Franascan STUDIES a Quarterly Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FRANaSCAN STUDIES A Quarterly Review VOLUME 7_______ JUNE____________________________ 1947 CONTENTS OcKHAM, Buridan, AND NiCHOLAS OF AUTRECOURT .. by Emest A. Moody 113 A FRANascAN Á r u s t of Kentucky ......by Diomede Pohlkamp, O.PM. 147 DoCUMENTS RELATING TO TH E HiSTORY OF TH E FrANCISCAN 3VÍISSIONS IN Shantung, C hina..................... by Bernward H. Willeke, O.F.M. 171 T he Franoscan H ouse of Studies in Peking by Odoric Hemmerich, O.PM. 188 Commentaries Bertrand Russell’s a History of Western Philosophy Book Two, Catholic Philosophy .................. James Collins 193 Book Three, Modera Philosophy..................Rudolf Allers 219 Book Revxews..................... ............................................................................... 243 Books Received ..................... ....................................... ........... ; ....................... 254 Editors T h o m a s PIJUSMANN, O .F ^ . P h il o t h e u s B o e h n e b , O .F .M . Assistant Editors B a s il H e is e r , O .F .M .C 0NV. T h e o d o m R o e m e r , O .F.M .C ap. Mauaging Editor B o n a v e n t u r e B r o w n , O .F .M . Published by THE FRANCISCAN INSTITUTE S t, B o n a v e n t u r e , N.Y. Uudet tbe Sponsorsbip of T h e F rANCISCAN EoUGATlONAt CONFEKBNCB BOOK REVIEWS Hyadnthus M. Faccio, O.FJM.: De Divinitate Christi iuxta S. Paulum, Rom. 9, 5 ..................................... Gregory Grabka, O.F.M. Conv. A. M. Fuerst, S.T.D.: The Systematic Teaching of Religion. Vol. II. The Method and Malter of Religious Teaching....................... K ilu n J. H e n n r ic h , O.F.M. Cap. Ftederic de Ghyvelde, O.F.M.: Journal de Voyage France-Italie- Palestine, 1876-1877 ......................................... ......... Raphael Brown Frederic de Ghyvelde, O.F.M.: Mon Premier Voyage au Canada, 1881-1882 .............................................................. Raphael Brown Róbert Pierce Gisey : The De Incarnatione of Athanasius.................. Dominic Unger, O.F.M. Cap. Hilary Morris, O.S.M.: Our Lady of Sorrows .. J. B. C aro l, O.F.M. Gábriel M. Rosdiíni, O.S.M.: Compendium M ariologix J. B. C aro l, O.F.M. Lewis A. Haveriek; China a Model fór Europe ............................... Bernward H. WaLEKE, O.F.M. Sylvester J. Saller, O.F.M.: Discoveries at St. foht^s ’Ein Karim ... Bonaventure Brown, O.F.M. FRA NQ SCA N STÜDIES is published in March, June, September and December. Annual subscriptíon, |5 .0 0 fór four numbers. Entéred as second-class matter March 19, 1941, at the Post Office at S t Bonaventure, N .Y . under the Act of March 3, 1879. A ll conununications whether of a business or a líterary nature should be addressed to the liémaging Editor, Frauciscan Studies, S t Bonaventure College, S t Bona- veoture, P.O. N .Y . Cum permissu superiorum. OCKHAM, BURIDAN, AND NICHOLAS OF AUTRECOÜRT The Parisian Statutes of 1339 and 1340 I. Ockhamism at Paris: the Problem In the Chartularium Universitatis Párisi ensis, under the dates September 25th, 1339, and December 29th, 1340, we find two statutes o£ the Faculty o f Arts which are described as defense measures against the incursion o f Ockhamist teachings into the Parisian university. The first o f these statutes, while not condemn- ing any doctrines, prohibits the "dogmatizing” of the teachings of William of Ockham, on the ground that his writings had not been authorized as admitted texts, and had not been examined for possible errors. The statute o f 1340, on the other hand, expli- citly condemns certain statements and practices, but does not attribute them to Ockham’s doctrine or method. Nevertheless this decree does mention Ockham’s name in a final paragraph, stating that the provisions of the previous year’s statute are to remain in force.^ Does this statement mean that the statute of 1340, like that of the previous year, was aimed at doctrines stemming from W iUiam o f Ockham? The historians o f mediaeval philosophy ha ve so interpreted it, and have been led thereby to the conclusion that the whole series of doctrinal condemnations of the following decade, specifically envisaging the teachings o f Nicholas o f Autre- court and of John of Mirecourt, were anti-Ockhamist measures. On the assumption that the 1340 statute was aimed at Ockhamism, this conclusion is prima facie plausible, because it can be shovi^n that at least one o f the statements reproved by the 1340 statute 1. chartularium universitatis Parisiensis, ed. by Denifle-Chatelain, V o l. II, Paris 1891, No. 1042, pp. 505-7: "Si quis autem contra premissa vel aliquod premissarum attemptare presumpserit, a nostro consortio ex nunc prout ex tunc resecamus et privamus, resecatum et privatum haberi volumus, salvis in omnibus que de doctrina Guillelmi dicti Ockam alias statuimus, que in omnibus et per omnia volumus roboris habere firmitatem.” 