FROM PREACHER TO PROFESSOR: A STUDY OF IDENTITY IN THE EARLY
ORDER OF PREACHERS
Matthew C. Showers
B.A., California State University Sacramento 2007
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
HISTORY
(Humanities)
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING
2011
FROM PREACHER TO PROFESSOR: A STUDY OF IDENTITY IN THE EARLY
ORDER OF PREACHERS
A Thesis
by
Matthew C. Showers
Approved by:
___________________________________, Committee Chair
Candace Gregory-Abbott, Ph.D.
___________________________________, Second Reader
Bradley Nystrom, Ph.D.
___________________________________
Date
ii
Student: Matthew C. Showers
I certify that this student has met the requirements for the format contained in the
University format manual and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and
credit is to be awarded for this thesis.
__________________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________
Mona Siegel, Ph.D.
Date
Department of History
iii
Abstract
of
FROM PREACHER TO PROFESSOR: A STUDY OF IDENTITY IN THE EARLY
ORDER OF PREACHERS
by
Matthew C. Showers
In the early thirteenth century, the Dominican Order identified itself with the image of the
preacher, specifically St. Dominic. There was also a distinct spirituality formed in the
order that was s a mix of contemplation, apostolic activity, and a strong emphasis on
education. The preacher’s office was venerated and esteemed early on in the Order’s
existence, but the emphasis on education created a rival class of university masters that
seemed to become the new face of the Dominican Order in the latter half of the century.
Through analysis of early Dominican constitutions, preaching manuals, biographical
documents, syllabi and various philosophical works by influential Dominicans from
c.1231-1286, one may note that this shift is not a change in Dominican identity but rather
a broadening of it. Comparative atmospheres of ideological conflict required similar
treatments, though by men of different offices. The professor, specifically Thomas
Aquinas, became the academic realization of the Dominican preacher-tradition.
____________________________________, Committee Chair
Candace Gregory-Abbott, Ph.D.
____________________________________
Date
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost I should like to thank my family for their endless love and
support. I would also like to extend my gratitude to my two greatest influences
throughout my graduate studies. Dr. Gregory-Abbott has provided me with nothing less
than the strongest support, the most practical advice, and seemingly limitless patience.
Dr. Nystrom has constantly pushed me to be a better writer and scholar with his high
standards and uncompromising, yet kindly delivered, honesty. I should also like to thank
Fr. Richard Schenk OP for providing me with his translation of the Statutes of 1259
despite not knowing me from an atom. This made an already challenging task less of a
challenge. A special ‘thank you’ also goes out to Andrew Lopez for proofreading two
chapters, and to Niccole Scrogins for her editorial contributions to the entire project as
well as for her insomniac patterns being similar to my own. Finally I give thanks to God
almighty who has always given me definitive answers to my prayers, whether I liked
what He had to say or not.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... v
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
The Dominican Order ..................................................................................................... 1
Heresy, Reform, and the Issues of the Early Thirteenth Century ................................... 2
Formation of the Order of Preachers ............................................................................ 11
The Early Dominican Order: Form and Function ......................................................... 25
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 38
2. DOMINIC THE PREACHER ...................................................................................... 40
The Image of Dominic and Dominican Spirituality ..................................................... 40
The Biographical Texts ................................................................................................. 43
The Gentle Hound of the Libellus ................................................................................ 46
The Miraculous Dominic of Sister Cecelia................................................................... 63
The Nine Ways of Prayer of Saint Dominic ................................................................. 73
Agni’s Analysis of a Saint ............................................................................................ 79
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 81
3. THE PRIORY SCHOOL AND THE PREACHER’S EDUCATION .......................... 83
After Dominic ............................................................................................................... 83
The Rapid Expansion of the Order ............................................................................... 84
An Order of Learning ................................................................................................... 89
Life in the Priory, and the Making of a Friar ................................................................ 91
The Education of a Preacher ......................................................................................... 97
A Shift in Focus .......................................................................................................... 101
vi
4. GENERAL HOUSES OF STUDY AND THE MASTER’S EDUCATION ............. 103
Universities and the Order of Preachers ..................................................................... 103
The First General Houses 1220-1300 ......................................................................... 105
Studium Generale and Student Life ............................................................................ 110
The Masters of Theology ............................................................................................ 113
Theology versus Philosophy ....................................................................................... 116
The Statues of 1259 .................................................................................................... 119
A New Emphasis and a New Method ......................................................................... 125
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 127
5. THE PARISIAN DISCOURSES AND THE RISE OF THOMISM .......................... 129
Growth and Distinction from 1250-1300.................................................................... 129
The Question of Philosophy ....................................................................................... 135
The Thomistic Approach to Reason and Revelation .................................................. 140
Condemnations ........................................................................................................... 150
Conclusion: Dominican Identity Fulfilled .................................................................. 155
Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 157
vii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The Dominican Order
The Order of Preachers, more commonly known as the Dominican Order, was an
order founded under for an apostolic purpose. The Dominican friars, along with the
Franciscan Order, were part of a monastic development in the thirteenth century known
as the mendicant movement. Mendicant friars were known for leading a monastic life of
religious poverty while carrying out a constant mission of ministry to the laity. This
mission of teaching set the friars apart from the previous monastic and canonical orders,
which had rarely focused on purposes outside of their immediate cloisters. Dominic de
Guzman (c.1170-1221) sculpted his religious order especially to combat heretical groups
that had gained major followings in the early thirteenth century by training preachers to
publically teach the orthodox doctrine of the church to a laity that was greatly ignorant of
theology. The Dominican Order was particularly notable for its emphasis on a strong
theological education as its means to achieve its apostolic end.
In the order’s early years, the office of preacher was held in the highest esteem.
The Dominican preacher, notably modeled in the image of St. Dominic, embodied values
and ideals that almost singlehandedly defined Dominican identity for most of the first
century of the order’s existence. The Dominican preacher was simultaneously a scholar, a
monk, and a priest. He was the product of a rigorous curriculum of theology and tested
thoroughly in both his oratorical skills and his ability to debate points based upon the
2
knowledge he had acquired from this education. Dominican preachers of the early order
preached itinerantly, usually in public and primarily in urban areas.
Although initially it was the preachers that defined the order so strongly, they
were eventually superseded as the figureheads of the order by a rival class of university
professors. The shift came within less than a century of the orders foundation in 1216,
and could be said to have been completed sometime between 1245 and 1270. This change
came about partially as a result of the growing ties between the Dominican Order and the
developing European universities, which was a very understandable consequence of the
order’s academic inclinations. The second reason was the rise of the school of thought
that became known as Thomism, which was named after its Dominican founder Thomas
Aquinas (c.1224-1274). Similar to the conditions under which the Dominican Order itself
had been initially formed, the Thomistic school of thought distinguished itself in an
atmosphere of ideological conflict. Thomas’ ideas regarding the roles of human reason
and divine revelation created the best possible synthesis between Aristotelian philosophy
and Catholic theology, which were often at odds with one another. Though Thomism was
eventually accepted by the Church overall, its origins and founder were very distinctly
Dominican.
Heresy, Reform, and the Issues of the Early Thirteenth Century
The twelfth and early thirteenth centuries are remembered for great confusion and
religious discontent in medieval Christendom. The Church had become detached from the
laity in many ways, which resulted in the discouragement and even embitterment of
many. Heretical movements in regions such as Italy, Germany, and France met certain
3
unfulfilled needs of the laity and had begun to grow in popularity. The causes for heresy
were numerous. Religious, economic, social and political reasons drove individuals from
all backgrounds and social classes to reject both the church’s authority and its theology,
turning instead to these heretical movements to meet their spiritual needs. As in the early
centuries of the Christian Church, the heresies of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries
proved to be pivotal in the development of Christian doctrine.1 Heresy again pushed the
Church to define its positions more clearly in order to confront and condemn these
opposing theological sects and, also, to take new actions in order to deal with them.2
The most prominent of these heresies was Catharism, also known as
Albigensianism. The roots of the Cathar heresy and its theology were complex and
variant. Its influences ranged from the Bulgarian dualistic sect, known as the Bogomils,
to the views of various individual preachers and reformers in the West such as Peter the
Monk, Peter of Bruis.3 Generally speaking, the Cathars believed in a dualistic theology
that depicted two equally powerful deities. They taught that the physical world was evil
and was the creation of a malevolent god that they often identified as the god referred to
1
Movements such as Arianism and Modalist Monarchianism, which prompted the Council of Nicaea (325).
Other notable examples of early heretical controversies prompting similar ecumenical action within the
Church include Gnosticism, Marcionism, and Montanism, all of which prompted significant definitions in
the Church, such as the creation of a canon of scripture and the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. For a
broader discussion of heresy in the early Church, two excellent sources are E. Glenn Hinson’s The Early
Church: Origins to the dawn of the Middle Ages and William Placher’s A History of Christian Theology.
2
3
Malcolm Lambert, Medieval Heresy, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1992), 3-5.
Lambert, 45-50; Zoe Oldenbourg, Massacre at Montsegur: A history of the Albigenisan crusade (New
York: Minerva Press, 1968), 30-32. For a detailed discussion of further Western influences of the Cathar
heresy, Lambert’s work, which has been cited here, is one of the most extensive.
4
in the Old Testament.4 Cathars also believed that the unseen spiritual world was good.
and was the creation of an equally powerful benevolent god that they identified with the
god referred to by Jesus in the New Testament.5 Cathars, therefore, rejected the Old
Testament altogether and taught from several New Testament texts as well as a few
unique to their own tradition, such as the Interrogation of John or The Secret Supper.6
Cathars considered themselves to be the true Christian Church and regarded the Catholic
Church and its teachings as a perversion of the truth and a tool of the Antichrist.7
According to Cathar theology, human souls were imprisoned in physical bodies as
a result of a war in Heaven between the two opposing deities. Souls would continue to be
reborn into the evil physical world until a spiritually pure life liberated them from it once
and for all.8 Because of their doctrine of spiritual bondage, the Cathars went to extremes
to reject the physical world and lead an intensely austere life. Cathars rejected marriage
except between virgins, and absolutely forbade sex as it was a reproductive act and, thus,
inherently evil.9 Furthermore, they ate no meat, eggs, or any other food that resulted from
procreation except for fish, which they believed to be a product of the water itself.10
Anything physical or of the flesh was viewed as inherently evil. This also led to a
4
Lambert, 120; Oldenbourg, 34-35.
5
Oldenbourg, 35-36.
6
Lambert., 121.
7
Ibid., 119.
8
Lambert, 120; Oldenbourg, 38.
9
Lambert, 58 and 107.
10
Lambert, 107; Oldenbourg, 40.
5
rejection of many Catholic traditions, such as the taking of the Eucharist. The belief was
that the way out of the evil physical world was to take consolamentum, which was
essentially the Cathar equivalent of baptism, and, henceforth, lead the pure life of a
perfect, adhering completely to the sect’s doctrines.11 It was after consolamentum and the
commitment to the life of the perfect that most Cathars received the bulk of their ‘secret’
theological instruction.12
Though a minority committed absolutely to the pure life of a perfect, Catharism
was still appealing to many among the laity for at least several reasons. For one, there
was no elaborate religious hierarchy in Cathar communities as there was in the Catholic
Church, and a sense of common endeavor united the members.13 This egalitarianism
extended to gender roles as well, which likely held some appeal. Women could hold an
equal status with men as perfects in teaching, heading communal households, and
performing the ceremony of consolamentum for another14
Sympathizers who did not undertake consolamentum would not achieve salvation
according to Cathar theology but were still welcome to participate in communal or
religious services to whatever degree and attend communal teachings.15 Cathars were
usually very informed in their faith and open to discussing it with interested parties. Also,
and more pertinent to the reaction by the early Dominicans, the religious climate of the
11
Lambert, 107; Oldenbourg, 44-48.
12
Lambert, 120.
13
Ibid., 108.
14
Lambert, 112; Oldenbourg, 61.
15
Lambert, 109.
6
age favored poverty and self-sacrifice, both of which were values that the Cathars
promoted in their words and actions.16 The appearance of the Cathar perfects made them
seem very pious and sincere in their faith in that they were apparently strong-willed
enough to maintain such an ascetic way of life.17 The Cathar houses educated any who
showed an interest, and its members were usually well versed in their faith. Their use of
familiar Christian imagery and their claim to secret teachings made them very persuasive
to an uneducated or theologically uninformed laity. For reasons such as these, the heresy
took hold in several regions, including the politically unstable Languedoc in southern
France, attracting members from all social classes.
It was in response to the Cathar heresy that the Order of Preachers was initially
conceived. Both Dominic and his mentor, Bishop Diego Azevedo (d.1207), experienced
the effects of Catharism firsthand and recognized several of the root causes of the
heresy’s tremendous popularity. First and foremost there was the widespread preaching
of Cathar beliefs and the willingness of its well-versed proponents to freely engage the
inquisitive minds of any laymen willing to listen. Many Cathars actively traveled to share
and spread their faith. Historian Malcolm Lambert notes that prior to the printing press,
this proved to be the most successful way to spread new or radically alternative ideas.18
16
Ibid., 60.
17
Ibid., 108.
18
Ibid., 40.
7
There was no real Catholic counterpart to the heretical preachers at the time that could
actively defend or clarify Catholic theology for the laity.
The Catholic clergy’s contact with the laity in the early thirteenth century was
primarily limited to the mass held at the local churches. The masses of most Catholic
churches of the time were heavy in ritual and recitations of prayers and scriptural
passages, usually in Latin, but were lacking in spiritual substance.19 The widespread lack
of education among the clergy in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries provided few
satisfactory answers to the laity’s theological questions.20 Also, there was the issue of a
general lack of preaching in the Catholic Church duty of preaching had been reserved for
bishops at the time. The bishop alone was responsible for preaching and the instruction of
both the clergy and the laity in his diocese. To make matters worse, he was also often
lacking a proper ecclesiastical education and was more often than not engulfed in the
political and administrative affairs of his diocese.21 Though it was the bishop’s duty to
make arrangements for ecclesiastical schools in his diocese, it was rarely the case that an
institution of this sort was established. In the case of the southern French territories such
as Languedoc, in which Catharism enjoyed a particularly strong presence, Cathars had
begun to establish local schools that filled this widespread educational void. Local
nobility in these regions commonly were educated, almost exclusively in some areas, by
19
Pierre Mandonnet, St. Dominic and His Work, (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1938); 16; R.F. Bennet,
The Early Dominicans: Studies in Thirteenth-Century Dominican History, (1937; repr., New York: Russell
and Russell, 1971), 14.
20
21
Ibid.,15.
R.F. Bennet, The Early Dominicans: Studies in Thirteenth-Century Dominican History, (1937; repr.,
New York: Russell and Russell, 1971); 14, Mandonnet, 157-161; M.H. Vicaire, Saint Dominic and His
Times. Trans. Kathleen Pond. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), 189.
8
Cathar schools. It was for reasons such as this that the local secular powers of areas such
as Languedoc strongly supported and protected the Cathar communities.22
Monastic orders of the time, such as the Cistercian Order, were intellectually in a
better position to preach as their lifestyle consisted of prayer, reading, recitation and
contemplation that gave them a relatively better understanding of scripture. However, the
aim of their withdrawn lifestyle was greatly, for their individual salvation, which was an
objective better achieved in isolation from the world outside of their communities.
Though monasteries had served as missionary centers at times throughout the Church’s
history,23 monks of the twelfth and early thirteenth century went to great lengths to avoid
interaction with the outside world. This tendency toward seclusion often existed between
the individual monasteries as well. Monasteries, such as those of the Cistercians, were of
one order but operated very independently of one another.24 Historian Herbert Workman
explained that “the defect of monasticism at all times was its essential aloofness from the
life of the outside world. Educational usefulness, except for its inmates, was no part of its
real programme. . .”25 Since the inherently secluded monastic life was meant to be a
retreat from the world to better achieve and maintain a level of spiritual purity through
poverty, chastity and obedience, monks were not trained to be effective preachers.
22
William A. Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, vol 1. of The History of the Dominican Order,
(Staten Island: Alba House, 1965), 22.
23
One example of this is the roles played by the English and Irish Churches, which consisted heavily of
monasteries and remained active even after Rome’s withdrawal from Britain.
24
Herbert P. Workman, The Evolution of the Monastic Ideal (1913; repr., Boston: Beacon Press, 1962),
243.
25
Ibid., 247.
9
The second root cause of the spread of heresies was the humble and impoverished
appearance of their proponents. Heretics, such as the Cathars, were not adorned with the
finery that many of their Catholic counterparts were. Scandals such as simony and a
widespread lecherous tendency among many in the clergy furthered the sense of
detachment between the Church and the increasingly embittered laity. Monasteries were
not left untouched by the disease of monetary gain either. As early as c.1109-1122, the
abbots of Cluny had become powerful political figures, and they, as well as their order,
had begun to amass an enormous wealth.26 The Cistercian order was founded as a
reformation the Cluniac system (c.1098) in an attempt to return to a stricter monastic life,
but fell to a similar fate. Cistercian monasteries were intended to be self-sufficient, and its
members became skilled in agriculture and animal husbandry. This resulted in
involvement in commercial endeavors less than a century after their foundation.
Cistercian communities amassed enormous wealth due to these endeavors and, along with
it, a reputation as being crooked businessmen c.1190s.27 Historian Lester K. Little
observes that with the atmosphere of this prospering of the new profit economy, pride
was replaced by avarice in many religious writings as the predominant sin of concern.28
Corruption such as this fueled a growing sense of frustration and discouragement with the
church. Furthermore, it made the clergy appear hypocritical and insincere in regard to the
values they were promoting, further tarnishing the church’s image. The trend had not
26
Ibid., 237.
27
Lester K. Little, Religious Poverty and Profit Economy in Medieval Europe, (1978; repr., Ithaca: Cornell
Paperbacks, 1992) 91-93;Workman, 246-248.
28
Ibid., 36.
10
gone unrecognized. Numerous attempts at reform had been attempted in both the secular
clergy and monastic circles in the two centuries leading up to the mendicant movement.
Religious poverty, the most pertinent example of such reform, had become a
popular form of piety in the preceding two centuries. Poverty was often undertaken out of
spiritual motives as a form of religious protest. Catholic reformers of the eleventh and
twelfth centuries, most notably Peter Damian (c.1007-1072), pursued the example of an
impoverished hermetic lifestyle to serve as an engine of change.29 However, their efforts
had been aimed primarily at the reformation of the clergy and the monasteries.30 Groups
such as the Cistercian monks and the Premonstratensian canons (c.1120) reacted in a
similar fashion by denouncing personal property and retreating from urban areas. 31
Again, these religious communities were seeking foremost to purify their own.
Evangelization among the laity, if conducted at all, was at best a secondary goal for these
groups. Therefore, whether it was the clergyman or the monk running greedily to the
lecherous embrace of avarice, or the reformer running piously away from it into poverty
and isolation, the laity was left behind with no one to engage them or fulfill their
religious needs.
The mendicant movement, of which the Dominican Order was a major element,
was a reaction to these conditions. Dominic and his mentor, Diego, formed the project
that evolved into the Order of Preachers after recognizing the churches failings. A lack of
informed preaching, the insincere and lecherous appearance of the clergy and the general
29
Ibid., 72-76.
30
Ibid., 82.
31
Ibid., 87-96.
11
void of education had put heresies, specifically Catharism, into an advantageous position.
What began as a small expedition to counter Catharism in the region of Languedoc grew
into a religious order different than any that had come before it. To properly discuss the
later forms, functions and evolution of the order, a discussion of its foundation is needed.
Formation of the Order of Preachers
The chain of events that led to the formation of the Order of Preachers began with
a fateful journey taken in 1203 by Diego, the bishop of Osma, and his trusted subprior,
Dominic. Commissioned by a local ruler to carry out a marriage proposal, Diego,
Dominic and the rest of the bishop’s envoy set out on a route from Spain to Denmark that
took them through Languedoc. It was here that they were first exposed to the extent that
Catharism had taken hold. There is one story about this journey that is well known to
Dominicans. After the envoy had taken lodging one night Dominic supposedly stayed up
all night debating with a Cathar innkeeper. Dominic refused to rest until he had returned
the man to the Catholic faith. Dominic is said to have succeeded in swaying the innkeeper
who was “no longer able to resist the wisdom and the true spirit that spoke.”32
On the return trip from Denmark, Diego took a detour through Rome to speak
with Pope Innocent III (d.1215). For reasons unknown, Diego requested to be relieved of
his office so that he might participate in missionary work in the eastern regions held by
32
Jordan of Saxony, Libellus, 15., in Francis C. Lehner, ed., Saint Dominic, Biographical Documents.
(Washington DC: Thomist Press, 1964), 13. Lehner’s anthology of English translations of the medieval
biographical documents of St. Dominic, the bulls of approbation, Jordan’s encyclical letter and the
Primitive Constitutions is a fundamental source for this project. In the cases where the sources have their
original passages, they shall be cited according to the passage numbers first, and additionally to their
corresponding page numbers in the printed edition. In the event there are no original passage numbers, only
the page numbers of the printed edition will be provided.
12
the Mongols.33 Innocent denied Diego’s request and the bishop’s envoy headed
obediently back to Osma through the region of Montpelier. It was during this return
journey, once again through the Cathar dominated Languedoc, that they arrived at a
church council being held in the town of Montpelier. The topic of discussion at this
council was the problem of Catharism in the region. At least twelve Cistercian abbots,
who had been commissioned by the Pope to preach against the heretics, as well as an
unknown number of archbishops, bishops, and other prelates, were in attendance. These
early attempts to counter the Cathar heresy had been met with minimal success. The
council was apparently receptive to the input of the visiting bishop. It was then that Diego
shared a pivotal insight that seems to effectively characterize the entire mendicant
movement. Jordan of Saxony (c.1190-1237), the second master general and first
chronicler of the Dominican Order, writes:
[H]e commented that the methods these heretics were using to convert
souls of their perfidy were in striking contrast to the stylish and expensive
carriages and furnishing displayed by those who had been sent. ‘This is not
the way . . . for you to proceed. I do not think it possible, by words alone,
to lead back to the faith such men as are better attracted by example.’34
Diego then proceeded to practice his own preaching, as it were, and traded his bishop’s
robes for the habit of a Cistercian monk. He sent away his own carriage and envoy, save
for only a few of his clerics including Dominic. He seemed to disregard Innocent’s
command here as no attempt to seek papal approval is mentioned in Dominican tradition.
33
Jordan, 17., 14.
34
Ibid., 20., 15.
13
This small band of preachers was the nascent project from which the Order of Preachers
grew.
The small group proceeded to venture into the region in nearly complete poverty,
with only the necessary books and the goal of preaching to the laity who had embraced
Catharism. Diego’s idea of setting out in poverty relied heavily on divine providence,
which included begging for alms. This was a somewhat controversial choice since canon
law at the time forbade begging by clerics and monks.35 This ideal was also a rather
impractical in light of the fact that the territory was already hostile to Catholicism, so the
bare essentials were provided for by Dominic’s efforts and the funds brought in from
Diego’s own diocese of Osma.36
Dominic proceeded to set up a center of operations at Prouille, which was little
more than an abandoned township with a chapel and other facilities. He arranged for the
donation of land and a building by a local family. There, the preachers would regroup,
nourish themselves, study and then strike out again once they were intellectually and
physically refreshed. What Dominic had established, initially, was a center to use as a
base of operations for the small group of preachers.37 This also became the site of the first
convent of what would become known as the Dominican ‘Second Order,’ or the order of
the Dominican Nuns. The women’s community was founded to provide a Catholic
alternative for young women to the various schools that Cathar noblewomen had set up
35
36
37
Mandonnet, 25
Vicaire, 111.
Ibid., 109-111.
14
within their homes.38 Little is known about the details of the day-to-day life at Prouille,
but both the communities of preachers and nuns resided and functioned there
concurrently in the years before the call of the Albigensian Crusade (c.1205-1209).39
The preachers were said to have been met with verbal and physical abuse during
their expeditions. Public debates with Cathars were common, sometimes conducted
formally in the presence of the local nobility. If the Cathar opponents themselves could
be not persuaded, the goal had often been to verbally confuse them and thus discredit
their testimonies.40 The mission had mixed results. Some victories were won for the
Catholic faith and some individuals converted, but there was no overwhelming success.
The peaceful preaching mission was overtaken by the declaration of the Albigensian
Crusade in 1209.
Diego, perhaps fortunately, never saw the carnage of the imminent crusade. In
1207, he left to check on his diocese, which he had not seen for approximately two years.
Meanwhile, Dominic remained in the area to see that the project Diego had begun did not
wither in the bishop’s absence. Dominican tradition accredits Diego for the original
concept of an order both monastic in lifestyle yet with preaching as its sole purpose,41 and
he may have had every intention of coming back to see it through. However, no one will
ever know for certain as Diego died before he could return. Upon hearing of Diego’s
38
Ibid., 119.
39
Ibid., 124.
40
Bennet, 87.
41
Jordan, 28., 26.
15
passing, many of the original group left the region to return to their former lives and
monasteries.42
Dominic, however, refused to abandon the project. Having arranged a small group
of his own, he continued his preaching campaign with very few followers even
throughout the Crusade. During this time he was quite understandably met by more
intense adversity and bitterness from the Cathars he sought to sway.43 Few specifics of
his activities are known throughout the period of the Crusade (1209-1213) other than that
Dominic managed to continue to receive donations from sympathizers and sustain
Prouille.
Dominic’s degree of involvement in the crusade itself and the resulting
Inquisition has been hotly debated among historians for years. However, no conclusion
has ever been decisively agreed upon. Dominic’s friendship with Simon of Montfort
(c.1160-1218), the prominent general of the Albigensian Crusade, aided and sustained
Dominic’s preaching efforts in the region during and after the crusade. It was through
Montfort that Dominic gained “a remarkable fortress at Casselneuil” and a church at
Fanjeaux, which gave Dominic and his followers enough shelter and resources to remain
active.44 He continued to attempt foundations of convents like Prouille though not all of
them were to last as the area was not successfully stabilized for some time. The crusaders
42
Ibid., 31., 29-31.
43
Jordan, 31. and .34, 29-35.
44
Ibid., 37., 32.
16
claimed victory in 1214, and an interdict on the area was lifted. It was then that attempts
to politically restructure and reorganize the region began.
Dominic’s operation was transferred to Toulouse in 1215, where the prototype for
what would become the Order of Preachers began to form. Peter of Seila, who soon took
the habit as part of this newly established group of preachers, signed over to Dominic his
inherited property, which included three houses. Bishop Fulk of Toulouse (c.1150-1231),
who had worked with the preachers since they first arrived in the region, assigned to
Dominic and all his companions present and future a charter of religious intent. In short,
the charter from Bishop Fulk authorized monetary allowances, approximately one sixth
of the received tithes, were to be given to the small order to keep them fed, clothed,
housed and whatever else was absolutely needed by them.
[To] root out the corruption of heresy, to drive out vice, to teach the
creed and inculcate in men sound morals. [We] institute as preachers in our
diocese Brother Dominic and his companions, whose regular purpose is to
comport themselves as religious, travelling on foot, and to preach the Gospel
word of truth in evangelical poverty.45
As Dominican historian M.H. Vicaire points out, this was unheard of for a religious
community of the time for two reasons. First, the duty of preaching was never before
commissioned to an entire community as a whole. Preachers had been known to be hired
or called upon individually sometimes as freelancers or out of a parish, but a permanent
mission assigned to a religious community was something relatively new in the Church.
