The fiery Lutheran polemicist Matthias Flacius Illyricus (1520–1575) was also an avid collector of books and he amassed an impressive array of texts throughout his career. In fact, his personal collection was the largest private library of the 16^th century (Olson, 1981a: 10–11).1 Duke Heinrich Julius of Brunswick-Lüneburg acquired Flacius’ personal library for Wolfenbüttel in 1597, and the bulk of this collection remains at the Herzog August Library there today.2 However, the manner in which he acquired his material remains a subject of controversy; even within his own lifetime, his detractors called him a ‘book thief’ and claimed that when he could not copy or purchase a manuscript, he simply used his cultellus flacianus to detach the necessary folia.3 Flacius both accumulated and compiled many manuscripts of source materials and organized a team of Lutheran scholars known as the Magdeburg Centuriators (1559–1574) after the town in which he envisioned the project, to write a massive Protestant history of the Church. They divided their work into thirteen centuries of Church history to demonstrate the continuity of the Christian tradition throughout a period dominated by the so-called papal Antichrist.4 In contrast to many of his contemporaries, Flacius viewed the Middle Ages positively (Hartmann, 2002: 31–48; Olson, 2011: 233). In order to legitimize the Reformation and portray Lutherans and not Catholics as the heirs of early Christianity, he incorporated many medieval authors into his theological construct as witnesses to the Christian truth, including the 13^th century Parisian secular theologian William of Saint-Amour.5 This paper examines Flacius’ knowledge of and interest in William and analyzes the Codex Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Guelf. 367 Helmstedt; it contains an edition of the material found in the folia 77ra–77ar, which Flacius did not publish to show how he preserved hitherto unknown Williamite material.

William figures prominently in two of Flacius’ works: Antilogia papae and the Catalogus testium veritatis. The first, his Antilogia papae, or more comprehensively, Anti-papal statements, that is on the Corrupt State of the Church and the Perversity of the Entire Papistic Clergy written by Some Ancient Authors, Flacius had printed in 1555;6 it serves as a precursor for the project he anticipated for the Centuriators. This work contains editions of works mainly written over the previous three centuries, which Flacius interpreted as antipapal in nature. As examples, it includes The Transfer of Power by Marsilio of Padua (c. 1270–1342) which challenged the pope’s right to transfer civil power, John of Engelschalk’s Speculum aureum (1404) which attacked the simony of the papal curia, and the appeal of Gregory of Heimberg (1399–1472) to Duke Sigismund of Austria for an ecumenical council.7 It also contains several works by William of Saint-Amour. The first work printed in this collection is undoubtedly William’s most famous piece, De periculis novissimorum temporum (On the Dangers of the Last Days), which Flacius does not ascribe to William.8 He printed it along with a preface he credits to Matthew Paris; the Matthew in question is not the 13^th century Benedictine but rather the late 14^th century theologian Matthias of Janov (1350–1393/4) who began his studies at the University of Prague but completed them at Paris (Kopičková, 2005: 91). Flacius reports that Matthias wrote this preface in the year 1389, a little while before Jan Huss (Flacius, 1555: 1).9

De periculis immediately follows Matthias of Janov’s preface. Michel-Marie Dufeil has identified the version of the text printed by Flacius with the ‘fourth family’ of manuscripts of De periculis, constituting the ‘Parisian recension’ of the text (1972: 242, 276, n.157).10 More recently, Martina Hartmann has identified a manuscript of Matthias of Janov’s introduction to De periculis at Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, that contains detailed instructions by Flacius for publication and is quite probably part of the printer’s copy for Antilogia papae.11 In his instructions to the printer, Flacius states that ‘I would like to place this beginning before the book of William of Saint-Amour On the Dangers of the World, and have the title changed to that of the entire school of Paris’ (Hartmann, 2001: 240).12 In the preface to De periculis, Matthias of Janov states clearly that the Masters of Theology at Paris had compiled the work; likewise, Flacius does not attribute De periculis to William and ascribes it rather to ‘the school of Paris … written in the year 1389’ (Flacius, 1555: 1).13 It would thus appear that Flacius wanted to suppress William’s authorship of the text and that he possessed little knowledge of its context within the secular/mendicant conflict that embroiled the University of Paris in the 1250s.14 Nevertheless, Flacius included it to highlight the dangers facing the Church contained therein and the perceived failure of papal leadership to deter the said dangers.

