This article examines the use of Honorius Augustodunensis’s Elucidarium in the Prohemium of a three-part introduction to the astrological sciences, namely the Liber introductorius by Michael Scot. The investigation into the adoption of the Elucidarium in the Prohemium not only reveals the work of Honorius Augustodunensis as a major source of the Prohemium but, more importantly, challenges the recent consensus on the relation between the two versions in which the Liber quatuor distinctionum—the first book of the Liber introductorius—has (...) been transmitted. The present contribution will argue that the Long Version is indeed prior to the Short one. The use of the Elucidarium both by Michael Scot and by Godfrey of Viterbo is explored within the article and highlights the need for further research to clarify whether they shared an intellectual framework, or even drew on a common textual source. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Klio Jahrgang: 98 Heft: 1 Seiten: 393-396.

Augustine’s Epistulae 23A*, 23*, and 22*, written in late 419 and early 420, present his involvement in the dispute concerning the translation of Honorius to Caesarea Mauretaniae (modern Cherchell), a city Augustine had visited in September 418 while fulfilling a commission from Zosimus of Rome. The translation of bishops from one church to another had been condemned by the 325 Council of Nicaea. The three letters are difficult to interpret because the information to his three correspondents (Possidius of Calama, (...) Renatus, a monk of Caesarea Mauretaniae, and Alypius of Thagaste, who was in Italy at the time) seems to differ. A careful reading reveals that not only did Augustine’s knowledge of the situation change over time, but that the stress he placed on differing elements of that situation also changed depending upon the correspondent. The letters also disclose the involvement of Boniface I of Rome, Zosimus’ successor, and the complex relationship of the African churches with the bishop of Rome, especially in the matter of judicial appeal. What is suggested here is that Augustine, without saying so, seemed to be aware of the criteria Boniface had employed in another translation controversy, which was the approved translation of Perigenes as bishop of Corinth, and that, if applied to Honorius, this would lead the Roman bishop to reach a very different conclusion. (shrink)

Zosimus is speaking in this passage of the activities of Alaric in Aemilia as he tried to win Italian support for his puppet emperor, Priscus Attalus. ‘The other cities he won over with no trouble; but Bologna he besieged, and when it held out for many days and he was unable to take it, he went to the Ligurians, forcing them, too, to accept Attalus as emperor.

Zosimus is speaking in this passage of the activities of Alaric in Aemilia as he tried to win Italian support for his puppet emperor, Priscus Attalus. ‘The other cities he won over with no trouble; but Bologna he besieged, and when it held out for many days and he was unable to take it, he went to the Ligurians, forcing them, too, to accept Attalus as emperor.

Name der Zeitschrift: Millennium Jahrgang: 11 Heft: 1 Seiten: 69-100.