Second, there was the fact that this newly commissioned religious order lived strictly off
of the alms they were given, producing nothing by their own labor. By functioning in this
45
Fulk, The Charter of Toulouse, quoted in Vicaire, 171.
17
manner they liberated themselves of countless interferences and distractions from their
new mission: the preparation for and carrying-out of their preaching duties.46
In 1215, both Dominic and Fulk set out that same year to seek papal confirmation
of the newly inaugurated community of preachers in Toulouse. Papal confirmation was
important in that it would give permanency to the assets, income, and other unique
qualities new kind of religious community in Toulouse after Fulk had ceased to function
as the bishop.47 Jordan of Saxony wrote that Dominic sought one other thing beyond the
solidification of the existing structure of his new order: the title of the “Order of Friars
Preachers,” as opposed to the “Order of Preaching Friars”48 This was to be an office, not
merely a description of an action. This was an important element to the very essence and
identity of the order that Dominic was seeking to forge.49 Though this alone may have
been his sole goal, he would be given at least two more tasks to accomplish before his
and Diego’s vision could become wholly realized.
Though Innocent had recently given approval to the Franciscan Order in 1210,
which had drafted an original rule, this would not be the case for the Dominicans.
Dominic and Fulk had arrived during the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), during which
the recently passed thirteenth canon decreed that henceforth no new rules could be
composed for religious communities in order to avoid possible complications and
46
Vicaire, 173.
47
Ibid., 192-193.
48
Jordan, 40., 41-42.
49
Vicaire, 195.
18
confusion within the Church. Some historians have presumed Dominic was seeking
confirmation of an original rule he had composed by his own hand, however this notion is
purely speculative. Innocent instructed the two to select an existing rule for their new
order and then return for full confirmation once this was completed. The two men
returned to Toulouse and held a meeting with the members of the order to choose a preapproved rule and draft constitutions. This meeting is understood by most to be the first
general chapter meeting of the Dominican Order.
The Rule of St. Augustine was chosen to be the official rule of this new style of
mendicant religious life. This was both the most convenient choice and the most sensible
one for three reasons. For one, Dominic had lived and functioned as an Augustinian
canon for his entire career. The rule had been reintroduced in the eleventh century as the
rule for canonical orders primarily for its emphasis on renunciation of personal property
and communal living. In this sense, the rule was very compatible with the apostolic
mission of the young order. Finally, it provided a degree of flexibility of interpretation.
To best explain this last point, a brief recount of the history of the rule is needed.
Augustine (c.354-430) had originally composed the rule upon his return to Africa
shortly after his conversion and for his small Christian fellowship.50 The rule itself is
composed of three separate documents. The first part, composed in 388, was a very
precise set of rules laid out by Augustine for the community living under his own roof in
Tagaste. This portion of the rule is referred to as Disciplina monasterii.51 The second
50
Little, 102-105; Workman, 254.
51
Mandonnet, 202.
19
document, dated roughly 391, was a commentary on these specific rules, explaining
point-by-point the spiritual substance and deeper meaning of each rule, and therefore the
importance of adhering to it. The two documents were eventually amalgamated. A third
and separate document came years later in 425 when the Bishop of Hippo wrote a
correctional letter to a community of nuns in his diocese whom he felt needed
correction.52 After signing off on his sternly worded letter, he transcribed the rule, but
adapted for a female community. The rule was forgotten for some time after the sixth
century when the Rule of Benedict became the predominant rule for monastic
communities.
The Rule of Augustine was revived in 1067 to replace the Rule of Aix in the
reformation of canonical communities.53 A complication arose, however, concerning the
Rule of Augustine in 1118.54 Complaints accrued regarding its physical demands in
regard to fasts and labor in the cold central European climate. Augustine’s Disciplina
monasterii, written with the Egyptian climate in mind, and was physiologically
impractical to practice in the colder German climate, particularly in the winter months. In
response to this, Pope Gelasius II decreed in 1118 that the precise rules of the Disciplina
monasterii should be abandoned and new rules should be composed according to more
local discretion on a case-by-case basis. This was on the condition that they were written
with the guidance of Augustine’s commentary in the remaining second portion of the
Augustine, “Letter 211,” in newadvent.org, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102211.htm (accessed on
7/25/2009).
52
53
Little, 102.
54
Mandonnet, 245-250.
20
rule. This action, as Mandonnet puts it, “decapitated” the rule, leaving the commentary
portion as the only remainder from the pen of the bishop of Hippo.55
Even though Augustine’s exact specifications were thrown out to make room for
countless new prescriptions his influence remained in the form of spiritually and morally
substantial, yet very general, guidelines provided by the commentary. The Rule of
Augustine, as it was inherited by Dominic and his early order in 1216, was then the next
best thing to composing a brand new rule. As long as nothing was done to contradict the
primarily spiritual guidelines laid out by the bishop of Hippo, there was, to a degree,
room for the originality needed by this new community of preachers.
The Premonstratensian constitutions were sampled heavily by the first
Dominicans but with significant additions that emphasized and secured the order’s main
focus of training scholarly preachers and dispersing them when necessary. Many details
of the day-to-day lives of the individuals within the convent were abandoned, and more
privileges or dispensations were granted for study and preaching. The most telling
example is an addition that can be read in the prologue to the Dominican Order’s original
constitutions:
The prelate shall have the power to dispense the brethren in his own
Priory when it shall seem expedient to him, especially in those things
which are seen to impede study, preaching, or the good of souls, since it
is known that our Order was founded, from the beginning, especially for
preaching and the salvation of souls.56
55
Ibid., 248.
56
Primitive Constitutions of the Order of Friars Preachers, Prologue, from Lehner, 212.
21
The rule of Augustine and the modified Premonstratensian constitutions accommodated
the order’s purposes well enough as it allowed them to combine the religious common
life with the mobility to preach and interact with the laity. In 1216, Pope Honorius III
(c.1148-1227), who succeeded the late Innocent III, confirmed the rule, constitutions,
housings and ecclesiastical property future and present and the title of the ‘Order of
Preachers’ to the newly affirmed canonical order later that year.
There are no existing records that show any ambition on the part of Dominic to
move beyond the diocese of Toulouse. However, shortly after the order’s confirmation,
Dominic did something rather unexpected. He dispersed his group from their house in
Toulouse, declaring that they were to go out into different parts of the continent never to
live in cloister together again. In doing so, he famously made reference to a biblical
parable: “For he knew that grain bears if sown, but, if stored, it rots.” 57
Dominic’s sudden aspiration to extend his project from an experimental group
functioning locally in Toulouse to international proportions is a puzzling one. Dominic
had labored amongst heretics for more than a decade with little apparent success. As
historian C.N.L. Brook puts it, it is somewhat shocking that Dominic suddenly, “threw
his cap over the moon.”58 Dominic’s decision may have been prompted by a precarious
political situation in the crusade-ravaged city of Toulouse, in which the ill-fated Simon de
Montfort was quickly losing control. However, while this coincides with the timing of the
57
58
Jordan, 4.7, 45.
C. N. L. Brooke, “St. Dominic and His First Biographer,” Royal Historical Society 17, (Nov. 1967): 35.
22
move, it does not explain the vast shift in scale.59 It may well have been Dominic’s
intention to create an international organization from the very beginning. Dominican
tradition accredits the shift in scale to a vision Dominic received during this second visit
to Rome while he was praying for the preservation and growth of his newly founded
order. In this vision both Saints Peter and Paul appeared to him:
Peter . . . appeared to be handing to him a [shepherd’s] staff, and Paul
a book. Then they spoke these words: ‘Go and preach, because you have
been chosen by God for this work.’ And then, in a moment of time, he
seemed to see all his children dispersed through the world and going two
by two preaching the word of God to the people. 60
Dominic did exactly this, and officially dispersed his order on August 15, 1217. Of his
sixteen companions at Toulouse, twelve were sent to Spain and parts of France, three
remained in Toulouse, including Peter Seila, at the church of St. Romanus, and the
remaining two went to oversee the women’s convent of Prouille. Dominic then set out
again for Rome, recruiting as he went.61
From the start, friars were recruited primarily from universities. Dominic began
with such schools as Bologna and Milan to acquire men of intellect and a solid
theological background that would make them effective and informed preachers.
Dominic, a former Augustinian canon and the subprior of Osma for a time was a very
educated man for his day and understood the unique privilege he enjoyed. Receiving an
ecclesiastical education, beginning in childhood and concluding at the Cathedral school
59
60
61
Ibid., 35.
Jordan, 47., 45.
Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 50-52.
23
of Palencia, his was an education rare for the time and reserved for very few. In fact, the
best case for Dominic’s supposed noble lineage, though it has been debated at times was
his evident level of education, a privilege often available only to the aristocracy in the
Middle Ages.62 Universities such as Bologna and Paris were growing, and providing
more sophisticated education. Dominic began laying groundwork for recruitment early on
in Bologna and Milan, recognizing their potential for harvesting preachers.
Dominic petitioned for and received numerous bulls of recommendation from
Rome to endorse his new kind of mendicant poverty and preaching. The reaction to this
was a new kind of mendicant order that was met with some reservation by more
conservative-minded members of the clergy.63 Pope Honorius backed Dominic’s efforts
enthusiastically and in February of 1218 recommended and endorsed the order by title
and a precise description of their mission, to the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church:
The Order of Preachers (whose salutary ministry and religious institute
we believe to be pleasing to God) and regard them, out of reverence for us
and the Apostolic See, as approved. Assist in their needs these men who,
faithfully preaching the word of the Lord without recompense, and imitating
the Lord Himself alone in seeking the good of souls, have given their
preference to the title of poverty.64
There was continued success for the next few years until the first official general chapter
meeting was held in the Church of St. Nicholas at Bologna in 1220.
It was at this meeting that the Dominican constitutions were solidified and the
governmental structure of the order formalized. Most of the original Brethren from
62
Vicaire, 17.
63
Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 53.
64
Honorius III, “The Bulls of Approbation,” from Lehner, Saint Dominic, Biographical Documents, 202.
24
Toulouse were present, as well as the young Jordan of Saxony, who had entered the order
less than three months previously. Dominic, who of course was the acting Master General
of the order, had the most significant role in the amendments. It was these rigorous
adjustments that probably allowed a large scale operation like that of the Dominicans to
succeed. Dominic’s order had begun to take form from a loose but revolutionary concept
to a well-defined, working institution with a single evangelical goal.
Dominic’s last days were spent actively preaching and building his order. He
toured the land preaching, recruiting for his order, fine-tuning the order’s constitutions
and establishing monasteries. He died in 1221 after watching the beginning of his order’s
growth. Little material recalling the life of the saint and founder of the Dominican order
appeared until around the time of his canonization some ten years after his death. The
earliest recollections of the foundation of the Order of Preachers and of the life of
Dominic were composed by Jordan of Saxony, who succeeded him as Master General.
The Dominican Order continued to function successfully after the founder’s
death, although, its mission would take on different guises throughout its history. The
Order of Preachers, as its name implies, was originally intended to be an order that
simply produced and dispersed educated preachers. The order continued to persist in its
apostolic mission, however it would soon shift from itinerate preaching to academia.
Early on, at least until the time of Albertus Magnus (fl.1243-1271) and Thomas Aquinas
(fl.1244-1273), preaching was the sole focus of the order. The Dominican preacher would
become the hero of the order until the mid-to-late thirteenth century when he would be
replaced by the Professor.
25
The Early Dominican Order: Form and Function
Ever since the moment when Diego surmised that the most effective way to
counter the spread of heresy was to adopt the impoverished appearance and informed
preaching of the Cathars, the Dominican religious life began to develop. Like their
mendicant contemporaries, the Order of Preachers balanced the monastic life of celibacy,
prayer, contemplation and religious poverty with the active freedom and education of the
secular clergy. The friar cast off the world for the monastic life but with the intention of
returning to it as a minister. It was this apostolic mission that set the mendicant friars
apart from their monastic predecessors. When compared to previous monastic orders the
structure of government reflects an elaborate effort to unify, coordinate, and maintain the
focus of an international organization upon this apostolic mission. While a mission of
ministry was common to all mendicant orders, it was the emphasis on theological
education and preaching that made the Dominican Order unique from other mendicant
orders such as the Franciscans.
When Dominic and his early companions created their order in 1216, their
greatest accomplishment had been to give a new focus to a religious order. Previously,
religious orders both canonical and monastic had not been necessarily opposed to
preaching per se, but it was certainly not their area of expertise nor was it an order-wide,
coordinated effort.65 Dominic and the founding Dominicans had in many cases
synthesized pre-existing material, while emphasizing as aspects that related to their
apostolic purpose. The Rule of Augustine was utilized for the new order but not simply
65
Mandonnet, 288, Workman, 294-295.
26
for its discouragement of personal property. Later Dominicans such as Humbert of
Romans would emphasize its focus on charity and often equate it to ministry. In a similar
manner the Premonstratensian constitutions had been sampled from and adjusted where
necessary to allow more flexibility for dispersal for preaching purposes.
The monastic model had developed from isolated individuals to isolated
communities then finally to numerous communities affiliated within one international
organization that was supported and approved by the pope.66 Two predominant models of
the third phase, which was solidly in place at the beginning of the thirteenth century,
were the Cluniac and Cistercian Orders. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries the
canonical orders of the secular clergy had begun to take on monastic characteristics in
their communities and worked within a similar structure and mentality. The adoption of
monastic ideals within the secular clergy was greatly due to the efforts of reformer, and
future Pope Gregory VII, Hildebrand (c.1020-1085), who heavily infused monastic
concepts such as celibacy, cloister, and poverty in the canonical orders.67
The Cluniac system, for example, could be described as monarchical in structure
and liturgical in their mission. The abbot of Cluny presided over not only the mother
house but the daughter houses as well.68 Presumably, each abbot had his own agenda but
still adhered to the abbot of Cluny as his superior. Furthermore, the Cluniac mission was
66
67
Workman, 236.
Ibid., 226- 229 and 234.
E. Showalter, “The Business of Salvation: Authority and Representation in the Thirteenth Century,” The
Catholic Historical Review 58 (Jan, 1973): 558.
68
27
one of liturgical observance by its monks and remained primarily within the walls of its
houses.69
The Cistercians had been more aristocratic in structure and ascetic in their
mission. The Cistercian Order, itself a reform of the Cluniac model, had been meant to be
a return to the precise observance of the Benedictine Rule.70 Each Cistercian community
had its own locally elected prior running the house as he saw fit. Beyond the annual
chapter meetings he rarely communicated with his counterparts in the other houses within
his order.71 Also, due to the agricultural tendencies of the Benedictine rule and its
emphasis on manual labor, these communities were very self-sustaining; thus, contact
with the secular world was not a necessity, nor was it ever truly encouraged.
The Premonstratensian Canons, perhaps the most similar predecessor to the
Dominican Order, was structured as more of an oligarchy and was undecided in its
mission.72 The structure of the Premonstratensian Order was loosely unified and
inconsistent in its mission, varying between study and pastoral work.73 Each house was
autonomous and overseen by an elected abbot with a small group of advisors, therefore,
the mission of each house could vary greatly.74 The variance in mission was usually
69
Little, 62, Workman, 228-229.
70
Workman, 241-243.
71
Showalter, 559.
72
Bennet; 161; Showalter, 559.
73
Showalter, 559.
74
Ibid.
28
between contemplation and pastoral work, which the Dominicans uniquely sought to
balance in their own version of the religious life.
Dominic and the early Order of Preachers constructed a more republican system
with a very clear agenda of evangelical outreach that communicated constantly and met
consistently. The Dominican governmental structure, a constitutionally sound system of
representation, held annual conferences at the local, regional, and international levels.75
Each meeting on each level was meant to further uphold and fine-tune the functions of
the order to achieve its apostolic mission of educating, qualifying, and dispersing
preachers. The administration of the order was a balance of centralized authority and
individual responsibility.76 The map of Christendom was becoming further covered with
recently established Dominican houses and divided into provinces.77 Each convent was
given a territory to oversee within the province and assigned the task of dispensing its
preachers within said territory on an as-needed basis. The monitoring and determination
of this need was left greatly to the discretion of the local prior who was elected by his
peers and confirmed by the provincial prior.78 Similarly, the provincial prior, oversaw the
operation of all territories within the entire province. He himself was elected from the
province, but confirmed at the annual order-wide general chapter meetings.
75
Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 170; Showalter, 561-562.
76
Showalter, 564.
77
Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 172-173.
78
Showalter, 563.
29
A provincial chapter meeting was held annually at Pentecost and consisted of all
the conventual priors, each with an elected delegate or ‘definitor,’ as well as a varying
number of preachers general.79 During these annual meetings ,they would tend to such
business as assigning friars to convents, naming professors, fine tuning the administration
of their schools and also electing inspectors to examine individual convents. 80
General chapter meetings were similar but were order-wide and consisted of
provincial-level representatives.81 These meetings accounted for greatest central
concentration of authority in the order.82 Order wide legislative decisions were made
here, as well as the confirmation of provincial officials and foundation of new convents.
General chapters confirmed the election of provincial priors and elected the Master
General, who was the single most powerful individual in the order. Although Dominic
reserved great power for his office and title of master general, an unusually powerful
figurehead position that wielded great executive power, he took the opportunity to
delegate much of the authority he held at the time to the collective wisdom of the annual
council gathered at the general chapter meetings.83
The Order of Preachers met frequently, and its power was distributed more evenly
than previous monastic orders. The Dominican system was designed to function as a
well-balanced, self-sustaining mechanism that answered only to the pope. The extensive
79
Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 178; Showalter, 563.
80
Showalter, 563.
81
Ibid., 564.
82
Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 184.
83
Bennet, 159; Showalter, 569-570.
30
Dominican system was impressive for its time, a first for a religious order, and was
initially designed to sustain and promote the training and dispersal of preachers.84 Failure
to meet this all-important goal was to fail the mission of the Order of Preachers, which
was to ensure that educated preachers attended to every square inch of the map. By
meeting and communicating frequently at all levels of its hierarchical government, the
evangelical mission of the Order of Preachers would, in theory, be more likely to remain
understood and upheld.
The uniqueness of the Dominican Order, when contrasted with its predecessors,
exhibits what the order means to monastic history, though not necessarily with their
contemporaries. The mendicant movement gave birth to other orders with similar
missions. However, no other order of mendicant friars was as successful or notable as the
Order of Friars Minor, also called the Franciscan order. The most notable contemporaries
of the Dominican Order, the Franciscan friars formed almost simultaneously with a
similar evangelical mission and a strong emphasis on religious poverty. Both orders
preached and even borrowed from one another as they developed. The key difference
between the two orders lay primarily in the method and mentality with which they
approached the religious life, and, in effect their preaching.
The Franciscans, founded by the fervent layman Francis of Assisi (c.1182-1226),
preached the importance of poverty and penance with a general emphasis on Christ’s
sufferings. For Francis and his followers; preaching was a spiritual overflowing that
sprung forth from within at the appropriate times. Dominic and the Dominicans had a
84
Showalter, 573.
31
more academic approach to preaching.85 Whereas the Franciscans drew from emotion,
the Dominicans drew from intellect. Most important of all was the fact that while
preaching was part of the Franciscan religious life, it was not their sole focus. Preaching,
for the Dominican Order, was the sole purpose of their creation. Franciscans performed
manual labor while living in small huts and conducted impromptu preaching or other
evangelization when they were moved to do so. The Dominicans had no time for labor
and required time and resources in order to study. The Dominican spirituality was one of
relentless contemplation and study, which was to be dispelled later into their sermons or,
if necessary, utilized in a debate. Both orders sculpted their own respective variation of
the mendicant religious life to better suit its raison d’être. Therefore, to understand what
made the Order of Preachers truly unique and how the early members of the order
understood Dominican identity, one must look at early Dominican writings.
The Dominican form of the religious life, which was in and of itself the approach
to achieving its apostolic goal, is poetically summed up in a sermon on evangelism
(c.1245) by the Dominican Peter of Rheims, the provincial prior of the province of Paris
and future bishop of Agen. In his brief sermon Peter explains the role of every member of
the order and how their respective occupation or office contributes to the achievement of
the order’s mission. In doing so, Peter makes use of biblical imagery, and presents an
interpretation of the four living creatures from Revelation 4:7. Each of them is identified
as the king of its respective species and likened to the four kinds of (Dominican)
evangelists.
85
Lambert, 97.
32
These four living creatures suit the four evangelists, because they are in
their own kinds, the most noble. The lion is the king of the beasts, the ox
is the leader of the cattle, the eagle is the king of the birds and the man is
the most noble of all creatures . . .The moral interpretation can take these
four living creatures to mean the four kinds of people there are in our order. . .86
Peter likens the lion to the superior, noting characteristics and qualities of being a strong
leader, guardian and disciplinarian of his subjects. He also emphasizes that the superior is
“particularly exposed to the risk of vanity” and should hide his good works as lions wipe
out their tracks with their tails.87 The ox, a beast of burden is likened to the “those who
administer temporal affairs.” 88 Peter praises those to whom the ox is likened for
performing the necessary tasks of worldly business to benefit the overall efforts of the
order and ought to be found perfect in obedience and penance.
Of particular interest are Peter’s allegories of the eagle, which signifies the
contemplatives, and the man, who signifies the preacher. The contemplative eagle and the
preaching man are described with great reverence by virtue of their intellect. Also of
interest is that this sermon was delivered around or before 1245. Given the estimated
dates of 1245-1270 as the shifting of the order’s identification from preacher to university
professor, this allegory likely catches the apex of the preacher and the rising of the
professor.
86
Peter of Rheims, “Sermon on Evangelists,” in Early Dominicans: Selected Writings, ed. Simon Tugwell
(New York: Paulist Press, 1982), 146. Tugwell is also a collection of primary source material that is
fundamental to this project. Like the Lehner text, when there are original passage numbers they shall be
supplied and followed by the page number from the edition cited.
87
88
Ibid.
Ibid., 147.
33
Peter likens the man to the preachers, the man being defined by and praised for
his rationality. Peter emphasizes the need for reason in order to define and differentiate
the kinds of sin and vice, and to deal with sinful people. Echoing Saint Bernard, Peter
says that intelligence, “is well represented by a human form” as it is “the controller of
virtues.”89 He also stresses the necessity for the man to be gentle in his demeanor and
thus approachable. In summary, Peter explains that the preacher, by way of his intellect
and ‘gentle’ nature, one might simply say, knowledge and good people skills are key to
achieving the mission of the order.
The eagle is the animal that truly seems to reinforce the education and
contemplative nature of the Dominican religious life. The contemplative thinkers of the
Order of Preachers held a position that is “higher and more peaceful,” they “look straight
into the face of the sun without flinching.”90 Peter goes on to assert that as eagles do not
come down from the sky for mere flies, these men, the contemplatives, should not be
bothered by anything other than “contemplating the sun.”91 Peter’s implication here can
be assumed to mean that the study and intellectual pursuit of theological enlightenment is
itself a fulltime occupation and a very necessary one.
Peter concludes that all of the creatures described in this allegory work together to
fulfill the function of the religious life, and lead in their various examples. Although they
are all necessary roles in Peter’s sermon, the preacher and the contemplative intellectual
89
Ibid.
90
Ibid.
91
Ibid.,147-148.
34
with their intelligence and rationality are truly the instruments by which the order’s
mission is completed. Though the two are guided or supported in some way by the
superior and the administrators, it is the man and the eagle that seem to warrant particular
reverence in his language.
Even poverty, a key element to the mendicant movement and the spirituality of
the Dominican Order was a secondary concern compared to education and the
achievement of their apostolic goal. The formative years of the order between the chapter
meetings of 1216 and 1220 demonstrate a gradual progression toward more extreme
forms of personal and institutional poverty. The Dominican system evolved gradually
into what has been called “corporate poverty,”92 in which an institution such as the Order
of Preachers would theoretically be allowed to own certain property such as buildings
and learning materials to a minimal degree as long as it was necessary for apostolic
purposes. The Dominican Order’s practice of religious poverty was and has been notably
less extreme than their mendicant counterpart, the Franciscan Order. So much so, in fact,
that Franciscan historians have attempted to attribute this gradual buildup as a result of
Dominic being introduced and persuaded to undertake religious poverty by his meeting
with St. Francis, who supposedly inspired him to pursue it further. Historians such as
William Hinnebusch and R.H. Bennett have argued more convincingly that the
differences between the orders and their approach to poverty is more a question of
92
William Hinnebusch, “Poverty in the Order of Preachers,” The Catholic Historical Review 45 (Jan.
1960): 448.
35
emphasis.93 Dominic and the Dominicans worked up to stricter codes of poverty because
it was, as Bennett puts it, “a means to an end.”94 Emphasis was laid on taking only the
minimum of what was recognized as necessities, and for an order that led a religious life
such as the Order of Preachers buildings and libraries were considered as such. Since
housing and educating present and future preachers would require the sustainment of
adequate facilities, the reality of the situation was that a consistent income was a
necessity.
In a letter to Dominican novices (c.1270) English provincial prior and future
archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Kilwardby, explains and defends the reason for the
level of poverty versus property kept by the Order of Preachers. He compares the poverty
of the Dominican Order to that of Christ and his disciples. Robert notes that just as Jesus
and his disciples carried enough currency to further their mission, so then is the Order of
Preachers, “with the addition that they own houses and gardens and schools to hold their
teaching in.”95 Books and housing were considered the necessities for effective
preaching, but again this is only for a necessary means to the end. Poverty was a
necessary but secondary aspiration for the Dominicans. The order worked its way up to
greater forms of poverty while ensuring foremost the education and work of the
preachers. Kilwardby goes on to insist that there are further necessities, “the apostle did
not neglect his books . . . there is no doubt that books are needed, and . . . where men live
93
94
Ibid., 451-452..
Bennet, 46.
Robert Kilwardby, “Letter to Dominican Novices,” in Early Dominicans: Selected Writings, ed. Simon
Tugwell (New York: Paulist Press, 1982), 151.
95
36
together in common life, church furnishings are [also] needed.”96 If the contemplative
men of the Order of Preachers were to soar like eagles studying the sun uninterrupted,
and the preacher was to effectively minister to his territory and keep his mind sharp, then
it would greatly help him to have a support system of not merely housing and food, but
also a resource for reference materials and an environment conducive to study.
The cornerstone of the Dominican religious life, as exhibited in Peter’s allegory
of the man and the eagle, was its emphasis on education. The study of theology in
particular was the signature feature for the Dominican Order in its early years. Dominic,
an Augustinian canon and a highly educated man himself, sought to create an order that
would provide such an education for all its members, but especially for the preachers
through whom the apostolic mission of the order was completed. The Dominican Order
was in fact the first religious order to write specific prescriptions for study into its
constitutions.97The Dominican preacher had to be well-versed in theology in order to
teach and defend Catholic doctrine and, if called upon, debate publically.
