Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:06:49.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ockham's Political Ideas*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Philotheus Boehner O.F.M.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

William Ockham, the Venerabilis Inceptor and the Doctor plus quam subtilis, started his academic career simply as a theologian and philosopher who did not have, or at least did not evince, the slightest interest in political questions. By 1324 or at least by 1327, he had composed all his purely theological or philosophical works of which we have any knowledge. In all these writings there is no trace of any political idea worth mentioning. Even the struggle about the Franciscan ideal of poverty had left no impression on the lines written by Ockham prior to 1327. While he was in England he was either too remote from the theatre of war or (and this seems to be more likely) he was too much engrossed in the construction of his conceptualistic system of philosophy and theology. In any case, we know from his own words that he did not take part in the struggle about poverty—not even to the extent of reading the pertinent documents—before or during his enforced stay at Avignon until the beginning of 1328.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , October 1943 , pp. 462 - 487
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1943

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 These are: Reportallo (quaeshones in 2m-3m librum Sententiarum), Onltnativ (quaestiones in Im l. Sententiarum). the Commentaries on Porphyry's Isagoge, Aristotle's Categories, Perihermenias, De Sophisticis Llenchis and on the Physics, Summulae in libros Physicorum and Summa Logicae; Ockham had composed most probably at this time Quodlibeta VII, Quaestwnes in libros Phystcorum, his two treatises on the Holy Eucharist and some Quaestiones disputatae. Of these works Exposito in libros corum, Summulae in libros Physicorum and Rcportalio are unfinished. Ockham did not fulfill his promise lo write on Aristotle's Metaphysics and other works.

2 Noveritis itaque et cuncti noverint Chnstiam, quod fere quatuor annis integns in Avinione mansi, antequam cognoscerem praesldentem ibidem pravitatem haereticam incurisse, quia nolens leviter credere, quod persona in tanto omcio constltuta haereses definiret esse lenendas, constitutions haereticales ipsius nee legere nee habere curavi. Post modum vero, ex occasione data, superiore mandante, tres constltutiones seu potius destitutiones haereticales.… legi el studui diligenter.… L. Baudry, La Lellrc de Guillaume d'Occam au Chapitre d'Assise. in Revue d'Htshire Franciscaine III (1926) p. 207Google Scholar. Cf. also pp. 207 and 213 where Ockham states that this was the reason for his escape from Avignon. It does not seem likely that Ockham escaped for fear of an imminent condemnation in his trial; for this assumption meets with the objection that Ockham was never condemned by the Pope because of “suspicious doctrines” which were examined by the Pope's commission, though it would have been an effective weapon in the hands of the Pope.

3 It should be noted that wherever Ockham refers to the “Roman empire,” he understands by this term the Ancient Roman empire and its continuation, the so-called “Holy Roman Empire.”

4 Ockham with the friars—and not only with the so-called Spirituals—was convinced that the ideal of Franciscan poverty, expressed in the Franciscan rule, confirmed by the Bull of Flonorius III and the decretal of Nicholas III, was revealed by the life of Christ. There can be no doubt that Pope Nicholas III believed it, too, although in a strict theological sense, he had not denned it ex cathedra. Since Pope John XXII denied it, there existed for Ockham a contradiction between two definitions of Popes.

5 Cf. Dempf, Al., Sacrum Imperlum. (München and Berlin 1929), esp. pp. 504–510Google Scholar.

6 That the limits of the papal power were Ockham's chief concern finds a remarkable expression in Breviloquium de potestate Papae: Porro, si secundum istos tenendum est, quod papa non habet praediclam plenitudinem potestatis a Christo, dicatur ergo quam potestatem habet a Christo et quam non habet, quod tamen a nullo ampliantium potestatem papae adhuc est dictum. Et utinam aliquis eorum hoc expressis verbis dicere non formidet! Ex hoc enim excogitata (or exagitata? Cf. Qonsultaiio de causa matrimoniali, ed. infra cil. p. 282, lin. 18) veritas clarius elucescet. Lib. I, c. 13; ed. infra cil. p. 42 f. We gladly acknowledge that Abbagnano, N., Cuglielmo di Ockham, (Lanziano n.d.), p. 309 ffGoogle Scholar. and Tornay, S., Ockham, Studies and Selections, (La Salle, Ill. 1938) p. 79fGoogle Scholar. substantially come to the same conclusion. As to the latter, however, his introduction to “Ockham's political philosophy,” p. 77, contains many errors concerning biographical data.