Claudian of Alexandria's last datable poem, the Panegyric on the Sixth Consulship of Honorius, was delivered in Rome in 404, presumably on 1 January. This performance occurred in the course of the first visit to Rome by an emperor for nearly a decade and a half. Imperial visits to Rome were notoriously rare in the fourth century and, in a well-known passage of that poem, the goddess Roma herself muses on their rarity: she had only seen an Augustus three (...) times in the last hundred years. This is not quite true, but the only legitimate emperors known to have paid formal visits to Rome in that period were Constantine in 312–13, 315 and 326, Constantius II in 357, and Theodosius I, accompanied by his four-year-old son Honorius, in 389. In this article I shall begin by making an observation about the court's intentions in moving to Rome in late 403, and then deal with two problems bound up with the interpretation of this poem and with the circumstances of imperial visits. The first problem concerns the visit of Honorius during which the poem was first performed. In Claudian's narrative the description of Honorius' triumphal entry leads into a description of his assumption of the consulate, and scholars have sometimes asserted that he made a triumphal entry as consul on 1 January 404. This is clearly wrong: Honorius arrived in Rome weeks or months before. But even when this point is recognized, it is often asserted that the poem blends triumphal and consular imagery, and elements of the triumphal entry are confused with the assumption of the consulship. My argument therefore moves from the chronology of Honorius' visit to elucidating the structure and imagery of Claudian's poem, as well as casting light on the patterns of the late antique imperial aduentus more broadly. The second problem concerns the description of Honorius' previous visit to Rome with his father in the summer of 389. Here it has sometimes been inferred on the basis of Claudian, and of late chronicles, that Honorius was created Caesar by his father on 13 June, the day of the aduentus. I shall show on the basis of a critical examination of the chronicle tradition, as well as a survey of contemporary numismatic, epigraphic and literary evidence, that this belief is unfounded, and that the relevant passages of Claudian require a different interpretation. However, this evidence also makes clear that signals were being sent in 389 about Honorius' imperial future. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Many scholars have contended that Clare of Assisi’s original intention upon leaving her family home to take up religious life sometime around 1211 was to lead a life essentially like that of the mendicant friars.1 She and the women who soon joined her would be not only poor and penitential, but also itinerant and apostolic. Like the friars their life would be marked by both insertion into the world (...) and seclusion from it as they alternated between active service and recollected contemplation. The important proof text for this claim is a passage in a letter composed by Jacques de Vitry in 1216, just five years after Clare’s conversion. Many scholars, including Paul Sabatier, Luigi Pellegrini, Roberto Rusconi, Marco Bartoli, Ingrid Peterson, Chiara Frugoni, Giovanni Boccali, and Chiara Augusta Lainati believe the text to be the earliest witness to the manner of life led by Clare and her followers during their initial years.2 The letter has been used to argue further that the women were explicitly grouped together with the Lesser Brothers, were known by the parallel title of “Lesser Sisters,” and had the freedom to come and go as they wished during their early years in San Damiano.Since claims about the women’s early likeness to the friars’ mendicant way of life are often made as brief assertions resting on Jacques’s letter, I think it important to consider in a more detained fashion the provocative passage thought to support them. Closer scrutiny of Jacques’s text shows that while none of these claims can be entirely ruled out, importantly, none can be supported with any solid evidence. I agree essentially with scholars such as Lilly Zarncke, Ernest McDonnell, Maria Pia Alberzoni, Jacques Dalarun, and Lezlie Knox who consider the letter’s language too general to know if it refers specifically to Clare and her sisters.3 I suggest, furthermore, that there are reasons to conclude that this is certainly unlikely if the passage is interpreted to mean, specifically, that Clare and her sisters carried on an active apostolate outside of San Damiano.Jacques de Vitry is generally recognized as one of the most astute and forward-thinking observers of his time in terms of recognizing the importance of new religious groups. A Parisian master, canon regular, and bishop, Jacques had the opportunity to live in a variety of settings, including his native France, the Low Countries, Italy, and the holy land.4 In 1216, he traveled from Liège in the Low Countries to Perugia to be consecrated bishop by Honorius III, who himself had just been elevated to the papacy.5 Along with observations about other matters, Jacques shared the following comment about religious men and women in a letter that he sent almost certainly to a group of his friends back in Liège. He was writing in the early days of October 1216 as he was leaving Italy on a boat that would carry him to his new episcopal see in Acre. The letter, the first of six that survive, is prized not only for its reference to the Lesser Sisters, but also as the very first written testimony regarding the Franciscan movement in general. The great nineteenth-century historian Paul Sabatier thought it provided a more vivid and precise description of Francis’s ministry than any single passage contained in his early biographies.6 The passage, which represents less than seven percent of the entire letter, is rendered thus in a widely available English translation:I found one consolation in those parts, nevertheless: many men and women [multi enim utriusque sexus], rich and worldly, after renouncing everything for Christ, fled the world. They are called Lesser Brothers and Lesser Sisters [fratres minores et sorores minores]. They are held in great esteem by the Lord Pope and the cardinals. They do not occupy themselves with temporal affairs, but work each day with great desire and.. (shrink)