In addition to the priory schools, the Dominican Order developed programs of
higher education that paralleled the growth of universities in Europe throughout the
thirteenth century and developed a significant relationship with them. The Dominican
programs imitated the structure and syllabi of the universities, and the Dominicans were
in turn utilized as faculty.98 Curriculums of higher education developed from the order’s
96
97
98
Ibid, 152.
William A. Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, vol 2. of The History of the Dominican
Order, (Staten Island: Alba House, 1965), 6.
Bennet, 53- 54, Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 10.
37
foundation until becoming completely standardized in the early fourteenth century.99 This
higher level of education was available to only a select few and would lead to the
formation of a new academic aristocracy.100 Between roughly 1245 and 1274, the
academics rivaled the preacher in terms of respect and privilege, and became an equal if
not greater part of Dominican identity.101
As a result of their entrenchment in the university system and the rise of this new
academic class within the order, the Dominicans took a very progressive step in 1259
when, upon the recommendation of five Parisian masters, a new corpus of Aristotelian
texts were introduced into the Dominican syllabi and several new provincial programs of
study were created around them.
The intellectual culture that formed within the Dominican Order throughout the
thirteenth century was marked by this gradual embrace of Aristotelian philosophy. The
culmination of the new academic aristocracy that had formed within the order came in the
form of Thomas Aquinas ( and the ‘Thomistic’ school of thought. Thomas was not only a
product of the educational system and spirituality of the Dominican Order, but was also
the academic fulfillment of its apostolic mission in the university setting. Thomas’
treatment of the perceived conflict of faith and reason was perfectly in keeping with his
core Dominican identity. In this way the Order of Preachers, while remaining true to its
foundations, had a new academic identity in the late thirteenth century.
99
Bennet, 55.
100
101
Ibid., 56.
Showalter, 566; Bennet, 66-67.
38
Conclusion
The university professor’s rivaling of the traveling preacher as the Dominican
Order’s icon and figurehead was not a complete replacement but rather a development of
the same tradition that better met the needs of a different time. Throughout the thirteenth
century the young mendicant order distinguished itself most profoundly in environments
of ideological conflict, and the conflict of the late thirteenth century was better met by
university professors like Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas than traveling preachers
such as Dominic and his early companions.
The preacher’s role had been cast in the midst of the heresies and the educational
void of the early thirteenth century. An examination of the early biographical texts on St.
Dominic and the preaching manuals composed by early Dominicans such as Humbert of
Romans exhibit the formation of a distinct set of values and ideals for the young
Dominican Order to aspire to. These ideals were never abandoned at the end of the
century, but are clearly molded with the religious and social issues of the early thirteenth
century in mind rather than the academic issues of the later. The conflict of the late
thirteenth century was in the halls of university, specifically the University of Paris, and
not in the urban areas or the countryside.
The role of education as the cornerstone of the Dominican religious life proved to
be the order’s success in its ability to evolve while remaining true to the values it had set
forth for itself early on. The academic tendencies of the Order of Preachers pushed it to
stay current with the intellectual trends of the thirteenth century, therefore remaining
relevant and able to perform its sworn duty to represent and defend the Catholic faith in
39
the face of ideological challengers whether it came from a theological or philosophical
standpoint. Even after the need for itinerate preaching faded its apostolic mission was
fulfilled successfully by the university professor. The professor could quite arguably be
referred to as the academic fulfillment of the Dominican Order’s preacher tradition.
40
Chapter 2
DOMINIC THE PREACHER
The Image of Dominic and Dominican Spirituality
Dominic had successfully founded a religious order that focused primarily on the
defense of the Catholic faith, or more particularly Catholic doctrine, through the
promotion of theological education and itinerant preaching. It is no surprise then that
such an order idealized and identified itself with the office of the preacher, thus, making
him into a figurehead of sorts. In the early years of the order (c.1220-1231), the
Dominican mission was exemplified greatly in biographical tales of St. Dominic, who
was depicted as a particularly effective preacher and minister. By the mid-thirteenth
century (c.1245-1265), the values and ideals of the Dominican Order and the Dominican
preacher were more explicitly defined by writers and commentators such as Humbert of
Romans, who served as master general from 1254-1263.
For the Order of Preachers, the preacher played the most important and heroic
role in not only the order but the entire church itself, for it was he who brought souls to
the faith and kept them on the path to salvation. Humbert, who greatly venerated the
office of the preacher and the art of preaching, once wrote that
Without preaching, the church would never have been established, . . .
The church would not have made progress in the past nor would she be
making progress now without preaching . . . Also the church would
collapse without preaching. . . So the church stands because of them
41
[preachers] just as the human body stands on its feet. 102
Similarly, Dominican biblical commentator Hugh of St. Cher (c.1200-1263) once
remarked that preachers maintained the entire fabric of the church.103
To achieve his all-important evangelical goal, the Dominican preacher was
expected to lead a lifestyle that was equally venerable. The religious lifestyle of the
Dominican preacher was simultaneously monastic, scholarly and pastoral.104 The
Dominican ‘mixed life’ has always been understood as a balance of study, contemplation,
and apostolic activity, all of which were encompassed in one holistic spirituality. 105 The
contemplative element can likely be understood to refer to study, but there are also
frequent and distinct references to the importance of contemplative prayer in Dominican
writings as well. The apostolic element refers to time spent in the world actively
performing evangelical works. In the early days of the order, this apostolic element
referred most specifically to the itinerate preaching for which the order was formed. As
Hugh of St. Cher elegantly put it, “Arcus tenditur in studio, postea saggittatur in
102
Humbert of Romans, Treatise on the Formation of Preachers, .12, in Tugwell, 188.
103
Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia in universum Vetus & Novum Testamentum. vii. 381, col. 3., cited in
Bennet, 82.
104
105
Mandonnet, 68.
William A. Hinnebusch, Dominican Spirituality: Principles and Practice, (Washington DC: Thomist
Press, 1964), online edition available at http://www.domcentral.org/trad/domspirit/spirit02.htm
(Accessed on 9/7/2009). There are no page numbers in this online edition, however the passage cited
may be found in the introduction to Chapter 3.
42
praedictione,” or in modern English, “First the bow is bent in study, and then the arrow is
released in preaching.”106
Dominic had died in 1221, only a mere five years into his order’s existence. He
had spent those five years primarily attempting to establish his order in terms of
recruitment, legislation, and the establishment of convents and schools. From very early
on in the order’s existence biographical tales of St. Dominic were used to illustrate its
values and practices. The Dominic portrayed in these early works is the ideal Dominican
preacher, diligent in his study, passionate and sincere in his prayer and charitable in his
actions. Even as recently as the mid-twentieth century, the influential Dominican writer
William Hinnebusch specified that a conscious imitation of the saint is as necessary to the
Dominican as the imitation of Jesus is to all Christians.107
One might rightfully ask why it is the image of Dominic sculpted by his
successors that is what must be considered rather than his own writings. Simply put, the
reason is that Dominic left scant few original writings and those that exist do not reveal
much about his personality or any particular views that he may have held. The saint left
only three letters of his own composition. Two of them were written during the period in
Toulouse (c.1215-1216), prior to the formation of the order, and simply list the penance
to be assigned to converted heretics.108 The third letter was written in order to give
directions to a newly founded convent of nuns in Madrid and is focused solely on giving
106
Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia in universum Vetus & Novum Testamentum, i. 13 col. 3., quoted in
Bennet, 53.
107
Hinnebusch, Dominican Spirituality: Principles and Practice. Passage referred to from introduction to
Chapter 2.
108
Dominic, “The Letters of Saint Dominic,” Lehner, 90-94.
43
them encouragement and direction. Therefore, as far as whom Dominic really was and
what his character and personal philosophy may have truly been, there is not as much
first hand material as the historian would hope. Although one cannot hope to know
Dominic through his own words, the manner in which Dominic’s successors have
remembered him reveal a significant amount about early Dominican identity and the
early Dominican preacher.
The Biographical Texts
Biographical texts reflecting the accepted image of Dominic from the formative
years of the order (c.1220-1231) are not numerous, but there are enough to get a sense of
the early Dominican mentality.109 Two such texts are Jordan of Saxony’s Libellus
(wr.1231) and Sister Cecelia’s Miracles of St. Dominic (wr.1272-1288). Both of these
texts are written compilations of pre-existing oral traditions. Both authors were first
generation members of the order, recruited by Dominic and the other founders of the
order. Any of their own influence in these writings would therefore also reflect the
mentality of the earliest Dominicans. Both texts are also written in an anecdotal fashion
that may qualify them, at least on some level, as exempla, which were essentially
collections of individual stories meant to hold the attention of the audience and teach an
It should be acknowledged that the testimonials given by witnesses for the purposes of Dominic’s
canonization in the 1230s are often listed among the biographical material of this period, but they will not
be consulted here. While these eye-witness accounts support certain character traits attributed to Dominic
that are consistent with other portrayals, such as his rigorous devotion to prayer, his diet, his compassion
for people, and the belief held by witnesses that he had performed miracles, these testimonies are direct
answers to specific sets of questions issued by the church that leave less room for elaboration. In this sense
these testimonials, while important to the history of the order, exhibit more about the church as a whole and
its validation of the order than the Dominican sense of identity. Original works by Dominican authors for a
Dominican audience are what is needed.
109
44
important moral lesson.110 A story, be it hypothetical or true, would illustrate how one
should either act, or not act, in the face of moral issues as well as reflect the potential
consequences of these actions.111 If one is to understand these first two collections as
collections of exempla, then Dominic is the example of the perfect preacher, and his
image, actions, and even mentality are presumably intended to be imitated by members of
the order, especially the preachers.
While Jordan and Cecelia clearly have points to make and morals to teach
regarding the Dominican mission, and the Dominican preacher, they are not highly
structured. Jordan seems to be concerned only with chronological sequence of historical
events and Cecelia seems unconcerned with even that. The anonymously authored St.
Dominic’s Nine Ways of Prayer (wr.1260-1288) is also likely a written version of the
same previously existing oral traditions but provides a vague sense of structure and
organization to the mendicant spirituality practiced by St. Dominic that culminates at the
end in his preaching. The Nine Ways of Prayer is a unique piece, and though it was
sometimes attached as a supplement to Theodric of Apoldia’s Life of St. Dominic, its
intended purpose remains uncertain.
Finally, a sermon on St. Dominic given by Thomas Agni of Lentini (c.1255) is far
more structured, logical, and even borderline legalistic in its discussion of Dominic’s life
and character in relation to his success as a preacher. In a sermon that was likely intended
for an audience within his convent, Thomas explains rather than exemplifies the qualities
110
D. L. d’Avray, The Preaching of the Friars: Sermons Diffused From Paris Before 1300, (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1985), 66; Bennett, 76.
111
Ibid., 68-70.
45
that constitute a successful preacher.112 When compared with the exempla of the early
Dominicans, Thomas’ sermon seems to imply that the spirituality of the Dominican
Preacher, as portrayed in the image of Saint Dominic, became better defined by the mid
thirteenth century.
All four texts, in various ways, are consistent with one another in their values,
their emphasis of the essential elements of the mixed life, and their ideals regarding the
character of the preacher, all of which are brought to life in Dominic’s example. Common
elements in all four texts are an equivalence of charity and ministry, an emphasis on
devotion to prayer, divine providence accounting for the religious poverty of the
preachers, and also the importance of focus in both teaching and study. Dominic is also
depicted as a strong conduit of the Holy Spirit and an instrument through which God
works in the world either because of Dominic’s conscious intervention or, sometimes,
merely because he is present.
Humbert of Roman’s work entitled Treatise on the Formation of Preachers,
which was likely written during his time as master general (c.1254-1263), is not a
biographical work on Dominic but rather a theoretical discussion of the Dominican
preacher. Unlike collections of model sermons or scriptural commentaries, which were
more common preaching aides of the time, this work by Humbert explores preaching as a
spirituality and way of life.113 He discusses good and bad motives for preaching, many
potential difficulties to be found in ministry, the different kinds of audiences a preacher
112
Tugwell, 51.
113
Tugwell, 181.
46
may expect to encounter and the spiritual benefits of preaching for both the preacher and
his audience. Humbert is remembered for works that speculate upon the essence of his
order’s spirituality and mission. His Commentary on the Rule of Augustine is one such
example of his attempt to get to the true core values of the Dominican Order as is his
unfinished commentary on the Dominican constitutions.114 The nature of Humbert’s
writing in Treatise on the Formation of Preachers also reflects a man who strongly
believed in his order’s mission and methods, and more importantly, reflects a very
sharply defined identity of the Dominican preacher that is more independent of Dominic
himself. For this reason, Humbert’s work on the life and spirituality of the Dominican
preacher is a fitting compliment to the biographies of St. Dominic.
The Gentle Hound of the Libellus
Written in 1231 by Jordan of Saxony, the order’s second master general and
Dominic’s direct successor the Libellus is the earliest and most complete written history
of Dominic’s life and works. It was written only ten years after Dominic’s passing, and
was likely intended to coincide with his canonization.115 Jordan admits in the prologue
that he was not one of the founding Dominican’s but claims that he knew many of them
very well, including Dominic himself.116 The Libellus was not meant to be strictly a
biography of Dominic, Jordan makes it clear that its intended purpose was to meet the
growing demand for a written account of the “beginnings and institutions of [this] Order
114
Ibid.
115
C.N.L. Brooke, “St. Dominic and His First Biographer,” Royal Historical Society 17, (1967), 25.
116
Jordan, 2., 6.
47
of Preachers.”117 Jordan assembled numerous testimonies, both in written and oral form,
and appears to have taken great care to record the events, dates, and locations in the
proper chronological sequence. Although Dominic’s life is not the sole focus of the
Libellus it indisputably constitutes the vast majority of the text. The chronicle begins just
prior to Dominic’s birth and continues until a few years after his death. Even then, the
focus on Dominic does not even truly conclude after the account of his death. Jordan goes
on to recount numerous miracle testimonies by many who came forth with their
recollections of times spent with the saint.
There are two important implications of Jordan’s admitted motivation for
assembling the text and his disproportionate focus on the life of Dominic. The first is that
there was a growing desire for a sense of identity in the young order if there was such an
interest in its origins. The second is that, at this early date, the Dominican Order seems to
have had little identity beyond Dominic himself.118
Jordan’s portrayal of Dominic is very mendicant in that he is intensely ascetic,
passionate in prayer, diligent in study, and charitable to everyone he encounters as he
ministers to the world. At the same time, there is also no doubt that preaching is
Dominic’s raison d’être. All of the aforementioned attributes contribute to his success as
a preacher. Not being one for subtlety in his foreshadowing, Jordan begins the account
with Dominic’s mother, who receives a prophetic revelation that enlightens her to her
unborn son’s future as a preacher.
117
Ibid.
118
Brooke, 39.
48
Before his mother conceived him, she saw in a vision that she would
bear in her womb a dog who, with a burning torch in his mouth . . . set the
whole earth on fire. This was to signify that her child would be an
eminent preacher who, by “barking” sacred knowledge, would rouse souls
drowsy with sin . . .119
Dominic’s most notable trait, which Jordan emphasizes repeatedly, is his love and
concern for people and especially his passion for the salvation of their souls. One
particular mention of this occurs in reference to Dominic’s prayers. “His frequent and
special prayer to God was for the gift of true charity capable of laboring and procuring
the salvation of men.”120 While discussing Dominic’s days as a young student at
Palencia, Jordan comments that God gave Dominic the “singular gift of weeping for
sinners.”121 Humbert’s words find a fitting place in this discussion, as he makes a point in
his treatise to discuss charity as the only proper motivation for preaching.122 According to
Jordan, Dominic seems to have kept the same practice of nightly prayer throughout his
life. Just as Dominic wept for sinners during his time in Palencia, the Libellus again
refers to his nightly vigils and his relentless prayers throughout his life. Jordan describes
this in some detail, summarizing Dominic’s cyclical routine as such:
In the evening, tears found a place with him and, in the morning, gladness.
The daytime he shared with his neighbor, but the night he dedicated to God,
for he knew that, in the daytime, God has commanded His mercy and a
canticle to Him in the night.”123
119
Jordan, 5., 10.
120
Ibid., 10., 11.
121
Ibid. 12., 12.
122
Humbert, 133., 222.
123
Jordan 105., 76-77.
49
The implication of a balance between contemplative prayer by night and activity by day
is noteworthy in the latter passage. In this way, Dominic’s example seems to illustrate
that the Dominican mixed life seems existed, at least in some nascent form, at this early
date in the order’s history.
Dominic’s exhibits his passion for evangelization is exhibited in his actions as
well. The Libellus recalls Dominic’s first journey through Languedoc (c.1203), in which
his “heart was moved to pity at the great number of souls wretchedly deluded.” 124 An allnight discourse with a Cathar innkeeper seems to mark a turning point in Dominic’s
career. Dominic engages his heretical host on calm and rational level, reasoning and
debating until dawn when his opponent is “no longer able to resist the wisdom and the
spirit that spoke.”125 Dominic saw many Heretics, as Jordan indicates, but he engaged and
successfully swayed his host. Concordantly, in a chapter discussing the different sorts of
knowledge a preacher must have, Humbert teaches that ‘discretionary knowledge’ is a
distinct and necessary trait for all good preachers to have in order to “know to whom the
word of God ought not to be preached and to whom it ought to be preached. . . when he
ought to preach and when not . . .It also enables him to know what to say to whom.”126
Dominic’s theological education gave him a distinct advantage when dealing
with both the dissenting Cathars and the uninformed laity of early thirteenth century
Languedoc. Jordan depicts Dominic as a man inherently passionate for learning, but
124
Ibid., 15., 13.
125
Ibid.
126
Humbert, 122, 218.
50
especially so in the subject of theology. He explains that Dominic would forgo sleep to
feed his relentless interest in scripture, imbedding the knowledge of it in his memory,
which Jordan describes as “a storehouse of divine things.”127 Sacrificing sleep for study is
among several austere reasons Humbert insists that a preacher be strong in body.128
Of the four biographical texts considered here, Jordan’s is the only one that goes
into detail about the debates with the heretics in Languedoc. Several well-known
passages in Jordan’s chronicle, which he cross-references with earlier non-Dominican
sources, describe the public debates at Fanjeaux and Montreal (c.1205-1207) in which
Dominic and his companions debated their Cathar opponents, sometimes to a standstill.
These disputations were known to last up to two weeks.129 Such a situation occurred
frequently in the years leading up to the Albigensian Crusade. These two exemplary
instances tell of two very different outcomes.
The solution to the deadlock at Fanjeaux, a method not uncommon in the middleages, was to cast books that were referenced, or even written, by both sides into a bonfire.
The logic behind this was that God would allow the erroneous books to burn while
leaving the truthful one intact. Not surprisingly, Jordan accredits Dominic with the win.
A book of Dominic’s original writings is said to have not only failed to burn but was
thrice propelled far from the fire by an unseen force.130
127
Jordan, 7., 10.
128
Humbert, 136., 223.
129
Jordan, 25., 20.
130
Ibid.
51
The debate in Montreal was said to have taken place with a much less miraculous
outcome. Diego, the Catholic proponent, in this instance, is arguing against the Cathar
claim that the Catholic Church is “the church of the Devil, [holding] the doctrine of
demons.” 131 Diego “offered himself to prove the contrary by the authoritative words of
the New Testament.”132 As the Cathars rejected the Old Testament, appeal to the New
Testament was often the only viable strategy.133 The outcome was not settled so
conclusively in this instance. The writings of both sides were given over to the appointed
judges, but they reached no solid verdict and left mixed results amongst the spectators.
It was in the mold of events such as these that the Dominican approach to
preaching was created. The scenarios just described were what the Dominican preacher
was trained to expect and prepare for. Rational debate was the first weapon of choice
against heresy, and when one was unable to sway one’s opponent it seems that trapping
him in verbal confusion was indeed the next best thing.134 This would be particularly
advantageous in a public debate; a baffled opponent would lose face with the spectators
and the judges. Highly intelligent and well-educated, a Dominican preacher was to be a
theological power-house. This affected everything from the kinds of materials written for
such preaching to the mentality the preacher maintained. He approached his
congregations armed with a three-year curriculum of theology, regular tests of public
speaking skills, and debate exercises, texts for quick-reference to scriptures and other
131
Ibid, 23., 18.
132
Ibid.
133
Lambert, 59.
134
Bennet, 87.
52
authoritative texts, and was perpetually ready for a public discourse. Writing at a much
later date, Humbert had time to observe the advantages and pitfalls of such public
preaching and offered the following advice:
There are some people who either use nothing but arguments to make
what they are saying more convincing, or else nothing but anecdotes
or else nothing but appeals to authority. It is much better to use all three,
so that someone who does not respond to one may be moved by one of the
others . . . When these three all work together, the hook of preaching has a
strong triple line attached to it, and that is a line that no fish can easily break.135
As standardized as it may have become, skilled argumentation drawn from
extensive education and familiarity with sacred texts was not the greatest weapon against
heresy in Dominic’s mind. The Libellus recalls a conversation between Dominic and a
local bishop prior to one of these public debates. Dominic expresses that it is in one’s
conduct, both within the debate arena and outside of it, that have the most profoundly
persuasive effect on heretical minds; “Heretics,” he says, “are more easily won over by
examples of humility and virtue than external display or a hall of words.” 136 Several
accounts in the Libellus reinforce Dominic’s humility in the face of both verbal and
physical abuses imposed upon him by the local Cathars, and how he received them in a
meek and admirable manner.137 Humbert, seems to have retained this lesson as well. He
instructs that “it is not enough for a preacher to live a good life in private; his life is a
135
Humbert, 85., 206.
136
Jordan, 34., 32-33.
137
Ibid.
53
means to shine for all men in such a way that he preaches by his example as well as by
word of mouth.”138
The charitable evangelist that is Dominic, in Jordan’s depiction, was an educated
man who could hold his own in an argument and lives the words that he preaches. At one
point early in the text Dominic, a man expressed to have such an acute love of learning,
sells his books to aid those starving during a famine in Spain and even offers to sell
himself to free another from captivity at a later point.139 Jordan writes “All men were
swept into the embrace of his charity, and, in loving all, he was beloved by all.”140
Dominic’s love of contemplation is both a practical and necessary component to his work
as a preacher but is little more than a means to the end of saving souls and nurturing the
needy. Humbert seems to be of the same mind as he speculates that “we may well believe
that the charity which makes him [the preacher] work, not only for himself but for others
too, is constantly increasing in him because of his job. And as charity increases, so must
his substantial reward increase also.”141
The final aspect worthy of discussion in the Libellus is Dominic’s inherent
asceticism. Jordan depicts Dominic as forsaking his bed as a child “as though already
beginning to distrust the pleasures of the flesh.”142 Dominic is also depicted as avoiding
138
Humbert, 103., 216.
139
Jordan, 10., 11.
140
Ibid., 107., 78.
141
Humbert, 48., 198.
142
Jordan, 5., 8.
54
playing or frivolity at a young age, preferring to remain in or around the church,
remaining a virgin until death.143 Passages also repeatedly discuss his sacrificing sleep for
intensely emotional prayer and whipping himself with an iron chain.144 He favored a life
of poverty, clothing
himself in shabby cloth and eating only the simplest meals, occasionally drinking
wine if it were diluted with water.145 Once he was to have successfully fasted an entire
Lent on bread and water.146 He maintained this poverty in his ministry, as is exemplary of
a mendicant friar, and was, according to Jordan, the recipient of divine providence. Coins
miraculously appeared in his hand for passage on a boat, his rain-drenched clothing once
dried miraculously after prayer and on one occasion he held back the rain after making
the sign of the cross.147
Written in 1231 by Jordan of Saxony, the order’s second master general and
Dominic’s direct successor the Libellus is the earliest and most complete written history
of Dominic’s life and works. It was written only ten years after Dominic’s passing, and
was likely intended to coincide with his canonization.148 Jordan admits in the prologue
that he was not one of the founding Dominican’s but claims that he knew many of them
143
Ibid, 8., 11.
144
Ibid., 105.-106., 76-78.
145
Ibid,, 108.,78.
146
Ibid., 36., 35-37.
147
Ibid., 34. and 101., 32-35 and 75-76.
148
C.N.L. Brooke, “St. Dominic and His First Biographer,” Royal Historical Society 17, (1967), 25.
55
very well, including Dominic himself.149 The Libellus was not meant to be strictly a
biography of Dominic, Jordan makes it clear that its intended purpose was to meet the
growing demand for a written account of the “beginnings and institutions of [this] Order
of Preachers.”150 Jordan assembled numerous testimonies, both in written and oral form,
and appears to have taken great care to record the events, dates, and locations in the
proper chronological sequence. Although Dominic’s life is not the sole focus of the
Libellus it indisputably constitutes the vast majority of the text. The chronicle begins just
prior to Dominic’s birth and continues until a few years after his death. Even then, the
focus on Dominic does not even truly conclude after the account of his death. Jordan goes
on to recount numerous miracle testimonies by many who came forth with their
recollections of times spent with the saint.
There are two important implications of Jordan’s admitted motivation for
assembling the text and his disproportionate focus on the life of Dominic. The first is that
there was a growing desire for a sense of identity in the young order if there was such an
interest in its origins. The second is that, at this early date, the Dominican Order seems to
have had little identity beyond Dominic himself.151
Jordan’s portrayal of Dominic is very mendicant in that he is intensely ascetic,
passionate in prayer, diligent in study, and charitable to everyone he encounters as he
ministers to the world. At the same time, there is also no doubt that preaching is
149
Jordan, 2., 6.
150
Ibid.
151
Brooke, 39.
56
Dominic’s raison d’être. All of the aforementioned attributes contribute to his success as
a preacher. Not being one for subtlety in his foreshadowing, Jordan begins the account
with Dominic’s mother, who receives a prophetic revelation that enlightens her to her
unborn son’s future as a preacher.
Before his mother conceived him, she saw in a vision that she would
bear in her womb a dog who, with a burning torch in his mouth . . . set the
whole earth on fire. This was to signify that her child would be an
eminent preacher who, by “barking” sacred knowledge, would rouse souls
drowsy with sin . . .152
Dominic’s most notable trait, which Jordan emphasizes repeatedly, is his love and
concern for people and especially his passion for the salvation of their souls. One
particular mention of this occurs in reference to Dominic’s prayers. “His frequent and
special prayer to God was for the gift of true charity capable of laboring and procuring
the salvation of men.”153 While discussing Dominic’s days as a young student at
Palencia, Jordan comments that God gave Dominic the “singular gift of weeping for
sinners.”154 Humbert’s words find a fitting place in this discussion, as he makes a point in
his treatise to discuss charity as the only proper motivation for preaching. 155 According to
Jordan, Dominic seems to have kept the same practice of nightly prayer throughout his
life. Just as Dominic wept for sinners during his time in Palencia, the Libellus again
152
Jordan, 5., 10.
153
Ibid., 10., 11.
154
Ibid. 12., 12.
155
Humbert, 133., 222.
57
refers to his nightly vigils and his relentless prayers throughout his life. Jordan describes
this in some detail, summarizing Dominic’s cyclical routine as such:
In the evening, tears found a place with him and, in the morning, gladness.
The daytime he shared with his neighbor, but the night he dedicated to God,
for he knew that, in the daytime, God has commanded His mercy and a
canticle to Him in the night.”156
The implication of a balance between contemplative prayer by night and activity by day
is noteworthy in the latter passage. In this way, Dominic’s example seems to illustrate
that the Dominican mixed life seems existed, at least in some nascent form, at this early
date in the order’s history.
