Amalrican

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The execution of the Amalricans; left King Philip II. Illumination by Jean Fouquet in a manuscript in the Grandes Chroniques de France , Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale , Ms. fr. 6465, fol. 236 (around 1455/1460)

The Amalrikaner ( Middle Latin Amauriani , French Amauriciens ) were a religious movement of the early 13th century in France, which referred to the theological teachings of the 1205/1206 deceased Master Amalrich von Bena . To what extent they actually represented Amalrich's position is unclear. At its core was a group of clerics who had attended Amalrich's classes at the University of Paris . After his death they spread their ideas in wide circles and turned to the lay people in the old French vernacular. In doing so, they popularized a theological subject that was usually only discussed by scholars in the Middle Latin language. After a few years they made themselves suspicious of their appearance; the leaders were arrested in 1210, ecclesiastically condemned as heretics , and most of them were executed at the stake . In the early 1210s, the movement was apparently completely wiped out by persecution.

Since the writings of the Amalrican were destroyed, their teachings can only be reconstructed from the statements of the opponents and a traditional Amalrican prayer. Their theology and natural philosophy were pantheistic . They believed that God is always and everywhere present and effective in everything in the same way. Starting from this conviction, they broke away from the church dogma of a unique historical revelation of God in Christ. By “ resurrection ” and “ kingdom of heaven ” they understood nothing else than the liberating knowledge of truth, and by “ hell ” the state of ignorance. Those who have recognized the truth replace faith and hope with knowledge and no longer need the ecclesiastical sacraments . The healing Get the man by the realization that God and all other just as in Christ figure was believed in him. With these theses, they formulated a radical alternative to the then prevailing church teaching.

The historical course

Amalrich von Bena and his teaching activities

The founder or at least the inspirer of the group was Amalrich von Bena (Latin Amalricus de Bena, French Amaury de Bène, also Amalrich von Chartres). He came from the village of Bène in the Chartres area , was probably born around 1140/1150 and probably received his first education in Chartres. Either there or later at the Paris University he acquired a thorough knowledge of the Seven Liberal Arts (septem artes liberales) . In Paris he obtained a master's degree and thus the qualification to teach in the Faculty of Fine Arts. He must have received minor ordinations beforehand. At Paris University he also completed a degree in theology, which he probably completed with the degree of a master's degree in theology. At an unknown time, he was ordained a priest. As a teacher, he enjoyed an excellent reputation, especially in the field of logic . Therefore, King Philip II Augustus apparently made him the tutor of his eldest son, who was born in 1187 and heir to the throne, who later assumed the rule as Louis VIII . In any case, Amalrich was at least temporarily close to the crown prince.

With his very unconventional thinking and his spirit of contradiction, Amalrich offended his colleagues; He also differed from them in his teaching. Apparently he did not teach in the theological faculty , but in the liberal arts faculty. However, he also dealt with theological issues in his classes. In doing so, he did not shy away from abandoning the traditional consensus and advocating a daring outsider opinion against all of them. He gathered a large group of students around him.

Amalrich von Bena teaches at the University of Paris (left) and receives the judgment of the Pope in Rome (right). Illumination in a manuscript from the Grandes Chroniques de France , London, British Library , Ms. Royal 16 G VI, fol. 368v (14th century)

The contemporary historian Guillelmus Brito reports of a conflict that broke out during Amalrich's lifetime because of the bold theological claims of the headstrong master's degree. After the presentation of Guillelmus, Amalrich encountered the contradiction of all other theologians with his theses. Since he did not give in, the case of Pope Innocent III. has been presented. Amalrich had traveled to Rome to defend his teaching there, but the Pope had passed his judgment against him. After his return, Amalrich was forced by the university to withdraw, but he only pretended to turn away from his convictions. The defeat hit him hard, and soon afterwards he was fatally ill. Whether this report is credible is debatable in research. On the other hand, the silence of some other sources speaks against it, in which it is not mentioned that the ecclesiastical teaching office intervened even before the death of the Magister. Therefore, according to Ludwig Hödl, the Guillelmus report deserves no faith; In reality, Amalrich remained unmolested until his death. Johannes MMH Thijssen and Paolo Lucentini have a different opinion. You consider the tradition to be trustworthy and see the process as the oldest documented case of teaching objection proceedings at Paris University. Since Amalrich died in 1205 or 1206, the conflict, if it actually took place, is likely to have broken out around 1204/1205 and the condemnation of the “heresy” probably occurred in 1205/1206.

The emergence and expansion of the Amalrican movement

It is not known whether there was at least a loosely organized group that followed his teaching during Amalrich's lifetime. In any case, his ideas lived on after his death in the crowd of his disciples and followers, the "Amalricans" (Amauriani) . The core of the group, which was apparently becoming organizationally consolidated, consisted of clergymen, including masters of the university, but the movement was not limited to the educated. The Amalricans stepped out of the narrow area of ​​the Latin-speaking scholarly world in which their teacher had moved, and endeavored with considerable success to win wider circles for their ideas. For this purpose, they addressed the population in the French vernacular. They spread the new doctrine in the ecclesiastical province of Sens, which included the Archdiocese of Sens, the dioceses of Auxerre , Chartres , Meaux , Nevers , Orléans , Paris and Troyes , as well as in the dioceses of Amiens and Langres . Amalrican theologians who had studied in Paris became country chaplains and carried the message to their parishes; Preachers were out in many places. They knew that this activity was dangerous; From the information provided by the sources, it is clear that, on the one hand, they were looking for a great response and were very popular among the uneducated, but on the other hand they had to proceed cautiously and secretly. Women also joined the movement. The Amalricans were also called Beguines and Papelards by the population ; evidently they were equated in some places with the beguines and begarden , a then still young spiritual movement, which was also perceived as an alternative to conventional, current religious practice. The fact that the Amalricans had a reputation for honesty and a way of life marked by strength of character (vitae gravitas) contributed to the rapid and widespread dissemination of the new ideas . A hierarchical organization does not seem to have existed with them, but there were spokesmen (maiores) who took on leading and teaching functions and preached the message as preachers.

It is unclear to what extent the Amalrican theses corresponded to the authentic doctrine of Amalrich. There were manuals in which the teaching of the late initiator of the movement was systematically presented (summe de doctrina Amalrici) . They formed the theoretical basis, but apparently not in the sense of a rigidly fixed dogmatics; rather, after Amalrich's death, which represented a serious turning point, there was a further development and new emphasis. Guillelmus Brito reports that after the death of their master, the heretics “came up with new and unheard-of errors and devilish inventions”.

The discovery

There are two contemporary reports on the discovery of Amalrican activities by the church teaching office: the account of Guillelmus Brito and a more detailed description in the Dialogus miraculorum (Dialogus about the miracles) by the Cistercian monk Caesarius von Heisterbach . Caesarius devoted an extensive chapter in his work to the Amalricans, which he wrote in 1223.

