Henry Of Langenstein Research Articles

„Teuflische Verführer“ oder „verdammte Häretiker“?

Nicholas Magni of Jawor (de Jawor/Jauer, von Heidelberg) (1355–1435), a Silesian professor of theology, preacher, and diplomat, was one of the most interesting figures of the first generation of scholars from the University of Heidelberg. Of all his output, it is the treatise De superstitionibus that has attracted the greatest attention so far, while his less known anti-Hussite writings have long been only a research postulate. The work of Jiří Petrášek is, therefore, a long-awaited analysis of the insufficiently recognized writing by Nicholas Magni: Contra epistolam perfidiae Hussitarum, which is a response to the Taborite Manifesto from 1430. In his work, Petrášek draws new conclusions: regarding Nicolas Magni’s views on indulgences, the author points to the borrowings from Henry of Langenstein, and he does not share the earlier statement of Franz X. Bantle about the originality of the Heidelbergian theologian’s views on indulgences and their essence confined to the notion of “communication”. Thus, we receive a work that verifies the previous findings on the anti-Hussite views of Nicholas Magni, and which thoroughly introduces us into the less known areas of the 15th century Catholic anti-Hussite polemics.

Mikołaj Magni z Jawora i jego Contra epistolam perfidiae Hussitarum. W związku z: Jiří Petrášek, „Meide die Häretiker”. Die antihussitische Reaktion des Heidelberger Professors Nikolaus von Jauer (1355–1435) auf das taboritische Manifest aus dem Jahr 1430, Aschendorff Verlag, Münster 2018 (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters. Texte und Untersuchungen. Neue Folge, LXXXII)

Nicholas Magni of Jawor and his Contra epistolam perfidiae Hussitarum. In connection with Jiří Petrášek, „Meide die Häretiker”. Die antihussitische Reaktion des Heidelberger Professors Nikolaus von Jauer (1355–1435) auf das taboritische Manifest aus dem Jahr 1430, Aschendorff Verlag, Münster 2018 (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters. Texte und Untersuchungen. Neue Folge, LXXXII) Nicholas Magni of Jawor (Nicolaus Magni de Jawor/Jauer, von Heidelberg) (1355–1435), a Silesian professor of theology, preacher and diplomat, was one of the most interesting figures among the first generation of scholars from the University of Heidelberg. Of all his output, it is the treatise De superstitionibus that has attracted the greatest attention so far, while his lesser known anti-Hussite writings have long been only a research postulate. Jiří Petrášek’s study is, therefore, a long-awaited analysis of an insufficiently researched piece of writing by Nicholas Magni: Contra epistolam perfidiae Hussitarum, which was a response to the 1430 Taborite Manifesto. The author uses two fifteenth-century manuscripts: Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preussische Kulturbesitz Ms. Theol. Lat. 672 and Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen MC 31. The study is a thorough analysis of the contents of Magni’s piece compared with two other contemporary manuscripts: Curandum summopere by an anonymous master from Vienna, and Videte, ne quis vos seducat by Matthias Döring and Johannes Bremer. In his study Petrášek draws new conclusions: regarding Nicolas Magni’s views on indulgences, he points to the borrowings from Henry of Langenstein, and does not share Franz X. Bantle’s earlier assertion about the originality of the Heidelberg theologian’s views on indulgences and their essence confined to the notion of communicatio. Thus, we get a work that verifies the previous findings on the anti-Hussite views of Nicholas Magni, and that provides an in-depth introduction to lesser known areas of the fifteenth-century Catholic anti- Hussite polemics.

Le Questiuncule di Simone di Castello sul De proporcionibus velocitatum in motibus, qq. 8-10

As a master of Arts at the University of Bologna in the second half of XIVth Century, Simon of Castello decided to pour what he learned at the University of Paris into updating the university education and training. His project is clearly delineated in the opening words (a sort of prologue) to his two works : De proporcionibus velocitatum in motibus (edited by J. McCue in 1961) and the unpublished Questiuncule decem, introduced as a comment to De proportionibus. The three last of these Questiuncule are edited here with a brief introduction. They have been selected for their referring to latitudines; explicit quotations from Burley’s works on latitudes (Tractatus primus and secundus) speaks to the early diffusion of the English master in the Italian university education. Simon expresses his gratitude toward Henry of Langenstein, his master in Paris.