Current scholarly opinion holds that the poet Claudian was a pagan who was able to hide sufficiently his personal views at a largely Christian court. This opinion is not unanimous: Claudian has in the past occasionally been considered a Christian, and recently that view has reappeared in print. That Claudian wrote carm. min. 32, de saluatore, should not be doubted; yet this collection of stock phrases cannot be considered Claudian's credo. As Gnilka has shown, Claudian's treatment of the traditional gods (...) and goddesses displays warmth and fondness beyond the requirements of epic and consequently reveals his true beliefs. The poem is an Easter card for Honorius, displaying not religious convictions, but an instinct for survival at a Christian court. The exegesis of Carmina Minora 50 here proposed suggests that Claudian was familiar enough with Christian ideas to criticise them. Nothing hinders him from repeating them when it proved advantageous. The interpretation of carm. min. 50 depends in some measure on the literary relationship between Claudian and the Christian poet Prudentius. Specifically, it is important to ascertain whether Claudian was aware of the work of his contemporary. Several studies have argued that Prudentius read and used Claudian, but only recently has Cameron suggested Claudian also read and used Prudentius. His arguments and example are convincing and conclusive, revealing at the same time the nature of Claudian's use of his contemporary's words and ideas. Because similar echoes of Prudentius' poetry will appear in the interpretation of carm. min. 50, it will be useful to cite the example here. (shrink)

August 27, 2018 marked eight hundred years since Pope Honorius III wrote a letter to Cardinal Hugolino.1 The cardinal had encountered various groups of pious women in Central Italy who wanted to live a life of poverty together. In fact, he had other things on his mind: the cities of Central Italy had to make peace with each other to enable their able-bodied men to join the Crusade to the Holy Land and Egypt, but Cardinal Hugolino took it upon (...) himself to take an interest in these women's fate. He asked the advice of the pope, who ordered Hugolino to free the women's communities from the authority of the bishops and place them directly under the Holy See. As a result, the women no longer depended on... (shrink)