According to Guillelmus' information, the news of the new heresy came to the ears of the Bishop of Paris, Peter von Nemours (Pierre II de la Chapelle). Also Guérin (Garinus), the Chancellor of France , who was an important advisor of King Philip II., Found out about it. The two dignitaries decided to smuggle a master named Radulf von Namur into the suspicious movement as an informant. According to Guillelmus, Radulf was a cunning and truly Catholic man who "miraculously" managed to impersonate the Amalricans as one of their own. This is how he managed to gain their trust. He went to them one by one and, in a confidential conversation, got them to reveal their secrets to him. After collecting enough incriminating material, he denounced the people he spoke to. They were arrested and taken to Paris.

Caesarius von Heisterbach offers a description that is somewhat different and more detailed, but essentially compatible with Guillelmus' statements. He tells that a supporter of the movement called Wilhelm “the goldsmith” came to Radulf (here Rudolf) von Namur and pretended to be God's messenger in order to win him over to heresy. Wilhelm claimed that the new age of the Holy Spirit began , in which the ecclesiastical sacraments lost their meaning. The Holy Spirit is said to be revealed mainly through seven men, of which he, Wilhelm, is one. In addition, William tried to win the favor of Philip II by prophesying that all kingdoms would be subject to the King of France in the new age. Radulf asked him if he still had companions who had received such a revelation. Wilhelm then revealed that he had many like-minded people and named them. Radulf had now recognized the danger that this heresy had posed for the Church. He reported to the Bishop of Paris and some leading theologians about the encounter with the false teacher. They then commissioned Radulf and another priest to pretend they belonged to the Amalricans and to thoroughly explore their teachings. If they did this job, they could get forgiveness of their sins.

According to Caesarius' description, the two priests followed the instruction. Together with the Amalrican preachers, they crossed the dioceses of Paris, Langres and Troyes and the Archdiocese of Sens in three months and encountered numerous adherents of heresy. In order to gain the full trust of the heretics, Radulf sometimes raised his eyes and pretended that his spirit was being carried away to heaven. Later, at the meetings, he told what he saw in his alleged vision . Finally, the two spies reported to the Bishop of Paris. Thereupon he arranged for the false teachers to be arrested.

Fourteen leading Amalricans were arrested in various locations; only one of them was in Paris. They are known by name. Probably all of them were clergy. Three were masters and seven more had received theological training at the university. The “goldsmith” Wilhelm, of whom Caesarius von Heisterbach reports, was no simple craftsman, but a trained theologian; The term “goldsmith” probably referred to his occupation with alchemy , so it was a nickname and not a profession. Immediately after their arrest, they were confronted with a list of their errors; thus Radulf had made notes of their statements. It is characteristic of the church's approach that the Paris bishop worked closely with the university's theologians from the start. The group of theologians who, according to Caesarius' information, gave the order to spy on the heretics together with the bishop, was evidently a commission that had been specially formed to expertly assess the heresy. Only the maiores , the educated spokesmen of the movement who belonged to the clergy, were cracked down on . The bishop refrained from persecuting and punishing the laity; Guillelmus Brito reports that the women "and the rest of the simple-minded" who had been seduced and corrupted by the maiores were spared.

Apparently the ecclesiastical authorities had become aware of the new heresy towards the end of 1209 or the beginning of 1210 and then had the Amalricans spied on for a few months in order to collect evidence. The arrest probably took place in May or June 1210. Since these were clerics, the division of powers between state and church was delicate when proceeding against them. A decree issued by King Philip II in May 1210 is presumably connected with the imprisonment of the Amalricans. In it he regulated the procedure of the state authorities in the case of crimes committed by clerics and emphasized that these were subject to spiritual jurisdiction and should therefore be handed over to it.

The sentencing and execution

For the history of canon law , the trial against the Amalrican is of particular importance, as it is the first attested case in which the new provisions for the inquisition procedure , the Pope Innocent III. had developed, were used. Innocent laid down the procedure for heresy proceedings in papal decretals , which were included in the Church 's code of law in 1210 as part of the Collectio tertia , the "third collection" of canonically binding papal regulations . Heretic trials were brought before church courts of justice. The judges had largely a free hand in establishing the facts. They were free to interrogate, interview witnesses, or consult an expert panel of theologians.

A fragment of the trial files has come down to us that gives an insight into the interrogation practice. It informs about the confessions of four court interviewees. The indictment (cedula) contained the indictment articles read to the accused in the presence of the bishop. She listed the “errors” - heretical theses - which he was accused of spreading. He then had to confirm that he had heard what had been read and to say whether he had understood it or not. Once he understood, he had an opportunity to either contradict by denying the allegations or to confess guilty. All four defendants admitted their guilt and confessed that they had succumbed to error. One of them said he only partially understood the charges. The torture was probably not used because the defendants willingly provided information. According to the sources, some Amalricans did not deny the fact, they clung to their heretical convictions and defended them. One of them by the name of Bernhard claimed that as far as his real being was concerned (in quantum erat) , he could neither be burned nor subjected to other torments, for as regards what he really was, he was God. With this he referred to the idea that a divine authority is present in man, which constitutes the essence of the person and remains unaffected by the vicissitudes of fate.

The judgment followed the evidence process. Since the accused were clergy, the Paris bishop could not make the decision alone. According to canon law, a provincial synod of the responsible church province had to approve the condemnation in such cases ; if one accused was a priest, the participation of six bishops was required. The matter was therefore referred to a synod which met in Paris under the presidency of the Archbishop of Sens, Peter de Corbeil. The diocese of Paris was then part of the ecclesiastical province of Sens. It is possible that the assembly was convened specifically for the purpose of condemning the Amalricans. It probably met in September or October 1210. In addition to the archbishop, the bishops of Paris ( Pierre II. De la Chapelle ), Orléans (Manassé de Seignelay), Troyes (Hervée de Troyes), Nevers (Guillaume I. de Saint-Lazare) were , Meaux (Geoffroi de Tressy), Chartres ( Renaud de Bar ) and Auxerre (Guillaume de Seignelay) involved. The masters of theology who taught at the University of Paris were also present. Only the archbishop was a judge, the other participants in the meeting acted as his advisors. Since there were confessions, there was no doubt about the heresy; in addition, some Amalricans showed no remorse but openly professed their beliefs. Hence the guilty verdict was inevitable.

The judgment followed the requirements of the legislation of Innocent III. A major innovation in the provisions of this Pope was the transfer of a concept from Roman law to canon law. According to Roman law, the insult to majesty (crimen laesae maiestatis) was a serious crime. On this basis, Innocent constructed an analogy between the worldly majesty, the emperor, and the heavenly majesty, Christ. Accordingly, a heretic committed an insult to majesty against the world ruler Christ. Therefore, in severe cases of heresy, the usual measures of church discipline - in the worst case excommunication (loss of church fellowship) - are not sufficient; rather, for an offense against the majesty of Christ, only the severest punishment seemed appropriate if the perpetrator showed no repentance. Church courts were not allowed to impose death sentences. Therefore, according to the Pope's regulations, heretical clerics first had to be stripped of their spiritual dignity and placed in the laity ; thus they lost the privilege of being subject only to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. After the ecclesiastical court established that they were guilty, they were handed over to secular authority for punishment. This then in any case passed the death sentence and carried it out.

