MEISTER ECKHARTS SPECTER: FOURTEENTH-CENTURY USES OF THE BULL IN AGRO DOMINICO INCLUDING A NEWLY DISCOVERED INQUISITORIAL TEXT OF 1337

Robert E. Lerner
T may be agreed that Meister Eckhart had no intention of transgressing the faith. Whether a firm commitment to orthodoxy led him to combat the socalled heresy of the Free Spirit in Strassburg and Cologne, as some recent studies have maintained, remains uncertain.1 But when he was charged with heresy he insisted that he was an obedient son of the Church: he stood ready to recant any of his teachings that might be judged erroneous, and since error pertained to the intellect and heresy to the will he could not be a heretic because he had no will to be one.2 Nevertheless, many of Eckharts startling theological formulations were taken by the highest authorities to be pernicious and to present the danger of infecting others. This circumstance was long dismissed because of a tradition of scholarship holding that when Pope John XXII condemned twenty-six statements from Eckharts works in the bull In agro dominico (1329), the pope was halfhearted. Supposedly John agreed to the condemnation as a concession to the archbishop of Cologne, Henry of Virneburg, who had initiated Eckharts trial. Supposedly the proof was that Pope John ordered the publication of In agro dominico solely in Henrys ecclesiastical province of Cologne, as if he were according a personal favor.3 In
The author wishes to express his appreciation to Bernard McGinn and an anonymous

reader for Mediaeval Studies for numerous helpful suggestions and criticisms. 1 Martina Wehrli-Johns, Mystik und Inquisition: Die Dominikaner und die sogenannte Hresie des Freien Geistes, in Deutsche Mystik im abendlndischen Zusammenhang, Walter Haug and Wolfram Schneider-Lastin (Tbingen, 2000), 22352, at 24351; Walter Senner, Meister Eckhart in Kln, in Meister Eckhart: Lebensstationen, Redesituationen, ed. Klaus Jacobi (Berlin, 1997), 20737; idem, Rhineland Dominicans, Meister Eckhart and the Sect of the Free Spirit, in The Vocation of Service to God and Neighbour, ed. Joan Greatrex (Turnhout, 1998), 12133. 2 Bernard McGinn, The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart (New York, 2001), 15, 17, citing the original documentation. 3 The classic statement is Winfried Trusen, Der Prozess gegen Meister Eckhart (Pader-

Mediaeval Studies 70 (2008): 11534. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.

116

R. E. LERNER

an article published in 1997 I showed this supposition to be false.4 Johns bull was a formal constitution addressed to Christendom at large for the perpetual memory of the matter. While the pope did command Henry of Virneburg to publish In agro dominico in his province, he said nothing about intending to limit it there. In fact the Avignon chancery saw to the publication of the bull in the province of Mainz, where it became lodged in an inquisitors manual and where parts of it were translated into the vernacular for the purpose of cautionary reading to the laity. The present article will go further by showing that with high probability In agro dominico was published in still other ecclesiastical provinces beyond Cologne and Mainz and unquestionably was widely known in northwestern continental Europe. Most important, it proposes that the bull rivalled the constitution Ad nostrum as a fourteenth-century weapon for use against real or imagined heretics of the Free Spirit. It will first assemble a variety of citations impressive for their number as well as their geographical breadth; then it will introduce new evidence showing how In agro dominico was employed not merely for polemics but for practical application in a hitherto unknown inquisitorial trial. Information about that trial itself should additionally be of interest to students of heresy and inquisition.5 I will begin with what appears to be the earliest evidence of circulation of the bull, namely, in a work by Heinrich Suso, who drew on errors it cited in his Little Book of the Truth (Bchlein der Wahrheit). Susos treatise was written in 1329, or 1330 at the latest, which means that it was composed very soon after the formal issuance of In agro dominico in March 1329 and its dispatch dated 15 April 1329 to the Archbishop of Cologne for publication in his province. When Suso drew on the bull he was residing far from Cologne as lector in the Dominican convent of Constance, in a diocese appertaining to the province of Mainz. Hitherto it might have been supposed that Suso had gained his copy of In agro dominico from a Dominican colleague in the province of
born, 1988). See also idem, Meister Eckhart vor seinen Richtern und Zensoren, in Meister Eckhart, ed. Jacobi, 33552, at 350: Die Bulle ist nicht in der Christenheit verbreitet worden, wie das bei wichtigen Dokumenten geschah. For references to numerous statements that accord with Trusens position, see Robert E. Lerner, New Evidence for the Condemnation of Meister Eckhart, Speculum 72 (1997): 34766, at 347 nn. 12, 362 nn. 4950. 4 Lerner, New Evidence, passim. 5 In giving the English for passages from In agro dominico I will rely heavily, but not invariably, on the translation by Bernard McGinn in Edmund Colledge and Bernard McGinn, eds., Meister Eckhart: The Essential Sermons, Commentaries, Treatises, and Defense (New York, 1981), 7781. The best Latin edition is by M.-H. Laurent, Autour du procs de Matre Eckhart, Divus Thomas (Piacenza) 39 (1936): 33148, 43047.

MEISTER ECKHARTS SPECTER

117

Cologne on the assumption that it was published only there. But the recent proof of publication in the province of Mainz makes direct availability in Constance just as plausible an explanation. As Eckharts disciple, Susos intention was by no means to tar his preceptor with the papal opprobrium. To the contrary, chapter six of The Little Book of the Truth takes the form of a dialogue between Susos persona (the disciple) and a reprehensible nameless wild one, an adherent of the views of Free Spirits. It is the wild one who offers positions he claims to have derived from a great master (i.e., Eckhart) that echo tenets from In agro dominico (articles 23, 24, 11, 12, and 22), and the disciple, Susos persona, who, in refuting the wild one, implicitly is refuting misunderstandings promulgated by the pope.6 As Bernard McGinn observes, there is a consensus that the book [Bchlein der Wahrheit] was composed to defend Eckharts teachings against his detractors,7 and in this context one can even say that Suso was aiming to show that the pope himself did not properly understand Eckharts teachings. Not surprisingly, then, Susos book itself was denounced as heretical in 1330 by fellow Dominicans (unfortunately details are lacking), apparently leading to Susos loss of his lectorship in the Constance cloister.8 In sharp contrast to Suso, who wanted to imply that the errors of In agro dominico were distortions of Eckharts actual teachings, two authors who resided in the Augustinian priory of Groenendael, near Brussels, Jan van Leeuwen and Jan van Ruusbroec, saw them as exhibiting Eckharts doctrinal irresponsibility. Short treatises by Jan van Leeuwen dating from the 1350s indicate clearly that members of the Groenendael community had access to In agro dominico. Not only do two of these works charge Eckhart with errors that echo several tenets of the papal bull, but one of them, Van den tien gheboden gods, shows detailed knowledge of its contents. Here Jan refers to the twenty-six errors that Eckhart openly preached against the Roman curia and against the holy catholic Church, the number twenty-six corresponding exactly to the number of articles branded as erroneous in In agro dominico, aside from a final two to which objection existed; and in the same work he closely approximates wording from the arenga to the papal bull, stating that
6 The standard edition is Karl Bihlmeyer, Heinrich Suso: Deutsche Schriften (Stuttgart, 1907; rpt. Frankfurt, 1961). Chapter six of the Bchlein der Wahrheit is at 35257. Bihlmeyers notes already observe the use of In agro dominico. Most recently, see Bernard McGinn, The Harvest of Mysticism in Medieval Germany (New York, 2005), 571 n. 28: LBT 6 defends Eckharts views on a number of the positions condemned in the papal bull. . . . It is difficult to think that Suso chose these points without knowing of the text of the condemnation. 7 McGinn, Harvest of Mysticism, 200. 8 Ibid., 19798.

