This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Robert E. Lerner
T may be agreed that Meister Eckhart had no intention of transgressing the faith. Whether a firm commitment to orthodoxy led him to combat the socalled “heresy of the Free Spirit” in Strassburg and Cologne, as some recent studies have maintained, remains uncertain.1 But when he was charged with heresy he insisted that he was an obedient son of the Church: he stood ready to recant any of his teachings that might be judged erroneous, and since error pertained to the intellect and heresy to the will he could not be a heretic because he had no will to be one.2 Nevertheless, many of Eckhart’s startling theological formulations were taken by the highest authorities to be pernicious and to present the danger of infecting others. This circumstance was long dismissed because of a tradition of scholarship holding that when Pope John XXII condemned twenty-six statements from Eckhart’s works in the bull In agro dominico (1329), the pope was halfhearted. Supposedly John agreed to the condemnation as a concession to the archbishop of Cologne, Henry of Virneburg, who had initiated Eckhart’s trial. Supposedly the proof was that Pope John ordered the publication of In agro dominico solely in Henry’s ecclesiastical province of Cologne, as if he were according a personal favor.3 In
∗ The author wishes to express his appreciation to Bernard McGinn and an anonymous
reader for Mediaeval Studies for numerous helpful suggestions and criticisms. 1 Martina Wehrli-Johns, “Mystik und Inquisition: Die Dominikaner und die sogenannte Häresie des Freien Geistes,” in Deutsche Mystik im abendländischen Zusammenhang, Walter Haug and Wolfram Schneider-Lastin (Tübingen, 2000), 223–52, at 243–51; Walter Senner, “Meister Eckhart in Köln,” in Meister Eckhart: Lebensstationen, Redesituationen, ed. Klaus Jacobi (Berlin, 1997), 207–37; idem, “Rhineland Dominicans, Meister Eckhart and the Sect of the Free Spirit,” in The Vocation of Service to God and Neighbour, ed. Joan Greatrex (Turnhout, 1998), 121–33. 2 Bernard McGinn, The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart (New York, 2001), 15, 17, citing the original documentation. 3 The classic statement is Winfried Trusen, Der Prozess gegen Meister Eckhart (Pader-
Mediaeval Studies 70 (2008): 115–34. © Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.
R. E. LERNER
an article published in 1997 I showed this supposition to be false.4 John’s bull was a formal constitution addressed to Christendom at large “for the perpetual memory of the matter.” While the pope did command Henry of Virneburg to publish In agro dominico in his province, he said nothing about intending to limit it there. In fact the Avignon chancery saw to the publication of the bull in the province of Mainz, where it became lodged in an inquisitor’s manual and where parts of it were translated into the vernacular for the purpose of cautionary reading to the laity. The present article will go further by showing that with high probability In agro dominico was published in still other ecclesiastical provinces beyond Cologne and Mainz and unquestionably was widely known in northwestern continental Europe. Most important, it proposes that the bull rivalled the constitution Ad nostrum as a fourteenth-century weapon for use against real or imagined “heretics of the Free Spirit.” It will first assemble a variety of citations impressive for their number as well as their geographical breadth; then it will introduce new evidence showing how In agro dominico was employed not merely for polemics but for practical application in a hitherto unknown inquisitorial trial. Information about that trial itself should additionally be of interest to students of heresy and inquisition.5 I will begin with what appears to be the earliest evidence of circulation of the bull, namely, in a work by Heinrich Suso, who drew on errors it cited in his Little Book of the Truth (Büchlein der Wahrheit). Suso’s treatise was written in 1329, or 1330 at the latest, which means that it was composed very soon after the formal issuance of In agro dominico in March 1329 and its dispatch dated 15 April 1329 to the Archbishop of Cologne for publication in his province. When Suso drew on the bull he was residing far from Cologne as lector in the Dominican convent of Constance, in a diocese appertaining to the province of Mainz. Hitherto it might have been supposed that Suso had gained his copy of In agro dominico from a Dominican colleague in the province of
born, 1988). See also idem, “Meister Eckhart vor seinen Richtern und Zensoren,” in Meister Eckhart, ed. Jacobi, 335–52, at 350: “Die Bulle ist nicht in der Christenheit verbreitet worden, wie das bei wichtigen Dokumenten geschah.” For references to numerous statements that accord with Trusen’s position, see Robert E. Lerner, “New Evidence for the Condemnation of Meister Eckhart,” Speculum 72 (1997): 347–66, at 347 nn. 1–2, 362 nn. 49–50. 4 Lerner, “New Evidence,” passim. 5 In giving the English for passages from In agro dominico I will rely heavily, but not invariably, on the translation by Bernard McGinn in Edmund Colledge and Bernard McGinn, eds., Meister Eckhart: The Essential Sermons, Commentaries, Treatises, and Defense (New York, 1981), 77–81. The best Latin edition is by M.-H. Laurent, “Autour du procès de Maître Eckhart,” Divus Thomas (Piacenza) 39 (1936): 331–48, 430–47.
e. Chapter six of the Büchlein der Wahrheit is at 352–57. . The Harvest of Mysticism in Medieval Germany (New York. Suso’s book itself was denounced as heretical in 1330 by fellow Dominicans (unfortunately details are lacking). see Bernard McGinn.MEISTER ECKHART’S SPECTER 117 Cologne on the assumption that it was published only there. Bihlmeyer’s notes already observe the use of In agro dominico. As Eckhart’s disciple. Eckhart) that echo tenets from In agro dominico (articles 23. in refuting the “wild one. chapter six of The Little Book of the Truth takes the form of a dialogue between Suso’s persona (“the disciple”) and a reprehensible “nameless wild one.”7 and in this context one can even say that Suso was aiming to show that the pope himself did not properly understand Eckhart’s teachings. and in the same work he closely approximates wording from the arenga to the papal bull. . and “the disciple. 12.” 7 McGinn.6 As Bernard McGinn observes.” Suso’s persona. apparently leading to Suso’s loss of his lectorship in the Constance cloister. Jan van Leeuwen and Jan van Ruusbroec. shows detailed knowledge of its contents. Not only do two of these works charge Eckhart with errors that echo several tenets of the papal bull. aside from a final two to which “objection existed”. 11. 24. . To the contrary. rpt. 197–98.” implicitly is refuting misunderstandings promulgated by the pope. and 22). 8 Ibid. Suso’s intention was by no means to tar his preceptor with the papal opprobrium. Heinrich Suso: Deutsche Schriften (Stuttgart. two authors who resided in the Augustinian priory of Groenendael.8 In sharp contrast to Suso.. 571 n. stating that 6 The standard edition is Karl Bihlmeyer. Here Jan refers to the “twenty-six errors that Eckhart openly preached against the Roman curia and against the holy catholic Church. Van den tien gheboden gods. 1961). who. 200. Not surprisingly. 1907. It is difficult to think that Suso chose these points without knowing of the text of the condemnation. saw them as exhibiting Eckhart’s doctrinal irresponsibility. 28: “LBT 6 defends Eckhart’s views on a number of the positions condemned in the papal bull. Harvest of Mysticism. “there is a consensus that the book [Büchlein der Wahrheit] was composed to defend Eckhart’s teachings against his detractors. . then.. near Brussels. But the recent proof of publication in the province of Mainz makes direct availability in Constance just as plausible an explanation.” It is the “wild one” who offers positions he claims to have derived from “a great master” (i. Most recently. but one of them.” an adherent of the views of “Free Spirits. Short treatises by Jan van Leeuwen dating from the 1350s indicate clearly that members of the Groenendael community had access to In agro dominico. who wanted to imply that the errors of In agro dominico were distortions of Eckhart’s actual teachings. Frankfurt. 2005).” the number “twenty-six” corresponding exactly to the number of articles branded as erroneous in In agro dominico.
