LUTHER AND LATE MEDIEVAL ALBERTISM It has long been agreed that Martin Luther defined his theological pro- gram against the background of late medieval theology. Thanks to more than a generation of intensive scholarship, this fifteenth-century theologi- cal landscape is no longer terra incognita. We know now that pluralism flourished, with many “schools competing for influence”. Nominalism, mysticism, humanism, Augustinianism, Scotism, Thomism, etc., were all viable options and living components of this intellectual world, and all had some impact on Luther. While much is known today about all these currents, there is one which has remained in relative obscurity: late medieval Albertism. Yet it was part of the intellectual world Luther inherited: he frequently refers to the “Occamistae” or “Thomistae” or “Scotistae”, and often also to “Albertistae”. Who were these “Albertists”, and what was their relationship to Luther? Albertus Magnus (ca. 1200-1280) was of course the teacher of Thomas Aquinas in Cologne, and later his colleague on the theological faculty at Paris. Albert outlived Thomas and produced a vast corpus of works in theology, philosophy and the natural sciences. His influence never seri- ously rivalled that of Thomas. Yet there was a school of thinkers in the 14th and 15th century that identified itself as “Albertist”, and it is to this that Luther refers. The most complete study of this school was published by Gerard Meerseman in 1933, 1935, a two-volume Geschichte des Albertismus1. According to Meerseman, Albert already had followers in Paris in the 14th century. Under the leadership of Johannes de Nova Domo (15th century), these disciples coalesced into a “school” in the early 15th century. Johannes' Paris lectures appeared under the title Trac- tatus de esse et essentia2. In this work he defended the following distinc- tive positions: First, Johannes held that essence is that out of which being proceeds. Second, in created things essence and existence are not really distinct: the distinction is only made “secundum modum significandi” or “secundum rationem ratiocinantem”. Third, each angel does not consti- 1. G.G. MEERSEMAN, Geschichte des Albertismus. Vol. I: Die Pariser Anfänge des Kölner Albertismus, Paris, R. Haloua, 1933; Vol. II: Die ersten Kölner Kontroversen, Rome, Institutum Historicum FF. Praedicatorum, S. Sabina, 1935. Cf. M. GRABMANN, Der Einfluß Alberts des Großen auf das Mittelalterliche Geistesleben, in ID., Mittelalterliches Geistesleben, Vol. II, Munich, Hueber, 1936, pp. 324-412. See also the more recent studies of H.G. SENGER, Albertismus? Überlegungen zur “via Alberti” im 15. Jahrhun- dert, in A. ZIMMERMANN (ed.), Albert der Große. Seine Zeit, sein Werk, seine Wirkung, Berlin, De Gruyter, 1981, pp. 217-236; and S. WLODEK, Albert le Grand et les Albertistes du XVe siècle. Le problème des universaux, in ibid., pp. 193-207. 2. Printed in MEERSEMAN, Geschichte (n. 1), vol. I, pp. 91-191. LUTHER AND LATE MEDIEVAL ALBERTISM 339 tute a separate species but many angels are of the same species insofar as they were created for a certain purpose. These positions, according to Meersemann, constitute the skeleton of Albertism3. Albertists like Johannes de Nova Domo claimed of course to be fol- lowing the thought of Albert himself. This meant that Albertism was des- tined from the outset to carry within it certain ambiguities. For Albert, though he produced a massive corpus and though his thought is uncom- monly rich, nevertheless propounded views which were ambiguous if not downright inconsistent. Thus he embraced Aristotelianism and yet his thought is at times heavily colored by Neoplatonic tendencies (inherited above all from Proclus and Pseudo-Dionysius)4. In fact, Meerseman sug- gests that the defining characteristics of 14th-century Latin Neoplatonism fit Albertism precisely. First, the style of thought is thoroughly hierarchi- cal, with all beings graduated according to their perfections. Second, a doctrine of “cosmic sympathy” is common, according to which the life of God somehow permeates the whole universe. Third, the deductive method is favored, but it is not used exclusively. And finally, there is a certain propensity for somewhat obscure imagery which hampers clarity of expression5. This then is at least a partial portrait of early 15th century Parisian Albertism. One should not think that Albertism was a major current at the Univer- sity of Paris at this time. The via moderna was clearly dominant, though the challenge from the via antiqua seemed to be gaining influence. The antiqui, however, were divided into Scotists, Thomists and Albertists6. The leader of the Thomists, a contemporary of Johannes de Nova Domo, was Henry of Gorkum (ca. 1378-1431)7. Henry was instrumental in the rebirth of interest in Thomas at Paris, and his move to Cologne in 1419 helped to spread this renaissance of Thomism to the German academic world. There is little evidence of open antagonism between Thomists and Albertists at Paris, though they obviously disagreed on many things: their common enemy, the moderni, seems to have preoccupied both. It was only later, in the German universities that conflict between the two schools erupted. In 1410 a young Flemish student by the name of Heymeric de Campo (or Heymeric van de Velde) (1395-1460) arrived in Paris and began 3. Ibid., p. 89. 