Henry of Langenstein’s Principium on the Sentences, His Fellow Parisian Bachelors, and the Academic Year 1371-1372

Abstract This research note identifies for the first time the principium on book I of the Sentences by the prolific polymath Henry of Langenstein (†1397). This discovery, when combined with the four principia of the Augustinian Denis of Modena, provides the evidence necessary to demonstrate that Langenstein lectured on the Sentences at Paris in 1371-1372. The note also establishes the identity of the other eight bachelors of theology who participated in the principial debates that year.

Lucifer princeps tenebrarum … The Epistola Luciferi and Other Correspondence of the Cistercian Pierre Ceffons (fl. 1348-1353)

Abstract The famous Epistola Luciferi, written in late 1351 or early 1352, caused quite a stir in the Avignon of Pope Clement vi, quickly became a medieval best-seller, and thereafter remained topical, being copied and printed down to the present day. Traditionally ascribed to Nicole Oresme or Henry of Langenstein, the letter was attributed to the Cistercian Pierre Ceffons by Damasus Trapp in 1957. Trapp merely took Ceffons’ authorship for granted, however, and in the most thorough study of the Epistola Luciferi and of the entire genre of Devil’s letters, her 1982 PhD dissertation, Helen C. Feng rejected the attribution. Presenting codices and works of Ceffons of which Trapp was unaware, this article argues in favor of Ceffons’ responsibility for the Epistola Luciferi, while offering a new critical edition of the letter, an English translation, and a supplemental list of manuscripts and editions.

Il profeta Elia e l’Anticristo nell’apocalittica boema tra XIV e XV secolo

The socio-religious connotations attributed to apocalyptic prophets were very important to the constitution and development of the Hussite reform movement. Prophecies and their original interpretations were employed to clarify and legitimize the process of transformation society was undergoing. The figure of ‘another Elias’, a prophet announcing the coming of the Antichrist and warning people against him, was essential to a reform movement based in part on apocalyptic ideology. This was indeed the case with Hussitism in the Kingdom of Bohemia during the first half of the fifteenth century. The pre-Hussite reformer Mathew of Janov associated the figure of a prophet with the preacher Milicius of Kroměříž. Later, this same role was attributed to Jan Hus. Following the earlier tradition of medieval authors, Bohemian reformers interpreted the role of the prophet as one of sentry and guardian of the Church who was endowed with an understanding of Scripture. In this respect Wyclife’s treatises should be viewed as a source of inspiration for Mathew of Janov’s texts. The perception of Milicius as prophet – formulated by Mathew – could also have been inspired by strategies described in treatises on the discernment of spirits by Henry of Friemar and Henry of Langenstein.

The Auffahrtabend Prophecy and Henry of Langenstein: German Adaptation and Transmission of the “Visio fratris Johannis”

One of the most widely circulating prophecies of the fifteenth century, the “Auffahrtabend” text was adapted into German from the late thirteenth-century Latin “Visio fratris Johannis,” and attributed to notables such as Hildegard of Bingen, the emperor Sigismund, and the theologian Henry of Langenstein. Despite its popularity and longevity, however, it has received only sporadic and often misleading treatment. Clarifying the origins, context, and significance of the “Auffahrtabend” prophecy, this article augments the known list of manuscript and early printed copies, pins down the provenance and transmission of the German text, and explores its historical milieu and meaning. Close analysis indicates that the prophecy was adapted between 1386 and 1396 by a member of Langenstein’s circle in Vienna, and that its contents were shaped by the fusion of anxieties about the Great Schism, fourteenth-century German and Bohemian political concerns, and apocalyptic expectations of the looming century’s end.

Conrad of Megenberg: The Parisian Years

Conrad of Megenberg was one of the most important and productive German scholars in the generation before Henry of Langenstein, Henry Totting of Oyta, and Marsilius of Inghen, and like the latter three secular masters, he received much of his higher education at Paris. Conrad’s Parisian period began with his appointment as lector in philosophy at the Cistercian house of studies, the College St. Bernard. If Conrad moved out of the College St. Bernard when he became regent master in arts, his departure ironically would coincide approximately with the completion of philosophical studies and the beginning of theological studies of a young and later controversial Cistercian monk, Jean de Mirecourt. The peculiar thing is that Conrad never refers to himself as a bachelor in theology, and that title is never accorded to him when he is mentioned in papal documents, as was customary.Keywords: Conrad of Megenberg; Parisian period; theology

The master and Minerva (review)