118

R. E. LERNER

Eckharts teachings offend the common people and cloud the light in simple, good hearts.9 Two modern scholars already noticed Jan van Leeuwens evident knowledge of In agro dominico. Theodor B. W. Kok, in a publication of 1973, took the use of the bull as a reasonable inference but refrained from claiming full proof because of the assumption, unquestioned when he wrote, that it had been published only in the province of Cologne whereas the convent of Groenendael lay in the ecclesiastical province of Reims.10 In 1999 Kurt Ruh more boldly averred that Jan van Leeuwens evidence seriously affects the widespread assumption that the bull In agro dominico was hardly known beyond the ecclesiastical province of Cologne, for which it was expressly meant.11 Had Ruh known my article of 1997 demonstrating that the bull had been published in the province of Mainz he doubtless would have been yet more assertive. Because the relevant evidence dates from the 1350s, it does not prove that In agro dominico was published in the province of Reims, for ample time existed for it to have migrated to the Brussels region without independent publication. Nevertheless, Jan van Leeuwens reference to the twenty-six errors together with his close verbal borrowing virtually rules out doubt that the bull was available to him and that it thus enjoyed broad geographical circulation. To this one might add that the appearance in locations such as Constance and Groenendael highlights the absurdity of thinking that John XXII could have meant that his constitution should not be noticed. Jan van Leeuwens hostility to Eckhart was withering and unrelenting. In Van den tien gheboden gods he assailed Eckhart as an enormous antichrist, and in a single-mindedly vitriolic diatribe, Van Meester Eckaerts leere daer hi in doelde, he termed him not only a devilish man but one who had as many true insights as a toad.12 Jans outrage stemmed from what he took to be Eckharts heretically pantheistic doctrine itself, and apparently even more from

See the passages from Van den tien gheboten gods cited in Th. B. W. Kok, Jan van Leeuwen en zijn werkje tegen Eckhart, Ons Geestelijk Erf 47 (1973): 12972, at 135. In the same treatise Jan railed against Eckhart for teaching that we are not many sons, but just one son, as Christ is, and that men are Gods son without difference or without creaturely distinction, echoing In agro dominico, tenets 11 and 12: see the passages cited by Kok, 134, and R. A. Ubbink, De Receptie van Meister Eckhart in de Nederlanden gedurende de middeleeuwen (Amsterdam, 1978), 232. Kok, 133, cites from another treatise by Jan van Leeuwen, Van vyferhande bruederscap, a passage that echoes In agro dominico, tenets 10 and 22. 10 Kok, Jan van Leeuwen, 134. 11 Kurt Ruh, Geschichte der abendlndischen Mystik: Vierter Band, Die niederlndische Mystik des 14. bis 16. Jahrhunderts (Munich, 1999), 115. 12 Passages at Kok, Jan van Leeuwen, 135, 153, 156.

MEISTER ECKHARTS SPECTER

119

his conviction that by openly preaching pantheistic errors Eckhart had inspired the pestiferous heresy of free spirits. As he wrote, before Eckharts time no one knew of these awful free spirits nor of their false teachings which all originate in the stupid doctrine he used to preach that we are not many sons but one son, that is Christ [and that we are] Gods sons without difference and without creaturely distinction.13 Jan did not need In agro dominico to arrive at this conclusion, but the sentiment is related to the bulls arenga which berates Eckhart for working to produce harmful thistles and poisonous thornbushes. Jan van Leeuwen was not an inquisitor, but it is easy to imagine that had he been one he might have used In agro dominicos articles as equipment for examining accused heretics. Since the text of In agro dominico was all but certainly available in Groenendael, the probability is very strong that the great Netherlandish mystic Jan van Ruusbroec had it before him when he wrote his last work, Van den XII Beghinen, in the same community between ca. 1365 and ca. 1380. Certainly at a point in the section of this treatise wherein he attacks excessive mystical heresy he comes very close to a verbatim quotation. Namely, he cites error 11 of the bull virtually word for word: all that God gave to our Lords humanity, he has given to you, no less, and without exception.14 Additionally, in the section he adduces the papal bull less closely but still clearly enough, paraphrasing error 11 in inveighing against the belief that I am one with him, God and man, in every way: here I make no exception; for all that God has given to him, he has given to me with him, and no less than to him.15 Similarly Ruusbroec approximates error 10 in having an opponent say, In the sacrament in which his body is elevated on the altar, I am being elevated, and when his body is carried about, mine is being carried; and also in charging, you say . . . that Christs body is your body, for you fancy that you are his flesh and blood, one with him; when his holy body is consecrated
13

Citation from Van den tien gheboten gods in Ubbink, De Receptie van Meister Eckhart,

232.
14 Jan van Ruusbroec, Opera omnia 7A: Vanden XII beghinen, ed. M. M. Kors et al., CCCM 107A (Turnhout, 2000), 103 (=2a, 19091): al dat god gaf der menscheit ons heeren, dat hevet hi u ghegheven, niet men, noch niet uutghenomen. (Here and elsewhere I follow the editions facing-page English translation of Ruusbroecs Dutch with minor modifications.) The Latin text of part of error 10 of In agro dominico runs Quidquid Deus pater dedit filio suo unigenito in humana natura, hoc totum dedit mihi; hic nihil excipio. The match between the Dutch and the Latin of the papal bull is so close that the modern editor of Ruusbroecs treatise, M. M. Kors, does not hesitate to offer In agro dominico as Ruusbroecs source (551). 15 Ibid., 99 (=2a, 13033): Ende aldus ben ic een met hem, god ende mensche, in alre wijs, ende hier en neemic niet uut. Want al dat hem god ghegheven heeft, dat hevet hi mi met hem ghegheven ende niet min dan hem.