Dominic’s exhibits his passion for evangelization is exhibited in his actions as
well. The Libellus recalls Dominic’s first journey through Languedoc (c.1203), in which
his “heart was moved to pity at the great number of souls wretchedly deluded.”157 An allnight discourse with a Cathar innkeeper seems to mark a turning point in Dominic’s
career. Dominic engages his heretical host on calm and rational level, reasoning and
debating until dawn when his opponent is “no longer able to resist the wisdom and the
spirit that spoke.”158 Dominic saw many Heretics, as Jordan indicates, but he engaged and
successfully swayed his host. Concordantly, in a chapter discussing the different sorts of
knowledge a preacher must have, Humbert teaches that ‘discretionary knowledge’ is a
distinct and necessary trait for all good preachers to have in order to “know to whom the
156
Jordan 105., 76-77.
157
Ibid., 15., 13.
158
Ibid.
58
word of God ought not to be preached and to whom it ought to be preached. . . when he
ought to preach and when not . . .It also enables him to know what to say to whom.”159
Dominic’s theological education gave him a distinct advantage when dealing
with both the dissenting Cathars and the uninformed laity of early thirteenth century
Languedoc. Jordan depicts Dominic as a man inherently passionate for learning, but
especially so in the subject of theology. He explains that Dominic would forgo sleep to
feed his relentless interest in scripture, imbedding the knowledge of it in his memory,
which Jordan describes as “a storehouse of divine things.”160 Sacrificing sleep for study is
among several austere reasons Humbert insists that a preacher be strong in body.161
Of the four biographical texts considered here, Jordan’s is the only one that goes
into detail about the debates with the heretics in Languedoc. Several well-known
passages in Jordan’s chronicle, which he cross-references with earlier non-Dominican
sources, describe the public debates at Fanjeaux and Montreal (c.1205-1207) in which
Dominic and his companions debated their Cathar opponents, sometimes to a standstill.
These disputations were known to last up to two weeks.162 Such a situation occurred
frequently in the years leading up to the Albigensian Crusade. These two exemplary
instances tell of two very different outcomes.
159
Humbert, 122, 218.
160
Jordan, 7., 10.
161
Humbert, 136., 223.
162
Jordan, 25., 20.
59
The solution to the deadlock at Fanjeaux, a method not uncommon in the middleages, was to cast books that were referenced, or even written, by both sides into a bonfire.
The logic behind this was that God would allow the erroneous books to burn while
leaving the truthful one intact. Not surprisingly, Jordan accredits Dominic with the win.
A book of Dominic’s original writings is said to have not only failed to burn but was
thrice propelled far from the fire by an unseen force.163
The debate in Montreal was said to have taken place with a much less miraculous
outcome. Diego, the Catholic proponent, in this instance, is arguing against the Cathar
claim that the Catholic Church is “the church of the Devil, [holding] the doctrine of
demons.” 164 Diego “offered himself to prove the contrary by the authoritative words of
the New Testament.”165 As the Cathars rejected the Old Testament, appeal to the New
Testament was often the only viable strategy.166 The outcome was not settled so
conclusively in this instance. The writings of both sides were given over to the appointed
judges, but they reached no solid verdict and left mixed results amongst the spectators.
It was in the mold of events such as these that the Dominican approach to
preaching was created. The scenarios just described were what the Dominican preacher
was trained to expect and prepare for. Rational debate was the first weapon of choice
against heresy, and when one was unable to sway one’s opponent it seems that trapping
163
Ibid.
164
Ibid, 23., 18.
165
Ibid.
166
Lambert, 59.
60
him in verbal confusion was indeed the next best thing.167 This would be particularly
advantageous in a public debate; a baffled opponent would lose face with the spectators
and the judges. Highly intelligent and well-educated, a Dominican preacher was to be a
theological power-house. This affected everything from the kinds of materials written for
such preaching to the mentality the preacher maintained. He approached his
congregations armed with a three-year curriculum of theology, regular tests of public
speaking skills, and debate exercises, texts for quick-reference to scriptures and other
authoritative texts, and was perpetually ready for a public discourse. Writing at a much
later date, Humbert had time to observe the advantages and pitfalls of such public
preaching and offered the following advice:
There are some people who either use nothing but arguments to make
what they are saying more convincing, or else nothing but anecdotes
or else nothing but appeals to authority. It is much better to use all three,
so that someone who does not respond to one may be moved by one of the
others . . . When these three all work together, the hook of preaching has a
strong triple line attached to it, and that is a line that no fish can easily break.168
As standardized as it may have become, skilled argumentation drawn from
extensive education and familiarity with sacred texts was not the greatest weapon against
heresy in Dominic’s mind. The Libellus recalls a conversation between Dominic and a
local bishop prior to one of these public debates. Dominic expresses that it is in one’s
conduct, both within the debate arena and outside of it, that have the most profoundly
persuasive effect on heretical minds; “Heretics,” he says, “are more easily won over by
167
Bennet, 87.
168
Humbert, 85., 206.
61
examples of humility and virtue than external display or a hall of words.”169 Several
accounts in the Libellus reinforce Dominic’s humility in the face of both verbal and
physical abuses imposed upon him by the local Cathars, and how he received them in a
meek and admirable manner.170 Humbert, seems to have retained this lesson as well. He
instructs that “it is not enough for a preacher to live a good life in private; his life is a
means to shine for all men in such a way that he preaches by his example as well as by
word of mouth.”171
The charitable evangelist that is Dominic, in Jordan’s depiction, was an educated
man who could hold his own in an argument and lives the words that he preaches. At one
point early in the text Dominic, a man expressed to have such an acute love of learning,
sells his books to aid those starving during a famine in Spain and even offers to sell
himself to free another from captivity at a later point.172 Jordan writes “All men were
swept into the embrace of his charity, and, in loving all, he was beloved by all.”173
Dominic’s love of contemplation is both a practical and necessary component to his work
as a preacher but is little more than a means to the end of saving souls and nurturing the
needy. Humbert seems to be of the same mind as he speculates that “we may well believe
that the charity which makes him [the preacher] work, not only for himself but for others
169
Jordan, 34., 32-33.
170
Ibid.
171
Humbert, 103., 216.
172
Jordan, 10., 11.
173
Ibid., 107., 78.
62
too, is constantly increasing in him because of his job. And as charity increases, so must
his substantial reward increase also.”174
The final aspect worthy of discussion in the Libellus is Dominic’s inherent
asceticism. Jordan depicts Dominic as forsaking his bed as a child “as though already
beginning to distrust the pleasures of the flesh.”175 Dominic is also depicted as avoiding
playing or frivolity at a young age, preferring to remain in or around the church,
remaining a virgin until death.176 Passages also repeatedly discuss his sacrificing sleep for
intensely emotional prayer and whipping himself with an iron chain.177 He favored a life
of poverty, clothing himself in shabby cloth and eating only the simplest meals,
occasionally drinking wine if it were diluted with water.178 Once he was to have
successfully fasted an entire Lent on bread and water.179 He maintained this poverty in
his ministry, as is exemplary of a mendicant friar, and was, according to Jordan, the
recipient of divine providence. Coins miraculously appeared in his hand for passage on a
boat, his rain-drenched clothing once dried miraculously after prayer and on one occasion
he held back the rain after making the sign of the cross.180
174
Humbert, 48., 198.
175
Jordan, 5., 8.
176
Ibid, 8., 11.
177
Ibid., 105.-106., 76-78.
178
Ibid,, 108.,78.
179
Ibid., 36., 35-37.
180
Ibid., 34. and 101., 32-35 and 75-76.
63
The Miraculous Dominic of Sister Cecelia
Sister Cecilia’s The Miracles of Saint Dominic was transcribed late in the
thirteenth century (c.1272-1288) at the women’s convent of St. Agnes in Bologna by one
Sister Angelica. Historians of the order assume that Angelica probably accomplished
most of this transcription during recreational periods while Cecelia entertained novices
and her fellow nuns with sensational accounts of the order’s founder. 181 These miracle
accounts, some of which that Cecelia claims to have witnessed herself, were written
down at a much later date than the other biographical texts examined here, however this
collection reflects the traditions of a much earlier period in the order’s existence. The text
is an accumulation of a lifetime’s worth of stories gathered and recited by one of the very
first Dominicans. Cecilia had been one the first women to join the order of Dominican
nuns, often called the ‘Second Order,’ and received the habit from Dominic himself
(c.1205-1221). She aided in the foundation of the convent of St. Agnes in Bologna in
1223 and remained there for the duration of her life.182 Cecilia continued to recite the
miraculous deeds of a gentle and fatherly Saint Dominic to the members of her
community until she was well into her twilight years.
Cecelia’s tales were intended to teach her fellow nuns, but she did so in an
entertaining and informal fashion rather than in a scholarly sense. Cecilia’s style is more
that of a sensational storyteller than a meticulous historian. Her anecdotes are scattered
with no concern for chronological order or any sort of definitive timeline for that matter
181
Lehner, 160-163.
182
Ibid.
64
and her language sometimes implies a sense of urgency. She has also found a place in
Dominican history, in addition to her own legacy, as one of Jordan’s sources for the
Libellus.183 This connection has resulted in several events being mirrored in both works,
though Cecilia’s versions are told with greater flare for the dramatic.
Cecelia portrays Dominic as a man through whom the Holy Spirit works very
strongly. Dominic exhibits a strong mystic intuition that often gives him an inkling that
something is occurring or about to occur, which Cecelia explains as happening “through
the inspiration of the Holy Ghost,” or simply “the spirit.”184 Dominic’s sanctity, which is
expressed in terms of his “merits,” is strongly implied to be the source of this spiritual
connection. Humbert would later extensively discuss the “merits” that a good preacher
gained in performing his sacred duty in a “praiseworthy fashion,” though he tended to
focus more on possible ways one could lose said merits.185 The Dominic portrayed in
Cecelia’s text seems to be in no danger of any of Humbert’s warnings as he successfully
performs a plethora of miracles familiar to Christian stories. Dominic heals the sick,
resurrects the dead, casts out and strikes down demons, and is aided in his ministry by
divine providence. As in the Libellus, Dominic is depicted as a minister with a very
charitable spirit and an equal attention paid to all types of people from various
backgrounds and circumstances. All who appeal to him, as well as those whom he seeks
out, benefit from his generous spirit and meritorious nature.
183
184
185
Ibid.
Cecelia, .9 and .12 The Miracles of Saint Dominic, in Lehner, 177 and 180-181.
Humbert, 123., 220.
65
There are at least two reoccurring themes emphasized by the text. The first major
theme is the power of prayer. The intense and heartfelt prayers of Dominic seem to have
a particular sway with God. Dominic’s prayers always precede the miracles that result
directly from his conscious intervention. Other times, it is the prayers of those who
recognize the value of his ‘merits’ that the miracles occur in favor of. The text makes
clear on several occasions that God is the true source of the miracles and not Dominic
himself, nevertheless, God hears and often grants Dominic the things he prays for,
however supernatural they may be. The second theme in this text is Dominic’s power
over evil. Demonic forces manifest physically to impede learning, but are powerless
before Dominic’s unwavering sanctity. In these ways, both the active and contemplative
elements of the Dominican mixed life are represented.
The first theme of the text is made apparent straight away. The text begins with
Dominic raising the dead through the power of prayer. A young widow who holds
Dominic in great veneration leaves to see him preach a sermon, leaving her sick child at
home. The child dies while she is away and she is understandably very distraught.
Trusting “in the power of God and the merits of blessed Dominic,” she takes the dead
child to the preacher whom she so admires. Dominic seems to anticipate her arrival, and
she finds him at the door of the church he has just preached at “as if waiting for
someone.”186 Dominic, moved by her faith and grief, retreats to pray for a few moments,
the action that usually precedes his miracles. The boy is raised back to life, and Dominic
instructs the widow not to speak of this, for “he sincerely loved and wished to safeguard
186
Cecilia, 1., 163-165.
66
his humility.”187 Of course, the instance does not remain a secret, but his request for it is
still praised by Cecelia.
A similar account refers the resurrection of the widow’s child involves the
resurrection of a Cardinal’s nephew named Napoleon who dies in a riding accident with
his body “horribly crushed and badly lacerated.”188 Dominic inspects the body, and asks
it be placed in a nearby house until after the evening mass. This account tells of Dominic
weeping as he leads the mass, and then levitating a full foot off the ground while holding
both arms outstretched. After mass, Dominic has the corpse brought in and “by his own
hands,” arranges all the lacerated members of the dead boy. He rearranges the body
several more times while groaning intensely and kneeling periodically throughout his
intense and continuous prayer. After Dominic repeats the process several times he
commands it, in the name of the Lord, to rise. The young man then arises lively and
physically intact asking for something to eat.
Dominic’s powerful prayers are again to thank for this miracle. Dominic’s tears
while saying the mass, as well as his resulting levitation, seem to imply that it is from the
mass that Dominic draws upon the Holy Spirit, so much so that it is in his power to turn
back death. One might take this as a lesson in the Dominican mixed life. Liturgy and
collective worship are a necessary element to apostolic success in the world. Yet again,
Cecelia’s text seems to exemplify what Humbert was are later explain in very clear
187
188
Ibid.
Ibid., 2., 165-166. This account is also in the Libellus, though the descriptive language and graphic
portrayal are absent from Jordan’s depiction.
67
language. “For some, the soul only resides in the body as the dead in the tombs and, just
as God shall cause the resurrection of the body on the last day by the power of His word,
so at the present time the soul is restored to life by the power of preaching.”189
Dominic is a model apostle, and a shining beacon of piety and divine grace to the
lay-people in Cecelia’s text, but it is not strictly the laity in the text who is in need of
Dominic’s masterful ministry. There are both worldly and otherworldly forces working
against those leading, or attempting to lead, a religious life. This is especially true in the
cases of the younger members of the order. The religious life is subtly championed as the
in Cecelia’s accounts, but it is recognized as a particularly difficult one to maintain,
fraught with challenges. There are two notable instances in which Dominic aids novices
who are in crises on the path to a religious life.
The first such account tells of a young man who ran away to join the order and
against his parents wishes. While leaving with Dominican companions, he crosses a creek
while being pursued by his disapproving family who “planned to take him by force and
return him to the world.”190 Upon rendezvousing with Dominic before being overtaken
by his mounted pursuers, the aspiring novice “commends himself to God and to the
Merits of Blessed Dominic,” and then, “by Him Who alone works miracles,” and the
river miraculously rises to prevent the pursuers from crossing and reclaiming him.191
Dominic’s presence intervenes for an apostolic purpose despite his lack of intervention.
189
Humbert, 58., 201.
190
Cecelia, 11.,179-180.
191
Ibid., 6., 171-174.
68
The second and far more detailed account describes the anguish of a novice
already belonging to the order. In this account, Dominic rises with urgency late at night
claiming “The Lord wants me to go to Santa Sebina.”192 Dominic’s companions attempt
to dissuade him, but Dominic is insistent that an angel will be sent to guide him. A young
man dressed as a traveler who is later identified as this angel appears suddenly and guides
them to the church. The door is barred, but their youthful guide pulls on it and it
immediately opens. Dominic finds the novice inside, who has vowed to leave the order
after the evening Matins. Dominic approaches the situation with “fatherly understanding
of the violent temptation assailing the young man,” but the novice is resolved to leave the
order. He begs the young novice to wait just a few moments and proceeds to prostrate
himself in prayer. Cecilia draws specific attention to the particular sway Dominic holds.
What happens next, gives us an idea of the influence Dominic had with God and
how easily he could obtain whatever he wished. Hardly had he finished his prayer
than the young man . . . burst into tears . . . asked for forgiveness and for the
return of the habit he had flung aside under the onslaught of temptation.193
The lesson of these two accounts, as well as the one that precedes it, are again
mirrored in later years by Humbert’s instructional writings. Humbert notes that
“Preaching tends to inspire devotion in people . . . . it inspires them not only to follow,
but to wait on the preacher too.”194 This lesson may also remind one of Dominic’s
teaching in the Libellus about the preacher’s example being more important than his
192
Ibid., 172.
193
Ibid., 173.
194
Humbert, 40. and 42., 196-197.
69
words and arguments. The ideal held by the Order of Preachers was that preaching was
not merely a profession but a way of life. It was not merely a set of skills one needed to
hone but was a spiritual state of being.
One may note that the active element of the Dominican mixed life gets more
attention in Cecelia’s text. This is somewhat understandable since this is a collection that
focuses on miracle stories. Still, the contemplative element gets notable attention from
Cecelia as well. Like any good collection of exempla produced in the middle ages,
demons physically manifest to harass the righteous. It is interesting to note that the
demons always appear specifically to take away from studies, or learning in general. The
implication seems to be that fear or aggravation can be utilized by the minions of the
devil to prevent both the religious and the laity from receiving God’s word. Dominic, like
the ideal apostle he is, stands strongly and unwaveringly in the way of such an
impediment. Whether one is to take these stories literally or metaphorically, Dominic
provides the example for the Dominican preacher or student to imitate as he remains a
solid and serene presence who is perpetually in control of the situation. This is a fitting
depiction as Humbert had likened preachers to an army of angles under fighting against
the devil and his host.195
In one instance a demon in the form of an ape appears to distract Dominic from
his solitary late night contemplation. With a simple command, Dominic forces it to hold
his candle for him and ignores its further jeers and obscenities. Finally, the candle burns
down all the way and singes the demons hand. Dominic sends the howling demon away
195
Ibid., 52., 199.
70
after a time with a swat of his cane as if spanking a mischievous child.196 This instance is
the only reference in the text to Dominic in solitary contemplation, however, demonic
intrusions occur three more times. The demons’ motives are similar, but their targets
differ. They now seek to prevent Dominic’s pupils from learning from him.
Dominic addresses another distractive apparition when he preaches to
congregations of laity and religious alike. Seven devils inhabiting a certain woman
disrupt a sermon Dominic is giving during Lent at San Sisto shortly after its foundation.
The voice of the demons curse Dominic for having apparently expelled four of them
somehow through his “deceptions.”197 The remaining seven challenge him, claiming they
will stay no matter what he may do. As they continue to distract the crowd with the
details as to how each one entered her, Dominic invokes the name of Jesus Christ and
dispels them all. She is cured after vomiting blood and charcoal and resting for some
time.198
Another abomination appears in yet another instance, this time to frighten a group
of nuns to whom Dominic is giving a lesson. Showing his signature foresight, Dominic
forewarns them that “if the enemy of the human race tries to terrify you by appearing in
some strange shape, do not be afraid.”199 Despite his insistence that it cannot harm them,
196
Cecilia, 4., 169-170.
197
Ibid., 5., 170-171.
198
Ibid., 170.
199
Cecelia, 8. 176-177.
71
the nuns are of course terrified when the beast shows itself. Dominic turns and commands
it to cast itself into a nearby stream. Powerless to resist, the demon complies.
Finally, though admittedly less impressively, a fourth instance tells of a demon in
the form of a bird that flies in and overturns a lamp during an indoor lesson that Dominic
is giving to a group of nuns. As with the reptilian demon, Dominic seems to foresee the
instance as he addresses the problem of demonic distraction from learning and
contemplation ahead of the instance and warns that “In order to deceive, Satan would not
only transform himself into an angel of light, but, if he could hinder preaching and other
good works, would assume the shape of the most trifling things, even a sparrow.”200 The
‘demon,’ indeed in this very form, flies in through the window and overturns a lamp.
Dominic catches it and plucks the sparrow bald. The lamp, though it was overturned,
neither brakes nor goes out but continues to burn while inverted in mid-air and the lesson
continues unimpeded. 201
Throughout the passages of the text, Dominic seems to be perpetually traveling
and preaching to a broad array of individuals. There are two instances that tell of him
reaching out to reclusive hermits who are suffering from illness and maladies, all of
whom are cured by Dominic’s meritorious presence.202 The fact that Dominic is
remembered for reaching out to individuals who had isolated themselves from society
speaks to the need for a Dominican preacher of the time to consider all people in all
200
Ibid., 10., 177-179.
201
Ibid., 178.
202
Cecelia, 12.-13., 180-181.
72
places. Humbert emphasized the need for different sermons for different audiences, such
as for the religious, the laity, men, or women.203 Humbert also discussed the inherent
need for mobility to reach as many of such people as possible, for “It is not their [the
preacher’s] function to stay put, but to move.”204 Humbert’s discussion of travel discusses
advises many practical measures such as the danger of overexerting oneself and traveling
in good company so as to remain safe from harm.205 Still, Humbert’s main emphasis
throughout his discussion is that wherever a preacher found himself, there should always
be a motivation to teach and evangelize. Humbert instructs that the preacher “must
always have his eye on the chance to do some good, whether it is on the way or in
someone’s house, whether he is on the way, or in someone’s house, he is with few people
or many. . .”206 In this sense Humbert and Cecelia’s teachings seem to be very in keeping
with one another.
What is worthy of notice, and sets Cecelia’s work apart from Jordan’s, is the fact
there is less emphasis in Cecelia’s text on Dominic preaching to the unconverted.
Dominic ministers to those already belonging to the Catholic Church and even to the
Dominican Order itself. Whether this was intentional or not, Cecelia’s depiction of
Dominic as a minister to the faithful, rather than a combatant of heresy, exemplifies the
role that an order focused on preaching would need to play within the Church when there
was no competing belief system to counteract. When contrasted in this way with Jordan’s
203
204
Humbert, 1.-16, 326-332.
Ibid., 394. 286.
205
Ibid.,, 414 and 416., 288.
206
Ibid., 415., 289.
73
dry historical record of past events, Cecelia’s document seems very progressive.
Dominic’s sincere love for people, faith in God, and unwavering self control are
indicative of a man more of heaven than of earth yet working actively and effectively
within the world. Whatever the variety of implications may be that one may infer from
Cecelia’s tales, Dominic’s effectiveness as a preacher was soon to be structured and
analyzed more directly.
The Nine Ways of Prayer of Saint Dominic
Written by an anonymous author, probably somewhere near Bologna, The Nine
Ways of Prayer is a very unique piece. The text was itself discovered in 1288, and could
likely date back to c.1260, which would still place it toward the end of the period in
question.207 The text seems to have drawn heavily from the same pre-existing sources as
Cecelia and Jordan, or possibly even both them as well.208 However, while the preceding
two texts are narratives that focus on the results of Dominic’s actions, The Nine Ways of
Prayer is a very spiritual text that focuses mostly on contemplation. Whereas one can
find scattered references to study, prayer and apostolic activity in the former two texts, it
is in The Nine Ways of Prayer that the spirituality of the mixed life becomes more clearly
defined and is even given a structure. While Jordan and Cecelia have tended to focus on
the deeds done in Dominic’s active life through mention of his studious habits and
passionate prayer as side notes this text focuses heavily on those contemplative elements
207
208
Tugwell, 52.
Lehner, 147-148.
74
and portrays his apostolic actions as resulting directly from them. Only in a piece such as
this could the true nature of contemplation and its essential role in the Dominican mixed
life be fully explored.
The text creates very descriptive visual images of Dominic and his intense prayer
practices, which were even accompanied by wood cut prints early on.209 Together, the
images are presented in what one might call a procedure. Through these compiled
examples of Dominic in various states of contemplative prayer the text, may be
interpreted as implying a personal transformation through contemplative stages of selfawareness that result in a cycle of contemplation feeding apostolic action.
The text opens with a brief discourse on prayer and how it has been practiced by
saints and discussed in depth by the great minds of the church. In fact, throughout the
text, Dominic’s forms of prayer are compared to those of the apostles, church fathers and
even to Jesus. The author notes the particularly beautiful form of prayer in which “the
soul makes use of the members of the body to raise itself more devoutly to God” and then
explains that “St. Dominic often prayed in this way and it is fitting that we say something
of his method.” 210 By describing Dominic’s prayer practices as a method, there is an
implication of premeditated logic instilled upon what is to follow.
The first four ways of prayer describe Dominic acknowledging his own flawed
humanity and then acknowledging that this is the state of all men. First he bows before
the altar “as if Christ . . . were truly and personally present," and acknowledges his
209
210
Early copies of the text included miniature woodprints of the images described.
Nine Ways of Prayer, in Lehner,148.
75
lowliness in comparison to his savior.211 He then prostrates himself on the ground before
it and begs for forgiveness of his personal sins. Directly following this he would rise to
his knees and “discipline himself with wooden switches,” indicating that the Lord’s
discipline had corrected him. The text even explains that the order made a common
practice of this. “[I]n memory of this example” it reads, “all brethren should receive the
discipline as they were bowing down in worship and reciting the psalm.”212 Dominic then
transitions directly into his fourth way of prayer in which he rises and kneels, never
breaking his gaze upon the altar, and prays for not only his own sins, but for the sins of
all others as well as the perseverance of the younger preachers whom he had sent forth to
reach them. The author describes Dominic’s tears and sincere emotion in this particular
method and the rising and kneeling accompanying this was his own uniquely personal
form of worship. The author also notes that “this way of prayer he taught his brethren
more by example than words.”213 These first four methods of prayer are specifically
indicated to be a procedure which Dominic practiced in this succession on a regular basis.
The following five ways of prayer are arranged according to the author’s discrimination.
In the fifth way of prayer, Dominic stands before the altar with his hands
extended from his chest, as if mimicking the reading of a book. The text describes that
Dominic, “appeared to be meditating on the words of God, and he seemed to repeat them
211
Ibid., 149-150.
212
Ibid., 151.
213
Ibid., 151-152.
76
to himself in a sweet voice.”214 Again, he is described as weeping on occasion, usually
with clasped hands when in this state, and appeared to be listening intently as if a voice
were speaking to him from the altar. “If one had seen his great devotion . . . he would
have surely thought he was observing a prophet.”215 Until this point, Dominic’s prayers
have been strictly contemplative, depicting him in a mystic or meditative state. It is not
until the sixth form of prayer that the text refers to Dominic actively working out in the
world.
The sixth way of prayer finds Dominic stands straight up with his arms thrust
outwards in the form of the cross. The author notes several miracles invoked by such
prayer, including the instance in which Dominic raised the Cardinal’s nephew, Napoleon,
back to life after the riding accident. The author makes the point that Dominic reserved
this manner of prayer for times in which he was inspired by God to ask for something
truly marvelous.216
The seventh way of prayer portrays Dominic is back before the altar again
standing in a more confident posture with hands reaching to heaven as if to receive
something. “One would believe that he was asking for an increase in grace and in this
rapture of spirit was asking God for the gifts of the Holy Spirit for the order he had
founded.”217 It is likely no coincidence the author chose to place this heavenly charging
214
Ibid., 153.
215
Ibid., 154.
216
Ibid., 154.
217
Ibid.. 156.
77
of the spirit directly after Dominic is described doing miraculous deeds out in the world.
The author describes Dominic as looking like “a person coming from a great distance or
like a stranger in this world.”218 The cycle seems to have brought the preacher back to the
pulpit after the inspiration brought about by the events outside the walls of the monastery.
Contemplation has thus lead to successful activity in the world, which themselves result
in the desire for further contemplation.