and R. tenets 10 and 22. Theodor B. B. 1978). To this one might add that the appearance in locations such as Constance and Groenendael highlights the absurdity of thinking that John XXII could have meant that his constitution should not be noticed. but just one son. 153. In the same treatise Jan railed against Eckhart for teaching that “we are not many sons. and apparently even more from See the passages from Van den tien gheboten gods cited in Th. Jan van Leeuwen’s reference to the “twenty-six errors” together with his close verbal borrowing virtually rules out doubt that the bull was available to him and that it thus enjoyed broad geographical circulation. Jahrhunderts (Munich.” Ons Geestelijk Erf 47 (1973): 129–72. 133. 232. at 135. Van Meester Eckaerts leere daer hi in doelde. as Christ is. Because the relevant evidence dates from the 1350s. tenets 11 and 12: see the passages cited by Kok. 156. W. unquestioned when he wrote. “Jan van Leeuwen en zijn werkje tegen Eckhart.”12 Jan’s outrage stemmed from what he took to be Eckhart’s heretically pantheistic doctrine itself. that it had been published only in the province of Cologne whereas the convent of Groenendael lay in the ecclesiastical province of Reims. Geschichte der abendländischen Mystik: Vierter Band. 10 Kok. De Receptie van Meister Eckhart in de Nederlanden gedurende de middeleeuwen (Amsterdam. 134. for ample time existed for it to have migrated to the Brussels region without independent publication. A.118 R. Nevertheless. Jan van Leeuwen’s hostility to Eckhart was withering and unrelenting. in a publication of 1973. bis 16. “Jan van Leeuwen. 1999). Ubbink. Kok. Die niederländische Mystik des 14.10 In 1999 Kurt Ruh more boldly averred that Jan van Leeuwen’s evidence “seriously affects the widespread assumption that the bull In agro dominico was hardly known beyond the ecclesiastical province of Cologne.” and that men are God’s son “without difference or without creaturely distinction. it does not prove that In agro dominico was published in the province of Reims. 115. In Van den tien gheboden gods he assailed Eckhart as an “enormous antichrist. 11 Kurt Ruh. E.” 135.” and in a single-mindedly vitriolic diatribe. W. for which it was expressly meant. 9 . “Jan van Leeuwen. Kok. LERNER Eckhart’s teachings “offend the common people” and “cloud the light in simple. 12 Passages at Kok. Van vyferhande bruederscap.” 134.” echoing In agro dominico.”11 Had Ruh known my article of 1997 demonstrating that the bull had been published in the province of Mainz he doubtless would have been yet more assertive. cites from another treatise by Jan van Leeuwen. a passage that echoes In agro dominico.”9 Two modern scholars already noticed Jan van Leeuwen’s evident knowledge of In agro dominico. good hearts. took the use of the bull as “a reasonable inference” but refrained from claiming full proof because of the assumption. Kok. he termed him not only a “devilish man” but one who had “as many true insights as a toad.
” The match between the Dutch and the Latin of the papal bull is so close that the modern editor of Ruusbroec’s treatise. ende hier en neemic niet uut. mine is being carried”. 190–91): “al dat god gaf der menscheit ons heeren. 1365 and ca.MEISTER ECKHART’S SPECTER 119 his conviction that by openly preaching pantheistic errors Eckhart had inspired the pestiferous heresy of “free spirits. and when his body is carried about. in alre wijs. M. dat hevet hi u ghegheven.” Jan van Leeuwen was not an inquisitor.”13 Jan did not need In agro dominico to arrive at this conclusion. in the section he adduces the papal bull less closely but still clearly enough. he cites error 11 of the bull virtually word for word: “all that God gave to our Lord’s humanity.) The Latin text of part of error 10 of In agro dominico runs “Quidquid Deus pater dedit filio suo unigenito in humana natura. M. Since the text of In agro dominico was all but certainly available in Groenendael. but it is easy to imagine that had he been one he might have used In agro dominico’s articles as equipment for examining accused heretics. God and man. M. Kors et al.”14 Additionally. 99 (=2a. that Christ’s body is your body. Opera omnia 7A: Vanden XII beghinen. god ende mensche. for all that God has given to him. “you say . when his holy body is consecrated 13 Citation from Van den tien gheboten gods in Ubbink.” As he wrote. and no less than to him.. CCCM 107A (Turnhout. hic nihil excipio. I am being elevated. 103 (=2a. no less. for you fancy that you are his flesh and blood. the probability is very strong that the great Netherlandish mystic Jan van Ruusbroec had it before him when he wrote his last work. ed. 14 Jan van Ruusbroec.” (Here and elsewhere I follow the edition’s facing-page English translation of Ruusbroec’s Dutch with minor modifications.. M. 2000). Want al dat hem god ghegheven heeft. and also in charging.”15 Similarly Ruusbroec approximates error 10 in having an opponent say. “before Eckhart’s time no one knew of these awful free spirits nor of their false teachings which all originate in the stupid doctrine he used to preach that we are not many sons but one son. Van den XII Beghinen. niet men. 130–33): “Ende aldus ben ic een met hem. . does not hesitate to offer In agro dominico as Ruusbroec’s source (551). Kors. dat hevet hi mi met hem ghegheven ende niet min dan hem. 15 Ibid. one with him. he has given to me with him.” . 232. Certainly at a point in the section of this treatise wherein he attacks excessive mystical heresy he comes very close to a verbatim quotation. De Receptie van Meister Eckhart. but the sentiment is related to the bull’s arenga which berates Eckhart for working “to produce harmful thistles and poisonous thornbushes. paraphrasing error 11 in inveighing against the belief that “I am one with him. Namely. 1380. he has given to you. . “In the sacrament in which his body is elevated on the altar. in the same community between ca. and without exception. hoc totum dedit mihi. in every way: here I make no exception. that is Christ [and that we are] God’s sons without difference and without creaturely distinction. noch niet uutghenomen.