288 Reviews a chronology of these writings with full titles. A most useful 'Select Bibliography' and an index make the study an essential reference tool for scholars interested in medieval astrology, theology, philosophy, or science. Unfortunately, the index does not include a complete inventory of the copious information in the notes. Nevertheless, History, prophecy, and the stars shows how important astrology could be in the world view of the later Middle Ages and thus provides a nice counterbalance to the works of Coopland on Nicolas Oresme and Pruckner on Henry of Langenstein, which highlighted the denial of astrology by the rare sceptical Uiinkers of this era. Maxwell J. Walkley Department of French University of Sydney Solterer, Helen, The master and Minerva, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, University of California Press, 1995; paper; pp. xiv, 301; 14 plates; R.R.P ? Helen Solterer's aim in this book is to examine the role of the female listener/reader in certain types of high medieval clerical writings, with a view to demonstrating that male authors undermined die audiority of tiieir own texts by the inclusion of such 'disputing women' in their discourse, a discourse which was usually directed toward die subjugation of women to men in general and to male constructions of knowledge in particular. In the process of her investigation the capacity of language and writing to do damage, the history of libel, and the current preoccupation with verbal sexual harassment are touched upon. The texts analysed include those which authorize male control of women such as Le Chastoiement de dames and Li Houneurs et li vertus des dames. This control is 'natural' in the light of Biblical narrative and Aristotelian philosophy, in which woman is to man as the body is to the mind. The danger of being persuaded by a woman was an ever-present fear for medieval men, especially clerics. It recalled Eve's persuading Adam to disobey God and the entry of pain and suffering into die world, and reminded men that their intellects could be overcome by the demands of the flesh. Therefore, the speech of women was potentially a powerful force for destabilizing societal order. The strength of female speech appears in a number of different types of male writing. M e n seem unable to write away the resistance of women. Reviews 289 'Andreas Capellanus's mock dialogues in the De Amore (On Love) project female voices that reply to and often foil the suits of male lovers . . . Even in medieval versions of Ovid's Heroides, the letters attributed to female correspondents mark a type of interaction' (p. 2). The lengthy discussion of the Response au Bestiaire d'amour in Chapter Four, 'Contrary to what is said', brings together Solterer's analysis of the dialectical method used in medieval university teaching and the question of the relationship between the sexes. Dialectic is itself a precarious activity because the master's status is perpetually atriskas the student grows in skill and threatens to usurp his authority. Therefore, the application of the dialectical model to male-female discourse is pregnant with the possibility that the woman will usurp male modes of argument and emerge a magistra. The second type of male literary product which reveals the potential power of women is the genre of misogynist complaint. Texts such as the Lamentations of Matheolus are a catalogue of 'slander, blasphemy, [and] expletives' (p. 80). In Chapter Five, 'Defamation and the Livre de leesee', it is demonstrated that Jean LeFevre's Livre de leesce, which purports to refute Matheolus, is in fact a spin-off which reinforces male complaints against women. LeFevre translated the Lamentations, which made it available to a much greater reading public, and his 'refutations' are reclassifications of w o m e n as existing only in die zone of the positive and delightful. This offers women no freedom, as it functions like Victorian England's insistence on the purity of women, which unfitted them for any public role. The final literary form revealing the power of women is the text authored by a woman. The issue of the extent of female education in the High Middle Ages is canvassed, with references to the beguines and...

"Unless You Believe, You Shall Not Understand": Logic, University, and Society in Late Medieval Vienna.

Founded in 1365, not long after the Great Plague ravaged Europe, the University of Vienna was revitalized in 1384 by prominent theologians displaced from Paris--among them Henry of Langenstein. Beginning with the 1384 revival, Michael Shank explores the history of the university and its ties with European intellectual life and the city of Vienna. In so doing he links the abstract discussions of university theologians with the burning of John Hus and Jerome of Prague at the Council of Constance (1415-16) and the destruction of the Jewish community of Lower Austria (1421). Like most other scholars of the period, Henry of Langenstein (d. 1397) at one time believed that Aristotle's syllogistic was universally valid even in Trinitarian theology. In touch with the vibrant Jewish community in Vienna, Langenstein had high hopes of converting its members by logical argument. When he failed in his purpose, he lost his confidence in Aristotle's syllogistic as a universal tool of apologetics and handmaiden to Trinitarian theology. (Unless you believe, you shall not understand, he quoted from Isaiah, in order to express his change of opinion.) During the next generation, the intellectual climate at the university changed from academic openness to increasing rigidity, and theologians turned from argument to persecution. Originally published in 1988. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