In the eighth way of prayer, Dominic is portrayed in book-study. As described in
the previous texts, Dominic retreats with a book after the canonical hours and proceeds to
pour over it late into the night. As he read he was “zealous and filled with the spirit of
devotion which he drew from the divine words.”219 After praying over the book, making
the sign of the cross and the reading silently and intently for some time, he was seen to
act in the following way.
As if disputing with a companion he would firs appear somewhat impatient
in his thought and words. At the next moment he would become a quiet listener,
then again seem to discuss and contend. He seemed almost to laugh and to weep
at the same time, and then, attentively and submissively, would murmur to
himself and strike his breast. 220
The author likens this practice to Moses climbing the sacred mountain of God, as
Dominic climbs from reading to prayer, prayer to meditation, and then from meditation to
218
Ibid.
219
Ibid., 157.
220
Ibid., 158.
78
contemplation.221 His prayers are concluded usually in his usual fervent tears as if giving
thanks for what he had just read.
Finally, in the ninth and final form of prayer, Dominic is described as being on
the road with companions and either falling a few steps behind or going off for a moment
to pray before preaching. The author notes that it was in this way that
the saint obtained his extensive penetration of Sacred Scripture and profound
understanding of the divine words, the power to preach so fervently and
courageously, and that intimate acquaintance with the Holy Spirit by which he
came to know the hidden things of God. 222
Again, Dominic exhibits what Humbert teaches, that “the most important thing is that a
preacher should have recourse to prayer, asking God to grant him speech that will be
effective in bringing salvation to his hearers.”223 Throughout the course of the text,
Dominic first cleanses himself in a monastic lifestyle, gains knowledge directly from God
in prayer and study, and then takes his gift back out into the world.
The Nine ways of Prayer implies a spiritual cycle. Self awareness and ones own
peace with God is first sought, followed by a concern for others and then a profound
desire to know God intimately, and from there such dialogue through prayer and study
both empower one to make a very profound difference in the world and motivate one to
go do so. The entire text explains a cycle of contemplation feeding the active elements
and making the evangelism rendered effectively. The Dominican mixed life is, therefore,
illustrated in the one of the most straight-forward ways possible.
221
Ibid.
222
Ibid. 159.
223
Humbert, 97., 209.
79
Agni’s Analysis of a Saint
As the prior of Naples, Thomas Agni of Lentini (fl.1220-1272) was in a position
of authority and influence over the members of his community. In a sermon dated
sometime prior to 1255 while he was still prior of Naples, he composed a very thorough
and detailed deconstruction of Dominic’s character and works in a sermon that was likely
given to his community, an audience of friars and novices, and audience that likely
consisted mostly of aspiring preachers. 224 The purpose for the sermon could have been a
special occasion such as a feast day, a holiday, a day of significance within the order or
any number of reasons for that matter.
Thomas’ method differs greatly from the preceding three texts. His is a
discussion, not a demonstration. Agni presents his points in the form of an argument
rather than a narrative or a visual example, treating it as a simple yet important fact. By
isolating and justifying each aspect of Dominic’s character traits, Agni gives a thorough
explanation of the ideals that Dominican preachers were expected to reach for that ranks
with Humbert’s Treatise on the Formation of Preachers. In this sermon, Agni focuses
completely on Dominic’s life, career as a preacher, and his merits in both that contributed
to his glorification. Though this sermon was given between The Nine Ways of Prayer and
the other two texts, it is addressed last in this study because it differs from them so very
greatly in its style and presentation.
Thomas begins by quoting Matthew 5:19: “He who practices and teaches, he is
the one who will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Agni then presents his
224
Tugwell, 51.
80
audience with the three qualifications of a saint; life, teachings and glorification.
Reinforcing each small point with numerous scriptural references, Agni goes on to give
five different qualifications for each of the three prerequisites laid out for Sainthood.
Agni comments on Dominic’s vigilance in study, his toiling as a canon, his proclamation
of the gospel, his ministry of leadership and his sobriety in living. 225
Agni then goes on to justify Dominic’s teaching by identifying five qualities,
reinforcing each with adequate scriptural support. Agni describes Dominic’s teaching
was savory as salt, radiant as light, constant and solid as a mountain, and on fire as a lit
lamp (one can take this to mean passionate). Finally, but seemingly most importantly,
Agni explains that Dominic’s teaching was, as a result of the previous two, effective and
complete. Both of these elements and their five-fold justifications thus lead into the third.
“The merritoriousness of his life and his job as a teacher lead to the reward of his
glorification.”226 Agni concludes Dominic was great in his mind, great in his kindness to
others, and thus great in his reward. “Truly he is great in the kingdom of heaven.”227
Agni’s ultimate message seems to be that Dominic’s occupation as a preacher was
an all encompassing state of being. Every small part of Dominic was a necessary
component that made him what he was. Thomas’ explanation of Dominic’s studious and
devout lifestyle leading to effective and complete teaching is consistent with the other
examples of the mixed life, but his scholarly and legalistic style is anything but subtle.
225
Thomas Agni of Lentini, “Sermon on Saint Dominic,” in Tugwell, 61-62.
226
Ibid., 63.
227
Ibid., 65.
81
The shift from expression to explanation in the style of text seems to indicate a stauncher
sense of Dominican identity in the preacher. In the Dominican order, preaching was not
merely a job to be done it was a life to be lived.
Conclusion
The Dominican mixed life and its particular brand of mendicant spirituality seems
to have been a set of common values and practices that were quickly methodized when
put into widespread use. If the dates given to these writings are to be believed then from
c.1221-c.1260, a distinct spiritual identity had formed within the Dominican preacher that
seems to have defined the overall order. The widespread growth of the order in a
relatively short amount of time is likely to have contributed to this need for identity. Until
the mid thirteenth century, the preachers were venerated by the order and given more
leeway to perform their task in terms of dispensations from other activities that might
take away from their preparation and performing of their sacred duty. In this sense,
regardless of whether they individually adhered to the spirituality laid out in Dominic’s
image or Humbert’s writings, the preachers seem to have been the privileged class within
the Dominican Order.
As the Dominican educational system became more structured and defined, the
contemplative aspect seems to have become primarily the ecclesiastical education
Dominican friars received. This shift in the contemplative element of the Dominican
mixed life would in turn affect the nature of the apostolic element, which became open to
broader definition than itinerate preaching. Changes in the intellectual currents of
Christendom, and the construction of a curriculum of higher education within the order
82
available only to an elite few began to form a rival class within order, as well as a new
figurehead.
83
Chapter 3
THE PRIORY SCHOOL AND THE PREACHER’S EDUCATION
After Dominic
As one may gather from the texts examined in the previous chapter, Dominican
identity in the early thirteenth century extended little beyond the life and works of St.
Dominic. The Order of Preachers in its early years was synonymous with the image and
spirituality of a traveling preacher who was diligent in his studies, ascetic in his
appearance and lifestyle, tireless in his ministry, and in every one of these aspects he
served as a conduit for the Holy Spirit. This iconic preacher, who was exemplified in lore
of St. Dominic and logically explained in the instructional manuals such as the work by
Humbert referred to in the previous chapter, was the exemplar of an order that had been
founded for a purpose very specific to the particular issues facing the church in regions of
Southern Europe during the first quarter of the thirteenth century. Dominic had lived and
worked in a time of a widely uneducated clergy and strongly established pockets of
heresy among the laity, and therefore his approach to the task of preaching had been
specifically designed to deliver coherently definitive answers to questions regarding what
the Catholic Church deemed to be theologically correct.
The primary reason Dominic’s personal identity became so directly tied to the
overall identity of the young order was that it was primarily his creation, and therefore
based on the method of itinerate preaching he had practiced in Languedoc and Toulouse,
which was a practice that had been more or less dormant since the time of the early
84
Church. Because of this, the image of the preacher, which was essentially a reflection of
St. Dominic, became the order’s figurehead. A second reason this image of Dominic
defined the order as exclusively as it did was that the order expanded so rapidly after his
death that it did not truly have adequate time to create any identity for itself beyond its
founder and his methods. Such an identity was arguably quite necessary for a young
religious order, particularly in light of the fact that such an order had not been previously
attempted.
Although Dominic’s design for the order was highly specific to his time and
place, he had touched on something far more timeless, which was that the developing
societies of Catholic Europe had a growing desire for higher learning. For many, the
education that the Dominican Order demanded of its preachers was simultaneously the
order’s most attractive quality, and it would eventually became the order’s definitive trait.
The scholarly aspects of the Dominican lifestyle eventually redefined the order’s image
and maintained its cultural relevancy in the latter half of the thirteenth century.
The Rapid Expansion of the Order
The Order of Preachers expanded quickly and steadily after its founder’s death in
1221, bolstered by great support from the papacy and interest in membership from both
laity and religious alike. When viewed in terms of institutional establishments, the first
fifty-six years of the order exhibit growth worthy of discussion. Bennet estimates that
between 1221 and 1277 the number of convents grew from 60 to 404 and continued to
multiply at a steady pace into the early fourteenth century, boasting 582 communities by
85
1303.228 Bennet acknowledges that measurement in terms of the number of convents does
not necessarily offer a reliable reflection of the number of friars since the numbers could
vary.229 Be this as it may, some Dominican scholars have offered rough estimates.
Hinnebusch has noted that a minimum of 12 friars, including at least one professor of
theology to serve as a lector and one to serve as prior, were constitutionally required to
found and perpetuate a Dominican community that also qualified as a canonical priory;
therefore there is at least some data upon which to build. 230 Hinnebusch estimates that by
the year 1300 the averages of each convent probably ranged from 28-51 to 250-300 friars
depending upon the region.231 Bennett cites Pierre Mandonnet’s estimate of there being
between 7-10,000 Dominican clerics overall serving from between 1256 and 1300.232
Hinnebusch, on the other hand, gives the much greater estimate of 13,000 total friars in
the Dominican Order by 1256, and 20,650 by 1303.233
Even if one assumes the truth lies somewhere in between, this is still a
remarkable growth, particularly when considering that the order had less than 20
228
Bennet,75.
229
Ibid.
230
William A. Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 251, 280; William A. Hinnebusch, Intellectual
and Cultural Life to 1500, vol 2. of The History of the Dominican Order, (Staten Island: Alba House,
1965), 37; Primitive Constitutions of the Order of Friars Preachers, p. II. Sec .23, in Lehner, Saint
Dominic, Biographical Documents. (Washington DC: Thomist Press, 1964), 244.
231
Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 280.
232
Bennet, 75.
233
Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 330-331.
86
members in 1217.234 Such numbers are further validated by the strong reaction the order
received from other branches of the church. The early Dominicans’ contemporaries in the
secular clergy strongly felt the presence of the mendicant orders and saw them as an
imposition both in the physical sense as well as upon their own sphere of influence. The
tension that resulted between the mendicants and the clergy was a century-spanning
conflict that is remembered by Dominican historians as the “Pastoral Crisis.”235
The level of independence the mendicants enjoyed set them apart from the
previously less-challenged episcopal authority. The Dominicans functioned according to
their own self-determined territories rather than the established dioceses of the secular
clergy. The mendicant orders had their own hierarchical power structures, and were truly
subject only to the pope, not the bishops or other authorities of the secular clergy. The
Franciscan Order, the other significant presence of the mendicant movement, functioned
very similarly. The mendicants had been urged to work with the clergy, and vice versa.
The Constitutions of the Order section XIII was set aside solely to decree that none
should preach in a diocese if its bishop forbade it while Pope Honorius III issued a bull in
1218 specifically urging the secular clergy to work alongside the Order of Preachers and
234
Little, 160.
William A. Hinnebusch, “How the Dominican Order Faced its Crises,” http://www.domcentral.org/
trad/crises.htm., There are no page numbers in the online edition, however the works cited are under the
section entitled “The Pastoral Crisis of the Early Years.”
235
87
assist the order in its cause.236 Though many bishops and priests did receive the friars and
cooperate with them, sporadic resistance built up from as early as the 1220s.237
The animosity became undeniably evident in the 1240s -1250s when a widespread
rise of complaints arose against the mendicants, some from the secular clergy and some
from the University of Paris. The issues on record mainly had to do with financial matter,
and with the friars’ exemption from the episcopal control. The friars could preach, take
confession, and even administer last rights anywhere the saw fit and were not required to
subjugate themselves to the local secular clergy.238 Not only was this an issue of
subversion of the clergy’s authority, but it could also potentially have financial motive. In
the case of administering last rights, it was often the case that the dying individual willed
their possessions to whoever gave them their final sacrament.239 Also, because of the
state of religious poverty they lived in, friars begged as they preached and kept any alms
they were given as gifts, which was viewed with some jealousy.240
Complaints from the clergy grew numerous, but the involvement of the faculty
members at the University of Paris truly brought the crisis to its most extreme degree.241
Innocent IV revoked the autonomy of the mendicant orders in a bull issued in 1254,
236
Primitive Constitutions, p I. Sec. 13, 220-221, Honorious III, Bulls of Approbation in Lehner, 198.
237
Hinnebusch, “How the Dominican Order Faced its Crises,”
238
Ibid.
239
Mark Johnson, ed., St. Thomas Aquinas and the Mendicant Controversies, trans. John Proctor,
(Leesburg: Alethes Press, 2007), xvi.
240
Ibid.
Hinnebusch, “How the Dominican Order Faced its Crises,” http://www.domcentral.org/trad/crises.htm.,
Johnson, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Mendicant Controversies, xvi-xviii. The issues specific to the
University of Paris, where the Pastoral Crisis reached its apex, will be discussed further in chapter 4.
241
88
which forbade the friars from preaching or taking confessions without the approval of the
local bishops.242 This decree would perhaps have subjugated the mendicant orders’ to the
local clergy indefinitely had Innocent not passed away two weeks later and his bull not
been promptly overturned by his successor, Pope Alexander IV. 243 Many other issues
remained unresolved until the Council of Trent (1545-1563).244 Such a strong and
widespread reaction by the clergy could only have been inspired by a significant number
of active friars. This means that a mere quarter century into their orders’ existence, friars
were numerous and influential in Catholic society.245 Furthermore, it demonstrates how
firmly established and well organized both the Dominicans and the Franciscans were at
this early stage to produce such a noticeable number of members.
The fact that the presence of the mendicant friars, of which the Dominicans made up
approximately half, was strong enough to evoke such a jealous reaction from their
contemporaries in the clergy also implies that whatever the exact numbers may have
been, most convents were likely not suffering from a lack of interest in membership. The
education and training a Dominican friar needed to complete in order to become a
preacher required much dedication and effort, therefore this evidence of the success of so
many Dominican novices at becoming preachers further indicates that there was also a
great number who tried unsuccessfully. The aforementioned estimates of this great
242
Johnson, xviii.
243
Ibid.
244
Ibid.
245
Ibid.
89
number of active preachers are particularly impressive when weighed against the level of
education and testing an aspiring Dominican preacher had to achieve.
An Order of Learning
The Order of Preachers was the first religious order to include and even prioritize
educational requirements within its constitutions. Prior to the educational reforms made
at the general chapter meeting of 1259, the early constitutions of 1220 and 1228 were the
only order-wide specifications that existed. These constitutions, which were composed by
Dominic and his fellow founding Dominicans, focused heavily on the day to day
activities of the local communities and their priory schools. The communities, their
schools and their syllabus of study, reflect the earliest guidelines found in the primitive
constitutions, as well as how the order had been initially conceptualized by its founders.
Since the order was founded solely for the purpose of publicly defending Catholic
doctrine through preachers be well versed in the subject, study was the central priority in
the friar’s daily routine. This purpose also greatly shaped their approach to subject
matter.
Study and lecture filled the role in Dominican priories that manual labor had
previously played in monastic communities. Lectures were the central event of a friar’s
daily hours and of equal importance with communal worship. It has also been remarked
that libraries became as common a commodity as the pews and choir stalls.246 Priory
246
William Bertrand Ryan, O.P., “Dominican Legislation Concerning Preaching,” in The Dominican
Preacher (Washington D.C.: The office of the Promoter of Preaching, Dominican Province of St. Joseph,
1992), 12, Hinnebusch The History of the Dominican Order, vol 1., 22.
90
schools of the local communities had a mission of ministry and were designed to provide
the basic doctrinal training one would need to become in order to become a competent
preacher.
Jordan of Saxony’s Encyclical Letter (1233) exemplifies the mindset of the early
Dominicans regarding the role of study in the Dominican life and mission. As one might
expect, Jordan begins his letter by first briefly rehashing the personal virtues of St.
Dominic and the saint’s shining example, which all Dominicans should strive to imitate.
He then discusses what a Dominican friar ought not to be by addressing specific kinds of
careless attitudes towards study, learning and the order’s mission. He first discusses
superiors who “care not for study” but “very often send out gifted and capable brethren or
assign them to every other kind of duty so they cannot study.”247 Jordan then proceeds to
admonish lectors who teach their courses “so rarely and poorly [and] lecture halfheartedly,” so that they do not inspire their pupils to learn.248 Finally, the second master
general of the Dominican Order condemns students who seldom study or do so
carelessly. In doing so, says Jordan, they not only “disgust their professors . . . but also
rob many souls of the opportunity of salvation whom they could have established on the
road to eternal life if they had studied, not carelessly, but industrially.”249
As the letter concludes, Jordan subtly likens study to charity with its ultimate goal
being the benefit one’s fellow man. This philosophy was the signature of the young
247
Jordan, The Encyclical Letter of Jordan of Saxony, in, Lehner, 206
248
Ibid., 206-207
249
Ibid., 207.
91
mendicant order in the first quarter if the thirteenth century. Thus, if one neglected his
studies or impeded others in theirs, one was placing a stumbling block in his fellow
man’s path to God. This philosophy was strongly reflected in the design of the priory
schools, which were intended to manifest this uniquely Dominican vision.
Life in the Priory, and the Making of a Friar
Papal decree had imposed restriction regarding those that the order were allowed
to accept when the order was first confirmed. Honorius III’s bull of 1216, which made
the Order of Preachers a legitimate Catholic institution, declared to them “[Y]ou may
receive and keep, without opposition from anyone, members of the clergy or the laity
who are free men and unencumbered by debt, who flee from the world to enter the
religious life.”250 The order itself further defined its regulations on membership in its
early constitutions, most particularly when it came to accepting members from other
branches of the Church. For a member of the clergy or another religious order,
membership could only be authorized only by a provincial or even a general chapter.251
Curiously, members of the Cistercian order were singled out specifically as only to be
admitted by special Papal approval.252
Though some priories did offer some elementary courses for novices of a less
educated background, learned men were still preferred. A basic understanding of Latin
was required of any incoming novices, a requirement that was tested upon first contact
250
Innocent III, Bulls of Approbation, 198.
251
Primitive Constitutions, p.i Sect.xiii, 221.
252
Ibid.
92
that likely disqualified many laymen.253 This prerequisite was eventually relaxed as
younger recruits became more common.254 Local grammar schools for young children
were also frequently established adjacent to many priories. These were set up as a
cooperative effort with the local secular governments or wealthy private benefactors. The
schools were often partially funded by the local Dominican friars who also made up the
faculty and syllabi.255 Priories would also set aside a number of places for graduates of
these grammar schools when they reached eighteen, making the schools both a ministry
and a suitable recruitment pool.256
A concern in the Order of Preachers, especially in the early years, was that a
possible motive for joining the Order of Preachers might be for no other reason than to
receive an education. In much the same spirit that Jordan of Saxony condemned lazy
students and teachers in his aforementioned Encyclical Letter, Humbert of Romans would
go a step further in defining the Dominican ideal and the role of learning by criticizing
industrious study as an end unto itself in Treatise on Preaching (c.1254-1263).
There are others again who happily devote themselves to sacred reading;
But if all this study is not devoted to teaching or preaching, what good is
it? ‘Wisdom that is hidden is, treasure that is not seen, what good are either?
(Ecclus. 20:32). . . teaching ought to be the purpose of the reading. And the
end is more important than the means. 257
253
Mulchahey, 75.
254
Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 23.
255
Mulchahey, 86.
256
Ibid., 86, 94.
257
Humbert, .264, 257.
93
The fact that Humbert felt the need to address this issue speaks to the attractiveness that
the education offered by the order held for a significant number. The initial phase one had
to complete as a novice was, in part, meant to weed out ambitious but ‘misdirected’
individuals.
Once accepted as a novice, the first two years of one’s life in the order were
focused solely on adaptation to the Dominican lifestyle. Total adaptation to an ascetic life
and a monastic mentality was demanded of the aspiring friar before he was allowed to
receive any theological education. The constitutions make this plain in their definition of
the role of the novice master: “[He] should be conscientious in training them, and it is his
job to instruct them about the life of the order . . . and to strive to correct them to the best
of his ability.”258 Novices learned to observe customs and memorized other various rules
and regulations as they assimilated to life in the order both in body and mind. After a few
weeks of adapting to the routines and habits of the Dominican religious life, a new novice
committed himself to memorization of the constitutions; the Psalter; more specific codes
of conduct, such as when to be silent and when to speak; etc. He also learned how to
procure books and confess his sins in a way befitting a friar.
Some basic studies were eventually assigned to a novice. Regrettably, no specific
syllabus for novices remains for the historian to consult, but since conditioning the proper
mentality toward learning and developing proper study habits was assuredly a major part
258
Primitive Constitutions, p I. Sect xii., 219-220.
94
of the novice years.259 Novices selected daily passages from materials approved by the
novice master to study and meditate upon on a daily basis. Historian Michele Mulchahey
points to suggestions by Humbert that include standard monastic works such as Hugh of
Fouilley’s de claustro anime, as well as works of such names as St. Bernard, St. Anslem
and St. Augustine just to name a few. 260 The General chapter of 1233 also encouraged
novices to acquire both a breviary and a Bible of their own as early as possible with
whatever funds were legitimately available to them.261
Robert Kilwardby’s Letter to Dominican Novices (c.1270) encourages patience
and perseverance in this initial two-year phase by reinforcing both the reverence of the
Dominican life and its necessity to the order’s mission of defending Catholicism.
You [novices] should notice the usefulness of our state of life. . . our state of life
ought . . . to be preferred to all others. For all our Chapters and discussions and
debates and all the Order’s study aim at nothing else than to prepare people and make
them fit for the salvation of souls, and, when they are prepared and equipped in their
way of life and in knowledge, to direct them to the task of converting sinners. 262
Kilwardby’s words, like Jordan’s and Humbert’s, illustrate the relationship between
learning and preaching in the Dominican order’s specific brand of mendicant spirituality.
Learning was constantly reinforced as a necessity, but only insofar as it was meant to
work as a means to an evangelical end that culminated in a preacher with the qualities of
St. Dominic.
259
Mulchahey, 108.
260
Ibid., 110.
261
Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 215.
262
Robert Kilwardby, Letter to Dominican Novices, in Tugwell, 150.
95
Being that preaching was the zenith of the Priory school, the local Dominican
community and the Dominican life, it is no surprise to discover that it was not in any way
reserved strictly for the secular world outside the convent. Preaching and sermons were
commonplace within the community, in part because novices and young friars were
confined to the walls of the convent and during their first years of assimilation and it
behooved the order to make preaching available for them to absorb. A conventual pulpit
was placed in a central location within the convent from which sermons were given
periodically, as well as on special occasions such as Christmas or the beginning of the
Lent fast, as well as specifically Dominican events such as chapter meetings.263
Guest preachers were occasionally hosted depending on their title, the purpose for
their visit and the importance of the occasion. Dominican convents hosted their own
higher ranking officials, as well as any prominent members of the secular clergy or
sometimes even members of other religious orders were invited to give a sermon as
honored guests. 264 This was not only beneficial to the Dominicans for promoting their
own cause but also for improving relations with other branches of the church where
possible and exposing their members to a wider variety of preaching styles.
Knowledge of style and the delivery of sermons were emphasized as a necessary
component of preaching. In preparation for preaching, as well as to keep his skills sharp,
the aspiring friars and even practicing preachers engaged regularly in the intellectual
exercises of recitation and debate, repetitio and disputatio, which regularly refreshed
263
Mulchahey, 189.
264
Ibid., 189.
96
their knowledge of the material and kept their analytical and argumentative skills
sharp.265 If a friar distinguished himself in his studies and showed a good grasp of the
material during these exercises, the master of students would then consider the friar’s
grasp of preaching techniques. If an adequate command of the pulpit was demonstrated,
the friar was then bidden to preach before his community.266 The conventual prior and a
board of advisors would later determine, based upon these “in-house” exercises, if said
friar was fit to preach outside the walls of the convent in secular communities.267
Despite the additional talents and skills needed to preach and the nobility of the
office, arming the preacher with the ammunition of a proper theological education was
the key element to the order’s mission. Classes, lectures, and hours of study dominated
the life of a friar once he was accepted into the order. Once inducted after the completion
of his novice years, a young Dominican began his doctrinal education. He was required to
complete no less than two years studying theology before officially becoming a friar and
one more year beyond this before he was considered for the duty of preaching.268 The
material and studies of the priory school, therefore, deserve special attention.
265
Ibid., 184.
266
Ibid., 80.
267
Ibid., 189.
268
Ibid., 133.
97
The Education of a Preacher
The priory schools’ theology program was designed for those who had graduated
from their elementary studies or for those that already had an educated background. 269
Classes such as these were the cornerstone of the Dominican day and were mandatory for
all members of the order regardless of their title or office. The classes and the lectures
took priority over all other aspects of a Dominican’s life regardless of his station.270 The
only exception to this rule came in the case of preaching matters or any other perceived
need for evangelization in the local province. Though the classes and lectures were
extensive in their detail and the academic exercises thorough in their testing of the
students’ knowledge, the material covered was rather basic and their approach to
theology highly conservative in the years leading up to 1259.
To be ordained as preachers, friars were first required to complete no less than
three years of theological study.271 The materials the friar studied so relentlessly were
referred to collectively as the schola. Prior to the reforms of 1259, the schola seems to
have revolved primarily around two cycles of daily lectures devoted primarily to two
texts, the Bible and Peter Lombard’s Sentences. Daily lectures on the Bible were
understandably emphasized as the most important, a priority that was reinforced in the
general chapter of 1249.272 The Sentences directly followed the Bible in order of
importance as it was the definitive compilation, corroboration, and commentary on
269
Bennet, 53.
270
Mulchahey, 133.
271
272
Primitive Constitutions, p II sec. xxxi, 246-247.
Mulchahey, 135.
98
scripture and the works of the church fathers.273 The general chapter of 1249 defined the
role of the Sentences as to keep students focused strictly on the study of theology rather
than philosophy.274 Emphasis on these two texts was often reiterated in statements by
Dominican general chapters from very early on in the order’s existence, even before
specific syllabi were drafted and standardized.275
It is worth mentioning that the Historia Scholastica, which was a running
commentary on biblical history commonly attributed to Peter Comestor, seems to have
made its way into the Dominican schola sometime between the mid-thirteenth to early
fourteenth centuries. For the most part, it seems to have been utilized in the Italian
provinces; although, exactly when and to what degree is hard to determine.276 Mulchahey
points out that even this third text had been utilized by those who favored a very strict
and literal reading of the Bible.277 Though extensive, the texts around which the
education of the local priory student revolved were few and adhered to a very strict
doctrinal interpretation.