Immediately following De periculis in Antilogia papae is a text Flacius identifies as ‘the Articles of the Parisian scholars against monks from an ancient codex’ (1555: 137).15 This piece emanated from the University of Paris at the height of its first period of the secular/mendicant controversy there in 1255 during William’s tenure as university proctor. It is a letter addressed to the Bishops of Auxerre and Orléans, whom Pope Alexander IV had empowered to oversee the Dominicans’ reintegration into the University (Denifle and Chatelain, 1889: 285–286), detailing why the friars should not be readmitted (Flacius, 1555: 137–141).16 These Articles identify seven reasons why the University should not accept the friars; they conform so closely to William’s written corpus that William likely composed the letter himself. What is noteworthy here is that Flacius has transformed the friars into monks although the Articles explicitly state that they were written contra fratres. After these Articles, Flacius inserts eight propositions composed by Pope John XXII against the Franciscans whom Flacius identifies as monks; he had obviously placed them there to continue the anti-monastic theme (142–143).17 After these statements, Flacius introduces two sermons, both of which he attributes directly to William: De pharisaeo et publicano and then his sermon on the Feast Day of Saints Philip and James, Qui amat periculum (144).18 Flacius based his edition of the Articles of the Parisian scholars and the two sermons on the Wolfenbüttel manuscript under consideration here.19

In the next year, Flacius published his Catalogus testium veritatis (Catalogue of Witnesses to the Truth), a quasi-hagiographical work which formed the core of the program of the Magdeburg Centuriators. He reprinted it in 1562.20 This work not only traced the history of Christian witnesses but also incorporated heterodox people and groups who assailed the pope as the Antichrist and faced persecution because of it. Its strength lies not in its organization but rather in its content; it comprises a collection of writings and biographical narratives of individuals as witnesses to attest to the continual presence of the evangelical truth in all centuries of Church history.21 Thus, what he produced was a Lutheran historical enterprise to trace the history of the ‘true’ Church.

In his entry for ‘William of Saint-Amour’ in the Catalogus, Flacius notes that he was a master of Paris and a canon of Beauvais who flourished about three hundred years ago, around the year 1250 (1562: 468).22 Flacius states that William had preached (concionari) a sermon (concio) which focused exclusively on the sin of hypocrisy, neglecting every other sin, and emphasized how it had permeated the world; his detractors had accused him before the pope and prelates (468).23 This sermon in question is obviously Qui amat periculum, which states as much in its protheme (Traver, 2003: 156). Flacius continues by claiming that William

William expounds, he continues, in thirty-nine signs that the mendicants are pseudoapostles (1562: 468). But Flacius laments that no matter how much truth William had proposed, he was nevertheless condemned as a heretic by the Antichrist and his crowd, and was consequently proscribed (469).25 Flacius explains that William wrote many works against monks, including his Collectiones catholicae26 and another he identifies as the Forty Signs of the Pseudoapostles (469).27 Flacius then mentions Matthew Paris — this time the 13^th century chronicler — and most of his knowledge about William seems to derive from his Chronica majora. He explains that Matthew Paris wrote at that time that there were disputes between the University of Paris and monks, both because the latter were oppressing the studium and because of a certain new book, which he assures his readers was very full of errors (1562: 469),28 that the monks had compiled and called the Eternal Gospel (469). He then recounts that the University had selected six representatives to send to Rome, one of whom was William, to complain to the pope about the monks’ insolence and errors (469).

Matthew Paris, however, reported that the University had selected six delegates to plead its case against the reintegration of the Dominican Order in Rome (Luard, 1880: 598–599; Flacius, 1562: 469).29 Also, when Matthew recounted the scandal caused by the Eternal Gospel, he attributed the work’s creation not to monks but to fratres (Luard, 1880: 599). A Franciscan lector at Paris, Gerard of Borgo San Donnino, had circulated a work in 1254 entitled Liber introductorius evangelii aeterni.30 Basing his work on a radical conception of Joachim of Fiore’s Trinitarian concept as an historiographical model, Gerard prophesied a third age in the Church, an age of the Holy Spirit, which would be accompanied by a new Eternal Gospel that would supplant the old and new dispensations.31 The secular theologians at Paris utilized the Introductorius to its fullest polemical capacity in their own academic quarrel with the friars, and had a list of errors extracted from it sent to Pope Innocent IV in 1254 who appointed a three-man commission of cardinals to examine the work.32 His successor Alexander IV had it condemned and excommunicated all those who possessed a copy of it.33 The University representatives arrived at Rome and both Matthew Paris and Matthias Flacius recount that the papacy condemned the work silently lest the mendicants, or in Flacius’ case, monks, be tarnished (Luard, 1880: 600; Flacius 1562: 469).