The execution of the Amalricans; right King Philip II. Illumination in a manuscript of the Grandes Chroniques de France , London, British Library, Ms. Royal 20 E III, fol. 177v

The synod found that the fourteen accused Amalricans were guilty of heresy. All have been removed from the clergy. Four of them were sentenced to life imprisonment - probably in a monastery. The ecclesiastical court handed the rest over to the king's agents for punishment. These ten Amalricans were burned in public on November 20, 1210 on the orders of Philip II in Les Champeaux (Latin Campellus ) outside the city walls of Paris, in what is now the Quartier des Halles . A large crowd watched the execution, and the king was also present. Two contemporaries, Caesarius von Heisterbach and the unknown author of an entry in the Chronica de Mailros , unanimously report the tenacity of the convicts, who until the end did not see their guilt . Caesarius writes about the execution: "In mental hardening they gave an answer to no question and did not even give a sign of repentance at the moment of death."

Further church measures

The synod of 1210 stated that Amalrich, who died four years ago, had been a heretic and excommunicated him posthumously . She ordered the removal of his body from the sacred earth of the cemetery. The bones were exhumed and buried on the Schindanger . In addition, the Synod decided that everyone who possessed the vernacular theological writings of the Amalricans or copies of their old French versions of the Creed and of the Our Father had to hand them over to their diocesan bishop by the feast of Mary Candlemas (February 2, 1211) at the latest . Anyone found in possession of such texts after this day should be treated as a heretic.

The inquiries into other followers of the heresy continued; in 1211 a renowned master's degree was determined in the diocese of Langres . According to the information in the World Chronicle of Saint-Martin in Laon (Chronicon universale Laudunense), he tried to win over Countess Blanka of Champagne for his ideas. His "fraud" was revealed, but he was able to save himself by appealing to the Pope. However, from a papal letter of March 17, 1211 it emerges that the accused had indeed fled to Rome, but Innocent III. did not make a decision, but ordered a clarification of the case in France. In 1212 a master named Godinus was condemned as an Amalrican and burned in Amiens . The theologian - from 1212 cardinal - Robert von Courson , who had been instrumental in the investigation from the beginning, played a central role in the persecution of heretics . He enjoyed the special confidence of the Pope, who appointed him legate in France in 1213 . In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council condemned Amalrich's teaching as “highly perverse” and stated that the “father of lies” - the devil - had blinded him to such an extent that his teaching was to be assessed as insana rather than heretical. In the statutes of the Faculty of Liberal Arts at the University of Paris, which came into force in 1215, the use of writings on Amalrich's teaching was forbidden.

In the period that followed, no confessing supporters of the condemned doctrine appeared. However, the canonist Heinrich von Susa ("Hostiensis") claimed that in 1215, at the time of the Fourth Lateran Council, Amalrich's former pupils were still alive, whose names should be withheld out of decency. Out of consideration for these people, to whom respect was due, the council refrained from giving details of its content when condemning the heresy. Presumably the former students of the master’s degree were powerful people at the French royal court, where Amalrich had been the teacher of the crown prince. They, especially the future King Louis VIII, must have been embarrassed about their former connection with the author of the heresy around 1215. After his accession to the throne, Louis VIII stipulated in 1226 that heresy was regularly punished with death by fire.

The Amalrican teachings

The beginning of the pamphlet Against the Amalricans in the only surviving manuscript, Troyes , Bibliothèque municipale, 1301, fol. 141r (early 13th century)

Sources

Amalrich apparently left no writings. Amalrican literature did exist, however, because theological books in Old French were mentioned in the trial. The Amalricans wanted to introduce their ideas to wide uneducated lay circles with folk-language treatises . An old French version of the Our Father has been handed down , which modifies the prayer in the sense of Amalrican theology. Otherwise, however, no original Amalrican texts have been preserved; their literature fell victim to ecclesiastical censorship. Therefore, their teachings are only known from opposing sources, in which the theses of the “heretics” may be reproduced in a distorted form. The main sources are a pamphlet written anonymously in 1210 with the title Contra Amaurianos (Against the Amalricans) and the so-called Fragmentum Viconiense (fragment of Vicoigne), a text written soon after the conviction of 1210, which contains a list of Amalrican doctrines . The author of the treatise Contra Amaurianos is very likely Garnier de Rochefort (Latin Garnerius de Rupeforti), the abbot of the Cistercian monastery of Clairvaux . The Fragmentum Viconiense is a private record that may reproduce items in the indictment; it is not - as was assumed in earlier research - a piece of the official synod files. There are also information in a number of medieval chronicles and in the Gesta Philippi Augusti , a representation of the deeds of Philip II, the relevant section of which was written by Guillelmus Brito in 1214/1215.

content

That Amalrich's ideas were further developed by his students can be seen from the information in the sources, but the details are unclear because his own theses are usually not clearly identified as such. Undoubtedly, the popularization of the ideas through their communication to the uneducated in the vernacular had an effect on the content and their understanding. Individual Amalricans played a prominent role: A magister named Bernardus who was executed in 1210 is referred to in the third sequel to the Cologne royal chronicle as heresiarcha (heresiarch, head of heresy) and an anonymous contemporary chronicler also used the curse word for Magister Godinus who was arrested and executed only in 1212. Heresiarch ". Robert von Courson called the followers of the direction initiated by Godinus within the Amalrican movement "Godiner" (Godini) and in the world chronicle of Saint-Martin in Laon it is reported that recently - that is, after the executions of 1210 - Godinus was the teacher of all Amalricans acts. Apparently, the scholars Bernardus and Godinus were distinguished spokesmen for the movement, who probably excelled in formulating and developing the unconventional ideas. Amalrich's death in 1206 marked a turning point, but the extent to which the development of teaching deviated from his theses in the subsequent period or significantly expanded them and drew new conclusions from them is difficult to determine from the tradition.

Amalrich von Bena gives lessons. Illumination in a manuscript from the Grandes Chroniques de France , Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Ms. fr. 2813 (late 14th century)

The following picture of the main features of the teaching and its justification emerges from the - however possibly distorting and falsifying - information of the sources:

The starting point is the generally accepted theological principle of the omnipresence of God . If God is omnipresent, he must be “somewhere” (alicubi) because if the phrase “God is somewhere” were wrong, “God is nowhere” should be true, and then “God is everywhere” would be false and he would not be omnipresent . So omnipresence requires that he be in one place. In the Bible and the undisputed church teaching there are also statements that God is in a certain place (for example “in heaven”) and there is no place where he is not. Thus omnipresence is to be understood in such a way that God can be located, and that in every place equally.

According to the teaching of St. Augustine , the correct answer to the question of where God was before he created the world is "in himself". The question assumes that he was somewhere before creation - i.e. in eternity - and that this place is eternal. So there is an eternal place. But since nothing but God is eternal, there can be no difference between God and this place: “God” and “God's place” are the same, God is local.

As is the case with place, so is time. Because God is "always," he must be in time, in every time. So not only does every place but also every point in time have divine quality.