Coluccio Salutati's Critique of Astrology in the Context of His Natural Philosophy

Coluccio Salutati (1331-1406) is best known as the Petrarchan humanist chancellor of Florence, defender by his rhetoric of the Florentine cause against Visconti Milan, and influential patron of the inauguration of Hellenic studies in Italy and of intensified study and imitation of classical texts. He was also by his own studies, writing, book collection, and personal contacts conversant with at least some of the medieval scholastic traditions of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Although it might be too much to call him either a natural philosopher or a theologian, his interest in these subjects was deep. The following essay examines major lines of his thinking concerning nature and divine operation through nature in this world as they are put forth in his De fato et fortuna of 1396.1 It culminates in an analysis of the important critique of astrology presented in that work. The late fourteenth century was notable not only for a profusion of apologetic and practical astrological writings but also for the anti-astrological treatises of the scholastic natural philosophers and theologians Nicole Oresme and Henry of Langenstein. Although Salutati does not seem to have been influenced by these writings, his own work is parallel to them in certain respects and should be included in this anti-astrological genre.2

Alhazen, Leonardo, and late-medieval speculation on the inversion of images in the eye

Summary No one before Platter and Kepler proposed retinal reception of an inverted visual image. The dominant tradition in visual theory, especially that of Alhazen and his Western followers, subordinated the intra-ocular geometry of visual rays to the requirement for an upright image and to preconceptions about the precise nature of the visual spirit and its part in vision. Henry of Langenstein and an anonymous glossator in the late Middle Ages proposed alternatives to Alhazen, including the suggestion of double inversion of the image. Leonardo da Vinci was aware of both Alhazen's theory and Henry's contradiction, but perhaps not of the anonymous hypothesis of double inversion. Leonardo's visual ‘theory’ has more the character of a critique than of a theoretical alternative, and he did not transcend the medieval concept of visual spirit.

FitzRalph's Antimendicant ‘proposicio’ (1350) and the Politics of the Papal Court at Avignon

The conciliar movement is often seen as the major political issue in which the universities of Oxford, Paris and the newer universities became actively embroiled during the fourteenth century and thereafter. It was the last and most ambitious product of the medieval vision of government by consent and representation that had evolved during the fourteenth century, and it marshalled the resources of theorists and practitioners of politics, of arts and theology faculty lecturers, of canon and civil lawyers, of monarchical publicists and papal hierocrats. In general, conciliarism drew upon the university-trained in a manner not previously seen on such a scale. During the Great Schism (1378–1449), the universities assumed exceedingly important roles in the affairs of the universal Church, with the University of Paris playing a dominant part from the start in proposing the via concilii. Pierre d'Ailly was, like Gerson, Conrad of Gelnhausen and Henry of Langenstein, and like the earlier Marsilius of Padua, a Paris scholar. And it has recently been argued that university support for the Basle conciliar programme was motivated not only by an attachment to the ideal of conciliar government but also by the hope of reforms which would improve the status of university-trained doctors in the Church. While the bulk of controls proposed by the conciliar movement concerned the reduction of papal control, a few aimed more explicitly at promoting the interests of graduates.

Nicholas H. Steneck, Science and creation in the Middle Ages. Henry of Langenstein (d. 1397) on Genesis, Notre Dame, Indiana, University of Notre Dame Press, 1976, 8vo, pp. xiv, 213, illus., $14.95 ($4.95 paperback).