Considering the texts utilized in the schola and the guidelines laid out in the
constitutions, theology appears to have been taught in a very straightforward manner at
the priory level that did not venture into deep speculation. The language of the early
constitutions and the guidelines they prescribe attest to this narrowly focused attitude. For
273
Ibid. 134.
274
Ibid., 135.
275
Ibid.
276
Ibid., 138.
277
Ibid.,140.
99
one of the “grave faults” listed in the early constitutions, is “the reading of books that are
forbidden.” 278 The nature of said “forbidden” texts is further defined in section in its
description of the duties of the Master of Students.
They shall not study the books of the pagans and philosophers, even for an hour.
They shall not discuss secular sciences or even so-called liberal arts, unless the
Master of the order or the general chapter decides to provide otherwise in certain
cases. But everyone, both the young and the others, shall read only theological
books.279
Furthermore, the proper study of these approved “theological books” is further specified
in the constitutions when it decrees that “none of our brethren shall read into the Psalms
or Prophets any literal sense other than what the saints approve and confirm.”280 The cut
and dried nature of priory theology is implied by the fact that while a preacher required
three years of theological education before being allowed to practice, the lector, who was
responsible for the training of the revered preachers, was only required to complete four
years of theological coursework.281
In addition to the daily lectures, there were also the aforementioned exercises of
review and disputation. Historians have noted that the Dominican priory followed the
scholastic model for the most part, which is probably in itself indicative of the influence
of the secular masters and of the university system.282 Lectors would propose a topic for
debate, make certain the proper resources were available for his students to consult, and
278
Primitive Constitutions, p. I. sec. xx, num 21., 225.
279
Ibid., p. I. sec.xxviii, 245-246.
280
Ibid, p.I sect. xxx, 246.
281
Ibid, p. II, sect. xxxi,246.
282
Mulchahey, 134.
100
be present during the debates in a somewhat informal manner to ensure order and be
consulted only if his expertise was absolutely necessary.283 Reviews ensured that the texts
were memorized and their principles were clear. Two kinds of reviews, one daily and one
weekly were regularly scheduled. The daily review recapped the main points of the day’s
lecture whereas the weekly review opened the floor to students for general discussion.284
Despite the narrow approach to the material, the theological education of the
preacher gave him a far more thorough understanding of theology than the average
layman and quite often, for that matter, the average parish priest.285 His reviews solidified
the material in his mind, and the disputes exercised his ability to think on his feet and
publicly counter heretical opponents in a coherent and informed manner. The priory
schools of the local convents were not concerned with advancing man’s understanding of
God, but rather with ensuring that the faith of the masses within their territory stay within
the boundaries of Catholic doctrine and Catholic theology without descending into
erroneous heresy. Such had been the case with the Cathar movement, which was the
event that had inspired the order’s very existence. One house was responsible for the
spiritual well-being of one territory, a goal that was achieved by dispersing preachers
capable of answering the questions of the local laity.
283
Ibid., 170.
284
Ibid., 176-177.
285
Bennet, 56; Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 10.
101
A Shift in Focus
Although Dominic’s design for the order was highly specific to his time and
place, he had touched on something far more timeless. The societies of thirteenth century
Europe had a growing desire for higher learning. For many, the education that the
Dominican Order demanded of its preachers was the order’s most attractive quality and it
would soon became the order’s definitive trait. The scholarly aspects of the Dominican
lifestyle eventually redefined the order’s image and maintained its cultural relevancy in
the latter half of the thirteenth century.
The education the priory schools provided and emphasized was narrowly focused
and somewhat cursory, but it was both adequate and appropriate for achieving its
intended purpose, which was to dispense career preachers to minister to the nearby laity.
Historians such as Mulchahey deduce that a friar probably got a rather cursory education
in theology that would more or less equate to that of the priest.286 One could go so far as
to say it was rather what the average parish priest should have received and directed
toward the laity in the early thirteenth century. Though the education a friar received
from his priory school was substantial compared to what had been previously available, it
was still somewhat basic compared to what was possible. Exceptionally gifted friars were
sent to one of order’s general houses of study, of which there were only a handful in the
thirteenth century.
Unlike the priory schools Dominican general houses of study intertwined with the
developing universities, which resulted in a deeper approach to theology and an influence
286
Mulchahey, 139.
102
upon the intellectual development of Christendom overall. The educational reforms
proposed at the General Chapter of 1259 are as reflective of the universities’ influence
upon the Dominican general houses of study as the early constitutions are of Dominic’s
original vision. These reforms established a significantly broader syllabus of study with
much more variant material. They are also demonstrative of an impressively progressive
commitment by the order to stay current with the intellectual trends in Europe. Though
the reforms affected the overall order, including the local and provincial levels, they are
best discussed alongside the general houses of study as that is where they originated.
103
Chapter 4
GENERAL HOUSES OF STUDY AND THE MASTER’S EDUCATION
Universities and the Order of Preachers
Even during the order’s formative phase, Dominic clearly recognized the value of
universities. He saw the genius and potential of university men such as Reginald of
Orleans (c.1180-1220) and Jordan of Saxony (c.1190-1237), two founding members who
were largely responsible for many of the ties that developed between the young
mendicant order and the University of Paris.287 Dominic also undoubtedly recognized the
potential of these universities as a rich source for recruitment of the scholarly minds he
wanted to enlist for his army of preachers. Indeed, the contemplative elements of the
order’s spirituality made the connection a logical one. Though originally considered to be
primarily a recruitment pool for preachers, the University of Paris was greatly responsible
for the broadening of the order’s image after relatively little time had passed.
Dominican general houses, the order’s own institutions of higher learning,
integrated themselves into the Universities of Oxford and Paris and worked symbiotically
with the universities for the mutual benefit of both. The general houses attempted to
imitate the structure and educational quality of the universities, and the universities in
turn utilized qualified Dominicans as staff members, most notably for their theological
faculty. Though both worked hand in hand and greatly influenced one another, the
general houses were still considered separate institutions and enjoyed a significant degree
287
Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 309.
104
of independence, which was, at times, a point of contention between the order and the
secular masters. Dominican identity was greatly affected by this relationship, and lead to
a new class of university masters within the order who rivaled the preachers in both
esteem and influence.288
There was an obvious sense of higher achievement that this connection made
possible to the Dominican friars. The exclusive and highly competitive process of
admission to a Dominican general house and its university-style education was reserved
for very a few. The challenging and selective nature of admission to a general house or
studia generale made it an accomplishment in and of itself, and those elite few that did
went on to form what Bennet once referred to as a “small and jealous aristocracy of
learning.”289 The masters degree in theology and the prestige of the title likely spoke to
the ambitious nature of many friars. A detailed examination of the academic process one
underwent to earn a masters degree in theology and the tremendous rate of the order’s
expansion suggests that this was likely a contributing factor to the immense success
university ties.
The historically significant effect that these relationships with universities had
upon the Order of Preachers was that the order became deeply entrenched in the
intellectual trends of the time. This entrenchment pushed, if not forced, the order to
confront and eventually embrace Aristotelianism, a school of thought beyond the narrow
theological scope defined in its early constitutions. The relationship between Catholic
288
Showalter, “The Business of Salvation, 566.
289
Bennet, 56.
105
theology and Aristotelian philosophy, or if indeed there could or should be any at all, was
the subject of a contentious debate throughout the Catholic Church in the thirteenth
century. Aristotelianism gained popularity with many intellectuals despite the fact that it
had fundamental differences with Catholic theology. Implications that Aristotelianism
held for issues such as the unity of the soul, the eternity of the world, the nature of God
and numerous other issues conflicted with what the church had held to be theologically
correct for some time. As one can imagine, this was a particularly delicate and poignant
issue for this Catholic order that had been founded to seek out and refute heretical forms
of thought.
The educational statutes put forth at the General Chapter at Valenciennes in 1259
are a testament to the intellectual growth the order experienced as a result of these
factors. The twenty-two recommendations made by a handful of Dominican masters of
theology from the University of Paris reflected a more progressive attitude toward
learning in the Order of Preachers. Furthermore, this progressive attitude was unique
within the church itself. Still, less than half a century old, the order was soon to gain a
new image by broadening its methods and its intellectual horizons. The Order of
Preachers was soon to fulfill its mission in a new era and a new arena.
The First General Houses 1220-1300
The first general house of study was the house of St. Jacques, which was
established adjacent to the University of Paris from the very beginning of the order in
1220. John of St. Albans, a secular professor of theology at Paris, gave major credit to the
106
Dominican institution by agreeing to instruct the friars at St. Jacques in 1227. 290 John of
St. Albans mentored John of St. Giles (c.1205-1260), a secular student at the time who
later assumed the Dominican habit while serving as one of the Parisian chairs of theology
in 1230.291 Just prior to assuming the habit himself, John of St. Giles sponsored a
Dominican friar named Roland of Cremona (c.1178-1259), who received his masters in
theology in 1229 and ascended to the second chair of theology alongside his old
mentor.292 This trend of grandfathering members of the order into chairs of theology
continued for some time.
It should be noted that trends such as this led to tension with the secular masters,
particularly since the Franciscans also began to hold an influence at the University. In
1252 the university attempted to scale back the influence of this Dominican monopoly on
the chairs by unsuccessfully attempting to impose statute that limited the amount of
chairs a religious order could hold to no more than one at a time.293 Tensions were
furthered when both the Dominican and Franciscan professors refused to participate in a
faculty strike that was organized by the secular masters.294 The seculars finally found a
leader in William of St. Amour, who challenged the teachings of both mendicant orders
290
Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500,58-59;Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent in Study. . .,” 26-27.
291
Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 295, Mulchahey, 81-82.
292
Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 41-42.
293
Mark Johnson, ed., St. Thomas Aquinas and the Mendicant Controversies, trans. John Proctor,
(Leesburg: Alethes Press, 2007), xvii.
294
Ibid.
107
as well as their religious lifestyles.295 This controversy led Dominicans like Thomas
Aquinas and Thomas Cantiempre, as well as the Franciscan Bonaventure, to compose
detailed defenses of mendicant spirituality.296 In 1254, William was successful in
convincing Pope Innocent IV to retract the autonomy of both orders and subjugate them
to secular authorities on all levels. The 1254 bull was quickly overturned by Pope
Alexander IV some months later after the sudden death of Innocent two weeks after the
fact.297 Despite tensions such as this, Paris remained the intellectual nucleus of the
Dominican order holding the most prestigious reputation, historically influential alumni,
notable faculty, and general influence upon the shaping of the order and more than any
other school.
The General house at Oxford grew from a small establishment in 1221 by a
commission of thirteen friars that had been organized by Dominic shortly before his
death.298 Despite these early roots, Oxford did not become a studium generale until 1248.
The influence of Robert Bacon (fl.1233-1248), the house’s regent master and Oxford
University’s Chair of Theology, fostered and intertwining relationship between the
Dominican house there and the University of Oxford, establishing the first Dominican
295
William of St. Amour came at both the mendicant orders initially through one Franciscan writer, Gerard
of Borgo San Donnino, attacking his interest in the teachings of Joachim di Fiore and his work on the
“Three age Teaching.” For a concise yet detailed discussion of his attack and his attempt to portray both
orders as erroneous in their teachings and spiritualities, consult the introduction to Johnson’s work cited
here.
296
Frederick Copelston. Medieval Philosophy: From Augustine to Duns Scotus. Vol. 2. of A History of
Philosophy, (Garden City: Image Books, 1993), 216.
297
Johnson, xvii-xix..
298
Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 38-39.
108
theology school in England.299 Oxford was the only location in England where a friar
could gain a universally recognized masters degree in theology until Cambridge
developed its own theological faculty in 1250.300 Though Paris would remain the more
prestigious of the two, Oxford became influential enough to diverge from its continental
counterpart creating some intellectual traditions uniquely its own.
In addition to Oxford, three more houses of study were added around 1248 in
Montpellier, Bologna, and Cologne to keep up with the order’s growing demand for
lectors as the order continued to struggle to keep up with its own standards. Rome and
Spain eventually developed general houses in 1290 and 1293.301 Michele Mulchahey
makes the important observation that these other Dominican houses were not as directly
involved with the secular universities they were founded adjacent too as in the cases of
Paris and Oxford.302 Paris, and, to a lesser extent, Oxford, were to remain the most
influential in the order’s development, but the need for the addition of five new general
houses in the latter half of the thirteenth century is a testament to the growth of the order
and the enthusiasm for education.
This growth in higher education appears to be even more profound when weighed
against the standards to which new enrollees were held. Each of the original twelve
provinces was allowed to send only three students to Paris and two students to all the
299
Ibid., 41-42.
300
Ibid., 39.
301
Ibid., 39, 43.
302
Mulchahey, 62.
109
other houses per year.303 Therefore, even at the peak of the thirteenth century, a mere
fifteen students per province went off to a general house to study each year, making a
total of 180 students out of the 7-13,000 Dominican friars as estimated respectively by
Bennet, Mandonnet, and Hinnebusch.304 These students were of course the most
promising and accomplished friars of each province, who had been selected first by their
local superiors and had then gone on to sufficiently impress their provincial superiors.
Academically driven individuals would naturally be drawn to the general houses
and the education they offered, therefore, it follows that competitive feelings must have
been widely cultivated by such a highly exclusive admissions process. Feelings of elitism
befitting of a ‘small and jealous aristocracy of learning’ would have been difficult to
avoid in such a small circle of distinguished and accomplished friars as those who were
admitted to general houses. Furthermore, Humbert’s warning from Treatise on Preaching
(c.1254-1263), as discussed in the previous chapter, is an indication that even at this stage
many of the friars who were advanced within the order still saw education as its own end
rather than a necessary supplement of preaching.305 This is understandable given the
syllabi of theological study and the prestigious honor brought by a masters degree in
theology.
303
Hinnebusch, Origins and Growth to 1500, 44.
304
Bennet, 75; Hinnebusch, 330-331.
305
Humbert,.264., 257.
110
Studium Generale and Student Life
The Dominican use of the term “studium generale” in reference to its own general
houses and their syllabi is a testament in and of itself to the order’s gradual identification
with secular universities. “Studium” was a general term in the early thirteenth century
that referred simply to an organized institution of education. The term studium generale,
meant, in a broad sense, a widely recognized school of higher learning with a “generally
accepted” reputation that was strong enough to attract students from great distances and
diverse backgrounds.306 The term retained this general ambiguity until the latter half of
the thirteenth century.
The first appearance of this term as anything more precise than a well-known
school of broad appeal came from Spanish law in 1263, designating a studium generale
as a school teaching canon law, civil law, and/or arts that had been founded by the
authority of the Pope, the Emperor, or the King.307 Italian jurists also referred to a
studium generale in the late thirteenth century as a school that enjoyed privileges granted
by the pope such as the licensing of clergy serving within said school to be dispensed or
excused from other duties for the purposes of study.308 More precisely, the term came to
be associated on all accounts with a school of superb quality in the subjects of medicine,
306
Mulchahey, 353-354.
307
Ibid., 356.
308
Ibid., 356-357. Mulchahey goes on to explain that this practice eventually began to be defining feature
of all studium generale. If the pope recognized a school as qualified or worthy enough to excuse clerics to
attend at the expense of their church-related obligations, while still continuing to receive revenues from
their benefices, then this school qualified as a studium generale.
111
law or theology.309 The consistent use of this term in reference to Dominican general
houses demonstrates both a striving for university caliber scholarship by the Order of
Preachers as well as their apparent success in achieving that goal. Dominican higher
learning grew to resemble the university structure with its primary distinction being that
the Dominican syllabi focused solely on theology.310
A general sketch of what the early syllabus at a general house prior to 1259 is as
follows. As in the schola of the priory schools, the Bible and Peter Lombard’s Sentences
were the primary texts used, but the approach taken to these texts differed from the
straight-forward and sharply defined lectures of the priory schools. Originally, candidates
for a masters in theology were required to have not only studied the subject for an
extended period but to have lectured on both the scriptures and Lombard’s Sentences for
six total years in the early days, though it was eventually reduced to five. 311 Seven total
years of theological study were required; although, the schola of the priory schools were
considered a suitable equivalent to beginning university studies. As discussed in the
previous chapter, a typical student of a general house had already completed three or four
years of theological study at a priory before arriving at the general house. 312
A regent master presided over the entire studium generale and not only
conducted the central lecture cycle but also directed regular disputations throughout the
309
Ibid, 357-360.
310
Ibid, 352-378.
311
Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, vol 2. of The History of the Dominican Order,
(Staten Island: Alba House, 1965), 59.
312
Ibid.
112
year.313 Classes were always taught by a principle lector, usually the regent master, who
was of course a master of theology himself. The lectures given in these classes focused
on the deeper theological implications of scripture, and expounded much further than the
straightforward lectures a friar received locally at a priory.314 The principle lector was
assisted by two other lectors, both of whom held bachelors degrees in theology and were
usually preparing for their “licentiate,” which was the final step in the process before
receiving their Masters degree. One of these lecturers, referred to as the cursor
Sententiarum, lectured solely on the four books of Lombard’s Sentences in a simple and
cursory manner over the course of two academic years.315 The second lecturer, referred to
as the cursor biblicus, gave a similar treatment to the Bible, taking one book at a time
from both the Old and New Testaments covering roughly one chapter each per day.316
These lectures were likely intended to keep the students fresh in the basic subject matter
for the more in-depth lectures given during the primary lectures.
Additionally, sermons were given by masters and talented bachelors at special
times throughout the course of the year.317 Such sermons were organized by the master of
students. His was an office entrusted to talented bachelors who tutored and motivated
313
Mulchahey, 379.
314
Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 59; Mulchahey, 379.
315
Mulchahey, 379.
316
Ibid.
317
Ibid.
113
younger students. Additionally, he organized practice disputations and regular recitations
for practice and reiteration of the subject matter.318
The Masters of Theology
The chair of the theology department, having two in Paris and one in all other
houses, presented one candidate for licentiate during each odd numbered Jubilee year.319
These candidates would then present four theses for defense in what was referred to as a
Principum.320 The first two theses were used for his “Vespers” debate, in which he would
defend it in private against the Master who had served as his advisor and guided his
studies.321 The second or Aula debate came after his receiving the master’s biretta, and
saw him guiding a discussion on his remaining two theses among the participating
masters and bachelors holders.322 The third and final act, referred to as the candidate’s
resumption, was the first class that he taught in the first course he was assigned to teach
as an inductee in the college of masters.323
The masters degree earned and the opportunities it brought were a remarkable
achievement in a society that, especially until recently, did not even have a basic
education available on a wide scale. One further step in the career of a Dominican Master
318
Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 60, Mulchahey, 383.
319
Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 61.
320
Ibid.
321
Ibid.
322
Ibid.
323
Ibid.
114
was still conceivable but very rare. This was the honor of being named regent master, the
title bestowed upon he who also held a chair of theology in the university. The chair
fulfilled his role for an indefinite period of time and could not relinquish it until it was
filled by an individual of his approval. A chair might be reassigned to make way for
promising new blood or for the return of a proven elder. Thomas Aquinas, for example,
held a chair at Paris from 1256-1259 and returned to hold it once again from 1269-1272.
A regent master lectured principally on Scripture, expounding upon its deeper
implications. During his time as the chair, a regent master usually composed his own
original works of thought, typically biblical or textual commentaries. Thomas Aquinas
wrote numerous commentaries on both the Old and New Testaments while serving as a
Parisian chair.324 Additionally, and truly exemplary of his authority, was the role the
regent master played in the disputations that were a regular occurrence in the general
houses. The ordinary disputations held throughout the year dealt with questions on
subjects both theological and philosophical in nature. Questions or discussion points were
posed by those on the masters or professorial level to an audience of masters and
bachelors who participated in these events.325 The points of discussion were dealt with by
designated opponents and respondents with a certain level of audience participation, but
the final verdict was always rendered by the regent master. Additionally, extraordinary
disputations, or Quaestiones de quolibet, were held during Advent and Lent.326 In
324
Ibid.
325
Ibid., 62.
326
Ibid.
115
disputations of this nature the regent master definitively answered questions posed by an
audience on any theological subject or science.327
The office of regent master and chair of theology was the apex of the thirteenth
century Dominican academic’s possible career. A minimal fifteen-year path from novice
to master was long, but the path to the chair of theology and the title of regent master
could take twenty to twenty-five. William of Peter Godin (1260-1335), for example,
entered the order in 1279 and did not become chair until 1304. Thomas Aquinas entered
the order by going straight into Paris in 1244 but did not in fact preside as Parisian chair
until 1256. R.F. Bennett makes the valid point that a period of fifteen to twenty-five years
was a significant portion out of the life of a thirteenth century man.328 Such an
achievement could not have been undertaken without a significant drive and
commitment.
Greater honors, bestowed upon fewer and fewer the higher up one ventured in the
Dominican hierarchy, were a testament to one’s academic excellence. The office of the
Dominican regent master seems to have, at least within the confines of his order, become
an icon of such excellence. His authority to definitively determine the answers to deeper
questions of intense theological quandary speaks to an approaching shift in the order’s
function that was subtle yet significant. Whereas the Order of Preachers had begun by
simply defending Catholic theology, members of the order at this advanced level found
themselves exploring the deeper meanings of this theology.
327
Ibid.
328
Bennet, 56.
116
Theology versus Philosophy
The order had been diligent in its efforts to keep their curriculums of higher
education equivalent to secular universities, but by the mid-thirteenth century such
standards brought new challenges. Aristotelian philosophy had been attracting more and
more interest as it had been rediscovered in the Muslim world and had now found its way
to Catholic Europe. Growing interest both within and outside of the order conflicted with
the strictly theological approach the Dominicans had taken since their foundation. The
early constitutions forbade the study of pagan texts or writings of the philosophers, and
Dominican students were, furthermore, not allowed to infer anything from their approved
theological texts other than “what the saints confirm.”329 This approach was determined
by St. Dominic and other founding members in the time of the Cathar heresy. Catharism
had been essentially a theological disagreement that could be refuted within the bounds
of a coherent understanding of the New Testament. Aristotelian philosophy was not as
easily refutable since much of it could be demonstrated as scientifically true or at least
within the bounds of logical reasoning.
The conflict was of course in no way limited to the Order of Preachers; indeed it
was a church-wide debate. Still, given the nature of the Dominican Order’s foundation
and apostolic mission, one might rightly infer that the debate held a special meaning in
the Dominican order, particularly for its older members. Debates had been consistent
over the years concerning the need for secular philosophy in a theological education.
John of St. Giles, while serving as a Parisian chair, had warned that philosophers were
329
Primitive Constitutions, p ii sect. xxviii, p ii sect. xxx., 245-246.
117
not necessarily good theologians. Roland of Cremonia, John’s protégé and fellow chair,
had held the more amenable view that rational philosophy, such as logic, was indeed
useful to a theologian in order to understand and identify erroneous theological
arguments.330
The debate became more charged by the mid-thirteenth century as Aristotelian
philosophy became even more popular within university circles. Conservative voices
were not shy about their perception of philosophy as a perverse instrument of corruption.
One the most blatant examples of the anti-philosophical attitude within the Order of
Preachers may be found within a compilation of various exempla from numerous
Dominican priories assembled from 1256 to 1260 when the ideological debate between
traditional attitude and Aristotelianism was especially charged. Lives of the Brethren,
assembled by Gerard de Frachet, contains several classic examples of the traditional
monastic attitude.
Frachet categorizes his subjects in the collection giving each its own heading. The
subject of interest is addressed in kind under a heading entitled Philosophical Curiosity,
which contains three short examples. One tells of an English friar who, in a revelatory
dream, is presented with a Bible in a foul binding by Christ himself, who scolds the friar
by saying “My word is fair enough, but you have soiled it with your philosophy.”331 A
second account tells of another English friar who, also in a revelatory vision, is shown a
330
331
Mulchahey, 226-228.
Gerard de Frachet, Lives of the Brethren, Ch. 4. XX., ed. Bede Jarrett, trans. Fr. Placid Conway
(London: Burns Oates and Washbourne Ltd., 1924), 188-189.
118
list of torments reserved for damned souls whose trespass was studying philosophy.332
Finally, a third account tells of a friar who was rapt in spirit and taken before God where
he was stripped and beaten. His offense, he was told, was that he was not a religious, but
a philosopher.333
Not all involved in the debate had such a one-sided mentality. There was a
collection of moderate Dominicans who, while not fully embracing philosophy, did not
seem to see any imminent danger in it. Such men included two sequential master
generals, John of Wildeshausen (1241-1252) and Humbert of Romans (1254-1263).
Though neither of these men championed the study of philosophy the way Albert the
Great and Thomas Aquinas both did, their actions suggest their partial acceptance of the
subject. John allowed the provincial authorities to decide what should be taught in their
convents, despite the fact that he could have easily done otherwise.334 Humbert, who had
in fact been one of those provincial authorities under John before becoming master
general himself, was reservedly accepting in both his words and actions. Most telling is
the fact that Humbert entrusted university professors of the order to recommend what was
best for the order’s pupils in the pivotal statutes of 1259.335 Humbert also echoed his
predecessor’s appeal to the provincial authorities when it came to determining what their
students should study. His feelings are best summarized in his commentary on the
332
Ibid.
333
Ibid.
334
Mulchahey, 220.
335
Ibid., 253-254.
119
Dominican constitutions; “For there are certain friars, who have a vast capacity and a
great aptitude for grasping sciences of this sort, and from whose knowledge- so long as
they combine it with religion- great results may be expected. . .”336 It should- come as no
surprise then that in 1259, under Humbert’s administration, came the first definitively
progressive step toward the study of secular philosophy in the Order of Preachers.
The Statues of 1259
In an attempt to revaluate the order’s educational system, Humbert selected five
Dominican Masters of Theology, all of whom were connected to the University of Paris,
to bring their recommendations for the future conduct of the order’s educational system.
These five men were Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Peter of Tarentaise, Florence of
Hesdin, and Bonhomme of Brittany.337 Collectively, the five professors produced what
was to be called the ratio studiorum of the Dominican Order, a list of twenty-two
recommendations, which in many cases merely codified what was already being put into
practice either on a wide scale or in successful isolated incidents. This list of statutes,
which in ways went against some of the limitations set by the original constitutions, was
presented and approved at the general chapter meeting of Valenciennes in 1259.
The most significant example of these statutes, which yielded the most
measurable results, was probably the recommendation “That provision be made in
Humbert of Romans, super Constitutiones, c. 13, in Opera, II, quoted in Mulchahey. “First the Bow is
Bent in Study. . .,” 231-232.
336
337
Mulchahey, 223.
120
provinces lacking a [general] house of studies that there be a house of studies for liberal
arts and philosophy where the young Dominicans might be instructed.”338 What resulted
in the next 10-12 years were several new intermediate or provincial programs of study.
The first to develop, and the most accepted of the programs, was the Studia artium, which
was a course in arts, but was more precisely a course in logic. The second, which met
with greater resistance, was the Studia naturarum, a course in natural philosophy.