120

R. E. LERNER

and elevated and carried about in the sacrament, you imagine that it is you yourself.16 A noteworthy difference between the two Jans is that Ruusbroec never mentions Eckhart by name. Whatever the reason, in the present context it is only necessary to point out that the primary intention of both is to combat real or perceived contemporary heretics. In this regard Ruusbroec is almost as vituperative as Jan van Leeuwen. He lambastes a fictional interlocutor as a worthless knave and terms this characters claim to possess all that God gave to Christ an out-and-out lie.17 Not only that, but Ruusbroec hurls further invective by proclaiming, this is why you have no more desire nor worship for the body of our Lord, nor to see the holy sacrament, than a dog which comes to Mass with his mistress. You are just as glad to look at the wall as at the holy sacrament in the priests hand.18 It has been noted that Ruusbroecs attack on heresy in Van den XII Beghinen was contemporaneous with campaigns directed against heretical beguines and beghards in Brabant.19 Thus even without mentioning Eckharts name, Ruusbroec implicitly was taking Eckharts incriminated teachings as a source of continuing dangerous error just as Jan van Leeuwen had done so explicitly. We will now see that the same attitude can be identified in the case of two actual inquisitors. The first is the German Augustinian friar Jordan of Quedlinburg (ca. 1300 ca. 1370).20 A leading figure within his order, Jordan was conversant with Meister Eckharts Commentary on John and wove passages and paraphrases
Ibid., 99101 (=2a, 14548): Inden sacramente daermen sinen lichame opheft in den outaere, daer heftmen my, ende daermen sinen lichame draghet, daer draghtmen my. Want ic ben met hem vleeschs ende bloet ende een persoen, diemen niet deilen en mach; 109 (=2a, 23639): dat Cristus lichame uwen lichame si, want u dunct dat ghi sijt syn vleeschs ende sijn bloet, een met hem; ende daer men sinen heiligen lichame consacreert ende opheft ende draghet inden sacramente. soe dunct u dat ghi dar selve sijt. Cf. In agro dominico, error 10: Nos transformamur totaliter in Deum et convertimur in eum; simili modo sicut in sacramento panis convertitur in corpus Christi, sic ego convertor in eum quod ipse operator me suum esse unum, non simile. 17 Jan van Ruusbroec, Opera omnia 7A: Vanden XII beghinen, ed. Kors et al., 109 (=2a, 236): Noch meer segdi, onwerdich boeve; 1035 (=2a, 19192): Dit es ene grove loghene. 18 Ibid., 109 (=2a, 23943): Ende hier omme en hebdi noch lost noch werdicheit ten lichame ons heeren, noch dat heilige sacramente te siene, niet meer dan een hont die met sire vrouwen te messen comt. Alsoe gherne siedi opde want als op dat heilighe sacrament ins priesters hant. 19 M. M. Kors, in Jan van Ruusbroec, Opera omnia 7: Vanden XII beghinen, Prolegomena, CCCM 107 (Turnhout, 2000), 1718. 20 For the best survey of his career and writings, see the entry by Adolar Zumkeller in Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon, 2d ed., 13 vols. (Berlin, 1977 ), 4:853 61.
16

MEISTER ECKHARTS SPECTER

121

from it approvingly into his own writings.21 Yet he did not mention Eckharts name when he did so, either because he was ignorant of it or, more likely, because he felt awkward about mentioning the name of a condemned author. Certainly he knew the errors listed in In agro dominico and shared the sentiments of the condemnation in finding them abhorrent. Copious proof is found in two of Jordans sermon collections: his Sermones de tempore and his Opus postillarum. The Sermones de tempore, more frequently known as Opus Jor (with a touch of narcissism, Jordan entitled two of his sermon collections respectively Opus Jor and Opus Dan), contains a sermon (number 51) that criticizes errors of mystical religion. Here he argues against belief in union without distinction, as in the view that the soul can become so elevated and perfected that it becomes totally transformed into God and so is made the son of God none other than the only-begotten.22 This is a paraphrase of the substance of errors twenty through twenty-two of In agro dominico. Then, in his criticism of those who offer an analogy between such total union and the transformation that takes places in the sacrament of the Eucharist, Jordan draws very closely on the language of the papal decree. Opus Jor gives ponunt exemplum de pane et corpore Christi dicentes sic: nos transformamur et convertimur in Deum totaliter eo modo quo in sacramento panis convertitur in corpus Christi, thereby manifestly employing error ten of In agro dominico: nos transformamur totaliter in Deum et convertimur in eum, simili modo sicut in sacramento panis convertitur in corpus Christi.23 Jeremiah Hackett has demonstrated the same trait of citing errors from In agro dominico in Jordans Opus postillarum.24 Whereas Jordan states in one
See most recently Nadia Bray, Meister Eckhart e Dietrich di Freiberg nellOpus Ior di Giordano di Quedlinburg, Giornale critico della filosofia italiana 83 (2004): 3752; and Jeremiah Hackett, The Reception of Meister Eckhart: Mysticism, Philosophy and Theology in Henry of Friemar (the Elder) and Jordanus of Quedlinburg, in Meister Eckhart in Erfurt, ed. Andreas Speer and Lydia Wegener, Miscellanea Mediaevalia 32 (Berlin, 2005), 55486, at 57284. 22 Jordan von Quedlinburg: Opus postillarum . . . : De nativitate Domini; Opus Ior: Sermones selecti de filiatione divina, ed. Nadia Bray (Hamburg, 2008), 121: et tunc immediate coniungitur Deo et totaliter transformatur in Deum et sic fit Filius Dei, non alius, sed ille idem unigenitus. The same passage is quoted in Robert E. Lerner, The Image of Mixed Liquids in Late-Medieval Mystical Thought, Church History 40 (1971): 397411, at 404 n. 43. 23 Jordan: Opus postillarum, ed. Bray, 122; and Lerner, Image, 404 n. 45; In agro dominico: Laurent, Autour du procs, 438. In regard to both passages from the Opus Ior, Bray notes parallels with passages from Eckharts Cologne trial but misses the parallels with tenets from In agro dominico. 24 Jeremiah Hackett, The Use of a Text Quotation from Meister Eckhart by Jordan of Quedlinburg (Saxony) O.S.A., Proceedings of the PMR Conference 2 (1977): 97102
21

