Ockham, Buridan, and Nicholas of Autrecourt

OCKHAM, BURIDAN, AND NICHOLAS OF AUTRECOURT The Parisian Statutes of 1339 and 1340 I. Ockhamism at Paris: the Problem In the Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, under the dates September 25th, 1339, and December 29th, 1340, we find two statutes of the Faculty of Arts which are described as defense measures against the incursion of Ockhamist teachings into the Parisian university. The first of these statutes, while not condemning any doctrines, prohibits the "dogmatizing" of the teachings of William of Ockham, on the ground that his writings had not been authorized as admitted texts, and had not been examined for possible errors. The statute of 1340, on the other hand, explicitly condemns certain statements and practices, but does not attribute them to Ockham's doctrine or method. Nevertheless this decree does mention Ockham's name in a final paragraph, stating that the provisions of the previous year's statute are to remain in force.1 Does this statement mean that the statute of 1340, like that of the previous year, was aimed at doctrines stemming from William of Ockham? The historians of mediasval philosophy have so interpreted it, and have been led thereby to the conclusion that the whole series of doctrinal condemnations of the following decade, specifically envisaging the teachings of Nicholas of Autrecourt and of John of Mirecourt, were anti-Ockhamist measures. On the assumption that the 1340 statute was aimed at Ockhamism, this conclusion is prima facie plausible, because it can be shown that at least one of the statements reproved by the 1340 statute 1. Chartularium universitatis Parisiensis, ed. by Denifle-Chatelain, Vol. II, Paris 1891, No. 1042, pp. 505-7: "Si quis autem contra premissa vel aliquod premissarum attemptare presumpserit, a nostro consortio ex nunc prout ex tunc resecamus et privamus, resecatum et privatum haberi volumus, salvis in omnibus que de doctrina Guillelmi dicti Ockam alias statuimus, que in omnibus et per omnia volumus roboris habere firmitatem." 113 FRANCISCAN STUDIES 114 OCKHAM, BURIDAN, AND NICHOLAS OF AUTRECOURT had been made by Nicholas of Autrecourt, who in turn was the object of an official condemnation issued in 1346, his books being burned in Paris in 1347.2 The characterization of Nicholas of Autrecourt as an Ockhamist thus seems to find historical justification in the connection between the measures taken against Nicholas in 1340, 1346, and 1347, on the one hand, and the statute of 1339 on the other, which forbade the "dogmatizing" of Ockham's doctrines. This connection itself, however, rests entirely on the assumption that the last sentence of the 1340 statute, which calls attention to the fact that the previous year's statute is still in force, justifies the conclusion that the 1340 statute was itself directed against Ockhamist teachings. Since this assumption is by no means necessitated by the wording of the 1340 statute, and leads moreover to strange paradoxes when we attempt to account for other definite historical facts, it seems worth while to examine the relevant evidence in the case, and to consider the possibility of a totally different significance which can be ascribed to the final sentence of the 1340 statute. Such an examination is of considerable importance for our understanding of the history and influence of Ockham's philosophical ideas and methods. If the scepticism of Nicholas of Autre» court was the consequence and fruit of the doctrines of Ockham as a matter of historical fact and not merely as a theory of philosophical interpretation, the characterization of Ockham's doctrine as a destructive and corrosive force in late mediasval philosophy can lay claim to a foundation in the facts of history.3 It then 2.Cf. J. Lappe, "Nicolaus von Autrecourt," in Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, ed. Clemens Baeumker, vol. VI, fase. 2, Münster 1908, pp. 1-3. Also B. Geyer, in Ueberwegs Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. II, Berlin 1928, pp. 589-90, who links together the statutes of 1339-40 with the condemnations of Nicholas of Autrecourt and John of Mirecourt, as follows: "Paris und seine Universität bildeten einen Hauptherd für die ockhamistischen Neuerungen. Dies lassen schon die oben erwähnten Verurteilungen der Jahre 1339 und 1340 erkennen... Ein noch...