Different provinces approached this task at different paces with minor variations in their
syllabi. The earliest detailed evidence comes from the Italian province of Rome and the
French province of Provence. Though, as Bennett points out, these provincial schools
were designed to primarily produce the next generation of teachers, they represent an
opening of the order’s doors to subjects beyond strict theology and a broadening of the
order’s evangelical and educational vision. 339
The model for the Studia artia that the order eventually developed had originated
with an experimental program in Provence in the 1240’s with the licensing of a few select
friars to study the arts. The arts in this case meant logic, which was technically a form of
rational philosophy. Though there was some reluctance from higher levels of the order,
the program in Provence was formalized in 1252, and a second logic school was
established.340 Several smaller attempts at such schools in Spanish provinces c.1250
indicate that John of Wildeshausen, the fifth master general of the order (1241-1252),
exercised a relaxation of the rules that shied away from the secular studies, which
338
Statutes on Studies 1259, translation by, and supplied courtesy of, Dr. Richard Schenk O.P., 2010.
339
Bennet, 56.
340
Mulchahey, 221.
121
included the formal study of logic. Provence opened two more provincial logic schools in
1256. Finally in n1269, ten years after the Statutes of Valenciennes justified and
recommended such programs, Provence boasted ten Studia artia within its borders.
These provincial schools were most commonly called Studia artia or “art
schools,” but were also referred to interchangeably as Studia logicalia. Works by
Aristotle were consulted, but his deeper philosophy was not as much a part of the syllabi
as the University of Paris’ had called for in 1255.341 The Dominican syllabus, such as in
Provence and Rome, had focused solely on the study of logic. In the first term of the first
year the primary lectures focused on the Analytica posteriora with secondary lectures
from one of several logic handbooks. The most popular logic book favored by the
continental schools was the Summulae logicales by Peter of Spain. The book consisted of
12 tracts on various areas of logic, which earned it the titular synonym Tractatus.342 The
syllabus at Oxford differed in that it favored logic books such as Lambert of Auxerre’s
Summa Lamberti , William of Sherwood’s Logica and Roger Bacon’s Summulae
dialectices. The second term of the first year saw primary lectures on Aristotle’s
Categoriae and its supplemental text, Liber de sex principiis with secondary lectures
taken from the Analytica priora. The second year then began with primary lectures on De
sophisticis elenchis and a study of fallacies from the same logic book as the first semester
of the previous year. The second term of the second year concluded with Peri hermaneias
and the Isagoge, an introduction penned by Porphroy. Secondary lectures were also
341
Ibid., 222.
342
Ibid., 241-243.
122
given on Topica. This two year program rotated between three participating convents,
and became a Masters’ degree prerequisite.343
The Studia naturarum was much slower to catch on. Again, it was Provence that
led the way, founding the first, small school of natural science in 1262. The program,
however, did not grow profoundly until nine years when two more were founded in 1271.
Mulchahey observes that since the statutes of 1259 did not legally refute the
constitutions, Humbert would have been the deciding authority as the master general. It is
possible that he turned the decision over to provincial authorities as his predecessor had
done for the studia artia of Provence in the 1240s.344
A second argument for this timeline of the studia naturarum is Albert the Great’s
finalization of his encyclopedic documentation of Aristotle in 1271. Albert’s attitude
towards Aristotelian philosophy was more embracing. He felt it was foolish to dismiss or
resist the works of the philosopher, insisting that Aristotle was, like most men, right
about some things and wrong about others. Albert held that the philosopher was likely
right about a good many things, yet to call him infallible was to give him a god-like
status.345 Albert’s general attitude is probably best summarized by his own words.
If there be a disagreement in matters of faith on morals, then I follow Augustine
rather than the philosophers. But if it is a question of medicine, then I much prefer
Galen or Hippocratus; or if there be a question of natural science, then I much
prefer Aristotle, or someone else who is experienced in these matters.346
343
Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 59.
344
Mulchahey, 253-254.
345
Ibid., 259.
346
Albert the Great, II Sent. d. 13 art. 2. , cited in Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 127.
123
Albert’s approach to Aristotle differed from the average commentator. He often
digressed, filled in gaps inserted his own voice into the philosophers work. Often he
would speak for Aristotle wherever there were gaps, filling in what he thought the Greek
thinker might have said based upon his other works. Mulchahey points out that Albert
proved to be strikingly accurate in light of his attempt for the later rediscovered De
motibus animalium.347 Albert’s willingness to consider Aristotle on the philosopher’s
own terms was unusual accepting for the time. Albert never fully accepted Aristotle
without some kind of reservation, and it is this handling of the controversy that likely
made it acceptable in the eyes of the skeptical order.
The studia naturarum syllabi of the Italian provinces called for four lectors. Two
lectors were assigned to lecture upon the Metaphysica and the De anima with secondary
lectures on various subsidiary texts. After a solid year of Aristotelian metaphysics and
psychology, the students then moved on to an academic year studying physics. The
remaining two lectors were thus assigned to lecture on Aristotle’s Physica and De
generatione “cum sequentibus quibusadam.” The third year was a combination of
metaphysics and biology, or a covering of the former with commentary or contrast with
the latter.348
The syllabi of Toulouse followed a similar model, but with one key difference:
there was more emphasis on moral philosophy rather than physics and metaphysics.
Aristotle’s Ethica was used instead of Physica in the Toulouse courses. Moral philosophy
347
Ibid., 259.
348
Ibid., 272.
124
had always been more palatable, even in more conservative times. The Roman province,
for example had allowed friars to keep their logic and moral philosophy books during a
provincial-wide call to surrender forbidden texts in back in 1244.349 Still, however, this
was a profound move in that Aristotle’s Ethica was a work in ethics of a pre-Christian
philosopher and had no scriptural or theological foundation.
Natural philosophy was not truly accepted as a full-fledged, legitimate program of
study within the order until 1305.350 Though Albert’s work was monumental and
groundbreaking in the Catholic Church’s relationship with Aristotle, it was Albert’s
pupil, Thomas Aquinas, who went on to not only engage Aristotelianism with an open
mind but rectify much of the pre-Christian philosopher’s principles with his own
Catholicism.
349
Mulchahey, 228.
350
Ibid., 251, 265.
125
A New Emphasis and a New Method
These provincial studia eventually became the foundation of Dominican study,
becoming prerequisites to theology by the early fourteenth century. Philosophy, both
rational and natural, was thus applied in a to a friar’s understanding of theology in what
could be called a guided environment. Also, the subject of theology itself was soon to be
divided into levels of beginning, intermediate, and advanced. The Dominicans had, as
Bennett points out, designed a curriculum of study that mirrored the intellectual
development of the thirteenth century.351 Humbert and, as shall be discussed in the next
chapter, Thomas Aquinas made this move permissible by insisting on the marriage of
study, regardless of the subject, with the religious end of knowing God better in order to
teach. In this way the order remained true to the cyclical spirituality designed either by
Dominic himself or his immediate successors.
Aside from the provincial programs, one other noteworthy aspect of the statutes
of 125 may be identified. Many of the recommendations dealt with the duties of lectors,
priors, bachelors, student masters and students. This of course includes such stipulations
that all of them attend regular classes, and additionally that they all face harsh penalties if
they were to fail to do so.352 Rights and privileges of lectors and students were also laid
out very clearly. Three are of particular interest:
351
Bennet, The Early Dominicans, 57.
352
Statutes on Studies 1259,
126
[T]he lectors are not to be occupied with duties or business which would keep them
from their lectures; 353
That the younger brethren apt at studies are to be spared diversions and other
occupations, less they be held back from their studies;354
That during the time assigned for the lectures the brethren not be occupied with
celebrating masses or anything of this kind, nor are they to go into the city, except for
in cases of great necessity; 355
In short, automatic dispensation seems to be implied from all other duties, even mass, for
the purposes of study and lectures. Several poignant examples of these recommendations
being put into action may be observed in the Italian provinces for the students of natural
philosophy. Students of the Studium naturarum were allowed to miss matins up to three
times a week and forgo the running of errands in order to prepare for the repetition
exercises in upcoming lectures.356 This trend eventually extended quite significantly to
the skipping of the theology lectures in the province of Rome, save for the main lectures
of the principle lector.357 For the first time, then, philosophy took priority over theology.
Mulchahey makes the valid point that these examples speak to the vigor of this
particular provincial course and its demand upon the students.358 However, the statutes
and the apparent attention paid to them are indicative of a subtler but significant shift in
the order’s mentality. Perhaps the most notable aspect of the statutes concerning
353
Ibid.
354
Ibid.
355
Ibid.
356
Mulchahey. “First the Bow is Bent in Study. . .:”, 268.
357
Ibid.
358
Ibid., 268-269.
127
dispersions is that the act of preaching was no longer mentioned specifically as a priority.
This is an understandable omission since these statues were composed by teachers and
specifically concerned the education of the order rather than the task of preaching. Still,
however, what is suggested by the emphasis on scholarly activity and the omission of any
mention of preaching altogether is that the order had, at this point, grown beyond the onedimensional method it originally focused on so exclusively. Yet, as Humbert’s quote
from his commentary on the constitutions implies, the order was staying current to
remain relevant in their evangelical mission. Unlike the strictly theological heresy of
Catharism, Aristotelianism warranted a deeper understanding in order to be related and
possibly rectified with Catholicism.
Conclusion
The order was breaking new ground with its university ties. No changes came
hastily or without debate, but in a crucial turning point there were allowances made at the
recommendation of five Parisian masters. The university had thus begun to directly
influence the functioning of the entire order not merely the general houses. Study, once
merely an element of the order’s spirituality, was truly becoming its main focus. By
seriously considering Aristotelian natural philosophy, applying methods of logic to
theology, and holding more speculative lectures and debates students and masters alike
could not but ‘infer beyond what the saints confirm.’ This enthusiasm for learning,
reserved for an elite few, had created a new class of academics in the order, the prestige
of whom was becoming a distinct part of the Dominican identity.
128
The contemplative element of the Dominican life had taken the order down a path
of higher education and a deeper speculation of theology. This path had led the order to
universities like Paris were new challenges awaited them. The apostolic element of the
Dominican spirituality would soon need to be exercised in an academic setting, different
from the heresies the order had encountered before.
129
Chapter 5
THE PARISIAN DISCOURSES AND THE RISE OF THOMISM
Growth and Distinction from 1250-1300
By the early 1260s, the Order of Preachers had grown significantly from its
beginning as a small network of preachers awaiting their dispersal to minister to the local
urban or rural congregations. The number of the order’s active members had grown
tremendously, as had its relationships with major universities. The university connections
had also begun to broaden how Dominican friars perceived themselves. A new
aristocracy of schoolmen had formed within the Dominican general houses that included
the masters of theology who taught there, and the advanced pupils who had been deemed
worthy by their provincial superiors to undertake a more in depth study of theology.
What had not yet been fully determined was the manner in which this new class
of Dominican schoolmen could best fulfill the order’s apostolic mission. The audiences
of lay-people to whom the preachers ministered differed greatly from the academic
audiences of the universities. It was with the growing debate surrounding the introduction
of a new corpus of Aristotelian texts and the extensive work of the Dominican master
Thomas Aquinas that the Order of Preachers would fully distinguish itself within the
academic environment in which it had become so deeply entrenched. Thomas contributed
to Dominican identity by epitomizing the order’s growing academic aristocracy. He also
singlehandedly provided both his order and the Christian world with a comprehensive
new system of theology and philosophy. He furthermore contributed to the order’s
130
apostolic mission by offering probably the best possible solution to the issue of the
conflicting ‘truths’ of reason and revelation.
The In the latter half of the thirteenth century the University of Paris became an
arena for an intense debate among the Christian world’s leading theologians and
philosophers. The introduction of a new corpus of Aristotelian texts that had been
introduced by way of Arabic commentators had created controversy in Christian
intellectual circles. For centuries the Christian world had cultivated a very solid system of
thought in which theology and philosophy, while not inseparable, were strongly
intertwined.359 In the minds of seminal Christian thinkers like Augustine (c.354-430), and
later Anselm (1033-1109), philosophical reasoning was useful to aid in the understanding
of what had already been revealed by God to be true.360 But not all thinkers of the
Christian world would hold this view.
With the introduction of new Aristotelian texts, Christian thinkers were exposed
to a new philosophical system of reasoned reflection upon the world, and the universe,
that was strongly independent of theology.361 At the University of Paris, the discussion of
this issue became particularly more intensified c.1255 when the university imposed a
statute requiring all members of the Arts faculty to read the entire Aristotelian corpus.362
Aristotelian concepts such as unity of form theory and the eternal existence of the world
359
Copleston, 5 and 208; John F. Wippel, Mediaeval Reactions to the Encounter between Faith and
Reason, (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1995), 2-8.
360
Copleston, 6,; Wippel , 4.
361
Copelston,, 208.
362
Mulchahey, 222; Wippel, 12.
131
held implications that contradicted many of the long accepted Christian doctrines such as
the independence of the soul from the physical body and the creation of the world by God
in time. Furthermore, some lines of Aristotelian reasoning held different implications
regarding to the nature of God that contradicted Christian theology. Whereas these
Aristotelian concepts had been reached logically by way of pure reason, the theological
concepts had been accepted on the authority of revelation. How to rectify differing
conclusions between the two systems was not immediately clear.
This conflict between the reason of Aristotelianism and the authoritive revelation
of theology divided thinkers everywhere in the Christian world, and the faculty of the
University of Paris was no exception. The university boasted a particularly dynamic
group of thinkers from the 1250s through the 1270s, all of whom had variant opinions
regarding this issue. Differing intellectual attitudes toward Aristotelianism created
allegiances that developed into three distinct schools of thought. What is more, they seem
to have been generally divided along the lines of religious orders and secular masters.363
Thinkers of the more traditional and theologically conservative mindset were, and
often still are, referred to as ‘Augustinians.’ This school of thought was greatly
characteristic of the Franciscans, such as Bonaventure (1217-1274), as well as some of
the older Dominicans, such as Robert Kilwardby (1215-1279).364 The attitudes of these
thinkers varied in how they regarded Aristotelianism, ranging from total rejection to a
363
Copelston, 216.
364
Ibid., 216-217.
132
partial acceptance.365 It is important to note that though this conglomerated opposition
may have rallied behind the banner of Augustine’s name against Aristotelianism, their
views did not authentically reflect those of the fourth century Bishop of Hippo. The term,
in the context in which it is used here, was not recorded prior to the 1260s.366
Those who embraced Aristotelianism were commonly referred to as ‘Latin
Averroists’ by their contemporaries but are retrospectively classified as ‘Radical
Aristotelians’ by some modern historians such as John Wippel.367 This movement is
characterized most notably by secular masters such as Siger of Brabant (1240-1284) and
Boethius of Dacia (1240-?). The works of Aristotle, Arabic commentators such as
Averroes, and other pre-Christian philosophers influenced the members of this school of
thought to varying degrees. Scholars have noted that the Latin Averroists, such as Siger,
had a tendency to use Aristotle’s voice to qualify what their reasoning had produced.368
This may well be because of the contradictory nature of their conclusions and the
sensitive issues they touched upon.
The third distinctive group consisted primarily of Thomas Aquinas and a largely
Dominican support-base. Consisting of Oxford Dominicans like Richard Knapwell
(fl.1282-1286), William Macclesfield, Robert Orford (fl. 1278-1290), and Thomas Sutton
(fl. 1277-1303), as well as Parisian supporters such as Bernard of Trillia (c.1240-1292)
365
Ibid.
366
Daniel A. Callus, The Condemnation of St. Thomas at Oxford (Oxford: Blackfriars, 1955), 4.
367
Wippel, 14.
368
Ibid., 35.
133
and Giles of Lessines (c.1230-1304).369 The intellectual current that produced and
supported Thomas Aquinas and the early ‘Thomistic’ school was characterized primarily
by the progressive members of the Dominican Order.370 From as early as the 1240s, and
especially since 1259, the Dominican Order had gradually become more engaging of the
newly discovered Aristotelian works, or ‘New Logic,’371 Many of these works had been
incorporated into the syllabi of their studia generale and provincial programs of study for
logic and natural philosophy had become more common since the mid thirteenth century.
As discussed in the previous chapter, much of this had been owed to the extensive work
of Albert the Great. Albert’s cataloging of, and commentaries on, Aristotle’s works had
been largely responsible for the order’s acceptance and understanding of the Greek
Philosopher and his Arab commentators.372 Thomas Aquinas was the product of this
Dominican education and a pupil of Albert the Great.
Thomas had entered the order in 1243 and studied first at the general house in
Paris until left for Cologne in 1248 with his mentor, Albert.373 After assisting in the
foundation of the new studium generale in Cologne, he returned to Paris in 1252 where
he lectured as a Bachelor on both the Bible and the Sentences from 1252-1255, and began
his writing career by composing commentaries on the latter in 1253.374 He received his
369
Roensch, Early Thomistic School (Dibuque, Priory Press,1964), 34-35,40-41,47-46, 84.
370
Copleston, 216.
371
Wippel, 8.
372
Mulchahey, 256.
373
Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 132-133.
374
Ibid.,133.
134
masters in theology from Paris in 1256.375 Thomas twice held a chair of theology in Paris,
first from 1257-1259 and again from 1269-1272.376 He also pioneered a provincial
theology school at Santa Sabina from 1265-1269.377 An extensive discussion of Thomas’
writings is impractical here for the fact that they were so numerous and on such a wide
variety of topics, but some of his most influential works include the Summa Contra
Gentilies (c.1260) and the Summa Theologiae (c.1265-1273).
The historically significant achievement of Thomas Aquinas was to
singlehandedly construct a new school of thought that encompassed both Aristotelian
philosophy and Christian theology without discrediting or sacrificing the fundamentals of
either.378 Thomas’ work represented a broad array of influences. He synthesized elements
of Aristotelianism, Neoplatonism, the works of Augustine, and various Arab thinkers
while infused them with his own original thought.379 It should also be mentioned here
that Thomas’ mentor in the Order of Preachers was none other than the renowned
Aristotelian commentator Albert the Great, whom Thomas studied under in Cologne from
1248-1252.380 The fields that Thomism encompassed were as broad as broad as his
influences. Thomas work included the subjects of theology, metaphysics, psychology,
375
Ibid.
376
Hackett, 42, Hinnebusch Intellectual and Cultural Life, 133.
377
Mulchahey, 278-306.
378
Copleston, 303,;Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 134-135.
379
Hackett, 40;Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 135.
380
Hackett, 41.
135
epistemology, moral philosophy and political theory. Key to the success of Thomas work,
particularly in his discourses with his Parisian colleagues, was his treatment of the reason
and revelation.
The Question of Philosophy
In the latter half of the thirteenth century the University of Paris became an arena
for an intense debate among the Christian world’s leading theologians and philosophers.
The introduction of a new corpus of Aristotelian texts that had been introduced by way of
Arabic commentators had created controversy in Christian intellectual circles. For
centuries the Christian world had cultivated a very solid system of thought in which
theology and philosophy, while not inseparable, were strongly intertwined.381 In the
minds of seminal Christian thinkers like Augustine (354-430), and later Anselm (10331109), philosophical reasoning was useful to aid the understanding of what had been
revealed by God to be true.382 But not all thinkers of the Christian world would hold this
view.
With the introduction of new Aristotelian texts, Christian thinkers were exposed
to a new philosophical system of reasoned reflection upon the world, and the universe,
that was strongly independent of theology.383 At the University of Paris, the discussion of
this issue became particularly more intensified c.1255 when the university imposed a
381
Copleston, 5 and 208; John F. Wippel, Mediaeval Reactions to the Encounter between Faith and
Reason, (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1995), 2-8.
382
Copleston, 6,; Wippel , 4.
383
Copelston,, 208.
136
statute requiring all members of the Arts faculty to read the entire Aristotelian corpus.384
Aristotelian concepts such as unity of form theory and the eternal existence of the world
held implications that contradicted many of the long accepted Christian doctrines such as
the independence of the soul from the physical body and the creation of the world by God
in time. Furthermore, some lines of Aristotelian reasoning held different implications
regarding to the nature of God that contradicted Christian theology. Whereas these
Aristotelian concepts had been reached logically by way of pure reason, the theological
concepts had been accepted on the authority of revelation. How to rectify differing
conclusions between the two systems was not immediately clear.
This issue of the conflict between the reason of Aristotelianism and the
authoritive revelation of theology divided thinkers everywhere in the Christian world, and
the faculty of the University of Paris was no exception. The university boasted a
particularly dynamic group of thinkers from the 1250s through the 1270s, all of whom
had variant opinions regarding theology and philosophy. Differing intellectual attitudes
toward Aristotelianism created allegiances that developed into three distinct schools of
thought. What is more, they seem to have been generally divided along the lines of
religious orders and secular masters.385
Thinkers of the more traditional and theologically conservative mindset were, and
often still are, referred to as ‘Augustinians.’ This school of thought was greatly
characteristic of the Franciscans, such as Bonaventure (1217-1274), as well as some of
384
Mulchahey, 222; Wippel, 12.
385
Copelston, 216.
137
the older Dominicans, such as Robert Kilwardby (1215-1279).386 The attitudes of these
thinkers varied in how they regarded Aristotelianism, ranging from total rejection to a
partial acceptance.387 It is important to note that though this conglomerated opposition
may have rallied behind the banner of Augustine’s name against Aristotelianism, their
views did not authentically reflect those of the fourth century Bishop of Hippo. The term,
in the context in which it is used here, was not recorded prior to the 1260s.388
Those who embraced Aristotelianism were commonly referred to as ‘Latin
Averroists’ by their contemporaries but are retrospectively classified as ‘Radical
Aristotelians’ by some modern historians such as John Wippel.389 This movement is
characterized most notably by Parisian secular masters such as Siger of Brabant (12401284) and Boethius of Dacia (1240-?). The works of Aristotle, Arabic commentators such
as Averroes, and other pre-Christian philosophers influenced the members of this school
of thought to varying degrees. Scholars have noted that the Latin Averroists, such as
Siger, had a tendency to use Aristotle’s voice to qualify what their reasoning had
produced.390 This may well be because of the contradictory nature of their conclusions
and the sensitive issues they touched upon.
386
Ibid., 216-217.
387
Ibid.
388
Daniel A. Callus, The Condemnation of St. Thomas at Oxford (Oxford: Blackfriars, 1955), 4.
389
Wippel, 14.
390
Ibid., 35.
138
The third distinctive group consisted primarily of Thomas Aquinas and a largely
Dominican support-base. Consisting of Oxford Dominicans like Richard Knapwell
(fl.1282-1286), William Macclesfield, Robert Orford (fl. 1278-1290), and Thomas Sutton
(fl. 1277-1303), as well as Parisian supporters such as Bernard of Trillia (c.1240-1292)
and Giles of Lessines (c.1230-1304).391 The intellectual current that produced and
supported Thomas Aquinas and the early ‘Thomistic’ school was characterized primarily
by the progressive members of the Dominican Order.392 From as early as the 1240s, and
especially since 1259, the Dominican Order had gradually become more engaging of the
newly discovered Aristotelian works, or ‘New Logic,’393 Many of these works had been
incorporated into the syllabi of their studia generale and provincial programs of study for
logic and natural philosophy had become more common since the mid thirteenth century.
As discussed in the previous chapter, much of this had been owed to the extensive work
of Albert the Great. Albert’s cataloging of, and commentaries on, Aristotle’s works had
been largely responsible for the order’s acceptance and understanding of the Greek
Philosopher and his Arab commentators.394 Thomas Aquinas was the product of this
Dominican education and a pupil of Albert the Great.
391
Roensch, Early Thomistic School (Dibuque, Priory Press,1964), 34-35,40-41,47-46, 84.
392
Copleston, 216.
393
Wippel, 8.
394
Mulchahey, 256.
139
Thomas had entered the order in 1243 and studied first at the general house in
Paris until left for Cologne in 1248 with his mentor, Albert.395 After assisting in the
foundation of the new studium generale in Cologne, he returned to Paris in 1252 where
he lectured as a Bachelor on both the Bible and the Sentences from 1252-1255, and began
his writing career by composing commentaries on the latter in 1253.396 He received his
masters in theology from Paris in 1256.397 Thomas twice held a chair of theology in Paris,
first from 1257-1259 and again from 1269-1272.398 He also pioneered a provincial
theology school at Santa Sabina from 1265-1269.399 An extensive discussion of Thomas
writings is impractical here for the fact that they were so numerous and on such a wide
variety of topics, but some of his most influential works include the Summa Contra
Gentilies (c.1260) and the Summa Theologiae (c.1265-1273).
The historically significant achievement of Thomas Aquinas was to
singlehandedly construct a new school of thought that encompassed both Aristotelian
philosophy and Christian theology without discrediting or sacrificing the fundamentals of
either.400 Thomas’ work represented a broad array of influences. He synthesized elements
of Aristotelianism, Neoplatonism, the works of Augustine, and various Arab thinkers
395
Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 132-133.
396
Ibid.,133.
397
Ibid.
398
Hackett, 42, Hinnebusch Intellectual and Cultural Life, 133.
399
Mulchahey, 278-306.
400
Copleston, 303,;Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 134-135.
140
while infused them with his own original thought.401He had presumably been influenced
by Albert the Great since he had studied under him in Cologne.
The fields that Thomism encompassed were as broad as broad as his influences.
Thomas work included the subjects of theology, metaphysics, psychology, epistemology,
moral philosophy and political theory. Key to the success of Thomas work, particularly in
his discourses with his Parisian colleagues, was his treatment of the reason and
revelation.
The Thomistic Approach to Reason and Revelation
Thomas approached philosophy and metaphysics in a very Aristotelian manner.
Aristotle’s approach to philosophy had been to reach his conclusions through an objective
observation of the world that existed around him. Like Aristotle, Thomas first observed a
thing or a being and then based his conclusions strictly upon the indications of what he
had seen.402 For this reason, Thomas made a much clearer distinction between theology
and philosophy than had previously existed in Christian thought.403 Thomas did not
presuppose a premise and then mold his observations of reality to fit into it like previous
Christian thinkers such as Augustine and Anselm, or his Augustinian contemporaries
such as Bonaventure. Be this as it may, Thomas did not dismiss the authority of
revelation or challenge the doctrine of the church. Unlike the Latin Averroists, such as
401
Hackett, 40;Hinnebusch, Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, 135.
402
Copelston, 308.
403
Ibid., 312.
141
Siger of Brabant, he did not accept all conclusions reached by reason as necessary truths.
In this way, Thomas not only rectifies the tension between Aristotelianism and
Christianity, but also gives greater value to what it means to truly have faith, and,
additionally, identifies reason as a motivation to seek God. To fully demonstrate this, it
may be helpful to contrast Thomas’ approach to the issue with that of the Bonaventure
and Siger.
Bonaventure, like his fellow Augustinians, favored a more traditional approach in
theology that was rooted in faith. Bonaventure relied on revelation to provide him with
the conclusions of questions in advance, the polar opposite of both Aristotle and Thomas.
For Bonaventure, philosophy and the tools of reasoning it provided were a way to better
understand what was already evident. 404 Some might make the case that Bonaventure did
not separate theology and philosophy, but he seems to have recognized at least some
distinction between the two according to remarks in his Breviloquiom (c.1255-1257).
Theology is the only perfect science, for it begins at the beginning, which is the
first Principle, and proceeds to the end . . . .Theology is also the only perfect
wisdom, for it begins with the supreme Cause, considered as the Principle of all
things made. This is the point where philosophical knowledge ends, whereas
theology goes on to consider this same. 405
It would seem then that Bonaventure did see a separation of theology and philosophy,
though appealed unquestioningly to the former.