122

R. E. LERNER

sermon that certain moderns have fallen into error in believing that the Word lives in any just man excepting nothing, neither union nor sanctity, article eleven of In agro dominico quotes Eckhart as saying all this he gave to me: here I except nothing, neither union nor sanctity.25 In addition Jordan complains in another sermon of certain mad ones among the moderns who say that any just man is himself the same as the only-begotten son of God, whom God the Father has generated eternally. Here Hackett notes accurately that the source must be In agro dominico, no. 21: the noble man is that only-begotten son of God, whom God the Father has generated eternally.26 Removing any doubt regarding his use of the papal bull, Jordan states in the first of the two sermons quoted that the modern errors he is attacking were reproved as erroneous and heretical by Pope John XXII and condemned by him.27 Jordan of Quedlinburgs concern with the theology of mystical union was not merely theoretical, for he was both a preacher and an inquisitor. In the former capacity he wished to guard his audience against the errors of the moderns, and in the latter he needed to determine whether any heretical moderns were in his midst. In 1336, while he was theological lector in the Augustinian convent of Magdeburg, he very likely participated in a trial of beguines charged with heresy in that city.28 Around the same time he was called to serve as episcopal inquisitor in Angermnde, a town in Brandenburg where accused heretics were branded as Luciferans, that is, diabolical antinomians.29 That being so, any dutiful inquisitor would have arrived with formal documents most appropriate for examining them, one of which could have been the recently issued In agro dominico. The fact that Jordan, then Augustinian provincial of Saxony, was consulted in 1350 regarding the testi-

(Hackett cites the Opus Postillarum from the incunable edition: Strassburg, 1483). Trusen, Der Prozess, 127, states that we know comparatively few references that display an exact knowledge of the text of the bull In agro dominico without mentioning any of them. 25 Hackett, Use, 99, citing Jordan, Sermon 74: sic et habitat quolibet iusto nihil excipiendo, nec unionem nec sanctitatem; and In agro dominico 11: Hic nihil excipio, nec unionem nec sanctitatem. The same passage from Jordan is now cited in Opus Postillarum, ed. Bray, 81. 26 Hackett, Use, 100, citing Jordan, Sermon 73; see now Opus postillarum, ed. Bray, 69, recognizing the parallel with In agro dominico. 27 Hackett, Use, 99, citing Jordan, Sermon 74; for the Latin text, see Hackett, Reception, 584 n. 26, or Bray, Opus postillarum, 81. 28 For the evidence, see Robert E. Lerner, The Heresy of the Free Spirit in the Later Middle Ages (Berkeley, 1972), 52. 29 Ibid., 2728.

MEISTER ECKHARTS SPECTER

123

mony of a pertinacious heretic who had been tried in Erfurt30 shows that determining about heresy was an occupational responsibility; accordingly it is possible that he was engaged in other cases of which we are unaware. If Jordan in fact utilized In agro dominico early in his career while he was lector in Magdeburg, that would present the likelihood that the bull had been published in the province of Magdeburg.31 More important is the point that Jordan disapproves of Eckhart in connection with what is normally held to be the heresy of the Free Spirit. Indeed, he was so obsessed with Free Spirit errors that he wrote an entire treatise refuting them. We do not know the contents because this work unfortunately is lost, but it is certain that Jordan engaged with the complex of such errors in the sermons mentioned as well as in others wherein he cited the foundational papal decree, Ad nostrum, directed against malignant antinomian mystical heretics.32 Accordingly we have here a firmly documented case of an inquisitor of the middle third of the fourteenth century who considered the two papal decrees to be part of the same package. Two intervening citations of In agro dominico will serve as a transition to my second inquisitor. I refer first to proof that Jordan of Quedlinburg was not the only fourteenth-century individual who linked In agro dominico with Ad nostrum. Namely, the same linkage appears in statutes that Gert Groot wrote in 1379 for his newly founded house of the modern devout in Deventer. (This town lay in the diocese of Utrecht, whose bishop, according to some, was not supposed to have received In agro dominico even though his diocese appertained to the province of Cologne.33) In the statutes Groot explicitly reproves every point that was forbidden to beguines by the common counsel of the Holy Church at Vienne as stands in the Clementines together with the twenty-eight articles of Eckhart that the Holy Church opposed and conIbid., 12830. In this case the heretic in question, Constantine of Arnhem, confessed to errors that had no bearing on mysticism or antinomianism. 31 The sermon collections are of no help in determining when Jordan first obtained the bull because he could have used the bull long before writing his sermons; moreover, the completion dates of the three collections prove nothing about when the individual sermons within them may have been composed. 32 For citations from Ad nostrum in the Opus postillarum and the Opus Ior, see Romana Guarnieri, Il movimento del Libero Spirito, Archivio italiano per la storia della piet 4 (1965): 351708, at 444 with n. 2, 446 with n. 3, 449 with nn. 1, 2, 5, and 450 with n. 1. 33 Cf. Trusen, Der Prozess, 127: Weder aus den ppstlichen Registern noch aus anderen Unterlagen ist ersichtlich, dass Kopien an andere deutsche Bischfe als den Klner Metropoliten . . . versandt worden sind. Granted that the quoted evidence does not prove the publication of In agro dominico in Groots home diocese of Utrecht, it appears to make it likely. One cannot tell whether Trusen knew this source, but the name Groot does not appear in his index.
30