113 FRANCISCAN STUDIES — 1 114 OCKHAM, BURIDAN, AND NICHOLAS OF AUTRECOURT had been made by Nicholas o£ Autrecourt, who in turn was the object o f an ofíicial condemnation issued in 1346, his books being burned in Paris in 1347.^ The characterization of Nicholas of Autrecourt as an Ockha- mist thus seems to íind historical justification in the connection between the measures taken against Nicholas in 1340, 1346, and 1347, on the one hand, and the statute o f 1339 on the other, which forbade the "dogmatizing” of Ockham’s doctrines. This connection itself, however, rests entirely on the assumption that the last sentence o f the 1340 statute, which calls attention to the fact that the previous year’s statute is still in force, justifies the conclusion that the 1340 statute was itself directed against Ockha- mist teachings. Since this assumption is by no means necessitated by the wording o f the 1340 statute, and leads moreover to strangé paradoxes when we attempt to account fór other definite historica! facts, it seems worth while to examine the relevant evidence in the case, and to consider the possibility of a totally different signi- ficance which can be ascribed to the final sentence o f the 1340 statute. Such an examination is o f considerable importance fó r our understanding of the history and influence of Ockham’s philoso- phical ideas and methods. I f the scepticism o f Nicholas o f Autre court was the consequence and fru it o f the doctrines o f Ockham as a matter of historical fact and nőt merely as a theory of philo- sophical interpretation, the characterization of Ockham’s doctrine as a destructive and corrosive force in laté mediaeval philosophy can lay claim to a foundation in the facts o f history.® It then 2. Cf. J. Lappé, “Nicolaus von Autrecourt,” in Beitrage zűr Geschichte dér Philosophie des Mittelalters, ed. Clemens Baeumker, vol. V I, fasc. 2, M ünster 1908, pp. 1-3. A lsó B. Geyer, in Ueberwegs Grundriss dér Geschichte dér Philosophie, vol. II, Berlin 1928, pp. 589-90, who links together the statutes of 1339-40 with the condemnations of Nicholas of Autrecourt and John of Mirecourt, as follows: "Paris und seine Universitat bildeten einen Hauptherd für die ockhamistischen Neuerungen. Dies lassen schon die oben erwahnten Verurteilungen dér Jahre 1339 und 1340 erkennen... Ein noch grelleres Licht auf den machtigen Einfluss Ockhams, seiner Lehren und insbesondere seiner kritischen Tendenzen in Paris werfen die 1346 und 1347 verurteilten Satze, die Nicolaus von Autrecourt und Johannes von Mire court zu Urhebern habén.” A similar view is given by M. De W ulf, H istory of Mediaeval Philosophy, transl. from 5th French ed., N. Y. 1926, vol. 2, pp. 190-1. 3. Fór such a criticism, cf. Anton C. Pegis, "Concerning W illiam of Ockham, in T ra d itio II (1944), pp. 465-480. Alsó Etienne Gilson, "The Unity of Philoso phica! Experience,” N . Y . 1937, eh. 3, pp. 61-91- ERNEST A. MOODY 115 becomes necessary to find an explanation £or the fact that a group o£ influential and constructive thinkers, John Buridan, Nicholas Oresme, A lbert o£ Saxony, John Gerson, and Peter d’A illy , have always been regarded as "nominalists” and o£ the Ockhamist school. This paradox is revealed in a concrete historical problem connected w ith the statute o£ 1340. John Buridan, who was rector o£ the University in that year, signed this statute which we know to have been directed, at least in part, against Nicholas o£ Autre- court. Who, then, was the Ockhamist? Was it Nicholas, the destroyer and sceptic, against whom the statute was directed? Or was it Buridan, the defender of natural knowledge and initiator o£ a £ruitful and stable period o£ scientific progress at Paris? Michalski, taking note o f Buridan’s sincere and vigorous oppo- sition to Nicholas of Autrecourt as evidenced in Buridan’s own writings, concluded that he could nőt have been so much o f an Ockhamist as had been supposed, and that in the 1340 statute he was expressing his opposition to the philosopical principies of Ockham. A similar view is taken by Gilson, who likewise seeks to preserve the Ockhamism of Nicholas of Autrecourt, by curtailing that of Buridan. Bút what evidence is there, in the historical facts accessible to US, fór the assumption that Nicholas of Autrecourt was an Ockhamist? The extant writings of Nicholas, as Gilson himself concedes, give no indication of any direct doctrinal connection between Nicholas of Autrecourt and Ockham.® The writings of John Buridan, by contrast, exhibit direct influence of Ockham’s 4. C. Michalski, "Les courants philosophiques á Oxford et á Paris pendant le XIV ® siécle,” in B ulletin international de l'académie polonaise des sciences et des lettres, Classe d’histoire et de philosophie, Année 1919-20, Cracovie 1922, pp.