Flacius then declares that there is a book called On the Dangers of the World; he provides an incipit for it, states that it had been written against monks, and remarks that some ascribe it to William (1562: 469).34 But Matthias of Janov, Flacius states, ‘inserts the whole of this writing into his lengthy volume against the Antichrist and attributes it to the entire school of Paris’ (1562: 496).35 And De periculis does appear in tract five, distinction ten, chapter eleven of Kybal’s edition of Matthias of Janov’s Liber de antichristo.36 Flacius explains that from the time of its composition, De periculis had circulated as a product of many authors (1562: 496).37 He then relates that the misattribution of De periculis to one individual stems as a ploy by the papists. He details how they later ascribed De periculis to William rather than an entire school in an attempt to diminish the work’s authority (496).38 For that reason, Flacius makes clear that when he published the work in 1555, he preferred to retain both the name and title of ‘Schola parisiensis’ (496).39

He revisits some of this information in his entry for ‘Schola Parisiensis’ in the Catalogue, stating again that ‘Matthias…sets forth the complete and learned writings of the school of Paris against monks, especially mendicants,’ but he dates the work here to 1255 (1562: 527).⁴⁰ Again, reconsidering its attribution to William, Flacius further declares that not only does Matthias of Janov ascribe this work to the school of Paris, but its preface also states very clearly that the school of Paris had composed this work. He then unexpectedly adds that ‘[i]t may well be that William wrote that text for the school when he was one of its chief theologians’ (527).41 For, he explains, it is necessary for one person to write the work, even if it is written with the name and consent of many (527).

Returning to his entry on William, Flacius tells us that he has in his possession William’s work against monks and two sermons (conciones) written against monks. In the first sermon, De pharisaeo et publicano, Flacius explains that William had presented the Pharisees as monks and the Publicans as the laity. Because the latter acknowledge their sins, they may more easily obtain forgiveness, whereas the former, confident in their own righteousness, find it more difficult to do so. In the second sermon, Qui amat periculum, Flacius notes that he had warned that a very grave danger threatened the Church by monks (1562: 469).42 He explains that many others agreed with William that monks should not enter parishes to fulfill pastoral functions uninvited. He then lists a roster identifying the Glossator Bernard Parmensis and the theologians Godfrey of Fontaines, Henry of Ghent, John of Pouilly, Richard Fitzralph, and Nicholas of Cusa explicitly as examples.

Flacius has a certain hesitancy linking De periculis to William, which is particularly surprising since he stated that William proved that the mendicants were pseudoapostles in thirty-nine signs and the edition of De periculis he included in Antilogia papae contains thirty-nine signs to identify false Apostles from true ones. His Catalogue though shows a greater familiarity with the secular/mendicant conflict at Paris than his Antilogia papae since the former work dates De periculis to 1255 and contains an entry for William’s associate Lawrence the Englishman (Laurentius Anglicus) (1562: 470).43 It also successfully places William into a larger ecclesiological tradition by noting that William did have followers of his teachings and by identifying other theologians who asserted that regulars needed to obtain parochial and diocesan permission before performing pastoral activities in their jurisdictions.

Flacius’ interest in William derives largely from the fact that he views the secular theologian as a witness persecuted and proscribed by the pope. But what is significant here is that Flacius has turned William’s opponents from the mendicant orders into monks, and in the process, has completely rewritten the entire secular/mendicant conflict at Paris in the 1250s. The compilers of the Eternal Gospel have now become monks and the University delegation sent to Rome to protest the reentry of the Dominicans was now sent to complain about the errors and impudence of monks. The Articles of the Parisian Scholars, which Flacius probably did not know that William had written, now also targeted monks. Furthermore, Flacius states that William attacked all monks and has completely revised his literary corpus to make it all anti-monastic in nature. He reports that William wrote De periculis, the two sermons De pharisaeo et publicano and Qui amat periculum, and his Collectiones catholicae all against monks. Flacius has thus transformed William from a 13^th century adversary of the mendicant orders into a virulent Proto-Protestant opponent of monasticism to give him additional contemporary relevance and make him a medieval witness to the truth.