124

R. E. LERNER

demned.34 In referring to points reproved at Vienne, Groot necessarily was referring to Ad nostrum rather than the vaguer sister document, Cum de quibusdam mulieribus. Also relevant is an entry concerning In agro dominico in the chronicle of the Westphalian Dominican, Heinrich of Herford, written before 1355.35 (Herford was located in the province of Cologne, but in the outlying diocese of Minden, and thus about as far from the Metropolitan city as Groots diocese of Deventer was in the other direction.) Heinrich misdated the document by two years (he placed its issue in 1327), but since he reported its contents with substantial accuracy, he still probably had a copy at his desk. Two points are of present interest. One is that Heinrich concealed the fact that the bull was aimed at his Ordensbrder, Meister Eckhart, asserting instead that its target was beghards and beguines. On the basis of such an assumption the bull thus could have been used in practice as an inquisitorial weapon against alleged free spirits because for contemporary authorities beghards and free spirits were interchangeable terms. Second, the fact that Heinrich was a Dominican is noteworthy because his attention to In agro dominico raises the likelihood that the document was thought to be of interest to Dominicans in their capacity as inquisitorial guardians of the faith. New evidence proves that at least one Dominican did take the step of using In agro dominico as a formularly in an inquisitorial trial. I refer to documentation concerning a trial that transpired in Metz in the 1330s. Although I treated this case in some detail in my Heresy of the Free Spirit of 1972, I did not refer there to In agro dominico. Knowledge of the trial depends solely on a text that survives in a fifteenth-century manuscript. In 1890 it was published by Ignaz von Dllinger,36 and students of heresy, myself included, thereafter assumed that Dllingers edition was trustworthy without going back to the manuscript. But the trust was unwarranted. The doyen of German heresy studies, Alexander Patschovsky, did check the manuscript and noted in a
Theo Klausmann, Die ltesten Satzungen der Devotio moderna, in Kirchenreform von unten, ed. Nikolaus Staubach (Frankfurt, 2004), 2443, at 40: 14: ienich punt, daer die beghinen om verboeden siin in den ghemenen rade der heiligher kerken to Viennen; 15: als in Clemencius staet; 16: achtentwintich articulen Eckards, die de heilighe kerke wederseghet hevet ende verdoempt. The list reveals knowledge of the full text of In agro dominico, with its reference to twenty-eight articles (the indiscriminate lumping together of all twenty-eight as condemned is itself noteworthy since the bull itself makes distinctions about degrees of heterodoxy among that number). 35 Henricus de Hervordia, Liber de rebus memorabilioribus sive Chronicon (Gttingen, 1859), 24748. 36 [J. J.] I. von Dllinger, Beitrge zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters, 2 vols. (Munich, 1890), 2:4036, editing Vienna, sterreichische Nationalbibliothek 4201, fol. 7rv.
34

MEISTER ECKHARTS SPECTER

125

footnote of 1974 that Dllingers edition was both faulty and incomplete.37 Inexplicably Dllinger neglected to publish a substantial part and breathed no word of his omission. Returning to the manuscript one finds that the text, there entitled Tractatus de beghardis, is remarkable for several reasons. Most of these are addressed in a recent article by Courtney Kneupper.38 Suffice it here to say that the text falls into two parts. The first and much longer part treats the tenets and practices of beghards of poverty who were examined in Metz in 1337 (Dllinger misread this as 1334) by the bishop and a certain Dominican brother, Garinus, who served as inquisitor. As Kneupper demonstrates, some or all of these beghards of poverty were actually Beguins, that is, southern French adherents of the doctrines of Petrus Iohannis Olivi who were victims of inquisitorial persecution in the 1320s. Although one would not have expected to find Occitan Beguins in Metz, the first three tenets attributed to the beghards of poverty in the Tractatus are of a characteristically Spiritual Franciscan complexion. In addition the fact that Occitan Beguins were put to death in Metz is confirmed by an as yet unpublished fourteenth-century Beguin martyrology found in the baggage of Franciscan Spirituals who were seized in 1354 in Montpellier.39 Whereas the tenets and practices listed in the first part of the Tractatus de beghardis are the subject of Kneuppers article, it is the second part, silently omitted by Dllinger, that is relevant here.40 This proceeds to describe a different species of beghard: those who call themselves of the free spirit. According to the anonymous author who was in some way involved with the
37 Alexander Patschovsky, Strassburger Beginenverfolgungen im 14. Jahrhundert, Deutsches Archiv fr Erforschung des Mittelalters 30 (1974): 56198, at 117 n. 152: Dllingers unvollstndige und beraus fehlerhafte Wiedergabe des Verhrsberichts. This is reinforced in idem, Freiheit der Ketzer, in Die abendlndische Freiheit vom 10. zum 14. Jahrhundert, ed. Johannes Fried, Vortrge und Forschungen 39 (Sigmaringen, 1991), 26586, at 274 n. 44: [die] besonders fehlerhaft[e] und zudem fragmentarisch[e] Quellenausgabe von Ignaz v. Dllinger. Horst Fuhrmann, Menschen und Meriten: Eine persnliche Portraitgalerie (Munich, 2001), 169, quotes Charles Moliniers review (1894) of Dllingers Sektengeschichte: the best chapters offer nothing new, the new ones nothing good. 38 Courtney Kneupper, Reconsidering a Fourteenth-Century Heresy Trial in Metz: Beguins and Others, Franciscana 8 (2006): 187227. 39 The martyrology was discovered by Alexander Patschovsky in a manuscript now in Wolfenbttel. For an edition of an inferior copy, see Jaume de Puig i Oliver, Notes sobre el manuscrit del Directorium inquisitorum de Nicolau Eimeric conservat a la Biblioteca de lEscorial, Arxiu de textos catalans antics 19 (2000): 52560, at 53839. Fuller details on the Beguin martyrology are provided by Louisa A. Burnham, So Great a Light, So Great a Smoke: The Beguin Heretics of Languedoc (Ithaca, N.Y., 2008), 82 n. 94. 40 See the Appendix for an edition.