1977– ). Kors. Kors et al..”16 A noteworthy difference between the two Jans is that Ruusbroec never mentions Eckhart by name.” 17 Jan van Ruusbroec. sic ego convertor in eum quod ipse operator me suum esse unum. error 10: “Nos transformamur totaliter in Deum et convertimur in eum. Alsoe gherne siedi opde want als op dat heilighe sacrament ins priesters hant. In agro dominico. onwerdich boeve”. Prolegomena. non simile. 16 . een met hem. (Berlin. LERNER and elevated and carried about in the sacrament. Whatever the reason. in Jan van Ruusbroec. 103–5 (=2a. We will now see that the same attitude can be identified in the case of two actual inquisitors.120 R.” 19 M. 145–48): “Inden sacramente daermen sinen lichame opheft in den outaere. He lambastes a fictional interlocutor as a “worthless knave” and terms this character’s claim to possess all that God gave to Christ “an out-and-out lie. 1300– ca.” Cf. You are just as glad to look at the wall as at the holy sacrament in the priest’s hand. CCCM 107 (Turnhout. daer draghtmen my. 191–92): “Dit es ene grove loghene. 99–101 (=2a. “this is why you have no more desire nor worship for the body of our Lord.”17 Not only that. ende daermen sinen lichame draghet.20 A leading figure within his order.” 18 Ibid. you imagine that it is you yourself. Opera omnia 7: Vanden XII beghinen. Ruusbroec implicitly was taking Eckhart’s incriminated teachings as a source of continuing dangerous error just as Jan van Leeuwen had done so explicitly. 109 (=2a. than a dog which comes to Mass with his mistress. diemen niet deilen en mach”. nor to see the holy sacrament. 2d ed. in the present context it is only necessary to point out that the primary intention of both is to combat real or perceived contemporary heretics. noch dat heilige sacramente te siene. M. 109 (=2a. E. 2000). see the entry by Adolar Zumkeller in Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon. 1370). 4:853– 61. 236): “Noch meer segdi.. 239–43): “Ende hier omme en hebdi noch lost noch werdicheit ten lichame ons heeren.19 Thus even without mentioning Eckhart’s name. daer heftmen my. Want ic ben met hem vleeschs ende bloet ende een persoen. The first is the German Augustinian friar Jordan of Quedlinburg (ca. 109 (=2a. 20 For the best survey of his career and writings. want u dunct dat ghi sijt syn vleeschs ende sijn bloet. Jordan was conversant with Meister Eckhart’s Commentary on John and wove passages and paraphrases Ibid. 17–18. ed. soe dunct u dat ghi dar selve sijt.”18 It has been noted that Ruusbroec’s attack on heresy in Van den XII Beghinen was contemporaneous with campaigns directed against “heretical beguines and beghards” in Brabant. ende daer men sinen heiligen lichame consacreert ende opheft ende draghet inden sacramente... 13 vols. simili modo sicut in sacramento panis convertitur in corpus Christi. Opera omnia 7A: Vanden XII beghinen. but Ruusbroec hurls further invective by proclaiming. In this regard Ruusbroec is almost as vituperative as Jan van Leeuwen. niet meer dan een hont die met sire vrouwen te messen comt. 236–39): “dat Cristus lichame uwen lichame si.
more frequently known as Opus Jor (with a touch of narcissism. “The Use of a Text Quotation from Meister Eckhart by Jordan of Quedlinburg (Saxony) O.”23 Jeremiah Hackett has demonstrated the same trait of citing errors from In agro dominico in Jordan’s Opus postillarum. Here he argues against belief in union without distinction. and Jeremiah Hackett.A.” in Meister Eckhart in Erfurt. and Lerner. ed. Lerner.” thereby manifestly employing error ten of In agro dominico: “nos transformamur totaliter in Deum et convertimur in eum. 2008). in his criticism of those who offer an analogy between such total union and the transformation that takes places in the sacrament of the Eucharist. . simili modo sicut in sacramento panis convertitur in corpus Christi. sed ille idem unigenitus. at 404 n. Then. Nadia Bray (Hamburg. because he felt awkward about mentioning the name of a condemned author. 45. Copious proof is found in two of Jordan’s sermon collections: his Sermones de tempore and his Opus postillarum. either because he was ignorant of it or. In agro dominico: Laurent.” Church History 40 (1971): 397–411.S. ed. 554–86. The Sermones de tempore. Opus Jor gives “ponunt exemplum de pane et corpore Christi dicentes sic: nos transformamur et convertimur in Deum totaliter eo modo quo in sacramento panis convertitur in corpus Christi. “Autour du procès. “The Image of Mixed Liquids in Late-Medieval Mystical Thought. : De nativitate Domini. 122.. contains a sermon (number 51) that criticizes errors of mystical religion. non alius.” The same passage is quoted in Robert E. ed.24 Whereas Jordan states in one See most recently Nadia Bray. Bray notes parallels with passages from Eckhart’s Cologne trial but misses the parallels with tenets from In agro dominico.” 404 n. 121: “et tunc immediate coniungitur Deo et totaliter transformatur in Deum et sic fit Filius Dei. Miscellanea Mediaevalia 32 (Berlin. 23 Jordan: Opus postillarum. Jordan entitled two of his sermon collections respectively Opus Jor and Opus Dan).” Giornale critico della filosofia italiana 83 (2004): 37–52. “The Reception of Meister Eckhart: Mysticism. Bray. at 572–84. In regard to both passages from the Opus Ior. as in the view that the soul can become so elevated and perfected that it “becomes totally transformed into God and so is made the son of God none other than the only-begotten. Certainly he knew the errors listed in In agro dominico and shared the sentiments of the condemnation in finding them abhorrent. 43. Jordan draws very closely on the language of the papal decree. Andreas Speer and Lydia Wegener.” Proceedings of the PMR Conference 2 (1977): 97–102 21 . “Image. . 2005). 22 Jordan von Quedlinburg: Opus postillarum .21 Yet he did not mention Eckhart’s name when he did so.”22 This is a paraphrase of the substance of errors twenty through twenty-two of In agro dominico.MEISTER ECKHART’S SPECTER 121 from it approvingly into his own writings. “Meister Eckhart e Dietrich di Freiberg nell’Opus Ior di Giordano di Quedlinburg.” 438. Philosophy and Theology in Henry of Friemar (the Elder) and Jordanus of Quedlinburg. 24 Jeremiah Hackett. more likely. Opus Ior: Sermones selecti de filiatione divina.
