William of Auvergne

French philosopher

• Born: c. 1190
• Birthplace: Aurillac, Auvergne, France
• Died: March 30, 1249
• Place of death: Paris, France

William was the first European medieval scholar to attempt to integrate Aristotelian philosophy and Christian theology. He encouraged the growth of philosophy as a discipline distinct from theology and paved the way for the great synthesis of faith and reason of the later Middle Ages.

Early Life

The exact date of birth of William of Auvergne (oh-vehrn-yuh) is unknown, as are most of the facts about his early life. Scholars have assumed that he was born around 1190 because in 1225 he was teaching theology at the University of Paris, a privilege not usually granted to those below the age of thirty-five. A legend suggests that his parents were poor: As a child, William was begging one day on the street, where a woman offered him some money if he would promise never to become a bishop. Perhaps William had a sense of his own destiny, for he declined the offer.

Regardless of whether he was prescient, rich, or poor, he must have shown enough intellectual promise to be sent to school, though where or when is unknown. In the Middle Ages, almost all elementary instruction was given in cathedral or monastic schools, and it was expected that most students would become candidates for the priesthood. William not only was ordained but also went to the University of Paris, the most prestigious school of higher learning in France. By 1223, he was a cathedral priest, or canon, of the Cathedral of Notre Dame, and was probably already teaching at the university.

In the early thirteenth century, the basic intellectual assumptions of the academic world were undergoing a rapid process of change, and William was to become an important part of this transformation. Until shortly before William went to Paris, most of the works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle had been unavailable to the Christian scholars of Europe. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, Europe had been virtually cut off from the more affluent and cultured Eastern Roman Empire, and much of the heritage of Greek philosophy that had been passed to the Romans was lost. In the disruption that followed Rome’s fall, the decline of the towns and the disappearance of secular schools left most education in the hands of the only well-organized institution that remained intact, the Church. While the flickering lamp of civilization was kept alight in the monasteries, it was necessarily colored by the viewpoint of religious faith. Thus for several centuries, philosophy, which then included all forms of inquiry about the universe, was taught as a part of Christian theology and remained firmly anchored to the views articulated by Saint Augustine early in the fifth century.

In the Augustinian universe, the knowledge of God obtained through the revelation of the Gospels and maintained in its purity by the Church was seen as inherently superior to the knowledge gained through reason and the senses. These faculties existed, in fact, simply to help human beings understand the revelation in which they already believed. Following Augustine, medieval philosophers had attempted to explain the phenomena of the world around them within a framework limited by such tenets of faith as God, his creation, and the Resurrection. This effort was seen as the whole purpose of Christian philosophy; ideas or observations that contradicted the structure of faith, as it had been revealed in the Bible and by the Church fathers, were rejected as heresy.

Starting in the late twelfth century, however, the works of the Greek philosophers, particularly Aristotle, began to filter once more into Europe through Arabic translations and commentaries from Islamic Spain. As they were gradually translated into Latin, these works revealed a whole new (or, rather, very old) world of pre-Christian explanations of the universe based solely on the use of reason. At first, the Church attempted to stamp out the Greek ideas, and, in 1228 and 1231, Pope Gregory IX condemned the use of Aristotle’s ideas by the faculty at the University of Paris. Since Aristotle had addressed nearly every area of knowledge, however, the curiosity of the scholars could not be suppressed for long, and William was among the first to attempt to integrate Aristotelian ideas into Christian philosophy.

Life’s Work

That William was a man of some prominence and ability, even early in his career, is evidenced by his appointments, in 1224 and 1225, to papal commissions assigned to investigate monasteries in need of reform. He was also, apparently, quite ambitious, as his actions following the death of Bartholomaeus, bishop of Paris, in 1227 demonstrate. Church law provided that the canons of Notre Dame were to elect a new bishop, subject to papal approval. If the canons were not essentially unanimous in their choice, the right of selection would revert to the pope. On April 10, 1228, the canons elected a candidate, but only by a slim majority. William proclaimed that the election was invalid and threatened to appeal the decision to Rome. The other canons, not wishing to lose their autonomy in the matter, accordingly held another election, but William was still unsatisfied and complained to Pope Gregory. The result was that William himself was appointed to the position, in which he remained for the rest of his life.

Though he is remembered today as a philosopher, among his contemporaries William was known primarily for his activities as bishop of Paris. In fact, he was largely unknown to all but a few of the great philosophers who followed him, and Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham seem not to have been familiar with his writings. Only Roger Bacon briefly mentions William, and even Bacon’s brief note of praise seems more connected with William the bishop than with William the philosopher.