126

R. E. LERNER

trial, these beghards had friendly contacts with the beghards of poverty but nonetheless were distinct from them. To display the nature of their outrageous beliefs the author presents a list of six errors confessed to by a heresiarch of the free spirits named Gallenius de Tholosaa person hitherto unknown to scholarship. Then he supplies two more errors held collectively by beghards of the free spirit. The two men who directed the proceedings are identifiable. The bishop of Metz in 1337 was Admar de Monteil, who served in Metz from 1327 to 1361. Although Admar probably initiated the round-up of the accused, he hardly need concern us because he does not seem to have taken an active role in the trial. Identifying the inquisitor is more important. I believe he was certainly Garinus de Giaco, O.P., who was Dominican regent master in Paris in 133637.41 Several reasons underpin my assurance. No papal inquisitor enters into question because none was deputized in this period for the ecclesiastical province of Trier in which Metz was located.42 Looking for an acknowledged theological expert, Bishop Admar might have turned to one of two roughly equidistant centers of theological learning, Cologne and Paris. But a choice of Cologne would seem improbable, not only because Paris had more prestige but because Admar was Francophone and so were the accused. Thus a Dominican regent master in Paris would have been the best choice. Granted that this is a hypothetical reconstruction, the document in fact refers to the inquisitor as a Dominican named Garinus, and Garinus de Giaco, the Parisian regent, was the only theologically trained Dominican with the rare name of Garinus known to be active anywhere in Europe in the 1330s. What was the most likely document an inquisitor arriving from Paris in 1337 might have employed in prosecuting beghards? Doubtless the answer is the Council of Viennes decree Ad nostrum, published formally by John XXII late in 1317.43 Ad nostrum was the definitive canonistic text listing the errors of the malignant beghards in the Kingdom of Germany who claimed to be endowed with the spirit of liberty. (Metz, although Francophone, was technically located in the Kingdom of Germany.) Not surprisingly, then, the treatise describing the trial in fact refers specifically to Ad
41 For basic data and further references, see Thomas Kaeppeli, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum medii aevi, 4 vols. (Rome, 197093), 2:1011; 4: 91. 42 Papal inquisitors were absent from Germany in the fourteenth century until the appointment of John Schadland, O.P., in 1348. See Klaus-Bernward Springer, Dominican Inquisition in the Archdiocese of Mainz (13481520), in Praedicatores inquisitores I: The Dominicans and the Medieval Inquisition (Rome, 2004), 31193, at 323. 43 The text is in G. Alberigo, Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta (Bologna, 1973), 383 84.

MEISTER ECKHARTS SPECTER

127

nostrum, stating at the outset of its second part that the beghards of the free spirit had been combatted by the Council of Vienne in the decretal [found] under the heading de hereticis, Ad nutum nostrum. Looking further one can see that Ad nostrums error list was used in Metz as part of an interrogatory. A breakthrough in the study of late-medieval heresy trials was made by Herbert Grundmann in a classic article of 1965.44 The great German scholar showed that inquisitors customarily employed error lists to serve as questionnairesthe technical term was interrogatoriaregarding beliefs. Furthermore, the use of such methods often resulted in putting words into peoples mouths. One of Grundmanns telling examples was a trial held in Eichsttt in 1381: after the accused confessed to being a free spirit he parroted the errors of Ad nostrum one by one in language nearly identical to that of the canonistic text. We can observe a similar phenomenon in the present instance. Of the six errors admitted by Gallenius of Toulouse, the third was that a man can arrive at such perfection that he is not obliged to obey God or any creature (Quod homo potest pervenire ad talem perfectionem quod non tenetur obedire Deo nec cuique creature). Corresponding to this is the first error listed in Ad nostrum: a man in the present life is able to acquire such a grade of perfection that he is incapable of sin (Quod homo in vita presenti tantum et talem perfectionis gradum potest acquirere quod reddetur penitus impeccabilis). Ad nostrums first error, it is true, says nothing about obedience, but that arises in error three: Quod illi qui sunt in predicto gradu perfectionis et spiritu libertatis non sunt humane subiecti obedientie, nec ad aliqua precepta ecclesie obligantur. Furthermore, almost exact correspondence in language and content appears in the case of Galleniuss error six and Ad nostrums error seven: there is no sin in the carnal act (actus carnis non est peccatum) and the carnal act is no sin (actus autem carnalis . . . peccatum non est). Whether Gallenius really upheld the antinomian errors imputed to him is not my present concern; all that I wish to show is that the language of his confession follows that of a papal bull. Galleniuss fifth error at first appears eccentric, for it bears no relation to the usual range of errors commonly imputed to free spirits. This is a statement that in purgatory there is no corporeal fire (Quod in purgatorio non est ignis corporeus). Whether or not this actually was Galleniuss own sentiment, the tenet as phrased in the Metz treatise again seems to derive from a
44 Herbert Grundmann, Ketzerverhre des Sptmittelalters als quellenkritisches Problem, Deutsches Archiv fr Erforschung des Mittelalters 22 (1965): 51975; rpt. in idem, Ausgewlte Aufstze, 3 vols. (Stuttgart, 197678), 2:364416.

128

R. E. LERNER

formulary. The source appears to be one of the thirteen articles condemned in 1270 in Paris by Bishop tienne Tempier: that the separated soul after death does not suffer from corporeal fire (quod anima post mortem separata non patitur ab igne corporeo).45 The Metz treatises repetition of the term corporeal fire itself induces suspicion regarding the phrasing, and the suspicion mounts upon awareness of a parallel case. Namely, in 1315 or 1316, a book written by a physician, Riccardino of Pavia, was examined by two inquisitors in Prague who determined that it contained many errors. Of these the first was that the soul separated from the body is not able to suffer from corporeal fire in hell or in purgatory (Quod anima separata a corpore non potest pati ab igne corporali in inferno neque in purgatorio).46 Because Riccardinos book is lost we cannot tell if it contained such a position. But we do know that the books main inquisitorial censor, Walter, titular bishop of Sura, boasted of having studied for years in Paris and Oxford and stated that sixteen of Riccardinos errors had been condemned by both universities.47 The probability thus seems strong that Walter referred to Bishop Tempiers condemned articles during the examination and borrowed language concerning the error of the lack of corporeal fire in purgatory. Since Gallenius of Toulouses examiner was a Parisian theological master, the likelihood that he too was equipped with Bishop Tempiers error list seems strong. Galleniuss first error leads us into a different terrain. This states that there is neither Father nor Son in God because he is one (Quod in Deo cum sit unus, non pater, non filius). No such unitarianism can be found in the usual sources relating to the heresy of the Free Spirit, or, for that matter, in any condemned Parisian article. But the error does bear relation to a tenet in the papal bull of 1329 condemning the errors of Meister Eckhart. Whereas the Metz treatise has Gallenius saying God is one (Deo sit unus), article 23 of In agro dominico quotes Eckhart as saying God is one in all ways (Deus est unus omnibus modis). Additional resemblance appears in the respective conclusions: Gallenius says lapidarily neither Father nor Son (non pater,

Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, ed. H. Denifle and E. Chatelain, 4 vols. (Paris, 188997), 1:487, no. 432, art. 8. A similar error appears in the Parisian condemnation of 1277; see ibid. 1:544, no. 473, art. 19: Quod anima separata nullo modo patitur ab igne. 46 Riccardinos case, and its ecclesiastical-political ramifications, is treated meticulously in Alexander Patschovsky, Die Anfnge einer stndigen Inquisition in Bhmen (Berlin, 1975), 3046. For the edition of the text describing the condemnation of Riccardinos book, ibid., 18590, at 187, art. 1. Patschovsky notes the verbal proximity to the condemnation of 1270. 47 Ibid., 189: Quod Parisius et Oxonie per cancellarios dictarum universitatum . . . qui ibidem diu studuimus . . . vidimus et legimus reprobatos.