Flacius had a copy of two of William’s sermons. The only manuscript in the Herzog August Library that contains William’s sermons is the codex Guelf. 367 Helmstedt, and, as we have seen, Flacius used this manuscript for the editions of the Articles of the Parisian scholars and the two sermons printed in his Antilogia papae.44 Upon closer inspection of this manuscript, one can see that it is comprised of nine separate fascicles or portions of manuscript material containing a historical and theological miscellany of materials written between the 13th and 15th centuries. The compiler of the manuscript catalogue for the collection, Bertram Lesser, suspects that Flacius himself, or one of his associates, took these portions of this manuscript from the context of their original transmission and put them into their present sequence (Lesser, 2022). This manuscript, and at least two others Lesser has identified at the Herzog August Library, are ‘Flacian compilations’ in which Flacius or his collaborators removed portions of manuscripts, created composite texts that suited their cause, and annotated them heavily (Lesser, 2022). These ‘Flacian compilations’ once again call into question Flacius’ personal treatment of manuscripts, and do in themselves suggest the existence of a cultellus flacianus to separate needed texts from their original transmission. Two manuscripts of these assemblages, Guelf. 367 Helmstedt and Guelf. 431 Helmstedt, reveal Flacius’ goal to demonstrate the existence of evangelical truth throughout the medieval period. These collections contain a random mixture of theological treatises, including sermons and scriptural commentaries, works about the Waldensians, heresy in general, and conciliar material — particularly texts pertinent to the Councils of Constance and Basel — all works which the Reformers could use to demonstrate the continuity of truth throughout the period.

Since Lesser has provided an excellent manuscript description in extenso for Guelf. 367 Helmstedt, I shall only present an abbreviated version here. The manuscript Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Guelf. 367 Helmstedt, hereafter referred to as W, is paper and parchment, 260–285 × 190–210 mm, and contains eighty-three folios. As we have seen, it is a miscellany collection of portions of nine different manuscripts copied between the 13th and 15th centuries and assembled into a volume in the 16th century. Interspersed throughout the manuscript are marginal annotations made by Flacius and others, which direct the reader to relevant passages and pagination of the 1562 edition of the Catalogus testium veritatis. Part One (ff. 1r–2v) of the manuscript is paper, from a northern Italian provenance, dating from the third quarter of the 15th century. It contains letters to and by Isotta Nogarola and part of an unidentified oratio humanistica. Part Two (ff. 3ra–8vb) is parchment, copied in northeastern France in the first half of the 13th century. It contains portions of books two and three of Alan of Lille’s De fide catholica directed against Waldensians and Jews. Part Three (ff. 9r–13v) is paper, from a probable Bohemian provenance, and copied c. 1480. It preserves a sermon by John Huss preserved by Stanislaus of Znaim (c. 1360–1414), identified by Flacius as a concio Huss in the header of f. 9r, and a portion of a Hussite letter (f. 13r–v) from Ondřej z Brodu’s (d. 1427) Litterae ‘eloquenti viro.’ Part Four (ff. 14r–15v) is paper, from a south German provenance, and copied c. 1390. It contains Pope Gregory XI’s bull Plurium fidedignorum, issued on 13 January 1374, which officially condemned twelve articles attributed to the Bohemian preacher Jan Milíč of Kroměříž. The rubric in the header of f. 14r ‘Bulla Gregorii contra Militizium. Vide Flacium Catal. Testium Veritatis pag. 525’ directs the reader to the corresponding entry for Jan Milíč in the Catalogus (Flacius, 1562: 525–526). Part Five (ff. 16r–17r) is paper, from a northern German provenance, and copied in the second quarter of the 15th century; it contains two low German poems. Folio 17v is blank. Part Six (ff. 18r–26v) is paper from a southern German provenance, written c. 1445 and contains three texts. The first work (ff. 18r–26v) of Part Six is a treatise of Nicholas of Cusa against the Council of Basel (Tractatus … contra defensores scimatis Basilee) given at Frankfurt on 21 June 1442; the second text (ff. 27r–29r) is a notice on the grievances of the German nation and the reformation of the church. The note on the header of f. 27r ‘Vide Catalogum Testium Veritatis pag. 312’ corresponds to the text of the Catalogus (Flacius, 1562: 312–317). Folio 29v is blank, while the third work of Part Six (ff. 30r–v) contains a notice by Herman Talheim for ecclesiastical reform and the calling of a new Church council (Avisamentum super reformatione ecclesie facienda et celebratione concilii generalis). Part Seven (ff. 31ra–38v) is paper and parchment, written in southern Germany c. 1460. Folio 31r contains part of Henry of Langenstein’s (1325–1397) De distinctione horarum; folios 31va–38rb include his letter about Hildegard of Bingen’s prophecies concerning future dangers in the Church and f. 38v comprises extracts of Heinrich Toke’s Rapularius. The note on the header of f. 38v ‘Haec Flacius … curavit in Catalogo Testium Veritatis pag. 210’ directs the reader to the relevant passages in the Catalogus (Flacius, 1562: 210). Part Eight (ff. 39r–76v) is paper of central German provenance from the second half of the 15th century. Folios 39r–75r contain Dietrich of Niem’s (1345–1418) Chronica sive privilegia aut iura imperii; the notations ‘Haec Catalogo Testium Veritatis inseri curavit Flacius…’ on f. 41v and ‘Hucusque publicavit Flacius’ on f. 46r correspond to pages 204 to 210 of Flacius’ Catalogus. Folios 75r–76r preserve a letter of Charles I of Sicily to Peter III of Aragon and the latter’s response, while folio 76v comprises portions of Dietrich of Niem’s Catalogue of popes.