21: “the noble man is that only-begotten son of God. any dutiful inquisitor would have arrived with formal documents most appropriate for examining them. Bray.” 99.” article eleven of In agro dominico quotes Eckhart as saying “all this he gave to me: here I except nothing. 127. see Robert E. one of which could have been the recently issued In agro dominico. ed. recognizing the parallel with In agro dominico.122 R.29 That being so. neither union nor sanctity. then Augustinian provincial of Saxony. Sermon 73.” and in the latter he needed to determine whether any heretical “moderns” were in his midst. . In 1336. and In agro dominico 11: “Hic nihil excipio. while he was theological lector in the Augustinian convent of Magdeburg. citing Jordan. see now Opus postillarum. 28 For the evidence. Lerner. Sermon 74: “sic et habitat quolibet iusto nihil excipiendo. 1483).” Here Hackett notes accurately that the source must be In agro dominico. nec unionem nec sanctitatem. 81. 27 Hackett. LERNER sermon that certain “moderns” have fallen into error in believing that the Word “lives in any just man excepting nothing.”27 Jordan of Quedlinburg’s concern with the theology of mystical union was not merely theoretical. Bray.” The same passage from Jordan is now cited in Opus Postillarum. 26. E. whom God the Father has generated eternally.” that is. no. 26 Hackett. or Bray. was consulted in 1350 regarding the testi- (Hackett cites the Opus Postillarum from the incunable edition: Strassburg. 27–28. The Heresy of the Free Spirit in the Later Middle Ages (Berkeley. citing Jordan. 52. Trusen. neither union nor sanctity. 1972).. 81. a town in Brandenburg where accused heretics were branded as “Luciferans. diabolical antinomians. nec unionem nec sanctitatem”.” 584 n. 25 Hackett. “Use.” 99.28 Around the same time he was called to serve as episcopal inquisitor in Angermünde. ed. Sermon 74. whom God the Father has generated eternally.” 100. “Use. he very likely participated in a trial of beguines charged with heresy in that city. citing Jordan. 69. Der Prozess. In the former capacity he wished to guard his audience against the errors of the “moderns. states that we know comparatively few references that display an exact knowledge of the text of the bull In agro dominico without mentioning any of them. “Reception. Opus postillarum. see Hackett. 29 Ibid. Jordan states in the first of the two sermons quoted that the “modern” errors he is attacking were reproved as “erroneous and heretical by Pope John XXII and condemned by him. The fact that Jordan.”25 In addition Jordan complains in another sermon of “certain mad ones” among the “moderns” who say “that any just man is himself the same as the only-begotten son of God. “Use. for the Latin text. for he was both a preacher and an inquisitor.”26 Removing any doubt regarding his use of the papal bull.
” Indeed. 30 . Der Prozess.. confessed to errors that had no bearing on mysticism or antinomianism. directed against “malignant” antinomian mystical heretics. Namely. it appears to make it likely. was not supposed to have received In agro dominico even though his diocese appertained to the province of Cologne. 1. that would present the likelihood that the bull had been published in the province of Magdeburg. 32 For citations from Ad nostrum in the Opus postillarum and the Opus Ior.31 More important is the point that Jordan disapproves of Eckhart in connection with what is normally held to be the heresy of the “Free Spirit.MEISTER ECKHART’S SPECTER 123 mony of a pertinacious heretic who had been tried in Erfurt30 shows that determining about heresy was an occupational responsibility. In this case the heretic in question. . 31 The sermon collections are of no help in determining when Jordan first obtained the bull because he could have used the bull long before writing his sermons. 128–30. versandt worden sind. 127: “Weder aus den päpstlichen Registern noch aus anderen Unterlagen ist ersichtlich. and 450 with n. 446 with n. he was so obsessed with “Free Spirit” errors that he wrote an entire treatise refuting them. One cannot tell whether Trusen knew this source. Trusen. 449 with nn. (This town lay in the diocese of Utrecht. see Romana Guarnieri. dass Kopien an andere deutsche Bischöfe als den Kölner Metropoliten .” Archivio italiano per la storia della pietà 4 (1965): 351–708. . “Il movimento del Libero Spirito. accordingly it is possible that he was engaged in other cases of which we are unaware.32 Accordingly we have here a firmly documented case of an inquisitor of the middle third of the fourteenth century who considered the two papal decrees to be part of the same package. Constantine of Arnhem. Two intervening citations of In agro dominico will serve as a transition to my second inquisitor. 3. If Jordan in fact utilized In agro dominico early in his career while he was lector in Magdeburg. but it is certain that Jordan engaged with the complex of such errors in the sermons mentioned as well as in others wherein he cited the foundational papal decree. 1.” Granted that the quoted evidence does not prove the publication of In agro dominico in Groot’s home diocese of Utrecht. Ad nostrum. We do not know the contents because this work unfortunately is lost. at 444 with n.33) In the statutes Groot explicitly reproves “every point that was forbidden to beguines by the common counsel of the Holy Church at Vienne as stands in the Clementines” together with “the twenty-eight articles of Eckhart that the Holy Church opposed and conIbid. 2. but the name Groot does not appear in his index. the completion dates of the three collections prove nothing about when the individual sermons within them may have been composed. the same linkage appears in statutes that Gert Groot wrote in 1379 for his newly founded house of the “modern devout” in Deventer. 5. moreover. according to some. 33 Cf. whose bishop. I refer first to proof that Jordan of Quedlinburg was not the only fourteenth-century individual who linked In agro dominico with Ad nostrum. 2.