7 We used the following editions: Dialogue (Lyons 1494Google Scholar); Breviloquium de polestate Papae, ed. Baudry, L. (Etudes de Philosophie Médiévale, dir. Et. Gilson, 1. 24), (Paris, Vrin, 1937)Google Scholar; Octo questiones de poteslate Papae (ed. J. G. Sikes), An Printers pro suo succursu, scilicet guerrue, possil recipcre bona ecclesiarum. etiym invito Papa (ed. H. S. Offler and R. H. Snape), Consultutio de causa matrimniala (ed. Offler, H. S.) in Cuillelmi de Ockham Opera Politica accuravit Sikes, J. G. etc. Vol. I (Manchester 1940)Google Scholar.

8 Baudry has changed this challenging title into the very innocent one: Breviloquium de potestate Papae, for typographical reasons.

9 For introductory information in this regard cf. Dempf, Al., op. cit. p. 441–468Google Scholar.

10 An princcps, c. 1.; p. 232. Cf. Breviloquium, lib. 2, c. 1; p. 17 and c. 13; p. 42; Octo quacationes. q. 1, c. 2; p. 15; Dialogits, pars III, lib. 1, c. 1 ffs; fol. 81va; Consultatio p. 284 f.

11 Breviloquium, lib. 2, c. 3; ff. To the references to the other works on p. 20, note 2, add also Comultalio, p. 234 ff.

12 Iterum, quia legem evangelicam esse legem perfectae libertatis ex quo patet papam non habere talem plenitudinem potestatis, potest bene et male intelligi, est advertendum quod legem evangelicam esse legem perfeclae libertatis ncn debet intelligi, ut omnem servitudinem tollat et nullam patiatur etiam christianis…sed debet magis intelligi negative, quia scilicet per legem evangelicam nullatenus mgum grave inducitur et nuilus per ipsam fit servus alterius, nee tantum onus quoad exteriorem cultum divinum per ipsam imponitur christianis quanto Judaei passi sunt. Breviloquium, lib. 2, c. 4; p. 21.

13 Dialogus, pars III, tract. 1, lib. 1, c. 17; fol. 88vb. In An princeps this truth is more presupposed as basis than formally expressed; for instance: Tertium notablle, quod ex praediclis habelur est. quod a Deo non solum instituta est potestas papahs…c. 4; p. 243; Amplius, Christus constituens beatum Petrum caput et praelatum cunctorum fidehum…l.c.c. 2; p. 236 and elsewhere.

14 Dialogus, l.c. Cf. An princcps, c. 4; p. 244. Cf. also p. 253 about the Pope as delegate of Christ and especially p. 255: Licet potestas papae, quae spiritualia respicit, sit nobilior et dignior potestate saeculari, quemadmodum spiritualia sunt temporalibus digmora, et papa quoad quaedam spintualia habeat etiam potestatem super illos qui sunt in subhmitate saeculari constituti, tamen non habet super ipsos talem plemtudinem potestatis, licet sub bono intellectu posset concedi, quod, quemadmodum asserunt sancti patres, papa habet plemtudinem potestatis, quia quoad omma spiritualia quae sunt de necessitate facienda et super quae expedit caput ndelium potestatem habere, ipse regulariter plemtudinem obtinet potestatis.

15 Dialogus, l.c. This restriction is contained in the liberty of the Holy Gospel. Cf. also An princeps, c. 4; p. 244, and Brcvilnquium, lib. 2, c. 17; p. 52 f.