We are ruled by judges whom we know, we enjoy the benefits | Of peace and war, as if the warrior Quirinus, | As if peaceful Numa were governing.With these words the poet Claudian lauds the Emperor Honorius on the occasion of his fourth consulship in 398 by comparing him to Rome's deified founder, Romulus-Quirinus, and to Numa Pompilius, its second king, who was proverbial for wisdom and piety. Claudian's panegyric stands in a long literary tradition in which the (...) legendary Roman kings were depicted as models of statesmanship. This exemplary tradition left its mark on a broad array of late antique works, including historical compendia such as the pseudo-AurelianDe uiris illustribus, which narrates the kings’ deeds as soldiers and statesmen, and the writings of antiquarians such as Macrobius and Servius, who collected information on the kings’ invention of cults and calendars. Servius’ interest in the kings implies that they featured in the teaching provided by other late antiquegrammaticias well, and thus that most literate Latin-speakers would have had some knowledge of their deeds. Advanced education in rhetoric likewise drew on Virgil and other school texts for historicalexemplaincluding Romulus and Numa, who appear in panegyrics and in brief histories, such as Eutropius’Breviary, that probably served as reference texts for the political elite. The kings thus loomed large in Roman perceptions of the founding of their empire, which began with the heroic Romulus, was strengthened by Numa's establishment of the Roman cultic system, and was secured by the later kings’ political and military successes. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:1. The present state of the questionEsser's turnaboutIn his collection of studies on the writings of Francis, published in 1973, Kajetan Esser, the acknowledged master of Franciscan textual criticism, wrote that in verse 13 of Francis's Letter to the Clergy there exists "a striking difference, that is difficult to explain," between the oldest manuscript which originally belonged to the Benedictine abbey of Subiaco and was written before 1238, and (...) the famous manuscript Assisi 338 which originated between 1250 and 1260. However, Esser considered this difference "a too weak basis to accept a double version of the Letter to the Clergy." It is therefore somewhat strange, to say the least, that in his textcritical edition of the writings of Francis, published only three years later in 1976, the same Esser concludes, without any further explanation, that the differences are "so serious that one has to accept two versions of one and the same letter."Esser's conclusion immediately raises the question about which one of the two versions would be the first. Esser opted for the Subiaco manuscript as the first version and the Assisi manuscript as the second. An important reason for Esser's option was the fact that the Assisi manuscript of the Letter to the Clergy added in verse 13 that the clerics have to observe all of these matters "according to the precepts of the Lord and the constitutions of holy mother Church ." With "the constitutions of holy mother Church" Francis referred, according to Esser, to the papal bull Sane cum olim, issued by pope Honorius III on November 22, 1219. And as this bull, in Esser's view, also "contained references to the will of God as laid down in Holy Scripture," Francis decided to insert both a reference to the papal bull and to "the precepts of the Lord" in a new, second version of the letter. This would imply that Francis, who in the summer of 1219 left for Egypt, wrote the second version only after his return from the Middle East in the spring of 1220. For it was only then that he came to know about the existence of the papal bull issued during his absence from Italy, and could refer to it in order to strengthen his appeal to the clergy to show greater reverence for the Eucharist. At the same time, however, the absence of these important additions in the first version implies that this version was written before the papal bull of Honorius was issued and thus also before Francis's departure for the Middle East in the summer of 1219.Present reception of Esser's theoryThe latest English translation, published in 1999, follows Esser and contains a separate translation of both versions, the first of which was written before 1219 and the second in 1220. In the most recent German translation Leonhard Lehmann acknowledges the existence of two versions but the differences between the two are so small that it suffices to print only the text of the oldest manuscript, that of Subiaco, written before 1238. He agrees, though, that the addition constitutiones sanctae matris Ecclesiae in the second version refers to the papal bull Sane cum olim and that the earlier version may have been written before 1219. The revised edition of the Fonti Francescane still follows Esser's theory as regards the existence of two versions, the early date of the first version and the reference of the second version to Sane cum olim. However, in a lengthy article on Francis's letters, C. Paolazzi, the author of the introduction to the Letters in FF, revised his previous opinion in 2008. He still accepts the existence of two versions but dates both after Sane cum olim and therewith also after Francis's return from the Middle East in 1220. His main argument is that theimplicit quotations.. (shrink)

Book V of Eriugena’s Periphyseon presents new critical problems because of the lack of the Rheims manuscript, which contains the author’s own revisions. The text which has been called Versio Prima in the first four books of Jeauneau’s new edition is lacking for the fnal volume. Working from a transcription of the second portion of the Clauis Physicae, the epitome of the Periphyseon by Honorius Augustodunensis, the author reports that the unpublished Clauis II contains a text of Periphyseon V (...) that is analogous to Versio Prima. This article first compares the transcription from Clauis II to Lucentini’s notes on Honorius’ work, then it analyses the difference between Clauis II and Versio Secunda in Periphyseon V. The relationship is found to be the same as that between the primitive text of Periphyseon in books I-IV and Eriugena’s revised version . Consequently, Clauis II should be recognized as an essential witness to the early text of Periphyseon V. (shrink)

There were always allegations against travelling entertainers. They were held responsible for the downfall of morals as well as for the parishoners’ lack of attention in mass. Travelling jugglers ran the danger of being excommunicated and often they were not protected by the law. But how real were the dangers posed by jugglers in the middle ages? And were they offered any opportunity to integrate into wider society? Using theories current in theatre studies, this contribution seeks to demonstrate the nature (...) of the threat posed by jugglers: namely that, in his use of body, voice and gesture, and in the captivation of his audience, the juggler threatened to rival the clergyman, and thus risked effacing the boundary between the sacred and the secular. This is why marginalisation was a deliberate process. It was not only church doctors and academics such as Hugo of Saint Victor who influenced the public treatment of travelling jugglers, but also popularizers of Christian ideas such as the monk Honorius Augustodunensis whose ‘Elucidarium’ proposed a social classification based on ‘proximity to God’. (shrink)

