossed out by the rubricator between the sermons for St. James the Apostle and St. Martha.

320

|f. 109ra| In advincula sancti Petri. Disrupisti vincula mea . [Ps. 115:7] In inventione sancti Stephani. Descendit hic iustificatus . [Luc. 18:14] Item alius sermo de eodem themate in eodem festo. Descendit . [Luc. 18:14] In festo beati Dominici. Qui custos est domini sui . [Prov. 27:18] Item in eodem festo. Qui fecerit et docuerit . [Matt. 5:19] Item in eodem festo. Quasi stella matutina in medio nebule . [Ecclus. 50:6] Item alius sermo in eodem festo. Misit servum suum . [Luc. 14:17] In festo sancti Laurentii. Visitasti nocte igne etc. [Ps. 16:3] De sancto Ypolito et sociis eius. State in fide . [I Cor. 16:13] In festo assumptionis beate Marie virginis. Humilem spiritu suscipiet . [Prov. 29:23] Item in eodem festo alius sermo. Te assumam et regnabis . [I Reg. 11:37] Item in eodem festo. Astitit regina a dextris tuis etc. [Ps. 44:10] Item in eodem festo. Regina austri etc. [Matt. 12:42 sive Luc. 11:31] De sancto Bernardo Abbate. Nardus mea dedit . [Cant. 1:11] De sancto Bartholomeo. Cum ipso sum in tribulatione . [Ps. 90:15] De sancto Ludovico Rege Francorum. Magnificatus est rex . [I Reg. 10:23] Item de eodem. Bene omnia fecit . [Marc. 7:37] 23 Item de eodem. Videte regem Salomonem . [Cant. 3:11] In festo beati Augustini. Qui fecerit et docuerit . [Matt. 5:19] De decollatione beati Iohanne Baptiste. Iustus de angustia liberatus est . [Prov. 11:8] In nativitate beate Virginis. Orietur stella ex Iacob . [Num. 24:17] Item alius sermo de eodem themate. Orietur stella ex Iacob . [Num. 24:17] Item in eadem nativitate alius sermo. Lux oriri visa est . [Esth. 8:16] In festo exaltationis sancte crucis. Amice ascende superius . [Luc. 14:10] Item in eodem festo. Exaltavi lignum humile . [Eze. 17:24] |f. 109rb| In festo sancti Mathei. Vidit hominem etc. [Matt. 9.9]

23 A sermon for the same subject, on the same theme, is found in Paris, BnF, lat. 14799, f. 161rb-163rb. It also appears in Vat. Borgh. 247, f. 160v-161r.

321

De sanctis Mauricio et sociis eius. Omnis multitudo sanctorum . [Num. 16:3] Item de eisdem. Numquid est numerus militum . [Job 25:3] De sanctis Cosma et Damiano. Super egros manus imponent . [Marc. 16:18] De sancto Vencellao. Tu in sancto habitas . [Ps. 21:4] In festo angelorum. Angeli eorum in celis . [Matt. 18:10] De sancto Ieronimo. Iustum deduxit dominus . [Sap. 10:10] De sancto Francisco. Christo confixus sum . [Gal. 2:19] De sancto Dyonisio. Sapientissimus princeps inter tres . [II Sam. 23:8] De sancto Luca evangelista. Salutat vos Lucas medicus . [Col. 4:14] De sanctis apostolis Symone et Iuda. Divites facti estis . [I Cor. 1:5] In festo omni sanctorum. Illa que sursum est Ierusalem . [Gal. 4:26] Item in eodem festo. Gloria hec est omnibus sanctis . [Ps. 149:9] Item in eodem alius sermo. Omnis multitudo . [Num. 16:3 et aliis locis ] Item in eodem. Dilexit populos etc. [Deut. 33:3] In commemoratione omnium fidelium defunctorum. Salubris est cogitatio per defunctis etc. [II Macc. 12:46] Item idem sermo de eodem themate parum variatus post titulos . l . 24 Item de eisdem. Beati mortui qui in domino . [Apoc. 14:13] De beato Martino. Stetit sol in medio . [Jos. 10:13] De sancta Helizabet. Helizabet impletum est tempus . [Luc. 1:57] 25 De sancta Cecilia. Diffusa est gratia in labiis tuis . [Ps. 44:3] De sancto Clemente. Servus meus es tu . [Is. 41:9/44:21/49:3] De sancta Katerina. Non est mortua puella sed dormit . [Matt. 9:24]

Explicit tabula sermonum de sanctis

24 In the right margin, in a different hand, keyed to a mark beside the previous entry. This is Schneyer no. 140, A f. 119ra-120ra, which is not for a saint, but rather the anniversary of the death of a great lord who is said to have frequently fought for the faith and the church.

25 The theme John employs was only used in one other instance, by the Franciscan friar Paolo Boncagni of Perugia (fl. ca. 1340), in the hundred or so surviving Elizabeth sermons surveyed in Gecser, The Feast and the Pulpit ; on Paulo’s sermons, see p. 240-1.

322

Schneyer no. 60: Sermon for the translation of the remains of Elizabeth of Hungary 26

1 In translatione corporis sororis Helizabeth

2 Ante translationem testimonium habuit placuisse deo. Ad Hebr. 11[:5]. Humilium et mansuetorum semper tibi placuit deprecatio . Judith 9[:16]. In principio sermonis, pro impetranda gratia verbi dei, humiliter et mansuete deprecemur deum, cui, ut dicitur in verbis secundo propositis, humilium et mansuetorum semper tibi placuit deprecatio , loco deprecationis premittendo salutationem virgis, et dicendo Ave etc.

3 Ante translationem etc. Gregorius, 15 Moraliarum , dicit quod scriptura sacra cunctas doctrinas atque scientias ipso sue loqutionis more transcendit, quia uno eodemque sermone dum narrat gestum prodit misterium. 27 Ex quibus verbis patet quod omnis scriptura humanitus adinventa habet unicum sensum tantum, scilicet literalem; scriptura autem sacra, quia est divinitus inspirata, habet duos sensus in genere, scilicet ystoricum seu literalem, et misticum seu spiritualem. Quos duos sensus possunt habere verba primo proposita, quia secundum sensum literalem dicuntur de Enoch, ut patet per ea que ibi premittuntur, qui interpretur dedicatio; secundum autem sensu spiritualem intelligi et exponi possunt de sorore Helizabet dedicata divinis serviciis in professione religionis, quia in voto simplici est sola promissio que fit deo; in voto autem sollempni cum promissione est dedicatio ad servicium dei, et votum sollempnizatur in duobus casibus, scilicet in susceptione sacri ordinis et in professione religionis, ut dicitur extra Libro sexto, ‘de voto et voti redemptione,’ ‘quod votum’ [VI 3.15.1]. Secundum quem modum verba primo proposita intelligendo et exponendo soror Helizabet, ad cuius corporis translationem congregati sumus, describitur seu commendatur tripliciter: 28 primo siquidem ut adornata magna bonitatis perfectione, cum dicitur placuisse deo ; secundo ut

26 A f. 38ra-39ra

27 Gregoria the Great, Moralia in Job, 20.1.

28 In marg. : Divisio

323

approbata multa veritatis assertione, cum dicitur quod testimonium |A f. 60rb| habuit ; tertio ut sublimata mira dignitatis positione, cum dicitur ante translationem .

4 Quantum ad primum, 29 est sciendum quod Ecclus. 13[:19] dicitur omne animal diligit sibi simile , ex quo patet quod similitudo per se est causa dilectionis, ut dicitur circa principium octavi Ethicorum .30 Bonitas ergo que persona bona assimilatur deo, qui est bonitas pura et infinita, facit personam bonam deo placitam et dilectam. Bonitas autem est duplex quantum spectat ad presens, scilicet extrinseca carnis per attinentiam quam habent persone generose, quia generositas seu nobilitas carnis est bonitas generis seu progenitorum, a quibus persona generosa trahit originem, et intrinseca mentis per inherentiam quam habent persone virtuose, ‘quia virtus est que bonum facit habentem et opus eius bonum reddit,’ ut dicitur in secundo Ethicorum .31 Et soror Helizabet habuit utramque bonitatem, quia fuit persona multum generosa, scilicet filia regis Ungarie, et multum virtuosa, quia fuit persona religiosa, soror ordinis predicatorum, et in personis religiosis, preter virtutem generalem cunctis iustis hominibus, que consistit in observationem mandatorum dei, est virtus specialis solis sanctis claustralibus, que consistit in adimpletione statutorum ordinis sui et consiliorum Christi. Et soror Helizabet preter statuta ordinis sui multa alia bona faciebat pecularia sibi, que enumera. Ergo ipsa deo placuit, adimplens illud Ad Ro. 12[:1], Exibeatis corpora vestra hostiam viventem, sanctam, deo placentem , et Ad Col. 1[:10], Ambuletis digne deo per omnia placentes . Et hoc de primo.

5 Quantum autem ad secundum, 32 est sciendum quod istud secundum potest probari ex primo dupliciter, secundum duas partes ipsius primi membri. Primo sic: Sicut in corporalibus existens in eminenti loco multis apparet, sive sit pulcrum ad videndum, ut

29 In marg. : Primum

30 Aristotle, Ethica ad Nicomachum VIII.2, 1155 b 7-8; cf. Auctoritates Aristotelis , p. 242, no. 141.

31 Aristotle, Ethica ad Nicomachum II.5, 1106 a 16; cf. Aquinas, Super I Sent. , d. 19, q. 3, a. 1; Summa Theologiae Ia-II ae , q. 21, a. 2.

32 In marg. : Secundum

324

lumen, sive sit turpe, ut patibulum, sic in spiritualibus bonitas et malitia existens in persona excellentis gradus vel generis a multis scitur et videtur, et per consequens multorum testimonium habet, secundum regulam Christi, dicentis Io. 3[:11], Quod scimus loquimur, et |A f. 38va| vidimus testamur . Soror autem Helizabet fuit multum generosa, et idcirco eius bonitas propter quam placuit deo habuit testimonium duplex in genere, scilicet intrinsecum conscientie proprie, ut dicitur potuerit cum Apostolo, 2 Ad Cor. 1[:12], Gloria nostra hec est: testimonium conscientie nostre , et extrinsecum multarum personarum eam cognoscentium. Oportet enim testimonium habere ab hiis qui foris sunt , ut dicitur 1 Ad Tim. 3[:3].

6 Secundo sic: dictum est quod soror Helizabet fuit soror ordinis predicatorum. Ordo autem predicatorum habet multiplex testimonium, scilicet duplex in genere, videlicet divinum, quia est ordo approbatus per summum pontificem dei vicarium, et humanum, quia in eo fuerunt et sunt persone sancte vite, et clare fame, et magne sapientie, et multe doctrine, et multiplicis gratie gratis date, etiam miraculorum, inter quas personas sunt tres precipue ab ecclesia canonizate, scilicet sanctus Dominicus, et sanctus Thomas de Aquino, et sanctus Petrus Martir. De quo duplici testimonio intelligi et exponi potest illud 1 Io. 5[:7-8], Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in celo , scilicet ordini predicatorum: pater , scilicet ordinem in fratribus multiplicando, verbum , eos doctrina verbi dei et sapientia illustrando, et spiritus sanctus , eis sanctitatis exempla et opera inspirando; et tres sunt qui testimonium dant , scilicet eidem ordini in terra, scilicet quantum ad corpora, spiritus , id est sanctus Dominicus, pater spiritualis ordinis totius, et aqua , id est sanctus Thomas de Aquino, doctor egregius, et sanguis , id est sanctus Petrus Martir, qui pro Christo sanguine suum fudit. Et hoc de secundo.

7 Quantum atuem ad tertium, 33 est sciendum quod istud etiam tertium sequitur ex primo.

Secundum enim Philosophum in quarto Physicorum , locus debet congruere locato, 34 sic quod honorabili persone debetur honorabilis locus. Soror autem Helizabet fuit persona

33 In marg. : Tertium

34 cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III, q. 57, a. 1; Super II Sent. , d. 6, q. 1, a. 3, arg. 3; Summa Contra Gentiles IV, c. 87, n. 1.

325 multum honorabilis, tam carne, quia fuit multi generosa, quam mente, quia fuit multum virtuosa, et honor debetur virtuti, et fuit magna amica dei, cui dicit Ps. [138:17], Nimis honorati sunt amici tui deus , quod sic declarari potest: 1 Io. 2[:15-16] dicitur |A f. 38vb| Si quis diligit mundum, non est caritas patris in eo, quoniam omne quod est in mundo concupiscentia carnis est, aut concupiscentia oculorum, aut superbia vite. Ergo per oppositum, si quis non diligit mundum, sed despicit et abicit, est caritas patris in eo, que est amicitia dei, sicut et in corporalibus corpus quod accedit ad locum deorsum recedit a loco sursum et e converso. Soror autem Helizabet despexit et abiecit mundum in professione religionis, et omne que est in mundo, hoc est tria predicta, scilicet concupiscentiam carnis seu delicias per castitatem et abstinentias et vigilias et disciplinas et alias regulares observantias, et concupiscentiam oculorum seu divitias per votum paupertatis, et superbiam vite seu mundanos honores per votum obedientie et humilitatis, quia si remansisset in seculo fuisset magna regina, et habundasset multis et magnis divitiis et deliciis et honoribus mundanis. Profitendo autem religionem, voluit esse paupercula et multipliciter secundum carnem afflicta et omnibus prelatis ordinis subiecta. Ergo decuit quod transferretur ad locum multum honorabilem, hoc est ad celum empireum, quantum ad spiritum quidem post mortem; quantum autem ad carnem et spiritum post generale resurrectione, ut de eius spiritu intelligi et exponi possit illud Ecclus. 44[:16], Enoch , id est spiritus sororis Helizabet dedicatus divinis serviciis in professione religionis, placuit deo et translatus est in paradysum . Et de translatione eius que erit post generalem resurrectionem intelligi et exponi possit illud Ad Hebr. 7[:12], neccesse est , scilicet secundum dei priordinationem infallibilem, ut legis , id est sororis Helizabet regularis professionis et regulate in actibus suis (lex enim est regula humanorum actuum), translatio , scilicet quantum ad animam et corpus, fiat , scilicet post generalem resurrectionem. Decuit etiam quod sorores transferrent corpus eius de loco ymo et humili ad locum altum et honorabilem ad hoc, quod haberent eius iugem memoriam cum laudibus et sanctis orationibus |A f. 39ra| tanquam grate beneficiis ab ea receptis, quia monasterium cum omnibus bonis suis datum est sororibus ordinis intuitu persone sue (et finis est summa causa et causa causarum secundum philosophos), de qua translatione intelligi et exponi potest illud 1 Reg. 4[:21-22], Translata est gloria , id est soror Helizabet, gloria totius ordinis generaliter ratione sui magni generis, et huius monasterii specialiter, translata est, scilicet quantum ad corpus ad tumbam presentem, et

326 quantum ad animam ad vitam felicem, ad quam nos perducat deus, qui vivit et regnat per omnia secula seculorum. Amen.

Chapter 6 A Scholar in the Service of the Crown

As demonstrated in the first chapter of this thesis, John is a good example of a friar of noble origins who maintained close ties with local secular powers after taking the habit. Something of a protégé of King Charles II, he went on to serve King Robert and Queen Johanna of Naples as a counsellor, administrator, and familiar. Various scholars have pointed out that his memorial sermons for Charles II and other members of the Angevin dynasty and royal court, together with his sermons for political occasions such as processions, made him a quasi-official spokesman for the rulers of the Kingdom of Naples. For instance, Samantha Kelly, following Jean-Paul Boyer, describes John as a veritable “Angevin publicist,” arguing that as a preacher he was actively engaged in disseminating some of the core elements of early-fourteenth-century Angevin propaganda. 1 John was not the only “publicist” working for the Neapolitan monarchs. Rather, his sermons are part of a broader phenomenon of pro-Angevin preaching, not only by other mendicants like Remigio de’ Girolami, James of Viterbo, Bertrand de la Tour, Francis of Meyronnes, and Federico Franconi, but also by lay preachers, most notably the logothete Bartholomew of Capua and King Robert of Naples himself. 2

Far less attention has been paid to the way John talks about politics in his academic works. It is not surprising to find an early-fourteenth-century theologian discussing political questions in his quodlibets; as Roberto Lambertini has shown, theological quodlibets are a valuable source for studying later medieval political theory. 3 Elsa Marmursztejn has argued that Parisian masters such as Godfrey of Fontaines and Henry of Ghent did not shy away from passing moral judgement on princely legislation in their quodlibets, much like they claimed the authority to evaluate the normative power of ecclesiastical officials, up to and including the pope. 4 Even in

1 Kelly, The New Solomon , 36; Boyer, “Les Baux,” 428.

2 Boyer, “Prédication et État”; Pryds, The King Embodies the Word ; D’Avray, Death and the Prince .

3 Roberto Lambertini, “Political Quodlibeta ,” in Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages, volume 1, 439-74. Lambertini did not have access to John’s quodlibets.

4 Marmursztejn, L’autorité des maîtres, esp. 139-54; see also Marmursztejn, “A Normative Power in the Making,” esp. 378-85.

327 328 the early days of the University of Paris, Peter the Chanter and his circle took a keen interest in political matters, discussing a wide range of ethical questions that touched not only on the morality of royal legislation, but also on their own involvement with the French court. 5 John’s Neapolitan origins and his life-long connections with the Angevin monarchs, however, set him apart from the theologians studied by the aforementioned scholars. So does the fact that most of his scholastic works stem not from his teaching at the University of Paris, which in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries was increasingly looked to by the French king as a source of political support, 6 but rather from the Dominican studium generale in Naples, in which the Neapolitan rulers took an active interest.

The first part of this chapter gives a brief overview of the existing scholarship on John’s political preaching, and then takes a closer look at one of his political sermons that has largely been neglected: a late sermon presenting Queen Johanna of Naples to the pope. I argue that John’s sermon grants Johanna greater agency than many other contemporary sources, and treats her as sole ruler of the Kingdom of Naples, minimizing the importance of her second husband, Louis of Taranto, who would shortly try to seize power for himself. The second part of the chapter looks at the way John treated questions about royal succession in his quodlibets. I show that his quodlibetal question on whether it is better to have a king by succession or election is in conversation with works of political theory that were common in early-fourteenth-century Dominican classrooms, and that the negative views on female rulership expressed in his early quodlibets contrast sharply with his support for Queen Johanna later in life.

The latter half of this chapter examines the ways in which John exercised his authority as a self- styled expert in natural law to make pronouncements about political matters. The third part considers John’s academic writings on the powers of popes and princes. Like other scholars associated with the early-fourteenth-century Neapolitan court, John was a staunch defender of

5 Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants , 1.161-257.

6 William J. Courtenay, “Learned Opinion and Royal Justice: The Role of Paris Masters of Theology During the Reign of Philip the Fair,” in Law and the Illicit in Medieval Europe , ed. Ruth Mazo Karras, Joel Kaye, and Ann Matter (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 149-63; William J. Courtenay and Karl Ubl, Gelehrte Gutachten und königliche Politik im Templerprozeß (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 2010); Ian P. Wei, “The masters of theology at the university of Paris in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries: an authority beyond the schools,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 75 (1993): 37-63.

329 papal supremacy. He argued that secular rulers were above the laws of their kingdoms, but also encouraged them to follow those laws whenever possible, intervening only occasionally out of zeal for mercy and justice. Yet, when responding to questions that directly pertained to the actions of the king of Naples, which are discussed in the fourth part of the chapter, John typically found a way to sanction the king’s actions, even when they seemed to contradict natural law. Thus, as was the case with the question of female rulership discussed in the first half of the chapter, John seems to have employed two different modes of thinking when dealing with political matters. When questions were purely academic, he tended to follow his training as a Dominican and master of theology steeped in the tradition of Aristotelian political theory. But when it came to engaging with contemporary politics, he took a much more pragmatic approach.

6.1 Political preaching

Through his preaching, John helped to disseminate the concept of a saintly Angevin bloodline, or beata stirps .7 Thanks to a series of marriages between the Capetian and Arpád dynasties, the early-fourteenth-century rulers of Naples could claim to be descended from two distinguished lines of saints, going back to King Louis IX of France on the one hand and the saintly kings of Hungary on the other. More recent examples included Robert’s own brother, Louis of Toulouse, and Margaret of Hungary, the aunt of Charles II’s wife Maria of Hungary. As discussed in the previous chapter, when promoting the Angevins’ claims to sanctity, John only ever made reference to the male (Capetian) line, which boasted the two saints Louis. Yet his sermons in memory of Elizabeth of Hungary, who ended her days in the Dominican monastery of San Pietro a Castello, seem to be tending in a similar direction as his sermons for Angevin kings and princes in linking virtue and noble birth. As Jean-Paul Boyer has observed, John also applied the idea of

7 Kelly, The New Solomon , 119-29; Gábor Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, 295-322, esp. 310, and Klaniczay, “La noblesse et le culte des saint dynastiques sous les rois angevins,” in La noblesse dans les territoires angevins à la fin du Moyen Age , 511-26; Boyer, “La foi monarchique: royaume de Sicile et Provence (mi-XIII e-mi- XIV e siècle),” in Le forme della propaganda politica nel Due e Trecento , ed. Paolo Cammarosano (Rome: École française de Rome, 1994), 85-110; André Vauchez, “ ‘Beata Stirps’ : sainteté et lignage en Occident aux XIII e et XIV e siècles,” in Famille et parenté dans l’occident médiéval , ed. Georges Duby and Jacques de Goff (Rome: École française de Rome, 1977), 397-407, esp. 402-3.

330 hereditary sanctity, or at least hereditary virtue, to non-royal (but still noble) families, such as the Baux and Aquinas. 8

Building on this concept, John depicted the Angevins as divinely appointed rulers for what he termed the “mystical Jerusalem” of Naples. 9 In his sermons, he describes this dynasty as holier than the other royal houses of the earth. 10 He characterizes the Angevin monarchs as great examples of charity and piety, citing Charles II’s almsgiving and ecclesiastical patronage, as well as his personal religious devotion, and his special relationship with Mary Magdalene, whose relics Charles claimed to have discovered in Provence. 11 John’s sermons worked in tandem with those of other preachers, as well as visual media, such as the royal tombs discussed in the previous chapter, to help legitimize the Angevin dynasty’s rule over the Kingdom of Naples. They also flattered the monarchs, helping John to win favour for himself and perhaps also his convent and order.

John on Johanna

Scholarship on John’s political preaching has concentrated on sermons that he delivered during the reign of King Robert of Naples, neglecting the sermon he preached on behalf of Robert’s granddaughter and successor. Queen Johanna of Naples came to power in her late teens, and as I argued in Chapter 1, she seems to have regarded John as someone who could be relied on in difficult times. When she fled Naples for Avignon in early 1348 in advance of the Hungarian occupation, John was a member of her party. He was the one who preached before Pope Clement VI on her behalf when she arrived in Avignon to seek papal support for her second marriage and continued claim to the throne. 12 This sermon merits closer attention than it has previously

8 Boyer, “La noblesse,” “Les Baux,” and “ Sapientis est ordinare .”

9 Kelly, The New Solomon , 100.

10 Schneyer no. 104, A f. 69vb: “...dominus dux est de domo Francie, que super omnes domos mundi fuit et est magis sancta...” The full sermon is edited in Boyer, “Processions civiques et prédication.”

11 For discussion, see d’Avray, Death and the Prince , 104-6; 148-50.

12 See above, Chapter 1, section 2.6. The sermon in question is Schneyer no. 136, most of which (apart from the last 11 lines) is published in Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 70-1.

331 received, especially in light of Elizabeth Casteen’s recent work on contemporary representations of Johanna, which did not take this sermon into account.

Casteen argues that in the aftermath of the murder of her first husband, Andrew, Johanna’s femininity was seized upon by both supporters and detractors, who cast her either as a pitiable and helpless female victim, or a vicious example of unbridled female lust. 13 John, however, does not dwell on Johanna’s sex, beyond describing her as the daughter and faithful vassal of the pope, “and my lady.” 14 His chosen theme for the sermon, “A great queen came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon,” (Matt. 12:42) implicitly links Johanna with the fabled Queen of Sheba, a complex figure in late medieval Christian thought, but certainly not an icon of female frailty. 15 When speaking of the great distance Johanna had travelled to meet the pope, he places the financial hardships of this journey before the personal ones. 16 Overall, although John depicts Johanna as subordinate to the pope and in need of his wisdom and guidance, he does not link these characteristics explicitly to her sex.

Throughout the sermon, John stresses Johanna’s political autonomy. He makes no reference to her former or current husband, presenting her as sole ruler of the kingdom of Naples by hereditary right. At the outset of the sermon, he emphasizes her “noble condition,” proclaiming

13 Casteen, From She-Wolf to Martyr , 50-3.

14 Schneyer no. 136, A f. 113va: “ Regina austri venit a finibus terre audire sapientiam Salomonis , Matt. 12[:42]. Domine sancte pater, videtur mihi quod verba proposita continent tria ad Ierusalem et Sicilie reginam hic presentem spectantia, filiam vassallam vestram, et dominam meam.”

15 In the central and later Middle Ages, the Queen of Sheba’s visit to Solomon was most commonly interpreted as a prefiguration of the Adoration of the Magi. Like Mary, the Queen of Sheba was taken to stand typologically for the Church; she could also signify the gentiles who came to Christianity of their own free will. She also figured positively in the legend of the True Cross, as popularized by the thirteenth-century Dominican Jacobus de Voragine. See Paul F. Watson, “The Queen of Sheba in the Christian Tradition,” in Solomon & Sheba , ed. James B. Pritchard (London: Phaidon, 1974), 115-45, esp. 115-24; Jean Devisse, “The Black and His Colour: From Symbols to Realities,” in The Image of the Black in Western Art, vol. II.1: From the Early Christian Era to the “Age of Discovery”: From the Demonic Threat to the Incarnation of Sainthood , New Edition, ed. David Bindman and Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (Cambridge, Mass.: Bellknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2010), 73-138, at 120-8.

16 Schneyer no. 136, A f. 113vb: “Ipsa enim sicut humilis et devota filia et vassalla venit ad vos, sanctissimum patrem et dominum, a finibus terre , hoc est longinquis partibus, cum multis expensis et labore persone.”

332 that she is a queen descended from a very noble line of French kings on both sides. 17 Although John did not run through Johanna’s family tree for the benefit of his papal audience, he was alluding to the fact that Johanna was born of the union between Charles of Calabria, son of King Robert of Naples and heir to the Neapolitan throne, and Mary of Valois, a half-sister of King Philip VI of France. He depicts her as sharing the kingdom of Naples not with her new husband, Louis of Taranto, but rather with the pope, whom he calls the kingdom’s principal lord. 18 This would have accorded well with Pope Clement VI’s understanding of Johanna’s position. From all appearances, Clement was reluctant to acknowledge Johanna’s first husband, Andrew, as king of Naples, even refusing to award him the title when Johanna specifically requested it, and he was similarly critical of Louis’ efforts to usurp his wife’s powers following the royal couple’s return from Avignon. 19 Treating the Kingdom of Sicily as a papal fief was nothing new; by the time Johanna took the throne, it was quite traditional for Angevin rulers to present themselves as pious vassals of the pope, although the extent to which this rhetoric was followed through in practice depended on the personalities and politics in play at any given time.

John speaks of Johanna as a papal vassal, one who bears a special love to the pope, and whose humble devotion is demonstrated by the exertions she has made to come to him. According to John’s sermon, the purpose of this loyal vassal’s visit is twofold. First, she seeks to be crowned and anointed by the pope, and to offer him the oath of fealty, as her kingdom’s overlord. Second, she has come to seek his guidance on matters pertaining to the Kingdom of Sicily, which John calls “hers and yours.” 20 There is a slightly chiding undertone to the way John speaks about how the queen has sought her coronation from the pope repeatedly, using multiple avenues of communication, so that she might say in the words of the Psalmist, “I have cried to you from the

17 Schneyer no. 136, A f. 113va-b: “Primo siqui|dem nobilem eius conditionem, cum dicitur regina austri . Ipsa enim de nobilissimo genere regum francorum quantum ad utrumque parentem exorta est regina.”

18 Schneyer no. 136, A f. 113vb: “Et est regina austri , id est regni Sicilie vestri, qui estis eius dominus principalis, et per consequens pre aliis regnis amat vos, sicut omnis bonus vassallus amat dominum suum. Auster enim est ventus calidus, et omnis amor est quasi quidam spiritualis calor...”

19 Casteen, From She-Wolf to Martyr , 34; 85.

20 Schneyer no. 136, A f. 114ra: “Regina enim hic presens venit ad vos, sanctissime pater, non solum pro coronatione et inunctione et iuramenti fidelitatis prestatione, sed etiam ut audiret sapientiam vestram per quam instrueretur de spectantibus ad regimen regni vestri et sui Sicilie.”

333 ends of the earth.” 21 In his bland reference to current affairs in the Kingdom of Naples, John was putting a brave face on a dire situation; in the words of Elizabeth Casteen, “Johanna arrived in Avignon accused of murder, seemingly bereft of supporters, illicitly married to a cousin whose child she was carrying, with her kingdom overrun by a mortal enemy, and her already fatherless son left motherless.” 22 John’s emphasis on the pope’s all-embracing power and capacity for peacemaking in the conclusion to his sermon hints at the desperate purpose of the queen’s visit. 23

John’s omission of any mention of Johanna’s second husband, Louis of Taranto, in this sermon (or, indeed, in any other) is especially striking in light of the fact that his sermon collection contains several laudatory funeral, memorial, and translation sermons for Louis’ father, Philip of Taranto, a younger son of King Charles II and brother to King Robert of Naples. Several of these sermons highlight the nobility and sanctity of Philip’s family line. 24 If he had wished to do so, John could easily have argued that Louis shared the same noble and saintly heritage as Johanna. However, he seems to have made a deliberate choice not to attempt to legitimize Johanna’s

21 Schneyer no. 136, A f. 113vb: “...quam coronationem petivit affectuose a vobis sepe per litteras et per nuncios existens in regno suo predicto Sicilie, ut sanctitate vestre possit dicere illud Ps. [60:3] A finibus terre ad te clamavi , hoc est coronationem affectuose petii.”

22 Casteen, From She-Wolf to Martyr , 49.

23 Schneyer no. 136, A f. 114ra: “...quam sapientiam audiunt sepe qui sunt presentes in curia vestra Romana, ut sanctitate vestre de eis vere possit dici illud 3 Reg. 10[:8], beati viri tui et beati servi tui qui stant coram te semper et audiunt sapientiam tuam , qui potestis veraciter dici Salomon, tum propter magnam sapientiam divinitus vobis datam, ut notorium est toti mundo, sicut data fuit Salomoni, ut patet in tertio libro Reg., tertio capitulo, tum quia estis vicarius Christi, qui est pax nostra, et veniens evangelizavit nobis pacem , ut dicitur ad Eph. 2[:17]. Salomon enim interpretatur ‘pacificus.’ Et sicut magnificatus est rex Salomon super omnes reges terre, ut dicitur in tertio libro Reg., capitulo decimo, Sic, ut dicitur Apoc. 19[:16], Christus est rex regum et dominus dominantium , qui cum patre et spiritu sancto vivit et regnat per omnia secula seculorum. Amen.”

24 Schneyer no. 25, A f. 18va-b: “Quantum ad primum est sciendum quod sicut dicitur Matt. 7[:17], bona arbor bonos fructus facit . Arbor bona potest dici domus Francie, que est bona et quoad deum, utpote amatrix et defensatrix ecclesie, de qua de novo duo sancti Ludovici canonizati sunt, scilicet rex Francie et episcopus Tholosanus, et quoad mundum, utpote inter omnes domos mundi excellenter nobilis. Ergo decet quod fructus qui nascuntur de tali arbore sint non solum boni quoad deum, sed etiam magni quoad | mundum, scilicet reges, duces, principes, et huiusmodi. Dominus autem N. habuit ortum ex tali domo, quia eius avus fuit filius regis Francie; ergo decuit quod esset princeps.” An identical passage appears in Schneyer no. 26, A f. 19ra. Schneyer no. 59, for the translation of Philip’s remains, makes no reference to his saintly relatives, but does remark on the nobility of his male forebears, A f. 37va: “Bonitas autem est duplex quantum spectat ad presens, scilicet extrinseca carnis quam habent persone generose, quia generositas seu nobilitas carnis est bonitas generis seu progenitorum, a quibus genersosus trahit originem, et intrinseca mentis, quam haben persone virtuose [...] et utramque bonitatem habuit princeps predictus. Fuit enim multum generosus, scilicet filius regis de domo nobilissima Francis per rectam lineam seu masculinam ortus...”

334 husband in this way. He may have wanted to downplay the couple’s consanguinity, which necessitated a papal dispensation for their marriage (both were great-grandchildren of Charles II, and their mothers were half-sisters). But he may also, like the pope, have viewed Louis’s claims to kingship as an usurpation of Johanna’s rightful rule.

In this context, it is interesting to compare John’s final memorial sermon for Louis’ father, included after the index in his sermon collection, with the earlier ones mentioned above. Unlike those sermons, the last one makes no reference to Philip of Taranto’s family, living or dead. Instead, it concentrates on his piety, as displayed both in his frequent wars against enemies of the Church 25 and in his frequent reception of the sacrament of penance. 26 Should we read John’s description of the way Philip “always kept religious men in his house” as a rebuke to Louis for failing to emulate his father’s piety? If the sermon was indeed delivered in December 1348, as I have suggested in Chapter 1, it would have coincided with the early days of the power struggle between Louis and Johanna. Louis was away from Naples between mid-August 1348 and mid- February 1349, but Niccolò Acciaiuoli was already working there on his behalf, and when Louis returned to Naples he began to call himself king of Sicily. By September 1349, Pope Clement VI was writing him angry letters accusing him of mistreating his wife and unjustly seizing power in the kingdom. 27 John’s (admittedly limited) writings from this time provide no evidence that he supported Louis’ claims to power, and his death probably deprived Johanna of a loyal ally.

6.2 Problems of succession

The tumultuous start to Johanna’s reign would have brought to life for John some of the political questions he had treated from a more hypothetical perspective earlier in his career. A question in his first quodlibet treats a classic problem for medieval political theory: whether it is better to

25 Schneyer no. 141, A f. 120va: “Sed dominus N. pro Christo deo amico suo vitam propriam sepe morti exposuit in bellis contra inimicos ecclesie dei.”

26 Schneyer no. 141, A f. 120rb: “Hanc medicinam spiritualem [i.e. penitentiam] sumpsit sepe N., sanus et infirmus, unde et tenebat semper religiosos in domo sua, a quibus audiebat cotidie missam, et alia divina officiari sumebat ab eis sepe sacramentum penitentie et alia sacramenta ecclesie.”

27 Casteen, From She-Wolf to Martyr , 83-5.

335 have a king by succession or election. 28 In his response, John argues that it is simply and absolutely better to have an elected monarch, but hereditary kingship is better suited to humanity’s present fallen state. This was by no means a foregone conclusion for the time. One of John’s contemporary masters of theology, the Augustinian friar Henry the German (Henry of Friemar the Elder), was asked a similar question in a quodlibetal disputation at Paris and argued in favour of elective monarchy. 29 Henry acknowledged that he was contradicting the great Augustinian master Giles of Rome on this point, but while he terms Giles’s arguments in favour of hereditary kingship very beautiful, he argues that Aristotle was in favour of elective kingship – and that he was probably right. Neither John nor Henry mentioned that their responses to this question ended up supporting the political structures of their respective homelands.

Roberto Lambertini has observed that questions of this sort were more common in medieval commentaries on the third book of Aristotle’s Politics than in quodlibetal literature. 30 They also showed up frequently in other kinds of political treatises, such as Giles of Rome’s De regimine principum (which was also highly indebted to the Politics ). 31 The question about kingship in John’s first quodlibet may well have stemmed from the classroom. The Dominicans counted Aristotle’s Politics as one of the key texts for moral theology, although the Ethics was clearly

28 Quodl. I.20, T f. 5va-6ra: “Utrum melius sit habere regem per successionem quam per electionem vel econverso.” This question is edited in my forthcoming article, “Politics and Power in the Works of John of Naples,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum n.s. 3 (2018): 37-79.

29 Henry of Friemar, Quodl. I.20, “Utrum magis expediat rei publicae habere regem per electionem quam per successionem,” partially edited in Clemens Stroick, Heinrich von Friemar: Leben: Werke: philosophisch- theologische Stellung in der Scholastik (Freiburg: Herber, 1954), 245-6. It probably dates from 1306; for discussion of the dating, see Christopher Schabel and William J. Courtenay, “Augustinian Quodlibeta after Giles of Rome,” in Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages, Volume 2, 545-68, at 550-2. For a brief discussion of Henry’s question, see Roberto Lambertini, “Political Quodlibeta ,” 466-7.

30 Lambertini, “Political Quodlibeta ,” 466.

31 Giles of Rome, De regimine principum (Rome, 1556, repr. Frankfurt: Minerva, 1968), 3.2.5, p. 461-5: “Quod melius est regimen regni et principatus ire per hereditatem et successionem filiorum quam per electionem aliquam.”

336 more important. 32 They also adopted Giles’ De regimine as a teaching text for similar purposes, sometimes in abridged form. 33

Regardless of the source of the question, John’s response was clearly influenced by Giles of Rome. In De regimine, Giles argues that from the perspectives of the king, the heir, and the populace, it is better to have a king by hereditary succession than by election. Similarly, John considers the problem from the perspectives of the election, the electors, the king, and the populace, and several of his arguments closely parallel those of Giles. For instance, Giles and John both argue that kings are more likely to take good care of a kingdom that they expect to pass onto their children. Conversely, kings who do not anticipate that their children will inherit the realm will probably squirrel away wealth for themselves and their families, looking out for private interests rather than the good of the realm. 34 Both argue that from the perspective of the populace, hereditary kingship is preferable because a people that has been accustomed to obeying a royal family for a long time will obey descendants of that family more voluntarily than other claimants to the throne. Like Giles, John quotes the proverb “custom is another nature,”

32 Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent in Study,” 273-4; 333-6.

33 Charles F. Briggs, Giles of Rome’s De regimine principum : Reading and Writing Politics at Court and University, c. 1275-1525 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 91-3; Briggs, “Moral Philosophy and Dominican Education: Bartolomeo da San Concordio’s Compendium moralis philosophiae ,” in Medieval Education , ed. Ronald B. Begley and Joseph W. Koterski (New York: Fordham University Press, 2005), 182-96.

34 Quodl. I.20 T f. 5vb-6ra: “Tertio hoc apparet ex parte ipsius regentis, nam secundum Philosophum in secundo Politicorum, unusquisque naturaliter magis diligit bonum proprium quam alienum, et per consequens magis sollicitatur | circa eius conservationem et promotionem. Sed propter magnam dilectionem naturaliter parentum ad filios, parentes reputant bonum in quo debent eius succedere filii magis proprium quam bonum in quo non debent eos succedere. Ergo reges qui sunt per successionem ut communiter magis naturaliter diligunt bonum multitudinis quam regunt et magis sollicitanter de conservatione et promotione talis multitudinis quam reges qui sunt per electionem, et per consequens plus expedit multitudini habere regem per successionem quam per electionem.” Cf. Giles of Rome, De regimine principum 3.2.5, p. 461-2: “Prima via sumitur ex parte ipsius regis regentis populum. [...] Prima via sic putet, nam secundum Philosophum 2 Politicorum inenarrabile est quantam dilectionem habeat, et quantum differat patare aliquid proprium: nam quod est naturale, otiosum, et vanum esse non potest; naturaliter autem quilibet habet amicitiam ad seipsum: naturale est igitur tanto regem magis solicitari circa bonum regni, quanto credit ipsum regnum magis esse bonum suum et bonum proprium: quare si Rex videat debere se principari super regnum non solum ad vitam, sed etiam per haereditatem in propriis filiis, magis reputabit bonum regni esse bonum suum, et ardentius solicitabitur circa tale bonum. Immo quia tota spes patris requiescit in filiis, et nimio ardore moventur patres erga dilectionem filiorum: ideo omni cura qua poterit movebitur ad procurandum bonum statum regni, si cogitet ipsum provenire ad dominium filiorum. [...] Ex parte ergo regis ut magis solicitetur circa bonum regni, arguere possumus, quod expediat regale regimen in filios per haereditatem succedere.”