A good example of Bonaventure’s reasoning comes from his commentary on
Lombard’s Sentences (c.1250-155). This work predates the years of more intense debate
404
405
Hackett, 124.
Bonaventure, Breviloquium, 1.1-1.3, (Patterson: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1963),
http://www.catholic.uz. tl_files/library/books/Bonaventure_breviloquium, (accessed on 3/20/2011).
142
in the late 1260s when the Augustinian reaction against Radical Aristotelians became
more charged, but it very clearly illustrates how Bonaventure and the Augustinians
viewed theology and philosophy. The subject Bonaventure is addressing is perceived
eternal existence of the world. The idea that the world had always existed and will always
exist infinitely was problematic for the Christian doctrine of the creation of the world in
time. Bonaventure’s motivation for attacking the argument is that its implications
contradict the scriptures and the Christian theological doctrine regarding God’s nature.
Bonaventure’s goal is simply discredit the argument by dismissing it as absurd, leaving
the best alternative in revelatory doctrine.
In this work, Bonaventure addressed Aristotelian arguments for the eternity of the
world such as every moment being a past and future and the need a first cause or a ‘prime
mover’ from which to proceed, but he dismisses them as blasphemous and impossible.406
While Bonaventure admits that God ultimately qualifies as such a ‘prime mover’ in His
eternal nature, Bonaventure holds that if God begins to produce then His passing from
rest into act would subject Him to mutability.407 Bonaventure then states his main
contention, that this indication contradicts Gods ultimate goodness and absolute
simplicity.408
406
Bonaventure, In II Sent. d.1, p.1 a.1, q2. Translated by Cyril Volert, Lottie Kendzierski, Paul Byrne, in
On the Eternity of the World: (De Aeternitate Mundi), (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1964),
106.
407
Ibid., 107.
408
Ibid., 108.
143
Bonaventure attempts to refute the notion of the world’s infinite nature on
philosophical premises of the impossibility of adding to the infinite, the impossibility of
an infinite-in-number to be ordered, and the impossibility to traverse the infinite, the
impossibility of the infinite to be grasped by a finite power, the impossibility of a
simultaneously infinite number of things, and finally the impossibility of a thing that
proceeds from non-being to exist eternally.409 Bonaventure concludes that to hold to the
eternity of the world or the notion that all things produce eternally from nothing is
therefore “entirely against truth and reason.”410 To further his point, Bonaventure makes
use of a simile, maintaining that if a foot and its imprint in the dust were co-eternal, the
foot would still precede the imprint.411 Toward the end of his analysis, Bonaventure
acknowledges the reasonableness of the arguments for the eternal world and states that
even “that outstanding philosopher, Aristotle, fell into this error.”412
Siger of Brabant and the Latin Averroists favored a completely different approach
than that of Bonaventure and the Augustinians and arrived at staunchly different
conclusions. Siger’s style and his position on a similar subject are exemplified in his
work De Aeternitae Mundi (c.1270-1272).413 Throughout this text Siger appeals
extensively to the authority of Aristotle and makes use of Aristotelian concepts such as
the nature of universals and the generation of species. He does not openly admit to
409
Ibid., 108-109.
410
Ibid., 109.
411
Ibid. 110.
412
Ibid.
413
Cyril Volert, ed., On the Eternity of the World, 77.
144
seeking a refutation revelation though he does refute arguments that resemble those of the
Augustinian theologians. Nowhere in the text does he claim any of his conclusions as his
own opinions, instead he prefers to accredit the results of his reasoning to what the
philosophers would have said. He further removes himself from the conclusion, giving it
a feel of objectivity, claiming that the conclusion is evident because of the ‘necessary’
proceedings of the arguments reason.
Similar to Bonaventure, Siger frames his text with arguments that he is seeking to
refute. He acknowledges arguments that would lead one to conclude the world began in
time, or more specifically that all species having a beginning in time. These arguments
that Siger addresses rest on the premise that all species and universals exist in singulars,
which all have individual beginnings, therefore if God created singulars, then universals
must have had a indeed began in time.414 Siger refutes the argument regarding species by
pointing out that the human species must indeed be eternal as all individual humans
depend on a preceding human for their existence. He then refers to Aristotle by
explaining that universals exist primarily as a concept of the mind.415 Siger also cites the
Aristotelian commentator, Averroes, who defined universals as intelligibles, not as
beings.416
Siger of Brabant, “De Aeternitae Mundi,” Trans. by Cyril Volert, Lottie Kendzierski, and Paul Byrne, in
On the Eternity of the World: (De Aeternitate Mundi), (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1964), 8486.
414
415
Ibid., 88.
416
Ibid., 89.
145
Siger then explains that generation is an act, and as an act it must be preceded by
potency, therefore, numerically speaking, there must be an infinite species of man. For if
man or the universe were caused in time, then potency would precede the act.417 Siger
holds, again citing Aristotle, that potential man must exist eternally for potency not to
precede act, but God as a ‘prime mover’ is also eternal. “For, just as God always exists,
according to Aristotle, so also does the potential man, since he is regarded as prime
matter.”418
Siger did not seek to disprove a competing set of conclusions for fear of its
implications as Bonaventure did. Siger sought to prove his conclusion by demonatrating
it to be necessarily true. The wording in which Siger concludes his argument is as
follows: It is necessary to hold that there is a being in act, there is a being in potency
from which it proceeds into act, so also before being in potency there is a
being in act which educes itself from potentiality to act. . . In the order of
things it is necessary to hold that there is a being in act which educes into act
what is potency, since the being in potency from which it is made does not
precede it, as is evident.419
Though he detaches himself from his argument by citing Aristotle and Averroes, and
utilizes phrases such as “according to philosophers,420” Siger sought to use reason alone
as a path to truth in the realms of physics and metaphysics. As the Augustinians based
their premises on the authority of revelation, one might infer that Siger’s method and
417
Ibid., 91-95.
418
Ibid., 95.
419
Ibid.
420
Ibid., 84.
146
language give equal authority to reason. Thomas Aquinas, however, saw such an attitude
as a leap of faith in and of itself.
Thomas was serving his second term as a chair of theology at the University of
Paris while debates of this nature were raging. Thomas agreed with Bonaventure’s faith,
but not his method. Similarly, he agreed with Siger’s basic use of reason, but not the
necessity of his conclusions. Key to Thomas’ synthesizing of philosophy and theology
was how he defined what constituted a ‘necessary’ truth. Furthermore, in doing so,
Thomas touched upon what he considered to be the real meaning of faith and how it
could work with reason to drive man to God.
Thomas treated the issue of the eternity of the world vs. its creation in time
concisely yet thoroughly in his Summa Contra Gentiles (c.1260), seemingly leaving no
aspect of it unexplored. The ultimate issue that he took with the argument as it had been
represented by both the Augustinians and the Latin Averroists was that they both took
great liberties in determining the will of God. One such example reads from his
introduction to the topic. “A thing caused by God cannot have existed forever, because
such a position would imply that passive potentiality has always existed, which is
heretical. However, this does not require the conclusion that God cannot bring it about
that some being should exist forever.”421 In short, Thomas held that God operated beyond
the realm of human understanding. Simply because God did not have to create the world
421
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, in On the Eternity of the World: (De Aeternitate Mundi),
edited by Cyril Vollert, Lottie Kendzierski, and Paul Byrne, (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press,
1964), 19.
147
in time did not mean that He did not choose to do so. Thomas claimed confidently the
following:
I answer that we must hold firmly that the world has not always existed,
as the Catholic faith teaches. And this truth cannot be effectively attacked by
any demonstration based on physics. . .we must understand . . . that in God’s
activity we cannot assign any necessity on the part of material cause, or on the
part of active power, or on the part of the last end, but only on the part of the form
which is the end of the operation. 422
Throughout his career Thomas recognized arguments that contradicted the faith as
legitimate uses of reason, if they were made well, but remained confident that none of
these contradictions would ever be proved to be a ‘necessary’ truth. In the event that such
an argument claimed necessity, Thomas was certain it could be demonstrated as a faulty
use of reason or an abuse of philosophy.423 In this way, Thomas’ system allowed for a
free use of legitimate and responsible philosophical reasoning while holding firmly to
one’s faith and religious conviction.
Thomas did not view reason as something that should destroy man’s belief in
God. In fact, he saw it as a tool to strengthen it. As Thomas saw reason to be an
inadequate as a destroyer of faith, he saw its inability to prove the doctrines of revelation
as a bolster to faith. “Sacred doctrine, also makes use of human reason, not, indeed, to
prove faith (for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear other
things that are set forth in this doctrine.”424 It was precisely because God existed beyond
422
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, 50.
423
Wippel, 30.
424
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Q.1. Art. 8., in Introduction to Thomas Aquinas, ed. Anton Pegis,
(New York: Modern Library, 1948), 15.
148
the realm of human reason that Thomas saw the true meaning of faith and value in
revelation. A closer reading from Thomas’ highly influential work Summa Theologiae
(c.1265-1273) offers a closer look into his thoughts on the subject.
Revelation, as Thomas saw it, was a tool to wet the appetite of man’s intellect. It
was from a glimpse of what existed beyond the realm of reason and would pull man to
God by virtue of his curiosity. “It was necessary for man’s salvation that there should be
a knowledge revealed by God, besides what the philosophical sciences investigated by
human reason. . . because man is directed to God as to an end that surpasses the grasp of
reason.”425 Thomas also saw this as the necessity for theology, the sacred science of
revelation.
Theology, the sacred science of revelation, was indeed a legitimate science in
Thomas view, but utterly separate from the philosophy of human reason. “As other
sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue in their principles to
demonstrate other truths in these sciences, so this doctrine does not argue in proof of
these principles.”426 Theology for Thomas was a higher science. One that was meant to
explain the mysteries of faith, but not one that could fully explained by reason.427 It was
an aid to the contemplation of God and the divine.
Finally, in regard to the subject of Thomas and his views on the relationship
between reason and revelation, one more thing must be addressed. It is also perhaps the
425
Ibid., Q 1. Art. 1 , 4.
426
Ibid., Q. 1. art.8, 24.
427
Ibid.
149
most evident example of the influence of Dominican spirituality in Thomas’ thought.
Thomas believed that mans ultimate happiness was in the contemplation of God. All
human motives and actions, Thomas argued, are directed toward achieving happiness.428
However, Thomas argued that man’s ultimate happiness lay not in the passions of this
life, but with God. “All other operations,” Thomas argued, “are to this end.”429
Joy in the seeking of God through contemplation, as both a motivator to see God
and a motivator of actions resulting thereof, is the key to the Dominican spirituality. One
may be reminded of St. Dominic himself in the biographies written by the early
Dominicans spending hours after dark in contemplative prayer and study. One may be
reminded of Dominic’s tears of joy and beating of his breast in the eighth way of prayer
from the anonymously written 9 Ways of Prayer. Thomas’ words at the end of the
thirteenth century come full circle here with Dominic’s teachings at the beginning. What
Thomas had provided his order with here was the freedom from what he saw as a false
conflict between faith and reason. Furthermore, he had provided an entirely new.
exhaustive body of material from which to draw both inspiration and information.
Thomas’ contribution to the Christian world overall was system of theology and
philosophy working harmoniously with one another. The apostolic value of the newly
formed aristocracy of schoolmen in the Order of Preachers was now apparent.
428
Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Contra Gentiles, XXXVII, in Introduction to Thomas Aquinas,, 453
429
Ibid., 453-454.
150
Condemnations
Thomas Aquinas died in 1274. Despite the legacy that Thomas left the world, his
work required significant defense not only during his lifetime, but also after his death. In
1270, a Franciscan lead condemnation of thirteen principles held by Latin Averroists was
initiated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris (d.1279). The major proponents of this
condemnation were John Pecham (d.1292), who was then serving as the regent master of
the Parisian Franciscans, and Bonaventure, who was then the Minister General of the
Franciscan Order.430 A 1270 letter from the Dominican Giles of Lessines to Albert the
Great has provided historians with some evidence that there were some attempts being
made to include some of Thomas’ theses on the immateriality of spiritual substances and
the Unity of Form to the condemned teachings of the Latin Averroists, though this
apparently did not happen as none are included in the condemnation that took place on
December 10, 1270.431
A second, more extensive, condemnation occurred in Paris four years after
Thomas’ death on March 7, 1277, again by Bishop Tempier. This time there were 219
propositions to be condemned including several Thomistic theses. A few days later on
March 18 of the same year, Thomist teachings were the specific target of yet another
condemnation, this time at Oxford. The Oxford attack was initiated this time by a
member of Thomas’ own order. Robert Kilwardby, the then Archbishop of Canterbury,
condemned a number of Thomistic theses including several on the subject of the Unity of
430
Callus,2-13; Roensch, 11.
431
Callus,13.
151
Form, a subject absent from the current Parisian Condemnation. Kilwardby, an
Augustinian at heart, had considered the teachings of Aristotle early in his career but
ultimately decided in favor of more traditional thinking. Dominican historian Daniel
Callus suggests that Kilwardby seems to have been out of touch with the majority of the
change Thomism had brought about. Callus infers that upon his sudden discovery of the
Thomistic ideas later in his career, Kilwardby reacted so strongly out of utter shock.432
Thomas’ Unity of Form theory was, in short, that man consists of one substantial
form, “the intellective soul,” which is simultaneously human, animal, vegetative and
corporeal.433 According to this thesis, man is therefore an individual only in this unified
state, and only because of this unity. This differed from the traditional pluralist view,
which separates the soul from the physical body.434 Thus the unified soul was considered
to be problematic by some theologians in regard to the possible implications it held for
issues such as Christ’s resurrection, the Eucharist, the veneration of the relics of saints
and other such doctrine.435
Kilwardby took little further action on the matter as he was called to the role of
Cardinal Bishop of Porto and forced to resign his post to reside in the Papal Curia. In an
interesting turn of events, it was none other than John Pecham, the outspoken
Augustinian and proponent of the 1270 condemnation in Paris, who was appointed to
432
Callus, 15.
433
Roensch, Early Thomistic School, 201.
434
Thomas Bokekotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church, (New York: Image Books, 2005), 166162.
435
Callus, The Condemnation of St. Thomas at Oxford, 21.;Roensch, Early Thomistic School, 202.
152
take Kilwarby’s place as Archbishop in 1279. As one might presume, he went
enthusiastically forth with the condemnation.
Callus’s deconstruction of the grounds upon which Pecham attacked the
Thomistic theory exhibit very flawed premises. For one, Pecham labeled Thomas’ theory
a “presumptuous novelty,” in effect claiming it was an oddity exclusive to Thomistic
thought. Callus points out that this was not necessarily true as Pecham’s accusation
assumes a universal consensus of the pluralist view, when it had in fact been debated at
many universities including Oxford, and had been given many varying treatments by
numerous intellectuals including Bonaventure.436 Pecham also condemned the Unity of
Form theory as being “of suspect origin,” attempting to insinuate there were connections
with Radical Aristotelianism. This is also not the case as Thomas had taken this theory
directly from Aristotle’s original works.437 Pecham further claimed the theory was in
direct opposition to the teachings of Augustine, though the truth was that the fourth
century bishop of Hippo never addressed the unified soul, or even promoted the pluralist
theory which really been the work of the Jewish philosopher Avicebron.438
Numerous Oxford Dominicans stepped up in defense of Thomas’ teachings,
Richard Knapwell (fl.1282-1286), William Macclesfield, Robert Orford (fl. 1278-1290)
and Thomas Sutton (fl. 1277-1303). Knapwell’s defense is noted by historians as
particularly elegant. Knapwell proceeded in a manner very representative of the late
436
Callus, The Condemnation of St. Thomas at Oxford 23.
437
Ibid., 27.
438
Ibid, 21.
153
Thomas Aquinas.439 He never directly attacked the positions of his opponent’s doctrines,
but rather defended the plausibility of Thomas’ thesis by responded to the criticisms of
the Pecham and another Franciscan challenger named William de la Mare.440 Still, the
Franciscan led opposition won the day and Knapwell was excommunicated for his
support of the Thomistic theory in 1286.441 The actions taken against Thomism, and
Thomists such as Knapwell for that matter, seems curiously harsh, particularly as the
results of the Parisian condemnation were overturned in 1325 by Bishop Sptephen de
Bouret, whereas the results of the Oxford condemnation were not overturned until
1914.442
The real significance of the Oxford condemnation is that it demonstrates more
than a rift between schools of thought, but also the mendicant orders themselves. Callus
makes the point that the Dominican order took the attack on Thomas very personally, as
an attack upon their order as a whole.443 This is an interesting reaction since the initial
attack had been made by one of their own, albeit one who was of an older generation and
arguably somewhat out of touch with the intellectual developments of the recent decades.
Either way, a significant number of Dominicans had begun to identify with Thomas
Aquinas and also with his school of thought that would come to be known as ‘Thomism.’
439
Callus, The Condemnation of St. Thomas at Oxford 29; Roensch, Early Thomistic School, 203..
440
Callus, The Condemnation of St. Thomas at Oxford 33; Roensch, Early Thomistic School, 201-215.
441
Ibid., 33.
442
Ibid.
443
Ibid., 30.
154
Callus does not discuss the atmosphere between the two orders, which was somewhat
tumultuous at the time for reasons besides the ideology conflict.
The Franciscan Order had suffered a rift over the issue of evangelical poverty in
the 1270s. The 1274 council of Lyons marked the height of the intensity, but the debate
remained until the end of the thirteenth century.444 Religious poverty and its proper
practice was not only a major point of the contention among Franciscans, but was also a
topic that had fostered sensitivities between them and the Dominican Order as well.445
The Dominicans practice of “corporate poverty,” budgeting for communal
libraries, gardens, beds and cells to study in as well as allowing personal possessions such
as books. This far exceeded the food, clothing and modest huts that some Franciscans
held as the maximum allowance for religious poverty, and thus drew their criticisms.
Robert Kilwardby himself had, in his well known 1270 Letter to Dominican Novices,
struck back at Dominican criticisms without naming them outright. He championed the
Dominican apostolic mission as an end justifying the means. In the eyes of Kilwardby
and the Dominican Order, poverty was important to their spirituality, but expendable to a
degree in favor of the necessary means of study for apostolic purposes. Pecham himself
had supposedly responded to this criticism, though no physical record remains to
consult.446 The conflict between the mendicant orders, the condemnations of Thomism at
Oxford, and the men common to both instances are all causes for curiosity. One can only
444
Lambert,192.
445
Ibid., 193.
446
Hackett, 260.
155
speculate as to how many different factors motivated Pecham’s actions when he took
over the role of Archbishop for Kilwardby.
The particular harshness of the Condemnation at Oxford also illustrated how
much the Dominican Order had come to identify itself with Thomism. If Kilwardby is
indeed the oddity that Callus alleges him to be, the reaction of the Oxford Dominicans
identifies him as the exception that proves the rule. The idea that Pecham’s harsh
perpetuation of the condemnation may have been, to some degree, motivated by the
Franciscan Order’s identity crisis would make sense in that many Franciscans likely
sought to solidify their own identity and could do so through an attack upon an icon of
their competitors. Thomas was obviously not universally accepted as the doctor of his
order yet, but he was well on his way. Thomas was an object to be targeted as well as the
subject of passionate defense. History has nonetheless indisputably ruled in favor of
Aquinas, and not Bonaventure, Kilwardby or Pecham as having the strongest influence
and the most lasting legacy in Catholic as well as secular thought.
Conclusion: Dominican Identity Fulfilled
There may be no doubt that Thomas was the product of the highly developed
Dominican system of higher education, as well as a member of the new academic
aristocracy that had risen within it. Jordan of Saxony’s description of St. Dominic seems
appropriate to apply to Thomas as well, in that his mind was a ‘storehouse of divine
things.’447 Thomas represented his order extremely well as a prolific writer and two-time
regent master, as well as in his debates with the Augustinians and the Latin Averroists.
447
Jordan, 7.,10.
156
One might justifiably infer that Thomas and the Thomistic school may quite justifiably be
understood as the zenith of the Dominican Order’s gradual embrace of Aristotelian
philosophy as well as its emphasis on higher education throughout the thirteenth century.
One would be hard-pressed to claim that Thomas does not signify, at least to some
enduring extent, the values and ideals of the Dominican Order.
Still, Thomas’ true shining moment of Dominican ideals probably stems from his
subtle diffusion of the faith-reason issue, and his implication that reason itself could lead
man to God. Thomas had at last found a way to turn the contemplative energy of the
university into an apostolic energy. After all, one of Humbert’s main positions held in
Treatise on the Formation of Preachers wass the need to preach to variant audiences.
One might make the case that, in a way, Thomas’ audience was the intellectuals of the
academic aristocracy itself. In a much different environment of ideological conflict,
Thomas publicly defended of the faith, refuted opponents, and did so through boundless
displays of intellect. In a sense one might say he was the academic realization of the
Dominican preacher-tradition.
157
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Albertus, Bonhomme, Florent, Thomas Aquinas, Pete. “Statues on Studies
for the Order of Preachers: Presented at the general chapter meeting of
Valenciennes, the beginning of June”, 1259. Translated by Fr. Richard Schenk
O.P., Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, CA, 2010.
Amos, Thomas, Eugene A. Green and Beverly Mayne Kienzel. De Oro Domini:
Preacher and Word in the Middle Ages. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute
Publications, 1989.
Ashley, Benedict. Dictionnaire de Spiritualite, Editions Beauchesne “The Friars
Preachers” English Translation. http://www.domcentral.org/study/ashley/
ds00intr.htm (accessed on 7/15/2009).
Augustine, “Letter 211.” Translated by G.J. Cunningham, from Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers vol. 1 Edited by Phillip Schaff, Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature
Publishing Co., 1887, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102211.htm
(accessed on, 7/25/2009).
Bennet, R.F. The Early Dominicans: Studies in Thirteenth-Century Dominican History.
2nd ed. New York: Russel and Russel, 1971.
Bokenkotter, Thomas. A Concise History of the Catholic Church. Rev.ed New York:
Image Books, 2005.
Bonaventure. The Breviloquium. Translated by Jose de Vinck. Patterson, NJ: St. Anthony
Guild Press, 1963. http://agnuz.info/tl_files/library/books/Bonaventure
breviloquium (accessed on 3/20/2011).
Brooke, C. N. L. St. Dominic and His First Biographer.Transactions of the Royal
Historical Society, vol.17 (Nov. 1967): 23-40
Callus, Daniel Angelo Philip. The Condemnation of St. Thomas at Oxford: A Paper Read
to the Aquinas Society of London on 24th April, 1946. Oxford: Blackfriars, 1955.
Constable, Giles. The Reformation of the Twelfth Century: The Trevelyan Lectures Given
at the University of Cambridge, 1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1996.
Copelston, Frederick. Medieval Philosophy: From Augustine to Duns Scotus. vol. 2 of A
History of Philosophy. 1962. Reprint, Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1993.
158
________. Late Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy. vol. 3 of A History of
Philosophy. 1962. Reprint, Garden City, N.Y.: Image Books, 1993.
d’Avray, D. L. The Preaching of the Friars: Sermons Diffused From Paris Before 1300.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.
Emery, Richard. “The Second Council of Lyons and the Mendicant Orders.” The
Catholic Historical Review, no. 3 (October 1953): 257-271.
Gerard de Frachet. Lives of the Brethren. Edited by Placid Conway. Translated by Bede
Jarrett. London: Burns Oates and Washbourne Ltd., 1924.
Hackett, Jeremiah. Medieval Philosophers. Detroit: Gale Research, 1992.
Hinnebusch, John Frederick, William Bertrand Ryan, and Raymond Smith. The
Dominican Preacher. [Washington, DC]: Office of the Promoter of Preaching,
Dominican Province of St. Joseph, 1992.
Hinnebusch, William. Origins and Growth to 1500, vol. 1 of The History of the
Dominican Order. Staten Island: Alba House, 1965.
________. Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500, vol. 2 of The History of the Dominican
Order. Staten Island: Alba House, 1965.
________. Dominican Spirituality: Principles and Practice. Washington D.C. : Thomist
Press, 1965. http//www.domcentral.org/trad/domspirit/spirit0.5.htm. (Accessed on
9/7/2009).
________. “How The Dominican Order Faced its Crises.” Review for the Religious, (June
1973): 1307-1321.
________. “Poverty in the Order of Preachers.” The Catholic Historical Review, no. 4
(Jan. 1960): 436-453
Humbert of Romans. The Explanation of the Rule of St. Augustine. Translated by
Members of Saint Dominic’s Convent, Jersey City. Akron: D.H. McBride, 1900.
_________. Treatise on Preaching. Edited by Walter M. Conlon. Translated by
Dominican Students Province of Saint Joseph. Text from the 1951 Newman Press
edition. http://dominicanidaho.org/humbert.pdf (accessed on 10/11/2009)
Hugh of St. Cher. Opera omnia in universum Vetus & Novum Testamentum. Lugduni:
J.A. Huguetan & G. Barbier, 1967.
159
Lambert, Malcolm. Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to
the Reformation. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000.
Lehner, Francis C. Saint Dominic, Biographical Documents. Washington DC: Thomist
Press, 1964.
Little, Lester K. Religious Poverty and Profit Economy in Medieval Europe. 1978.
Reprint, Ithica: Cornell Paperbacks, 1992.
Mandonnet, Pierre. St. Dominic and His Work. Edited by M.H. Vicaire. Translated
by Sister Mary Benedicta Larkin, O.P. St. Louis: B. Herder, 1945.
Mulchahey, M. Michele. “First the Bow is Bent in Study. . .”: Dominican Education
Before 1350. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1998.
Roensch, Frederick J. Early Thomistic School. Dubuque, Iowa: Priory Press, 1964.
Rossenwein, Barbara H., and Little, Lester K. “Social Meaning in the Monastic and
Mendicant Spiritualities.” Past and Present, no 63 (May, 1974): 4-32.
Showalter, Dennis E.. The Business of Salvation: Authority and Representation in the
Thirteenth Century. The Catholic Historical Review, no. 4 (Jan, 1973): 556-574.
Thomas, Pegis Anton Charles. Introduction to Saint Thomas Aquinas. New
York: Modern Library, 1948.
Thomas, Summa Theologiae: Vol. 44 (2a2ae. 155-170): Well-Tempered
Passion. Ed. And Trans. by Thomas Gilby O.P. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1971.
Thomas, Siger, and Bonaventure. On the Eternity of the World; (De
Aeternitate Mundi). Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1964.
Thomas, John Proctor, Mark Johnson. St. Thomas Aquinas and the Mendicant
Controversies: Three Translations. Leesburg: Alethes Press, 2007.
Touron, Father Anthony. The First Disciples of Saint Dominic. Edited by Victor F.
O’Daniel, O.P.. New York: Frederick Putset, 1928.
Tugwell, Simon. ed. Early Dominicans: Selected Writings. New York: Paulist Press,
1982.
160
Vicaire, M.H. Saint Dominic and His Times. Translated by Kathleen Pond. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.
Wippel, John F. Mediaeval Reactions to the Encounter between Faith and Reason.
Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1995.
Workman, Herbert P. The Evolution of the Monastic Ideal. 1913. Reprint, Boston:
Beacon, 1962.