The apostle Paul said that we “live, move and are” in God and that everything is “from him and through him and in him”. “Everything” includes both goods and evils . So the evils are in God. Since all that is in God is God, it follows that evil is God too. Specifically related to the devil, this means: This creature, the devil, is in God, for it is like all other creatures from him and through him and in him. So this creature also finds God's approval and is not rejected by him. The statement “Everything is in God” also applies to the divine essence (divina essentia) , since there is no difference between God and his essence. From this point of view, too, everything is to be equated with God; there is nothing that is not in its essence.

According to the teaching of the apostle Paul, God works all in all. So he causes all good and also all bad. That he does not only do good is testified by passages in the prophetic books of the Old Testament where the Lord is referred to as the author of an evil. Thus there is no sin for man who realizes that everything in him is effected by God. All deeds are God's deeds. The objection that God cannot do bad is not valid because if there was something he could not do, he would not be omnipotent . Anyone who ascribes an action to himself and not exclusively to God is in ignorance. Hell is nothing but this ignorance. Analogously, paradise is nothing else than the knowledge of the truth about God, the insight into the divinity of everything.

It follows that sacraments such as baptism and penance are unnecessary . A Jew who knows the truth does not need to be baptized. Whoever has been penalized by the priest does not need to perform it, since he does not need anything for his salvation other than the knowledge of the truth. Whoever understands that God is in him has no reason to regret anything or to mourn. Rather, he lives in joy. The church doctrine of the resurrection is also superfluous. Christ was not physically resurrected . In reality, “resurrection” means nothing else than the knowledge of the truth, with which all salvation is already completely given. Salvation can only be achieved by understanding oneself as a “member of Christ” - that is, as a divine being. Hence, there is no point in expecting any other resurrection than this. The future raising of the dead expected by the church will not take place. Faith and hope - which, according to the Church's teaching, make up the three “ theological virtues ” together with love - play no role, because knowledge is the only thing that matters. The sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the Eucharist , also becomes superfluous . The consecrated host is no more venerable than any piece of bread. The sacraments are only "signs" (signa) ; as such they have previously had a meaning, but now a new age is beginning, shaped by the Holy Spirit, in which such signs can be abolished. In those who have grasped the truth, the Holy Spirit is incarnated daily . It also follows from the principle that God is everywhere and that everything is God that there is no difference between Christ and other people in terms of divinity. Divine truth is not reserved for Christians; God spoke through the pagan ancient poet Ovid as well as through the church father Augustine. A further consequence is the rejection of the veneration and relics cult , which is a form of idolatry amalrikanischer view (idolatria) are.

Religious statements that, according to conventional understanding, relate to the extra-human and to salvation history , were reinterpreted by the Amalricans by relating them to processes and circumstances within the human spirit. This can also be seen in the old French version of the Our Father. They translated the request made in this prayer “Hallowed be your name” with “confermez vostre nom en noz cors” (“Confirm your name in our hearts”). In doing so, they turned it into a request for a personal and internal experience of God. They did not eschatologically relate the request “Thy kingdom come” to a future existence in heaven , but to their present life: “Donez nous vostre regne” (“Give us your kingdom”).

interpretation

The history of ideas classification

As early as the 13th century it was claimed that Amalrich followed the teaching of the early medieval Irish theologian and philosopher Johannes Scottus Eriugena , which is set out in his work Periphyseon (About Natures) . However, such a traditional context is not passed down in the contemporary sources; only decades after the fall of the Amalricans is this claim explicitly attested. Its originator was the influential theologian Odo von Châteauroux († 1273), who successfully campaigned for the condemnation of the script Periphyseon as heretical. Eriugena had been suspicious of his unconventional theology while he was still alive in the 9th century; some of his claims were condemned by the church in the 850s. The traditional assumption that Amalrich was influenced by the Irish thinker has shaped the search for the historical roots of Amalrican heresy in modern times. The research debates of the modern age deal with the question of what role the recourse to Eriugena's theses played in shaping the thinking of the Paris master's degree. Another topic is the characterization of the ideas under consideration as " pantheistic ". The assessment of Amalrich's independence depends on the assessment of his relationship with Eriugena.

A widespread view in modern research is that Amalrich was a pantheist who found pantheistic or at least pantheistically interpretable ideas in Eriugena and based his concept on them. In this sense, the renowned historian of philosophy Maurice de Wulf expressed himself in the early 20th century. He said that Amalrich had represented an "absolute pantheism", whereby he had given Eriugena's philosophy, from which he had started, a monistic sense. In the introduction to his edition of Contra Amaurianos published posthumously in 1926, Clemens Baeumker stated that Amalrich had developed an extremely pantheistic doctrine based on Eriugena's philosophy, in which the " naturalistic direction" had achieved a full breakthrough in theory and in practice. A large degree of independence Amalrich assumed Etienne Gilson . In 1932 he found that the Paris master's degree had been “his own source”. He took over his pantheism neither from Eriugena nor from the School of Chartres , but developed it on the basis of his own reflections on God's nature and the world's relationships with God. In doing so, however, he was inspired by Eriugena's misunderstood formulations. Mario dal Pra emphasized in 1951 that the Amalrican doctrine is embedded in a long-reaching platonic- Christian tradition. He saw in it the result of a consequent decision between the transcendence and the immanence of God. Amalrich considered these two concepts to be incompatible and opted for a God immanent in the world.

In 1976, the philosopher and historian of philosophy Karl Albert presented a new approach . He turned against the common undifferentiated designation of the Amalrican worldview as pantheistic. According to Albert's interpretation, the Amalricans represented no direct, but only an indirect pantheism. They did not assert the identity of the individual being with God, but only emphasized, in the sense of an old philosophical and theological tradition, the unity of all being and the immanence of God, whom they identified with being. For Albert Amalrich was a thinker in the tradition of medieval Platonism . The thesis of his movement “Whatever is, is God” was in reality not heretical in the sense of the understanding of heresy at the time. The difference between beings as such and beings, insofar as they are individual things, was not blurred with the Amalricans. Albert referred to the statement of the Amalrican Bernardus, convicted in 1210, in the Fragmentum Viconiense , according to which a person cannot be burned or tortured “in so far as he is” because “in that he is” he is God. Bernardus did not claim to be God as an individual person, but only that he was God under the aspect of being, just as everything that is as such is God insofar as it is considered under this aspect alone. Albert said that the differentiation in the restriction “as being” had not been taken into account by the prosecution.

Ludwig Hödl (1977) characterized the Amalrican system as a dialectically armed monism that found its textbook in Eriugena's main work. Hödl said that the Amalrican thought connections were typical of a " Gnostic identity system". Amalrich provided basic ideas for the system, but the consequences only became tangible after his death. The core was a theory of the omnipresence and omnipotence of God, verified by natural philosophy and based on all the tools of dialectics. In a dialectical investigation the certainty of its correctness was derived from the vehement negation of the opposite of the "pantheizing" basic assumption. In such a system there was no place for the historical revelation of Christ to play a unique role: "Because God took on all forms, He did not take on any in the sense of the biblical message of incarnation."