337 and describes hereditary kingship as the less difficult and less onerous option for the population that is to be governed. 35

John was also likely influenced by Peter of Auvergne’s question commentary on the Politics , which also included a question comparing hereditary and elective kingship. 36 Although it survives in just three manuscripts, Peter’s question commentary had a major impact on later medieval commentaries on the Politics , setting a list of questions that became standard for later discussions, which suggests that it circulated much more broadly than the extant manuscripts betray. 37 Peter argued that, while it is better per se to have a king by election, it is better per accidens to have a king by hereditary succession. John does not use the language of per se and per accidens , but his position is basically the same. He devotes a substantial section of his response to arguing that elected monarchy is “simply and absolutely better.” 38 However, he goes on to declare that considering the present fallen state of humanity, and the evils which experience teaches us are present in elective monarchies and not in hereditary ones, it is better to have a king

35 Quodl. I.20 T f. 6ra: “Quarto hoc apparet ex parte multitudinis cui rex presidet, quia quanto regimen est minus difficile et onorosum et magis voluntarium subiectis, tanto est melius et magis expediens, ut supra probatum est. Sed tale est regimen per successionem respectu eius quod est per electionem, cuius declaratio est quia cum consuetudo sit altera natura, populus qui consuevit obedire parentibus alicuius non solum immediatis, sed etiam primis, qui quodammodo unum extimant cum filiis propter magnam unitatem que est inter parentes et filios, quasi naturaliter inclinantur ad obediendum filiis qui ex talibus parentibus oriuntur, et per consequens talis subiecto et obedientia tanquam consueta est minus difficilis et onerosa, et per consequens magis voluntaria. Ergo tali multitudini plus expedit habere regem per successionem quam per electionem.” Cf. Giles of Rome, De regimine principum 3.2.5, p. 463: “Tertia via sumitur ex parte populi qui debet per tale regimen gubernari. nam consuetudo est quasi altera natura: propter quod regimina ex consuetudine efficiuntur quasi naturalia. Populus ergo si per diuturnam consuetudinem obedivit patribus, filiis, et filiorum filiis, quasi naturaliter inclinatur ut voluntarie obediant: quare cum omne voluntarium sit minus onerosum et difficile, ut libentius et facilius obediat populus mandatis regis, expedit regiae dignitati per haereditatem succedere.”

36 Peter of Auvergne, Questiones supra LL. Politico , book 3, question 25, “Utrum melius sit regem vel principem assumi per generationem vel electionem,” edited in Christoph Flüeler, Rezeption und Interpretation der aristotelischen Politica im späten Mittelalter (Amsterdam: B. Grüner, 1992), I.219-22.

37 Christoph Flüeler, “The Influence of the Works of Peter of Auvergne in the 13 th , 14 th and 15 th Centuries,” in Peter of Auvergne: University Master of the 13 th Century , ed. Christoph Flüeler, Lidia Lanza, Marco Toste, Anne Marie Austenfeld (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), 391-413, at 411.

38 Quodl. I.20, T f. 5va: “Et prima [conclusio] est quod simpliciter et absolute melius est habere regem per electionem quam per successionem, quod patet multipliciter.” He concludes, T f. 5vb: “Ergo regnum per electionem est simpliciter melius et magis expediens quantum est ex natura sua quam regnum quod est per successionem.”

338 by succession than election. 39 His response was prefaced by the statement that something can be simply and absolutely better in and of itself, and yet less good for a particular person in a particular circumstance, like wine is better for men than barley water, but the latter is better for invalids. 40

Peter of Auvergne’s argument is organized around the dangers arising from both methods of choosing a monarch, and some passages from John’s quodlibetal question correspond to dangers that Peter describes. Considering the election and the electors, John argues, like Peter, that elections often leave the throne vacant for some time, and that electors are frequently moved by the passions to elect an unworthy candidate. 41 The first of John’s six arguments for the theoretical superiority of elected rulers also echoes one of the initial arguments in Peter’s question. John argues that hereditary succession basically amounts to committing the fate of the kingdom to chance, since there is no guarantee that worthy fathers will have worthy sons. 42 Peter

39 John of Naples, Quodl. I.20, T f. 5vb: “Secunda conclusio principalis est quod pro statu nature corupte, pensata imperfectione et perversitate homini et hiis que experiencia docet esse in regnis que sunt per electionem, quibus carent, ut etiam experientia docet, regna que sunt per successionem, magis expedit et melius est habere regem per successionem quam per electionem, quod patet multipliciter.”

40 T f. 5va: “Secundum premittendum est quod aliquid est simpliciter et absolute melius et magis expediens quod tamen alicui propter aliquam eius circumstantiam seu conditionem minus expedit et est minus bonum, sicut libertas est simpliciter melius quam servitus, ut de se patet; deficienti tamen intellectu quantum ad regimen proprie vite plus expedit subici et servire, ut patet per Philosophum in primo Politicorum . Potus et vini est simpliciter melior homini et magis expediens quam tisane seu aque ordeacee; infirmo tamen est minus bonus et minus expedit. Continere etiam est absolute melius quam nubere; alicui tamen male disposito, utpote incontinenti, plus expedit et melius est nubere quam uri, ut patet per Apostolum 1 Cor. 7[:9].”

41 John of Naples, Quodl. I.20, T f. 5vb: “Primo ex parte electionis in qua frequenter, ut etiam experimento apparet, multe dissentiones contingunt, propter quas regnum magno tempore caret rege frequenter, que carencia sine magno preiudicio multitudinis esse non potest, sicut econtra regimen et gubernatio multitudinis est maximum bonum inter bona humana. Secundo ex parte eligencium ipsorum, qui frequenter, ut experiencia docet, indignum eligunt et minus dignum preferunt magis digno ex affectu aliquo privato inordinati amoris, vel odii, timoris, vel cupiditatis, vel alterius inordinate passionis moti ad hoc faciendum.” Cf. Peter of Auvergne, Questiones supra LL. Politico , 3.25, ed. cit. p. 221: “Item in electione aliquando vacat regnum, quia necesse est convcare eligentes, quod non fit statim, in successione autem non. Item dissensione facta inter eligentes vel non erit princeps vel si erit, possibile est malum fieri propter corruptionem eligentium. Et ideo plura et maiora pericula accedunt in via electionis quam sucessionis secundum genus.”

42 John of Naples, Quodl. I.20, T f. 5va-b: “Primo quia optima bonorum non sunt committenda casui et fortune. Sed regimen multitudinis est quodam optimum inter humana bona, utpote ex quo sine bonum proveniunt multa bona, scilicet pax, iutstitia, et huiusmodi multitudini cuius bonum est melius et divitius quam bonum cuiuscumque private persone, ut patet in prologo Ethicorum et in principio Politice . Committitur autem fortune si est per successionem, quia contingit filium in tali regimine succedentem esse spiritualiter et corporaliter defectuosum, secundum illud Eccles. 2[:18-9]: habiturus heredem post me quem ignoro utrum sapiens an stultus sit futurus . Unde et ipse Salomon

339 had made the same point in a more compressed fashion, although with more optimism, since he went on to say that good men usually beget good children, and it happens only rarely that a good man begets a wicked son. 43 Directly or indirectly, therefore, John’s Quodl. I.20 can probably be traced back to Peter’s commentary.

In Quodl. I.20, John concludes that hereditary kingship is better suited to the imperfect and perverse condition of post-lapsarian humanity. In later quodlibets, he specifies more precisely how hereditary succession ought to proceed, arguing that while it is generally in accordance with divine law for children to inherit equal portions of their parents’ goods, this rule does not apply to the inheritance of kingdoms. 44 On the contrary, it is more rational for one child to inherit a whole kingdom than for the kingdom to be divided between multiple children. 45 John further

sapientissimus, cuius sunt hec verba, habuit post se filium Roboam stultum, ut apparet 3 Reg. 12 et 2 Paral. 10 et Ecclus. 47[:26-8], ubi dicitur quod Salomon dereliquid post se de semine suo stultitiam geniti et mutum a prudencia Roboam . | Ergo etc.”

43 Peter of Auvergne, Questiones supra LL. Politico , 3.25, ed. cit. p. 220: “Item. Dicitur, quod maxima committere fortune periculosum est. Sed principatus est maximum. Ergo eum committere fortune periculosum est. Hoc autem fit, si assumatur semper princeps per successionem generis. Ergo etc. Minor patet, quia a casu est, nec est necessarium semper bonum succedere bono.” And below, p. 221: “Maius enim, quod ibi fit in successione, est, quod contingat aliquando fieri malum. Sed ad hoc dicendum, quod hoc est contra naturam, quod bonus generet malum. Et ideo, ut rarius contingit – natura enim est causa eorum, que semper vel frequentius fiunt, ut dicitur secundo Phisicorum – et ideo magis naturale est semper bonum succedere bono. Minus autem naturale semper bonum eligere, nam bonus succedentem sibi aliquamdiu iam moribus bonis exercitavit eciam preter naturalem disposicionem quam sibi agnascavit, eligentes autem neutrum horum faciunt in electo.” He reiterates this claim in responding to the initial argument, p. 222: “Ad secundam dicendum, quod licet casus possibilis sit in successione, cum quia naturalior via est et minora pericula sustinet et eciam rarius ibi casus accidit. Ideo etc.”

44 John of Naples, Quodl. V.16, N f. 76vb-78ra; T f. 52rb-53va: “Utrum de iure divino filii habeant equas portiones in bonis parentum.” A reworked version of this question, with a nearly identical title (“Utrum de iure divino omnes filii habeant equas portiones in bonis parentum”) appears in some manuscripts of John’s seventh quodlibet, labelled as Quodl. VII.14. It is not included in N or T, the two main manuscripts of John’s quodlibets. For Quodl. VII.14, I have consulted Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale, Conv. Soppr. J.X.10 (F), f. 137vb-138va, Tortosa, Archivo Capitular 43 (D), f. 42ra-43ra, and Toulouse, Bibliothèque municipale 744 (I 96) (I), f. 47rb-48ra. Koch reported that another copy could be found in Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek 542, f. 184vb, but I have not had access to this manuscript. Nor have I been able to confirm whether Reims, Bibliothèque Carnegie (formerly Bibliothèque municipale) 502 (F 462), which contains John’s sixth and seventh quodlibets, includes this question. Quodl. VII.14 is also included, alongside a few other questions from John’s sixth and seventh quodlibets, in Pamplona, Catedral 28 (P), a large collection of extracts from late-thirteenth and early-fourteenth century quodlibets (which I have also consulted); this question occupies f. 54v-57r.

45 Quodl. V.16, N f. 77rb; T f. 52va-b: “...quamvis, ut iam probatum est, filii habeant equales portiones de iure naturali in hereditate paterna, que ordinatur ad sustentacionem possidentis, tamen in regnis et generaliter omni principatu quo principatur liberis, qui vocatur a Philosopho in primo Politice principatus politicus, aliter est dicendum: supposito enim quod talis principatus vadat per successionem, magis rationale est quod unus succedat in toto quam quod principatus dividatur per partes inter omnes filios.” Quodl. VII.14, F f. 138ra; D f. 42va; I f. 47va; P f. 55v: “Tertia conclusio est quod quicquid sit de bonis exterioribus, que ordinantur ad sustentationem possidentis,

340 argues that it is more rational for the firstborn to inherit because they should be presumed to have greater prudence than their younger siblings, on account of their greater wisdom and experience. Likewise, it is more rational for a male child to inherit a kingdom than a female one, even if the daughter is older, “because a woman is naturally deficient in reason compared to the male,” with a mental capacity like that of a young boy. 46 In a reworked version of this question, John argues that males are naturally equipped with braver hearts and stronger reason and are less susceptible to the passions than females, making them better suited to govern in times of war as well as peace. 47 Here again, when comparing male and female suitability for leadership, John’s language echoes that of Giles of Rome in the De regimine principum .48 Clearly, John considered male primogeniture the ideal model of succession for hereditary monarchies.

In southern Italy, female inheritance was relatively uncontroversial, at least in theory. 49 When John was presiding over these quodlibetal disputations during the first two decades of the

tamen in regno, et generaliter in omni [P add. in marg. ducatu, comitatu, et in omni] principatu politico quo quis dominatur liberis, ut patet primo Politice, magis rationabile est quod unus solus succedat et alii habeant sustentationem vite decentem quam quod talis principatus dividatur per partes equales inter omnes filios.”

46 Quodl. V.16, N f. 77rb; T f. 52vb: “Inter filios autem videtur magis rationabile de primogenito quam de quocumque alio quod in principatu politice dominetur, quia in eo presumitur ratione antiquitatis et experiencie esse maior prudencia quam in ceteris, secundum illud Iob 12[:12], in antiquis est sapientia et in multo tempore prudentia , que scilicet prudentia principantibus est maxime necessaria. Unde et Num. 11[:16-7] legitur quod dixit dominus ad Moysen, congrega mihi 70 viros de senioribus Israel quos tu nosti quod senes populi sint ut sustinent tecum onus populi , scilicet onus regiminis. Et propter eandem causam, scilicet maioris prudencie et experiencie, magis rationale est de masculo quam de feminina, ut in tali principatu succedat, quantumcumque femina esset antiquitatis maioris, cum mulier naturaliter sit deficiens ratione respectu masculi: habet enim consiliativum invalidum sicut et puer imperfectum, ut patet primo Politice .”

47 Quodl. VII.14, F f. 138rb; D f. 42vb; I f. 47vb; P f. 56r-v: “Magis autem rationabile est quod talis unus succedens in quocumque principatu politico sit masculus quam femina, quia masculus est naturaliter corde animosior et magis vigens ratione et minus insecutor passionum quam femina, propter quod sufficientior est regulariter ad gubernandum multitudinem quamcumque utroque tempore, scilicet bellorum et pacis. Vigentes enim ratione sunt naturaliter aliorum domini et aliis principantes, ut patet primo Politice . Et inter masculos magis rationabile videtur de primogenito quam de alio quocumque, in quo propter experientiam longi temporis presumitur esse maior sapientia, secundum illud Iob 12[:12], in antiquis est sapientia et in multo tempore prudentia, que est maxime neccessaria principanti. Unde et Num. 11[:16-7] dictum est a deo Moysi congrega mihi 70 viros de senioribus Israel quos tu nosti quod senes populi sint ut sustentent tecum onis populi , et ad litteram loquitur de onere regiminis.”

48 Giles of Rome De regimine principum 3.2.5, p. 463-4: “Nam si dignitas regia per haereditatem transferatur ad posteros, oportet eam transferre in filios, quia secundum lineam consanguinitatis filii parentibus maxime sunt coniuncti; oportet autem talem dignitatem magis transferre ad masculos quam ad foeminas, quia masculus est foemina ratione praestantior, corde animosior, passionum minus insecutor .” (emphasis mine)

49 Léonard, Histoire de Jeanne , vol. 1, 124-5. The controversy that arose over Johanna’s designation as Robert’s heir stemmed more from Robert’s unusual path to succession, and the existence of a number of male descendents of

341 fourteenth century, the question of female succession would not have had immediate relevance to the Kingdom of Naples; at the time, King Robert’s son, Charles of Calabria (1298-1328), was still alive and the obvious heir to the throne. It is striking that even under these circumstances, John chose to align himself with the French/scholastic view rather than the Neapolitan one. His remarks on women’s weaker nature were conventionally Aristotelian, and in keeping with what Ruth Mazo Karras has described as a late medieval learned strand of misogyny that saw women as intellectually inferior to men, as well as morally inferior. 50 The Provençal Franciscan master of theology Francis of Meyronnes, for instance, argued that a woman should not inherit a kingdom, even if she is the only child. 51 His reasoning was somewhat different than John’s: Francis argued that a kingdom is not an inheritance, but a dignity, which women are not legally capable of holding. 52 Nonetheless, they came to similar conclusions. John’s preference for male primogeniture was also in keeping with contemporary French political thought, as expressed in the actions of the royal council and assembly of magnates following the deaths of Louis X (1316) and Charles IV (1328). 53 John’s opposition to female rule seems to have been influenced

his elder brother who staked claims to the throne, than concerns about female rulership per se ; see Casteen, From She-Wolf to Martyr , 4; Casteen, “Sex and Politics in Naples,” 185-6; Kelly, The New Solomon , 7-8; 275-83.

50 Ruth Mazo Karras, “Separating the Men from the Beasts: Medieval Universities and Masculine Formation,” in From Boys to Men: Formations of Masculinity in Late Medieval Europe (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003), 67-108, at 85-9. Nonetheless, Karras argues that scholastic theologians did not go out of their way to attack women; rather, they tended to ignore them or treat them as irrelevant. She claims that they only rarely drew on Aristotle’s theory of women’s weaker nature; if so, John’s question would be a notable exception. See Ruth Mazo Karras, “Using Women to Think With in the Medieval University,” in Seeing and Knowing: Women and Learning in Medieval Europe, 1200-1550 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), 21-33, esp. 26-8.

51 Elizabeth Casteen, “Sex and Politics in Naples: The Regnant Queenship of Johanna I,” The Journal of the Historical Society 11.2 (2011): 183-210, at 183-4; Casteen, From She-Wolf to Martyr , 2-3. On Francis’ role as an Angevin publicist like John, see Kelly, The New Solomon , 34-6.

52 Francis of Meyronnes, Flores Beati Augustini (Lyon: G. Rovillium, 1580), f. 27r: “Sed oritur dubium, quare in regnis, quae ex genere habent regnantes mulieres, communiter non succedant quamvis unigentiae. Dicitur autem quod regnum non est haereditas, sed dignitas pertinens ad totam rempublicam. Nunc autem in dignitatibus non est successio mulierum sicut in haereditatibus, quia mulieres dignitatis capaces non sunt in lege, quamvis sacerdotium esset ex genere, ibi mulier nullo modo succedebat: nec de aliqua muliere quod in regnum successerit, invenitur in scriptura legitimo modo.” John’s surviving works do not include a discussion of this situation, but judging from his remarks discussed above, it seems likely that he would have agreed with Francis.

53 In rejecting female succession, France was relatively unusual among medieval European kingdoms; see Amalie Fößel, “The Political Traditions of Female Rulership in Medieval Europe,” in The Oxford Handbook of Women and Gender in Medieval Europe , ed. Judith Bennett and Ruth Karras (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 68-81, at 74.

342 by his education, either filtered through the Dominican education system or imbibed directly at Paris.

It is even more striking, given John’s willingness to discuss female succession in his early quodlibets, even when the question did not directly concern it, that the subject did not make a reappearance in his later works, after Johanna had been declared Robert’s heir. 54 We must ask ourselves, therefore, whether this was a deliberate omission. Perhaps, seeing which way the wind was blowing, John opted to keep a tactful silence about his thoughts on female rule. Or perhaps his belief in the sanctity of the Angevin dynasty was strong enough to overcome his reservations in this case. From all appearances, he was one of Johanna’s most stalwart allies during the troubled early years of her reign. Perhaps he considered it his duty, as a man of learning, to aid and speak on behalf of the young queen, who, as a woman, was especially in need of guidance and support. As he himself had pointed out in his first quodlibet, subjects find it easier to obey a monarch’s descendants when they have been accustomed to serving their forefathers for a long time.

6.3 Prince, pope, and law

John’s academic writings on politics display a persistent concern with establishing and maintaining hierarchies of power. As God’s representative on earth, the pope’s authority extended over all Christians, including princes. Like most other theologians associated with the Angevin rulers of Naples, John argued that this authority included temporal as well as spiritual matters. Below the pope, the highest authority in a kingdom was the prince, who stood above the laws of his kingdom, and below him, the rulers of individual cities. All human participants in this hierarchy were ultimately subject to natural law, which was instituted by God and communicated to human beings in the Bible. 55 Since this was precisely the text which theologians claimed to be specially equipped to interpret correctly, theologians were in a position to advise rulers on

54 Robert officially recognized Johanna, then a child of four or five, as his heir in November 1330; see Léonard, Histoire de Jeanne , vol. 1, 135-6; Casteen, From She-Wolf to Martyr , 2. His testament specified that Johanna was to be the sole inheritor of the kingdom, and her husband Andrew, who she had married in 1333, was to be her consort.

55 On John’s conception of natural law, see Pierre Michaud-Quantin, “Le droit naturel chez Jean de Naples,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 29 (1962): 268-87.

343 making and enforcing laws, and also in a position to advise citizens which laws they should and should not follow. Yet John’s advice to subjects and citizens urged them not to question laws put in place by their rulers. Ultimately, his main concern seems to be with preserving political stability, in imitation of the stability of God’s rule of the universe.

John’s best-known political work is his disputed question on papal power. 56 Treatises of this sort exploded in popularity around the beginning of the fourteenth century as a result of the conflict between King Philip IV of France and Pope Boniface VIII. 57 The thesis of the third principal part, in which John addresses the main question, is succinct and to the point: “the emperor and all temporal lords are completely subject to the pope with regard to the power that they have that pertains to temporal things.” 58 According to John, the pope can institute, depose, suspend, correct, punish, regulate, order, and expand or restrict the power of all temporal lords. 59 In practice, he mostly wields his temporal power indirectly, through the mediation of emperors, kings, and so forth. 60 Nonetheless, in some cases, the pope can and does exercise immediate

56 DQ 39 [QP 3], with the heading “De potestate pape” in both Gravina and T: “Utrum imperator et alii domini temporales quicunque sint subiecti pape quantum ad potestatem quam habent respectu temporalium.” The question can also be found in Vat. lat. 10497, f. 1ra-5ra, where it is given the longer heading “De potestate pape super principem quoad temporalia.” The explicit refers to it as “quotlibet de pape potestate magistri Johannis de Neapoli ordinis predicatorum,” but the incipit calls it a “questio,” and since the manuscript dates from the fifteenth century, the identification of the question as a quodlibet should probably not be given much weight. This manuscript is described in Josep Perarnau, “Un codex català retrobat (Barcelona, Catedral 2/Segona part= Vat. Lat. 10497),” Analecta sacra Tarraconensia 47 (1974): 219-28.

57 Joseph Canning, Ideas of Power in the Late Middle Ages, 1296-1417 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), esp. 11-59; Jürgen Miethke, De potestate papae: die päpstliche Amtskompetenz im Widerstreit der politischen Theorie von Thomas von Aquin bis Wilhelm von Ockham (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000); Miethke, “Die Traktate ‘De potestate papae’. Ein Typus politiktheoretischer Literatur im späten Mittelalter,” in Les genres littéraires dans les sources théologiques et philosophiques médiévales: définition, critique et exploitation , 193-211.

58 Gravina p. 336b; T f. 202va; Vat. lat. 10497 f. 3rb: “imperator et omnes domini temporales sunt totaliter subiecti pape quantum ad potestate quam habent respectu temporalium.”

59 Gravina p. 337b; T f. 202vb; Vat. lat. 10497 f. 3vb: “Secunda conclusio est quod in papa est potestas instituendi et deponendi et suspendendi et corrigendi et puniendi et regulandi imperatorem et omnes reges et alios dominos temporales, et imperandi eis et ampliandi et restringendi eorum potestatem ex legitimis causis.” T and Vat. lat. 10497 both lack “ex legitimis causis,” perhaps indicating (as Samantha Kelly suggests in The New Solomon , 106n125) that this was an addition by Gravina. If so, that would make John’s claim for papal supremacy even stronger.

60 Gravina p. 338b; T f. 203ra-b; Vat. lat. 10497 f. 4rb: “Quarta conclusio est quod licet papa habeat secundum propriam auctoritatem utramque predictam potestatem, secundum tamen executionem et usum non habet immediate

344 temporal jurisdiction. This includes not only times when the pope acts as a supreme judge on matters referred to him by secular powers, but also times when the imperial see is vacant, and when secular rulers’ sins, especially heresy, give the pope the right to take control of their kingdoms. 61 Although Gravina included a note dating this question to 1324, several modern scholars have suggested that John actually disputed it earlier, during his time in Paris, as Peter of Palude appears to be responding in part to John in his own much longer treatise on papal power, which dates from ca. 1314-17 .62

John’s treatment of this question would have set him at odds with French theologians like Peter, who were often torn between their loyalties to the pope, as head of the church, and to their king, who, like many other late medieval monarchs, was stubbornly resistant to papal interference in his realm. Peter, seeking to balance these conflicting loyalties, advocated a middle way, arguing that secular powers, like all laymen, are subject to the pope only insofar as is necessary for spiritual health, and that the pope can licitly depose Christian rulers only if they have committed a serious offence and if the pope has sufficient legal authority to do so. 63 John’s treatment of this question would have been much less controversial in Naples, however. As Samantha Kelly has pointed out, John was not the only scholar associated with the court of Robert of Naples to make

iurisdictionem temporalem, sed mediantibus imperatore et regibus et aliis dominis temporalibus, sic quod executio immediata iurisdictionis temporalis ad eos spectat, et non ad papam.”

61 Gravina p. 338b; T f. 203rb; Vat. lat. 10497 f. 4rb: “Sciendum tamen est quod in aliquibus casibus Papa exercet etiam immediate iurisdictionem temporalem, sicut habetur Extra , ‘qui filii sint legitimi,’ c. ‘per venerabilem,’ licet, ut predictum est, regulariter seu communiter hoc non faciat. Sunt autem casus isti, ut notantur in iure: Primo, quando aliquod temporale a Principibus conceditur, vel aliis dominis secularibus ecclesiis Christi ex devotione, sive conceda quoad utilitatem et usum ecclesie solum, sine potestate iustitie exercende, sive etiam cum tale potestate, et tunc licet ecclesia fructum terrene portionis accipiat, usum tamen potestatis exercende iustitie exercet per laicos, et non per personas Ecclesiasticas. Secundo, quando aliquid fuerit difficile, vel ambiguum, tunc enim est ad sedem apostolicam recurrendum, et isti duo casus exprimuntur Extra, ‘qui filii sunt legitimi,’ c. ‘per venerabilem.’ Tertio, ratione delicti, 17 q. 4 c ‘si quis deinceps’; 11 q. 1 c. ‘nullus episcopus’; 32 q. 5 c. ‘preceptum’; 15 q. 6 c. ‘alius de iudiciis’ c. ‘novit’; et precipue si est hereticus, 24 q. 1 c. ‘qui contra ecclesie pacem’; ‘de hereticis’ c. ‘ad abolendam.’ Quarto, in defectu iudicis secularis, ut si nollet iustitiam facere. ‘de foro competenti’ ‘ex transmissa’, ‘licet.’ ‘ex tenore’ 23 q. 5 c. ‘adminstratores.’ Quinto, cum vacat imperium, ‘de foro competenti’, ‘licet.’”

62 In addition to Prospero T. Stella’s introduction to Peter of Palude, Tractatus de potestate papae. Toulouse, Bibl. de la Ville, 744 (Zürich: Pas-Verlag, 1966), see Nold, “How influential,” 667-8; Dunbabin, A Hound of God , 83-5. The fourteenth-century manuscript on which Stella’s edition is based also contains, among other things, the two quodlibets that John debated in Paris, which might be another reason to date its composition to John’s years in Paris.

63 Dunbabin, A Hound of God , 73-86. Stella, 55-6, notes that the “common opinion of the theologians and canonists” that Peter argues against bears strong similarities to several passages from John’s question.

345 these sorts of expansive statements of papal power; indeed, she calls Naples under Robert “a stronghold of papal supremacy second only to the papal curia itself.” 64 Playing on his alliance with the papacy, Robert opted to present himself as the pope’s devoted servant, even if this was not always the case in practice. Other mendicant theologians associated with the court, such as William of Sarzano, Augustine of Ancona, and Francis of Meyronnes, also wrote tracts (or in Augustine’s case an entire Summa) defending papal sovereignty. Neapolitan jurists such as Bartholomew of Capua and Andrew of Isernia also stressed that the pope stood above all temporal lords. 65 Although John did not name Robert as a model for royal-papal relations, his question seems to fit into this strain of learned pro-Angevin propaganda.

Scattered comments in John’s quodlibetal questions allow us to piece together his views on the extent of royal power within a kingdom. He consistently places the king above the secular laws, even in passing remarks in questions largely concerned with other things. One of his clearest statements on royal power is found in Quodl. XII.17, which is mostly a question about ecclesiastical hierarchies: whether a prelate can give a priest the power to absolve him of his sins. 66 In the course of his response, John draws a parallel between secular princes and popes:

the secular prince is not subject to positive civil law, but exists above it, because he founds it on his own authority and can change it, and therefore he incurs no penalty instituted in positive civil law. And it is entirely similar with regard to the prince of the Church, that is, the pope. And the reason for both is that, although the prince ought to conduct himself in accordance with positive law, nonetheless he is not compelled to observe it, since he is free from the laws, as is said [by Thomas Aquinas] in [ Summa Theologiae ,] Prima Secundae, question 96, article 5, in the response to the third argument. For punishments pertain to the coercive force of law, since man is as it were compelled or confined to observing the laws out of fear of them. 67

64 Kelly, The New Solomon , 105.

65 Kelly, The New Solomon , 104-7.

66 Quodl. XII.17, T f. 181vb-182vb: “Utrum prelatus possit dare potestatem alicui sacerdoti quod absolvat ipsum prelatum a peccatis suis.”

67 Quodl. XII.17, T f. 182va: “Et confirmatur conclusio et tota ratio per simile de principe seculari, qui non est subditus iuri civili positivo, sed est super ipsum, quia auctoritate sua ipsum condidit et mutare potest, et idcirco nullam penam statutam in iure positivo civili incurrit. Et simile est per omnia de principe ecclesie, hoc est de papa. Et ratio utrumque est quia licet princeps debeat se dirigere in agendis secundum iura positiva, non tamen cogitur ad servandum ea, cum sit solutus legibus, ut patet in Prima Secunde, questio 96, articulo 5, in solutione tertii argumenti.

346

In the passage from the Summa that John refers to, Aquinas argues that the prince is above the law in the sense that he can alter it and grant dispensations from it, and free from the law in the sense that no one can compel him to observe it – but he would do well to obey it out of his own free will, since he will still be judged by God.

John argues that the prince’s position above the civil laws gives him the power to grant dispensations and changes to them, but he seems to expect that the prince’s interventions in secular law will be largely benevolent. This accords with the image of the monarch promoted by contemporary royal officials such as Bartholomew of Capua, who drew on the Thomistic vision of the king as an imitator of the perfect marriage of justice and mercy in all God’s works. 68 John takes it for granted, for instance, that a prince has the right to intervene in a secular law court in order to extend the time a judge has granted for an innocent victim to defend himself. 69 In one of his disputed questions, he affirms the king’s right to grant a condemned criminal a dispensation from the death penalty. 70 (Bartholomew of Capua, in fact, wrote several sermons to publicize sentences in which the king of Naples commuted a capital punishment. 71 ) In a quodlibetal question about a complex inheritance case, John argues that it is the king’s responsibility to prevent the execution of a clause in a lord’s testament that would have unjustly deprived the lord’s daughter of her rightful inheritance. 72 One of the pillars of his argument is that a king

Pene autem spectant ad vim coactuivam legum, quia propter earum metum homo quasi cogitur seu artatur ad observantiam ipsarum.”

68 Boyer, “Prediche e sentenze, a Napoli intorno al 1300. Il modello del logoteta Bartolomeo di Capua,” Rassegna storica salernitana 61 (2014): 39-80, at 60-70.

69 Quodl. IX.23, T f. 149rb-vb: “Utrum iudex debeat condempnare illum cui crimen homicidii falso probatum est per testes quos non potuit reprobare infra terminum sibi datum a iudice propter reprobancium absenciam, si constat iudici talem accusatum innocentem,” at 149va: “Respondeo, terminus datus tali cui probatum est crimen homicidi in iudicio aut fuit irrationabilis aut rationabilis. In primo casu debet iudex errorem suum corrigere. [...] In secundo casu subdistinguendum est, quia aut iudex potest per se aut per principem prolongare terminum, aut non potest. Si potest, debet terminum datum prolongare.” [emphasis mine]

70 DQ 26 [33], Gravina p. 226-9; T f. 281ra-vb: “Utrum sententialiter et iuste ab inferiori iudice condemnatus [T: condempnatum] ad mortem secundum leges civiles princeps possit iuste secundum leges civiles a poena mortis absolvere.”

71 Boyer, “Prediche e sentenze,” esp. 63-4.

72 Quodl. XI.17/XIII.19, N f. 173rb-174va ; T f. 171va-172vb. For a transcription of the full title, see the conclusion to Chapter 4, note 137.

347 ought to prevent injustice being done to his subjects. 73 On the whole, John depicts the king’s position above the secular laws as something that enables him to do good and work for his subjects’ benefit.

Although John affirms the king’s power to override existing secular laws, he also emphasizes that dispensations should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. For instance, he argues that the king, just like the pope, has the power to legitimize natural-born sons, “because the power of the prince and of positive law is the same.” 74 But he immediately follows up this statement with a caution that such legitimations should not be granted willy-nilly, but only with sufficient and reasonable cause. Indeed, princes should not make any dispensations without good reason. 75 Similarly, John states in one of his disputed questions that it is illicit for the king to grant a dispensation from the death penalty to a malefactor who has been justly condemned, unless he has good reason to do so. 76 For instance, the prince has more of a right to remit an offense committed against himself than anyone else, even though, all else being equal, this crime is

73 Quodl. XI.17/XIII.19, T f. 172rb: N f. 174rb: “Quartum declarandum et probandum est quod ad regem spectat impedire quod talis clausula non mandetur exequtioni, seu testamentum quantum ad talem clausulam [...] Primo quia ad regem spectat impedire iniustitiam facti subditis suis. Sed exequtio talis clausule est contra iustitiam acquisitam predicte domine F comitisse ex institutione tali iuramento et consensu regio firmata in tali hereditate, accepto iuramento secundum sanum intellectum supradicti comitatis cui prestitum est iuramentum. Ergo ad dominum regem spectat impedire ne talis clausula executioni mandetur.”

74 Quodl. VIII.33, T f. 135rb; N f. 149vb: “In secundo casu subdividitur, quia aut talis legitimatur a iure persequens matrimonium, ut patet Extra, ‘Qui filii sunt legitimi,’ ‘Conquestus’ et ‘Tanta,’ [X 4.17.1 and X 4.17.6] aut a principe ecclesiastico, scilicet papa, vel seculari, ut imperatore vel rege. [...] Quantum ad secundum casum, dicenda sunt duo. Et primum est quod princeps potest sic legitimare, et si legitimat, de facto ille succedet, quia, ut probatum est, quod non succedat est a iure positivo. Sed eadem est potestas principis et iuris positivi, ergo etc.” It is worth noting that Peter of Palude denies that the pope possesses a plenitude of power in part because he lacks the power to legitimize children everywhere; see Dunbabin, A Hound of God , 85; Peter of Palude, Tractatus de potestate papae , 232, lines 39-41: “Sed papa non potest per se legitimare ad succedendum filios illegitimos in terris ecclesie patrimono non subditis. Ergo non est superior in omnibus.”

75 Quodl. VIII.33, T f. 135rb; N f. 149vb: “Secundum est quod talis legitimatio non debet fieri passim seu indifferenter, sed solum ex sufficienti et rationabili causa, propter duo. Primo, quia ius omne, etiam positivum, debet regulariter servari ab omnibus qui sunt tali iuri subiecti, nec debet dispensari cum aliquo in speciali nisi propter sufficientem et rationabilem causam. Et oppositum non posset esse nisi cum acceptione personarum, et ‘magis esset dicenda dissipatio quam dispensatio,’ ut Bernardus dicit in libro De dispensatione et precepto [=Bernard of Clairvaux, De consideratione , 3.4.14?]. Sed talis legitimatio est quedam dispensatio in iure positivo quo filii illegitimi privantur hereditate parentum. Ergo etc.”

76 DQ 26 [33], Gravina p. 228a; T f. 281va: “malefactorem iuste et sententialiter secundum leges civiles condemnatum ad mortem a poena mortis absolvere absque rationabili causa, et cum tali in praedictis legibus dispensare principi esset illicitum.”

348 worse than a similar one committed against a private person. Or, if a victim other than the prince seeks a lighter penalty for the criminal, the prince may licitly grant this request. And in general, it would be licit for the prince to lift the death penalty if the criminal’s death would impede the common good of the community, or bring some great evil upon it. 77 However, John argues that it is a sin to wantonly give one subject a dispensation and not another, since the law applies equally to all subjects. 78 Moreover, it is generally good to impose the death penalty on wrongdoers. 79 So the king should be circumspect in making these kinds of dispensations – although it is conceivable that he might have a good reason to do so from time to time. Thus, while John grants the king the power to intervene in secular law, he also argues that this course of action should be kept to a minimum.

John clearly considers the king bound, like all human beings, to abide by divine or natural law. This is especially true when it comes to crafting legislation. John, following in the tradition of Aquinas, sees human laws as a “determination and declaration” of natural law; in other words, positive law clarifies the general principles of natural law and applies them to the specificities of

77 DQ 26 [33], Gravina p. 228b; T f. 281va: “Precipue tamen videtur hoc esse licitum principi in duobus casibus. Primo scilicet si malefactor mortem meretur propter aliquam iniuriam contra principis personam commissam; quamvis enim talis culpa caeteris paribus maior debeat iudicari quam si contra aliquam personam privatam esset commissa, tamen videtur quod princeps magis possit remittere offensam propriam quam alterius, illo altero iustitiam postulante. Secundo, si ille contra quem est offensa commissa, propter quam malefactor secundum leges civiles poenam mortis meretur, offendenti offensam remittit, quia per oppositum si talis offensam non remitteret, sed iustitiam seu vindictam a principe de illata offensa expeteret, nisi aliqua alia rationabilis causa concurreret, princeps tali iustitiam facere tenetur. Videtur tamen rationabiliter dicere quod etiam extra duos casus praedictos posset esse licitum principi talem a poena mortis absolvere, si talis occisio, ut supra dictum est, esset alicuius magni boni totius communitatis impeditiva, seu alicuius magni mali totius communitatis causativa, quia ut supra dictum est, bonum commune praeferendum est bono privato.”

78 DQ 26 [33], Gravina p. 228a; T f. 281va: “Tertio supponendum [T: intelligendum] est quod cum omnes legi subiectos lex aequaliter obliget, quantum ex se est sine rationabili causa dispensare cum uno et non cum alio, sine culpa esse non posset; hoc enim ad personarum acceptionem proculdubio pertineret, et per consequens talis non dispensatio, sed dissipatio legis esset dicenda, ut etiam supra dictum est et quia bonum commune bono privato praeferendum est, et per consequens magis vitari debet malum communitatis quam alicuius privatae personae, idcirco si observantia legis in aliquo speciali casu, quoad aliquam specialem personam, esset impeditiva boni communis, vel alicuius mali communis causativa, esset cum tali in hoc casu quantum ad talis legis observantiam per principem dispensandum.”

79 DQ 26 [33], Gravina p. 228a; T f. 281va: “Quarto supponendum [T: intelligendum] est quod malefactorem occidere est regulariter bonum, quod patet tum quia est actus iustitiae, ut de se patet, tum quia per hoc pax in hominum societate et communitate consdervatur, tum quia per malefactorum occisionem malorum audacia coercetur, tum quia hoc videmus etiam in naturalibus: membrum enim putridum abscinditur propter salutem totius corporis.”

349 time and place. For instance, natural law says that wrongdoers should be punished, whereas positive law stipulates that theft should be punished in a certain way. 80 John likens the diversity of human laws to the diversity of human languages: it is natural for man to speak, but he does so in diverse idioms. 81 He treats it as self-evident that divine law, expressed in the Old and New

Testaments, should be preferred to human laws. 82 Made correctly, John argues, positive law is naturally subsumed under divine law. However, he acknowledges that in reality many things that natural law prohibits are permitted and go unpunished by human laws. John asserts that all human laws that have been approved and received by the church are in accordance with natural law. 83 A subject wondering which laws are safe to follow would thus do well to learn which laws the church has approved.

