Johannes Quidort von Paris, Über königliche und päpstliche Gewalt by Fritz Bleienstein (review)

178 :BOOK REVIEWS Johannes Quidort von Paris, tJber konigliche und piipstliche Gewalt. By FRITZ BLEIENSTEIN. Textkritische Edition mit deutscher Ubersetzung. Frankfurter Studien zur Wissenschaft von der Politik IV. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett, 1969. Pp. 360. This work was composed as a doctoral dissertation under the direction of Prof. Carlo Schmidt. Along with a solid introduction to the political and ecclesiological theories at the time of John Quidort of Paris, Bleienstein presents a description and classification of all nineteen known manuscripts as well as an edition of the tractate accompanied by a translation in German. Since he has nothing new to add to J. Leclercq's analysis of the sources and external history of the origin of the tractate (Jean de Paris et l'ecclesiologie du XII[e siecle [Paris, 1942]; Introd. and critical edition) , Bleienstein presupposes the pertinent literature in regard to essential points. Working independently and from a new viewpoint, he proceeds to treat the location of the tractate in the history of thought.... Whereas Scholz, Finke, GraBmann, and Leclercq (Un modele d'argumentation theologique) are interested in internal ecclesiastical aspects, Bleienstein immediately approaches the matter as a "state and Church" problem. (p. 19) Thus he arrives at a well-balanced characterization of ecclesia and christianitas (res publica christiana, p. 23) and is able to offer an appropriate introduction to the correct understanding of the " dualistic theory," which John of Paris supports. The author is right to warn against an all too hasty application to elements in the present-day situation which are purportedly grounded in the tractate De regia potestate et papali: the sovereignty of the people, democratic structures, and secularization exemplify the catchwords that have been extrapolated from this work. Through an analysis of the indirect sources (Leclercq presents a summary on pp. 31, 35-37, which Bleienstein unfortunately fails to take over) the position expounded in the introduction could have been more exactly substantiated. John of Paris is not a revolutionary; through his intensive use of Thomas (and, by way of Thomas, Aristotle), through his recourse to Henry of Cremona, Humbert of Rome, Gottfried of Fontaines he returns to pre-decretal material. He can thus enter into opposition against Boniface's followers without any anti-curial pressure. John does not simply reject existing conditions; he succeeds in developing a well-balanced criticism of the papalistic theories in the light of tradition and under the influence of the reception of Aristotle. In this way there arises the image of a " completely autonomous political system, which functions exclusively according to its own laws and does not necessarily require a supernatural superelevation." (p. 31) Bleienstein could verify his statements even more clearly by further research in this field. Cusanus-lnstitute University of Mainz WERNER J. KRAMER ...