USD $218.00
Corporate Jurisdiction, Academic Heresy, and Fraternal Correction at the University of Paris, 1200-1400
Series:
Author:
In Corporate Jurisdiction, Academic Heresy, and Fraternal Correction at the University of Paris, 1200-1400, Gregory S. Moule explains how the theological faculty acquired independent jurisdiction over cases of academic heresy among its membership. He convincingly demonstrates that the faculty's jurisdiction and procedures were modelled on the pattern of a bishop and his cathedral canons.
Gregory S. Moule's analysis of Pierre D'Ailly's Apologia confirms the faculty's jurisdiction and establishes that the censures of Denis Foulechat and John of Monteson were instances of judicial rather than fraternal correction. Medieval discussions of Judas Iscariot further clarify fraternal correction's role in the process of censure. Canon law, corporate theory, scholastic theology, and biblical commentary are employed to produce a wide-ranging, original, and thought-provoking study.
Gregory S. Moule's analysis of Pierre D'Ailly's Apologia confirms the faculty's jurisdiction and establishes that the censures of Denis Foulechat and John of Monteson were instances of judicial rather than fraternal correction. Medieval discussions of Judas Iscariot further clarify fraternal correction's role in the process of censure. Canon law, corporate theory, scholastic theology, and biblical commentary are employed to produce a wide-ranging, original, and thought-provoking study.
Gregory S. Moule, Ph.D. (1999), University of Wisconsin-Madison, is a Teacher of Spanish in the Philadelphia Public Schools. He is an independent scholar working in the field of Medieval Intellectual History. This is his first publication.
"This important study, based on Moule’s doctoral dissertation, both builds on Thijssen’s earlier work on academic censure in Paris and modifies some of its conclusions, particularly with regard to the role of fraternal correction in the process. Moule guides the reader expertly through the extensive body of ecclesiastical legislation and commentary on capitular and, by extension, faculty jurisdiction; his argument for the importance of the cathedral chapter as a model for the faculty’s jurisdictional authority is particularly well made. While obviously of most relevance to medievalists, the work will also be of interest to scholars of the early modern period, as it provides valuable background to the role of the faculty in the sixteenth century, when it functioned as an arbiter of orthodoxy not just for its own members, but for the kingdom of France as a whole." - Mark Taplin, in: Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 69/2, (April 2018), pp. 393-394
''Moule’s thorough, detailed, and meticulous work highlights several important aspects of academic censure in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. [...] By moving away from a purely theological view of academic censure and illuminating its legal context, Moule’s study provides new perspectives and makes an important contribution to the study of academic heresy''. - Justine L. Trombley, in: Catholic Review (Spring 2019)
''Moule’s thorough, detailed, and meticulous work highlights several important aspects of academic censure in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. [...] By moving away from a purely theological view of academic censure and illuminating its legal context, Moule’s study provides new perspectives and makes an important contribution to the study of academic heresy''. - Justine L. Trombley, in: Catholic Review (Spring 2019)
Contents
Preface xi
Acknowledgments xii
Abbreviations xv
1 Introduction 1
The Foulechat Controversy 10
The Monteson Controversy 18
The Factors Affecting the Facultyʼs Jurisdiction 27
Medieval Concepts of Jurisdiction 27
Corporate Theory and the Faculty of Theology 33
The Role of the Bachelors in the Faculty 39
Conclusion 41
2 The Early History of the Faculty of Theology: Evidence for the Model of
Bishop and Chapter in the Faculty 42
The Office of the Chancellor 42
The Office of the Dean 56
The Chancellor and the Masters: Their Relations 61
Conclusion 76
3 The Corporate Development of the Faculty of Theology 80
The Conflict of 1219–1228 80
The Right to Make Statutes 85
The Model and the Secular-Mendicant Controversy 95
Conclusion 100
4 Jurisdiction and the Cathedral Chapter: Gratian and the Decretists 103
The Model of Shared Jurisdiction: The Contribution of Gratian 103
The Model of Shared Jurisdiction: The Contribution of the Decretists 108
Conclusion 126
5 Jurisdiction of the Cathedral Chapter: Episcopus Nullius and
Irrefragabili 129
The Contributions of Johannes Teutonicus, Vincentius Hispanus, and
Damasus 129
The Contribution of Goffredus de Trano 137
The Contribution of Innocent IV 138
Bernard of Parma and the Ordinary Gloss 141
The Contribution of Hostiensis 143
The Contribution of Johannes Andreae 147
The Contribution of Baldus de Ubaldis 148
The Distribution of Jurisdiction within the Chapter 152
The Crime of Heresy and the Jurisdiction of the Chapter 157
Conclusion 163
6 Jurisdiction, Procedure, and the Censure of Academic Heresy in the
Faculty of Theology 165
Jean Gerson and the Censure of Heresy 166
The Canon Law of Heresy and the Jurisdiction of the Faculty of
Theology 174
The Roles of the Dean and the Chancellor in the Censure of Academic
Heresy 177
The Role of Outside Agents in the Censure of Academic Heresy 187
The Investigative Process in Faculty and Chapter 192
Conclusion 199
7 The Debate over the Jurisdiction of the Faculty of Theology 201