John consider’s the subject’s perspective explicitly in the quodlibetal question already mentioned in Chapter 4 about the citizen who knows that a prince to whom he has sworn loyalty is plotting against his city and the city is plotting against the prince. A clear hierarchy of obligations comes across in John’s response. Assuming that the plots are just, John argues, if the prince is only in charge of this one city, the citizen ought to tell the city first, since the community is more valuable than the person of the prince. However, if the prince is in charge of a whole region or kingdom, the citizen ought to tell him first, since the whole kingdom’s stability, and thus the

80 The example comes from Quodl. IV.15; the relevant passage is transcribed from N in Michaud-Quantin, “Le droit naturel chez Jean de Naples,” 271. It also appears in John’s DQ 42 [QP 2], Gravina p. 363b-364a, which was in turn a revised version of the dictum John submitted to Pope John XXII’s consultation on apostolic poverty in 1322; see Nold, How Influential , 646-63. Similar statements about the relationship between natural and positive law can be found in other questions, such as Quodl. V.16, Quodl. VII.14, and Quodl. X.18.

81 Quodl. IV.15, T f. 38rb; N f. 62va: “Unde ius positivum est quasi quedam determinatio iuris naturalis, et per consequens non est idem apud omnes, sed diversum apud diversos secundum diversitatem statuencium, sicut homini est naturale loqui, sed loqui hoc ydioma [T: ydeoma] vel illud est ad placitum instituentis, unde diversa sunt ydiomata [T: ydeomata] apud diversos.” This passage also appears in DQ 42 [QP 2], Gravina p. 363a.

82 Schneyer no. 114, A f. 82vb: “...preter legem eternam, que nichil est aliud quam ratio divine sapientie, secundum quam deus omnia gubernat et dirigit in suos fines, et preter legem carnis seu peccati vel fomitis, qui nichil aliud est nisi inclinatio sensualitatis in aliquid preter iudicium rationis, quadruplex lex in homine reperitur, scilicet lex naturalis, lex positva, lex vetus, et lex nova. Inter has autem omnes preeminet lex nova, cum enim alie tres leges per additionem se habeant ad legem nature ei quanatum ad hoc preferri debent, sicut omnis perfectio superaddita ei cui superadditur. Lex autem divina, id est tam vetus quam nova, preferenda est legi humane, ut de se patet.”

83 Quodl. II.19, appendix to Chapter 4, § 7.

350 good of a larger community, depends on the safety of the prince. 84 John refines this hierarchy in his response to the initial arguments, one of which posited that a man has a greater obligation to his prince than to his wife, and to his wife than to his city. 85 John responds that this is true for a prince who governs a whole kingdom, but not for a prince who governs a city-state. Moreover, a man has a greater obligation to his city, considered as a totality, than to his wife, but he has a greater obligation to his wife than to any one citizen. 86 (The same does not hold true for lower secular powers, incidentally; in a question from his fifth quodlibet, John argues that, all else being equal, the obligation of a man to his wife is greater than that of a servant to his lord. 87 ) John responds that this is true for a prince who governs a whole kingdom, but not for a prince who governs a city-state. Moreover, a man has a greater obligation to his city, considered as a totality, than to his wife, but he has a greater obligation to his wife than to any one citizen. 88 In short, a man’s obligations are as follows: fellow citizen < wife < local prince < city < king.

John also argues that good citizens and subjects should not question their respective authorities too much. In a case of doubt, John argues, a citizen should assume that his city’s cause is just, exactly like a subject should assume that his prince’s war is just and fight on his behalf. 89 John’s greatest concern is for preserving political stability, and he seems to think that the instability that comes from challenging or deposing a prince is almost never worth it. This stance may have been encouraged in part by his generally positive outlook on the sorts of interventions that a king might make in the affairs of his own kingdom, discussed above, together with a deeply-ingrained

84 Quodl. X.26, chapter appendix, § 14-15.

85 Quodl. X.26, chapter appendix, § 2.

86 Quodl. X.26, chapter appendix, § 17.

87 Quodl. V.17, T f. 53va-b; N f. 78ra-b: “Decimaseptima questio est utrum servus uxoratus de licentia domini sui teneatur pro eodem tempore plus obedire domino precipienti quam satisfacere uxori petenti debitum, vel econverso, si non potest simul utrumque facere. [...] Primo probandum est quod ceteris paribus maior est obligatio viri ad uxorem quam servi ad dominum.”

88 Quodl. X.26, chapter appendix, § 17.

89 Quodl. X.26, chapter appendix, § 16.

351 faith in the power of obedience as a means of cultivating the virtue of humility, alluded to in Chapter 5.

6.4 Disputing the actions of the king

Many of the political questions discussed in the previous sections of this chapter were theoretical. But John certainly did not shy away from discussing more practical political issues when they were raised. In his quodlibets and disputed questions, he was repeatedly asked to consider whether the king could licitly do one thing or another: employ Muslim mercenaries, grant a licence to practice usury, intervene in legal disputes, and so forth. There is a slim possibility that these questions might have been asked by the king himself; as mentioned in Chapter 1, Robert of Naples fancied himself a bit of a scholar, even presiding over his own scholastic disputation in Castel Nuovo on at least one occasion, so it is not inconceivable that he might have attended disputations at the mendicant convents in Naples from time to time. However, it seems more probable that these questions were asked by members of John’s audience – most likely friars – who were critical of the monarch’s actions. One of these questions has already been discussed in the previous section: in one of his disputed questions, John considers whether a prince can absolve someone who has been justly condemned to death by a lower judge. As noted above, John argues that a prince can licitly grant such a reprieve, but only if he has good reason to do so. This question could be about any king, but some of John’s other questions make explicit reference to the Kingdom of Naples. Whether or not a Neapolitan connection is apparent, when answering these questions John tends to be supportive of the monarch.

A good example is a question from John’s eleventh quodlibet, which probably dates from Advent 1332, and asks whether the King of Sicily can licitly make a change to a law concerning the treatment of contumacious criminals. 90 The question appears to refer to a law in the Constitutions of the Kingdom of Sicily stating that anyone accused of a crime who has failed to

90 Quodl. XI.12, edited in the appendix to this chapter. Cf. Constitutiones regni utriusque Siciliae [...] (Lyon 1568), II.3, ‘De forbannitis et foriudicatis’, 130-6. The “agnos tales” in John’s question is probably a corruption of “augustales”, the currency of the Kingdom of Sicily under Frederick II. In Frederick’s constitution, 100 augustales was the reward for capturing a count who was subject to a sentence of foriudicatio, with lesser rewards specified for those of lower statuses, all the way down to six for a peasant. See Constitutiones regni utriusque Siciliae, 134a-b.

352 appear before a judge for a full year should be given no further opportunities to defend himself. After that year, he should be treated as if he had confessed to the crime and regarded as a public enemy, and anyone who kills him should not be punished, but should instead receive a financial reward. Following the local legal terminology, Frederick II, who first promulgated the law, termed this punishment foriudicatio , literally “being placed beyond all chance of judgement.” 91 John’s quodlibetal question concerns whether it is licit for the King of Sicily, with reasonable cause, to reduce the time before someone is deemed foriudicatus from a year to eight or six months, or any other period less than a year.

In his response, John first argues that this kind of law is licit in the first place, as the question assumes, because it is proportionate to the crime. 92 Next, he responds to the main question, declaring that the king can shorten the length of time it takes for someone to be deemed foriudicatus if there is a good reason for him to do so, because the person who makes a law also has the power to revoke it or make dispensations for individual cases. He evokes the notion of the king’s two bodies, saying that although the current king is a different person from the one who made the law, he is nonetheless his equal, and has the same power or authority. 93 Although the question appears to have been posed by someone critical of the king’s actions, John’s response is firmly supportive of the monarch.

A similar question appears in a gloss on this law by the Neapolitan jurist and royal official Andrew of Isernia, who completed his commentary on the Constitutions of the Kingdom of Sicily around 1310. 94 One of the many questions Andrew raises about this law is whether the king can rule that foriudicatio can come into effect before a year has passed. He responds that the king can do this for the sake of the greater good, as long as he gives the accused a moderate

91 Constitutiones regni utriusque Siciliae , 131b, lines 8-11: “Sic foriudicatus habebitur, prout in aliquibus nostri imperii partibus nuncupatur, quasi foris omnem aditum iudicii constitutus.”

92 Quodl. XI.12, chapter appendix, § 7-8.

93 Quodl. XI.12, chapter appendix, § 9. Cf. Ernst Hartwig Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology , (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957).

94 Mario Ascheri, The Laws of Late Medieval Italy (1000-1500): Foundations for a European Legal System (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 246.

353 amount of time to defend himself. For instance, the king could declare the author of a great crime foriudicatus after three months rather than a year. However, Andrew argues that the king should not do this often, and the accused must be made aware that law has been altered; otherwise, the king would be acting unjustly. 95 In his quodlibetal question, composed approximately two decades after the completion of Andrew’s commentary, John grants the king even more power, defending his right to shorten the period before someone is declared foriudicatus to as little as two days. 96 John seems to be presuming that foriudicatio concerns very serious crimes, perhaps following Charles II’s clarification that it applies only in cases where the punishment would be death, amputation, or perpetual imprisonment. 97 But in such cases, John grants the monarch the moral authority to bend the laws of his kingdom in an extreme way.

Another question with obvious links to the Kingdom of Naples is John’s disputed question on whether it is licit for a Christian king to employ Saracen mercenaries to defend his realm if he does not have sufficient Christian soldiers to do so. 98 The king and realm in the question are unnamed, but John’s response contains an unmistakeable allusion to the destruction of the Apulian Muslim city of Lucera, which occurred in 1300. 99 John argues that it is generally licit for a Christian king to employ infidel mercenaries to defend his kingdom, but he qualifies that statement with a series of limitations. 100 Among these is the warning that a king should be especially cautious about enlisting the help of Saracen soldiers if his ancestors had harmed Saracens in some way, either by destroying a city in their own lands, or by invading Saracen

95 Constitutiones regni utriusque Siciliae , gloss to II.3, p. 133a, lines 75-82, and p. 133b, lines 35-78.

96 One of the initial arguments for the question assumed that such a brief period would be irrational and inappropriate; see Quodl. XI.12, chapter appendix, § 5 ; for John’s response, see § 15-18.

97 See the beginning of the gloss by Andrew of Isernia to Constitutiones regni utriusque Siciliae , II.3, p. 131b, lines 78-82: “Hodie per constitutionem incliti Regis Caroli II quae incipit ‘sive quis sit’ tollunter duo magna dubia modernorum. Primum est quod foriudicatio non habet locum in omni crimine, sed in illis tantum, in quibus esset poena mortis naturalis, aut deportatio, vel membri abscissio, aut carcer perpetuus.”

98 DQ 38 [32], Gravina, p. 323-30; T f. 278vb-281ra; see above, Chapter 1 and Chapter 3.

99 See above, Chapter 1.

100 A similar conclusion was reached by the jurist Oldradus da Ponte, in a consilium likely composed at the papal court in Avignon during the 1320s. See Oldradus da Ponte, Consilium 71, ed and trans. Norman Zacour, in Jews and Saracens in the Consilia of Oldradus da Ponte (Toronto: PIMS, 1990), 44-46; 78-79.

354 territories. Because Saracens “consider themselves to be one people,” John continues, it is likely that “they would freely avenge themselves on a son for what their people have suffered anywhere at the hands of his predecessors.” 101 This comment seems to be directed at King Robert of Naples, whose father, Charles II, had ordered the destruction of Lucera.

I have not been able to identify the specific historical context in which this question was disputed, but it can be dated to the early part of Robert’s reign, during which time he led several military campaigns, often framed as crusades, against other Christian powers. 102 Robert sometimes had difficulty raising Christian troops for these campaigns, so he may well have contemplated bringing in Muslim mercenaries from further afield; after all, there was a long tradition of Christian rulers using Muslim mercenaries in southern Italy, as in other parts of medieval Europe. 103 Although John condones this well-established practice, he does caution that infidel soldiers should only be employed if a king cannot muster enough Christians, either within his kingdom or beyond it. It would be impermissible for a king to bring in infidel soldiers on account of a lack of faith, or if God or the Church had forbidden him to do so. Furthermore, non- Christians should not be admitted to a kingdom if there is a concern that believers could be induced into sin or apostacy by their presence, and it is also illicit to employ unbelievers if they might end up in positions of authority over believers as a result. Thus, although John is broadly supportive of the king’s actions in this question, he places a number of restrictions upon them.

101 DQ 38 [32], Gravina, 328b; T f. 280rb: “Maxime autem videtur cavendum in talium Saracenorum auxilio confidere principi cuius progenitores Saracenis aliquod nocumentum intulissent, vel in terra propria aliquam civitatem destruendo, vel in terris ipsorum eas [T: eos] invadendo, quia cum omnes ubicunque sint, estiment se unum populum, probabile est quod vindicarent libenter [T: libenter vindicarent] in filio, quod gens ipsorum ubicunque alibi ab eius progenitoribus passa est.” Translations of this question are taken from the Cambridge Translations of Medieval Philosophical Texts , cited above.

102 This dating is based on the fact that the text in the early modern printed edition of the question refers to Thomas Aquinas as “frater” rather than “sanctus”, indicating that the lost Neapolitan manuscript on which Gravina’s edition is based was written prior to his canonization in 1323. The reference to a royal ancestor who had destroyed a Muslim city suggests that the question was disputed after Robert came to power in 1309. It is not wholly clear whether the question was disputed in Naples or Paris; for discussion, see Appendix 2. Robert’s military activites are discussed above in Chapter 1.

103 Catlos, Muslims of Medieval Latin Christendom , 244-9; 93. On resistance to crusade preaching in southern Italy, see Housley, The Italian Crusades , 142.

355

John comes the closest to outright disapproval of the sovereign’s actions in his quodlibetal question on whether a ruler sins by granting a license to practice usury in his lands. 104 He argues that all rulers sin by granting this kind of licence, since usury is unjust by nature and probited by divine law, and human laws and princes can never make licit something that is forbidden by God. 105 In the course of his response, John also considers the related question of whether it is licit for a ruler to permit usurious moneylending among his subjects, not going so far as to grant a licence promoting the practice, but passively allowing it to exist. John acknowledges that there is scholarly disagreement on this point, but he argues that it is licit for a prince to permit his subjects to practice usury. If usury were not permitted, only a very few people would lend money, except to friends and relatives, due to the widespread lack of charity in our present fallen state. The main goal of a prince’s rule is to safeguard the good of his people, so if he judges that it is useful for his people, he does not sin by allowing them to lend money at interest. 106

As Rowan Dorin has observed, John’s conclusion echoed a similar statement made by Godfrey of Fontaines in a quodlibetal question on whether secular princes or ecclesiastical prelates sin by

104 Quodl. X.18, T f. 157ra-158ra; N f. 21va-23va: “Utrum princeps peccet concedendo licenciam alicui in terra sua ut mutuet pecuniam ad usuram.” The question is discussed in Odd Langholm, Economics in the Medieval Schools: Wealth, Exchange, Value, Money and Usury, according to the Paris Theological Tradition, 1200-1350 (Leiden: Brill, 1992) , 475-8. 105 Quodl. X.18, T f. 157va; N f. 22rb: “...princeps quicumque peccat talem licentiam concedendo, quod patet dupliciter. Primo quia illud quod prohibitum est per superiorem et eius legem non potest licite concedi per inferiorem seu eius legem, et si inferior concedit, de facto peccat. Sed mutuare pecuniam ad usuram est prohibitum a deo et per legem divinam veteris et novi testamenti, ut supra declaratum est, ergo etc. Secundo quia illud quod est iniustum de natura sua non potest fieri licitum seu iustum per legem humanam seu principem cuius est eadem potestas et legis, ut patet in 5 Ethicorum , quia ius positivum non est contrarium iuri naturali, sed est eius determinatio, ut alias declaratum fuit. Sed mutuare pecuniam ad usuram est iniustum de natura sua, ut supra tripliciter probatum est. Ergo per nullam humanam legem vel principem potest concedi alicui quod pro pecunia mutuata exigat aliquid plus ut lucrum pecunie mutuate, licet in aliquo casu possit pro aliqua alia causa aliquid exigere licite sine peccato. Et sunt tales casus quattuor...”

106 Quodl. X.18, T f. 157va-b; N f. 22rb-va: “Secundum declarandum quantum ad secundum principale est utrum liceat principi saltim permittere in sibi subditis, et utrum leges humane que hoc permittunt sint abrogate per canones. Et licet de hoc sint opiniones inter doctores, ut patet in Summa Confessorum , libro secundo, titulo septimo, questione 43, tamen videtur dicendum quod hoc liceat principi. Cuius ratio est quia illud quod expedit multitudini ut permittatur si princeps permittit non peccat, quia bonum multitudinis debet intendere ut finem sui regiminis. Sed quod aliqui mutuent ad usuram expedit multitudini, quia si usure prohiberentur districte multe utilitates multorum impedirentur propter defectum pecunie mutuate, quia pauci mutuant sine lucro, nisi amicis et consanguineis, propter defectum caritatis, quia virtus est paucorum et stultorum infinitus est numerus , ut dicitur Eccles. 1[:15]. Ergo princeps non peccat usuras permittendo, si hoc iudicat suis subditis expedire.”

356 not expelling usurers from their lands. 107 Although he does not dwell here on the contrast between foreign and native usurers, John’s response to this question is in keeping with Godfrey’s view that native usurers are preferable to foreign ones because foreign usurers drain wealth from the kingdom, whereas natives or residents tend to keep wealth within the community. John goes so far as to say that the prince ought to permit usury in his lands if he judges that it would be expedient. He emphasizes that in permitting usury, the prince is in no way responsible for the usurer’s sin. 108 This is as close as John comes to criticizing the king’s actions in a quodlibet – and even here, by refusing to advocate an outright ban on usury, he largely permits the king to do whatever he wants. As far as the limited documentation suggests, Robert of Naples was relatively well-disposed towards Christian moneylenders, sometimes defending usurers, including foreign ones, from persecution. In 1334, he rebuked inquisitors for harassing the Peruzzi and forbade them from proceeding against them for usury ever again. 109 So John’s conclusion was essentially condoning the king’s policies.

6.5 Conclusion

The very fact that John was asked the sorts of questions I have discussed here indicates that his contemporaries – or at least the audience for his quodlibetal debates – considered him an authority on political matters. In part, this stemmed from his familiarity with the works of Aristotle, including the Politics , which held a place, albeit a relatively minor one, in the early fourteenth-century Dominican moral theology curriculum. But the types of political questions John was called upon to answer in these debates indicate that he was also seen, perhaps even more so, as an expert on natural law and its application to real-world situations, up to and including the activities of princes. This was consistent with the way John framed his own

107 Rowan Dorin, “Banishing Usury: The Expulsion of Foreign Moneylenders in Medieval Europe, 1200-1450,” (PhD Diss., Harvard University, 2015), 338-40, referring to Godfrey’s Quodl. XII.9.

108 Quodl. X.18, T f. 158ra; N f. 23ra: “Princeps autem, dato quod posset impedire per districtas penas exerceri usuras in terris suis, tamen in casu in quo hoc non expediret, non debet hoc facere; immo debet hoc permittere, ut supra declaratum est. Et immo non debet dici esse causa directe vel indirecte dampni ei cui mutuatur pecunia ad usuram, sed solus usurarius in hoc peccans peccato iniustitie, ut supra probatum est...”

109 See Romolo Caggese, Roberto d’Angiò e i suoi tempi (Florence: R. Bemporad & Figlio, 1922), I.596-7. Unfortunately, the loss of the Angevin registers makes it impossible to discern the identity of these inquisitors.

357 authority, and that of other masters of theology, throughout his works. Parisian masters of theology like John tended to represent themselves as occupying the top of a hierarchy of learning, a position which gave them the authority to prescribe norms for and judge the actions of all members of Christian society, including kings. 110 In treating questions about the extent of royal power and the licitness of specific royal actions, he was thus building on a well-established tradition.

Nonetheless, while from all appearances John was quite happy to answer questions about the licitness of the king’s actions or ideal forms of government, he seems to have been careful in the way that he deployed his authority when it came to passing judgement on a ruler’s deeds. In general, John’s responses to practical political questions amount to little more than an ecclesiastical seal of approval for what the king was probably going to do anyway. This was not unusual for a late medieval scholar. According to Jacques Verger, political writings stemming from thirteenth- to fifteenth-century university contexts were very rarely subversive; on the whole, they tended to support the prince. 111 John’s contemporary theologians could and sometimes did denounce the actions of secular powers in their quodlibets. A good example is the Cistercian Master of Theology Jacques de Thérines, who famously debated a quodlibetal question on whether Jews who have been expelled from one region ought to be expelled from another at Paris during Advent 1306, shortly after Philip IV had expelled the Jews from France. His position – that Jews should in general be allowed to live among Christians, and that if an expulsion must be undertaken it should only be temporary – ran distinctly contrary to Philip’s actions. 112 But as Verger points out, this kind of subversive academic discourse was unusual. This observation certainly holds true for the political works of John of Naples, even though most of them originated in a mendicant studium rather than a university. Whether discussing ideal forms of kingship or the relationship between royal and papal power, John tended to uphold the

110 Wei, “The Self-Image of the Masters of Theology”; Marmursztejn, “A Normative Power in the Making,” 378- 85.

111 Jacques Verger, “ Regnum et studium : l’université comme auxiliaire du pouvoir au Moyen Age,” in Le pouvoir au Moyen Age: idéologies, pratiques, representations , ed. Claude Carozzi and Huguette Taviani-Carozzi (Aix-en- Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence, 2005), 297-311, at 300.

112 Jordan, Unceasing Strife, Unending Fear , 17-23.

358 status quo for the kingdom of Naples. When asked about a ruler’s actions, John typically sanctioned them, or at most attempted to nudge the monarch toward what he considered to be the truth. On the rare occasions when his education brought him into conflict with local customs, as in the case of female succession, he appears to have preferred to keep quiet on the matter and reap the personal benefits that came from supporting the reigning monarch.

Appendix to Chapter 6

The first quodlibetal question included in this appendix is discussed above in section 6.3, and also in 4.1. The second is discussed above in section 6.4.

Quodl. X.26: Should a loyal citizen first reveal the plot of his city against his prince, or the plot of his prince against his city? 1

1 Vicesima sexta questio est talis casus: Quidam civis unius civitatis fidelis et iuratus cuiusdam principis scivit machinationem civitatis contra principe et e converso principis contra civitatem. Queritur cui debeat citius revelare.

2 Et primo videtur quod principi, quia debet citius revelare cui est magis obligatus. Sed maior est obligatio ad principem quam ad uxorem, et ad uxorem quam civitatem. Et quod est maius maiore est maius minore. Ergo maior est obligatio ad principem quam ad civitati.

3 Sed contra, sicut est in esse nature, sic est in esse moris. Sed in esse nature sic est quod manus naturaliter exponit se periculo pro conservatione totius. Ergo et bonus civis sicut bonum membrum civitatis debet pro bono civitatis conservando exponere se etiam periculo revelando machinationem principis contra eam factam.

4 Preterea, in iuramento prestito principi non includitur ipsemet prestans iuramentum ut eius membrum. Ergo non includitur pari ratione civitas cuius est membrum. Ergo sicut suam, sic et civitatis non debet revelare machinationem principi contra se factam.

5 Respondeo, ad evidentiam huius questionis primo premittende sunt tres suppositiones.

6 Et prima est quod machinatio stricte et proprie accepta sonat in malum; est enim mala seu iniqua excogitatio contra aliquem. Sed large et communiter accepta est idem quod

1 N f. 28va-29rb; T f. 161vb-162rb

359 360

excogitatio alicuius mali iuste vel iniuste inferendi alicui. Et sic |N f. 28vb| accipienda est in proposito, ut questio latius accepta determinetur.

7 Secunda suppositio est quod hec questio potest distingui in 7 casus, quia aut utraque machinatio, scilicet principis contra civitatem et civitatis contra principem, est iusta; aut utraque iniusta; aut prima est iusta et secunda est iniusta; aut e converso prima est iniusta et secunda est iusta; aut est dubium de utraque an sit iusta vel iniusta; aut est dubium de prima sola; aut de secunda sola.

8 Tertia suppositio est quod hec questio unum supponit, scilicet quod utrique, videlicet principi et civitati, est revelanda machinatio contra se facta, et aliud querit, scilicet cui citius.

9 Secundo principaliter probande sunt 5 conclusiones ad hanc questionem pertinentes.

10 Et prima est quod neutram iustam debet revelare, quod sic probatur: secundum |T f. 162ra| Philosophum in Postpredicamentis , bonum bono non est contrarium. 2 Quod ergo est impeditiam boni tanquam ei contrarium est malum et illicitum. Sed talis revelatio quantum est ex natura sua est impeditiam talis machinationis iuste. Ergo est mala et illicita.

11 Sed dicetur contra hoc quod talis iuravit principi revelare sibi omne consilium et tractatum contra se factum quod veniret ad notitiam eius. Ergo ex vi prestiti iuramenti talis tenetur revelare talem machinationem. Ad quod dicendum quod iuramentum non est vinculum iniquitatis. Unde ex nullo iuramento aliquis obligatur ad aliquid illicitum. Talis autem revelatio est illicita, ut probatum est, quia est impeditiva iustitie. Unde ad talem revelationem talis prestans tale iuramentum non obligat. Ad cuius maiorem evidentiam est sciendum quod iuramentum aut est de semper licito, et tunc semper obligat, ut dicitur certas orationes omni die habita oportunitate; aut est de semper illicito, et tunc peccat sic iurans et numquam tale iuramentum obligat, ut omni die furari habita oportunitate; aut est

2 cf. Aquinas, Super III Sent. , d. 26, q. 2, a. 1, arg. 4; Super IV Sent. , d. 15, q. 2, a. 5, qc. 4, ad. 1; Summa Theologiae II a-II ae , q. 47, a. 9, arg 3 and q. 101 a. 4.

361

de eo quod potest quandoque esse licitum et quandoque illicitum, ut est omni die ieiunare, quod in casu alicuius infirmitatis posset esse illicitum, et tale iuramentum obligat in casu in quo est licitum, et non obligat in casu in quo non est licitum. Et sic est de iuramento predicto, ut supra declaratum est.

12 Secunda conclusio est quod utramque iniustam machinationem debet revelare, cuius ratio est quia quilibet debet impedire malum iniuste inferendum ei quem debet diligere, cum diligere aliquem hoc includit, scilicet velle et procurare eius bonum et |N f. 29ra| nolle et impedire eius malum. Sed bonus civis debet diligere suam civitatem et consilarius iuratus principis debet diligere talem principem. Ergo debet malum utriusque impedire revelando machinationem iniustam contra utrumque factam.

13 Sed dicetur contra hanc conclusionem sicut contra precedentem quod talis iuravit principi non revelare tractatum seu consilium eius cui interesset. Sed dicendum est ad hoc, sicut et ad precedens, quod tale iuramentum obligat quando non revelare est licitum, et hoc est quando revelare non est debitum, sicut est in proposito, ut supra probatum est, et immo in casu proposito non revelare est illicitum et tale iuramentum non obligat in tali casu.

14 Tertia conclusio est quod si princeps preest tali soli civitati, citius debet revelare tali civitati quam principi, quod sic probatur: Illi talis plus obligatur revelare quem debet magis diligere secundum illam regulam ‘si simpliciter ad simpliciter, et magis ad magis.’ Sed talis debet magis diligere talem civitatem quam talem principem, ergo etc. Probatio minoris: propter quod unumquodque, et illud magis. Sed homo debet magis diligere principem quam aliam singularem personam, quia princeps gerit personam communitatis. Ergo debet magis diligere communitatem sue civitatis quam talem principem.

15 Quarta conclusio est quod si princeps preest non soli tali civitati, sed toti alicui regno vel regioni in qua est talis civitas, citius debet revelare tali principi quam tali civitati, cuius ratio est quia illi plus obligatur revelare quem tenetur magis diligere. Sed talis debet magis diligere talem principem quam talem civitatem, ergo etc. Probatio minoris: bonum totius est magis diligendum quam bonum partis. Sed bonum talis principis, cum sit extimandum bonum totius regni, se habet ad bonum talis civitatis ut bonum totius ad bonum partis, ergo etc.

362

16 Quinta conclusio est quod in casu dubio an sit iusta vel iniusta utraque vel altera machinatio, supponere debet talis quod sit iusta, cuius ratio est quia quantum ad bonitatem et malitiam ratione iudicium de actu elicito interiori et de actu imperato exteriori, quia actus interior |T f. 162rb| habet bonitatem et malitiam ab exteriori ut ab obiecto, et exterior ab interiori ut a principio. Idem ergo iudicium quantum ad bonitatem et malitiam est de machinatione interiori et de bello exteriori. Sed in casu dubio an bellum indictum a principe sit iustum vel iniustum, subditus debet bellare |N f. 29rb| supponendo bellum esse iustum, et simile est de cive respectu civitatis. Ergo idem dicendum est de machinatione. Maior probata est; minor patet per Augustinum 22 o Contra Faustum , et habetur in Decretis 23, questione prima, ‘quid culpatur’ [Dec. Grat., C. 23, q. 1, c. 4]: ‘vir iustus, si forte etiam sub rege homine sacrilego militet, recte potest illo iubente bellare, si quod sibi iubetur vel non esse contra dei preceptum, certum est, vel utrum sit certum non est, ita ut fortasse reum faciat regem iniquitas imperandi; innocentem autem militem ostendat ordo serviendi.’ Et ratio est quia, sicut Augustinus dicit ibidem, ‘ordo naturalis mortalium paci accomodatus hoc poscit, ut suscipiendi belli auctoritas atque consilium penes principes sit.’ Ad cuius rationis evidentiam est sciendum quod dubia semper sunt in meliorem partem interpretanda, ut dicit Augustinus in secundo libro De sermone domini in monte , exponens illud Matt. 7[:1], nolite iudicare etc,3 et

Beda hoc ipsum dicit in omelia exponens predicta verba Christi.4 Et si hoc est verum de aliis, multo magis in proposito, quia inferioris non est de factis superioris sui que ei incumbunt ex officio suo iudicare, sed si sunt dubia, semper sunt in meliorem partem interpretanda.

17 Ad primum ergo, per quod probatur quod citius debet revelare principi, dicendum quod argumentum verum concludit de principe totius regni alicuius, sed non de principe solius civitatis. Et ad argumentum per quod probatur contrarium, dicendum per interremptionem minoris, maior enim est obligatio hominis ad civitatem suam acceptam secundum suam

3 Augustine, De sermone domini in monte 2.18.

4 cf. X 5.41.1; Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II a-II ae q. 60, a. 4; Bede, In Lucam 4.24.

363

totalitatem quam ad uxorem, sed maior est obligatio ad uxorem quam ad unumquemque civem, sicut et est maior unio.

18 Ad argumentum factum in contrarium dicendum quod etiam manus non debet se exponere periculo pro toto ubi malum iuste inferretur toti; immo talis sic exponens manum in tali casu peccaret habendo bellum iniustum.

19 Ad secundum dicendum quod non est simile de machinatione sua contra principem et de machinatione civitatis revelanda principi propter duo. Primo quia nullus potest licite esse sibi ipsi causa mortis, sed alterius sic, et revelando suam machinationem de qua non accusatur aut denuntiatur esset sibi causa mortis sue. Secundo quia in potestate sua est resilire a propria machinatione et resiliendo impedire malum principis, sed non est in potestate sua quod civitas resileat a tali machinatione, et ideo debet malum principis impedire revelando talem machinationem.

364

Quodl. XI.12: Whether the king of Sicily can licitly shorten the period of foriudicatio 1

1 Duodecima questio est utrum rex regni Scicilie possit licite ex causa rationabili annum foriudicationis determinatum per constitutionem regni sui abreviare, utpote foriudicando aliquem vel foriudicari faciendo post 8 menses, vel 6, vel aliquod aliud tempore minus uno anno, sic quod post talem foriudicationem foriudicatus nullo tempore audiatur in defensionibus suis, et quilibet occidens eum non solum occidat eum impune, sed etiam premietur seu lucretur centum agnos tales, et sic foriudicatus habeatur hoste predicti regis et regni.

2 Et primo videtur quod hoc rex non possit, quia ea que sunt de iure naturali non possunt tolli per quecumque principem seu ius positivam statutum per ipsum. Sed quod homo audiatur in defensionibus suis quocumque tempore est de iure naturali. Ergo hoc non potest tolli per quemcumque principem seu eius statutum.

3 Preterea, quod est de iure divino non potest toli per quodcumque ius humanum seu principem. Sed quod accusatus audiatur in defensionibus suis videtur esse de iure divino scripto Act. 25[:16]: Non est romanis consuetudo donare , id est ad mortem dampnare, aliquem hominem priusquam is qui accusatur presentes habeat accusatores locumque defendendi accipiat ad abluenda crimina que ei obiciuntur . Ergo hoc non potest tolli per quemcumque hominem seu eius statutum.

4 Preterea, pena debet proportionari culpe et non excedere ipsam. Sed culpa talis accusati et citati non comparentis usque ad annum duravit per unum annum solum. Ergo non debet puniri pena perpetua, ut scilicet in perpetuum non audiatur in defensionibus suis.

5 Preterea, qua ratione rex posset abreviare talem annum usque ad 6 menses, eadem ratione posset abreviare etiam usque ad duos dies. Sed hoc secundum esset irrationabile et inconveniens, scilicet foriudicare aliquem post duos dies. Ergo et primum est irrationabile |T f. 168vb| et inconveniens.

1 T f. 168va-169rb

365

6 Sed contra, idem iudicium est de aliis constitutionibus regni, et de predicta una. Sed in aliis constitutionibus rex potest dispensare. Ergo et in predicta una potest etiam dispensare.

7 Respondeo, ad evidentiam istius questionis due declaranda et probanda sunt principaliter.

8 Et primum est quod talis constitutio potuit licite fieri seu quod contineat iustitiam, quod idem est, quod in questione supponitur, quod sic potest probari: magna pena potest iuste statui et inferri pro magna culpa, iuxta illud Deut. 25[:2], pro mensura delicti erit et plagarum modus . Sed culpa talis accusati et citati seu vocati ad iudicium et non comparentis usque ad annum videtur esse multum magna, quia talis videter contempnere multum suum superiorem et eius iudicium et fugere. Ergo iuste potest statui penam foriudicationis supradictam inferri pro tali contumancia seu contemptu et fuga. Et confirmatur ratio quia pena debet corespondere culpe, ut scilicet homo puniatur in hoc in quo deliqui, iuxta illud Sap. 11[:17], per que quis peccat, per hec et torquetur. Sed talis peccavit contempnendo et fugiendo iudicium sui superioris. Ergo iuste statui potuit pro pena quod tale iudicium ei subtraharetur nullo tempore audiendo eum in defensionibus suis et non puniendo occidentem ipsum et remuniando talem occisorem tanquam ministrum iustitie.

9 Secundum declarandum est quod rex, si causa rationabilis subsit, potest talem annum abreviare, que est principale quesitum, quia eiusdem est legem condere et ipsam abrogare seu revocare totaliter quoad omnes, et in ea dispensare quoad aliquem in aliquo casu, ut omnes concedunt, etiam iuriste. Sed predictam legem seu constitutionem rex iuste fecit ut supra probatum est. Ergo et rex, si subesset causa rationabilis, posset eam etiam totaliter revocare, et multo magis cum aliquo in aliquo casu dispensare in ipsam talem annum prolongando vel abreviando, licet enim rex nunc existens sit alius in persona a rege qui predictam constitutionem fecit, est tamen non solum equalis, sed etiam eiusdem potentatis seu auctoritatis cum ipso.

10 Ad primum ergo factum in contrarium, dicendum quod de iure naturali sit aliqua dupliciter: Primo siquidem tanquam habentia rationem equi et iusti sic inseperabiliter annexam quod semper opposita sunt mala et iniqua, ut sunt diligere deum et proximum propter deum, et 10 precepti decalogi quantum ad illud quod continent formaliter, ut alibi

366

declaratum est, 2 et simila. Et idcirco tallia non possunt tolli per nullum hominem seu eius statutum quo statuerentur opposita, quia tale statutum esset iniquum. Quedam autem desunt de iure naturali tanquam equa et iusta ut communiter, quorum tamen opposita in multis casibus possunt esse iusta et rationabilia. Et talia in talibus casibus tolli non possunt per hominem et eius statutum statuendo opposita, etiam iuste et rationabiliter, per quem modum de iure naturale est filios succedere parentibus in hereditate, iuxta illud etiam Apostoli Ad Ro. 8[:17], si filii, et heredes , et Ad Gal. 4[:7], si filius, et heres , quia filii habent a parentibus esse seu vivere in vita presentis. Idcirco debent habere nutrimentum, ut Philosophus etiam dicit in 8 Ethicorum ,3 et sustentationem vite, propter quam est possessio rerum exteriorum. Et tamen per ius positivum civile et canonicum est ablatum seu remotum quantum ad filios illegitimos, et iuste, ad puniendum parentes talium propter culpam illiciti concubitus, qui revera in tali exheredatione puniuntur propter naturale amorem quem habent parentes ad filios, et est statutum civile et canonicum quod filii illegitimi inhereditate parentibus non succedant. Et similiter dicendum est in proposito quod quamvis accusatum audire in suis defensionibus quocumque tempore sit equum et iustum, tamen potuit |T f. 169ra| statui etiam ut equum et iustum quod talis accusatus ad iudicium et non comparens post annum in suis defensionibus non audiatur ad puniendum contumacia ipsius, ut supra declaratum est, sicut et homo iuste propter culpam commissam privatur vita et membris, que multo magis competunt homini de iure naturali et a natura ipsa, quam audire accusatum in suis defensionibus.

11 Sed contra hanc responsionem potest argui, quia legem positivam a superiori nullo modo potest tollere inferior et statuere oppositum. Sed cum natura sit effectus dei, ea que sunt de iure naturali utroque modo predicto videntur esse de iure divino seu dei, qui est superior omni homine. Ergo talia per nullum hominem seu eius statutum possunt tolli, etiam in parte, per statui opposita.

2 in marg.: quolibet 5 o q. xii a

3 Aristotle, Ethica ad Nicomachum 8.13, 1161 a 15-17; cf. Auctoritates Aristotelis p. 244, no. 158.

367

12 Ad quod dicendum est quod inferior potest tollere legem superioris de eius beneplacito. Culpa autem commissam puniri tanquam rationabile et iustum est beneplacitum deo, de quo ait Ps. [10:8] Iustus dominus et iustitias dilexit equitatem vidit iustus eius, et idcirco occisio hominis, et truncatio membrorum, et exheredatio filiorum illegitimorum, et foriudicatio post annum, et similia, potuerunt iuste statui tanquam pene infligende pro culpis commissis, non obstante quod opposita ipsorum sunt de iure naturali tanquam equa et iusta ut communiter, quia, ut supra declaratum est, opposita etiam in multis casibus sunt equa et iusta.

13 Ad secundum est dicendum quod illa sunt verba beati Pauli Apostoli non statuentis seu promulgantis aliquod ius divinum, sed solum recitantis consuetudinem que tunc erat romanis, ut etiam verba exprimunt. Unde tale argumentum penitus nihil concludit.

14 Ad tertium est dicendum quod pena debet correspondere culpe quantum ad intentionem seu gravitatem, ut scilicet pro gravi culpa inferatur gravis pena, et pro levi levis, non autem quantum ad extensionem seu durationem, quia etiam secundum iustitiam divinam, pena infernalis eterna infertur pro culpa perpetrata etiam modico tempore, et secundum iustitiam humana pro culpa perpetrata etiam modico tempore infertur pena mortis seu truncationis membri, que sunt habende quantum ad homines pro penis eternis, quia talibus naturaliter non possunt restitui vita vel membra. Ratio autem quantum ad iustitiam divinam potest esse quia voluntas peccatoris qui imminente morte de peccato non penitet est semper in peccato remanere, et idcirco iustum est quod ipsa deo puniatur, quam causam tangit beatus Gregorius 29 Moraliarum , sic dicens: ‘Iniqui voluissent sine fine vivere, ut sine fine possent iniquitatibus permanere.’ 4 Iustum est igitur ut qui in eterno suo peccavit contra deum in eterno dei puniatur. Quantum autem ad iustitiam humanam, ratio huius potest esse quia licet culpa transeat quantum ad actum et modico tempore duret, permanet tamen quantum ad effectum seu sequentiam, que est proximi et rei publice lesio seu offensa, sicut et proiectio iaculi cito transit, sed permanet postea percussio hominis iaculati.