36 [J. and thus about as far from the Metropolitan city as Groot’s diocese of Deventer was in the other direction. In 1890 it was published by Ignaz von Döllinger. myself included. thereafter assumed that Döllinger’s edition was trustworthy without going back to the manuscript. Groot necessarily was referring to Ad nostrum rather than the vaguer sister document. Beiträge zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters. Meister Eckhart. with its reference to twenty-eight articles (the indiscriminate lumping together of all twenty-eight as condemned is itself noteworthy since the bull itself makes distinctions about degrees of heterodoxy among that number). written before 1355. Also relevant is an entry concerning In agro dominico in the chronicle of the Westphalian Dominican.] I. ¶ 15: als in Clemencius staet. did check the manuscript and noted in a Theo Klausmann. E. 247–48. 2:403–6. Second. Alexander Patschovsky. at 40: “¶ 14: ienich punt. 1859). One is that Heinrich concealed the fact that the bull was aimed at his Ordensbrüder. 1890). Heinrich of Herford. I refer to documentation concerning a trial that transpired in Metz in the 1330s. fol. von Döllinger. he still probably had a copy at his desk. “Die ältesten Satzungen der Devotio moderna. asserting instead that its target was beghards and beguines. But the trust was unwarranted. 35 Henricus de Hervordia. Cum de quibusdam mulieribus.35 (Herford was located in the province of Cologne. 34 . 7r–v. daer die beghinen om verboeden siin in den ghemenen rade der heiligher kerken to Viennen. Nikolaus Staubach (Frankfurt.” The list reveals knowledge of the full text of In agro dominico. Two points are of present interest. The doyen of German heresy studies. ed. (Munich. LERNER demned.36 and students of heresy. die de heilighe kerke wederseghet hevet ende verdoempt. ¶ 16: achtentwintich articulen Eckards. Liber de rebus memorabilioribus sive Chronicon (Göttingen. but in the outlying diocese of Minden. 2004). 2 vols. J. I did not refer there to In agro dominico. Although I treated this case in some detail in my Heresy of the Free Spirit of 1972. On the basis of such an assumption the bull thus could have been used in practice as an inquisitorial weapon against alleged “free spirits” because for contemporary authorities beghards and free spirits were interchangeable terms.” in Kirchenreform von unten.”34 In referring to “points” reproved at Vienne. but since he reported its contents with substantial accuracy. Knowledge of the trial depends solely on a text that survives in a fifteenth-century manuscript. the fact that Heinrich was a Dominican is noteworthy because his attention to In agro dominico raises the likelihood that the document was thought to be of interest to Dominicans in their capacity as inquisitorial guardians of the faith. New evidence proves that at least one Dominican did take the step of using In agro dominico as a formularly in an inquisitorial trial.) Heinrich misdated the document by two years (he placed its issue in 1327). Österreichische Nationalbibliothek 4201. 24–43. editing Vienna.124 R.
Johannes Fried. it is the second part. “Notes sobre el manuscrit del Directorium inquisitorum de Nicolau Eimeric conservat a la Biblioteca de l’Escorial. see Jaume de Puig i Oliver. Döllinger.” in Die abendländische Freiheit vom 10.” According to the anonymous author who was in some way involved with the 37 Alexander Patschovsky. So Great a Light. 44: “[die] besonders fehlerhaft[e] und zudem fragmentarisch[e] Quellenausgabe von Ignaz v. Returning to the manuscript one finds that the text. 2001). the new ones nothing good. So Great a Smoke: The Beguin Heretics of Languedoc (Ithaca.” Franciscana 8 (2006): 187–227. 39 The martyrology was discovered by Alexander Patschovsky in a manuscript now in Wolfenbüttel. 2008). The first and much longer part treats the tenets and practices of “beghards of poverty” who were examined in Metz in 1337 (Döllinger misread this as 1334) by the bishop and a certain Dominican brother. at 274 n. that is. Menschen und Meriten: Eine persönliche Portraitgalerie (Munich. that is relevant here. at 538–39.” Horst Fuhrmann. quotes Charles Molinier’s review (1894) of Döllinger’s Sektengeschichte: “the best chapters offer nothing new. N. Jahrhundert.40 This proceeds to describe a “different species of beghard”: those who call themselves “of the free spirit. “Reconsidering a Fourteenth-Century Heresy Trial in Metz: Beguins and Others. As Kneupper demonstrates. Jahrhundert. Vorträge und Forschungen 39 (Sigmaringen. zum 14..37 Inexplicably Döllinger neglected to publish a substantial part and breathed no word of his omission. 152: “Döllingers unvollständige und überaus fehlerhafte Wiedergabe des Verhörsberichts. . For an edition of an inferior copy. ed. who served as inquisitor. In addition the fact that Occitan Beguins were put to death in Metz is confirmed by an as yet unpublished fourteenth-century Beguin martyrology found in the baggage of Franciscan Spirituals who were seized in 1354 in Montpellier.38 Suffice it here to say that the text falls into two parts.” 38 Courtney Kneupper. 40 See the Appendix for an edition. there entitled Tractatus de beghardis. at 117 n. silently omitted by Döllinger. 265–86.” Arxiu de textos catalans antics 19 (2000): 525–60.Y. Although one would not have expected to find Occitan Beguins in Metz. some or all of these “beghards of poverty” were actually Beguins. is remarkable for several reasons.39 Whereas the tenets and practices listed in the first part of the Tractatus de beghardis are the subject of Kneupper’s article. Burnham. the first three tenets attributed to the “beghards of poverty” in the Tractatus are of a characteristically “Spiritual Franciscan” complexion. 1991). Most of these are addressed in a recent article by Courtney Kneupper. “Freiheit der Ketzer. 82 n. Fuller details on the Beguin martyrology are provided by Louisa A.” This is reinforced in idem. Strassburger Beginenverfolgungen im 14. 169. southern French adherents of the doctrines of Petrus Iohannis Olivi who were victims of inquisitorial persecution in the 1320s.MEISTER ECKHART’S SPECTER 125 footnote of 1974 that Döllinger’s edition was both faulty and incomplete. 94.” Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 30 (1974): 56–198. Garinus.
see Thomas Kaeppeli. the Parisian regent.” (Metz.P. The bishop of Metz in 1337 was Adémar de Monteil.126 R. O. Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta (Bologna. What was the most likely document an inquisitor arriving from Paris in 1337 might have employed in prosecuting “beghards”? Doubtless the answer is the Council of Vienne’s decree Ad nostrum. who was Dominican regent master in Paris in 1336–37. To display the nature of their outrageous beliefs the author presents a list of six errors confessed to by a “heresiarch” of the “free spirits” named “Gallenius de Tholosa”—a person hitherto unknown to scholarship.” The two men who directed the proceedings are identifiable. in 1348. 42 Papal inquisitors were absent from “Germany” in the fourteenth century until the appointment of John Schadland. 4 vols. Alberigo. Bishop Adémar might have turned to one of two roughly equidistant centers of theological learning. although Francophone.” in Praedicatores inquisitores – I: The Dominicans and the Medieval Inquisition (Rome. Then he supplies two more errors held collectively by “beghards of the free spirit. Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum medii aevi. the document in fact refers to the inquisitor as a Dominican named Garinus.. O.. I believe he was certainly Garinus de Giaco. Cologne and Paris. at 323. E. 383– 84. Although Adémar probably initiated the round-up of the accused. Identifying the inquisitor is more important. was the only theologically trained Dominican with the rare name of Garinus known to be active anywhere in Europe in the 1330s.41 Several reasons underpin my assurance. and Garinus de Giaco. who served in Metz from 1327 to 1361. then.”) Not surprisingly. was technically located in the “Kingdom of Germany. LERNER trial. he hardly need concern us because he does not seem to have taken an active role in the trial. 2:10–11. 1973). But a choice of Cologne would seem improbable. 1970–93). 43 The text is in G.P. See Klaus-Bernward Springer. No papal inquisitor enters into question because none was deputized in this period for the ecclesiastical province of Trier in which Metz was located. Thus a Dominican regent master in Paris would have been the best choice. published formally by John XXII late in 1317.43 Ad nostrum was the definitive canonistic text listing the errors of the “malignant beghards” in the “Kingdom of Germany” who claimed to be endowed with the “spirit of liberty. 2004). (Rome. these beghards had friendly contacts with the “beghards of poverty” but nonetheless were distinct from them. not only because Paris had more prestige but because Adémar was Francophone and so were the accused. the treatise describing the trial in fact refers specifically to Ad 41 For basic data and further references. 4: 91. 311–93.42 Looking for an acknowledged theological expert. Granted that this is a hypothetical reconstruction. . “Dominican Inquisition in the Archdiocese of Mainz (1348–1520).