John of Monteson and the Theological Faculty’s Jurisdiction 201
The Tractatus, or Apologia, of Pierre d’Ailly 203
Analysis of the Tractatus, or, Apologia 205
The Arguments from Papal Privilege and Human Law 213
The Argument from Divine Law 216
The Argument from Custom 216
The Role of Custom in the Legal System 221
The Territorial Scope of the Faculty’s Jurisdiction 222
D’Ailly’s Response to Monteson 228
Evaluation of d’Ailly’s Argument 230
The Chronological Development of the Faculty’s Jurisdiction 231
Conclusion 236
8 Judas, Monteson, and Fraternal Correction at Paris 237
Fraternal Correction and the Parisian Faculty of Theology 241
The Sources of Fraternal Correction 245
Fraternal Correction in the Process of Censure at Paris 250
Judas, Fraternal Correction, and the Parisian Faculty of Theology 253
The Treatment of Judas by Christ at the Last Supper 256
The Rule of Augustine and Fraternal Correction 274
Conclusion 280
9 Fraternal Correction and Its Role in Academic Censure at the University
of Paris 282
The Duty to Render Fraternal Correction and Its Possible Omission 282
The Contribution of Augustine 283
Judicial Correction and the Omission of Fraternal Correction 290
The Issue of Proof 291
The Revocatio Conditionalis and the Oath to Report Suspect Teaching 293
Suspect Teaching and the Definition of a Secret Sin 307
The Contribution of John Baconthorpe 312
The Issue of Incorrigibility 319
Public Correction and the Presence of Scandal 321
The Contributions of Humbert of Romans, OP, and Nicholas of Gorran,
OP 327
Conclusion 330
Conclusion 338
Appendix A 345
Select Bibliography 347
Index of Legal Citations 363
Index of Biblical Citations 366
Index of Names and Subjects 367
Preface xi
Acknowledgments xii
Abbreviations xv
1 Introduction 1
The Foulechat Controversy 10
The Monteson Controversy 18
The Factors Affecting the Facultyʼs Jurisdiction 27
Medieval Concepts of Jurisdiction 27
Corporate Theory and the Faculty of Theology 33
The Role of the Bachelors in the Faculty 39
Conclusion 41
2 The Early History of the Faculty of Theology: Evidence for the Model of
Bishop and Chapter in the Faculty 42
The Office of the Chancellor 42
The Office of the Dean 56
The Chancellor and the Masters: Their Relations 61
Conclusion 76
3 The Corporate Development of the Faculty of Theology 80
The Conflict of 1219–1228 80
The Right to Make Statutes 85
The Model and the Secular-Mendicant Controversy 95
Conclusion 100
4 Jurisdiction and the Cathedral Chapter: Gratian and the Decretists 103
The Model of Shared Jurisdiction: The Contribution of Gratian 103
The Model of Shared Jurisdiction: The Contribution of the Decretists 108
Conclusion 126
5 Jurisdiction of the Cathedral Chapter: Episcopus Nullius and
Irrefragabili 129
The Contributions of Johannes Teutonicus, Vincentius Hispanus, and
Damasus 129
The Contribution of Goffredus de Trano 137
The Contribution of Innocent IV 138
Bernard of Parma and the Ordinary Gloss 141
The Contribution of Hostiensis 143
The Contribution of Johannes Andreae 147
The Contribution of Baldus de Ubaldis 148
The Distribution of Jurisdiction within the Chapter 152
The Crime of Heresy and the Jurisdiction of the Chapter 157
Conclusion 163
6 Jurisdiction, Procedure, and the Censure of Academic Heresy in the
Faculty of Theology 165
Jean Gerson and the Censure of Heresy 166
The Canon Law of Heresy and the Jurisdiction of the Faculty of
Theology 174
The Roles of the Dean and the Chancellor in the Censure of Academic
Heresy 177
The Role of Outside Agents in the Censure of Academic Heresy 187
The Investigative Process in Faculty and Chapter 192
Conclusion 199
7 The Debate over the Jurisdiction of the Faculty of Theology 201
John of Monteson and the Theological Faculty’s Jurisdiction 201
The Tractatus, or Apologia, of Pierre d’Ailly 203
Analysis of the Tractatus, or, Apologia 205
The Arguments from Papal Privilege and Human Law 213
The Argument from Divine Law 216
The Argument from Custom 216
The Role of Custom in the Legal System 221
The Territorial Scope of the Faculty’s Jurisdiction 222
D’Ailly’s Response to Monteson 228
Evaluation of d’Ailly’s Argument 230
The Chronological Development of the Faculty’s Jurisdiction 231
Conclusion 236
8 Judas, Monteson, and Fraternal Correction at Paris 237
Fraternal Correction and the Parisian Faculty of Theology 241
The Sources of Fraternal Correction 245
Fraternal Correction in the Process of Censure at Paris 250
Judas, Fraternal Correction, and the Parisian Faculty of Theology 253
The Treatment of Judas by Christ at the Last Supper 256
The Rule of Augustine and Fraternal Correction 274
Conclusion 280
9 Fraternal Correction and Its Role in Academic Censure at the University
of Paris 282
The Duty to Render Fraternal Correction and Its Possible Omission 282
The Contribution of Augustine 283
Judicial Correction and the Omission of Fraternal Correction 290
The Issue of Proof 291
The Revocatio Conditionalis and the Oath to Report Suspect Teaching 293
Suspect Teaching and the Definition of a Secret Sin 307
The Contribution of John Baconthorpe 312
The Issue of Incorrigibility 319
Public Correction and the Presence of Scandal 321
The Contributions of Humbert of Romans, OP, and Nicholas of Gorran,
OP 327
Conclusion 330
Conclusion 338
Appendix A 345
Select Bibliography 347
Index of Legal Citations 363
Index of Biblical Citations 366
Index of Names and Subjects 367
All interested in the history of the University of Paris and its corporate development; anyone interested in heresy, fraternal correction, Pierre D'Ailly, Denis Foulechat, John of Monteson, and Judas Iscariot.