16 Dialogus, I.c. It is surprising that Dempf, Al, op. cit., p. 518Google Scholar denies that, according to Ockham, the Pope has coactive power. He probably failed to make necessary distinctions. Ockham denies the coactive power of the Pope as regards purely secular crimes and “in foro contenlioso,” which apparently, here, refers only to temporal contests or disputes. Cf. An princeps, c. 4; p. 244 and Oclo quaesiiones, q. 3, c. 3; p. 104 f.

17 Dialogus, l.c. This privilege of the Pope is not stated in An princeps. It is, however, expressed in Octo quaestiones, q. 3, c. 3; p. 105, where in the following chapters, which certainly represent Ockham's opinion, it is proved that such an exemp;icn is net repugnant to the best form of government.

18 Dialogus, l.c. Cf. An princeps, c. 4; p. 243. Though the Franciscan formulation of this privilege is striking, nevertheless Ockham certainly admits that the Pope and the Church own those temporal goods which were donated by the Christian people; the Pope and the Church own them, however, not by divine, but by human law. Cf. An princeps, c. 8; p. 258 ff.

19 An princeps, c. 5; p. 254. This, of course, is Ockham's Apologia pro vita sua, also. In any case, Ockham does not believe in the infallibility of the Pope, which, at this time, was not yet a defined dogma; nor does he seem to believe in the infallibility of a general Council, but only of the Church, though his discussions on this topic in the Dialogus should be more cautiously used than is commonly done. In any case, Ockham did not make the necessary distinction between a definition ex cathedra and other statements of the Popes. Hence the unfortunate instances of erroneous statements of Pope John XXII about beatific vision prevented him from believing in the infallibility of the Pope.

20 An prlnceps, c. 6; p. 254.

21 Breviloquium, lib. 3, c. 6; p. 84.

22 Cf. the same (traditional) idea of only the right of common property before sin in St. Bonaventure, Senlenl., II, d. 44, a 2, q. 2, ad 4; ed. Quaracchi t. 2, p. 1009. The connection with Franciscan poverty is seen in De perfection? evangelica, II, a. I; t. V; p. 129. Cf. Alexander Halensis (to be exact William of Melitona), Summa Theologica, IaIIae, n. 521 f.; (ed. Quaracchi) I. 3; p. 777 ff. Scotus, Oxonieme, IV, d. 15, q. 2, n. 3–4; ed. Vives t. 18, p. 256 f.

23 Cf. Breviloqulwn, lib. 3, c. 7; p. 85 ff. Cf. Scotus I.e. Ockham develops these ideas in extenso in his Opus nonag'tnia dterum which was not used here.

24 Potestas ergo appropriandi res temporales personae et personis aut collegio data est a Deo humano generi. Et. propter rationem consimilem data est a Deo, absque ministerio et cooperatione humana, poteslas instituendi rectores habentes iurisdictionem temporalem, quia iurisdictio temporalis est de numero illorum quae sunt necessaria et utilia ad bene et politice vivere…Breviloquuim, lib. 3, c. 7; p. 87.

25 The other view found its significant expression in the formula: Extra ecclesiam omnia aedificant ad gehennam, et ideo extra ecclesiam nulla est ordinata potestas sed ibi est solummodo potestas permissa et non concessa. Sreviloquium, lib. 3, c. I p. 68. Ockham's purpose is to refute this opinion (based on Rom. 14, 23), which implies that at least the Roman Empire, if it does not “build up towards hell,” is from the Pope.

26 Breviloquium, lib. 3, c. 8; p. 87 f.

27 Breviloquium, l.c. p. 88.

28 As to human ordination or human right, cf.: Ius proprietatis et dominii primo introductum fult lure humano et civili, appellando ius civile omne ius quod non est ius divinum nee naturale. Postea autem quaedam dominia introducta fuerunt iure divino, quia ex speciali consecratione divina; quaedam autem introducta fuerunt iure humano quod non erat ius regum sed populi vel aliorum minoris dignitatis quam sint reges; quaedam introducta fuerunt iure-regum. Breviloquium, lib. 3, c. 15; p. 98.