all that I wish to show is that the language of his confession follows that of a papal bull. “Ketzerverhöre des Spätmittelalters als quellenkritisches Problem. Gallenius’s fifth error at first appears eccentric. rpt. We can observe a similar phenomenon in the present instance.” Looking further one can see that Ad nostrum’s error list was used in Metz as part of an interrogatory. peccatum non est”). . 1976–78). Ad nostrum’s first error. it is true.44 The great German scholar showed that inquisitors customarily employed error lists to serve as questionnaires—the technical term was interrogatoria—regarding beliefs.” This is a statement that “in purgatory there is no corporeal fire” (“Quod in purgatorio non est ignis corporeus”). (Stuttgart. the tenet as phrased in the Metz treatise again seems to derive from a 44 Herbert Grundmann. stating at the outset of its second part that the “beghards of the free spirit” had been combatted by “the Council of Vienne in the decretal [found] under the heading ‘de hereticis. 2:364–416. the third was that “a man can arrive at such perfection that he is not obliged to obey God or any creature” (“Quod homo potest pervenire ad talem perfectionem quod 〈non〉 tenetur obedire Deo nec cuique creature”). almost exact correspondence in language and content appears in the case of Gallenius’s error six and Ad nostrum’s error seven: “there is no sin in the carnal act” (“actus carnis non est peccatum”) and “the carnal act is no sin” (“actus autem carnalis . 3 vols. nec ad aliqua precepta ecclesie obligantur. for it bears no relation to the usual range of errors commonly imputed to “free spirits. Furthermore.’ Ad nutum nostrum.” but that arises in error three: “Quod illi qui sunt in predicto gradu perfectionis et spiritu libertatis non sunt humane subiecti obedientie. . . Corresponding to this is the first error listed in Ad nostrum: “a man in the present life is able to acquire such a grade of perfection that he is incapable of sin” (“Quod homo in vita presenti tantum et talem perfectionis gradum potest acquirere quod reddetur penitus impeccabilis”). A breakthrough in the study of late-medieval heresy trials was made by Herbert Grundmann in a classic article of 1965. says nothing about “obedience. Whether or not this actually was Gallenius’s own sentiment. Whether Gallenius really upheld the antinomian errors imputed to him is not my present concern. Ausgewälte Aufsätze.MEISTER ECKHART’S SPECTER 127 nostrum. the use of such methods often resulted in putting words into people’s mouths. Of the six errors admitted by Gallenius of Toulouse.” Furthermore.” Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 22 (1965): 519–75. in idem. One of Grundmann’s telling examples was a trial held in Eichstätt in 1381: after the accused confessed to being a “free spirit” he parroted the errors of Ad nostrum one by one in language nearly identical to that of the canonistic text.
Patschovsky notes the verbal proximity to the condemnation of 1270. or. But the error does bear relation to a tenet in the papal bull of 1329 condemning the errors of Meister Eckhart. in any condemned Parisian article. non pater. a book written by a physician. 1889–97). Chatelain. Riccardino of Pavia. 432. A similar error appears in the Parisian condemnation of 1277.128 R. vidimus et legimus reprobatos. the likelihood that he too was equipped with Bishop Tempier’s error list seems strong.” 46 Riccardino’s case. and the suspicion mounts upon awareness of a parallel case. .47 The probability thus seems strong that Walter referred to Bishop Tempier’s condemned articles during the examination and borrowed language concerning the error of the lack of corporeal fire in purgatory. Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis. Additional resemblance appears in the respective conclusions: Gallenius says lapidarily “neither Father nor Son” (“non pater. no.. 1:544. Of these the first was that “the soul separated from the body is not able to suffer from corporeal fire in hell or in purgatory” (“Quod anima separata a corpore non potest pati ab igne corporali in inferno neque in purgatorio”). 19: “Quod anima separata nullo modo patitur ab igne. ed.. LERNER formulary. art. 47 Ibid. 1:487. Whereas the Metz treatise has Gallenius saying “God is one” (“Deo sit unus”). ibid.” 45 . . No such “unitarianism” can be found in the usual sources relating to the heresy of the Free Spirit. was examined by two inquisitors in Prague who determined that it contained many errors. 185–90. Die Anfänge einer ständigen Inquisition in Böhmen (Berlin. and its ecclesiastical-political ramifications. article 23 of In agro dominico quotes Eckhart as saying “God is one in all ways” (“Deus est unus omnibus modis”).45 The Metz treatise’s repetition of the term “corporeal fire” itself induces suspicion regarding the phrasing. at 187.46 Because Riccardino’s book is lost we cannot tell if it contained such a position. Gallenius’s first error leads us into a different terrain. The source appears to be one of the thirteen articles condemned in 1270 in Paris by Bishop Étienne Tempier: that “the separated soul after death does not suffer from corporeal fire” (“quod anima post mortem separata non patitur ab igne corporeo”). Denifle and E. art. 30–46. But we do know that the book’s main inquisitorial censor. 8. H. For the edition of the text describing the condemnation of Riccardino’s book. titular bishop of Sura. 1. no. in 1315 or 1316. 1975). non filius”). for that matter. boasted of having studied for years in Paris and Oxford and stated that sixteen of Riccardino’s errors had been condemned by both universities. Walter. Since Gallenius of Toulouse’s examiner was a Parisian theological master. This states that “there is neither Father nor Son in God because he is one” (“Quod in Deo cum sit unus. . 4 vols. is treated meticulously in Alexander Patschovsky. (Paris. E. 473. 189: “Quod Parisius et Oxonie per cancellarios dictarum universitatum . art. Namely. . qui ibidem diu studuimus . see ibid.