4 Actually Gregory the Great, Moralia in Job , 34.36; cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Ia-II ae , q. 87, a. 3, ad. 1.

368

15 Ad quartum et ultimum est dicendum quod non est simile quantum spectat ad presens de duobus diebus et de uno anno propter duo:

16 Primo quia alique cause rationabiliter non excusarent aliquem de hoc, quod non comparuit infra annum accusatus et ad iudicium vocatus, que excusarent ipsum de hoc, quod non comparuit infra duos dies.

17 Secundo quia maior culpa est non comparere usque ad unum annum quam non comparere usque ad duos dies, et e contra maior pena est foriudicare aliquem post duos dies quam post annum, et iniuste seu irrationabiliter equalis pena infertur pro minori culpa et pro maiora.

18 Et preterea, videtur quod posset esse culpa accusati et citati tam gravis et no|T f. 169rb|toria, et contumacia etiam sic notoria et gravis, quod per principem posset licite talis post duos etiam dies foriudicari et per principem statui quod in omni casu consimilis talis post duos etiam dies foriudicaretur.

19 Pro opposita conclusione posset probabiliter sic argui: pena non potest iuste inferri nisi pro culpa. Sed citatus pro crimine quod credit verisimiliter si comparet probari sibi in iudicio et propter ipsum ad mortem dampnari non peccat non comparendo sed fugiendo. Ergo ei pro tali fuga nulla pena iusta potest inferri. Maior conceditur ab omnibus theologicis et iuristis. Minor probatur, quia adiudicatus seu sententiatus iuste ad morte ab aliquo iudice non minus est ei subiectus quam predictus citatus, immo magis, ut de se patet. Sed iuste sententiatus ad mortem si potest fuere, fugiendo non peccat secundum communem doctrinam, ut patet Secunda Secunde q. 69, a. 4, in solutione secundi argumenti. 5 Ergo et predictus citatus pro crimine non comparendo, sed fugiendo iudicium et superiorem seu iudicem suum non peccat, et precipue quia hoc faciendo fugit mortem, cuius timor secundum iuristas cadit in constantem virum.

5 Aquinas, Summa Theologiae , II a-II ae q. 69, a. 4, ad 2.

369

20 6Ad quod posset dici quod iudicatus ad mortem subiit totum iudicium sui superioris usque ad sententiam inclusive, nec fugiendo de loco unde duceretur ad mortem videtur facere contra sententiam iudicis contra se latam, quia nullus ita condempnatur quod ipse sibi inferat mortem, et immo non tenetur facere illud unde mors sequatur, quod est manere in loco unde ducatur ad mortem, ut etiam Sanctus Thomas exprimit ubi supra. Sed e contra citatus seu vocatus ad iudicium et non comparens sed fugiens videtur contempnere et fugere iudicium sui superioris, et per consequens multum graviter peccare. Et idcirco non est simile de tali ad mortem dampnato et de citato seu vocato ad iudicium. Timor autem mortis, qui cadit in virum constantem, hoc est in virum virtuosum, est timor qui non excludit virtutem, sed stat simul cum ea, et talis est timor qui est absque peccato, precipue mortali.

6 This entire paragraph has been added by the text hand in the lower margin, keyed to a mark at the end of the question.

Conclusion

At the outset of this study, I posed the question of what later medieval masters of theology did with the rest of their lives, when not studying and teaching at the University of Paris. This close examination of the life and works of a single friar cannot hope to provide a comprehensive response to this question, but it does add some data points and raises some questions for further investigation. John of Naples’ career illustrates several of the options that were open to masters of theology who were also mendicants, the first and most obvious of which was teaching. The analysis of John’s activities as lector at the Dominican studium generale in Naples that I have presented here helps to confirm the importance of core texts such as the Bible, Peter Lombard’s Sentences , and the works of Thomas Aquinas in fourteenth-century Dominican education, along with pastoral summae such as the ones by Raymond of Penyafort and John of Freiburg, and the works of Aristotle and related texts, such as the De regimine principum of Giles of Rome, and the Politics commentary of Peter of Auvergne. In Chapters 3, 4, and 6, I have presented examples of quodlibetal questions that appear to have been inspired by classroom texts such as these. John’s quodlibetal disputations in Naples seem to have functioned in part as an opportunity for students to request their master’s opinion on questions they had encountered in their studies, seeking clarification, or presenting variations on existing problems. Although the core texts appear to have been fairly standard in Dominican studia throughout Christendom, the topics emphasized could vary from place to place.

Theology, as John taught it in Naples, was an all-encompassing discipline, which dealt not only with God, but also with the whole of creation, in which human beings, and the means of their salvation, were central. As discussed in Chapter 2, his stated goals as a teacher of theology were to instruct students about divine matters and lead them to the love of God, as well as teaching them how to identify and classify sins and assign the appropriate penances. It was thus an eminently practical enterprise. In Chapter 3, I argued that John’s teaching on medicine took place within a theological framework, and showed how he employed – and presumably taught his students to employ – medical imagery in his sermons. His quodlibetal questions on problems of medical ethics, discussed in Chapter 4, were among the ones picked up by later pastoral writers, showing that they helped to fill a gap in the existing pastoral literature. John’s interest in medicine, both as a object of theoretical study and a potential source of sin, is one of the aspects

370 371 of his teaching that reflects the particular local context in which he operated. His emphasis on tending to the elite, both in his pastorally-minded quodlibetal questions and in his preaching, also reflects the environment of his Neapolitan convent, which had close ties to the Angevin court and southern Italian aristocracy.

Quite apart from study and teaching, a master of theology who was also a member of a religious order could spend a good deal of his time carrying out tasks that helped to fulfill the day-to-day needs of his order. Chapter 5 highlights some of the ways in which John did this. He contributed to the observance of the liturgy in his home convent, buried important patrons within its walls, and assisted noblewomen in making their profession as Dominican nuns. He helped to maintain discipline within his province by acting as visitator , checking up on other convents and reporting back to the provincial chapter. He travelled to provincial and general chapters, participating in the election of governing officials up to and including the Master General himself. A friar did not need to be a master of theology in order to do any of these things. But it seems reasonable to assume that John’s position as a respected scholar and preacher was one of the factors that led to his being selected to perform these highly visible and often quite prestigious activities.

John’s career also illustrates a number of ways in which friars and masters of theology could form long-lasting and mutually beneficial relationships with political authorities – in his case, the Angevin rulers of early-fourteenth-century Naples. Royal patronage and royal interventions with Dominican authorities helped to set John on the path to Paris, and royal support visibly helped to fund and furnish his home convent during his lifetime. Patronage of religious men and institutions was one of the virtuous deeds for which John praised King Charles II and other members of the Angevin dynasty in the many sermons he preached in their memory. Some of John’s political preaching, such as his sermon presenting Queen Johanna to the pope, or the one publicizing the antipope’s abdication, was clearly done at a ruler’s behest. But in many other cases, such as his sermons memorializing members of the Neapolitan royalty, or honouring saints they favoured, it is difficult to say how much he was acting on his own initiative or on the instructions of his Dominican superiors, and how much he was acting in response to royal requests. Angevin and Dominican interests were often closely aligned during John’s lifetime – the canonization of Thomas Aquinas is a good example – so these two factors must have often worked in tandem. He joined other preachers and visual artists in promoting the idea of the

372 saintly Angevin bloodline, and his devoted support for Johanna, even in the face of challenges to her rule, suggests that he bought into this ideology himself.

As a theologian, John viewed hereditary kingship as the best form of government for a fallen world. Like other masters of theology, he cast himself as an authority on natural law, with expertise in extracting the will of God from biblical texts and applying it to particular human circumstances. Kings were subject to natural law as much as anyone else, and John warned in multiple sermons about the far-reaching repercussions of wickedness in nobles as well as the positive effects of their goodness. The Neapolitan Angevins’ efforts to present themselves as papal vassals and Christian rulers who were faithful subjects of the church may have made them especially open to seeking the counsel that John, like generations of masters of theology before him, would have felt most qualified to give. As one of the only holders of the prestigious title of master of theology in Naples, or indeed the whole of southern Italy, John’s status was perhaps even more exalted than that of the masters of theology in Paris, especially since the Angevin dynasty drew a good deal of its power from conspicuous piety. Successive monarchs looked to John for advice and remunerated him with favours and material support, although the terse records referring to him as a counsellor and royal familiar unfortunately tell us nothing about the questions on which they sought his guidance. Quodlibetal questions making explicit reference to secular rulers and the kingdom of Naples, such as the ones discussed in Chapter 6, give us some idea of the kinds of topics John might have been asked to weigh in on as a master of theology: criminal law, usury, inheritance disputes. His documented involvement in the settling of Bartholomew of Capua’s estate, among others, suggests that John’s interest in the last of these, at least, was not just academic. John’s status as a master of theology certainly contributed to his position at the royal court. But when it came to being chosen to sit on committees for road repair and investigating fiscal corruption, his status as a (supposedly less corruptible) friar may have been more important than his scholarly expertise.

Teacher, preacher, confessor, friar, courtier: these were some of the roles that John played most consistently in his life. His example suggests that historians should be alert to the personal and political affiliations of masters of theology, to the role of patronage (and reciprocation for patronage) in their careers, and to the institutional contexts in which they conducted their scholarship and secular spheres in which they moved. I have shown that John’s teaching and preaching cannot be treated as independent activities, since much of the former took place for the

373 sake of the latter. Nor can his political engagement be separated from his identity as a Dominican friar, or a Neapolitan.

In addition to shedding light on the activities of a master of theology who spent most of his life far from Paris, this study has contributed to a growing body of scholarship suggesting that Naples deserves greater recognition as one of the cultural hotspots of late medieval Europe. John’s career illustrates some of the cultural and intellectual networks in which Naples was a critical hub. As the site of the studium generale for the province of the Regno, San Domenico Maggiore was the highest house of learning for Dominicans in southern Italy, and the convent’s size, location, proximity to the royal court, and historical connections with Thomas Aquinas, among other factors, meant that it was of central importance, in symbolic and practical terms, for all Dominicans in the region. John’s works indicate that it was a flourishing centre for intellectual activity during the early fourteenth century. Other mendicant convents in Naples, such as San Lorenzo Maggiore and San Agostino, functioned similarly for the Franciscans and Augustinians, and hosted masters of theology, such as Landolfo Caracciolo and Augustine of Ancona, whose careers mirrored John’s in their patterns of study, teaching, and service to their orders, the Angevin court, and the papacy. The works of these kinds of scholars and preachers provide an important window into fourteenth-century Neapolitan history, all the more valuable in the face of the destruction of the Angevin archives. Further research into the intellectual life of these other mendicant convents, as well as the activities of scholars associated with the University of Naples and the Angevin court, is needed to properly assess the place of Naples in the broader intellectual history of late medieval Europe and the wider Mediterranean.

John’s career maps some of the major routes along which scholars and books travelled during the early fourteenth century, linking Naples to northern Italy, Paris, and Avignon. His sermons in honour of Elizabeth of Hungary also indicate that we should not neglect the political and cultural connections between the kingdoms of Naples and Hungary. The geographical span of John’s activities and influences was not a fluke; it owed much to existing political and cultural networks. Judging by the shape of his career, early-fourteenth-century Naples was oriented northwards and largely away from the Mediterranean. But such alignments could be ephemeral. The Aragonese conquest of the Kingdom of Naples near the end of the fourteenth century led to a cultural and political reorientation in Naples towards the western Mediterranean. (It is perhaps in the midst of this shift that one of the main manuscripts of John’s scholastic works made its

374 way to Tortosa.) Judging by this case study, Naples was not merely a passive recipient of cultural influences from other “beacon cities,” but also a source of original contributions. In his teaching and preaching, John helped to transmit Parisian learning, or legislation emanating from the papal court, to Naples and southern Italy at large. He also had an impact elsewhere: as an investigator of Durand of St. Pourçain in Paris; as a papal consultant in Avignon; as a friar whose innovations in the realm of pastoral care continued to be shared among confessors for centuries after his death. Mapping his career alongside those of contemporary Neapolitan scholars, courtiers, artists, diplomats, and merchants would help to build a more comprehensive picture of the relationships between Naples and other leading fourteenth-century cities.

Appendix 1 Manuscript Descriptions A: Naples, Bibl. Naz. VIII.AA.11

A = Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale, MS VIII.AA.11 (formerly Naples, San Domenico Maggiore, MS VIII.II.26). John’s sermon collection, probably compiled in Naples towards the end of his lifetime. ca. 1340-50. Listed in the 1764 inventory of San Domenico Maggiore. 1 Second folio incipit: “perfectionis cum dicitur laus.”

Parchment, with the exception of some of the flyleaves. Limp parchment binding, in poor condition. The leather thongs, wrapped in string, are broken at the spine, and many of the gatherings are extremely loosely bound. The manuscript has clearly lost a number of sections, as will be discussed below. Binding measures 205 mm (w) x 275 mm (h). On the spine, in an early modern hand: “Sermon Fris Joann de N.” The last word is mostly covered by a modern Biblioteca Nazionale sticker bearing the shelfmark. The front pastedown is a sheet of paper that also forms the first flyleaf, on which a watermark is visible in the shape of a six-pointed star or flower within a downturned horseshoe. The same modern Biblioteca Nazionale sticker appears in the upper left corner of the pastedown, below the San Domenico Maggiore shelfmark, which is written in brown ink in an early modern hand. The modern shelfmark is also written on the pastedown in pencil, probably in the same modern hand that has numbered the rest of the folios in the lower left corner of the recto (a second, fainter pencil numeration also appears in the lower right corner of each folio). The rear pastedown similarly consists of a sheet of paper that also forms the rear flyleaf. It is preceded by a parchment bifolium forming two further flyleaves, reinforced inside the fold with two pieces of pale parchment with fragments of late medieval writing (a red paragraph mark and “si”). This bifolium shows more signs of wear than the rest of the manuscript, and might have served as a pastedown at some point.

1 Käppeli, “Antiche biblioteche domenicane in Italia,” 39, no. 137.

375 376

Two columns, 42 lines per column. Ruled with vertical bounding lines for columns, extending from the top of the page to the bottom, and horizontal bounding lines, and writing lines approximately 5 mm apart, both extending unevenly past the vertical bounding lines. Writing space is approximately 60 x 200 mm per column.

Hand: A consistent Italian semitextualis, dark brown ink. Letters at the beginnings of sentences and clauses are highlighted with a red vertical stroke or dot filling in the lobe on rounder letters. Punctuation is sometimes also rubricated, and biblical quotations are underlined in red. Paragraph marks for major sections of sermons alternate between red and blue. The division of the theme, principal parts, and sometimes also the parts of subdivisions, are marked out in the margins in the same hand as the main text, usually rubricated and underlined in red. Titles of sermons are written in red, in line with the main text, and the first letters of the sermons themselves are enlarged (2 lines) and alternate between red and blue, with decorative penwork in the opposite colour, extending vertically beside the writing space, no more than 1/3 of a column. Catchwords are unadorned and written in the same hand as the main text.

The index is in the same hand and decorated in the same way as the main text, with alternating red and blue paragraph marks setting off each entry. The first two sermons after the index are written in the same hand as the main text, but subsequent sermons are written in different hands, and the quality of the ink used for the text, rubrication, and initials changes with each, although an effort has been made to keep the page layout and style of decoration consistent throughout. Marking of parts of the sermon in the margins is inconsistent.

The manuscript is remarkably free from marginal annotations, apart from those indicating the positions of sermons located after the index. The hand and ink for some of these match those of the corresponding sermons, and others are written in a thin, spidery hand using a variety of different grey-brown inks.

377

The manuscript has been most thoroughly described by Käppeli.2 The contents were listed by

Schneyer. 3 Schneyer’s list is largely accurate, but contains a few errors: notably, the entries for sermons 11 and 12 are swapped, and two sermons have been skipped. 4 Schneyer was sufficiently impressed by John’s sermons to publish a short article on his contributions to medieval preaching. 5 Jean-Paul Boyer, who has published extensively on fourteenth-century Neapolitan preaching, first discussed the manuscript in a 1995 article, and has been refining that description in subsequent publications. 6

Collation Formula: i (paper) + I 12 + II-VIII 12 + IX 10 + X 6 + XI 8 + iii [actually a parchment bifolium + i paper]

Contents: At present, the manuscript contains 144 sermons, but an index on f. 107r-110v, written in the same hand as the main text, indicates that it originally had close to 350. A whole cycle of some 120 sermones de tempore , originally located at the beginning of the collection, has been lost. In its present state, the manuscript opens with the first page of a collection of sermones de sanctis , decorated with an ornate enlarged red-and-blue initial (5 lines), as well as a red and blue border that extends all the way around the two columns. However, this collection is substantially incomplete, breaking off after the first gathering in the middle of a sermon to St. Sylvester.

2 Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 59-68.

3 Schneyer, Repertorium , vol. 3, 604-15.

4 The first appears on f. 44vb-45rb, and should be listed between Schneyer nos. 70 and 71; I refer to it as Schneyer no. 70a. This sermon is on the theme “Peccatis mortui iustitie vivamus” [1 Petr. 2.24] and is for the visitation of a convent on the first Sunday after the octaves of Easter (T29 in Schneyer’s labelling system). The incipit and explicit are as follows: “Quia res inutilis despicitur et abicitur, et econtra utilis amatur et desideratur ... qui cum patre et spiritu sancto vivit etc.” The second skipped sermon appears on f. 114ra-115ra, and should be listed between Schneyer nos. 136 and 137; I refer to it as Schneyer no. 136a. It is on the themes “Rogate que ad pacem sunt Ierusalem” [Ps. 121.6] and “Ascende tu qui evangelizas Ierusalem” [Is. 40.9] and is labelled as a sermon to be delivered on the occasion of a procession for the sake of peace (“In processione pro pace.”) Its incipit and explicit are “Ut in presenti sermone possim evangelizare, id est verbum dei bonum bene, hoc est digne et fructuose annunciare ... ut dicitur ad Eph. secundo. Qui cum patre et spiritu sancto etc.” The latter sermon receives some discussion in Boyer, “Processions civiques et prédication.”

5 Schneyer, “Der Beitrag des Johannes Regina von Neapel zur Entwicklung eigener Predigtreihen.”

6 Boyer, “Les Baux et le modèle royal,” and other publications cited in the introduction to this thesis.

378

Judging by the index, this section originally included 112 sermons for saints, only the first fifteen of which remain. 7

Later sections of the manuscript are more intact. On f. 13r, the beginning of the collection of sermones de mortuis is decorated in a similar fashion to the beginning of the sermones de sanctis , with an enlarged red-and-blue inital (3 lines) and full-page red-and-blue border. The sermones de mortuis finish a quarter of the way down f. 39ra. Apart from an expliciunt , the rest of the column is left blank. The beginning of the next section is more restrained, but still evokes the decoration of the openings of the sermones de sanctis and de mortuis , beginning with an enlarged red-and-blue initial (3 lines) and a red-and-blue border of the same style as the previous page borders down the left side of the second column on f. 39r. A series of sermones de visitatione conventuum occupies f. 39ra-53vb. On f. 53v, the running title shifts to In electione , but nothing else distinguishes the beginning of a series of sermons for the election of prelates, diffinitors, and other Dominican officials, which occupies f. 53vb-60vb.

The running titles disappear, never to return, on f. 60v. The next 15 folios, up to f. 75rb, are occupied with a collection of sermons for a variety of different occasions, arranged more or less thematically: a sermon to persuade someone who has been elected archbishop to accept the post, and one for consenting to an election; one for the first mass of a new priest, and three for the profession of Dominican nuns (two identified as noble girls); one for addressing Pope John XXII, and a series of sermons for receiving various dignitaries: the Franciscan Minister General; the king; a lord and a lady. These are followed by a series of procession sermons, petitioning God for the safety of the army, the health of an invalid, and rain to end a drought; a thanksgiving sermon possibly derived from an academic context; a sermon publicizing the abdication of the antipope Nicholas V (Pietro Rainalducci); and a sermon commending a doctor newly arrived from Bologna. A blank half-column on f. 72vb, coinciding with the end of a gathering, suggests the start of a new category on f. 73r, but nothing else sets this folio apart from the others. Two sermones ad magistrandum in medicina on f. 73ra-75rb are followed by a lengthy series of principia , occupying f. 75va-103va. The Expositio orationis dominice (which is also found at the

7 For a transcription of this part of the index, see the appendix to Chapter 5.

379 end of T), occupying f. 103vb-106vb, is the last text prior to the index, which is located at the start of a new gathering.

The index is not the last item in the collection. Starting immediately after the end of the index on f. 106vb and continuing to the end of the manuscript on f. 120vb is a series of sermons on a wide range of subjects. The first two (for the feast of St. Martha and the feast of the Annunciation, f. 110vb-112ra) appear to have been written and decorated of a piece with the sermons in the main part of the collection. However, the subsequent sermons appear to have been added sequentially by a variety of scribes, since the hand and ink colour periodically changes from sermon to sermon, in contrast to the very uniform presentation of the manuscript up to this point. This final section is incomplete; on f. 120vb, the text breaks off near the beginning of a sermon for the commemoration of the Lord’s Supper. The sermons in this section are for a wide range of occasions: in addition to the aforementioned sermons for St. Martha and the Annunciation, there are sermons for the feast of Thomas Aquinas; the receptions of a Cardinal legate and the Franciscan Minister General; speaking to the pope on the behalf of the Queen of Sicily; a procession for peace; the death of a Dominican bishop named John; the twenty-first Sunday after Trinity; the third Sunday of Advent; the anniversary of a great lord; the anniversary of prince Philip of Taranto; and finally the aforementioned sermon for the Lord’s Supper.

The thirteen surviving sermons after the index are ‘numbered’ with letters from A to N. References to these sermons are scattered throughout the manuscript, both in the index and at the appropriate place in the sequence of sermons. For instance, a cross next to the entry for Schneyer no. 44 ( De Iohanne mortuo ) in the index on f. 109vb is keyed to a note at the bottom of the column: “ Item de eodem themate in morte fratris Iohannis episcopi: post titulos H .” A cross at the end of Schneyer no. 44 on f. 30rb is keyed to a similar note in the lower margin: “ Item de eodem themate in morte fratris Iohannis episcopi quem quere post titulos H. ” The eighth sermon after the index, Schneyer no. 137, is labelled with an H in the margin, and indeed it is a sermon In morte fratris Iohannis episcopi , which is based on the same theme as Schneyer no. 44: Apoc. 1:1 (“Johannes frater vester...”). From these references we can discern that the collection at one time contained at least three more sermons, labelled O, P, and Q: a Sermo ad magistrandum in

380 civil law, 8 a sermon De aliquo nobili mortuo which was a variation on Schneyer no. 27, 9 and a sermon for the twenty-second Sunday after Trinity, which was a variation on one of the lost sermones de tempore for the same date. 10

Date: As discussed in Chapter 1 and summarized in the next appendix, dates can be assigned to a number of sermons in the collection. The latest datable sermon in the main part of the collection is the elegy for Bartolomeo Brancaccio, archbishop of Trani and vice-chancellor of the Kingdom of Naples, which must date from after his death in 1341. 11 The main sermon collection must therefore have been compiled after this date, and probably before 1344, the earliest date that can be assigned to one of the sermons added after the index. 12 Additions to the manuscript continued into the late 1340s, probably in chronological order, as discussed in Chapter 1. The last securely datable sermon is Schneyer no. 136, which almost certainly dates to Queen Johanna’s arrival at the papal court in Avignon in mid-March 1348. 13 Boyer hypothesizes that the next sermon, for a procession for peace that took place in Naples, was aimed at quelling the conflicts that followed Johanna’s return from Avignon with her new husband, Louis of Taranto, in mid-August 1348. 14 If the subsequent sermons for the twenty-first Sunday after Trinity, the third Sunday of Advent,

8 Indicated by a note in the index on f. 110v: “Sermo ad magistrandum in legibus. Elegit eum etc . [Ecclus. 45:4] Post titulos O” and a note at the bottom of f. 72vb, just before the sermones ad magistrandum in medicine: “Sermo ad magistrandum in iure civili. Elegit eum etc. Post titulos O .”

9 Indicated by a note in the index on f. 109va: “Item de eodem temate sermo aliqualiter variatus post titulos P” and next to the beginning of Schneyer no. 27 on f. 19va: “Item alius sermo de eodem temate aliqualiter variatus post titulos P.”

10 Indicated by a note in the index on f. 108rb: “Item de eodem temate idem sermo cum aliquibus aditionibus post titulos Q .” The entry to which the note refers reads: “Item eadem dominica [i.e. 22 a post Trinitate] de evangelio. Omne debitum dimisi tibi etc. [Matt. 18:32].”

11 Schneyer no. 24. See Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 61.

12 Schneyer no. 134 ( In receptione cardinalis legati de latere ), which Käppeli thought was probably delivered for the arrival of Aimeric of Chalus, the cardinal legate sent by Pope Clement VI to serve as governor of the Kingdom of Naples in May 1344; see Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 67. Since the legate is not named, there is a slim possibility that the sermon was composed instead for the reception of another cardinal legate, Bertrand de Deux, who arrived in Naples on November 10, 1346; see Léonard, Histoire de Jeanne , vol. 1, p. 625. Either way, this sermon helps to pin down the creation of the main part of the sermon collection to the early 1340s.

13 See above, Chapter 1 and Chapter 6.

14 Boyer, “Processions civiques et prédication,” 136.

381 the anniversary of Philip of Taranto, who died on December 23, 1332, and the feast of the Lord’s Supper, or Holy Thursday, together with the now-lost sermon for the twenty-second Sunday after Trinity, were copied in chronological order, as this sequence suggests, the manuscript probably continued to be added to until late 1349. 15

B: Naples, Bibl. Naz. VII.B.31

B = Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale, MS VII.B.31 (formerly Naples, San Domenico Maggiore, MS XXIV.II.14 or MS XXV.1.24). Composed of three distinct codicological units, the third containing several texts by John of Naples. s. XIV. Listed in the 1764 inventory of San Domenico Maggiore. 16 Second folio incipit: “quod sit inpossibile.”

Parchment. Pale limp parchment binding. Leather thongs are visible through slits cut at the edges of the spine. Binding measures 255 mm (w) x 330 mm (h). On the spine, in an early modern hand: “Quodlibeta Petri Aure.” The last few letters are covered by a modern Biblioteca Nazionale sticker bearing the shelfmark. 119 folios, numbered by a modern hand in pencil in the upper right corner of each recto. The front pastedown is paper. In the upper left corner, “XXIV.II.14.” is written in brown ink, crossed out and replaced by XXV.I.24 in the same hand. To the left, in pencil, is the modern shelfmark, VII.B.31; a sticker below these notes also bears the note “MS VII B 31” in pencil. The rear pastedown, also paper, is blank.

The manuscript has received very little scholarly attention, usually by scholars who are only interested in one section; see bibliography in the description of contents below.

Collation formula: I-IV 12 + V 8 + VI 4 ║+ VII 12 + VIII 8 + IX 6 + X 10 + XI 11 (12-1) ║+ XII 12

15 In 1348, the twenty-first Sunday after Trinity (the subject of Schneyer no. 138) fell on November 9, and the third Sunday of Advent (the subject of Schneyer no. 139) fell on December 14. The anniversary of Philip of Taranto, who died in 1332 (the subject of Schneyer no. 141) was December 23, and the last surviving sermon pushes us to Holy Thursday, which took place on April 9 in 1349. The third of the lost sermones post titulos , labelled Q, was for the twenty-second Sunday after Trinity, which in 1349 was November 8.

16 Käppeli, “Antiche biblioteche domenicane in Italia,” 35, no. 85. Although the index lists only the quodlibets of Peter Auriol, both Unit 1 and Unit 3 have a medieval note indicating possession by San Domenico Maggiore in the upper margin of their first folio: “Conventi Sancti Dominici de Neapoli.”

382

Unit 1 (f. 1-60)

Unit 1 contains Peter Auriol’s quodlibet. 17 This unit consists of four sexterns, followed by one quire of eight folios and another of four. Catchwords (on f. 12v, 24v, 36v, 48v, and 56v) are all picked up.

Two columns, approximately 57-67 lines per column. Ruled with double vertical bounding lines at the outer edges of columns and double vertical lines in the inner and outer margins about 18 mm away from column rulings on each side. Single horizontal bounding lines extend to the edges of the page at the top and bottom of the columns. Another horizontal line, sometimes a double line, appears in the lower margin, extending all the way across the page, about 20 mm below the bounding line. The same is true for the top margin, but the space between is smaller, about 15 mm. Every writing line is ruled, with the rulings extending across both columns, and sometimes a little beyond the bounding lines.

Hand: Italian semitextualis. Brown ink. Large, rounded aspect. Two-compartment a.

Decoration: Spaces were left for initials at the beginnings of questions, but never filled in. Capitals are decorated with a spot of red. Subheadings in red ink. There is occasionally some decoration following the rubric, usually a simple line, but sometimes something more elaborate, like the dragon on f. 49ra. Descenders are sometimes elongated on the last line and sometimes decorated with red as well as brown ink. The decoration of the catchwords – which are in the same hand as the main text – gets progressively more elaborate: on f. 12v, the words are simply outlined in red, but on f. 24 v and 36v the outline takes the form of a dog or sheep in red and brown ink, and on f. 48v and 56v the words are surrounded by a fish, also in red and brown. On f. 56v the words in the fish are a continuation of the rubric; the correct catchword is written in brown ink below.

Marginalia: Annotations and nota marks in several different late medieval hands.

17 On this text, see Lauge Olaf Nielsen, “The Quodlibet of Peter Auriol,” Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages, Volume 2: The Fourteenth Century , 267-331.

383

Unit 2 (f. 61-107)

Unit 2 contains portions of two Dominican texts in defense of Aquinas: f. 61r-80v: Robert Orfort[?], Correctorium corruptorii “Sciendum” up to article 47, i.e. the end of the articles against the Prima Pars .18 f. 81r-107r: Hervaeus Natalis, De quattuor materiis contra Henricum Gandavensem , part 4, De intellectu et voluntate , with a list of questions on f. 106vb-107r. 19

The unit consists of five quires, all of different sizes: a sextern, a quire of eight folios, one of six, a quintern, and a sextern from which the last folio has been excised. The last folio in this section, f. 107, has been cut horizontally 22 lines down from the top and vertically from near the innermost binding line, so that most of the folio has been excised. The remaining strip of the next folio has been pasted to this one. Catchwords in the text hand, all picked up, appear on f. 72v (half cut off), 80v, 86v, and 96v.

Ruling varies. Two columns throughout, with single bounding lines at top and bottom and left and right of columns, extending to the edges of the page. Ruled for each line, extending across both columns and sometimes a bit beyond. Approximately 58 lines per column for f. 61r-76v; average of 76 lines per column for f. 77r-80v, with fainter rulings. Approximately 66 lines per column for f. 81r-86r.

Multiple hands. The first, f. 61ra-76vb, is an Italian semitextualis, in a dark brown ink, about half the size of and more squat than the previous hand in the manuscript. It is corrected in black ink, and the same hand appears to take over on f. 76vb, continuing until f. 80vb in a lower-grade Italian semitextualis in black or dark brown ink. On f. 81r, with the start of De intellectu et

18 See Palémon Glorieux, Les Premières Polémiques Thomistes II: Le Correctorium Corruptorii “Sciendum” (Paris: J. Vrin, 1956), 22-3.

19 For a general introduction to the work as a whole, see L. M. de Rijk, ed., Hervaeus Natalis O.P. De quattuor materiis sive Determinationes contra magistrum Henricum de Gandavo, Vol. 1: De formis (together with his De unitate formae substantialis in eodem supposito) (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011). The publication of the third volume of this series, containing De intellectu et voluntate , has been delayed due to de Rijk’s death; some of his former students continue to work on it.

384 voluntate , a different mid-grade Italian semitextualis picks up in a red-brown ink, with distinctive pointy v’s.

Marginalia: Note in the upper margin of f. 61r: “primus articulus qui reprobatur de dictis sancti doctoris in prima pars q.” Annotations throughout in various late medieval hands. An erasure, partly excised, on f. 107r seems to have been a note of ownership: “Iste [...] de pedemonte.” A similar erasure appears in the lower margin of f. 106v, largely illegible: Iste ....s fueru(n)t ...... frat(ri)s math(e)i de au(er)sa 20 et / fr(atris)[?] stephan(i) de neap(o)li .... p(ri)or co(n)uentui s(anc)ti d(omi)n(ic)i / de neap(o)li[?] ...... eas f(ra)t(e)r pet(rus) de pedemo(n)t(e) 21 / ...... p(ro)p(ri)etate d(i)c(t)a(rum) p(ri)oru(m)[?] d(i)c(t)o co(n)uentui.

The references in this note to friars who were active in Naples in the first quarter of the fourteenth century, in combination with the fact that the first text refers to Aquinas as frater Thomas rather than sanctus (e.g. f. 61ra, line 2), suggests that this section of the manuscript was written during the first two decades of the fourteenth century.

Unit 3 (f. 108-119)

The last gathering in the manuscript contains a series of texts that are not attributed to any author: f. 108r-114ra: A highly abbreviated anonymous commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard. 22 Incipit: “Cupientes etc. Libro primo premittit prohemium et dividitur in quattuor partes. Primo ponitur excusatio auctoris; secundo reprehensio detractoris, quamvis non ambigamus; tertio commendatio operis, horum ergo deo odilem; quarto excitatio auditoris, non

20 Matthew of Aversa’s long career was based in southern Italy: he is attested as a lector in the Dominican studium in Salerno (1288-9), preacher general (1291), vicar of Aversa (1292), prior of San Domenico in Naples (1297), and procurator of San Domenico and the female Dominican monastery of San Pietro a Castello (1337). See Kaeppeli, “Dalle Pergamene,” 313n5.

21 A Dominican Petrus de Pedimonte, lector of the convent of San Pietro Martiro in Naples, witnessed a document in Naples on November 12, 1309; see Salvatore Santeramo, Codice Diplomatico Barlettano , vol. 2 (Barletta: G. Belissanti, 1913), no. 25, p. 38. Interestingly, another witness to this document is “frater Iohannes proculus de Neapoli.” 22 Catalogued in Victorin Doucet, “Commentaires sur les Sentences : Supplément au répertoire de M. Frédéric Stegmueller,” Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 47 (1954): 88-170; 400-27, at 411, no. 1170a.

385 igitur debet.” Explicit: “In comparatione autem tria agit de ea: primo respectu eorum qui hic sunt in mundo, preterea; secundo respectu eorum qui sunt in celo, queri etiam solet, ubi primo inquirit si boni ac mali videant usque ad iudicium, secundo si iusta malorum pena excitet in sanctis compassionis affectum, sed cum sancti; tertio si horror pene in se minuit in aliquo gloriam eorum, postremo queritur. Explicit Amen.” 23 Marginal note on f. 108ra, next to line 27: “Hic deficit multum.” f. 114ra-119rb: Nine sermons/ principia . The first eight items can be identified with known works by John: Schneyer nos. 118 (theology); 121 ( Sentences ), 127 (Matthew), 129 (John), 126 (Isaiah), 110 and 111 (the two sermones ad magistrandum in medicina ), and 112 (medicine). The last text is a sermon on the theme “Audite filii disciplinam patris” [Prov. 4:1], which does not have a parallel in John’s sermon collection. 24

On f. 119vb, upside down, but in line with writing space, is a passage from the beginning of John’s DQ 27 [6]. 25

Two columns. Rulings are all but invisible. The section seems to have been ruled with single bounding lines for the two columns, extending to the edges of the page, and nothing else, as lines in columns on the same page do not match up, and the number of lines in columns on the same page is often off by one or two. Lines tend to get more crowded near the bottom of the column.

23 A similar explicit appears in a fourteenth-century set of glosses on the Sentences found in Paris, BnF, lat. 3027B, f. 273, according to the description at http://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc60852n/cd0e7203. I have not personally examined this manuscript.

24 These texts are catalogued, though listed as anonymous, in Friedrich Stegmüller, Repertorium Biblicum Medii Aevi , vol. 6 (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1958), 477-480, nos. 10025,1-9. Stegmüller called the last sermon a “Principium generale in initio anni scholastici,” but his reasons for doing so are unclear, as it bears no title in the manuscript, and it is not obvious that the text stems from an academic context. The speaker refers to letters from a duke and speaks of imposing justice, depicting himself as a father who is bringing paternal affection and discipline to his ‘children.’

25 ueritur est utrum distinctio secundum rationem attributorum sit accipienda per respectum ad intra vel per respectum ad extra. Et primo videtur quod per respectum ad extra tantum, quia quando aliqua differunt secundum rationem tantum quibus respondent aliqua differentia secundum rem, distinctio secundum rem que est secundum rationem accipitur ex comparatione ad distincta secundum rem, sed attributa distinguntur in deo secundum rationem tantum, et eis respondent distincta secundum rem in creaturis.

386

60-65 lines per column for f. 108r-113v; 51-60 lines within the same writing space for f. 114r- 119r.

Hand: Small, rounded Italian semitextualis in greyish dark brown ink, higher grade than previous hand.

Decoration: For the Sentences commentary, small spaces have been left for initials throughout. There are no spaces for initials among the sermons; some items begin with slightly enlarged pen initials. No rubrication.

N: Naples, Bibl. Naz. VII.B.28

N = Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale, MS VII.B.28 (formerly Naples, San Domenico Maggiore, MS XV.II.8). The only collection of John’s quodlibets found in Naples, probably written there during his lifetime. s. XIV 2/4 . Listed in the 1764 inventory of San Domenico Maggiore. 26 Second folio incipit: “congruentia non debet esse cum falsitate.”

Parchment, including skins from some spotty beasts.27 Bound in parchment stiffened with card, perhaps at a later date; there is a sticker from a 1977 restoration in the lower right corner of the inner rear cover. Binding measures 255 mm (w) x 350 mm (h). Trimming has resulted in the loss of some marginalia throughout the manuscript. The only thing still visible on the spine is the number 30 in ink and a sticker for the Biblioteca Nazionale bearing the current shelfmark. 174 folios, numbered by a modern hand in pencil in the upper right corner of each recto. The front flyleaf is a leaf of (modern?) parchment, bare except for the shelfmark in pencil on the recto and blue pen on the verso. The rear flyleaf is a parchment palimpsest of a fourteenth-century notarial document, bound upside down. 28

26 Käppeli, “Antiche biblioteche domenicane in Italia,” 36, no. 101.

27 See, for instance, folios 58r; 61v-62r; 63v-64r; 67v; 73v-74r; 75v-76r; 85v; 103v-104r; 117v-118r.

28 The text (on the recto side only) is largely illegible, but the document probably originated in Naples; the hand resembles that of later medieval Neapolitan documents, and “de Neap.” can be made out at the end of the second line and about the centre of the tenth.

387

John’s name does not appear anywhere on the manuscript, and its contents were only identified as the quodlibets of John of Naples through comparisons with other manuscripts in 1933, by Thomas Käppeli.29 Käppeli identified five different hands, corresponding to the five different units of the manuscript. I will describe each unit separately, and then discuss their chronology and what can be known about their previous arrangements prior to being bound in this manuscript.

Collation formula: i + I 12 || + II-III 10 || + IV-VII 12 + VIII 12 (but bound out of order) + IX-X12 + XI 2 (inner 10 wanting) + XII-XIV 12 || + XV 12 || + XVI 8 (5+3) + i

Unit 1 (f. 1ra-12vb)

A single sextern that contains a portion of John’s eighth quodlibet. The text picks up partway through Quodl. VIII.11 and breaks off partway through Quodl. VIII.29, containing the intermediary questions in their entirety.

Aquinas is referred to in the text as “frater Thomas” (e.g. f. 8ra), indicating that this portion of the manuscript probably predates his canonization in 1323.