29 l.c.

30 Cf. Octo qaaestiones, q. 2; c. 3; p. 74. The same distinction is found in Breviloquium, lib. 4, c. 5; p. 109, though here in specification as to jurisdiction.

31 Octo quaestiones, l.c. Cf. Breviloquium, I.c. The instance of the Pope is here introduced with: Isto modo videtur aliquibus….

32 Octo quaesliones. l.c. Cf. Breviloquium, I.c.; p. 110.

33 Octo quaesliones, q. 2, c. 6; p. 78 ff. Dreviloquwm, l.e.; p. III. As to deposition of an emperor cf. Breviloqiiium, lib. 5, c. 2; p. 157 f.

34 Breviloqulum, lib. 4, c. 12–13; p. 124 f. This is said in connection with the submission of the people and nations to the Roman empire, but it holds generally too. Cf. also n. 125.

35 Breviloquium, lib. 4, c. 10; p. 121.

36 Breviloquium, lib. 4, c. 10; p. 122; cf. c. 11; p. 123 f; Dialogus, pars III, tract. 2, lib. 1, c. 27; fol. 2rr vb.

37 Sed quando et qualitcr coepit esse verum imperium fateor me nescire. Dubium enim est mihi an, quando Romani dominari coeperunt de facto, tyrannice solummodo sibi dominium supra alios usurpaverunt, et ideo non constat modo utrum ab initio vel postea verum imperium habuerunt. Quamvis enim a Christo et apostolis habeamus quod eorum temporibus erat verum imperium, tamen ipsi minime expresserunt quando coepit esse verum imperium. Quod autem illi non definierunt, nec ego dennire piaesumo. Breviloquium, lib. 4, c. 10; p. 120 f.

38 Breviloquium, lib. 4. c. 13; p. 126.

39 An princps, c. 4; p. 243.

40 Breviloquium, lib. 2. c. 5; p. 22.

41 An princeps, c. 6; p. 253; cf. c. 4; p. 244.

42 Octo quaestiones, q. 3, c. 8; p. 113.

43 Octo quaestiones, q. 3, c. 8; p. 112. Dempf, Al, op. cit., p. 522Google Scholar, thinks that according to Ockham “die optimistische Sozialphilosophie, die den Staat aus der natiirlichen und politischen Haltung des Menschen ableitet. ist ersetzt durch eine pessimistische Gewaltauffassung des Staates wie bei Marsilus…” We admit that Ockham's theory is not optimistic in a naturalistic sense, because it takes into account the supernatural truths of original sin, Christ's atonement and doomsday, which do not admit optimism as regards man's nature, though no absolute pessimism either. St. Bonaventure, Duns Scotus and Ockham have to remind those who take Aristotle's theory as the “natural” one, that it is based on the requirements of fallen nature, which Aristotle mistook for nature as such. We do not believe that St. Thomas thinks essentially otherwise.

44 Brcviloquium, lib. 4, c. 4; p. 108.

45 Breviloquium, lib. 2, c. 16; p. 48 ff.

46 L.c. c. 17; p. 51 ff.

47 L.c. c. 18; p. 54 ff.

48 Breviloquium, lib. 6, c. 2; p. 156 ff.

49 An princeps, c. 6; p. 250.

50 Tanquerey, , Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae t. 1 (Benziger Bros., New York, 1920), p. 591Google Scholar (n. 910) who imputes this to Ockham and Marsihus, is incorrect as to Ockham.

51 Cf. Octo quaesliones, q. 3, c. 3; p. 104.

52 This may be gathered from the Dialogus.

53 This is the topic of An princeps.

54 This is the topic of Consultatio de causa matrimomali. Oclcham admits matrimonial cases as causae mixtae, and distinguishes clearly between the sacramental and civil aspect of marriage.