which begins as if it were a “freespirit” phrase. it is true. yet ends differently: “a man can arrive at such perfection that he need not pray vocally but only by his mind” (“Homo ex quo pervenit ad talem perfectionem non debet orare vocaliter sed solum mente”). not only practically but because of their scholastic format and abstruse mode of discourse. “Gallenius de Tholosa” came from Toulouse. tam cito mundum creavit”).) Both givens exclude the possibility that Gallenius had read Meister Eckhart on his own. But Gallenius of Toulouse could hardly have known German. He would not have learned the language in Languedoc. The merger of a “free spirit” preamble with an Eckhartian sentiment in Gallenius’s fourth error seems particularly noteworthy. Furthermore he must have been a layman. Could Gallenius have worked out doctrines similar to those of Meister Eckhart by having read Eckhart’s works? One can safely exclude this possibility. there was no God nor man” (“Quando Deus creavit hominem non erat Deus neque homo”). and some may have been available directly or indirectly to the laity. The Meister’s vernacular sermons. Eckhart’s Latin works had limited circulation and were beyond the reach of a layman. Almost certainly he fled from Languedoc together with Beguins and accordingly would have arrived in Metz in the 1320s or 1330s during or soon after the persecution in his homeland. Although silent prayer is not in the Free-Spirit “canon. (Late-medieval documents about heresy are always careful to specify when an accused heretic is in orders. The two startling statements are not the same. and article 23 has “he who sees two or sees distinction does not see God” (“qui enim duo videt vel distinctionem videt. but they may have a family resemblance. This leaves Gallenius’s fourth error. circulated more widely.” the superiority of interior to external acts appears in the bull against Eckhart: “God does not properly command an exterior act” (article 16). which the Father who stays in us makes and works” (article 18). and even if he had resided in Metz for over a decade. which do not make us good. Granted that the correspondence here is less direct than in the previous case. deum non videt”). the obvious explanation for Gallenius’s “Eckhardism” is that the inquisitor steered the examina- . Since we have seen that the Dominican inquisitor used at least one papal decree concerning heresy (Ad nostrum) as a formulary. Metz was a Francophone city. Gallenius’s second error is a paradox: “when God created man. but of interior acts. for the first of Eckhart’s reproved tenets in the bull concludes “as soon as God existed. he created the world” (“quam cito Deus fuit.MEISTER ECKHART’S SPECTER 129 non filius”). a paradox concerning time and creation as listed in the papal bull of 1329 seems similar. as well as “Let us bring forth the fruit not of exterior acts.
130 R. In agro dominico. or perpetrate any other crime. Whatever the accused may really have believed. or steal.48 Garinus’s presumption about the accused’s “free spirit” profile explains his action. indeed. The malignant beghards were said to have maintained that “if anyone wills to kill. or fornicate. but nothing equivalent is said or hinted about Gallenius. LERNER tion by means of another recently issued papal decree. The fact that his three “Eckhartian” errors are not exact repetitions of language from In agro dominico raises the possibility that he might have voiced some thoughts in which he really believed. The first “extra tenet. it remains clear that if they were examined by means of leading questions. the inquisitor in this instance could depend on prejudice without any need for drawing on formularies. ex consequenti concludunt quod nullus actus ab humana voluntate procedens potest esse malus 48 This has been confirmed for me by Professor Loris Sturlese. who agrees that Gallenius’s errors as reported in the Metz treatise parallel errors in the papal bull. . and hence was spared from the flames. E. recanted. The second of these constitutes high-potency “free-spirit” outrageousness. nothing in any of his writings expands on them in ways as to make it more probable that Gallenius read or learned of them than that he was prompted with errors from In agro dominico by the inquisitor.” as shown not only by his use of Ad nostrum but by a direct statement about Gallenius in the treatise: “he was of the sect of those who term themselves ‘of the free spirit. Moreover. but he might equally well have been improvising to satisfy the requirements of a “full confession.” Avoiding once more the issue of whether any accused heretics actually ever proposed such things. he would sin if he did not fulfill such a will because resisting such a will would be resisting God.’” The fugitive from Toulouse must have been a cooperative defendant. The treatise indicates that some of the “beghards of poverty” were pertinacious and put to death. from whom such a will proceeds. the second part of the Metz treatise refers to two other errors of the “beghards of the free spirit” without naming any individuals who held them. he does not sin in doing so. while the errors extracted in the papal bull were indeed taken from writings by Eckhart. Thus he probably made a full confession. is more properly theological. and the act of the human will is from God. Garinus evidently “pegged him. Supposedly these heretics said that “the human will is from God.” After reporting the case of Gallenius.” however. from which they conclude that no act proceeding from the human will can be evil because it is from God” (“Dicunt quod voluntas humana est a Deo et actus voluntatis humane est a Deo. one of the foremost living experts on Eckhart.
The first of the two additional errors in the Metz treatise thus consists of a blend between “Free-Spirit” thought and Eckhartian language. All told. According to this reconstruction. either having been sent to Paris officially upon its issuance in 1329 or else having been brought there by someone who appreciated its import for the policing of doctrine. if it is conceded that In agro dominico was used as a formulary in a Metz heresy trial of 1337. Moreover this inference is greatly strengthened if it is accepted that Brother Garinus had the Parisian error list of 1270 at his disposal. that is yet more proof that the bull was not meant to be limited in its circulation to the province of Cologne. but we have now seen that four of them did. Thus the conclusion seems inescapable that the Dominican inquisitor had a copy of In agro dominico at his disposal and used that bull together with Ad nostrum as templates for conducting some of his examinations.MEISTER ECKHART’S SPECTER 131 quia a Deo est”). Where would Brother Garinus de Giaco have obtained copies of the two texts? Assuming that he was Dominican regent master in Paris during the year of the Metz trial it seems more likely that in travelling to a foreign city he would have brought documents with him rather than counting on their availability on site. Although this is antinomianism of a “Free-Spirit” complexion. but in that case they were most likely to have been natives of Metz. that might perhaps be written off as coincidence. But the evi- . as seems warranted to assume. how would they otherwise have absorbed Eckhartian theological language regarding wills? The alternative that the terminology depended on prompting from In agro dominico seems much more compelling. And if the accused were laity. which lacks language about “wills. then. the specific language has no parallel in Ad nostrum. Accordingly we again face the difficulty of imagining that the first error derived from actual knowledge of Meister Eckhart’s teachings. nollem ego quod ego peccata non commisissem”). In conclusion. I should not will that I have not committed sins” (article 14: “Ipse [bonus homo] velit quidquid Deus vult. Others who were examined together with Gallenius of Toulouse as “beghards of the free spirit” may not necessarily have fled with him from Languedoc. particularly with the tenets that “the good man should will whatever God wills” and “because God wills in some way for me to have sinned. In agro dominico was available to a Parisian theologian in 1337. no names are attached to the two additional errors. The treatise simply reports that they emerged from confessions of those who were examined in the city of Metz. where French was spoken. if one or two tenets offered by the Tractatus de beghardis resembled tenets from the bull against Eckhart.” But In agro dominico again supplies the deficiency. As stated. Quia Deus vult aliquo modo me peccasse.