4. Cf. R. IMBACH, Le (Néo-)Platonisme Médiéval, Proclus Latin et l'École dominicaine allemande, in RTP 110 (1978) 427-448; and É.H. WÉBER, L'interprétation par Albert le Grand de la Théologie Mystique de Denys le Ps-Aréopagite, in G. MEYER – A. ZIMMER- MANN (eds.), Albertus Magnus Doctor Universalis 1280/1980, Mainz, Matthias- Grünewald-Verlag, 1980, pp. 409-439. 5. MEERSEMAN, Geschichte (n. 1), vol. I, pp. 89f. Cf. M. DE WULF, History of Medieval Philosophy, London, Longmans, Green, and Co., 31938, vol. II, pp. 331f. 6. MEERSEMAN, Geschichte (n. 1), vol. I, p. 18. 7. On GORKUM, see D.R. JANZ, Luther and Late Medieval Thomism: A Study in Theo- logical Anthropology, Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1983, pp. 92-99. 340 D.R. JANZ studying under Johannes de Nova Domo8. Heymeric must have at least encountered Johannes's rival in the via antiqua, Henry of Gorkum. For Henry, who left Paris for Cologne in 1419, later invited Heymeric to join him in Cologne9. Heymeric did this in 1422, and eventually became pro- fessor of theology there in 1428. What he found when he arrived was a via antiqua split between Thomists and Albertists. And to make matters worse, the Thomists had formed an alliance with the moderni, against the Albertists10! Heymeric found himself in a difficult position: in Cologne at the invitation of the Thomist Henry, he was no doubt wary of offend- ing him. Thus he seems to have initially taken a mediating position, defending Albert but offering only a muted criticism of Thomas. Between 1420 and 1422 Heymeric wrote a Compendium divinorum, heavily marked by Albert's influence11. Meanwhile, in 1424, Henry was appointed Vice-Chancellor of the University and a new leader of the Thomist fraction was emerging. Gerhard de Monte (or Gerhard ter Steghen) (d. 1480) had arrived in Cologne by 1421, studied under Henry, and quickly became the Rector of the Thomist “college” (later named, after Gerhard, the “Bursa Montana”)12. As the new leader of the Cologne Thomists, Gerhard seems to have immediately attacked Heymeric, the moderate Albertist, arguing that it was impossible to reconcile Albert and Thomas. In response, Heymeric wrote his Problemata inter Albertum Magnum et Sanctum Thomam, probably around 1424-2513. In it Heymeric elucidated what he saw as eighteen major differences between Albert and Thomas, almost all of them philosophical. On all of them he argued that Albert's view was the correct one14. Meerseman called this book the “Gospel of Albertism”15. It deepened and solidified opposition between Thomists and Albertists. For a time, all literary traces of the controversy seem to disappear. But it must have continued at some level, for three decades later, in 1456, Ger- hard de Monte replied with a book entitled Tractatus concordiae inter 8. MEERSEMAN, Geschichte (n. 1), vol. II, p. 12. For bibliographical references on Heymeric de Campo, see E.J.M. VAN EIJL, Bibliografie – Bibliography – Bibliographie, in ID. (ed.), Facultas S. Theologiae Lovaniensis 1432-1797 (BETL, 45), Leuven, University Press, 1977, pp. 495-557, esp. 508-509 (nos 159-168); L. KENIS – M. LAMBERIGTS, L'ancien- ne Faculté de théologie de Louvain 1432-1797. Bibliographie des années 1977-1992, in M. LAMBERIGTS (ed.), L'Augustinisme à Louvain (BETL, 111), Leuven, University Press – Peeters, 1994, pp. 419-442, esp. 421-422 (nos 29-46). 9. Ibid., p. 20. 10. Ibid. 11. Edited by J.A. KORELEC in Studia Mediewistyczne 8 (1967) 17-75; 9 (1968) 3-90. 12. MEERSEMAN, Geschichte (n. 1), vol. II, p. 18. 13. Ibid., p. 23. See H. BRAAKHUIS, Heymeric van de Velde (a Campo), denker op een kruispunt van wegen. De “logische” kwestie uit zijn “Problemata inter Albertum Magnum et Sanctum Thomam”, in Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte 75 (1983) 13-24. 14. Ibid., pp. 28ff. 15. Ibid., p. 68. LUTHER AND LATE MEDIEVAL ALBERTISM 341 Thomam et Albertum16. In it he tried to moderate what must have been considerable antagonism, arguing that the differences were not fundamen- tal17. Heymeric, who had moved to Louvain in 1435, disagreed in a biting open letter18, whereupon Gerhard replied with his own “Apologia”19. It was in this controversy that the German branch of Albertism was born. Its spiritual center was at Cologne, in the so-called “Bursa Laurentiana”20. There, lectures “secundum modum Albertistarum” were a regular part of the curriculum. Thomists still dominated, but Albertists formed the most significant alternative. Thus, out of 23 theological promotions between 1467 and 1488, 14 were Thomists, 5 were Albertists, 3 were Scotists, and one was an “Aegidian”.