L’article s’emploie à comparer la doctrine de l’Incarnation dans les trois grandes œuvres spéculatives de saint Thomas : Scriptum super Sententiis, Summa contra Gentiles, Summa theologiae. Il examine d’abord le plan suivi dans les trois ouvrages pour traiter ce thème ; puis la façon dont saint Thomas remédie à deux lacunes de la christologie du Lombard (convenances de l’Incarnation, mystères de la vie du Christ) ; ensuite, les deux opinions christologiques du Lombard rejetées par les docteurs parisiens et concernant, l’une, (...) l’âme séparée du corps et, l’autre, la question de savoir si, durant le triduum mortis, le Christ était un homme ; enfin, dix-sept des articuli in quibus. Malgré son caractère pointilliste, cette recherche permet d’explorer les aspects essentiels de la christologie de saint Thomas, de souligner les progrès de sa pensée et aussi de relever quelques positions problématiques de son enseignement. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Metaphysics Philosophy of nature Psychology and gnoseology Ethics.

Perjumpaan Fransiskus Assisi dengan Sultan al-Kamil di tengah ko- baran perang salib akhir-akhir ini mendapat banyak perhatian dari pel- bagai macam peneliti (Hoeberichts 1997; Warren 2003, Tolan 2007, Moses 2009). Yang terakhir, Paul Moses—seorang Guru Besar Jurnalistik di Brooklyn College, New York— melakukan investigasinya sendiri dan menulis suatu buku yang sangat menarik dan aktual, seperti yang boleh diharapkan dari seorang pakar komunikasi. Landasan penting penelitian Moses adalah evaluasinya yang kritis terhadap sumber-sumber. Ia mengemukakan bahwa sumber-sumber tertua tentang peristiwa ini (Jacques (...) de Vitry, dan sebuah kronik yang anonim, keduanya saksi mata perang salib kelima itu) memberi gambaran lebih damai tentang perjumpaan ini ketimbang riwayat-riwayat hidup Fransiskus yang kemudian (Celano, Bonaventura, dll.) yang menggambarkannya sebagai misi yang konfrontatif, berusaha mempertobatkan Sultan untuk mencari kemartiran. Adalah Konsili Lateran IV (1215) dan Paus Innocentius III (1198-1216) serta penggantinya, Paus Honorius III, yang pada masa itu membangkitkan semangat untuk perang salib kelima guna merebut kembali Yerusalem yang belasan tahun sebelumnya direbut dari tangan penguasa Kristen oleh Salah ad-Din (Saladin), paman Sultan Malik al- Kamil. Kendati keluarga Sultan sudah memberitahukan bahwa Sultan bersedia menyerahkan kembali Yerusalem demi persetujuan damai, pihak Paus dan raja-raja Barat tetap mengobarkan semangat perang dan mengumpulkan pasukan. Menurut Moses, Fransiskus, dan saudara- saudaranya diharapkan oleh Gereja ikut mewartakan perang suci, tetapi ia memilih membawakan Injil ke seluruh Eropa, tidak terkecuali juga ke wilayah-wilayah Muslim. Serangan pasukan salib ke Kesultanan Mesir dimulai dari kota pela- buhan Damietta di delta Sungai Nil. Tawaran damai Malik al-Kamil, Sultan Mesir yang dikenal bijaksana dan juga moderat terhadap umat Kristiani di Mesir, kembali ditolak oleh Kardinal Pelagius, utusan Paus dalam perang salib kelima ini. Fransiskus datang ke camp crusaders pada Agustus 1219 dan memberi peringatan kepada para crusaders bahwa serangan mereka akan gagal, tetapi ia ditertawakan. Lalu pada September 1219 ia memutuskan untuk mencari jalan lain dengan menyeberangi lini permusuhan dan mendatangi Sultan al-Malik, tidak sebagai utusan tetapi hanya dengan pengetahuan Kardinal Pelagius menggambarkan Sultan al-Kamil sebagai binatang buas. Sebagai anak