at 451: “hec sunt falsa et heretica”. the antinomian mystical errors imputed to German beghards and beguines. in greater detail. .” 362. E.) als Gutachter in theologischen Prozessen.” and “blasphemous and insane. drawing on both bulls to examine “beghards. hitherto unknown evidence from Metz shows that an inquisitor moved beyond theory to practice. Wilhelm Corsten et al. “Der Kardinal Jacques Fournier (Benedikt XII.”50 I supported this statement with data showing that all or parts of In agro dominico appeared in inquisitorial repositories from three different cities: Mainz. Eckhart himself may well have been homo doctus et sanctus. LERNER dence is of deeper significance in casting light on the “negative reception” of Meister Eckhart’s teachings. and Zurich.” Even though this inquisitor belonged to Eckhart’s Dominican Order. Josef Koch. 1960).” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 71 (2004): 305–71. “blasphemus et insanus.” Jacques also sneers at what became article 13 as “apud omnes intelligentes dignum risu. Strassburg. he must have accepted In agro dominico’s admonitions that the errors taught by “someone named Eckhart from Germany .” in Die Kirche und ihre Ämter und Stände.”49 In my article of 1997 I observed that “those who were familiar with the articles in the bull against Eckhart linked them with the articles in Ad nostrum. . 49 . It shows too that Gert Groot took the two sets of errors to be complementary. Evidently inquisitors who wished to inform themselves about the nature of the threat of antinomian mysticism believed that the bull against Eckhart could be regarded as a supplement to the Clementine decree against the “malignant men” known as beghards. Most illuminatingly. Jordan of Quedlinburg. active far to the east of the Rhineland. two of the articles.” These pronouncements descend to us by means of quotations in a work of 1368 by Johannes Hiltalingen of Basel: see now. ed. 50 Lerner. (Cologne. The evidence in this article shows that an identifiable inquisitor. but his specter was whispering to heresy hunters. [who] was led astray by the Father of Lies” were a clear and present danger to the faith. 441–52. “New Evidence. According to the man who would soon become Pope Benedict XII. which then entered into the bull of condemnation verbatim (as articles eleven and twelve) were respectively. Karl Heinz Witte. “false and heretical.132 R. Those scholars who attempted to minimize the seriousness of the Avignon process against Eckhart and its outcome not only discounted as formulaic the sharp language of In agro dominico’s arenga and disposition but neglected to mention the equally sharp words of Jacques Fournier when evaluating the articles of accusation around 1328 in Avignon. regarded the errors listed in In agro dominico as linked with those listed in Ad nostrum. “Die Rezeption der Lehre Meister Eckharts durch Johannes Hiltalingen von Basel: Untersuchung und Textausgabe.
“Reconsidering a Fourteenth-Century Heresy Trial” (n. Et ille tunc temporis latebat in Metis et erat maximus heresyarcha.” et ibidem enumerantur et condempnantur viii errores. Here I reproduce from fol. The “non” in pointed brackets (Gallenius’s tenet 3) is required by the logic of the sentence..  Item quod in purgatorio non est ignis corporeus. Kneupper describes the manuscript—Vienna.  Item quod homo potest pervenire ad talem perfectionem quod 〈non〉 tenetur obedire Deo nec cuique creature. 38 above). ex consequenti concludunt quod nullus actus ab humana voluntate procedens potest esse malus quia a Deo est. Et quantum coligitur ex confessionibus eorum qui fuerunt examinati in civitate Metensi fuit quidam nomine Gallenius de Tholosa.MEISTER ECKHART’S SPECTER 133 APPENDIX “Aliud genus beghardorum” A corrected version of the entire Tractatus de beghardis pertaining to the heresy trials in Metz of 1337. ed. Disputatio inter catholicum et paterinum hereticum (Florence. 7v the last paragraph of the first part of the treatise. which gives the name of the Dominican inquisitor and the date. as well as the entire second part.  Item homo ex quo pervenit ad talem perfectionem non debet orare vocaliter sed solum mente. Österreichische Nationalbibliothek 4201—improving on the description of Carola Hoécker. Isti articuli inventi fuerunt in examinatione beghardorum hereticorum combustorum in Meti per dominum episcopum Metensem et fratrem Garinum Ordinis Predicatorum inquisitorem heretice pravitatis anno Domini M°3to 37°.  Item quod actus carnis non est peccatum. Iste in angulis et latibulis inter alios errores asserebat que secuntur:  Quod in Deo cum sit unus. Item in confessionibus supradictis habetur quod beghardi de libertate spiritus fundunt plures errores suos ex tali mala radice quia dicunt quod voluntas humana est a Deo et actus voluntatis humane est a Deo.  Item quando Deus creavit hominem non erat Deus neque homo. contra quos in concilio Vienensi facta est decretalis sub tytulo “de hereticus” “ad nutum nostrum. non filius. cxxiii– cxxiv. non pater. Hic fuit de secta eorum qui famant se de libertate spiritus. adducens illud ewangelii veri adoratores adorabunt patrem in spiritu et veritate [Jo 4:23]. Et inde est quod ipsi dicunt quod si aliquis habet voluntatem occidendi aut fornicandi aut furandi sive quodcumque aliud facinus perpetrandi. 2001). and aided by a transcription helpfully provided by Alexander Patschovsky. 10 15 20 25 . appears in Kneupper. et isti nominant se de libertate spiritus. 223–27. 5 Est aliud genus beghardorum. ipse non peccat hoc faciendo immo peccaret si talem voluntatem opere non compleret quia tali voluntati resistendo resisteret Deo a quo ipsa voluntas procedit.
.134 R.: pechardorum]. man. Non tamen invenitur quod unus alium accuset libenter nisi coactus. Explicit tractatus de erroribus [al. Northwestern University. E. LERNER 30 Et notandum quod beghardi de paupertate et pechardi de libertate spiritus mutuo se visitant et ad invicem frequenter colloquendum habent.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.