Aquinas and Olivi on Evangelical Poverty: A Medieval Debate and its Modern Significance

Abstract

The Thomist 61 (1997): 567-86 AQUINAS AND OLIVI ON EVANGELICAL POVERTY: A MEDIEVAL DEBATE AND ITS MODERN SIGNIFICANCE KEVIN MADIGAN Catholic Theological Union Chicago, Illinois DURINGTHEACADEMICYEAR 1279-80, Petrus lohannis Olivi lectured on the gospel of Matthew at one of the Franciscan studia in southern France.1 The finished commentary, which he titled Lectura superMatthaeum, is worthy of attention for a number of reasons. First, it may well have been condemned, along with Olivi'sApocalypse commentary, by Pope John XXII in 1326.2 Second, it seems to be one of the very few high-scholastic gospel commentaries to have been influenced by 1 For Olivi's biography and a ''tperb general introduction to his works, see D. Burr, The Persecution ofPeter Olivi, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 66, part 5 (Philadelphia, 1976). One source places Olivi at Montpellier before 1283. See Olivi's Epistola ad R., in his Quodlibeta (Venice, 1509), 53 (65)r. Another source places him in Narbonne. See Peter Olivi, Questiones in secundum librum sententiarum, ed. Bernard Jansen, 3 vols., Bibliotheca Franciscana Scholastica Medi Aevi (Quaracchi, 1921-26), 1:633. On the date of Olivi's Matthew commentary, see D. Burr, "The Date of Petrus Iohannis Olivi's Commentary on Matthew," Collectanea Franciscana 46 (1976): 131-38; and the minor revisions of the argument made in idem, Olivi and Franciscan Poverty: The Origins of the "Usus Pauper" Controversy (Philadelphia, 1989), 54-55 nn. 28 and 36. Burr concludes that the lectures would have been begun in the fall of 1279 and completed in the spring of 1280, though he concedes that they might have been written in 1280-81 or even 1281-82. 2 The condemnation of the Apocalypse commentary is mentioned briefly in Bernard Gui, Flores chronicarum, in S. Baluze, Vitae paparum avenionensium ed. and emended by G. Mollat (Paris, 1914-27), 1:142 and 1:166. Bernard says nothing about the contents of the condemnation; he only alludes to its occurrence. The Dominican inquisitor Nicolas Eymerich reports that John condemned Olivi's Matthew commentary at the same time as the Apocalypse commentary (see N. Eymerich, Directorium inquisitionis [Rome, 1585], 268. Nicholas is writing about fifty years after the events he reports. Nonetheless, there is solid evidence that the Matthew commentary was examined in the process which resulted in the condemnation of the Apocalypse commentary. This evidence may be found in a document entitled Allegationes super articulis tractis per dominum papam de Postilla, quam composuit fr. Petrus Iohannis superApocalipsim, quorum articulorum tenores inferius continentur, in MS Paris Bibi. Nat. lat. 4190. The author's comments on the Matthew commentary and its errors may be found on f. 44v. 567 568 KEVIN MADIGAN the novel interpretive approach taken by Joachim of Fiore in his Tractatus super quatuor Evangelia.3 Third, it reflects Olivi's polemical involvement in three contemporary disputes over the nature and importance of "evangelical" perfection. One of these was with the secular clergy of Paris and involved the Franciscans' very right to exist.4 A second was an intramural Franciscan affair; it centered on the relationship between "poor use" of material things (usus pauper) and the Franciscan vow.5 The third, which involved possessio, was with the Dominican master Thomas Aquinas. Olivi's quarrel with Thomas occurs when Olivi comes to comment on Matthew 10:9-10: "Nolite possidere aurum, neque argentum, neque pecuniam in zonis vestris, non peram in via .. ." His commentary on these verses is actually a long, vigorous, and at times vituperative response to two ofThomas's quaestiones on poverty.6 My purpose here is describe how Thomas and Olivi differed on this issue and to analyze why the differences were so sharp. One might begin to explain the difference between Thomas and Olivi on the issue of poverty in terms of Franciscan-Dominican tensions in the 1270s. Indeed, these tensions do, to some extent, explain the disagreement; we will give some attention to them below. The disharmony can also be explained in terms of the relative value each order gave to the virtue of poverty. Generally speaking, it is true to say that 3 For the influence of Joachim on Olivi's Matthew commentary, see K. Madigan, "Peter...