zamannya, Fransiskus ingin menciptakan damai dengan mewartakan Injil kepada Sultan. Hal itu tampaknya dilakukannya dengan cara yang khas, sebab dalam sumber tertua dikatakan bahwa Sultan mendengarkannya dengan penuh perhatian, dan memperlakukan Fransiskus sebagai tamu terhormat selama beberapa hari. Menurut Moses, Sultan mungkin terharu bahwa ada orang Kristiani yang berbeda dengan para agresor rakus yang ia kenal dari perang salib. Al-Kamil yang dikenal terbuka untuk Sufisme mungkin juga suka mendengarkan Fransiskus, karena Fransiskus terkesan mirip dengan seorang Sufi. Di lain pihak, Fransiskus juga terkesan dengan apa yang ia lihat, misalnya cara pasukan Muslim menjawab panggilan untuk berdoa............................................................... Kenyataan asli menurut Tolan ialah bahwa Fransiskus ingin menjalankan hidup rasuli sampai dengan mahkotanya, kemartiran, yang dapat ia peroleh dengan pergi mewartakan Injil kepada Sultan. Ini memang gam- baran yang jelas ada dalam biografi-biografi Celano dan Bonaventura, te- tapi tidak muncul dalam kronik-kronik lebih tua dan konteks hidup Fran- siskus sendiri. Kelemahan karya Tolan ialah bahwa ia kurang kembali kepada tulisan-tulisan Fransiskus sendiri dan riwayat hidupnya, seperti yang dilakukan secara mengesankan oleh Moses yang berhasil memper- lihatkan dalam konteks hidup Fransiskus suatu penolakan terhadap pe- rang, pewartaan damai, penghargaan terhadap praktik doa Islam, dan cara misi baru; yang semuanya harus dijadikan patokan untuk interpretasi per- jumpaan Fransiskus dengan Sultan. Tolan gagal melihat tema damai dalam riwayat hidup dan tulisan-tulisan Fransiskus itu, dan dengan demikian juga tidak mengakui adanya sesuatu yang inspiratif dalam peristiwa perjumpaan itu untuk hubungan Muslim–Kristiani masa sekarang. Sebaliknya, ia agak keras menolak interpretasi sejumlah peneliti dan gerakan damai sejak akhir abad ke-20 yang melihat misi Fransiskus sebagai misi damai dan menemukan dalam Fransiskus suatu model untuk menolak kekerasan perang dan mencari pendekatan baru, khususnya dalam hal ketegangan antaragama. Kelemahan karya Tolan ini sangat tampak justru dalam perbandingan dengan karya Moses, yang tidak mendiskusikan Tolan sebab terlambat menerimanya. Buku ketiga, St. Francis and the Conversion of the Muslims, karya Frank M. Rega, amat berbeda dengan kedua studi ilmiah di atas. Dengan tidak kritis sedikit pun, Rega menggabungkan semua yang bagus-bagus dalam pelbagai versi—dari kronik-kronik paling awal sampai ke legenda- legenda yang sangat kemudian—tentang perjumpaan Fransiskus dengan Sultan itu. Tanpa membedakan pelbagai versi dan bertanya tentang latarbelakang dan tujuan masing-masing, seperti dilakukan Tolan, Rega menciptakan suatu versi gabungan yang agaknya akan disukai oleh pembaca Katolik yang saleh dan konservatif (yang memang dilayani oleh penerbit Tan Books), tetapi tidak bernilai bagi seorang peneliti yang ingin menyingkapkan maksud Fransiskus sendiri dan sumber-sumber masing-masing; dan sangat mengecewakan pembaca kritis sekarang yang mencari ilham dalam adegan ini bagi masalah-masalah dunia sekarang. Cerita legendaris Rega yang penuh triumfantalisme yang hampir-hampir yakin bahwa Sultan bertobat dan dibaptis menjelang kematiannya, tentu lebih mengganggu hubungan Kristen dan Muslim sekarang daripada membantu menemukan suatu pendekatan baru. (Martin Harun, Program Studi Ilmu Teologi, Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Driyarkara, Jakarta). (shrink)