For Roberto Plevano (2000) the Amalrican doctrine of immanence is a theological concept according to which God is the only real and true being. According to this “radical metaphysical monism”, any difference between God and creatures is only apparent. God constitutes the essence of all creation. Plevano accepted influence from Eriugena and the Chartres School, but also pointed to Amalrich's originality.

In the introduction to his 2010 edition of Contra Amaurianos, Paolo Lucentini interpreted the Amalrican doctrine of immanence as a radical rejection of transcendence. This theology does not know a creator beyond the visible world, but is a kind of spiritual naturalism. It also denies a continued existence after death and relocates the hereafter with heaven and hell into the interior of the human spirit. God is not only associated with space and time, but is understood as exclusively spatial and temporal. In this way, the Amalricans would have taken a revolutionary stand against their environment and its basic convictions. Although they used the current theological terminology, they used it to formulate thoughts that were contrary to the core of the Christian message. There was no precedent for such an approach in the Middle Ages.

The synod of 1210, which condemned the Amalricans, also decreed that the natural philosophical writings of Aristotle and commentaries on them could not be read publicly or privately in Paris. The Aristotle prohibition suggests that a connection between the Amalrican ideas and the Aristotelian philosophy was assumed. Two contemporaries, Guillelmus Brito and the chronicler Robert von Auxerre, stated expressly that reading Aristotle gave rise to the heresy. Apparently, through the activities of Amalrich and his students, the educational system at the Paris Faculty of the Liberal Arts fell into twilight. In concrete terms, however, a substantive connection between the traditional theses of the Amalricans and the works of Aristotle known at the time cannot be shown.

Ethical consequences

The conclusion from the Amalrican view of the world that there actually is no sin, since nothing is outside the reign of the godhead, appeared to the medieval environment as particularly offensive. This was perceived as an attack on the foundations of morality. Critics indignantly noted that such arguments could justify serious crimes such as adultery. The Amalricans were accused of having drawn the consequence of an abolition of sexual morality from their elimination of the fear of sin . Whether they actually practiced sexual permissiveness, as their opponents claimed, is unknown. In the Middle Ages, the accusation of sexual debauchery was one of the topoi that were common in chilling descriptions of the customs of heretics and followers of the devil. According to the report by Guillelmus Brito, the Amalricans did not declare everything to be permitted; rather, its ethical criterion was that an act was permissible if it was "done in the virtue of love" (si in virtute fieret caritatis) .

The Amalrican view of history

The conviction widespread in Amalrican circles that a new age, determined by the action of the Holy Spirit, in which the sacraments would become superfluous, is dawning, shows a striking correspondence with the ideas of Joachimism , a current widespread in the 13th century that is based on the History theologian Joachim von Fiore († 1202) appointed. Amalricans and Joachimites believed that human history was divided into three ages. In the first age, the time of the Old Testament, God the Father worked, in the second, which began with the coming of Christ and extends to the present, Christ. The third and last age is under the sign of the Holy Spirit. It already begins (Amalrican) or its dawn is imminent (Joachimites). The new epoch is fundamentally different from everything that has gone before. With the dawn of the Age of the Holy Spirit, both Joachimites and Amalricans had high expectations. It is unclear whether Amalrich already represented a three-times doctrine or whether it was only inserted into Amalrican theology after his death - presumably under Joachimite influence. It has not been proven that the Amalricans knew Joachimite ideas, but it is considered plausible in research. Herbert Grundmann and Gary Dickson consider it unlikely that Amalrich was already convinced of the historical image of the movement condemned in 1210.

reception

middle Ages

The fall of the Amalricans received a lot of attention in medieval historiography. French and foreign chroniclers recorded it in their works and expressed their disgust for the heretics. The Premonstratensian Robert von Auxerre († 1212) judged in his world chronicle that the public cremation of the heretics was useful; thus the weeds were weeded out and at the same time many were frightened. This suppression of boldness works against the spread of new inventions. In 1214/1215 Guillelmus Brito raged in the Gesta Philippi Augusti against the heretics who had been infected by Amalrich's “poisonous teaching” and who had cleverly introduced “new and unheard of errors and diabolical inventions”. An unknown historian, who made an entry about the events in the Chronicle of the Scottish Cistercian Abbey of Melrose, probably around 1216/1218, reported that the heretics had entered the widows' houses and seduced a large number of innocents; it is better to keep silent about their heresies than to reproduce them. Apparently after 1216, perhaps around 1218, an anonymous chronicler recorded the events in the world chronicle of the Premonstratensian Abbey of Saint-Martin in Laon. He said that Amalrich was very astute (subtilissimus) , but of the worst kind of senses (ingenio pessimus) . The real author of the heresy is the Magister David of Dinant; Amalrich took over the heresy from him. David, a contemporary of Amalrich, had developed a pantheistic doctrine as a natural philosopher, which was condemned by the Paris Synod in 1210 along with the ideas of the Amalricans. In the second continuation of the Cologne royal chronicle , in the entry for the year 1211, the persistence of the heretics in the face of death by fire is attributed to diabolical machinations. The Cistercian Alberich von Trois-Fontaines, in an entry written in 1227/1234 in his chronicle for the year 1209, castigated the Amalrican's personal assurance of salvation, in which he saw a shameful arrogance. He advocated not hiding the heresies, but explaining that one could only avoid an evil if one knew it, and because then it would become clear that the condemnation was right. In 1270/1271 the Dominican Martin von Troppau mentioned heresy in the second version of his Chronicon pontificum et imperatorum (Chronicle of the Popes and Emperors) . He believed Amalrich to be the author of a book called Peri phiseon (On Natures) . He confused the master, who died in 1206, with the early medieval scholar Johannes Scottus Eriugena, whose main work was entitled Periphyseon . Like Guillelmus Brito, Martin accused the Amalricans of having abolished the Christian doctrine of sin and with it morality. With the justification that they are above sin, they have taken the liberty to commit every outrage (turpitudo) . What was meant was sexual debauchery. Later historians, including the Dominicans Franciscus Pippinus of Bologna († after 1328), Nikolaus Triveth (or Trevet; † around 1334), Bernardus Guidonis († 1331) and Bartholomäus (Ptolomäus) of Lucca († 1327), followed the older tradition.

Like the historians, Caesarius von Heisterbach expressed himself in 1223 in his edifying work Dialogus miraculorum . He said that the devil's art of persuasion had perverted the minds of some scholars in Paris, so that they devised many and very great heresies and spread them in many places. Your arguments are completely worthless. Thanks to God's grace, heresy was eradicated. In 1244, the Dominican Vincent of Beauvais took over the representation of Guillelmus Brito in his Speculum historiale , an extensive historical work that treated world history as part of the great encyclopedia Speculum maius . However, Vincent left out Guillelmus's statements about a connection between heresy and the philosophy of Aristotle. The Speculum maius became one of the most widespread reference works in the late Middle Ages.

Thomas Aquinas mentioned the Amalricans in the first part of his Summa theologiae , which was written in 1266–1268 . There he stated that the Almariani were ascribed the thesis that God was the formal principle of all things. This is one of three misconceptions about the question of whether God can come into composition with others. The answer is no; God cannot be considered either as a formal or as a material principle.