But of particular interest here is Part Nine of W (ff. 77ra–83vb) containing the material relevant to William of Saint-Amour. This section was written in northern France between 1280–1330 in one hand in a small, heavily abbreviated semitextualis script (Lesser, 2022). Flacius, or possibly one of his assistants, annotated it in the header on folio 77r as: ‘Duae conciones Wilhelmi de S. Amore & articuli scholasticorum Parisiensium contra monachos’ (Lesser, 2022).45 As we have seen earlier, throughout his entry for ‘William of Saint-Amour’ in his Catalogus (Flacius, 1562: 468–470) and on folio 9r of W in reference to Jan Huss, Flacius uses the word concio as a synonym for sermon rather than the more familiar translation as ‘discussion’ or ‘dispute.’46 What is unclear, however, is whether the ‘Duae conciones’ in question refer to the two sermons De pharisaeo et publicano and Qui amat periculum that appear later in Part Nine (ff. 78vb–83vb) of manuscript W or to the first two pieces contained in Part Nine (f. 77ra–va) immediately preceding the Articles of the Parisian scholars (f. 77va–vb). And indeed, although identified as a sermon in the manuscript catalogue, the first item under consideration here on folio 77ra–b, as we shall see, reads more like a biblical commentary. Below the header on f. 77rb, another 16^th century hand has written ‘Vide Catalogum Testium Veritatis p. 469.’ Pages 468–470 of the 1562 edition of the Catalogus testium veritatis contain the entry for William of Saint-Amour.

Part Nine of W was actually compiled from two separate portions of the same manuscript. The first portion of Part Nine contains the Articles of the Parisian scholars and includes a folio and a halved folio or column of text. The folio had the late medieval foliation of 107 (CVII) but Flacius or an associate refoliated it as folio 77; the halved folio contains no foliation but the manuscript cataloguers have identified it as f. 77ar. Only the recto side contains text. The second section of Part Nine of W contains William’s sermons; it had the original foliation of 148–153 (CXLVIII–CLIII) and was refoliated as 78–83. So someone — probably Flacius — removed two different portions of a manuscript that contained material pertinent to the secular/mendicant conflict at Paris in the 1250s separated by forty-one folia, combined them, added the note ‘Duae conciones Wilhelmi de S. Amore & articuli scholasticorum Parisiensium contra monachos,’ appended them to Parts One to Eight of manuscript W, and refoliated them as part of a new compilation of extracts from manuscripts.