45

MEISTER ECKHARTS SPECTER

129

non filius), and article 23 has he who sees two or sees distinction does not see God (qui enim duo videt vel distinctionem videt, deum non videt). Galleniuss second error is a paradox: when God created man, there was no God nor man (Quando Deus creavit hominem non erat Deus neque homo). Granted that the correspondence here is less direct than in the previous case, a paradox concerning time and creation as listed in the papal bull of 1329 seems similar, for the first of Eckharts reproved tenets in the bull concludes as soon as God existed, he created the world (quam cito Deus fuit, tam cito mundum creavit). The two startling statements are not the same, but they may have a family resemblance. This leaves Galleniuss fourth error, which begins as if it were a freespirit phrase, yet ends differently: a man can arrive at such perfection that he need not pray vocally but only by his mind (Homo ex quo pervenit ad talem perfectionem non debet orare vocaliter sed solum mente). Although silent prayer is not in the Free-Spirit canon, the superiority of interior to external acts appears in the bull against Eckhart: God does not properly command an exterior act (article 16), as well as Let us bring forth the fruit not of exterior acts, which do not make us good, but of interior acts, which the Father who stays in us makes and works (article 18). The merger of a free spirit preamble with an Eckhartian sentiment in Galleniuss fourth error seems particularly noteworthy. Could Gallenius have worked out doctrines similar to those of Meister Eckhart by having read Eckharts works? One can safely exclude this possibility. Gallenius de Tholosa came from Toulouse. Almost certainly he fled from Languedoc together with Beguins and accordingly would have arrived in Metz in the 1320s or 1330s during or soon after the persecution in his homeland. Furthermore he must have been a layman. (Late-medieval documents about heresy are always careful to specify when an accused heretic is in orders.) Both givens exclude the possibility that Gallenius had read Meister Eckhart on his own. Eckharts Latin works had limited circulation and were beyond the reach of a layman, not only practically but because of their scholastic format and abstruse mode of discourse. The Meisters vernacular sermons, it is true, circulated more widely, and some may have been available directly or indirectly to the laity. But Gallenius of Toulouse could hardly have known German. He would not have learned the language in Languedoc, and even if he had resided in Metz for over a decade, Metz was a Francophone city. Since we have seen that the Dominican inquisitor used at least one papal decree concerning heresy (Ad nostrum) as a formulary, the obvious explanation for Galleniuss Eckhardism is that the inquisitor steered the examina-

130

R. E. LERNER

tion by means of another recently issued papal decree, In agro dominico. Moreover, while the errors extracted in the papal bull were indeed taken from writings by Eckhart, nothing in any of his writings expands on them in ways as to make it more probable that Gallenius read or learned of them than that he was prompted with errors from In agro dominico by the inquisitor.48 Garinuss presumption about the accuseds free spirit profile explains his action. Whatever the accused may really have believed, Garinus evidently pegged him, as shown not only by his use of Ad nostrum but by a direct statement about Gallenius in the treatise: he was of the sect of those who term themselves of the free spirit. The fugitive from Toulouse must have been a cooperative defendant. The treatise indicates that some of the beghards of poverty were pertinacious and put to death, but nothing equivalent is said or hinted about Gallenius. Thus he probably made a full confession, recanted, and hence was spared from the flames. The fact that his three Eckhartian errors are not exact repetitions of language from In agro dominico raises the possibility that he might have voiced some thoughts in which he really believed, but he might equally well have been improvising to satisfy the requirements of a full confession. After reporting the case of Gallenius, the second part of the Metz treatise refers to two other errors of the beghards of the free spirit without naming any individuals who held them. The second of these constitutes high-potency free-spirit outrageousness. The malignant beghards were said to have maintained that if anyone wills to kill, or fornicate, or steal, or perpetrate any other crime, he does not sin in doing so; indeed, he would sin if he did not fulfill such a will because resisting such a will would be resisting God, from whom such a will proceeds. Avoiding once more the issue of whether any accused heretics actually ever proposed such things, it remains clear that if they were examined by means of leading questions, the inquisitor in this instance could depend on prejudice without any need for drawing on formularies. The first extra tenet, however, is more properly theological. Supposedly these heretics said that the human will is from God, and the act of the human will is from God, from which they conclude that no act proceeding from the human will can be evil because it is from God (Dicunt quod voluntas humana est a Deo et actus voluntatis humane est a Deo, ex consequenti concludunt quod nullus actus ab humana voluntate procedens potest esse malus
48 This has been confirmed for me by Professor Loris Sturlese, one of the foremost living experts on Eckhart, who agrees that Galleniuss errors as reported in the Metz treatise parallel errors in the papal bull.

MEISTER ECKHARTS SPECTER

131

quia a Deo est). Although this is antinomianism of a Free-Spirit complexion, the specific language has no parallel in Ad nostrum, which lacks language about wills. But In agro dominico again supplies the deficiency, particularly with the tenets that the good man should will whatever God wills and because God wills in some way for me to have sinned, I should not will that I have not committed sins (article 14: Ipse [bonus homo] velit quidquid Deus vult. Quia Deus vult aliquo modo me peccasse, nollem ego quod ego peccata non commisissem). The first of the two additional errors in the Metz treatise thus consists of a blend between Free-Spirit thought and Eckhartian language. As stated, no names are attached to the two additional errors. The treatise simply reports that they emerged from confessions of those who were examined in the city of Metz. Accordingly we again face the difficulty of imagining that the first error derived from actual knowledge of Meister Eckharts teachings. Others who were examined together with Gallenius of Toulouse as beghards of the free spirit may not necessarily have fled with him from Languedoc, but in that case they were most likely to have been natives of Metz, where French was spoken. And if the accused were laity, as seems warranted to assume, how would they otherwise have absorbed Eckhartian theological language regarding wills? The alternative that the terminology depended on prompting from In agro dominico seems much more compelling. All told, if one or two tenets offered by the Tractatus de beghardis resembled tenets from the bull against Eckhart, that might perhaps be written off as coincidence, but we have now seen that four of them did. Thus the conclusion seems inescapable that the Dominican inquisitor had a copy of In agro dominico at his disposal and used that bull together with Ad nostrum as templates for conducting some of his examinations. Where would Brother Garinus de Giaco have obtained copies of the two texts? Assuming that he was Dominican regent master in Paris during the year of the Metz trial it seems more likely that in travelling to a foreign city he would have brought documents with him rather than counting on their availability on site. Moreover this inference is greatly strengthened if it is accepted that Brother Garinus had the Parisian error list of 1270 at his disposal. According to this reconstruction, then, In agro dominico was available to a Parisian theologian in 1337, either having been sent to Paris officially upon its issuance in 1329 or else having been brought there by someone who appreciated its import for the policing of doctrine. In conclusion, if it is conceded that In agro dominico was used as a formulary in a Metz heresy trial of 1337, that is yet more proof that the bull was not meant to be limited in its circulation to the province of Cologne. But the evi-