Two columns, approximately 55 lines per column. Ruled with double vertical bounding lines at the outer edges of columns and single vertical lines on the inner edges, enclosing a writing space of about 70 x 245 mm per column. Vertical lines extend to the edges of page. Horizontal ruling lines, approximately 4 mm apart, extend an uneven distance across both columns.

Hand: Italian semitextualis. Uncial d, v for u at the beginnings of words, g in a figure-8 shape with a connecting tongue, et abbreviation has a diagonal hairstroke extending below the baseline from near the start of the upper bar. Tall-s sometimes appears in final position. The ball of the con - abbreviation sits on the baseline, with a thin tail extending a little below. Pale brown ink.

Decoration: Alternating red and blue paragraph marks. The first letter of each question is enlarged (3 lines) and drawn alternately in red and blue, with trailing pen-flourishes in the

29 Thomas Käppeli, “Handschriftliche Mitteilungen über Werke von Dominikanerschriftstellern in der Biblioteca Nazionale in Neapel,” Divus Thomas (Freiburg) 11 (1933): 445-56, at 449-55.

388 opposite colour. Question numbers are also indicated in the margin in the text hand, with four lines radiating outwards in the four cardinal directions. The catchword on f. 12v is treated similarly. A running title in the text hand identifies the text as “8 quodlibet.”

Marginalia: Annotations and corrections in several different medieval hands, which will be discussed below in the section on the chronology of the units.

Unit 2 (f. 13ra-32vb)

Two gatherings of five bifolia. This unit contains Quodl. X.1-29 (no prologue), followed by four questions from John’s eleventh quodlibet on f. 30va-32vb: XI.3, XI.4, XI.9, and the first few lines of XI.1. The questions from Quodl. XI are introduced “Questio est utrum...” rather than the usual “Prima [Secunda, Tertia, etc.] questio est utrum...” In the margin, they are given a letter and a number that corresponds to their position in the version of this quodlibet found in T: “tercia C”; “quarta D”; “octava H”; “A prima.”

Aquinas is referred to as “sanctus Thomas” (e.g. f. 30va), so this section probably dates from after 1323.

Two columns, approximately 51 lines per column. Vertical ruling lines, approximately 8 mm apart, extending from the top of the page to a horizontal single or double line several centimetres (a variable distance) below the lower edge of the writing space, are present all the way across from one column edge to the other. Double vertical bounding lines are sometimes present on the inner edges of the columns. The horizontal bounding line at the top extends all the way across the page; other horizontal rulings, approximately 5 mm. apart, extend an uneven distance across both columns, creating a grid with the vertical rulings. The writing space is approximately 66-68 mm x 235 mm per column.

Hand: A higher-grade Italian textualis than the hands of the other units. Although still very rounded, the aspect is a little more square than in the other units, following the ruled grid. Letter forms are quite consistent. The a is very clearly two-compartment. The shaft of h ends on the baseline. Descenders of p and q are very short, and abbreviation strokes (including Italian-style qui ) usually sit at the bottom of the descender rather than crossing it. The forms of z and 3 are very similar. The con - abbreviation is a backwards c that sits on the baseline, apart from a thin

389 trailing hairstroke. The et abbreviation is gibbet-shaped, and slightly curled. Black or very dark brown ink.

Decoration: Alternating red and blue paragraph marks. The first letter of each question is enlarged (2 lines) and drawn alternately in red and blue, with trailing pen-flourishes of the opposite colour. Running titles in text hand (“Decimum Quodlibet”). No running titles on f. 30v- 32v.

Marginalia: On the first folio of this section, something written in an early modern hand on either side of the running title has been crossed out with a broad wash of ink, making it illegible.

Unit 3 (f. 33ra-154vb)

The largest unit in the manuscript, consisting of eleven gatherings, originally of six bifolia each, although the eighth of these (Gathering XI, f. 117r-118v) has lost its inner five bifolia. The fourth gathering in this unit (Gathering VIII, f. 81r-92v) suffered a mishap in its rebinding: its second bifolium was not laid flat upon the others, and the third and fourth were swapped, as were the fifth and sixth (see diagram). The text should thus be read in the following order: 81r-v, 82r- v, 85r-v, 84r-v, 87r-v, 86r-v, 89r-v, 88r-v, 91r-v, 90r-v, 83r-v, 92r-v.

Diagram of N, gathering VIII

390

The text picks up on f. 33ra partway through Quodl. II.8. A running title in red indicates that another gathering should have preceded this one. The unit contains the entirety of Quodl. II.9-23, Quodl. III.1-22 (including the prologue, f. 41rb-va), Quodl. IV.1-21 (including the prologue, f. 51va-52ra), Quodl. V.1-20 (including the prologue, f. 65rb-va), Quodl. VI.1-19 (including the prologue, f. 79va-b), Quodl. VII.11.1-3 (including the prologue, f. 109ra-b), and most of Quodl.VII.4, which breaks off on f. 117vb, where the inner bifolia of Gathering XI are missing. The text picks up again on f. 118ra partway through Quodl. VII.11, and proceeds with the entirety of Quodl. VII.12-16. Quodl. VIII.1-40 are present in their entirety (including the prologue, f. 128vb-129rb). The prologue to Quodl. IX (f. 152vb-153rb) and Quodl. IX.1-2 are also present in full; this section comes to an end partway through Quodl. IX.3.

The entire section appears to predate Aquinas’s canonization in 1323, since Aquinas is referred to as plain “Thomas” (e.g. f. 35ra, f. 55rb, f. 76va) or “frater Thomas” (e.g. f. 87ra, f. 108rb, f. 110ra, f. 139ra, f. 148rb). In a few cases, “frater” has been corrected to “sanctus” (e.g. f. 141ra). More frequently, a later hand has indicated “sanctus Thomas” in the margin, but left the main text alone (e.g. f. 55rb, f. 76va, f. 87ra, f. 110ra, f. 148rb).

Two columns, approximately 60 lines per column (variable). Ruled with single vertical bounding lines for the columns, extending to the edges of the page, and horizontal lines about 4 mm apart, extending across both columns and slightly past these vertical bounding lines (including the top and bottom lines). The writing space is approximately 70 x 245 mm per column.

Hand: Southern textualis. Forms of a vary, with the stroke forming the upper lobe sometimes so short as to make it for all practical purposes a single-compartment a. Otherwise, it is very similar to the script of Unit 1. The most noticeable differences are in the abbreviations: et lacks the trailing hairstroke; qui is sometimes written qi, rather than Italian-style q with a horizontal abbreviation stroke on the descender, as in Unit 1. Both are very rounded, but the hand in Unit 3 is slightly more squat than that in Unit 1, which has a slight vertical elongation and was written with a finer nib.

Decoration: The decoration is also a point of difference between Units 1 and 3; both have alternating red and blue paragraph marks, but the ones in Unit 3 are more filled in. In Unit 3, initial letters of sentences or important words are highlighted with a red vertical stroke or dot filling in the lobe on rounder letters; Unit 1 lacks this (as does Unit 2). The first letter of each

391 question is enlarged (2 lines) and drawn alternately in red and blue, with trailing pen-flourishes of the opposite colour. For the introductions to quodlibets, the initial is larger (5-14 lines) and filled in with a half-red, half-blue pattern, with trailing penwork in the other colour on the appropriate side.

Running titles in red, in text hand: “2 m quolibet” (f. 33r-40v); “3 m quolibet” (f. 41r-44r). The scribe wrote “3 m” on both 44v and 45r, and “quolibet 4 m (corrected to 3)” on f. 45v-46r. 45v-51r has “quolibet 3 m”. The scribe subsequently continued in the same way: “quolibet 4 m” (f. 51v- 65r); “quolibet 5 m” (f. 65v-79r); “quolibet 6 m” (f. 79v-104v). The red running title breaks off on f. 105r, where an early modern scribe added “6 quolibet” in a thin, sloping hand; the same hand wrote “quodlibet septimum” on f. 117r (not the first folio of the quodlibet, but the start of a new gathering). The running titles are absent from f. 105r onwards, although from the start of Quodl. VII on f. 109r, a small numeral 7 or 7 m in the text hand, perhaps a note to the rubricator, appears in the upper right corner of the recto of f. 109r-118r and 121r. (The trimming of the upper edges is a little tight in this section, probably accounting for the absence of this mark on some folios.) On f. 131r the red running titles pick up again: “quolibet 8 m” (f. 131r-152r); “quolibet 9 m” (f. 151v-154v).

This unit contains marginal annotations in at least half a dozen different late medieval hands. The most distinctive markings are those of a reader who marked out passages ranging from several lines to three-quarters of a column with a characteristic squiggly line, sometimes accompanied by a brief note. 30 These squiggly lines sometimes have a triangle of three dots at the top, which is reminiscent of another repeated symbol, a group of three (or, less commonly, two) dots above a short vertical line. This dagger-like symbol is usually the key to a note in the extreme lower margin. Many of these notes have been damaged or lost through trimming, but some do remain. 31 Another hand is responsible for a number of cross-references to John’s other quodlibets or disputed questions, sometimes remarking that something is dealt with better

30 Examples can be found on f. 41vb; 42rb; 42va; 44rb; 49vb; 50ra-b; 52va; 54rb; 55rb; 55va-b; 60rb; 65rb; 65va; 69rb; 71rb; 75rb; 78vb; 80ra; 80va; 83ra; 84vb; 88ra-b; 89va-b; 90rb; 93rb; 95va; 97rb; 99rb; 102ra; 106vb; 108rb; 111ra; 111va; 117ra; 121va; 132va; 134rb; 134va; 135va; 143va; 147rb; 152rb; 152va

31 E.g. f. 44r; 50v; 51r; 53v; 55r; 56r; 58v; 59r; 60v; 66v; 69v; 72r; 72v; 73r; 78v; 94v; 111r

392 elsewhere (e.g. f. 45va, 48va) or that John argues the opposite in another place (e.g. f. 69ra, 69vb). This unit contains fairly frequent rubricated reading aids in the text hand, marking out the main parts of the question (e.g. “opinio,” “improbatio,” “alia opinio,” “opinio vera,” “responsiones ad rationes opinionum,” and so forth), and a later reader expanded on several of these, identifying the holders of certain opinions.32 Other readers with thinner, more spidery hands marked out the names of authors that are referred to in the text, and wrote short notes or simply “nota.” One drew a rather detailed, though anatomically questionable, manicule in the left margin of f. 85ra. It is difficult to say whether some of these scribes might actually be the same – was the dagger-drawer and the squiggly-line-drawer the same person? Did the drawer of the manicule also write some of the other notes? At any rate, the diversity of annotating hands suggests that this unit was carefully read by a number of different people in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

Unit 4 (f. 155ra-166vb)

A single sextern containing John’s treatise on the Beatific Vision ( De visione beata animarum ), which also appears as Disputed Question 41 in Gravina and the first Questio particularis in T. The treatise is followed on f. 160rb-161ra by the text that appears in T as Quodl. XI.13. Here it is introduced not as a quodlibetal question, but rather as a casus : “Casus propositus talis est ... ” A wavy line and the word “vacat” accompany the text in the margin. Next to the beginning of the question, in a different hand, is the letter M and the word “duodecima”, which is reminiscent of the treatment of the questions from Quodl. XI at the end of Unit 2. Following this question is the prologue to Quodl. XI (f. 161ra-va), listing only fifteen questions, rather than the seventeen listed in T (omitting the questions listed in T as Quodl. XI.7 and XI.17). Only Quodl. XI.1-5 are present in their entirety; the text breaks off partway through Quodl. XI.6.

Aquinas is referred to as “sanctus” in multiple places in this gathering (f. 157vb; f. 160vb), indicating that it dates from after 1323.

32 E.g. f. 84va: “Alii Petr(us) d(e) Palud(e) ” f. 90va: “Tertia opinio Io(hannes) Scot(us) ”; f. 91vb “Opinio Dur(andi) ”; f. 94vb: “Secunda opinio Gotf(redi) et Hervey ”; f. 100ra: “moderni Io(hannes) Sco(tus) ”; f. 103ra: “opinio Gotf(redi ).” The same annotator also occasionally editorializes, e.g. f. 89va: “Ens possibile accipitur tripliciter et male. ”

393

This sextern has received the most scholarly attention of any section of the manuscript. Anneliese Maier first drew attention to it in an article where she argued that the sextern was a working copy personally used by John, in which he dictated revisions to an amanuensis – revisions that clutter the margins of the sextern, but which are incorporated into the text of other versions of the treatise. 33 Prospero Stella, who edited the treatise on the beatific vision, argued that the additions were not dictated, but rather transcribed from a corrected exemplar. 34 Thomas Turley, building on their work, noted that the version of Quodl. XI.13 found in this sextern had been omitted or overlooked by previous scholars. In the introduction to his edition of this question, Turley argued that the sextern is a “chronological, seriatim record” of John’s work produced during the early 1330s. 35 According to Turley’s argument, this question, which is framed as a casus and concerns a fairly complicated legal case, was originally submitted in response to an actual legal dispute, and then subsequently edited into John’s eleventh quodlibet. This explains the marginal “ vacat ” next to the question and the subsequent inclusion of the question in the introductory list of questions for Quodl. XI on the same folio and in the version of Quodl. XI found in T.

Two columns, 50 lines per column. Ruled with vertical bounding lines on either side of the columns, extending to the edges of the page. Horizontal ruling lines, approximately 5 mm apart, extend an uneven distance across both columns, sometimes past both bounding lines. The writing area is approximately 70 x 245 mm per column.

Hand: Italian semitextualis. The shaft of the h extends further below the baseline and curves more sharply than in the other units. Less heavily abbreviated than the other units. Et is always written out. The Italian-style qui abbreviation does appear occasionally. The aspect is less compressed laterally than that of the other units; the letters are uncrowded and very round.

33 Anneliese Maier, “Zur Textüberlieferung einiger Gutachten des Johannes de Neapoli,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 40 (1970): 5-27; reprinted in Maier, Ausgehendes Mittelalter , vol. 3 (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1977), 481-504.

34 Stella, “Giovanni Regina di Napoli, O.P., e la tesi di Giovanni XXII.”

35 Turley, “An Unnoticed Quaestio ,” 284.

394

Decoration: Alternating red and blue paragraph marks (only red in the question identified by Turley). Initial letters are highlighted in red only very occasionally. The initial for the start of the treatise is enlarged (2 lines) and drawn in blue with trailing red pen-flourishes. The initial for the question identified by Turley appears unfinished; it is enlarged (2 lines) and drawn in red, but lacks any decoration, apart from what might be some pre-drawings inside the C. The initials for Quodl. XI are enlarged (2 lines) and drawn in alternating blue and red, with trailing pen- flourishes in the other colour.

Running title in dark brown ink, but a less rounded and more flourished hand than that of the main text, on f. 155r-160r: “De Visione Beata Animarum.” From f. 161ra-165v, in text hand: “quodlibet xi m.”

Unit 5 (167ra-174ra)

The final unit of the manuscript contains part of John’s thirteenth quodlibet, starting partway through Quodl. XIII.4 and continuing through to Quodl. XIII.18, which ends at the bottom of f. 174ra; the second column is blank.

There are no references to Aquinas in these questions that might help with dating this unit. However, the text contains internal references to almost all of John’s other quodlibets, indicating that it postdates them, and so the unit must have been created after 1332.

Ruled like Unit 3. The hand is extremely similar to that of Unit 3; it is even possible that the two were written by the same scribe at different times. Unit 5 is in poorer condition than Unit 3; several of the folios are badly faded, making it difficult to observe the finer details of the letter forms.

Decoration: As in Unit 3, key letters are highlighted in red, and the alternating red and blue paragraph marks are more filled in than in Unit 1. Initial letters of questions are enlarged (3 lines) and drawn in alternating red and blue, with trailing pen-flourishes in the other colour. Running title in dark brown or black ink, in text hand: “quolibet 13 m”. No running title on f. 174v. Practically no marginalia.

395

Chronology of the units

Unit 1 is the earliest section of the manuscript. It was very likely copied prior to Aquinas’s canonization in 1323, because Aquinas is referred to as “Thomas” or “frater Thomas” rather than “sanctus Thomas” in the main text. 36 There is every reason to suppose that the single gathering that now makes up this unit was originally part of something longer, since the text picks up partway through a sentence in the middle of Quodl. VIII.11 on f. 1ra and breaks off in the midst of another in the middle of Quodl. VIII.29 on f. 12vb, with a catchword clearly indicating that the text was meant to continue. It thus seems reasonable to assume that Unit 1 is a fragment of, at very least, a copy of the whole of Quodl. VIII. This quodlibet was probably debated soon after John returned to Naples in 1317, as discussed in Appendix 2, so Unit 1 must contain a very early redaction of the text, definitely created during his lifetime.

This quodlibet appears again in Unit 3, where it is part of the long sequence of quodlibets running from the middle of Quodl. II.8 through to the middle of Quodl. IX.3. (Again, the fact that the unit begins and ends mid-text suggests that it was originally part of something larger.) The version of Quodl. VIII found in Unit 3 may well have been copied directly from the one in Unit 1. Overall, the two texts are very similar, and Unit 3 incorporates a number of corrections and additions found in Unit 1. These range from single words, like the “succedere” added in the margin of f. 2vb, which is incorporated into the main text of Quodl. VIII.13 on f. 139va, to the nine-line passage in the lower margin of f. 1v, which is incorporated into the main text of Quodl. VIII.11 on f. 138va, with the exception of the word “secundo” in the third line. Some of the notes add a reference to a source, 37 and several seem to be correcting cases of homeoteleuton, suggesting that the main text in Unit 1 was copied from another exemplar. 38 Some of the

36 Examples of “frater” can be found on f. 8ra and f. 12vb; a plain Thomas appears on f. 12va.

37 For instance, on f. 10vb, there are two marginal notes containing references to the Liber Extra , both of which are incorporated into the main text of Quodl. VIII.27 on f. 145va.

38 For instance, the “secundo quia impossibile est quod aliqua forma substantialis” added in the margin on f. 3va and incorporated into the main text of Quodl. VIII.14 on f. 140rb is inserted after another phrase ending in “forma substantialis.” On f. 4ra, “quando unium illorum” is inserted after a phrase ending “unum illorum.” On f. 12ra, “unius coniugum ad infidelitatem” is added after another phrase ending “ad infidelitatem”; the addition is included in the text of Quodl. VIII.29 on f. 148rb, with the addition of a “quam” which was probably cut off the marginal addition on f. 12r in a rebinding.

396 marginal corrections and additions in Unit 1 are in the same hand as the main text, but several other correcting hands were also at work. Corrections in the text hand and the pale, thin hand that is responsible for the large addition in the lower margin of f. 1v are consistently incorporated into the main text in Unit 3. However, the nine-line addition in dark ink in the lower margin of f. 11ra, keyed to a cross near the end of Quodl. VIII.27, is not picked up in Unit 3, and nor is a shorter reference to Num. 27 added in dark ink earlier in the same question on f. 10vb, suggesting that these annotations were made after Unit 3 had already been copied.

The hand responsible for the long addition at the bottom of f. 1v is particularly interesting because it strongly resembles the suspected autograph of John of Naples in Naples, Bibl. Naz. VII.C.22. 39 Could Unit 1 be an exemplar corrected by John himself? It is well within the realm of possibility. As shown above, the main text in Unit I was almost certainly copied between 1317 and 1323, and the copyist of Unit 3 did not update references to Thomas Aquinas from “frater” to “sanctus,” suggesting that this copy, incorporating the corrections in question, was also created prior to 1323 – in other words, well within John’s lifetime. 40 As far as I can tell, Unit 1 is the only section of the manuscript with copious annotations in what I am provisionally calling John’s hand. There are a couple of other possible matches, all in Unit 3. 41 It is very possible that John might have annotated this unit as well, since Aquinas is referred to as “frater” rather than “sanctus” throughout Unit 3, indicating that the whole unit was probably copied prior to mid- 1323.

39 Identified by Joseph Koch, Durandus de S. Porciano, O.P.: Forschungen zum Streit um Thomas von Aquin zu Beginn des 14. Jahrhunderts (Münster: Aschendorff, 1927), 53-54n19, and discussed in the section on John’s Sentences commentary in Appendix 2. Compare especially the shapes of the letters a, e, g, v, and x, and the et and - rum abbreviations.

40 See, for instance, f. 139ra, f. 141ra (which a later reader has corrected to “sanctus”), and f. 148rb. These examples are all from the relevant portion of Quodl. VIII; this practice actually persists throughout Unit 3, suggesting that the whole unit was copied prior to mid-1323.

41 E.g. the annotations next to Quodl. II.23 on f. 40vb [the two paler ones are incorporated into the text of T; the darker one is in the margin.]; the ones next to Quodl. III.1 on f. 41vb [both in the margin in T; the “deum” and “ignoramus” on f. 42r are both there too]; the “responsionem” on f. 43ra; the corrected homeoteleuton on f. 68rb [also in the margin in T]; additions on f. 85v, 86rv.

397

Internal evidence also helps to establish the sequence of most of the other units in the manuscript. Unit 2 must have been copied after 1323, as Aquinas is referred to as “sanctus” in the text. 42 The same is true for Unit 4. 43 Both units contain what appear to be portions of very early redactions of Quodl. XI, and Unit 4 also contains John’s treatise on the beatific vision. Since this treatise probably dates from early 1332, and Quodl. XI is thought to have been produced shortly thereafter, a post-1323 date for these two units is unsurprising. 44

What is the relationship between the two fragmentary versions of Quodl. XI? Unit 2 probably predates Unit 4, but not by much. In Unit 2, the questions from Quodl. XI (XI.3, XI.4, XI.9, and XI.1) appear out of order and are simply introduced “Questio est utrum” rather than with a typical number (e.g. “Questio prima est utrum”). There is also nothing to indicate that these questions belong to a larger quodlibet; although the version of Quodl. X found earlier in Unit 2 is identified by a running title, nothing similar exists to identify the questions from Quodl. XI. Their presentation is thus similar to that of Quodl. XI.13 in Unit 4. Turley suggested that the heavily-corrected version of the treatise on the beatific vision and Quodl. XI.13 were copied into Unit 4 in the order in which they were written, and the same may well be true for the questions from Quodl. XI that appear after Quodl. X in Unit 2. 45 Although they were copied in different hands, the same scribe seems to have been responsible for imposing an order on these ‘floating’ questions in Units 2 and 4, labelling each in the margin with an ordinal number and a letter (tertia C; quarta D; octava H; A prima; M duodecima).

These numbers correspond to the positions of these questions in the prologue to Quodl. XI found after Quodl. XI.13 in Unit 4 – but not to their positions in the version of the same quodlibet found in T, since the prologue to Quodl. XI in Unit 4 omits T’s questions 7 and 17. The scribe who copied the questions after the prologue in Unit 4 seems to have been still unsure about the order, and left spaces for the numbers to be filled in. (For the first question, the words “prima est

42 See, for instance, f. 30va.

43 For instance, f. 157vb; f. 160vb.

44 Turley, “An unnoticed Quaestio ,” 287n26 proposed a date of Advent 1332 for Quodl. XI.

45 Turley, “An unnoticed Quaestio ,” 282-7.

398 utrum” in the space after the word “Questio” have been added in a hand that looks very like the one responsible for Unit 2.) After the third question, they neglected to leave these spaces, and another scribe inserted the numbers for questions 4-6 above after the word “Questio.” In T, the openings to the questions have been standardized to the usual format of “Secunda questio est utrum...” The version of Quodl. XI found in T thus seems to be a later redaction than those in Units 2 and 4 of N.

Since they appear to be working copies, it seems likely that Units 2 and 4 were both created in 1332 or shortly thereafter. Unit 5, containing portions of John’s Quodl. XIII, must date from after 1332, since the text refers to many of John’s other quodlibets, including Quodlibets XI and XII, as well as several of the disputed questions. 46 The chronological sequence of the units is therefore 1, 3, 2, 4, 5, as summarized in the following chart. All units, with the possible exception of Unit 5, were almost certainly created during John’s lifetime.

Units of N arranged chronologically

Unit 1 (f. 1ra-12vb) (1317-1323)

Gathering I Contents: Quodl. VIII.11 (incomplete) to Quodl. VIII.28 (incomplete)

Unit 3 (f. 33ra-154vb) (pre-1323; post-1322, or whenever Quodl. IX was debated, ca. 1318-23)

Gathering IV

46 Käppeli, “Handschriftliche Mitteilungen,” 451-2, identified seven references to other works by John. To this list I can add several others: f. 168vb (Quodl. XIII.8): “Et iste omnes quatuor suppositiones sunt amplius explicate ex declarate in questione nostra disputata 32 [32 corrected over an erasure? ] de differentia temporis et evi et eternitatis.” [= DQ 32/16]; f. 169rb (Quodl. XIII.9): “Sed ipsamet anima intellectiva dat homini quod sit substantia et corpus, et animatum corpus, et homo, et hic homo, sic quod una et eadem forma substantialis, scilicet anima intellectiva, est forma specifica et generalis et individualis, quod probatur sicut in quolibet nostro 8 q. 14, in solutione principali.” [= Quodl. VIII.14]; f. 169va (Quodl. XIII.10): “Anima autem intellectiva non est composita ex materia et forma, ut suppono ad presens ex questione disputata.” [No number given, but perhaps a reference to DQ 28/20? ]; f. 169vb (Quodl. XIII.10): “ut totum probatum est et declaratum in quolibet nostro 6, q. 12, in solutione principali, in principio secundi principali.” [= Quodl. VI.12]; f. 170va (Quodl. XIII.12): “Sed potentia peccandi est in omni et sola creatura intellectuali, et nullo modo potest esse in deo, ut utrumque probatum est quolibet primo, q. 3a, in primo principali.” [= Quodl. I.3]. Putting together Käppeli’s list and mine, we find that Quodl. XIII contains internal references to John’s Quodlibets I, II, VI, VII, VIII, X, XI, and XII, as well as Disputed Questions 25/21, 3/24, and 32/16, and maybe 28/20.

399

Gathering V Contents: Quodl. II.8 (incomplete) to Quodl. II.23; Quodl. III; Quodl. IV; Quodl. V; Quodl. VI; Quodl. VII (missing mid-Quodl. VII.4 to Gathering VI mid-Quodl. VII.11); Quodl. VIII; Quodl IX.1 to Quodl.IX.3 (incomplete) Gathering VII

Gathering VIII

Gathering IX

Gathering X

Gathering XI

Gathering XII

Gathering XIII

Gathering XIV

Unit 2 (f. 13ra-32vb) (post-1323 – early 1330s, ca. 1332?)

Gathering II Contents: Quodl. X.1-29 (no prologue); Quodl. XI.3, Quodl. XI.4, Quodl. XI.9, and Quodl. XI.1 (incomplete) Gathering III

Unit 4 (f. 155ra-166vb) (post-1323 – early 1330s, ca. 1332?)

Gathering XV Contents: DQ 41 [QP 1]; Quodl. XI.13; Quodl. XI.1-6 (incomplete)

Unit 5 (f. 167ra-174ra) (post-1332)

Gathering XVI Contents: Quodl. XIII.4 (incomplete)- Quodl. XIII.18

Collation history

The different units of this manuscript have been bound together in several different ways over the centuries. All of the gatherings have a signature in the bottom right corner of the first folio, which indicates that they once formed part of a much larger manuscript, arranged in an order different both from the present arrangement and from the chronological order outlined above.

400

These signatures, all written in the same early modern hand, are summarized in the chart on the left. The chart on the right depicts the arrangement of the units according to these signatures.

Signatures, and units of N arranged by signatures Unit 1 Gathering I f. 1r: S Unit 3 Gathering IV f. 33r: B Unit 2 Gathering II f. 13r: Aa Gathering V f. 45r: C Gathering III f. 23r: Bb Gathering VI f. 52r: D Unit 3 Gathering IV f. 33r: B Gathering VII f. 69r: E Gathering V f. 45r: C Gathering VIII f. 81r: F Gathering VI f. 52r: D Gathering IX f. 93r: G Gathering VII f. 69r: E Gathering X f. 105r: H Gathering VIII f. 81r: F Gathering XI f. 117r: I Gathering IX f. 93r: G Gathering XII f. 119r: K Gathering X f. 105r: H Gathering XIII f. 131r: L Gathering XI f. 117r: I Gathering XIV f. 143r: M Gathering XII f. 119r: K Unit 1 Gathering I f. 1r: S Gathering XIII f. 131r: L Unit 2 Gathering II f. 13r: Aa Gathering XIV f. 143r: M Gathering III f. 23r: Bb Unit 4 Gathering XV f. 155r: Cc Unit 4 Gathering XV f. 155r: Cc Unit 5 Gathering XVI f. 167r: Ff Unit 5 Gathering XVI f. 167r: Ff

The ‘numbering’ of these signatures indicates that the present units that make up N once formed part of a much larger manuscript, probably put together in the early modern period. There is good evidence that Unit 2 (Gatherings II and III, labelled Aa and Bb) and Unit 4 (Gathering XV, labelled Cc) were at one time bound as a continuous series. In the lower right margin of f. 32v (the last folio of Gathering III/Bb), a note in an early modern hand reads “De visione beata animarum,” which is the title of the first work in Gathering XV. Furthermore, a catchword in the lower margin of f. 32v (“questio est” in an unadorned box) matches the beginning of the text on f. 155r, the first folio of Gathering XV. Although it is a small sample, the hand of the present catchword on f. 32v more closely resembles the text hand of Gathering XV than that of Gatherings II-III. It seems reasonable to assume, then, that Units 2 and 4 were once bound in sequence.

401

Judging by the ‘numbering’ of the remaining gatherings, they must have previously belonged to a very large manuscript consisting of gatherings labelled at least A through Ff. There is some external evidence to support the idea of this ‘super-manuscript’: the Dominican friar Antonius Senensis, writing in later sixteenth century, reported that he had seen a large, old manuscript containing John’s thirteen quodlibeta in the library of San Domenico in Naples. 47 Because many of the units begin or end in the middle of a text, it is possible to guess what some of the lost gatherings might have contained. For instance, using T as a guide, one can estimate that Quodl. I and the beginning of Quodl. II would have occupied a sextern labelled A, which would have preceded what is now Gathering IV in this manuscript. 48 The contents of this hypothetical ‘super-manuscript’ can thus be partially reconstructed as follows:

Hypothetical reconstruction of the early modern ‘super-manuscript’ from which N derives A Quodl. I; Quodl. II.1 to mid-II.8 Unit 3 Gathering IV f. 33r: B Contents: mid-Quodl. II.8 to Quodl. II.23; Gathering V f. 45r: C Quodl. III; Quodl. IV; Quodl. V; Quodl. VI; Gathering VI f. 52r: D Quodl. VII (missing mid-Quodl. VII.4 to mid- Gathering VII f. 69r: E Quodl. VII.11); Quodl. VIII; Quodl IX.1 to mid- Gathering VIII f. 81r: F Quodl.IX.3 Gathering IX f. 93r: G Gathering X f. 105r: H Gathering XI f. 117r: I Gathering XII f. 119r: K Gathering XIII f. 131r: L Gathering XIV f. 143r: M N mid-Quodl. IX.3 to Quodl. IX.27 O ?

47 Antonius Senensis, Bibliotheca ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum , 137: “Scripsit autem Quodlibeta tredecim, quae uno magno voluminae & in fol. manuscripta characteribus satis antiquis vidi Neapoli in conventu nostro S. Dominici, in Bibliotheca communi.”

48 In T, which is laid out in a very similar fashion, ten folios take us from the middle of Quodl. I.2 to the to the beginning of Quodl. II.8.

402

P ? Q ? R Quodl. VIII.1 to mid-Quodl. VIII.11 Unit 1 Gathering I f. 1r: S Contents: mid- Quodl. VIII.11 to mid-Quodl. VIII.28 T mid-Quodl. VIII.11-Quodl. VIII.40 U V? ? W? ? X ? Y ? Z ? Unit 2 Gathering II f. 13r: Aa Contents: Quodl. X.1-29 (no prologue); Quodl. Gathering III f. 23r: Bb XI.3, Quodl. XI.4, Quodl. XI.9, and Quodl. XI.1 (incomplete) Unit 4 Gathering XV f. 155r: Cc Contents: DQ 41 [QP 1]; Quodl. XI.13; Quodl. XI.1 to mid-Quodl. XI.6 Dd mid-Quodl. XI.6 to Quodl. XI.15 (numbered differently than in T, omitting Quodl. XI.7 and Quodl. XI.17) Ee Quodl. XIII.I to mid-Quodl. XIII.4 Unit 5 Gathering XVI f. 167r: Ff Contents: mid-Quodl. XIII.4 to Quodl. XIII.18

The image that emerges from this reconstruction is of a manuscript in which the cleanest and longest copy of John’s quodlibets was placed first, and fragments of earlier drafts of the same quodlibets were placed after, perhaps in chronological order of their contents.

However, even this hypothetical super-manuscript cannot have been the first arrangement of the units. A closer look at the catchword on f. 32v reveals that it is written over an erasure. One can just discern the traces of three of the four radiating lines that would have surrounded this catchword, as they do the one on f. 22v (the last folio of Gathering II/Aa). The text on f. 32v breaks off partway through a sentence beginning “Preterea sicut se habet” near the beginning of

403

Quodl. XI.1. Presumably the erased catchword connected with the continuation of this text in another now-lost gathering. The ‘lettered’ super-manuscript therefore must have been compiled after portions of this earlier collection had already been lost.

T: Tortosa, Bibl. Cap. 244

T = Tortosa, Biblioteca Capitular, MS 244. An omnibus collection of John’s quodlibets and disputed questions, with close links to N, likely copied in Naples. s. XIV (late 1330s?). Second folio incipit: “et huiusmodi non per hoc quod duo corpora essent in eodem loco.” 49

Parchment. 297 folios, numbered in a modern hand in the upper right corner of each recto. The entire manuscript is executed in a consistent, systematically-planned manner. The first folio of Gathering I and the last two folios of Gathering XXV are missing, but originally the manuscript would have consisted of 25 sexterns. Two columns; approximately 60 lines per column. The layout, hand, and decoration are consistent throughout.

Hand: Italian textualis, very similar to the hand of Unit 3 in N (as far as I can tell from my poor- quality images). Forms of a vary, including both one-compartment and two-compartment versions. Qui is written qi, rather than Italian-style.

Decoration: The first letters of questions are enlarged (3 lines) and written in alternating red and blue ink, with pen-flourishes in the opposite colour. Initial letters for the introductions to quodlibets are larger (5-6 lines) and decorated in both red and blue. Initials for the beginning of the particular and disputed questions are also larger (5 lines) but decorated in a single colour (as far as I can tell from my black-and-white images).

The manuscript was first described by José María March, who also attributed the contents to John of Naples on the basis of comparisons with other manuscripts and the printed edition of John’s disputed questions, since John’s name appears nowhere in the manuscript. 50

49 I have not examined this manuscript personally, and have only had access to low-quality black-and-white images of it; the following description is based on my work with those images and published descriptions of the manuscript.

50 March, “Cuestiones cuolibéticas de la Biblioteca Capitular de Tortosa: Otros códices de Juan de Nápoles, Durando y Santo Tomás,” Estudios eclesiásticos 5.17 (1926): 17-25; 5.18 (1926), 150-63; 6.22 (1927), 151-6. Koch’s description of this manuscript in Durandus , 287-9 relied on information from March. March’s description

404

Collation formula: I 11 (12-1) + II-XXIV 12 + XXV 10 (12-2)

Contents: The first 182 folios of the manuscript contain the entirety of John’s Quodlibets I through XII and their prologues, except for the prologue and first one-and-a-half questions of Quodl. I, due to the loss of the original first folio. 51 The last question of Quodl. XII ends at the bottom of f. 182v, and the text on f. 183r begins with a larger-than-usual initial (5 lines rather than the usual 3) and a rubricated title identifying the next texts as “particular questions” by the same author as the quodlibets. 52 The three texts occupying f. 183r-203v appear as Disputed Questions 41, 42, and 39 in the Gravina edition, but here they are marked out specially with running titles indicating the contents of each question: De visione beata animarum , De paupertate Christi et apostolorum , and De potestate pape . This third text ends near the top of f. 203vb, and the rest of the column is left blank. The text on f. 204ra (which is also the start of a new gathering) begins with another extra-large initial, and the next 87-and-a-quarter folios, up to f. 292ra, contain John’s 38 other disputed questions. Although the text of these questions is practically identical to the early modern printed version, the questions are numbered differently than in Gravina’s edition. 53

At the bottom of f. 292ra is a very brief introduction listing three questions “De sanguine Christi.” The text of these questions, which appear in N as Quodl. XIII.4, Quodl. XIII.6, and Quodl. XIII.5, follows on f. 292rb-293va. At the very bottom of f. 293va is a rubricated title in line with the text, reading “De venditione et emptione,” and on f. 293vb-294ra is the text of the

was also quoted extensively by Enric Bayerri-Bertomeu, Los códices medievales de la Catedral de Tortosa (Barcelona: Porter-Libros, 1962), 398-412.

51 The text picks up on f. 1r in the midst of Quodl. I.2 (the lost folio presumably contained the introduction to Quodl. I, the entirety of Quodl. I.1 and the first part of Quodl. I.2). The manuscript contains the entirety of Quodl. I.3-22 (f. 1ra-6va); Quodl. II.1-23 (including the prologue, f. 6va-b); Quodl. III.1-22 (including the prologue, f. 18va-b); Quodl. IV.1-21 (including the prologue, f. 28rb-va); Quodl. V.1-21 (including the prologue, f. 41rb-va); Quodl. VI.1-19 (including the prologue, f. 54vb-55ra); Quodl. VII.1-16 (including the prologue, f. 84vb-85ra); Quodl. VIII.1-40 (including the prologue, f. 114va-115ra); Quodl. IX.1-27 (including the prologue, f. 138rb-va); Quodl. X.1-29 (including the prologue, f. 150rb-vb); Quodl. XI.1-17 (including the prologue, f. 163ra-b); Quodl. XII.1-17 (including the prologue, f. 172vb).

52 The rubricated title in line with the main text on f. 183ra reads “Incipiunt questiones particulares eiusdem magistri.”

53 A chart comparing the numbering can be found in the discussion of the dating and placing of the disputed questions in Appendix 2.

405 question that appears as Quodl. XIII.17 in N, here introduced simply “Questio est...” The question ends about a quarter of the way down f. 294ra, and the rest of the column is blank.

Starting at the top of f. 294rb and continuing until f. 296va is an index, written in the same hand as the main text, and decorated in a similar manner, with enlarged and flourished initials at the beginning of each quodlibet, and a list of the question titles. On f. 296rb the “questiones particulares” are referred to as “questiones disputate” and the disputed questions as “questiones particulares disputate,” but they are still grouped separately. 54 The last four questions are grouped separately as well, and also referred to as “ questiones disputate .” 55

Beginning at the top of f. 296vb is a final text: John’s Expositio orationis dominice , which also appears in his sermon collection. 56 Here the text is incomplete, but there can be no doubt that the remainder would have been found on at least one of the missing last two folios of this gathering. 57 The running title is incomplete, indicating that the text would have continued onto the next folio.

Running titles in text hand: “primum quolibet” (f. 1r-6r); “2 m quolibet” (f. 6v-18r), “3 m quolibet” (f. 18v-23r). The scribe wrote “3 m” on both f. 23v and 24r; thereafter the title is “quolibet 3 m” (f. 24v-28v). “quolibet 4 m” (f. 28r-40v); “quolibet 5 m” (f. 41r-54v); “quolibet 6 m” (f. 55r-84v); “quolibet 7 m” (f. 85r-114r); “quolibet 8 m” (f. 114v-137v); “quolibet 9 m” (f. 138r-150r); “quolibet xm” (f. 151v-162v), “quolibet xi m” (f. 163r-172r); “quolibet xii m” (f. 172v-182r). No title on f. 182v. “De visione beata animarum” (f. 183r-186r); “De paupertate Christi et apostolorum” (f. 186v-200v); “De potestate pape” (f. 201r-203v); “questio prima,” “questio 2 a,” “questio 3 a” and so forth, up to “questio 38 a” (f. 204r-291v. The use of Arabic numerals is consistent, unlike in

54 The entry for the first begins “Incipiunt tituli trium questionum disputatarum,” and the entry for the second begins “Incipiunt tituli 38 questionum particularium disputatarum.”