In lavishly illustrated late medieval manuscripts of the Grandes Chroniques de France , Amalrich's teaching activities and the execution of the Amalricans were depicted by means of illumination . The description of the events followed that of Guillelmus Brito in the Gesta Philippi Augusti .

The theologian Johannes Gerson († 1429) referred several times to the condemned doctrine. He rejected the “madness” of Amalrich, whose thesis was: “The soul of the viewer is transformed into God and loses the being that it had in its own species, and (then) alone has an ideal being in God.” Nikolaus In his work Apologia doctae ignorantiae (1449), von Cues approved the ecclesiastical condemnation of Amalrich's teaching. He did not understand correctly how God is everything. God be " complicite" everything. Nikolaus counted Amalrich to the men of "low spirits" who got into error when they researched higher things without the necessary competence. They were blinded by the divine light, but were not aware of their blindness, believed they were seeing and stiffened on their claims.

Modern

In modern times, judgments were initially often shaped by denominational and ideological aspects. In 1877, the Protestant church historian Hermann Reuter found that Amalrich had been a “liberator from the authoritative of popular religion”. He opposed the Catholic Church and taught that bliss is not a gift of the Church and its priesthood, but "a natural quality of the enlightened human spirit". The Amalricans, however, should have covered up their “tendency towards radical rationalism” in order to meet the needs of the pious consciousness of their contemporaries. Catholic scholars, on the other hand, continued the tradition of a decidedly negative assessment of Amalrich and the Amalricans from an ecclesiastical point of view. The Neuthomist Étienne Gilson wrote in 1932 that Amalrich's monism was a “bastard” that emerged from the connection of dialectics with Eriugena's thinking. It is a matter of "stupidities" that only deserve attention because, like shadows, they contrasted with the light of truth. Maurice de Wulf, a leading Neuthomist of the early 20th century, said that Amalrich ruthlessly misused the teachings of Eriugena and other predecessors and placed them in the service of religious agitation. The Marxists Ernst Bloch and Hermann Ley judged from a completely different perspective . Bloch described Amalrich in 1937 as a “great pantheistic materialist” who “should have seen only a lie in law and sacrament [...]”. According to the interpretation of Hermann Ley (1971), the traditional teachings of Amalrich proceed “from the primacy of material reality”. Ley wrote that the Amalrican doctrines had initiated an intellectual and social upheaval. The train of thought is simple and obvious. It is "precise pantheism, without weakening and digression". Amalrich was a clever man; he had sought support against the church from the monarchy, and his “enlightenment appeal to the legitimate bearer of the subsequent actual development processes” was realistic, because he had relied on “the future masters of history”.

More recent research tries to make an impartial assessment of the small but rapidly growing movement that initially started out from university theology, which was only formulated in Latin, and then within a few years reached broader uneducated circles. Particular attention is paid to the reconstruction of the teaching and the clarification of the complex intellectual-historical background. These include questions about the originality of Amalrican ideas and possible historical links, as well as the relationship between the Amalricans and other contemporary representatives of heterodox ideas. Thomas Ricklin sees the heresy uncovered in 1210 as an intellectually sound interpretation of the world; he points out that even Guillelmus Brito and the anonymous chronicler of Laon did not deny Amalrich's acumen. Gary Dickson considers the leading Amalricans to be an elite of highly trained scholars who are far better qualified than the average clergy.

Source editions

  • Paolo Lucentini (Ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos (= Corpus Christianorum . Continuatio Mediaevalis , Vol. 232). Brepols, Turnhout 2010, ISBN 978-2-503-52910-3 (authoritative critical edition of the text Gegen die Amalrikaner with a detailed introduction; in the appendix p. 49-90 Documenta Amalriciana , a compilation of 18 other source texts)
  • Henri François Delaborde (ed.): Œuvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton, historiens de Philippe-Auguste . Volume 1, Renouard, Paris 1882, pp. 230–233 ( online )
  • Heinrich Denifle (ed.): Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis . Volume 1, Culture et civilization, Bruxelles 1964 (reprint of the Paris 1899 edition), pp. 70–72, 78–82, 106–107 with note 1 (compilation of non-narrative sources)

literature

Overview display

Investigations

  • Karl Albert : Amalrich von Bena and the medieval pantheism . In: Albert Zimmermann (ed.): The disputes at the Paris University in the XIII. Century . De Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1976, ISBN 3-11-005986-X , pp. 193-212
  • Gary Dickson: The Burning of the Amalricians . In: The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 40, 1989, pp. 347-369
  • Paolo Lucentini: Platonismo, ermetismo, eresia nel medioevo . Fédération Internationale des Instituts d'Études Médiévales, Louvain-la-Neuve 2007, ISBN 978-2-503-52726-0 , pp. 363-469
  • Johannes MMH Thijssen: Master Amalric and the Amalricians: Inquisitorial Procedure and the Suppression of Heresy at the University of Paris . In: Speculum 71, 1996, pp. 43-65