132

R. E. LERNER

dence is of deeper significance in casting light on the negative reception of Meister Eckharts teachings. Those scholars who attempted to minimize the seriousness of the Avignon process against Eckhart and its outcome not only discounted as formulaic the sharp language of In agro dominicos arenga and disposition but neglected to mention the equally sharp words of Jacques Fournier when evaluating the articles of accusation around 1328 in Avignon. According to the man who would soon become Pope Benedict XII, two of the articles, which then entered into the bull of condemnation verbatim (as articles eleven and twelve) were respectively, false and heretical, and blasphemous and insane.49 In my article of 1997 I observed that those who were familiar with the articles in the bull against Eckhart linked them with the articles in Ad nostrum, the antinomian mystical errors imputed to German beghards and beguines.50 I supported this statement with data showing that all or parts of In agro dominico appeared in inquisitorial repositories from three different cities: Mainz, Strassburg, and Zurich. Evidently inquisitors who wished to inform themselves about the nature of the threat of antinomian mysticism believed that the bull against Eckhart could be regarded as a supplement to the Clementine decree against the malignant men known as beghards. The evidence in this article shows that an identifiable inquisitor, Jordan of Quedlinburg, active far to the east of the Rhineland, regarded the errors listed in In agro dominico as linked with those listed in Ad nostrum. It shows too that Gert Groot took the two sets of errors to be complementary. Most illuminatingly, hitherto unknown evidence from Metz shows that an inquisitor moved beyond theory to practice, drawing on both bulls to examine beghards. Even though this inquisitor belonged to Eckharts Dominican Order, he must have accepted In agro dominicos admonitions that the errors taught by someone named Eckhart from Germany . . . [who] was led astray by the Father of Lies were a clear and present danger to the faith. Eckhart himself may well have been homo doctus et sanctus, but his specter was whispering to heresy hunters.
Josef Koch, Der Kardinal Jacques Fournier (Benedikt XII.) als Gutachter in theologischen Prozessen, in Die Kirche und ihre mter und Stnde, ed. Wilhelm Corsten et al. (Cologne, 1960), 44152, at 451: hec sunt falsa et heretica; blasphemus et insanus. Jacques also sneers at what became article 13 as apud omnes intelligentes dignum risu. These pronouncements descend to us by means of quotations in a work of 1368 by Johannes Hiltalingen of Basel: see now, in greater detail, Karl Heinz Witte, Die Rezeption der Lehre Meister Eckharts durch Johannes Hiltalingen von Basel: Untersuchung und Textausgabe, Recherches de thologie ancienne et mdivale 71 (2004): 30571. 50 Lerner, New Evidence, 362.
49

MEISTER ECKHARTS SPECTER

133

APPENDIX
Aliud genus beghardorum A corrected version of the entire Tractatus de beghardis pertaining to the heresy trials in Metz of 1337, and aided by a transcription helpfully provided by Alexander Patschovsky, appears in Kneupper, Reconsidering a Fourteenth-Century Heresy Trial (n. 38 above), 22327. Kneupper describes the manuscriptVienna, sterreichische Nationalbibliothek 4201improving on the description of Carola Hocker, ed., Disputatio inter catholicum et paterinum hereticum (Florence, 2001), cxxiii cxxiv. Here I reproduce from fol. 7v the last paragraph of the first part of the treatise, which gives the name of the Dominican inquisitor and the date, as well as the entire second part. The non in pointed brackets (Galleniuss tenet 3) is required by the logic of the sentence. Isti articuli inventi fuerunt in examinatione beghardorum hereticorum combustorum in Meti per dominum episcopum Metensem et fratrem Garinum Ordinis Predicatorum inquisitorem heretice pravitatis anno Domini M3to 37. 5 Est aliud genus beghardorum, et isti nominant se de libertate spiritus, contra quos in concilio Vienensi facta est decretalis sub tytulo de hereticus ad nutum nostrum, et ibidem enumerantur et condempnantur viii errores. Et quantum coligitur ex confessionibus eorum qui fuerunt examinati in civitate Metensi fuit quidam nomine Gallenius de Tholosa. Hic fuit de secta eorum qui famant se de libertate spiritus. Et ille tunc temporis latebat in Metis et erat maximus heresyarcha. Iste in angulis et latibulis inter alios errores asserebat que secuntur: [1] Quod in Deo cum sit unus, non pater, non filius. [2] Item quando Deus creavit hominem non erat Deus neque homo. [3] Item quod homo potest pervenire ad talem perfectionem quod non tenetur obedire Deo nec cuique creature. [4] Item homo ex quo pervenit ad talem perfectionem non debet orare vocaliter sed solum mente, adducens illud ewangelii veri adoratores adorabunt patrem in spiritu et veritate [Jo 4:23]. [5] Item quod in purgatorio non est ignis corporeus. [6] Item quod actus carnis non est peccatum. Item in confessionibus supradictis habetur quod beghardi de libertate spiritus fundunt plures errores suos ex tali mala radice quia dicunt quod voluntas humana est a Deo et actus voluntatis humane est a Deo, ex consequenti concludunt quod nullus actus ab humana voluntate procedens potest esse malus quia a Deo est. Et inde est quod ipsi dicunt quod si aliquis habet voluntatem occidendi aut fornicandi aut furandi sive quodcumque aliud facinus perpetrandi, ipse non peccat hoc faciendo immo peccaret si talem voluntatem opere non compleret quia tali voluntati resistendo resisteret Deo a quo ipsa voluntas procedit.

10

15

20

25

134

R. E. LERNER

30

Et notandum quod beghardi de paupertate et pechardi de libertate spiritus mutuo se visitant et ad invicem frequenter colloquendum habent. Non tamen invenitur quod unus alium accuset libenter nisi coactus. Explicit tractatus de erroribus [al. man.: pechardorum].

Northwestern University.