55 The heading for this group makes no attempt to impose a thematic unity, stating, “Incipiunt tituli quatuor questionum disputatarum, quarum tres sunt de sanguine Christi; quarta de venditione et emptione .”

56 Schneyer no. 130, A f. 103vb-106vb.

57 The running title is incomplete, indicating that the text would have continued onto the next folio.

406 the numbering of the quodlibets.); “De sanguine Christi” (f. 292r-293r). No title for the indices. “Expositio orationis dominice” (f. 296v-297v).

Marginalia: Much like in N, the most common forms of marginalia are small corrections (usually no more than a few words long), cross-references between John’s works, and identifications of authors whose ideas are alluded to in the text. Intriguingly, a sizeable number of these marginal notes are also found in the very same locations in N. Let us take Quodl. III as an example:

Parallel marginalia in T and N relating to Quodl. III

Question Note in T Note in N Quodl. III.1 19ra: ut patet per Augustinum in 41vb: ut patet per Augustinum primo primo De Trinitate capitulo primo; de Trinitate capitulo primo; et etiam immediate quia quicquid et etiam immediate quicquid potest potest causa prima omniquaque[?] causa prima omniquoque[?] perfectam mediate perfectam mediate Quodl. III.3 19va: ignoramus 42rb: ignoramus Quodl. III.3 20rb: in creaturis 43rb: in creaturis[?] Quodl. III.4 20va: capitulo primo 43va: capitulo primo Quodl. III.5 20vb (gutter): ergo 43vb (gutter): ergo Quodl. III.5 20vb: ad esse dependet quantum 43vb: ad esse dependet quantum Quodl. III.5 21ra: et non solum extrinseca; 44ra: et non solum extrinseca; secundum secundum Quodl. III.8 21vb: hec questio melius et diffusius 45ra: hec questio melius determinatur determinatur in quolibet 7 o questione quolibet 7 questione 3. 3a Quodl. III.8 22rb: quere de hoc multum diffusa[?] 45rb: quere de hoc quolibet 6 quolibet 6 ta questione 8 a questione 8 Quodl. III.9 22va: dolor seu tristicia; 45vb: dolor seu tristicia; 22vb: corporis corporis Quodl. III.10 22vb: quere de hoc melius quolibet 9 o 46ra: quere de hoc quolibet 9 questione 12 a questione 12 Quodl. III.10 23ra: aut 46va (gutter): aut Quodl. III.11 23rb: quere de hoc quolibet 12 o 46va: quere de hoc quolibet 12 questione 7 a questione 7 Quodl. III.12 24rb: principale 47vb: principale Quodl. III.15 25ra: quere de hoc melius quolibet 7 o 48va: quere de hoc melius quolibet 7 q. xi questione xi Quodl. III.19 26vb: abolitum 50rb: abolitum Quodl. III.19 26vb: Sed quod detur eis decima plus 50va: sed quod detur eis decima plus quam aliqua alia pars non est de iure quam aliqua alia pars non est de iure naturali naturali Quodl. III.21 27va: agere 51ra: agere

407

Quodl. III.22 28ra (gutter): fiunt 51va: fiunt

As can be seen from this sample, the parallel marginalia include additions of single words or whole lines, as well as cross-references. Parallel references to contemporary theologians (Godfrey of Fontaines, Henry of Ghent, Peter of Palude, Hervaeus Natalis, Durand of St. Pourçain, James of Viterbo, etc.) are also not uncommon, although there are no examples in this particular quodlibet.

The parallel marginalia are most prominent for the quodlibets contained in Unit 3 of N. Almost none of the marginalia in Unit 1 have a parallel in T; rather, most of these annotations were incorporated into the text of Quodl. VIII in Unit 3, and they also appear in the main text of this quodlibet in T. The only exceptions are an est and half a dozen references to Durand, all of which appear in Unit 1 of N in a darker ink, written with a broader nib, than the rest of the marginalia in this gathering. 58 Similarly, most of the marginal corrections in Unit 2 of N are incorporated into the text in T; the only parallel annotations are a few cross-references. 59 For Unit 4, the only marginalia present in both N and T are the references to authorities named in the text of the question on the Beatific Vision; longer additions and corrections are incorporated into the text of the question in T. The few marginal additions to Quodl. XI.13 and the prologue and first six questions of Quodl. XI in the same unit have also been incorporated into the main text in T, including the long notes that appear to be correcting cases of scribal eye-skip on f. 163va and 164vb of N. There are no parallel marginalia in the four questions from Quodl. XIII in T and the versions of the same questions in N.

What to make of these parallel marginalia? Even without a full edition of the quodlibets, it is clear that the texts of N and T are extremely similar, close enough to hypothesize that they were both copied from the same exemplar, or that one (probably T) is a direct copy of the other (probably Unit 3 of N). Were both manuscripts corrected by the same person at the same time? Or did the scribe copying T transcribe the marginal corrections from his exemplar into the margins rather than integrating them into the text? As bizarre as it seems, the latter scenario

58 N f. 2vb; 3vb; 4vb; 7vb; 8vb; 9rb; 12rb; cf. T f. 125ra; 126ra; 127vb; 129rb; 130rb; 130vb; 133va.

59 N f. 17va; 18ra; 24ra; cf. T f. 154ra; 154va; 158vb.

408 appears to fit the manuscript evidence better. In T, most of the parallel marginalia seem to have been written by the same hand, possibly the same hand as the main text, whereas several different hands appear to be at work in N. 60 Although the text of the parallel annotations is almost always identical, the abbreviations used are sometimes different, suggesting that they were written by different scribes, who preferred different abbreviation styles. It is hard to imagine someone correcting two manuscripts at once and using two different abbreviations for the same word seconds apart.

Date: The manuscript must date from after 1332, the terminus ante quem for Quodl. XI. Since it shows every sign of having been planned as a comprehensive edition of John’s academic works, it must have been put together before he finished redacting his thirteenth quodlibet.

A handful of small corrections to the questions from Quodl. XIII in T have been incorporated into the main text in N. 61 This suggests that T predates Unit 5 of N. It probably also predates A, since several marginal corrections to the copy of the exposition on the Lord’s Prayer (Schneyer no. 130) are integrated into the version of the text in A. 62

60 A thorough examination of T, in-situ or via higher-quality images, is required to confirm this observation.

61 Quodl. XIII.4, T f. 292rb, “sanguis,” incorporated on N, f. 167ra; Quodl. XIII.4, T f. 292vb, “licet,” incorporated on N f. 167rb; Quodl. XIII.6, T f. 293ra, “factam,” incorporated on N f. 168ra.

62 E.g. “desiderare” (T f. 297rb); “propter duo” (T f. 297va).

Appendix 2 Dating and Placing John’s Works Quodlibets

Of John’s thirteen quodlibets, Quodl. VI and VII can be dated and placed most securely. There is ample evidence that both were disputed at Paris while John was a regent master. Quodl. VI dates from shortly after John became a master, probably from Advent 1315, or, more likely, Lent 1316, and Quodl. VII probably dates from Advent 1316. 1 This dating rests partly on manuscript evidence. In both N and T, an annotator has added “Disputatum Parysius,” or in one case “Disputatum et determinatum Parysius” next to the rubrics for Quodl. VI and Quodl. VII, and the rubrics for these quodlibets in the index in T also indicate that these quodlibets were disputed in Paris. 2 Quodl. VI and VII sometimes circulated separately from the rest of John’s quodlibets, and some of these manuscripts further help with their dating and placing: the incipit to Quodl. VII in one manuscript claims that it was disputed in Paris, and the explicit to the same quodlibet in another further adds that it was edited at Paris in 1317. 3 The contents of these quodlibets also suggest they were disputed in Paris. Mostly notably, Quodl. VI.2 concerns whether all of Thomas Aquinas’ conclusions can be licitly taught at Paris. Russell Friedman argues that John’s cautious attempt in this question to demonstrate that Aquinas’ teachings are not the same as any of the articles condemned in 1277, compared with his confident assertion in his Disputed Question 22[10] that some of the articles were wrongly condemned in the first place, may indicate that the quodlibet dates from shortly after John became a master. 4

1 Friedman, “Dominican Quodlibetal Literature,” 457-8.

2 T f. 55vb and 84vb (and f. 294vb and 295ra for the index); N f. 79va and f. 109ra.

3 Toulouse, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 744 (I,96), f. 24rb: “Incipit secundum quodlibet fratris Johannis de Neapoli ordinis predicatorum in sacra pagina egregio professori Parisius disputatum.”; Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conv. Soppr. J.X.10, f. 147vb: “Explicit secundum quolibet magistri Johannis de Neapoli ordinis fratrum predicatorum, editum Parisius anno domini millesimo trecentesimo 17. Deo gratias Amen.”

4 Friedman, “Dominican Quodlibetal Literature,” 458.

409 410

When they circulated separately, John’s Quodl. VI and VII were often labelled as John’s first and second quodlibets rather than his sixth and seventh. 5 In the stemma developed by Prospero Stella on the basis of Quodl. VI.2, this group of manuscripts occupies a different branch than the two main collections of John’s quodlibets, N and T.6 One possible explanation for this pattern is that John deposited a good copy of the two quodlibets he disputed as a master at Paris with the university stationer, or at the Dominican convent in Paris. 7 The latter is perhaps more likely, since John’s works are nowhere to be found on the surviving stationers’ lists from Paris, and none of the manuscripts bear obvious signs of being pecia manuscripts. 8 Most of the surviving manuscripts have an established Dominican provenance, and John’s quodlibets often travelled alongside the works of other early-fourteenth-century Dominicans who were active at Paris, such as Hervaeus Natalis and Durand of St.-Pourçain. 9 This may be simply a feature of the surviving sources, or it may indicate that John’s quodlibets were transmitted not through the Parisian pecia system, but rather through book production practices internal to the Dominican order.

Both the numbering of John’s quodlibets in N and T and internal evidence indicate that Quodl. I- V do in fact predate Quodlibets VI and VII. For example, Quodl. VII.6 contains a cross- reference to Quodl. III.5, and Prospero Stella has argued that one can see a progressive development in John’s response to the Parisian condemnations of 1277 from Quodl. III.10 to

5 E.g. Florence, BNC, Conv. Soppr. J.X.10 (14 th c.; also contains works by Hervaeus Natalis, Thomas Sutton, the anonymous Dicta Thomae Aquinatis in libris super Sententias contra impugnantes defensa , and some questions possibly from John’s Quodl. XIII, discussed below); Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek 542 (14 th c.; also contains the Sentences commentary of Bernardus Lombardi); Tortosa, Arch. Cap. 43 (14 th c.; also contains works by Durand of St. Pourçain and Hervaeus Natalis); Reims, Bibliothèque Municipale 502 (F 462) (14 th c.; also contains works by Raymond Bequini, Pierre Roger, Hervaeus Natalis, Petrus de Palma, and Giles of Rome); Toulouse, Bibliothèque Municipale 744 (I 96) (14 th c.; also contains works by Durand of St. Pourçain, Peter of Palude, Jacques de Toulouse, and Peter Auriol).

6 Stella, “Gli ‘articuli parisienses,’” 42-3.

7 On the ‘publication’ of quodlibets in this manner, see Hamesse, “Theological Quaestiones Quodlibetales ,” 37-8.

8 For the surviving stationers’ lists from Paris, see Giovanna Murano, Opere diffuse per exemplar e pecia (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005).

9 See above, n. 5.

411

Quodl. V. 8 to Quodl. VI.2. 10 Scholars have found this chronology puzzling, since it means that John’s first five quodlibets must date from before he became a master of theology. Friedman argues that they were “almost necessarily [...] held during John’s bachelor years at Paris, 1310- 15.” 11 He proposes two explanations for how a bachelor could have held quodlibetal disputations: John might have been a respondent rather than the presiding master in these disputations, or he might have presided over them in his own right somewhere other than Paris, such as at a provincial studium or on a special occasion such as a general chapter. 12

I find the second hypothesis much more convincing. If John was the respondent for some quodlibets and the presiding master for others, one would expect to be able to discern a change in style, and possibly doctrine. But nothing especially sets John’s first five quodlibets apart from the ones that date from after his Paris regency (Quodl. VIII-XIII), and no one suggests that John acted as a respondent in these later quodlibets. On the other hand, there are notable stylistic differences between John’s Quodl. VI and VII and the others. Although both of these quodlibets contain fewer questions than almost any of the others, those questions receive a much fuller treatment. 13 The introduction to Quodl. VII is unusually polished, opening with a quotation from the Posterior Analytics and a little preamble. 14 The subject matter of these two quodlibets is also more exclusively concerned with abstract matters of theology, and less with practical ethical questions than that of John’s other quodlibets. As noted above, these quodlibets sometimes

10 Friedman, “Dominican Quodlibetal Literature,” 459, following Stella, “Zwei unedierte Artikel,” 131-7.

11 Friedman, “Dominican Quodlibetal Literature,” 459.

12 Friedman, “Dominican Quodlibetal Literature,” 459-60.

13 Quodl. VI and Quodl. VII both occupy approximately 30 folios apiece in T (f. 54vb-84vb and 84vb-114va, respectively), whereas the next-longest quodlibet occupies less than 24 (Quodl. VIII, f. 114va-138rb) and quodlibets II-V and IX-XII all hover around 9-13 folios. Yet Quodl. VI has 19 questions and Quodl. VII has just 16 (or 17 in some manuscripts, where a question similar to Quodl. V.16 appears as Quodl. VII.14). For comparison, Quodl. XI and XII, which contain 17 questions apiece, each occupy approximately 10 folios; together, they are less than 2/3 the length of Quodl. VII. Excluding Quodl. VI and VII, the average number of questions in John’s quodlibets is 24. Quodl. I-V all have 21-23 questions apiece; Quodl. VIII has 40.

14 N f. 109ra-b; T f. 84vb: “‘Questiones sunt equales numero hiis que uere scimus,’ ut dicitur in principio secundi Posteriorum [cf. Auctoritates Aristotelis p. 319, no. 97]. Scimus enim [T: autem] per doctrinam sacre pagine aliquid de ente increato, quod est deus, et aliquid de ente creato, saltim ut habet habitudinem ad deum. Et secundum hoc in quolibet in quo [T om. in quo] fuerunt proposite questiones 16 [T add. sup. quia] aliquid querebatur de deo et aliquid de creatura.”

412 circulated separately, and they are singled out in the main manuscripts as having been disputed at Paris, suggesting that this is something that distinguishes them from the others. All this suggests that Quodl. VI and VII were the only quodlibets John disputed in Paris, and that he subjected them to a more thorough revision process than the others.

If, following Friedman’s second suggestion, we are looking for a non-Parisian studium where John might have presided over quodlibets in his own right prior to becoming a master of theology, there is an obvious candidate: Naples. As discussed in Ch. 1, we know that John was a lector at San Domenico Maggiore in Naples for several years during the first decade of the fourteenth century. There seems to have been a tradition of lectors at this studium holding quodlibetal disputations. According to Michèle Mulchahey,

to be conventual lector at San Domenico in the 1280s was a prestigious appointment, one already much more akin to holding a magisterial chair than it was like to the lectorate anywhere else in the province. It had become customary that the lector in Naples taught in a fashion very much like a regent master, delivering lectures on both Bible and Sentences before an audience which included university students, holding quodlibetal disputations as well as more frequent sessions of disputed questions, while, as the legislation of 1287 demonstrates, a sub-lector under him offered true cursory lectures on all books of the Sentences. 15

Moreover, the Dominican school at San Domenico in Naples was officially made a studium generale in 1303, and the Dominican chapter of 1280 had decreed that holding quodlibetal disputations should be restricted to, among others, lectors at studia generalia , even if they were not masters of theology. 16 Sylvan Piron argues that quodlibetal disputations were not as widespread in thirteenth-century Dominican provincial studia as Mulchahey claims, but he still acknowledges that they became more common by the early fourteenth century, especially after the general chapter of 1306 explicitly permitted the Master General and provincial masters to authorize lectors at Dominican studia other than studia generale to hold quodlibetal disputations. 17 He also provides examples of other mendicants who presided over quodlibetal

15 Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent in Study, ” 183.

16 Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent in Study, ” 385-6.

17 Piron, “Franciscan Quodlibeta in Southern Studia and at Paris, 1280-1300,” in Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages , vol. 1, 403-38, at 404-6.

413 disputations outside of Paris without being masters of theology, such as the Franciscans Vital du Four, Petrus de Trabibus, Peter John Olivi, and perhaps Raymond Rigaud. 18 Overall, there would have been no legislative barriers preventing John from presiding over quodlibetal disputations as a lector at San Domenico in Naples before he was sent to Paris in 1309; indeed, it seems to have been something of an expectation.

There are a few challenges to the hypothesis that John’s first five quodlibets were debated in Naples prior to 1309. Quodl. III.5 contains an internal reference to the “last” quodlibet of Hervaeus Natalis, which in fact corresponds to Hervaeus’s Quodl. III.9. 19 Hervaeus’s third quodlibet is usually thought to have been debated at Paris during Advent 1309, although this dating depends on that of another set of quodlibetal questions by John of Pouilly. 20 Furthermore, two questions in Quodl. IV contain references to the opinions of “ quidam ” or “ quidam moderni theologi ,” which an annotator identified in the margin of T as Durand . 21 One of these passages is an almost word-for-word match for a passage from the first recension of Durand of St. Pourçain’s Sentences commentary, which is usually dated to sometime between 1303 and 1308. 22 These citations of fellow Dominican scholars who were active in Paris during the first decades of the fourteenth century suggest that John’s Quodl. III and IV, at least, were disputed in

18 Piron, “Franciscan Quodlibeta in Southern Studia and at Paris,” and “Les studia franciscains de Provence et d’Aquitaine (1275-1335),” in Philosophy and Theology in the Studia of the Religious Orders and at Papal and Royal Courts , 303-58, esp. 323-4.

19 Quodl. III.5, N f. 44rb ; T f. 21rb: “Quere multa bona et maxime auctoritates de hac questione in penultimo articulo primi quolibet Iacobi de Viterbio, et in ultimo quolibet Hervei...” The question is edited in Prospero T. Stella, “Zwei unedierte Artikel des Johannes von Neapel über das Individuationsprinzip,” Divus Thomas (Fribourg) 29 (1951), 129–66, at 156-66.

20 Friedman, “Dominican Quodlibetal Literature,” 434-5.

21 Quodl. IV.4, T f. 31ra in marg.: “Durandus in 4 d. 11 q. 1” and IV.9, T f. 34rb in marg.: “Durandus in secundo d. 15 articulo tertio et 27 d. articulo secundo.”

22 Quodl. IV.9, T f. 34rb: “non bene dicunt quidam moderni theologi quod homo nichil potest apud deum mereri de condigno, quod sic probant: qui non potest quod minus est, nec quod maius. Set minus est reddere equivalens deo quam ipsum constituere debito rem. Homo autem non potest reddere equivalens deo beneficiis receptis a quo habet esse et omnem aliam perfectionem. Ergo nec potest ipsum sibi constituere debitorem. Set mereri aliquid de condigno apud aliquem est ipsum sibi constituere debitorem, ergo etc.” cf. Durandi de Sancto Porciano Scriptum super IV libros Sententiarum, Distinctiones 22-38 Libri Secundi , ed. Fiorella Retucci and Massimo Perrone (Leuven: Peeters, 2013), p. 103, lines 162-79. On the dating of this redaction, see Courtenay, “Durand in His Educational and Intellectual Context.”

414

Paris after 1309. However, given the close links between Dominican studia generalia and the University of Paris, it is fully possible that early copies of works by Dominican scholars could have made their way quite quickly to a studium like the one of Naples, carried by travelling friars. Indeed, as discussed in Chapter 1, the unauthorized circulation of Durand’s Sentences commentary was one of the things that got him into trouble with his order. Moreover, the manuscripts containing these quodlibets (N and T) were both put together after John’s return from Paris, so it is not inconceivable that some editing took place and a few references to later works crept in.

A further (relatively weak) piece of evidence in favour of a pre-1309 Neapolitan dating for Quodl. I-V was presented by an early cataloguer of John’s quodlibets, who suggested that Quodl. V.13 was disputed in a maritime city, most likely Naples. 23 The question concerns a ship laden with grain that has been blown back into port by a storm after the enactment of a statute prohibiting grain exports – can it leave with its load? 24 It is easy to imagine how a question like this might have arisen in a port city from which ships full of grain were departing on a regular basis. In fact, King Robert of Naples made just such a statute in August 1310, in order to combat the famine which plagued the first year of his reign. Citing current shortages and fear of worse to come, he forbade grain to be exported from Naples by sea or land. In September of the same year, he renewed the statute and further stipulated that detailed records should be kept of the goods carried by ships leaving the port and their destinations.25 It is more difficult to see what might have inspired this question in Paris, although the presence of a similar case concerning rocks in the Digest is a possible explanation. 26 If Quodl. V was indeed debated in Naples, it

23 March, “Cuestiones cuolibéticas,” 151. This suggestion has been repeated by a number of scholars, including Friedman, “Dominican Quodlibetal Literature,” 460.

24 Quodl. V.13, N f. 76ra-b; T f. 51va-b: “Utrum, facto statuto de novo in aliqua civitate de non asportando frumento extra portum eius, navis que ante statutum onerata frumento de portu recessit et tandem, orta tempestate, post statutum ad portum rediit, possit licite cum frumento de portu recedere.”

25 Caggese, Roberto d’Angiò e i suoi tempi , 509-12.

26 In his response to Quodl. V.13, John cites a parallel case from the Digest , in which the emperor forbids the indiscriminate export of flintstones from the island of Crete after the Ides of March, and a ship laden with these stones was leaving the port before the Ides, but was blown back by a storm after that date: N f. 76rb; T f. 51vb: “Quarto quia Digestis , “De publicanis et vectigalibus et commissis,” lege “Cesar,” [Dig. 39.4.15] habetur expresse casus consimilis, quia Cesar in insula certa vendidit cuidam certam lapicidineam, que ibi vocatur cotanea, sic quod

415 would stand to reason that Quodl. I-IV were too, since there is no evidence that John travelled back and forth between Paris and Naples as a bachelor of theology.

Of John’s later quodlibets, Quodl. VIII can be dated and placed with the most confidence. It was almost certainly debated shortly after John returned to Naples from Paris. As Mauro Mantovani first pointed out, John refers in the second question of this quodlibet to a question from his “seventh quodlibet, disputed at Paris,” which implies that Quodl. VIII was not disputed in that city. 27 Moreover, Quodl. VIII.20 refers to a text that was promulgated as part of the Constitutiones clementinae on October 25, 1317 as belonging to the “new constitutions of the Council of Vienne.” Since, as discussed in Ch. 1, John is thought to have returned to Naples in the second half of 1317, his quodlibet must have been disputed shortly thereafter, before he had seen a copy of the new Constitutiones clementinae .28 The likeliest date is therefore Advent 1317.

Further cross-references indicate that the chronological order of John’s Quodl. IX-XIII accords with their numbering. But when and where were these quodlibets debated? Several scholars have remarked upon the similarity between a pair of linked questions in John’s Quodl. IX and the questions posed during the papal consultation on magic and heresy held at Avignon in 1320. 29 Alain Boureau, who has studied this consultation in detail, pointed out that John was not among the experts consulted in 1320, and argued that this quodlibet was held in Naples sometime after

post ydus marcias nemini liceret lapides illos extra insulam asportare. Navis autem cuiusdam ante ydus recessit de insula cum onere lapidum predictorum et postea propter tempestatem ad portum rediit, scilicet post ydus marcias, et sequitur ibi quod non fecit contra statutum si inde recessit cum onere suo.”

27 Quodl. VIII.2, N f. 130va; T f. 116rb: “Et preterea, licet de toto homogeneo possit dici quod non differt realiter a partibus suis, non tamen hoc potest dici de toto etherogeneo, ut in questione septima septimi quolibet disputati Parisius probatum est.” Mantovani, “‘Veraciter, sed non evidenter’,” 467 mistranscribed the Arabic numeral and Friedman followed his reading of “ut in secunda quaestione, VII Quolibet.” However, both manuscripts clearly say 7a, not 2 a, and the second and third conclusions of John’s Quodl. VII.7, “Utrum totum sit idem cum suis partibus vel superaddat aliquid realiter differens ab eis,” are that “totum homogeneum idem est realiter quod omnes partes sue unite” and “totum etherogeneum, sicut est humana natura respectu materie eius et forme, est aliquid realiter differens a partibus suis et inter se unitis.”

28 Mantovani, “‘Veraciter, sed non evidenter’,” 467-8. Friedman, “Dominican Quodlibetal Literature,” 460-1 recapitulates Mantovani’s arguments.

29 Quodl. IX.24-5, T f. 149vb-150rb. The fruits of this consultation were gathered in Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Borgh. 348, on which see Alain Boureau, Le pape et les sorciers. Une consultation de Jean XXII sur la magie en 1320 (Manuscrit B.A.V. Borghese 348) (Rome: École française de Rome, 2004).

416 the consultation. 30 Patrick Nold, on the other hand, while also noting that John was not directly involved in the consultation, argued that John’s Quodl. IX “may very well have been disputed in Avignon” sometime between 1318 and 1322.31 Another pair of questions from Quodl. IX dealing with Jewish blasphemy and its punishment would also make sense in the context of Avignon in 1320-21, when the pope expelled the Jews from the Comtat Venaissin, the papal territory surrounding (but not including) Avignon. 32 That said, anti-Jewish sentiments were certainly not limited to southern France during this period, and, as noted in Ch. 1, there is some evidence to suggest that John was still in Naples in June 1321.33 Given the strong communication links between Avignon and Naples, it is fully possible that word of the heresy consultation of 1320 reached Naples and inspired one of John’s audience members to seek his opinion in a disputation.

Regardless of where it was disputed, John’s Quodl. IX must date from between 1318 and 1322, probably after the summer of 1320. The terminus ante quem is provided by Quodl. X, which includes a question that is substantially the same as John’s revised response to the papal consultation on marriage of 1322. 34 It also contains a question on private property that echoes his contribution to the papal consultation on apostolic poverty, but does not take into account the relevant papal bulls, leading Patrick Nold to suggest a dating for Quodl. X of late 1322 or early 1323. 35 If, as I suggested in Ch. 1, John returned to Naples in the late summer of 1323, this dating would mean that John’s Quodl. X was disputed not in Naples, but in Avignon. This is

30 Boureau, Le pape et les sorciers , xix.

31 Nold, “How influential,” 663-7.

32 Quodl. IX.26-7, T f. 150rb. On the expulsions, see Valérie Theis, “Jean XXII et l’éxpulsion des juifs du Comtat Venaissin,” Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 67 e année (2012), 41-77; Schlomo Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews: Documents, 492-1404 (Toronto: PIMS, 1988), doc. 309, pp. 321-3.

33 The document of June 25, 1321, as summarized by Chioccarello (see above, Chapter 1, section 2.3), does not explicitly say that John was present in Naples at the time. But it was issued in Naples by Robert’s Vicar General, and since the other theologian cited was the lector of the major Franciscan convent in Naples, it would make sense if John still held the corresponding position at San Domenico at this time.

34 Quodl. X.23; see Nold, “How Influential,” 642-4 and Marriage Advice for a Pope , 131-41.

35 Quodl. X.25, T f. 161ra-va; N f. 27va-28va; see Nold, “How Influential,” 659-63.

417 certainly a possibility. There is plenty of evidence that theological disputations were seen as a form of erudite entertainment at the papal court in Avignon during the 1320s, and other Dominican theologians such as Durand of St.-Pourçain and Armand of Belvezer are known to have presided over quodlibetal disputations in Avignon during the early fourteenth century. 36 However, if John did dispute one or two quodlibetal disputations in Avignon, it is surprising that this did not receive any comment in N or T, the way that his Paris quodlibets did. I am therefore inclined to hypothesize that Quodl. IX was disputed before John left Naples for Avignon (wheich he probably did in early 1322, as I argued in Chapter 1), and Quodl. X was disputed in Naples shortly after his return, most likely during Advent 1323.

There seems to have been a gap of about ten years between John’s Quodl. X and Quodl. XI. Thomas Turley has suggested that Quodl. XI was debated in Naples during Advent 1332, on the basis of an internal reference in question 7 to John’s treatise on the beatific vision, which is usually dated to 1332. 37 This is problematized slightly by the sixteenth question, which asks what should be done if someone has sworn to eat no bread on the feast of St. Lawrence and to eat bread and water on Fridays, and the feast of St. Lawrence falls on a Friday. The Feast of St. Lawrence (10 August) fell on a Friday in 1324, 1330, and not again until 1341. However, this may well have been a stock example, rather than a pressing question based on current circumstances. Placing this quodlibet in Naples, at least, is unproblematic, as Quodl. XI.12 (transcribed in the appendix to Chapter 6) concerns the behaviour of the King of Sicily, and Quodl. XI.17/XIII.19 makes reference to the currency of the Kingdom of Naples. 38 Quodl. XII and Quodl. XIII can both be fairly confidently placed in Naples after 1332, since internal cross- references indicate that they post-date Quodl. XI, and there is no evidence that John spent significant amounts of time anywhere but Naples during the last two decades of his life. 39

36 Friedman, “Dominican Quodlibetal Literature,” 450-1; 464.

37 Turley, “An Unnoticed quaestio ,” 286-7; Friedman, “Dominican Quodlibetal Literature,” 461; Nold, “How Influential,” 663-4.

38 Quodl. XI.17 (also listed as Quodl. XIII.19 in N) concerns a complicated case of inheritance. A lord is said to have revoked part of his testament and left his daughter “de bonis burgensaticis solum 50 uncias in pecunia et parum de bonis stabilibus.” (T f. 171va; N f. 173va)

39 Friedman, “Dominican Quodlibetal Literature,” 461-2.

418

The following chart summarizes the tentative dates and locations I have assigned to John’s quodlibets: Quodl. I Naples before 1315 Quodl. II Naples before 1315 Quodl. III Naples before 1315 Quodl. IV Naples before 1315 Quodl. V Naples before 1315 Quodl. VI Paris Advent 1315/Lent 1316 Quodl. VII Paris Advent 1316 Quodl. VIII Naples Advent 1317 Quodl. IX Naples Advent 1320/ Lent or Advent 1321? Quodl. X Naples Advent 1323? Quodl. XI Naples Advent 1332? Quodl. XII Naples after 1332 Quodl. XIII Naples after 1332

The dating and placing of John’s quodlibets is complicated by his apparent tendency to rework questions that had originated somewhere other than a quodlibetal disputation into the ‘published’ versions of his quodlibets. Quodl. X.23, for instance, which also appears as Disputed Question 40 in the early modern edition of John’s disputed questions (though not among the disputed questions in T), is almost identical to the revised version of the dicta John submitted in response to Pope John XXII’s 1322 consultation on marriage. Patrick Nold has argued that John modified his dicta slightly in response to the promulgation of the papal bull Antique concertationi (December 1, 1322) but otherwise left the text largely unchanged when he included it in his tenth quodlibet. 40 In another example, Thomas Turley has persuasively argued on the basis of manuscript evidence that John’s Quodl. XI.13 originated as a responsio sometime in 1332 and was subsequently edited into his eleventh quodlibet. 41 Turley pointed out that John was not the only author to recycle material of this sort, citing the example of the Carmelite theologian Guy Terrena’s Quodl. VI.14, which is an abbreviated version of his response to Pope John XXII’s 1320 consultation on sorcery. 42

40 Nold, “How Influential,” 643-4.

41 Turley, “An Unnoticed Quaestio. ” See the discussion of Unit 4 of N in Appendix 1.

42 Turley, “An Unnoticed Quaestio ,” 285; Schabel, “Carmelite Quodlibeta ,” 518.

419

Quodl. XI.13 has an unusual structure. Most of John’s quodlibetal questions, like those of other authors, have a brief question, followed by one or more arguments pro and contra , and a response, followed by replies to the initial arguments. Quodl. XI.13, in contrast, begins with a lengthy casus concerning an oath taken by a group of cathedral canons, followed by a series of three questions and responses. As the version in T observes, this question was “without arguments.” 43 Turley suggested that several questions from John’s tenth quodlibet might also have originated from consultations and been edited into the quodlibet at a later date. He pointed out that Quodl. X.22 and Quodl. X.24, like Quodl. X.23, are posed as casus , and Quodl. X.22 “lacks the form of a quodlibetal question,” by which he means that it is also posed as a casus and lacks the initial arguments pro and contra .44 Turley’s suggestions about these other questions have been repeated by subsequent scholars, but they have not yet been subjected to serious scrutiny. 45

Turley’s own criteria for identifying possible recycled responsiones – questions framed as casus and/or lacking initial arguments pro and contra – can be used to expand the list of possibilities. Three of John’s other questions (Quodl. IX.20, X.26, and XI.17/XIII.19) are also framed as casus . Two of them also lack initial arguments, as do nearly a dozen other questions that went unremarked by Turley: Quodl. IX.22, IX.24-27, XI.9, XI.11, XIII.23-26. Here is the full list of possible recycled responsiones according to these criteria:

Possible recycled responsiones according to Turley’s criteria: Question MS Title (transcribed from beginning of question) Suspicious Location(s) features IX.20 46 T f. 148va- Vicesima questio est casus talis: Petrus contra voluntatem Casus ; no 149ra Marie uxoris sue suscepit de sacro fonte Iohannem contra arguments voluntatem Martini patris ipsius Iohannis. Tunc queritur utrum in tali casu Maria sit mater spiritualis Iohannis et Petrus sit compater Martini.

43 T f. 169rb: “Tertiadecima questio est sine argumentis casus propositus talis...”

44 Turley, “An Unnoticed Quaestio ,” 285n19.

45 E.g. Friedman, “Dominican Quodlibetal Literature,” 462.

46 Edited in Stella, “Padrinato e madrinato battesimali a Napoli,” 415-7.

420

IX.22 T f. 149rb Vicesima secunda questio est utrum potenti statim No restituere male ablata sufficiat ad salutem anime relinquere arguments in testamento quod heredes restituant, et erat sine argumentis. IX.24 T f. 149vb- Vicesima quarta questio est utrum invocare, coniurare, et No 150ra consulere demones et baptizare ymagines secundum arguments formam et ritum ecclesie ad interficiendum vel affiligendum aliquem sapiat heresim vel infidelitatem. IX.25 T f. 150ra-b Vicesima quinta questio est qua pena sit talis puniendus. No arguments IX.26 T f. 150rb Vicesima sexta questio est utrum iudeus dicens publice No extra synagogam Christum fuisse hominem quemdam arguments deceptorem, aut eukaristiam esse panem solum, sit puniendus ut hereticus aut ut blasphemus. IX.27 T f. 150rb Vicesima septima questio est per quem iudicem talis No iudeus sit puniendus, utrum scilicet per iudicem secularem arguments aute ecclesiasticum. X.22 T f. 159ra- Vicesima secunda questio est quidam casus talis: quidam Casus; no b; N f. uxoratus vivente uxore promisit cuidam alteri mulieri que arguments 24va-b ignorabat eum uxoratum quod duceret eam in uxorem, et postea carnaliter cognovit eam; tandem post sex menses predicta mulier cognovit talem adulterum esse uxoratum, et hec sibi dixit, qui hec ipsum tali mulieri de plano confessus est; sed addidit ‘promitto tibi quod si illa morietur, post mortem eius te accipiam in uxorem.’ Modo queritur utrum tali uxore legitima defuncta predictus adulter possit talem mulierem accipere in uxorem. X.23/DQ T f. 159rb- Vicesima tertia questio est utrum matrimonium contractum Similarity 40 47 160vb; N f. per verba de presenti et non consumatum per carnalem to known 24vb-27ra copulam solvatur per susceptionem sacri ordinis, sicut consultation solvitur per professionem religionis, ut patet Extra, ‘De conversione coniugum,’ ‘Verum post consensum,’ et ‘Ex publico,’ et ‘Ex parte.’ X.24 T f. 160vb- Vicesima quarta questio est talis casus: Quidam iuravit Casus 161ra; N f. numquam comedere rem non suam, et sciens in grege suo 27ra-va esse oves nonaginta novem, invenit centum, sic quod constabat sibi unam non esse suam, licet non cognosceret determinate eam. Queritur utrum possit licite comedere vel alias consumere seu alienare nonaginta novem, reservando centesimam.

47 Edited in Nold, Marriage Advice for a Pope , 163-88. The main text of Nold’s edition is actually that of MS Rome, Alessandrina 79 and MS Vatican, BAV vat. lat. 3740, but he notes the few variants from T and the Gravina edition (where this question appears on p. 340-3 as DQ 40) in the apparatus. In the introduction, p. lxxxii, he reports that the differences between N and T were too minor to be worth recording.

421

X.26 T f. 161vb- Vicesima sexta questio est talis casus: Quidam civis unius Casus 162rb; N f. civitatis et fidelis iuratus cuiusdam principis scivit 28va-29rb machinationem civitatis contra principem, et e converso principis contra civitatem. Queritur cui debeat citius revelare. XI.9 T f. 167vb- Nona questio 48 est utrum ignis possit infrigidari sicut aqua No 168ra; N f. potest calefieri, et proponebatur sine argumentis. arguments 32va-b XI.11 T f. 168rb- Undecima questio est sine argumentis: Utrum sit No va iudicandum esse matrimonium vel esse sponsalia solum arguments inter puerum et puellam sibi sponsatam septentem vel circa et a tali puero carnaliter cognitam seu coruptam existentem in tali etate. XI.13 49 T f. 169rb- Tertiadecima questio est sine argumentis casus propositus Casus; no vb; N f. talis: Capitulum maioris ecclesie cathedralis iuramento arguments; 160rb-161ra formavit opponere et prosequi exceptiones rationabiles et unusual legitimas absque inobedientia sedis apostolice et iniuria structure cuiuscumque contra omnes impetrantes canonicatum ipsius ecclesie. Post quod iuramentum multi impetraverunt canonicatum talem per litteras sedis apostolice quarum exequtores contulerunt canonicatum talem ipsis impetrantibus, ponendo eos in possessione talis canonicatus et installando eos etiam in choro, non obstante propositione facta per capitulum supradictum multarum exceptionum quas dictum capitulum extimat iustas et rationabiles, et non obstante appellatione facta per ipsum capitulum ad summum pontificem ab executoribus ipsis, quam ut frivolam exequtores non admiserunt, dando capitulo supradicto apostolos refutatorios. Et post hec capitulum supradictum non recepit predictos impetrantes quantum ad officium divinum ut canonicos, nec quantum ad omnia alia spectantia ad ipsos canonicos talis ecclesie. Super isto casu queruntur tria. Primum est utrum tale iuramentum obliget tales canonicos tanquam licitum. Ad quod dicendum est quod [...] Secundum quod queritur in tali casu est utrum absque culpa periurii capitulum possit tales impetrantes recipere seu admittere ut canonicos quantum ad officium divinum et quantum ad omnia alia ad canonicos spectantia. Ad quod dicenda sunt quattuor. [...] Tertium quod queritur in tali casu est utrum prelatus talis ecclesie cathedralis, episcopus vel archiepiscopus, qui hiis non consensit, possit in tali iuramento dispensare cum

48 N: Questio est [ in marg. : octava]

49 Edited in Turley, “An Unnoticed Quaestio ,” 289-91.

422

iurantibus quod impetrantes recipiant in canonicos. Ad quod dicendum est quod [...] XI.17/ T f. 171va- Decimaseptima questio est talis casus: Dominus I tradidit Casus XIII.19 172vb; N f. dominam F, filiam suam unigenitam, in uxorem comiti C, 173rb- cum multis pactis que confirmavit iuramento facto ad 174va sancta dei evangelia corporaliter tacta et concessu regis facto ex certa sua scientia per suas litteras patentes cum sigillo suo pendente. Inter que pacta fuit quod promisit instituere et instituit heredem predictam filiam suam in omnibus bonis suis feudalibus et burgensaticis stabilibus et mobilibus et per se moventibus que haberet tempore mortis sue, exceptis legatis ponendis in ultimo suo testamento. Et omnia predicta pacta posita sunt in quodam instrumento dotalitio facto de matrimonio supradicto. In quo instrumento inter alia ponitur quod si aliquis defectus apparuerit in posterum in hiis que spectant ad personas predictorum comitis et comitisse, deberent emendari secundum consilium et determinationem sapientis eligendi ab ipsis comite et comitissa. Dominus autem I predictus in suo ultimo testamento revocavit predictam institutionem heredis et dimisit supradicte filie sue de bonis burgensaticis solum 50 uncias in pecunia et parum de bonis stabilibus, que ambo simul accepta non extimantur esse quinquagesima pars omnium bonorum burgensaticorum ipsius. Et preter multa et magna que idem dominus I erogavit dum viveret parum ante mortem suam, et que legavit distincte in tali testamento, posuit in ipso talem clausulam: ‘Reliqua autem omnia bona mea stabilia et mobilia et se movencia vendantur, et pecunia que habebitur ex vendicione eorum et omnis alia pecunia mea detur per exequtores seu distribuatur pro missis et ad alias pias causas pro anima mea.’ Circa istum casum queritur utrum predicta comitissa succedat virtute provisionis et institutionis heredis supradicte in omnibus bonis burgensaticis patris sui, exceptis legatis distincte positis in tali testamento, vel talia bona burgensatica debeant distribui per exequtores secundum tenorem clausule supradicte. XIII.23 50 F f. 143va-b Queritur utrum anima sit sue potentie. No arguments

50 Glorieux II, p. 172, identified this question, along with Quodl. XIII.26, below, with Quodl. XIII.11, “Utrum potentie anime sint eius accidentia vel sint idem cum essentia eius,” found in N f. 169vb-170rb, but none of these are identical, and consequently they should all be treated as different questions.