Web links

Wiktionary: Amalrican  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

Remarks

  1. ↑ Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, pp. XXIX f .; Ludwig Hödl: Amalrich von Bena / Amalrikaner . In: Theologische Realenzyklopädie , Vol. 2, Berlin 1978, pp. 349–356, here: 350; Heinrich Fichtenau : Heretics and Professors , Munich 1992, p. 280 f.
  2. ↑ Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, pp. XXIX f .; Ludwig Hödl: Amalrich von Bena / Amalrikaner . In: Theologische Realenzyklopädie , Vol. 2, Berlin 1978, pp. 349–356, here: 350.
  3. ↑ Ludwig Hödl: Amalrich von Bena / Amalrikaner . In: Theologische Realenzyklopädie , Vol. 2, Berlin 1978, pp. 349–356, here: 350.
  4. ↑ Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, pp. XXX f .; Johannes MMH Thijssen: Master Amalric and the Amalricians: Inquisitorial Procedure and the Suppression of Heresy at the University of Paris . In: Speculum 71, 1996, pp. 43-65, here: 48 f.
  5. ↑ See on these terms Herbert Grundmann: Religiöse Bewegungs im Mittelalter , Darmstadt 1977 (reprint of the 1st edition, Berlin 1935), pp. 377–385.
  6. ↑ Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, pp. XXXIV f.
  7. ↑ Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, pp. XXXIII f., LXXIII – LXXV; the illustration of Guillelmus is given on p. 68. Cf. Germaine Catherine Capelle: Autour du décret de 1210: III. Amaury de Bène. Étude sur son panthéisme formula , Paris 1932, pp. 17–19.
  8. ↑ The original texts of the two sources are reproduced by Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. 68 f. and 80 f.
  9. ↑ Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. 68 f.
  10. ↑ Caesarius von Heisterbach, Dialogus miraculorum 5:22, ed. by Nikolaus Nösges, Horst Schneider, volume 3, Turnhout 2009, pp. 1036-1039.
  11. ↑ Caesarius von Heisterbach, Dialogus miraculorum 5:22, ed. by Nikolaus Nösges, Horst Schneider, Volume 3, Turnhout 2009, pp. 1038-1041.
  12. ↑ Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, pp. XXXV – XXXVIII; Ludwig Hödl: Amalrich von Bena / Amalrikaner . In: Theologische Realenzyklopädie , Vol. 2, Berlin 1978, pp. 349–356, here: 351.
  13. ↑ Norman Cohn : Die Sehnsucht nach dem Millennium , Freiburg 1998, p. 168.
  14. ^ Jürgen Miethke : Pope, local bishop and university in the Parisian theological trials of the 13th century . In: Albert Zimmermann (ed.): The disputes at the Paris University in the XIII. Century , Berlin 1976, pp. 52–94, here: 54 f.
  15. ↑ Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. 69.
  16. ↑ Paolo Lucentini (Ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. XL f.
  17. ^ Johannes MMH Thijssen: Master Amalric and the Amalricians: Inquisitorial Procedure and the Suppression of Heresy at the University of Paris . In: Speculum 71, 1996, pp. 43-65, here: 47 f., 57.
  18. ↑ Paolo Lucentini (Ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, pp. XLI f., 55 f.
  19. ↑ Paolo Lucentini (Ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, pp. XLII f., 59 f .; Johannes MMH Thijssen: Master Amalric and the Amalricians: Inquisitorial Procedure and the Suppression of Heresy at the University of Paris . In: Speculum 71, 1996, pp. 43-65, here: 57-59.
  20. ^ Johannes MMH Thijssen: Master Amalric and the Amalricians: Inquisitorial Procedure and the Suppression of Heresy at the University of Paris . In: Speculum 71, 1996, pp. 43-65, here: 59; Paolo Lucentini (Ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, pp. XLIII f.
  21. ^ Johannes MMH Thijssen: Master Amalric and the Amalricians: Inquisitorial Procedure and the Suppression of Heresy at the University of Paris . In: Speculum 71, 1996, pp. 43-65, here: 59-61.
  22. ↑ On the dating see Paolo Lucentini (Ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, SL
  23. ↑ Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. LI, 71.
  24. ↑ Caesarius von Heisterbach, Dialogus miraculorum 5:22, ed. by Nikolaus Nösges, Horst Schneider, volume 3, Turnhout 2009, p. 1040 f.
  25. ↑ Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, pp. XLIV-XLVI, XLIX f., 57, 69; Ludwig Hödl: Amalrich von Bena / Amalrikaner . In: Theologische Realenzyklopädie , Vol. 2, Berlin 1978, pp. 349–356, here: 351 f.
  26. ↑ Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. 74 (text of the chronicle entry); Jürgen Miethke: Pope, local bishop and university in the Paris theological trials of the 13th century . In: Albert Zimmermann (ed.): The disputes at the Paris University in the XIII. Century , Berlin 1976, p. 52-94, here: p. 56 f. and note 19.
  27. ↑ Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. 65 (text of the council resolution).
  28. ↑ Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. 63.
  29. ^ Gary Dickson: The Burning of the Amalricians . In: The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 40, 1989, pp. 347-369, here: 350.
  30. ↑ Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. LXXXI and note 107 (p. 88 critical edition of Heinrich von Susa's text in his Lectura in quinque libros decretalium ); Heinrich Fichtenau: Heretics and Professors , Munich 1992, p. 280 f.
  31. ↑ Marie-Thérèse d'Alverny: Un procès du fragment of Amauriciens . In: Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 25/26, 1950–51, pp. 325–336, here: 327, 330; Paolo Lucentini (Ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. 55.
  32. ↑ Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, pp. VI – XI.
  33. ↑ Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. 59.
  34. ^ Chronica regia Coloniensis , Continuatio III , entry for the year 1210.
  35. ↑ Chronica de Mailros , entry for the year 1210.
  36. ↑ Chronica de Mailros , entry for the year 1210; Chronicon universale Laudunense , entry for the year 1212.
  37. ^ Gary Dickson: The Burning of the Amalricians . In: The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 40, 1989, pp. 347-369, here: 364-366; Ludwig Hödl: Amalrich von Bena / Amalrikaner . In: Theologische Realenzyklopädie , Vol. 2, Berlin 1978, pp. 349–356, here: 349 f .; Bernhard Töpfer : The coming empire of peace , Berlin 1964, p. 268 f .; Germaine Catherine Capelle: Autour du décret de 1210: III. Amaury de Bène. Étude sur son panthéisme formula , Paris 1932, pp. 17–19, 31, 41 f .; Marie-Thérèse d'Alverny: Un fragment du procès des Amauriciens . In: Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 25/26, 1950–51, pp. 325–336, here: 333 f.
  38. ↑ Garnerius de Rupeforti, Contra Amaurianos Chapter 1 lines 2–44.
  39. ↑ Garnerius de Rupeforti, Contra Amaurianos Chapter 1, lines 45-172.
  40. ↑ Garnerius de Rupeforti, Contra Amaurianos Chapter 1, lines 173-183.
  41. ↑ Acts 17.28  EU .
  42. ↑ Rom 11:36  EU .
  43. ↑ Garnerius de Rupeforti, Contra Amaurianos Chapter 1, lines 184-203.
  44. ↑ Garnerius de Rupeforti, Contra Amaurianos Chapter 1, lines 204–242.
  45. ↑ 1 Cor 12.6  EU .
  46. ↑ Garnerius de Rupeforti, Contra Amaurianos Chapters 2-4.
  47. ↑ Garnerius de Rupeforti, Contra Amaurianos Chapters 5-6.
  48. ↑ Garnerius de Rupeforti, Contra Amaurianos Chapters 7–8; Fragmentum Viconiense , edited by Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. 59 f., Here: p. 60, lines 20-24.
  49. ↑ Fragmentum Viconiense , edited by Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. 59 f., Here: p. 60, line 23 f.