But how and where did Flacius find this material? In his correspondence to Caspar von Niedbrück dated 4 April 1555, Flacius claimed to have seen a volume of William’s works at St. Andrew’s Library in Braunschweig (Bibl, 1899: 91–94).47 Flacius found refuge in Braunschweig in winter and spring 1546–7 during the closure of the University of Wittenberg; during this time, he taught there and made use of St. Andrew’s Library (Ilić, 2014: 116; Olson, 2011: 68–70). He also, it appears, detached folia from a manuscript at St. Andrew’s, now lost, that once contained further material relative to the conflict between the secular and the mendicant masters at the University of Paris in 1255–56 in which William played a major role.

We know much about the literary activities of William at that time because of a document edited by Edmond Faral entitled the Responsiones (1950–1951: 337–394).48 This text is an extensive report of the deliberations of the papal commission delegated to examine William’s works. Although it reads like the minutes of the cardinals’ examination of William — as it contains both the cardinals’ questions and William’s responses — it was clearly composed after his condemnation either by William himself or one of his circle. The obvious intent of this work, as witnessed by William’s adroit and detailed responses to the committee’s questions, was to persuade the reader that the commission had wrongfully punished him.49

This work is extremely important for the study of William’s life and career as it summarizes his writings for the period. It also indicates that William’s corpus was originally much more extensive than the extant body of literature would suggest. As an example, he acknowledges having preached seven sermons, while only three exist today.50

Upon further examination of Part Nine of manuscript W, it contains additional information which both precede and proceed the Articles of the Parisian scholars and precede William’s sermons that Flacius did not print. This first portion of Part Nine begins with a short sermon or perhaps a commentary on King Herod and then transitions to the aureola or the exceptional prize given to a select few51 (f. 77ra–rb, original foliation CVII). Although it begins with a complete sentence, it has no initial rubric nor any introductory material to indicate the start of a new text; it may have, in fact, been separated mid-text from a portion of the Braunschweig manuscript that Flacius did not detach. A brief sermon on peace within the Church (f. 77rb–va) then follows; the Articles of the Parisian scholars (f. 77va–vb) and a short theological treatise concluding on the recto portion of the halved folio (ff. 77vb–77ar) then complete the first portion of Part Nine of W.

The second portion of Part Nine opens with what Lesser has identified as two sermons on St. Thomas the Apostle (f. 78ra, f. 78ra–vb, original foliation CXLVIII). The first incomplete sermon begins abruptly on folio 78ra with the word ‘originis’ and then concludes on f. 78ra with the explicit: ‘et tunc magna eis fuit confusio audire dyabolum.’ Following the rubic ‘Item de eodem,’ the second sermon continues from f. 78ra–vb. It begins: ‘Dominus meus et Deus meus.52 Sicut dictum est verbum istud…’ and ends on f. 78vb with the explicit: ‘et sic patet in verbo proposito quid credendum ex parte divinitatis et quid ex parte humanitatis.’ It is an extensive discussion of the seven attributes of Christ’s humanity, comparing each aspect with the Creed. Folios 78vb–81ra (original foliation CXLVIII–CL) contain William of Saint-Amour’s sermon De pharisaeo et publicano; it is identified by the notation ‘Sermo Magistri Wilchelmi’ written in the same hand as the text. His sermon Qui amat periculum follows (ff. 81ra–83vb, original foliation, CLI–CLIII). The incipit on f. 81ra reads: ‘Sermo Magistri Wilchelmi de sancto amore in die Philippi et Iacobi.’ The explicit on f. 83vb reads: ‘Sermo ab heretico et predicationis scilicet Wilhelmo de sancto amore explicit.’ What is this additional material found in these two fascicles of Part Nine of W and why did Flacius not print it? I shall concentrate on the first four items found in this first portion of Part Nine of manuscript W.