423

XIII.24 51 F f. 143vb- Queritur de partibus ymaginis, que sunt memoria, No 144rb intelligentia et voluntas, utrum sint idem inter se realiter, arguments vel differant. XIII.25 52 F f. 144rb- Queritur utrum possit probari generationem esse in divinis No 145ra efficaci ratione. arguments XIII.26 53 F f. 145ra-b Queritur utrum potentie anime sint idem quod essentia. No arguments

Some of these questions make more sense than others as recycled consultation material. It is hard to imagine Quodl. XI.17/XIII.19, with its lengthy and detailed casus , originating in an oral disputation, and the fact that it appears in two different quodlibets in different manuscripts suggests that it was not closely linked to one or the other. Quodl. IX.24-25, as mentioned above, bear a strong similarity to some of the questions asked in Pope John XXII’s 1320 consultation on magic and heresy, and at least one other scholar, Guy Terrena, reworked his contribution to this very consultation into one of his quodlibets.

However, parallels to many of the other casus-style questions on ethics and canon law can be found in the literature of pastoral care. 54 As I have argued in Chapter 4, these questions may have been asked by students who were reading manuals for confessors and related works, rather than originating in a practical consultation in which John took part. And it is difficult to imagine a situation in which someone might have requested a written consilium on the properties of fire, or the nature of the human soul. Statements that a question “was proposed without arguments,” like that found at the beginning of Quodl. XI.9, may be a comment on the initial debate: perhaps this question was asked at the end of the session, when participants were tired or time did not permit a disputation, and John simply prepared a response at a later date. Or perhaps whoever was taking notes sometimes failed to record the arguments for a question, and John or whoever was revising the quodlibets for ‘publication’ chose not to recreate them.

51 Quodl. XIII.22 in Glorieux.

52 Quodl. XIII.24 in Glorieux.

53 See the note above on XIII.23.

54 Quodl. IX.20, IX.22, X.22, XI.11.

424

Overall, then, it seems that only a few of the questions on this list – Quodl. IX.24-25 (and maybe also IX.26-27); Quodl. X.23, Quodl. XI.13, and XI.17/XIII.19 – are good candidates for examples of ‘recycled’ questions. And the one with the firmest connection to a known consultation (Quodl. X.23) actually fails Turley’s tests: it is not framed as a casus , and does not lack initial arguments. Content, not form, thus seems to be the defining feature of ‘recycling’ in John’s quodlibets. The limited number of verifiable examples calls into question Friedman’s claim that this type of recycling “seems a characteristic especially to be associated with John of Naples, and one that can help us with the dating of his Quodlibeta .” 55 At most, that is only true for a handful of quodlibets.

Before leaving the topic of John’s quodlibets, it is worth saying a few words about Quodl. XIII, which has a rather murky history. As discussed in Appendix 1, the fifth unit of N contains a series of questions labelled as belonging to Quodl. XIII. Unfortunately, the introduction to this quodlibet, if one existed, is now lost, since the text in N picks up midway through Quodl. XIII.4. Additional copies of four of these questions, Quodl. XIII.4-6 and Quodl. XIII.17, can be found immediately before the index in T, not labelled as belonging to any quodlibet. This may indicate that the trio of questions on Christ’s blood and the one on economics originated somewhere other than a quodlbetal disputation and were subsequently edited into Quodl. XIII.

Much more puzzling are the questions found at the end of the Florentine mauscript that contains John’s two Paris quodlibets, Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conv. Soppr. J.X.10. Koch first identified these questions as belonging to John’s thirteenth quodlibet in his 1926 study of Durand of St. Pourçain, which was published several year before Käppeli published his article identifying the contents of N as the works of John of Naples. 56 Koch pointed to a note on f. 12 bis of the Florentine manuscript, after the explicit to Hervaeus Natalis’ Tractatus de verbo , that states that the manuscript contains three quodlibets by John of Naples. 57 Nothing near the

55 Friedman, “Dominican Quodlibetal Literature,” 462.

56 Koch, Durandus , 290-1; Käppeli’s article, “Handschriftliche Mitteilungen,” was published in 1933.

57 Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conv. Soppr. J.X.10, f. 12 bis : “Iste liber est conventi Utini [=Udine, Italy? The word is difficult to make out; Koch suggested “veteris”] ordinis predicatorum, in quo continentur quattuor magna quolibeta magistri hervei, cum quolibet eiusdem de verbo. Et tria quolibeta magistri Johannes de Neapoli,

425 questions themselves identifies them as belonging to John. Quod. VI and Quodl. VII both conclude with explicits attributing them to John of Naples (the second, as noted above, also states that the quodlibet was ‘edited’ at Paris in 1317). Both also open with an enlarged and decorated initial and a title in alternating red and blue capitals that attributes the quodlibet to John (for Quodl. VII, the capitals initially attributed the quodlibet to “Herveus Brito” (i.e. Hervaeus Natalis); they have been erased and another scribe has written John’s name on top). In contrast, the first question supposedly from John’s thirteenth quodlibet, on f. 133ra, begins with an initial of normal size and decoration for the beginning of a question, and no special title. Instead, the running titles from the previous section (II QUOLIBET) continue throughout. Thus, although the hand and general layout for these questions are the same as for the two quodlibets by John that immediately precede them, they are not described as a third quodlibet by John anywhere except in the later note that appears near the beginning of the manuscript.

Koch also pointed out that Durand is the main target of many of these questions, which deal with a number of topics that appear on the lists of errors in Durand’s Sentences commentary that John helped to compile. He further observed that several of the questions are similar to questions posed in other quodlibets by John, although the wording is not exactly the same, and he left the problem of whether these questions are actually identical open for further investigation. 58 Käppeli, in the article in which he announced the ‘discovery’ of John’s quodlibets in N, noted that even though some of the questions from Quodl. XIII resemble the ones in the Florentine manuscript, their incipits and explicits are different, and all the other questions are on different topics from the questions that appear as part of Quodl. XIII in N. 59 He raised the questions of how the questions in the Florentine manuscript relate to known questions by John, and whether they can actually be attributed to him, but like Koch, he left the problem open for further investigation.

ordinis predicatorum.” Koch, Durandus , 289-90, observed that the note was written after the main text of the manuscript, but appears to still date from the fourteenth century.

58 Koch, Durandus , 289. The equivalences he proposed were between the first four questions in the Florentine manuscript and John’s Quodl. I.14, VIII.24, VIII.22, and IX.18.

59 59 Käppeli, “Handschriftliche Mitteilungen,” 451, noting similarities between the fourth and seventh questions in the Florentine manuscript and Quodl. XIII.11, as well as between the ninth question and Quodl. XIII.16.

426

When Glorieux was compiling his second edition of La littérature quodlibétique , he opted to list the questions from the Florentine manuscript as part of Quodl. XIII, assigning them numbers that follow that of the last quodlibetal question in N (Quodl. XIII.19), or listing their folio references alongside the questions with which Käppeli had noted similarities (Quodl. XIII.11 and Quodl. XIII.16). 60 Subsequent scholars, following Glorieux, have tended to treat these questions as authentic, although Käppeli opted not to mention the Florentine manuscript at all when discussing Quodl. XIII in his 1940 study of John of Naples, suggesting that his skepticism of the authenticity of the texts in the Florentine manuscript had deepened. 61 Unfortunately, I have not worked with the questions closely enough to be able to make a definitive argument about their authenticity, but I would like to note that I share Käppeli’s skepticism. I have not been able to identify any cross-references to John’s other works in questions in the Florentine manuscript, unlike the questions from Quodl. XIII in N. 62 The supposedly parallel texts are dissimilar enough that I have treated them as separate questions, resulting in the renumbering noted above. The fact that Quodl. XIII.19, the last question in N, ends near the bottom of the first column on f. 174v, with no catchword or running title to indicate that further questions were copied in after the blank column, suggests that it was meant to be the final question of the quodlibet. Having noted these problems, I will follow in the tradition of Koch and Käppeli, and continue to leave this problem open for further research.

Disputed Questions

A discussion of the dating and placing of John’s disputed questions needs to begin with an overview of their manuscript and publication history. The only full surviving manuscript copy of the disputed questions is T, where they can be found after the quodlibets, as discussed in Appendix 1. The disputed questions were the only one of John’s works to be printed in the early

60 Glorieux II, 171-3.

61 Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori.”

62 Friedman, “Dominican Quodlibetal Literature,” 461-2, obscures matters by saying that “Thomas Kaeppeli has gone through all of Quodlibet XIII and shown that there are references in in to questions in John’s Quodlibeta II, VII, VIII, X, and XII (as well as one of the disputed questions)” – in fact, these cross-references come only from questions in N.

427 modern period. The 1618 edition, printed in Naples, was prepared by Domenico Gravina, then prior provincial of the province of the Regno, on the basis of a now-lost manuscript of the disputed questions held in the library of San Domenico Maggiore. (Gravina promised in his introduction that an edition of John’s quodlibets was forthcoming, but this project was never realized.) 63

Gravina’s edition must have been based on a very early manuscript of the disputed questions, much of which was written prior to Thomas Aquinas’ canonization in 1323. In a marginal note next to DQ 1 [23], Gravina explained, “He calls him ‘brother Thomas’ because he had not yet been canonized.” 64 Aquinas is referred to as “frater Thomas,” or occasionally “venerandus doctor frater Thomas,” throughout most of the questions in Gravina’s edition. 65 Next to a rare reference to Aquinas as “sanctus” in DQ 41 [QP 1], the editor remarked, “From this it is apparent that this question was written after the canonization of St. Thomas Aquinas, which was done while the author was alive.” 66 Another reference to Aquinas as “sanctus” appears in DQ 42 [QP 2]. For the most part, then, John’s disputed questions must have been written before 1323.

The texts of the two versions of the disputed questions are extremely similar; Gravina’s exemplar was probably as close to the version in T as the texts of the quodlibets in T and N. However, the manuscript and printed versions differ radically in their organization. Although the same questions appear in Gravina and T, almost every one is numbered differently, as can be seen in the chart below:

63 Gravina, unpaginated introduction, near the end of the letter to the reader: “Accipe igitur eos hilari fronte, brevi Quodlibeta subtilissima eiusdem Auctoris, quae prope diem praelo mandabuntur gustaturus,” and below, in the biography of John, after the list of John’s works: “quae omnia (sententiarum libris exceptis qui desiderantur) in insigni Bibliotheca S. Dominici de Neapoli in manuscriptis codicibus vetustis, et pene difficillimis ad legendum characteribus asservantur; ex quibus transcriptae quaestiones nunc typis demandatae sunt, et quam primum Quodlibeta pariter edentur in lucem.”

64 Gravina, p. 8b: “Vocat autem illum ‘Frater Thomas’ quia nondum erat canonizatus.” In T, Aquinas is referred to as “sanctus” in the main text.

65 E.g. DQ 2 [30], p. 18a; DQ 5 [26], p. 40b; DQ 9 [37], p. 83b; DQ 12 [13], p. 105b; DQ 13 [9], p. 108b; DQ 15 [11], p. 124b; DQ 19 [3], p. 138a, 154b, and 155a; DQ 22 [10], p. 195a-b; DQ 31 [22], p. 268a; DQ 34 [34], p. 297a; DQ 38 [32], p. 325b. In T, as in the quodlibets, Aquinas is consistently referred to as “sanctus.”

66 Gravina, p. 349b, in marg.: “Patet quod hec questio scripta est post canonizationem Sancti Thomae Aquinatis, quae esse facta est vivente Auctore.”

428

Title, Numbering Systems, and Manuscript Locations for the Disputed Questions Number in Number in Other Question title (from Gravina) 1618 edition T copies (Gravina) Utrum ad eliciendum actum dilectionis supernaturalis necessario requiratur aliquis habitus in voluntate, vel sufficiat sola assistentia Spiritus Sancti 1 23 Utrum fruitio charitativa possit habere Deum Vat. Lat. pro immediato obiecto, vel immediatum 772, f. 190v- obiectum eius sit visio beata 2 30 193r 67 Utrum gratia et charitas sint idem re absoluta 3 24 Utrum charitas augeatur secundum gradus in essentia, vel secundum gradus in esse tantum 4 25 Utrum charitas possit augeri in infinitum Vat. Lat. 772, f. 113- 5 26 125v Utrum charitas possit diminui de facto 6 27 Utrum Deus possit ab aliquo videri clare per essentiam, et non diligi 7 29 Utrum creatura intellectualis diligat Deum plusquam se dilectione naturali, vel sola dilectione charitativa 8 28 Utrum in Christo sit duplex esse 9 37 Utrum esse rerum creaturum sit in continuo fieri, vel in continuo facto esse 10 14 Utrum elementa sint in mixto actu, vel virtute tantum 11 17 Utrum in solo Deo sit idem suppositum et natura 12 13 Utrum Spiritus Sanctus distingueretur a filio si non procederet ab eo 13 9 Utrum beatitudo principaliter consistat in actu intellectus, vel in actu voluntatis 14 31 Utrum Deus operetur in omni operante 15 11 Utrum rationes seminales, quae ab Augustino dicuntur esse in materia corporali sint potentiae activae et passivae rerum, vel formae inchoatae, vel aliquid aliud 16 15

67 This fourteenth-century manuscript also contains John’s Quodl. VI.7 (f. 97ra-99rb); VI.1-4 (f. 99rb-100v; f. 100v-102va; f. 102va-103va; f. 103va-105rb); VI.14 (f. 105rb-106ra); VI.5 (f. 106ra-107rb); IV.4 (f. 109ra-110ra); VIII.6/X.8? (f. 110ra-115vb? The question is similar but not identical to these questions, and the main text is quite different); VI.6 (f. 115vb-119ra); and VI.12 (f. 193rb-194rb).

429

Utrum praeter doctrinas humano studio et ingenio adinventas fuerit necessaria aliqua alia divinitus inspirata 17 1 Utrum doctrina sacrae paginae sit scientia proprie dicta 18 2 utrum doctrina sacrae paginae sit speculativa vel practica 19 3 Utrum Deus sit subiectum Theologiae sub ratione absoluta, qua Deus, vel sub ratione aliqua speciali, utpote sub ratione, qua restaurator, vel glorificator 20 4 Utrum doctrina sacrae paginae subalternetur alicui alteri scientiae, vel aliqua alia subalternetur sibi 21 5 Utrum Deus sit in omnibus rebus 22 10 Utrum Deus potuerit creaturam aliquam producere ab aeterno 23 12 Utrum substantia intellectualis creata anima, scilicet humana, vel Angelus, sit composita ex materia et forma 24 18 Utrum potentiae animae addant aliquam rem absolutam supra eius essentiam, vel solum respectum solio 25 21 Utrum sententialiter et iuste condemnatus a mortem secundum leges civiles Princeps possit iuste secundum leges civiles a poena mortis absolvere 26 33 Utrum distinctio secundum rationem divinorum attributorum sit accipienda per respectum ad intra, vel per respectum ad extra 27 6 Utrum anima sit tota in toto corpore, et tota in qualibet eius parte 28 20 Utrum potentia generativa vel spirativa in divinis significet essentiam, vel relationem 29 7 Utrum distinctio realis divinarum emanationeum sit accipienda penes principia, vel penes aliquid aliud 30 8 Utrum veritas formaliter dicta se habeat ad intellectum subiective, vel obiective 31 22 Utrum aevum differat ab aeternitate et tempore 32 16 Utrum Sacramenta novae legis sint causa gratiae 33 38 Utrum persona divina potuerit assumere naturam creatam in unitatem suppositi 34 34 Utrum una persona divina sine alia potuerit assumere naturam creatam ad unitatem suppositi 35 35

430

Utrum persona divina possit assumere naturam irrationalem 36 36 Utrum in Angelis sit compositio generis et differentiae 37 19 Utrum Rex fidelis Christianus pro defensione iusta Reipublicae, in defectu necessariae gentis armigerorum fidelium possit et debeat secundum Christianam Religionem uti infidelibus, ut Saracenis stipendiariis ad ipsum venientibus in iusta defensione praedicta 38 32 De potestate papae: Utrum Imperator et alii Vat. Lat. Domini temporales quicunque sint subiecti 10497, f. Papae quantum ad potestatem quam habent 1ra-5ra; respectu temporalium Barcelona Questio (olim), 39 particularis 3 Catedral 2 De matrimonio: Utrum matrimonium Rome, contractum per verba de praesenti, et non Alessandrina consummatum per carnalem copulam, solvatur 79, in two per susceptionem sacri ordinis sicut solvitur per versions, f. professionem religionis Cf. Quodl. 52r-56v and 40 X.23 65r-67r De visione beata animarum: Utrum animae Sanctorum separatae a corporibus ante resurrectionem generalem videant clare, seu Questio N, f. 155ra- aperte, vel beatifice divinam essentiam 41 particularis 1 160rb De paupertate Christi et apostolorum: Utrum Vat. Lat. asserere Christum et Apostolos nihil habuisse 3740, f. in communi sit haereticum 201ra-227rb; Ottob. Lat. 402, f. 1ra- 39vb; Chigi A.VII.222, f. 146v-167r; Venice, S. Marco, cod. 142, f. 258- 295; Madrid, Bibl. Nac., Questio cod. 4165, f. 42 particularis 2 166v-190r

As I see it, there are two possible explanations for the divergences in the numbering between T and Gravina: either Gravina was reproducing the order he found in the now-lost manuscript from Naples and the compiler of T rearranged the questions into a different order, or T represents the more original order, and Gravina or his exemplar rearranged the questions. I think that the

431 former explanation is more likely. First, as discussed above, the manuscript upon which Gravina based his edition was clearly put together before T, since most of the questions refer to Aquinas as “frater” rather than “sanctus,” whereas T uses “sanctus” throughout.

Second, none of the cross-references to other disputed questions that I have found in Gravina refer to another question by number. Instead, they use a vague reference (“as has been proved elsewhere”) 68 or refer to the question by title; 69 there are also a few examples of references to the

“preceding” question. 70 This suggests that the questions had not yet been assigned numbers in

68 DQ 19 [3], p. 170b: “Sed impliciter loquendo, Dei cognitio est nobilior actus, et eminentior, cum sit actus nobilioris potentie, ut alibi probatum est.” (A marginal note in T, f. 211vb, identifies the reference as “q. disp. 31 a”; the reference is probably to DQ 14 [31].); DQ 21 [5], p. 188a: “...quamvis principia scientie subalternate quantum ad propter quid sint nota solum in scientia subalternante, ut in alia questione probatum est.” (T, f. 216rb, has “ut in secunda questione disputata probatum est” in the main text; the reference is to DQ 18 [2].); DQ 27 [6], p. 234b: “...quia, ut in alia nostra questione multipliciter probatum est, solus ordo originis, seu relationes oppositae distingunt realiter divinas Personas.” (T, f. 218rb, has “Dis. 8 a” in the margin. The reference is perhaps to DQ 30 [8] – the only possible ‘forwards’ reference that I have found in Gravina.); DQ 28 [20], p. 239b: “virtutes enim alicuius seu potentiae pertinent ad secundum speciem qualitatis, ut iam in nostra questione probatum est.” (T, f. 249va, has “ut in alia nostra questione probatum est” in the main text, with “immediate sequente” added in the margin; the reference is perhaps to DQ 25 [21].); DQ 28 [20], p. 239b (a few lines down): “Prima autem totalitas non convenit anime; non autem est composita ex materia et forma, ut in alia nostra questione probatum est.” (T, f. 249va, has “18 a” in the margin; the reference is perhaps to DQ 24 [18]); DQ 30 [8], p. 257b: “Secundo quia probatum est in nostra alia questione quod potentia generative et spirative est ipsa essentia divina quantum ad significatum...” (T, f. 222rb, has “Secundo quia probatum est in immediate precedente questione”; the reference is to DQ 27 [7].); DQ 33 [38], p. 289: “Ad tertium dicendum quod sicut alibi declaratum est et probatum, educi aliquam formam de potentia materie...” (T, f. 291vb, has “q. disp. 15 a) in the margin; the reference is to DQ 16 [15].)

69 DQ 12 [13], p. 103b, “Ad cuius evidentiam duo suponenda sunt quae in alia questione de multiplici esse in Christo [=DQ 9 [37]] probata et declarata sunt.”; DQ 20 [4], p. 178, “denominatio enim practice et speculative est aliqualter a fine, ut probatum est in quadam alia questione nostra, qua queritur, utrum Theologia sit practica, vel speculativa [=DQ 19 [3]].”; DQ 21 [5], p. 184b: “Licet speculatio patrie sit finis quem debet sciens hanc doctrinam intendere, tamen per accidens se habet ad hanc scientiam secundum se consideratam, ut in quadam nostra questione qua queritur ‘utrum Theologia sit practica vel speculativa’ [=DQ 19 [3]] probatum est.”; DQ 23 [12], p. 200b, “...impossibile est enim quod de eodem sit fides et scientia, ut in alia questione qua querebatur ‘utrum hec doctrina sit scientia proprie dicta’ [=DQ 18 [2]] supra probatum est.” (T, f. 230va, has in the main text “ut scilicet in secunda questione.”); DQ 23 [12], p. 206b: “Si autem per fieri intelligatur novitas aliqua seu innovation eius quod fit res creata non dicetur in continuo fieri esse, sed in continuo facto esse, ut in quadam alia nostra questione qua queritur ‘utrum esse rei create sit in continuo fieri’ [=DQ 10 [14]] declaratum est.” (T, f. 232ra, has in the main text, “...ut in quadam alia 14a questione qua queritur...”); DQ 24 [18], p. 215a, “Secundo, ut communiter dicitur (et in questione de multiplici esse in Christo [=DQ 9 [37]] probatum est)...” (T, f. 246rb, adds “37a” in the margin.); DQ 28 [20], p. 243a: “Formam educi de potentia materie nihil aliud est quam formam preexistentem in potentia materie per transmutationem fieri in ea actu, ut etiam in questione nostra de rationibus seminalibus [=DQ16 [15]] declaratum est.” (T, f. 250va, has “15 a” in the margin.).

70 DQ 3 [24], p. 22b: “ut ad praesens supponitur ex praecedenti quaestione”; DQ 19 [3], p. 161a: “Sed illud quod competit scientiae solum ratione subiecti sui, in quo est, cuius est accidens, per consequens competit ei per accidens, ut in precedenti questione declaratum est.”; DQ 35 [35], p. 305a: “sciendum est, quod sicut etiam dicebatur in precedenti questione immediate...”

432 the manuscript that Gravina used as his exemplar, much like the questions from the early redaction of Quodl. XI preserved in Unit 2 of N. In Gravina’s edition, all of these cross- references, with one possible exception, point ‘backwards’ to questions that appear earlier in the collection, suggesting that the questions were entered to his exemplar in the order in which they were composed. In contrast, approximately equal numbers of the references in T point forwards and backwards, suggesting that the questions in T have undergone more editing.

Third, the order of the disputed questions in Tortosa 244 broadly follows the order of topics covered in Peter Lombard’s Sentences .71 The correlation is not perfect, but after the first five questions on the nature of theology, we find a sequence of questions on the persons of the trinity (6-9); divine presence and power (10-13); creation and creatures (14-17); angels (18-19); the soul and cognition (20-23); charity and the beatific vision (24-31); practical moral questions (32- 33); Christ and the Incarnation (34-37); and the sacraments of the new law and grace (38). In contrast, there is no discernable organizing principle for the order of questions in Gravina’s edition, apart from small sequences of questions on similar topics, such as the five questions on the nature of theology, and the inclusion of later texts that probably originated from consultations rather than disputations at the end. Therefore, I am more inclined to believe that Gravina’s order is the more ‘original’ one, although further editorial work on the disputed questions may yield more detailed evidence.

Turning then to the question of dating and placing, it is worth noting that modern scholars tend to treat DQ 39-42 separately from John’s other disputed questions. These questions are placed at the end of Gravina’s edition and given special introductions; in T, three of the four are identified as “questiones particulares” (or “questiones particulares disputatas” in the index) and given running titles: De visione beata animarum (DQ 41 [QP1]); De paupertate Christi et apostolorum (DQ 42 [QP2]), and De potestate pape (DQ 39 [QP3]). 72 DQ 40 is omitted from the sequence of disputed questions that follows in T, but a version of the question appears elsewhere in the

71 Prospero T. Stella remarked upon this in “Gli ‘articuli,’” 60n32.

72 T f. 201ra-186vb.

433 manuscript as Quodl. X.23. 73 All of these questions seem to stem from consultations that took place somewhere other than Paris. As discussed in Chapter 1, DQ 40 is a revised version of John’s contribution to Pope John XXII’s 1322 consultation on marriage, and DQ 42 is similarly a revised version of his dicta for the same pope’s apostolic poverty consultation of 1322-3. 74 DQ 41 was probably composed in Naples during the initial part of the Beatific Vision controversy in 1332. 75

There is less agreement about the dating of DQ 39. Gravina dated it to 1324 in his introduction to the question, but Thomas Turley puts it in 1328, in the context of John XXII’s consultation on Marsilia of Padua’s Defensor Pacis .76 However, as Patrick Nold points out, there is no evidence that this question was directed to John XXII or debated in Avignon; instead, Nold prefers to follow scholars such as Jean Dunbabin and Prospero Stella, who dated the text to the mid-1310s, arguing that Peter of Palude appears to be responding in part to John in his own much longer treatise on papal power, which dates from ca. 1314-17 .77 The fourteenth-century manuscript on which Stella’s edition is based also contains, among other things, the two quodlibets that John debated in Paris, which might be another reason to date this question to his years in Paris, ca. 1309-17.

What about the rest of the disputed questions? They must have been composed before 1323, since, as discussed above, Gravina’s edition seems to have been based on a manuscript dating from before Aquinas’ canonization. The title page of Gravina’s edition asserts that the questions were disputed at Paris in 1316, announcing the contents of the volume as Various questions disputed at Paris by brother John of Naples, OP, solemn Parisian doctor and one of the first

73 T f. 159rb-160vb.

74 Nold, “How Influential,” 639-43; 651-8.

75 Nold, “How Influential,” 663-5.

76 Turley, “An Unnoticed Quaestio , 281n2;

77 In addition to Stella’s introduction to Peter of Palude, Tractatus de potestate papae , see Nold, “How influential,” 667-8, and Dunbabin, A Hound of God , 83-5.

434 defenders of the doctrine of Saint Thomas,” brought to light “after 302 years.” 78 In his introduction, the seventeenth-century editor placed the origins of these questions a little more vaguely in Paris “300 years ago.” 79 T does not supply either a date or a location.

In general, there is no reason to doubt Gravina’s assertion that the disputed questions originated from John’s time in Paris during the second decade of the fourteenth century, although it is worth noting that disputed questions were a standard part of theological education within the Dominican studia system as well as at Paris. “Disputed Question” is a frustratingly vague term in the context of late medieval education. 80 It could mean a private or a public disputation presided over by a master, at Paris or elsewhere. As with quodlibets, disputed questions seem to have had two sessions: an initial disputation between an opponens and respondens (who might be students or other masters) and a subsequent session in which the presiding master determined the question (or perhaps a series of recently-disputed questions). Unlike quodlibets, the questions were proposed by the master. 81 Much remains unclear about the frequency with which these debates were held: weekly? twice per month? whenever the master felt like it? 82

78 The full title is F. Ioannis de Neapoli ordinis praedicatorum solemnis doctoris Parisiensis e primis propugnatoribus doctrinae Sancti Thomae quaestiones variae Parisiis disputatae post annos CCCII ex vetusto M.S. Codice insignis Bibliothecae Regii Conventus Sancti Dominici erutae, et nunc primum iussu A.R.P.F. Dominici Gravina Neapolit. eiusdem ordinis S. Theologiae Magistri et Provinciae Regni Provincialis in lucem editae Theologis J. C. et Philosophis per quam necessariae.

79 Gravina, unpaginated introduction: “Exhibemus tibi (candide Lector) antiquum opus Variarum Quaestionum solemnis Doctoris Parisiensis Fr. Ioannis de Neapoli nostrae Provinciae Regni Neapolis ab hinc annis trecentis descriptum, ex vetustis membranis manuscripti codicis asservati in insigni Bibliotheca S. Dominici de Neapoli, nuper exaratum; et rudem, confusamque molem ex argumentorum multitudine, opinionum varietate, multiplici earundem confutatione, aliisque insertis difficultatibus, sine ulla prorsus distinctionis, et partitionis luce resultantem, in eam quam nunc cernis dispositionem, et formam in tui gratiam redegimus.”

80 On the vagueness of the term “disputed question” and the fate of this genre in the early fourteenth century, see Christopher Schabel, “Reshaping the Genre: Literary Trends in Philosophical Theology in the Fourteenth Century,” in Crossing Boundaries at Medieval Universities , ed. Spencer E. Young (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 51-84, at 61-72.

81 Bernardo C. Bazán, Les questions disputées et les questions quodlibétiques dans les facultés de théologie, de droit et de médecine (Turnhout: Brepols, 1985), 50-59.

82 Bazán, Les questions disputées , 70-1.

435

Frequent references to a respondent indicate that most of John’s questions did originate from actual debates of some sort, even if it is difficult to pin down their precise settings. 83 In most cases, content is no help when it comes to dating and placing the disputed questions, although the question on whether a Christian king can employ Muslim mercenaries to fight a holy war against another Christian ruler (DQ 38 [32]) certainly gives one pause. The question, and John’s response to it, which includes a reference to the destruction of Lucera, certainly seems to have more to do with the political situation in Naples than in Paris. Although there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other, the possibility remains that despite Gravina’s title, not all of John’s disputed questions were in fact disputed at Paris.

Comparing cross-references between the quodlibets and disputed questions, a final avenue of investigation for dating and placing, yields disappointing results. References to the disputed questions are relatively frequent in John’s quodlibets, but their format is extremely inconsistent. Some quodlibetal questions refer to something that is clearly a disputed question without naming it, 84 and some give it a number in the main text. 85 Some refer to a disputed question with a combination of number and title, 86 and others have the question title in the main text with a

83 E.g. DQ 3 [24]; DQ 8 [28]; DQ 9 [37]; DQ 10 [14]; DQ 11 [17]; DQ 12 [13]; DQ 14 [31]; DQ 16 [15]; DQ 18 [2]; DQ 32 [16]; DQ 36 [36]; DQ 37 [19]. References to the respondent typically show up in the initial arguments.

84 E.g. Quodl. XIII.10, N f. 169va: “Anima autem intellectiva non est composita ex materia et forma, ut suppono ad presens ex questione disputata.” The reference is probably to DQ 28 [20], which is on the same topic as this one.

85 E.g. Quodl. XIII.11, N f. 170ra: “Respondeo, suppositis hiis que de hac questio alias scripta sunt, scilicet in questione nostra disputata 21 a.” (The reference is certainly to DQ 25 [21].); Quodl. XIII.14, N f. 171va: “Est in essentia anime quoddam donum supernaturale, per quod homo est principaliter deo gratus et acceptus, quod differt realiter a caritate et ab aliis donis supernaturalibus perficientibus potentias anime, sicut et essentia anima differt ab eis potentiis, ut patet ex XI q. huius quolibet, quam opinionem tanquam probabiliorem probo ad presens per tres rationes et per duas auctoritates preter multa alia de hac questio alias scripta, scilicet in questione disputata 3 a.” (The number 3 makes no sense; the reference is very probably to DQ 25 [21].)

86 E.g. Quodl. XIII.8, N f. 168vb: Omnes quatuor suppositiones sunt amplius explicate et declarate in questione nostra disputata 32 de differentia temporis et evi et eternitatis.” The number is corrected over an erasure. The reference is clearly to DQ 32 [16].

436 number added in the margin. 87 Some refer to a question only by its title in the text; 88 others have a vague in-text reference and a reference to the question by title in the margin. 89

For questions that appear in both N and T, the cross-references are a frequent point of textual divergence. Sometimes both manuscripts have the same in-text citation. 90 But more frequently, they refer to what is apparently the same disputed question by different numbers. 91 Sometimes, one manuscript has an in-text citation while the other simply mentions that a subject was discussed elsewhere; often the latter type of reference is supplemented by a marginal annotation. 92 In still other examples, both manuscripts have a vague in-text reference that is supplemented by a marginal annotation. 93 The numbers given to the disputed questions in the

87 E.g. Quodl. II.15, N f. 37ra-b; T f. 14vb: “Ea que possent dici contra hoc et communiter dicuntur quere in quadam questione particulari quam alias disputavi, que est utrum beatitudo consistat in actu intellectus vel voluntatis, ubi preter tres rationes predictas que inde accepte sunt per 7 alias probatur preheminencia intellectus ad voluntatem, et ubi etiam respondetur ad omnia que communiter adducuntur contra determinationem predictam.” In N, another hand has added “IX” at the end of the line next to “quadam questione.” In T, “14 a” has been added by the text hand in the same place. The reference is clearly to DQ 14 [31]; the scribe in N may have misread the Arabic numeral 14 for the Roman numeral IX.

88 Quodl. XI.7, T f. 167ra: “Ecclesia etiam facit suffragia elemosinarum et orationum pro defunctis et nonnisi ut solvantur a penis purgatorium, ut declaratum est in questione de visione beata animarum.” The reference is clearly to DQ 41 [QP 1].

89 Quodl. X.21, N f. 24ra; T f. 158vb: “Preterea ad evidentiam huius tertie rationis est sciendum quod, ut alias probatum fuit, omnis multitudo bene ordinata indiget gubernante, qui debet super personas multitudinis gubernande habere potestatem duplicem...” Both N and T have the note “in principio questionis de potestate pape” (DQ 39 [QP 3]).

90 Quodl. VIII.12, N f. 139ra; T f. 124va: “Multa alia de ista materia alias declarata sunt, scilicet questione disputata 22 a.” The reference is probably to DQ 22 [10].

91 E.g Quodl. VIII.3, T f. 117ra: “De primo quere in questione disputata nostra 37 a”; N f. 131rb: “De primo quere in questione disputata nostra 40 a.” In N, the number is inserted over an erasure. The reference is probably either to DQ 37 [19] or DQ 9 [38].

92 E.g. Quodl. VIII.9, N f. 136vb: “Sed emanatio est idem re et ratione cum divina relatione, ut alias probatum fuit, questione disputata 30” (a marginal annotator has reiterated the reference, writing “q. 30 a disputata” beside this passage); T f. 122rb has the same text, ending at “ut alias probatum fuit,” with “questione 8 a disputata” written beside it in the margin in which looks very much like the same hand as the main text. The reference is probably to DQ 30 [8].

93 E.g. Quodl. V.5, N f. 70va; T f. 46ra: both manuscripts have the line “Secundum argumentum non concludit; supponit enim quod filius procedat per actum intelligendi, quod falsum est, ut alias fuit declaratum, et supra in questione secunda aliqualiter tactum fuit.” In N, a marginal annotator has added “questione. dis. 33” beside this passage, while in T an annotation in what strongly resembles the text hand reads “questione disputata 8 .” (The reference may be to DQ 30 [8].) Similarly, in Quodl. X.11, N f. 18ra and T f. 154va both have the line “Primo quia

437 main text or marginalia frequently differ between the manuscripts, and these numbers often diverge also from the numberings of the disputed questions found in Gravina’s early modern edition and in T. This provides further evidence that the disputed questions have had a complicated editorial history, but does not allow us to reconstruct that history in detail.

Nearly all of the references to the disputed questions in John’s quodlibets come from his post- Paris disputations, Quodl. VIII-XIII, which supports the hypothesis that the disputed questions came from John’s time at Paris. But there are some exceptions. Quodl. II.15 contains a reference to John’s DQ 14 [31], and Quodl. V.5 and V.6 both seem to be referring to the same disputed question, possibly DQ 30 [8]. 94 The references in Quodl. V are vague and could conceivably be later additions or references to something else that later readers tried to clarify. But the reference in Quodl. II.15 is very specific and too long and detailed to be an interpolated marginal comment:

For those things that could be said and frequently are said against this, look in a certain particular question that I disputed elsewhere, which is ‘whether beatitude consists in an act of the intellect or the will,” where the pre-eminence of the intellect with respect to the will is proven by seven other reasons beyond the three aforementioned ones which are then accepted, and where responses are also given to all the arguments that are commonly adduced against the aforesaid determination. 95

The reference is clearly to John’s DQ 14 [31], “Whether beatitude consists principally in an act of the intellect or in an act of the will” ( Utrum beatitudo principaliter consistat in actu intellectus, vel in actu voluntatis ). Since this is the only reference of this sort in John’s early quodlibets, I am not inclined to take it as evidence that these quodlibets were disputed in Paris, or that all the disputed questions were disputed before John went to read the Sentences there. It

creatura potuit esse ab eterno, ut alias probatum fuit,” accompanied by a marginal annotation that refers to two other questions: N has (in a different hand from the main text) “questione disputata 23 et questione 6 quolibet 6” and T has (in what looks like the text hand) “questione disputata 22 et questione 6 quodlibet 6” (NB: the microfilm image for this folio of T is very dark and difficult to read, and the number for the disputed question might actually be 12). The reference is certainly to DQ 23 [12].

94 V.5 is cited in the previous note; for Quodl. V.6, N f. 70vb has “Emanationes enim divine vel sunt fundata relationum seuncum aliquos, vel secundum alios sunt idem cum eis re et ratione; differunt autem secundum modum significandi, ut alias declaratum fuit.” In the margin, the same annotator who made the note beside Quodl. V.5 has added “questione dis. 33.” T has the same text, but no marginal identification for “alias declaratum fuit.’

95 See above, n. 87.

438 could be that this one question originated from John’s teaching in Naples. Or the explanation may lie in the fact that both N and T were compiled after John returned from Paris, which means he would have had ample time to edit the texts of his early quodlibets, incorporating a few cross- references to his more recent work when he saw fit. (This would be in line with what I have argued above about the dating of the quodlibets.) At present, I think this last explanation is the most convincing, but more editorial work on John’s disputed questions and quodlibets may yield more solid evidence about their chronology.

References to the quodlibets are quite rare in John’s disputed questions. I have found just four examples, and again they raise more questions than they answer. An in-text reference to John’s lost Quodl. I.1 and another to Quodl. VII.7 appear in close succession in DQ 28 [20]. 96 DQ 23

[12] instructs the reader to find a fuller explanation in John’s Quodl. XII.3. 97 Finally, a vague reference, “as is proved elsewhere,” ( ut alibi probatum est ) in DQ 30 [8] is clarified by a marginal note in T as a reference to John’s Quodl. IX.1. 98 The references to questions from John’s ninth and twelfth quodlibets again cause problems for the theory that the disputed questions all came from John’s time in Paris. But again, the infrequency of these cross- references, and the fact that the only surviving manuscripts of John’s quodlibets were compiled well after he returned from Paris, mean that we cannot rule out the possibility that these cross- references were the result of later editing.

