Author of the first scholastic summa of theology and early magister at the University of Paris, William of Auxerre (d. 1231) is a seminal figure in thirteenth-century
Scholasticism. From the uncertain theological and philosophical climate of the preceding century, William’s thought and writing emerge with impressive originality. Both traditional and innovative, his Summa aurea incorporates into many traditional theological topics the methods and teachings of the full scope of Aristotelian philosophy rapidly gaining currency in the early University of Paris. In particular, William breaks new ground in medieval intellectual culture by attempting to give a genuine and considerable role to reason and philosophical argument within the discipline of theology, thus establishing theology as a legitimate science (scientia), while also retaining its revealed and supernatural character. On various other fronts, William is a pioneering figure in the development of medieval scholasticism.
Though often overshadowed by such later scholastic luminaries as Aquinas and Scotus, William of Auxerre was a highly regarded university theologian throughout the later Middle Ages, as the nearly 120 surviving manuscripts of his entire Summa aurea (‘‘Golden Summa’’) - not to mention abridgements - manifestly attest. (William also wrote Summa de officiis ecclesiasticis (Summa of Ecclesiastical Offices), a commentary on the mass.) Later Parisian scholars remembered William for his facility in disputation and his profundity in preaching. Surprisingly little, however, is known with certainty of his life, except that he occupied a prominent place among the theological masters of the nascent University of Paris in the first three decades of the thirteenth century, and was involved in various high-level negotiations between the university and church authorities. Most notable of these was his appointment by Pope Gregory IX in 1231 to head a committee charged with examining for errors the ‘‘books of Aristotle’’ (Natural Philosophy and Metaphysics) that had already been prohibited at Paris in 1210. William’s death in the same year brought this task to naught. A letter of Pope Gregory IX indicates that William was also an archdeacon of Beauvais.
Though it roughly follows the structure of Peter Lombard’s Sentences, William’s Summa aurea (so-called by, and reflecting the esteem of, later generations) is arguably the first high-scholastic ‘‘summa,’’ whose independent structure and dialectical style reflect, respectively, his distinctive theological vision (developed over decades of university teaching and disputation) and the increasing influence of Aristotelian philosophy on university theology. The work is divided into four books (I - God’s existence and nature; II - creation, free will, and sin; III - Christ, salvation, and the virtues; IV - sacraments and eschatology). One of the most intriguing features of the Summa aurea is its subtle and implicit engagement with contemporary authors and discussions in the course of explicit treatment of traditional questions and topics. The result for modern readers is the tantalizing sense of being able to hear only one voice in a lively, multilateral debate over the most important issues of the day.
William is one of the first medieval thinkers to grapple with the fuller presentation of Aristotle’s philosophy, rapidly emerging at that time. Though he is acquainted with Aristotle’s Physics and Metaphysics and with a partial translation of the Ethics, William is especially influenced by the so-called logica nova (especially the Posterior Analytics), whose conception of genuine scientia inspires and informs his attempt to establish theology as a genuine scientific discipline (see below). At the same time, William is also in the vanguard of medieval thinkers, whose appropriation of Aristotelian philosophy is mediated and accompanied by the Stagarite’s later Arabic commentators, such as Avicenna and Averroes, whom William clearly knows, though only infrequently quotes by name. Subsequent scholastic generations will assimilate these Arabic interpretations more fully and systematically, but William inaugurates this monumental trend.
William made important contributions, both innovative and influential, on several theological fronts, regarding both scholastic method and content. Perhaps his most far-reaching achievement is in methodology, where he provides a point of departure for subsequent thinkers (e. g., Alexander of Hales, Albert the Great, Bonaventure) in his attempt to provide a crucial and clearly conceived role for reason in the theological enterprise, and thereby to establish its genuinely scientific character. For William, theology begins with the supernatural gift of formed faith, which cannot be arrived at by prior reasoning. But once established in faith, reason can play a vital role, not merely in refuting heresies and providing a reasonable defense against objections from nonbelievers, but in extending and deepening the knowledge (scientia), and understanding (intellectus) of what is believed. William’s analogy here is the above-mentioned Aristotelian conception of genuine scientia, which begins with first principles that are themselves not proven, but axiomatically self-evident (principia per se nota), which are the basis for further knowledge derived logically therefrom. So, for William, the creedal articles of faith (articula fidei), given through revelation and embraced with supernatural certitude, are not rationally provable, but once accepted by faith become the basis for further theological knowledge derived logically from them. Rational argument is never the basis of faith, but nonetheless plays a crucial, necessary role in the pursuit of theological truth. Later scholastics will appropriate and develop William’s pioneering approach in this regard. William also made important contributions to the
Theological method in relation to the form of theological discourse, especially its written form. William’s Summa reflects his pioneering skills at systematic organization, and clear and concise formulation of the abundant and diffuse theological material accumulated by the end of the twelfth century. This is particularly evident in his treatise on the Incarnation, whose topical ordering, clarity of presentation, and precision of analysis marked a new point of departure for later scholastic Christology.
Regarding content, William is something of a Janus-figure in relation to the development of medieval thought. On most topics, he is rather traditional, much indebted to the Augustinian tradition, mediated by intervening figures, such as Boethius, Anselm, and the Victorines. So, for example, William’s arguments for God’s existence include Anselm’s so-called ontological argument, though William identifies that being ‘‘than which nothing greater can be conceived’’ not simply as ‘‘God,’’ but as the highest good (summum bonum), thus reflecting his proclivity for a metaphysics of goodness, which seems to have inspired contemporary thinkers, such as Philip the Chancellor’s Summo de Bono. In general, William’s treatment of such divine attributes as the good, being, and unity influenced later thirteenth-century discussions of the so-called tran-scendentals. On issues of epistemology, moreover, William is an illuminationist in the Augustinian tradition, yet even here he reformulates this teaching in the Aristotelian terms of assimilation of the knower to the known.
Yet, in other respects, William initiates new trends. He was one of the first medieval thinkers, for example, to deploy the distinction between God’s absolute and ordained powers, which would be so central to later scholastic debates regarding the divine nature. William also writes the first treatise devoted in its own right to the topic of free will (liberum arbitrium). Similarly, William’s treatment of the virtues in Book III of the Summa aurea sets important developments in train. This massive, systematic analysis of the virtues, constituting nearly the whole of Book III, brings medieval moral theory to a new level of philosophical and theological sophistication and also previews similar attention to virtue among later scholastics. William originated the theological distinction between the perfect happiness proper to God and the imperfect happiness appropriate to created beings, a distinction which Aquinas will later employ in his Summa theologica. Again, reflecting his employment of Aristotelian thought within theology, William appears to be one of the first to use the distinction between form and matter in his analysis of the sacraments. Finally, William’s teaching on the spiritual senses of the soul draws on the philosophical tradition of the internal senses of the soul.
See also: > Alexander of Hales > Anselm of Canterbury
> Aristotelianism in the Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Hebrew Traditions > Augustine > Boethius > Divine Power > Epistemology > Ethics > Form and Matter
> Happiness > Ibn Rushd, Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Hafid (Averroes) > Ibn Sina, Abii ‘All (Avicenna) > Internal Senses > Logic > Logic, Arabic, in the Latin Middle Ages > Philip the Chancellor > Proofs of the Existence of God > Thomas Aquinas > Virtue and Vice
World History