During William’s tenure as prelate, the University of Paris was gradually gaining its independence from the Church. Because it had evolved out of the cathedral school of Notre Dame, the university remained under the jurisdiction of the bishop of Paris. By the early thirteenth century, however, it had become a largely autonomous body, governed not by the laws of the city or the kingdom but by its own teachers (called “masters”) and students. The immunity of the university from either royal or municipal control set a precedent for other universities and became the basis of the centuries-long conflicts between “town and gown” which can still occasionally be seen. The only check on the often highly disruptive behavior of students and teachers was the bishop, who was himself often a former student and master. Nevertheless, both faculty and scholars chafed under even this usually sympathetic form of control and worked to end it.

William’s relations with the university got off to an inauspicious start, for a famous strike of masters and students occurred in the spring of 1229. In February, the students had begun a riot in the course of celebrating the annual Carnival, and, after complaints from many citizens, royal troops were sent in to quell the disturbance. The resulting bloodshed outraged both masters and students, who demanded that William obtain redress from the king for this violation of their immunity. When William either refused or was unable to do anything, the students and faculty suspended all classes and dispersed to other cities. In response, William brought in some Dominican friars as substitutes; the striking masters appealed to the pope, who ordered William to reinstate the strikers. In addition, the pope created a commission to investigate the matter, which was decided in favor of the university. Masters and students then returned to Paris in triumph.

From this point onward, William seems to have been much more cautious in dealing with the university, and he frequently convoked the masters to seek their advice on issues which, technically, he could have decided on his own authority. The masters remained unsatisfied, though, and they demanded that William relinquish to them the authority to grant teaching licenses. The dispute over this issue, which dragged on from 1238 to 1245, may have arisen as a response to William’s action in 1229, or it may simply have been part of the more general demand of the university for complete autonomy. The problem was not finally resolved until an agreement was drawn up, under pressure from Pope Innocent IV, among the masters, the university chancellor, and William.

Attempting to restrain the excesses of the university was not William’s only function as bishop. In the Middle Ages, the Church was deeply involved in secular politics, and aside from his many purely religious duties, William was often called on to play a role in affairs of state as the French representative of the Papacy. In 1231, for example, he acted in this capacity in peace negotiations between France and England, and in 1229, he was even asked to provide Pope Gregory IX with troops in a war against the Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick II. William sent money instead.

William also typifies the anti-Semitism of the Middle Ages, for he was responsible for the public condemnation and burning of the Talmud in June, 1242. Some four years previously, a converted Jew named Nicholas had compiled a list of heretical and anti-Christian doctrines contained in the Talmud and sent them to the pope. Gregory wrote to William for advice, and the bishop recommended that strong measures be taken to suppress the Jewish sacred books. A papal bull (proclamation) was thus issued in 1240 through William as the papal representative ordering civil and ecclesiastical authorities to enter all French synagogues and confiscate copies of the Talmud. When the Jews understandably complained, a joint investigation by the royal and episcopal authorities into the contents of the Talmud resulted in its public incineration.

Despite such a busy schedule, William found time to write more than twenty treatises of varying lengths, most of which were to form a monumental Magisterium divinale sive sapientale (on divine or philosophical wisdom), which was completed about 1240. William’s objective was to cover the whole field of theology and metaphysics and to answer questions of physics, logic, morals, and law through the application of reason, as well as through the learning of the past. In the Magisterium divinale sive sapientale, as well as in his other works, William shows that his attitude toward the newly rediscovered ideas of Aristotle is respectful without being slavish. While the Church authorities had only recently condemned these ideas, many of the students and masters of Paris had gone to the opposite extreme of accepting them almost as if they were revealed truth. William preferred to follow a middle course: Whenever Aristotle presented a philosophical doctrine that disagreed with Christian belief, William would declare it erroneous, but rather than simply appeal to tradition or authority, he would then go on to attempt to show by argument why the doctrine was incorrect.

Although William often disagreed with positions taken by Aristotle, he knew that Christians could not ignore them. To attempt to dismiss Aristotle or reject his ideas without analyzing them, said William, would be ridiculous. He went even further, offering the nearly revolutionary advice that, in matters of philosophy, only philosophers should be consulted. While this may appear to suggest that William had adopted the modern view that philosophy is quite distinct from religion, his purpose was in fact theological: The theologian could only overcome the arguments of pagan philosophy by himself becoming a philosopher. In this view, he foreshadows the reasoning of Thomas Aquinas.

For example, Aristotle had argued that the world was eternal and therefore uncreated. This idea contradicts the Christian belief that God created the world. In his treatise De Universo (c. 1247; The Universe of Creatures, 1998), William not only gives the reasons behind Aristotle’s point of view but also improves on Aristotle’s arguments after which he refutes them by using elaborate and systematic proofs. Thus despite his willingness to accept some of Aristotle’s views and methods of argument, William remains in the tradition of Augustine, using philosophy as the handmaiden of faith.