96 DQ 28 [20], Gravina p. 242b: “Quere de hoc questione prima primi Quodlibeti nostri.” T f. 250rb has a longer reference: “Quere de hoc questione prima primi quolibet nostri, et in tertio articulo 8 quolibet Got. [= Godfrey of Fontaines, Quodl. VIII.3?]” Below, Gravina p. 242b and T f. 250rb: “Ad quod dicendum est quod subiectum quantitatis seu extensionis in animalibus perfectis, et precipue in homine, non est sola materia prima, nec etiam forma substantialis, sed ipsamet natura composita, ut in homine natura humana, que realiter differt a materia et forma substantiali, etiam inter se unitis, ut alias probatum fuit, scilicet in questione 7 a quodlibeti 7 i” (Gravina’s text omits “scilicet”).

97 DQ 23 [12], Gravina p. 208a: “Et hoc magis explicatur Quodlibeto duodecimo quaest. 3.”; T f. 232vb: “Hec responsio magis explicatur quolibet 12 questione 3 a.”

98 DQ 30 [8], Gravina p. 255b; T f. 221va-b: “Et primum est quod in deo est vere emanatio, supposito quod in deo sint vere tres persone, scilicet pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, quod supponitur in tota hac questione, nec demonstrative a nobis probari potest, sicut nec | alia que sunt pure fidei, ut alibi probatum est.” (T f. 221vb, in marg.: “quolibet 9 q. 1”)

439

Sermons

John’s main sermon collection (A) was probably compiled towards the end of his life (as discussed in Appendix 1 and Ch. 1) as something midway between a model sermon collection and a memorialization of the high points of a great preacher’s career. I say this because it contains both generic sermons that could easily be reused and sermons that could only really be used once, such as the sermon for Thomas Aquinas’ canonization, going back to as early as 1309, when John preached for the funeral of King Charles II of Naples. As I have argued in the manuscript description, the main part of the collection was compiled in the early 1340s (ca. 1342-4), so all of the sermons before the index (Schneyer nos. 1-130) must date from around 1341 or earlier; the sermons after the index probably date from ca. 1344-1348/9. 99 A handful of sermons preserved in other manuscripts such as Paris, BnF lat. 14799 (which I refer to as P1-8) almost certainly date from John’s time in Paris, and were probably all delivered in or around 1314, since the coincidence of Sundays and feast days allows three of them to be dated precisely to that year. 100

Most of John’s sermons that can be dated on the basis of such coincidences or references to known people or events have already been mentioned in Chapter 1. That information is summarized in the following chart:

Sermons that can be precisely dated and placed Sermon MS Location Rubric Subject Date and Place Schneyer A f. 14ra-va In morte alicuius One of the after July 1323, no. 18 nobilis descendants of Naples Thomas Aquinas’ brother Adenolfo (Thomas is referred to as a saint) Schneyer A f. 18ra-va Alius sermo de Bartolomeo November 1341 no. 24 eodem themate Brancaccio (d. or later, Naples aliqualiter variatus November 1341)

99 Schneyer nos. 131-2 also probably date from before 1342, since they seem to have been skipped by the copyist and added after the index when the main collection was compiled.

100 Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 58-9; see above, Chapter 1, section 2.2.

440

[=De episcopo mortuo] Schneyer A f. 18va-19ra De aliquo principe Philip I of Anjou, 1332 or later, no. 25 mortuo Prince of Taranto (d. Naples December 23, 1332) Schneyer A f. 19ra-va Pro eodem Philip I of Anjou, 1332 or later, no. 26 Prince of Taranto (d. Naples December 23, 1332) Schneyer A f. 19va-20rb De aliquo nobili for Hugh de Baux (d. Mid-1334 or no. 27 mortuo mid-1334) later, Naples Schneyer A f. 21va-22ra De sorore ordinis Unknown, but After July 1323, no. 30 mortua Aquinas is referred Naples to as a saint Schneyer A f. 24rb-vb In anniversario Charles II (d. May 5, After 1309, no. 35 Regis Karoli 1309) Naples Schneyer A f. 24vb- In eodem Charles of Calabria November 1328 no. 36 25va anniversario alius (d. November 9, or later, Naples sermo de eodem 1328) themate aliqualiter variatus Schneyer A f. 25va-26ra Charles II (d. May 5, 1309 or later, no. 37 De eodem 1309) Naples Schneyer A f. 26ra-vb Charles II (d. May 5, 1309 or later, no. 38 De eodem 1309) Naples Schneyer A f. 26vb- Charles II (d. May 5, May 1309?, no. 39 27rb De eodem 1309) Naples Schneyer A f. 27rb-28ra De Helizabet Elizabeth of 1319 or later, no. 40 mortua Hungary, d. ca. 1320 Naples Schneyer A f. 35rb-36ra A nephew of After July 1323, no. 56 Thomas Aquinas, Naples who is referred to as a saint (perhaps Tommaso Sanseverino, count of Marsico, d. September 25, De Thoma mortuo 1324?) Schneyer A f. 36vb- In translatione John of Durazzo (d. After May 1335, no. 58 37rb Domini Ducis May 1335) Naples Duracii Schneyer A f. 37rb-38ra In translatione Philip I of Anjou, After 1332, no. 59 principis Tarantini Prince of Taranto (d. Naples December 23, 1332) Schneyer A f. 38ra-39ra In translatione Elizabeth of After July 1323, no. 60 corporis Sororis Hungary, d. ca. 1320 Naples Helizabeth (but Aquinas is referred to as a saint)

441

Schneyer A f. 59rb-60va De eadem materia On the occasion of a June 1324, no. 90 [=De electione Dominican general Bordeaux? diffinitorum] chapter that elected a domenica 20a de new Master General epistola Schneyer A f. 63vb-65ra Alius sermo de On the religious after July 1323, no. 96 eodem themate in profession of a Naples professione alicuius noblewoman; refers puelle nobilis to the papal bull Antique concertationi (December 1, 1322) as “a certain new decretal issued and published at the Roman Curia by Pope John XXII”; Aquinas is referred to as a saint Schneyer A f. 65ra-66va Sermo ad Addressing Pope August 6-7, 1322 no. 97 alloquendum papam John XXII around or 1323?, Iohannem the anniversary of Avignon his election (August 6-7) Schneyer A f. 66va-67ra Sermo ad Addressing Michael 1322-23, no. 98 recipiendum of Cesena Avignon? ministrum fratrum minorum Schneyer A f. 67ra-b De eodem Addressing Michael 1322-23, no. 99 of Cesena Avignon? Schneyer A f. 68rb-vb In processione pro For the army of April 1328?, no. 103 salute exercitus Charles of Calabria, Naples setting off against Louis of Bavaria Schneyer A f. 68vb- De eadem materia For the army of April 1328?, no. 104 69vb Charles of Calabria, Naples setting off against Louis of Bavaria Schneyer A f. 71vb-72ra Sermo ad Publicizing the after August no. 108 publicandum abdication of 1330, Naples revocationem Petri antipope Nicholas V antipape (Peter of Corvara/Pietro Rinalducci), which took place in August 1330

442

Schneyer A f. 112va-b In receptione For Aimerico of May/June 1344, no. 134 Cardinalis legati de Chalus, the papal Naples latere legate sent to govern the Regno in 1344 Schneyer A f. 113va- Ad alloquendum Addressing Pope March 15, 1348 no. 136 114ra papam pro regina Clement VI on the (or thereabouts), Sicilie presente occasion of Johanna Avignon of Naples’ arrival in Avignon, March 15, 1348 Sermon A f. 114ra- In processione pro A procession for mid-August 1348 no. 136b 115ra pace peace in Naples or after (skipped by Schneyer) Schneyer A f. 120ra-va In anniversario Philip I of Anjou, After 1332 no. 141 Philippi principis Prince of Taranto (d. (December 23, Tarentini December 23, 1332) 1348?), Naples P3 Paris, BnF lat. Dominica tertia post Third Sunday after June 23, 1314, 14799, f. trinitatem et in Trinity, coinciding Paris 156rb-158rb; nativitate Iohannis with the vigil for the Paris, BnF lat. Baptiste feast of St. John the 14973, f. Baptist 158v-162r (incomplete) P5 Paris, BnF lat. In festo beati Twelfth Sunday after August 25, 1314, 14799, f. Ludovici dominica Trinity, coinciding Paris 161rb-163rb; 12a post trinitatem with the feast of St. Vat. Borgh. Louis IX 247, f. 160v- 161r (abbreviated) P7 Paris, BnF lat. Dominica in Passion Sunday, March 24, 1314, 14799, f. passione et de coinciding with the Paris 164ra-166rb anunciatione domini Feast of the Annunciation

There is almost, but not quite enough information to permit a precise dating of John’s visitation sermons. If all of his visitation sermons (Schneyer nos. 61-83) date from the same year, that year was very likely 1335, for the following reasons. The collection contains visitation sermons for both the fourth Sunday after the Octave of Epiphany (i.e. the fifth Sunday after Epiphany) and the twenty-fourth Sunday after Trinity. Because the lengths of these two periods of Ordinary Time vary depending on the date of Easter, a fifth Sunday after Epiphany and a twenty-fourth Sunday after Trinity only occur together occasionally. Between 1318 and 1348 (the period after

443

John returned from Paris) there are only three possible years: 1324, 1335, and 1346. Since the main part of the sermon collection appears to have been compiled prior to 1344, 1346 is unlikely, and John attended the Dominican general chapter at Bordeaux at the beginning of June in 1324, which would have made it difficult for him to start performing visitations in the Kingdom of Naples on the first Sunday after Trinity, a mere two weeks later. Therefore, the likeliest option is 1335.

However, there are some problems with the theory that all the visitation sermons date from a single term as visitator . For one thing, there are duplicate sermons for the first Sunday after the Octaves of Easter 101 and the twenty-third Sunday after Trinity, 102 suggesting that at least two of the sermons date from a different year. Moreover, even excluding the duplicates (one of which, Schneyer no. 82, is for a convent of Dominican nuns), we are left with 22 visitations, which seems an inordinately high number for a single year. To visit 22 convents in a single year, John must have been tasked with visiting most of the convents in the province. 103 By comparison, in the province of Provence in 1294, eight visitatores were responsible for just 5-8 convents apiece, and this number seems to have been relatively stable through the last quarter of the thirteenth century; nearly 20 years earlier, in 1276, the eight visitatores were each responsible for 4-6 convents, corresponding to more or less the same geographical areas. 104 It is worth noting that most of the clusters of dates in John’s collection are about the same size: five for the season of Advent; four for Epiphany; eight for early Trinity. Only the clusters containing duplicates – those for the post-Easter season and late Trinity – have smaller numbers of sermons – two and three respectively, omitting duplicates. Perhaps we should instead consider these sermons to

101 Schneyer nos. 70a and 71.

102 Schneyer nos. 81 and 82.

103 Unfortunately, given the lack of records, it is difficult to determine the exact number of convents in the Province of the Regno during John’s lifetime. Gerardo Cioffari lists 34 male convents and five female ones that were founded in what would become the Province of the Regno prior to its separation from the Roman Province in 1294, and permission to found several additional convents was granted during John’s lifetime. See Cioffari, Storia dei Domenicani nell’Italia meridionale , 23; 98; 85-97.

104 Galbraith, Constitution of the Dominican Order , 269-70.

444 derive from several separate stints as visitator in different regions of the province. 105 In this case the dating of 1335 would fall through, since every year between 1318-1348 had a fifth Sunday after Epiphany and/or a twenty-fourth Sunday after Trinity. This still allows us to narrow down the dates of these two sermons (and their clusters, if we assume the sermons in each cluster are from the same year) but not as much. A twenty-fourth Sunday after Trinity occurred in 1319-20, 1322-8, 1330-1, 1333-36, 1338-9, and 1341-7; a fifth Sunday after Epiphany occurred in the gaps between those years, as well as in 1324, 1335, and 1346.

Principia

Although they are structured like sermons and included in his sermon collection, John’s principia need to be discussed separately because they seem to have originated in a rather different context than most of his other sermons. Principium could mean several different things in the context of late medieval education. At the thirteenth-century University of Paris, a principium was the inaugural speech delivered by a new master of theology as part of his inception ceremony, as well as the solemn introduction delivered by bachelors when they began their lectures on individual books of the Bible and the Sentences .106 In the fourteenth century, this exercise expanded to include both a sermon and a disputation, and the term principium was increasingly applied to the question from the disputation rather than the sermon. 107 The term was

105 In this case the dating of 1335 would fall through, since every year between 1318-1348 had a fifth Sunday after Epiphany and/or a twenty-fourth Sunday after Trinity. This still allows us to narrow down the dates of these two sermons (and their clusters, if we assume the sermons in each cluster are from the same year) but not as much. A twenty-fourth Sunday after Trinity occurred in 1319-20, 1322-8, 1330-1, 1333-36, 1338-9, and 1341-7; a fifth Sunday after Epiphany occurred in the other years, as well as 1324, 1335, and 1346.

106 Joshua C. Benson, “Identifying the Literary Genre of the De reductione artium ad theologiam : Bonaventure's Inaugural Lecture at Paris,” Franciscan Studies 67 (2009): 149-78, esp. 151-5; Thomas Prügl, “Medieval Biblical Principia as Reflections on the Nature of Theology,” in What is “theology” in the Middle Ages?: Religious Cultures of Europe (11 th -15 th centuries) as Reflected in their Self-Understanding , ed. Mikołaj Olszewski (Münster: Aschendorff, 2007), 253-75; Nancy Spatz, “Principia: A Study and Edition of Inception Speeches Delivered Before the Faculty of Theology at the University of Paris, ca. 1180-1286” (PhD diss., Cornell University, 1992); Stephen F. Brown, “Peter of Candia’s Sermons in Praise of Peter Lombard,” in Studies Honoring Ignatius Charles Brady Friar Minor , ed. Romano Stephen Almagno and Conrad L. Harkins (St. Bonaventure, N.Y.: Franciscan Institute, 1976), 141-76.

107 William J. Courtenay, “Theological Bachelors at Paris on the Eve of the Papal Schism. The Academic Environment of Peter of Candia,” in Philosophy and Theology in the Long Middle Ages: a Tribute to Stephen F. Brown , ed. Kent Emery, Jr., Russell L. Friedman, and Andreas Speer (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 921-52, esp. 924.

445 also used within the studia of the Dominicans and other mendicant orders for the first lecture delivered by a lector at the start of a new course.108 Given John’s career, any one of these senses could be an option, but I think that the last is the one that applies here.

For one thing, the sheer number of John’s theological principia indicates that these were not all graduation speeches. An incepting master only needed to deliver one principium . At Paris, this was usually divided into two sermons: the principium in aula , or commendatio , in which the preacher commended Scripture or the science of theology, and the resumptio , which completed the principium in aula , usually by laying out a division of the books of Scripture. 109 But none of John’s principia contain a division of Scripture of this sort. And it is difficult to imagine why an incepting master would have needed to deliver seven speeches on theology alone. 110 If he followed the usual path, John would have had to deliver a principium on each of the four books of the Sentences when he lectured on the Sentences as a bachelor of theology at Paris, which might account for Schneyer nos. 122-125. However, he would also have had many other occasions to lecture on the work, since the Sentences was a standard textbook at all levels of the Dominican education system, from convent scholae to provincial studia theologiae , right up to studia generalia like the one at Naples. 111 Thus, while some of John’s principia may have originated in Paris, most if not all of them likely stemmed from his teaching in Naples.

Even John’s principia on the Sentences seem to have more in common with contemporary Dominican school lectures than Parisian ones. His principia on the four books of the Sentences (Schneyer nos. 122-125) employ four different themes, without a clear connection between them,

108 Sulavik, “ Principia and Introitus ,” 270.

109 Joshua C. Benson, “Bonaventure’s De reductione artium ad theologiam and Its Early Reception as an Inaugural Sermon,” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 85 (2011): 7-24, at 9-10.

110 Schneyer nos. 114-120 are all labelled principia super theologia ; Schneyer no. 113 deals with theology and the Sentences.

111 Mulchahey, “ First the Bow is Bent in Study...” xii; 134-67; 330-6; 379-84. For a fascinating look at how the Sentences were taught in Dominican convents, see Franklin T. Harkins, “ Filiae Magistri : Peter Lombard’s Sentences and Medieval Theological Education ‘On the Ground,’” in Mediaeval Commentaries on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, vol. 3, ed. Philipp W. Rosemann (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 26-78.

446 which might indicate that they come from different years, and were not part of a series. 112 From the limited evidence that is currently available, it appears that Parisian bachelors of theology tended to use the same biblical theme as the starting-point for all four of their lectures on the Sentences , often punning on their own name, and sometimes developing an extended unifying argument across the four lectures. For instance, Landolfo Caracciolo used the same theme for his introductions to all four books, at least in the later redactions, and Peter Auriol used four themes from Ezekiel, all including the word rota .113 Later in the fourteenth century, Peter of Candia used Acts 10:30 (“ Stetit ante me in veste candida ”) as the basis for all four of his principia , employing it to show how Peter Lombard could serve as a model for all members of the faculty of theology, from simple scholares to bachelors, doctors, and bishops, with each prologue concentrating on one of these statuses. 114 All of these examples appear to include a pun on the author’s name, which was a common practice in this genre. 115 That said, neither puns nor using the same theme for all four sermons seem to have been de rigeur ; Gerardus Odonis, for example, a Franciscan contemporary of John, used different biblical themes for all four books, none of which seem to bear any relation to his name. 116

Even if John’s principia on the individual books might have originated in Paris, it is difficult to account for his principia on theology and the Sentences and on the Sentences in general (Schneyer nos. 113 and 121) in a Parisian context. Although bachelors at Paris were required to deliver a new principium when they began their lectures on each book, there is no evidence that they had to give one on the Sentences as a whole. We can, however, find several analogous

112 One could argue that the themes for the principia on Books 1 (Ps. 118:140, Ignitum eloquium tuum vehementer ), 2 (Ps. 110:6, Virtutem operum suorum anuntiabit populo suo ), and 3 (2 Pet. 1:16, Notam fecimus vobis domini nostri Ihesu Christi virtutem ) share a common concern with speech. But it is hard to see the theme for Book 4 (Ps. 118:142, Iustitia tua iustitia in eternum ) as anything other than an allusion to the contents of that book.

113 Florian Wöller, “Inaugural Speeches by Bachelors of Theology: Principial Collationes and their Transmission (1316-1319),” forthcoming in Les principia des Sentences: entre exercice institutionnel et débat philosophique , ed. Monica Brinzei and William O. Duba. I thank Florian Wöller for sharing an advance copy of his chapter.

114 Brown, “Peter of Candia’s Sermons in Praise of Peter Lombard.”

115 Ueli Zahnd, “Heraldic Puns in Medieval Principia ,” http://puns.zahnd.be/ (last accessed April 2, 2017).

116 Christopher Schabel, “The Sentences Commentary of Gerardus Odonis, OFM,” Bulletin de Philosophie Médiévale 46 (2004): 115-61.

447 introductions to the Sentences as a whole among the sermons of Remigio de’ Girolami, a slightly older Dominican contemporary of John, who taught off and on at Santa Maria Novella in Florence from the 1270s into the second decade of the fourteenth century, and read the Sentences in Paris relatively late in life, probably in 1297-8. Remigio’s sermon collection, like John’s, contains a series of academic sermons, which Remigio terms sermones prologales (a term, incidentally, which John applies to some of his own principia ). 117 Remigio’s allusions to the pace of the school year and his other duties make it clear that while some of these works probably come from when he was a bachelor of the Sentences at Paris, reading all four books of the Sentences in a single year, others must come from his time as a lector in Florence, reading just one book per year. 118

In several cases, one of Remigio’s introductions to the Sentences or one of its books shares a theme with one of his introductions to a book of the Bible. As a lector at a Dominican studium generale , Remigio would have been required to lecture on one book of the Bible and one book of the Sentences each year, and some of his comments in these introductions make it clear that he chose to use the same theme for his opening lectures when he was lecturing on multiple texts at the same time. 119 Similar pairings can be found among John’s principia : nos. 118 (theology),

117 Internally, John’s principium on the first book of the Sentences refers to itself and the preceding principium as a prologue ( prologus ), echoing the term used by Remigio: Schneyer no. 122 ( Sentences , Book 1), fol. 95va: “Notitia igitur ipsius scientie in communi que in quolibet prologo principaliter debet queri patet quod dependet ex sui subiecti notitia in communi. Subiectum autem primi libri Sententiarum, ut per precedentem prologum patuit aliqualiter, est ipse deus prout est unus in essentia et trinus in personis. Non incongrue igitur ad aliqualem notificationem ad modum prologi faciendam primi libri Sententiarum assumitur verbum propositum [...].” This is the only indication that the principia on the Sentences might have been intended to be read as a group. 118 M. Michèle Mulchahey, “Education in Dante’s Florence Revisited,” in Medieval Education, ed. Ronald B. Begley and Joseph W. Koterski (New York: Fordham University Press, 2005), 143-81; Duba and Schabel, “Remigio, Auriol, Scotus, and the Myth of a Two-Year Sentences Lecture at Paris,” 157.

119 Mulchahey, “Education in Dante’s Florence Revisited,” 151-7. Mulchahey cites an example of a prologue on Luke on the theme Ecclus. 3:19 (“ Opera tua perfice. ”), which is followed in the manuscript by an introduction to the fourth book of the Sentences that begins: “ Opera tua perfice , Ecclus. 3. This text was proposed the other day upon the continuation of our lectures on the Gospel of blessed Luke, which can indeed be not inappropriately taken up again in the continuation of our lectures on the Sentences .” She also cites a prologue for the second book of the Sentences that begins: “ Cum consumaverit homo tunc incipiet , Ecclus. 18[:6]. This text was proposed the other day at the beginning of our lectures de textu and it can be not inappropriately taken up again at the beginning of our lectures on the Sentences. For last year we read the first book of the Sentences , but now we intend to read the second book [...].” In the manuscript, this prologue was preceded by a prologue on Proverbs based on the same theme. Remigio’s sermon collection contains several other pairs of this sort, located side by side in the manuscript (Florence, BNF, Conv. Soppr. G 4.936): a prologue on the second half of Proverbs, which states it is continuing

448

121 ( Sentences ), 127 (Matthew), and 128 (John), are all based on the same theme, “ Annuntiabo tibi quod expressum est in scriptura veritatis ” (Dan. 10:21), and moreover, nos. 113 (theology and the Sentences ) and 122 ( Sentences , Book 1) share the theme “ Ignitum eloquium tuum vehementer ” (Ps. 118:140). Unlike Remigio, John makes no helpful allusions to the academic year or to his other activities within the convent which would help us with dating and placing his principia . But by analogy with Remigio, we might hypothesize that these paired themes are evidence of concurrent lecture cycles that John would have delivered as a lector in Naples, either before or after he studied at Paris.

Ultimately, it does not much matter whether some of John’s principia were delivered in Paris and others in Naples, because they are all very similar. Indeed, many of the principia are closely textually interrelated. John often instructs his reader to copy a subsection of another principium . For instance, three of the principia on theology and one of the ones on John refer to Schneyer no. 113, on theology and the Sentences. 120 As can be seen from the transcriptions appended to Chapters 2 and 3, the version of this principium found in B includes a protheme that is nearly identical to the protheme of one of the sermons on theology (Schneyer no. 118), replacing sacra doctrina or sacra pagina with scientia medicinalis , and actum theologice lectionis with actum scientifice lectionis .

John also borrowed sometimes from his other sermons. In B, one of his principia on the gospel

from the previous year, and one on the third book of the Sentences , both on Ecclus. 8:9 (fol. 312rb-vb and 312vb); one on Ecclesiastes that shares a theme (I Kings 3:11) with a prologue to Book I (fols. 312vb-314va and 314va-b); a prologue on Romans and one on the four causes of the Sentences as a whole, both based on Cant. 5:15 (fols. 320rb- 322ra and 322ra-b); one on II Corinthians and another on the four causes of the Sentences , both based on Rev. 21:19 (fols. 329vb-332rb and 332rb-va). I thank Michèle Mulchahey for sharing her transcriptions of Remigio’s prologues with me.

120 Schneyer no. 114 (theology), A f. 82rb: “Secundum membrum principale quere in alio principio quod feci quod incipit Ignitum eloquium tuum vehementer . Quere tertium membrum illius principii.”; Schneyer no. 115 (theology), A f. 84rb: “Primum membrum prosequeris sicut in alio principio nostro quod incipit Ignitum eloquium tuum etc. Quere secundum membrum principale.”; Schneyer no. 117 (theology), A f. 88va: “Reliqua tria membra quere in principio nostro quod incipit Ignitum etc. in secundo membro principali.”; Schneyer no. 129 (John), B f. 116va: “Secundum prosequeris ut notatum est in principio quod feci quod incipit Ignitum etc. Quere tertium membrum principale predicti principii.” In A f. 103rb, this line is replaced with a paragraph that matches the beginning of the third principal part of Schneyer no. 113, A f. 79vb.

449 of John contains a reference one of his sermons on John the Evangelist. 121 The version of this principium in A replaces this cross-reference with a passage that is practically identical to a section of the first principal part of Schneyer no. 10, a sermon on John the Evangelist included in the same manuscript among the sermones de sanctis .122 In B, the principium on Isaiah also contains a suggestive reference to a sermon for Christmas eve that matches one of the lost sermones de tempore listed in the index in A. 123 Käppeli argued that these kinds of cross- references indicate that the principia were composed solely as models for John’s confrères, and were not his own inaugural lectures. 124 However, many of the other sermons in John’s collection were clearly edited to make them easier to re-use, and most would probably have been delivered in an expanded form. This does not mean that they were never delivered, just that, like most medieval sermons, they would not have been delivered exactly as they are written. Therefore, it seems reasonable to treat them as evidence of his actual teaching.

There are a number of cross-references among the principia on theology. Schneyer nos. 116, 117, and 119 refer to no. 115, 125 and no. 116 also refers to no. 118. 126 Similarly, the principium

121 Schneyer no. 129 (John), B f. 116va: “ Ex te ortus est sol iustitie etc. cantatur in ecclesia etc. Dic ut notatum est in illo sermone quem feci de beato Iohanne, de predicto themate, et adde quod beatus Iohannes fuit signatus nomine aquile in visione Eze. 1 et Apoc. 4.”

122 Cf. Schneyer no. 129 (John), A f. 103ra-vb and Schneyer no. 10 (John the Evangelist), A f. 8rb-va.

123 Schneyer no. 126 (Isaiah), B f. 117rb: “Prothema sit: Audi me et quod vidi narrabo tibi [Job 15:17]. Quere in sermone quem feci in vigilia natalis domini, qui incipit Mane videbitis gloriam eius. ” In the index to John’s sermon collection on A f. 107ra, there is an entry for a sermon “In vigilia natalis domini . Mane videbitis etc.” Since this portion of the manuscript has been lost, the reference cannot be confirmed, but in A, Schneyer no. 126 does begin with a protheme based on Job 15:17, Quod vidi narrabo tibi .

124 Käppeli, “Note sugli scrittori,” 64-7.

125 Schneyer no. 116 (theology), A f. 88ra: “De tertio membro quere secundum membrum principale principii nostri quod incipit Quam dulcia.”; Schneyer no. 117 (theology), A f. 88ra: “Quere hoc prothema in principio nostro quod incipit Quam dulcia etc., et accede ad thema principale sicut ibi, sic accessum terminando: congrue ergo... [...] Dicas reliqua tertia sicut ibi notatum est, que sunt ibi primum, secundum, et quartum.” and A f. 88va: “Tertium membrum etiam membrum principale [ sic ] et quartum membrum principale quere in principio nostro quod incipit Quam dulcia etc., et est ibi secundum et quartum membrum principale. Et sic habetur totum.”; Schneyer no. 119 (theology), A f. 93va-b: “Tertium principale dic sicut notatum est in secundo membro principali principii nostri quod incipit Quam dulcia etc.”

126 Schneyer no. 116 (theology), A f. 88ra: “De quarto membro quere quartum membrum principale principii nostri quod incipit Anuntiabo tibi etc., et termina principium sicut ibi terminatur.”

450 on Isaiah refers to one of the ones on John. 127 In addition to confirming that these texts are all by the same author, these cross-references may help with their dating. In several principia, John refers to himself as a doctor of theology ( doctor sacre pagine ), suggesting that at least some of these texts date from after his inception late in 1315. 128 If we take this evidence seriously, we can assume that Schneyer nos. 113, 115, 116, and 129, together with the principia that refer back to them (Schneyer nos. 114, 117, 119, and 126) all date from after 1315.

Lost and Spurious Works

John’s Sentences commentary

Although his early biographers consistently reported that John was the author of a commentary on the Sentences, this commentary is no longer extant. One of these biographers, the sixteenth- century Dominican historian Antonius Senensis, reported that he had seen a large manuscript of John’s thirteen quodlibets and a large manuscript of his sermons in the library of San Domenico in Naples, but did not mention a manuscript of the Sentences commentary. 129 A few decades later, Domenico Gravina provided a similar list of John’s works in his introduction to the printed edition of John’s disputed questions, but noted that the Sentences were missing from the library

127 Schneyer no. 126 (Isaiah), B f. 116vb: “Intra sicut in alio principio quod feci super Iohannem, quod incipit Ad preceptum tuum etc.” In A, the principium begins with a passage that is not an exact match for the introduction to Schneyer no. 129, but which has several parallels with it: in both, the second part of the subdivision of the protheme also uses 2 Cor. 3:5 to demonstrate human insufficiency for teaching about divine matters, and the introduction to the main theme draws on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics (cf. I, 2, 71b10-12) and Physics (cf. I, 1, 184a10-14) to discuss how knowledge of a thing depends on knowledge of its causes.

128 Schneyer no. 113 (theology and the Sentences ), A f. 77ra and 79ra; Schneyer no. 115 (theology), A f. 83va-b; Schneyer no. 116 (theology), A f. 85va-86ra; Schneyer no. 129 (John), A f. 102rb. On the meaning of the term “doctor” in this period, see Teeuwen, The Vocabulary of Intellectual Life in the Middle Ages , 76-8; Olga Weijers, Terminologie des universités au XIII e siècle (Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo, 1987), 145-7.

129 Antonius Senensis, Bibliotheca ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum , 136-7: “Frater Ioannes de Neapoli Siculus, magister in Theologia et regens aliquando studii nostri Neapolitani, vir et in Philosophia et in Theologia consummatus, et in sacris literis plene eruditus, cui debitam laudem praeripient qui inficias ire voluerint, eum suis praeclaris operibus immortalitatem nominis apud posteros non meruisse. Scripsit autem Quodlibeta tredecim, quae uno magno voluminae et in fol. manuscripta characteribus satis antiquis vidi Neapoli in conventu nostro S. Dominici, in Bibliotheca communi; Super 4 libros Sententiarum; Sermones de tempore et de Sanctis, per totum annum; Quaestiones complures Theologicas cum suis determinationibus; Sermones de Mortuis. Volumen magnum horum sermonum habetur Neapoli manuscriptum in praedicto conventu nostro. Claruit anno 1317.”

451 of San Domenico. 130 Subsequent authors mainly refer to his quodlibets or disputed questions, but not his Sentences commentary, suggesting that it never enjoyed a wide circulation, and was probably already lost by the early modern period.

However, some previously overlooked notes on the flyleaf of a manuscript owned by John of Naples may provide some sense of what John’s lectures on the Sentences (and associated commentaries) might have looked like. Naples, Bibl. Naz., MS VII.C.22 is a fourteenth-century manuscript containing a copy of the third book of Durand of St.-Pourçain’s Sentences commentary (f. 1ra-64va) 131 and the Correctorium “Circa” of John of Paris (f. 65ra-100va). John’s ownership of the manuscript is indicated by a note at the top of the first folio: despite fire damage to the parchment in exactly this spot, one can still make out the words “frat(ri)s Iohs neapoli mgist(er) i(n) theolo(gia). 132

John’s connection to the manuscript was first observed by Josef Koch, who also drew attention to a substantial note in the lower margin on f. 11r, which he argued was an autograph of John of Naples, on the grounds that the same text can be found in John’s Disputed Question 34. 133 In the fourth principal part of this question, John begins by summarizing Durand’s view, and then responds with his own opinion. The second, third, and fourth points in support of John’s view (p. 297 in Gravina’s edition) correspond to the three points in the note on f. 11r, in slightly more developed form. The remainder of the note corresponds to John’s first two rebuttals to Durand’s arguments (p. 298 in Gravina’s edition). Koch also observed that the addition to the right of the

130 Gravina, unpaginated introduction : “Haec ergo tantus vir post se reliquit monumenta, videlicet: Scripta super quatuor libros Magistri Sententiarum; Quaestiones varias Philosophicas ac Theologicas num. 42; Quodlibeta tredecim; Sermontes de tempore, de sanctis, de mortuis, et aliis materiis. Quae omnia (sententiarum libris exceptis qui desiderantur) in insigni Bibliotheca S. Domenici de Neapoli in manuscriptis codicibus vetustis, et pene difficillimis ad legendum characteribus asseruantur.”

131 The edition of Book III of Durand’s Sentences commentary has not yet been released, but to the best of my current knowledge, this is a copy of the third redaction of Durand’s text. Guy Guldentops observed no significant differences between the text of this manuscript and the Renaissance edition of Durand’s commentary, at least for disctinctions 23-5; see Guldentops, “ Durandus modernus? Der Glaube eines (anti)thomistichen Theologen im Jahr 1308,” in 1308: Eine Topographie historischer Gleichzeitigkeit , ed. Andreas Speer and David Wirmer (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 319-39, at 320n5.

132 Abbreviations are expanded in round brackets; missing letters are supplied in angled brackets.

133 Koch, Durandus , 53-54n19.

452 note also appears in the main text of the Disputed Question. The entirety of the note on f. 11r thus appears in one place or another in John’s Disputed Question 34 [34]. Given that the manuscript was owned by John, Koch argued that this note was very likely written by him, perhaps while he was preparing this Disputed Question.

Neither Koch nor anyone else has observed that the rear flyleaf of this manuscript is covered in a series of notes in a fourteenth-century low-grade southern textualis hand, similar to the note on f. 11r. The notes are arranged in four columns (two columns per page), written in several different colours of ink. A number of the entries are crossed out or corrected. Apart from vertical bounding lines for the columns, the flyleaf is unruled. Each line links a distinction with a question: a typical entry reads “Super sexto distinctione, utrum in Christo sit duplex esse” or “Super septima, utrum Christus dicatur homo a supposito eterno vel ab unione anime et corporis, questione decima quarta primi quodlibet.” 134 The lists are not continuous; the fourth column, for instance, contains entries for distinctions 1, 6, 12, 20, 35, 37, 38, 42, 44, 45, and 49, leaving gaps where distinctions are skipped. The overall impression is of a working document that was added to progressively on more than one occasion.

The subject matter of the questions in each of the four columns corresponds roughly to the four books of Peter Lombard’s Sentences . Questions in the first column deal with the science of theology and the trinity; questions in the second column deal with creation, angels, and mankind; those in the third column deal primarily with Christ; and those in the last column deal with the sacraments. The theory that the columns correspond to the books of the Sentences is also supported by the form of the notes at the top of each of the columns, which begin “Super prima distinctione primi,” Super prima distinctione secundi,” and so forth. All but a handful of the questions can be identified with questions from John of Naples’ first three quodlibets or his disputed questions, as can be seen in the following chart:

134 Both of these entries are in the third column, or column a on the verso of the flyleaf.

453

Transcription of the notes on the rear flyleaf of Naples, Bibl. Naz. VII.C.22, with identification of texts referred to Transcription Distinction Identification of from the question(s) referred to Sentences Column a Super prima distinctione primi: Utrum sit I.1 John of Naples, Disputed necessaria; Utrum sit scientia; Utrum sit Questions 17-21 [1-5] practica vel speculativa; De subiecto; De subalternatione Super secunda: Utrum distinctio attributorum I.2 John of Naples, DQ 22 [6] sit attribuenda per referentiam ad extra vel intra Super tertia: Utrum essentia anime et eius I.3 John of Naples, DQ 25 [21]; potentie realiter differant, et utrum deum esse Quodl. III.3; Quodl. III.8 sit per se notum, tertia tertii quodlibet; et utrum substantiam sit causa propriorum suorum accidentium, 8 tertii quodlibet Super quarta: Utrum in deo solo sit idem natura I.4 John of Naples, DQ 12 [23] et suppositum, vel melius super 34 Super septima: Quid significat potentia I.7 John of Naples, Quodl. II.2 generandi, et utrum sit in filia, questione secunda secundi quodlibet in responsione ad argumentum Super octava: Utrum anima sit tota in qualibet I.8 John of Naples, DQ 28 [20] parte corporis, questio principalis disputata Utrum in divinis possint esse I.10 John of Naples, Quodl. II.2 due emanationes eiusdem rationis, ut due generationi, questione secunda secundi quodlibet, vel forte melius super 13 a Super XI: Utrum spiritus sanctus distingueretur I.11 John of Naples, DQ 13 [9] a filio si ab eo non procederet Super XII: Utrum sit aliqua prioritas et I.12 John of Naples, Quodl. II.1 posterioritas in divinis, questione prima secundi quodlibet Super 13: Utrum emanationes divine I.13 John of Naples, DQ 30 [8] distinguantur penes principia vel penes aliquid aliud Super XVII a: Utrum karitas augeatur, quere I.17 John of Naples, Quodl. I.5; questionem quintam primi quodilbet, utrum in John of Naples, Quodl. I.8; formis accidentalibus sit gradus quantum ad Henry of Ghent, Quodl. esse tantum vel etiam quantum ad essentiam. Et V.22 utrum karitas augeatur per aditionem, quere questionem octavam primi quodlibet in corpore solutionis. Utrum in forma intensa et remissa sit eadem numero et item [?] utrum karitas

454 possit diminui[?], quinto quodlibet Henrici, 22 a questione, valde bene. Quere [b’n’?] Super d. 19: Quid est veritas, et utrum evum I.19 John of Naples, DQ 32 [16]; differat a tempore et eternitate, vel super 2 i[?], John of Naples, Quodl. III.5 et quod est principium individuationis, quinta tertii quodlibet Super 20: Utrum in filio sit potentia generandi, I.20 John of Naples, DQ 29 [7]? quere questionem quid significat potentia (cf. Quodl. XI.4?) generandi, circa fine Column b Super prima distinctione secundi: Utrum deus II.1 John of Naples, DQ 23 [12]; potuerit mundum facere ab eterne; Utrum esse John of Naples, DQ 10 [14]; rerum continuo fieri vel in John of Naples, DQ 15 [11]; continuo facto esse; Utrum deus operetur in ? omni operante creato; Utrum homo < damage > Super tertia: Utrum angelus sit compositus ex II.3 John of Naples, DQ 24 [18]; materia et forma; Utrum preter intellectum et John of Naples, Quodl. I.2; volutatem sit in eis tertia potentia, scilicet John of Naples, Quodl. motiva, questio secunda primi quodlibet; Item, II.16; utrum angeli vel anime intelligant per species, John of Naples, Quodl. questione 16 articulo secundi quodlibet; Item, III.11; utrum angelus sit nobilior homine vel e John of Naples, Quodl. converso, 11 a tertii quodlibet; Item, utrum III.15 intellectus creatus possit simul multa intelligere, 15 a tertii quodlibet Super 5: Utrum angelus potuerit peccare et II.5 John of Naples, Quodl. I.3, dampnari, questio tertia primi quodlibet, et ibi ad arg. 3[?] in responsionibus ad argumenta de instanti in quo peccauit Super 7 a: Utrum demones possunt penitere, II.7 John of Naples, Quodl. II.7 questione 7 a secundi quodlibet Super 12 a: Utrum sit eadem materia corporum II.12 Gerard of Bologna, Quodl. superiorum et inferiorum, ultimo articulo I.13? quodlibet gerardi valde bene