  50. ↑ Garnerius de Rupeforti, Contra Amaurianos, Chapter 12; Fragmentum Viconiense , edited by Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. 59 f., Here: 60.
  51. ↑ Fragmentum Viconiense , edited by Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. 59 f., Here: p. 59, line 6.
  52. ↑ Fragmentum Viconiense , edited by Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. 59 f., Here: p. 60, lines 18-20.
  53. ↑ Caesarius von Heisterbach, Dialogus miraculorum 5:22, ed. by Nikolaus Nösges, Horst Schneider, volume 3, Turnhout 2009, p. 1034 f. See Enzo Maccagnolo: Parva mediaevalia. In margine ad Amalrico di Bène . In: Sandalion 5, 1982, pp. 329-346, here: 339 f .; Mario dal Pra: Amalrico di Bène , Milano 1951, p. 52 f.
  54. ↑ Ludwig Hödl: Amalrich von Bena / Amalrikaner . In: Theologische Realenzyklopädie , Vol. 2, Berlin 1978, pp. 349–356, here: 354.
  55. ↑ See Roberto Plevano: Exemplarity and Essence in the Doctrine of the Divine Ideas: Some Observations on the Medieval Debate . In: Medioevo 25, 1999/2000, pp. 653-711, here: 663-675, 704-711.
  56. ↑ Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, pp. LXXX – LXXXV.
  57. ↑ See Ludwig Hödl: Amalrich von Bena / Amalrikaner . In: Theologische Realenzyklopädie , Vol. 2, Berlin 1978, pp. 349–356, here: 355; Karl Albert: Amalrich von Bena and the medieval pantheism . In: Albert Zimmermann (ed.): The disputes at the Paris University in the XIII. Century , Berlin 1976, pp. 193–212, here: 198 f.
  58. ^ Maurice de Wulf: Histoire de la philosophie médiévale , 6th edition, Vol. 1, Louvain / Paris 1934, pp. 240–242.
  59. ↑ Clemens Baeumker (Ed.): Contra Amaurianos , Münster 1926, SX
  60. ↑ Etienne Gilson: Préface . In: Germaine Catherine Capelle: Autour du décret de 1210: III. Amaury de Bène. Étude sur son panthéisme formula , Paris 1932, pp. 5 f., 8 f.
  61. ↑ Mario dal Pra: Amalrico di Bène , Milano 1951, pp. 33, 79-81.
  62. ^ Karl Albert: Amalrich von Bena and medieval pantheism . In: Albert Zimmermann (ed.): The disputes at the Paris University in the XIII. Century , Berlin 1976, pp. 193-212.
  63. ↑ Ludwig Hödl: Amalrich von Bena / Amalrikaner . In: Theologische Realenzyklopädie , Vol. 2, Berlin 1978 (delivery 3/4 published 1977), pp. 349–356, here: 351, 353–355.
  64. ↑ Roberto Plevano: Exemplarity and Essence in the Doctrine of the Divine Ideas: Some Observations on the Medieval Debate . In: Medioevo 25, 1999/2000, pp. 653-711, here: 659-662.
  65. ↑ Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, pp. LXII – LXV, LXXVI.
  66. ↑ See also Thomas Ricklin: The dream of philosophy in the 12th century , Leiden 1998, pp. 325–334; Roberto Plevano: Exemplarity and Essence in the Doctrine of the Divine Ideas: Some Observations on the Medieval Debate . In: Medioevo 25, 1999/2000, pp. 653-711, here: 657 f., 705 f .; Paolo Lucentini (Ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. LXXVII f.
  67. ^ Gary Dickson: The Burning of the Amalricians . In: The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 40, 1989, pp. 347-369, here: 359-361; Paolo Lucentini (Ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, pp. LXVIII f .; Ludwig Hödl: Amalrich von Bena / Amalrikaner . In: Theologische Realenzyklopädie , Vol. 2, Berlin 1978, pp. 349–356, here: 351; Herbert Grundmann: Religious Movements in the Middle Ages , Darmstadt 1977 (reprint of the 1st edition, Berlin 1935), p. 371 f .; Mario dal Pra: Amalrico di Bène , Milano 1951, p. 58 f.
  68. ^ Herbert Grundmann: Studies on Joachim von Fiore , Darmstadt 1966 (reprint of the Leipzig / Berlin 1927 edition), pp. 163–168; Herbert Grundmann: Religious Movements in the Middle Ages , Darmstadt 1977 (reprint of the 1st edition, Berlin 1935), pp. 364–366; Gary Dickson: The Burning of the Amalricians . In: The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 40, 1989, pp. 347–369, here: 362–364, 366. Cf. Bernhard Töpfer: Das kommende Reich des Friedens , Berlin 1964, pp. 271–273.
  69. ^ Robertus Autissiodorensis, Chronicon , entry for the year 2010; Text by Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. 61.
  70. ↑ The passage from Gesta Philippi Augusti is reproduced in Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. 68.
  71. ↑ Chronica de Mailros , entry for the year 1210; Text by Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. 71.
  72. ↑ Chronicon universale Laudunense , entry for the year 1212; Text by Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. 73.
  73. ↑ Chronica regia Coloniensis , Continuatio II , entry for the year 1211; Text by Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. 75 f.
  74. ↑ Albericus Trium Fontium, Chronica , entry for the year 1209.
  75. ↑ Martin's text is reproduced by Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, p. 89 f .; see. S. LXXX-LXXXIII. See also Ludwig Hödl: Amalrich von Bena / Amalrikaner . In: Theologische Realenzyklopädie , Vol. 2, Berlin 1978, pp. 349–356, here: 352.
  76. ↑ The representations of these authors are compiled by Germaine Catherine Capelle: Autour du décret de 1210: III. Amaury de Bène. Étude sur son panthéisme formula , Paris 1932, pp. 106–109.
  77. ↑ Caesarius von Heisterbach, Dialogus miraculorum 5:22, ed. by Nikolaus Nösges, Horst Schneider, volume 3, Turnhout 2009, pp. 1032-1043.
  78. ↑ Vincentius Bellovacensis, Speculum historiale 29,107.
  79. ^ Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae 1,3,8. Cf. Karl Albert: Amalrich von Bena and medieval pantheism . In: Albert Zimmermann (ed.): The disputes at the Paris University in the XIII. Century , Berlin 1976, pp. 193-212, here: 204 f.
  80. ↑ See also Andrea von Hülsen-Esch: Gelehre im Bild , Göttingen 2006, pp. 213–215. Illustrations by Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, after p. 90.
  81. ^ The relevant statements by Gerson are compiled by Germaine Catherine Capelle: Autour du décret de 1210: III. Amaury de Bène. Étude sur son panthéisme formula , Paris 1932, pp. 95–97. Cf. Karl Albert: Amalrich von Bena and medieval pantheism . In: Albert Zimmermann (ed.): The disputes at the Paris University in the XIII. Century , Berlin 1976, pp. 193-212, here: 202, 210 f .; Paolo Lucentini: Platonismo, ermetismo, eresia nel medioevo , Louvain-la-Neuve 2007, pp. 366–371.
  82. ↑ Nikolaus von Kues, Apologia doctae ignorantiae 43.
  83. ↑ Hermann Reuter: History of Religious Enlightenment in the Middle Ages , Vol. 2, Berlin 1877, pp. 221, 224.
  84. ↑ Etienne Gilson: Préface . In: Germaine Catherine Capelle: Autour du décret de 1210: III. Amaury de Bène. Étude sur son panthéisme formula , Paris 1932, pp. 9–11.
  85. ↑ Maurice de Wulf: Histoire de la philosophie médiévale , 6th edition, Vol. 1, Louvain / Paris 1934, p. 242.
  86. ↑ Ernst Bloch: On the original history of the Third Reich. In: Bloch: inheritance of this time , Frankfurt 1962, pp. 126–152, here: 134 (first published in 1937).
  87. ^ Hermann Ley: History of the Enlightenment and Atheism , Vol. 2/2, Berlin 1971, pp. 106, 108 f.
  88. ↑ See also Paolo Lucentini (ed.): Garnerii de Rupeforti Contra Amaurianos , Turnhout 2010, pp. LIII – LXXXV.
  89. ↑ Thomas Ricklin: The dream of philosophy in the 12th century , Leiden 1998, p. 328 f.
  90. ^ Gary Dickson: The Burning of the Amalricians . In: The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 40, 1989, pp. 347-369, here: 355 f.
This article was added to the list of excellent articles on May 11, 2015 in this version .