William died on March 30, 1249, of unknown causes, and he was buried in the Abbey of St. Victor. Though his relationship with the university was bumpy, he was apparently loved as a witty and eloquent preacher, an outstanding master of theology, and a conscientious servant of the Church.

Significance

William of Auvergne stands, unfortunately, in the shadows of his great successors. Because he took on Aristotle piecemeal rather than developing a coherent system and because his writing is often obscure and extremely complex, he has been largely ignored except by a few specialists in the field of medieval philosophy. Yet among these authorities, his achievement is very much respected. He is seen as a transitional figure, perhaps even a pioneer whose acceptance of some Aristotelian ideas paved the way for Saint Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, but whose rejection of the Aristotelian system as a whole also led to the anti-Aristotelian viewpoint of Saint Bonaventure. As the first of the great thirteenth century philosophers, his views might be symbolized as the twelfth century meeting the thirteenth, sympathetically, but not uncritically.

Because William appears to have had little direct influence on his successors, it is fair to ask how he can be considered historically important. Perhaps this question can be answered best if attention is turned more directly on his career as a teacher and bishop of Paris. Influence need not always be a matter of showing a direct relationship between two events, people, or sets of ideas; it can also be indirect and subtle. As a teacher and philosopher, William undoubtedly had some kind of effect on each of his students. His congenial reception of new ideas allowed those ideas to be discussed, debated, and further developed. He realized the importance, if not all the implications, of the rediscovery of Aristotle, and he knew that the Church could not and should not simply attempt to ignore the tools of logic and reason that Aristotle offered. William insisted, in fact, that they be used to strengthen Christian faith. In this way, he made a positive contribution, not only to medieval philosophy but also to the freedom of inquiry that was, and is, the essence of the university.

Bibliography

Bréhier, Émile. The History of Philosophy: The Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Translated by Wade Baskin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965. Considered a classic summary of medieval and Renaissance philosophy. Includes a section on William that concentrates on his doctrine of Being and the way in which it relates to Aristotle and Avicenna.

Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy. 9 vols. New York: Image Books, 1985. Part of an extremely well-written series by a prominent Jesuit philosopher. Volume 2, Medieval Philosophy: Augustine to Scotus, emphasizes the importance of William as a transitional figure and offers the view that William foreshadows not only Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure but also John Duns Scotus. A clear introduction, not only to William but to the entire field of medieval philosophy.

Gilson, Étienne. History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages. New York: Random House, 1955. An authoritative and scholarly work and a standard reference. Covers the entire period from the earliest Christian philosophers to the beginning of the fourteenth century.

Kretzmann, Norman, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg, eds. The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy: From the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Disintegration of Scholasticism, 1100-1600. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982. An immense compilation by many scholars, this work is organized topically. Contains several brief comparative discussions of William but no separate section.

Leff, Gordon. Medieval Thought: St. Augustine to Ockham. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965. An excellent, brief introduction to medieval philosophy that divides the era into three periods, each with an introduction that offers helpful general comments. Includes a concise section on William. Especially useful for those with no background in philosophy.

McInerny, Ralph M. Philosophy from St. Augustine to Ockham. Vol. 2 in A History of Western Philosophy. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1970. A very good text for those new to philosophy. Several chapters of background information on related topics help provide a solid context. Includes a separate section on William with a very clear analysis of his theory of Being.

Marrone, Steven P. The Light of Thy Countenance: Science and Knowledge of God in the Thirteenth Century. 2 vols. Boston: Brill, 2001. Volume 1 discusses attempts by thirteenth century scholars to reconcile and adapt the tradition of Augustinian-inspired theology with an emerging Aristotelean-inspired science.

Marrone, Steven P. William of Auvergne and Robert Grosseteste: New Ideas of Truth in the Early Thirteenth Century. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1983. A full-length, scholarly study of William’s philosophy, which is discussed in great depth and detail. The author considers William a philosopher of the first rank and of great historical importance. Analyzes William’s work from the standpoint of the method by which truth can be perceived.

Moody, Ernest A. “William of Auvergne and His Treatise De Anima.” In Studies in Medieval Philosophy, Science, and Logic: Collected Papers, 1933-1969. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975. Contains fourteen chapters by a renowned historian of medieval philosophy. The chapter on William is a significant biographical source.

Teske, Roland J. “William of Auvergne.” In A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages, edited by Jorge E. Gracia and Timothy B. Noone. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2003. The author discusses the life and work of William in the context of Middle Ages philosophy.

Teske, Roland J. “William of Auvergne on the Relation Between Reason and Faith.” Modern Schoolman 75, no. 4 (May, 1998): 279-291. Argues that there are two strains evident in William’s Magisterium divinale sive sapientale, one committed to philosophizing through faith and grace the other to philosophizing through reason.