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Science and Creation in the Middle Ages: Henry of Langenstein (d. 1397) on Genesis (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 227 Science and Creation in the Middle Ages: Henry of Langenstein (d. 1397) on Genesis. By Nicholas H. Steneck. (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976. Pp. xiv + 213. $14.95) Ever since the ground-breaking studies of Pierre Duhem in the first decades of this century, historians of science have tussled with the problem of determining the relationship of late medieval science to the development of "modern" scientific method in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Yet, in spite of the wealth of new information unearthed by numerous scholars, no single analysis of the overall problem posed by Duhem has won universal acceptance , and general historians of early modern science as well as specialists not directly familiar with medieval scientific literature still frequently tend to fall back upon outmoded generalizations . It is largely in response to this state of affairs, Steneck informs us, that the present study was undertaken. Its aim is to provide a "general survey of late medieval science" through an analysis of the work of a representative medieval scientist. The author's particular concern is to isolate the "working world view," the "actual procedures" that characterized medieval science , so as to establish a foundation for a general comparison with the practices of modern scientists. Given the breadth of this expressed purpose, Steneck's choice of a representative medieval scientist may occasion some surprise. Henry of Langenstein or Hesse (1325-1397) was a renowned theologian who taught at the Universities of Paris and Vienna. He composed several works of an overtly scientific character , presumably in conjunction with his teaching in the arts faculty at Paris. These were first examined by Thorndike, 1who noted their closeness in several respects to the work of Henry's great contemporary, Nicole Oresme, but criticized their author's lack of originality, consistency , and scientific rigor. By themselves, Henry's early writings hardly provide enough material for an overall study of the medieval scientist at work. So, although Steneck has made use of them in this book (taking issue as he does with Thorndike's rather harsh appraisal of their merit), he has drawn upon a far more comprehensive source for his assessment of Henry's science, and this from a somewhat unexpected quarter: Henry's massive series of lectures on the opening chapters of Genesis, composed during the author's years expounding theology at Vienna. Henry's preoccupations as a theologian clearly did not preclude his maintaining an avid interest in the study of natural science, and his lectures on the biblical account of creation contain a veritable goldmine of information covering a broad spectrum of scientific issues. In this respect, Steneck argues, they are closer in spirit to the encyclopedic hexameral literature of the twelfth century than to the more strictly theological commentaries on Genesis produced by thirteenth-century scholastics. Steneck performs an important service by demonstrating the centrality of the Lecturae to an understanding of Henry's place in the history of medieval science. He explores the full range of Henry's interests, following the order of the six days of creation. The exposition is admirably clear and engagingly written, imposing order on a bulky and complicated text. The author is careful to place Henry's position in proper historical perspective and displays both a familiarity with his major sources and a sensitivity to the intellectual framework within which his views were developed and to the functions they were intended to serve. He emphasizes Henry's dependence on Aristotle and Augustine while singling out as recurring themes his doctrine of seminal potencies predisposing prime matter for the reception of form and the limitation of the influence of celestial intelligences on the sublunar realm as a foil to astrological prognostication. Steneck stresses throughout the mechanistic aspects of Henry's worldview , arguing that his conception of the universe differs from that of early modern science chiefly in matters of detail, not in basic conceptualization. Although his analysis is thoughtprovoking , one cannot help but feel that this conclusion is at least in part a function of the ' L. Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, 8 vols. (New York, 1923-1958), 3:472-510. 228 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY...

NICHOLAS H. STENECK, Science and Creation in the Middle Ages. Henry of Langenstein (d. 1397) on Genesis,Notre Dame - London, University of Notre Dame Press, 1976.

NICHOLAS H. STENECK, Science and Creation in the Middle Ages. Henry of Langenstein (d. 1397) on Genesis,Notre Dame - London, University of Notre Dame Press, 1976.

Science and Creation in the Middle Ages: Henry of Langenstein (d. 1397) on Genesis. Nicholas H. Steneck

<i>Science and Creation in the Middle Ages: Henry of Langenstein (d. 1397) on Genesis</i>. Nicholas H. Steneck

Science and Creation in the Middle Ages. Henry of Langenstein (d. 1397) on Genesis. Nicholas H. Steneck

Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewsScience and Creation in the Middle Ages. Henry of Langenstein (d. 1397) on Genesis. Nicholas H. Steneck Edith SyllaEdith Sylla Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Isis Volume 68, Number 2Jun., 1977 Publication of the History of Science Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/351794 Views: 4Total views on this site Copyright 1977 History of Science Society, Inc.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Nicholas H. Steneck. &lt;italic&gt;Science and Creation in the Middle Ages: Henry of Langenstein (d. 1397) on Genesis&lt;/italic&gt;. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. 1976. Pp. xiv, 213. $14.95

Nicholas H. Steneck. &lt;italic&gt;Science and Creation in the Middle Ages: Henry of Langenstein (d. 1397) on Genesis&lt;/italic&gt;. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. 1976. Pp. xiv, 213. $14.95

"Science and Creation in the Middle Ages: Henry of Langenstein (d. 1397) on Genesis," by Nicholas H. Steneck

"Science and Creation in the Middle Ages: Henry of Langenstein (d. 1397) on Genesis," by Nicholas H. Steneck