Folio 77ra opens with the first sermon; it extends a column and a half to the rubric of the second sermon entitled De Gog et Magog. It has suffered severe damage, probably in the form of homeoteleuton. It has no clear structure, contains many illogical sequences, and although is not even a column and one-half in length, it examines several unrelated themes. It begins by recounting the martyrdom of John the Baptist. It first notes that while King Herod had John imprisoned, his wife Herodias procured his execution. It assigns the cause of John’s death to her pleasure and Herod’s reluctance to confess the sin that he committed in marrying his brother’s wife. It then attributes this incarceration and death to effeminate traits (effeminatis), citing the Prophet Nahum’s warning about the fate of Nineveh — that the troops protecting the city are but a pack of women. It next remarks that Solomon in his day could only find one good man in a thousand worth his name, and not one good woman, highlighting the fact that good men are rarely begotten.

It then claims that Herod signifies those who are praised in this world by their brother. It describes his wife Herodias as ‘glory’ since she gives glory to all of our works; it continues that just as a wife is indissolubly joined to her husband, so too is the glory of all our good works indissolubly bound to Christ, and ought to be ascribed to him. Herod, however, attributed the glory which he received from his deeds to himself rather than God, and this made him, and those like him, hypocrites; this comparison between Herod and hypocrisy reappears in William’s later work, the Liber de antichristo.53

It further notes that John had taught that no one could marry his brother’s wife (Holy Bible, Mc. 6:17). But after Herodias heard this admonition, she ordered John’s decapitation. It too labels Herodias a hypocrite, for her inability to endure the truth.

In an abrupt break, the text then exhorts that God forbid that any such pleasure of this type existed in ‘ista beata virgine.’ The virgin in question refers to the Virgin Mary, but it is unclear how it made the jump from Herodias to Mary. The most probable explanation is homeoteleutic error and that the manuscript’s scribe jumped from either the word ‘hypocrita’ or the phrase ‘Sed absit’ to its counterpart a few passages down. Somewhere in the missing portion it made some type of contrast between Herodias and Mary, which is now missing in the manuscript.

It next compares Mary to a quote from Ecclesiasticus: just as the sun rises to God in the highest, so too is the species of a good woman an ornament for her home (Holy Bible, Eccli. 26:21). And as the sun, when it rises, eliminates darkness and adorns the world with light, the species of a good woman is her honest way of life as an ornament for her home. Using the interlinear gloss as a guide, it defines the good woman in question as Mary and the house as the entire Church.54

It then compares her to the passage from Apocalypse 12:1 which narrates the appearance of the woman veiled with the sun, wearing a crown of twelve stars and treading upon the moon; she would bring forth the male child to rule the world with a rod of iron.55 It uses the example of this woman to extol the perfect life of the Virgin. The sun represents Christ, and then a citation is added from Malachi which identifies the Lord as the sun of righteousness (Holy Bible, Mal. 4:2). Mary was therefore clothed in the conservatio Christi. The fact that the Virgin has the moon underneath her feet shows that she rejected secular trappings and the mutability of the world. The circular crown represents apostolic doctrine — which like a crown, has neither a beginning nor an end — since evangelical truth even existed in the Old Testament sub figuris. It then defines her as a doctor, and as such, she has merited the aureola. While the aurea is the special reward given to blessed souls,56 the aureola is an exceptional reward given to the souls of specific individuals for some privileged work: this group includes doctors, virgins, and martyrs (Riballier (ed.), 1987: III, 426). Since she was a doctor, virgin, and martyr, she deserves the triple aureolam in patria.

While this short piece has little immediate bearing on the seculars’ university quarrel with the mendicants, it does nevertheless feature two relevant themes. First, one can see the focus on hypocrisy; William develops this theme throughout his polemical works of 1256, particularly in De periculis. As we have seen, he devotes his sermon Qui amat periculum specifically to this issue. His sermon Si quis diligit me warns that the devil operates primarily through the sin of hypocrisy; it also suggests that the multiplication of religious habits, such as those seen in Francia, may have been instigated by the devil through hypocrisy (Traver, 2003: 182–183). His entire sermon De pharisaeo et publicano treats the issue of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (Traver, 2003: 191–205).

Second, its insistence on the eternity of apostolic doctrine may be construed as an attack on the doctrines of Gerard’s Liber introductorius, which had predicted the collapse of the traditional Church structure in 1260. In this year, he claimed, a new Church dominated by barefoot spiritual men would soon take control of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. William’s attacks on Gerard’s Introductorius reappear in varying degrees through a large part of his corpus, including De periculis, his sermons Qui amat periculum and Si quis diligit me, his responses to Bonaventure’s disputed question De mendicitate, his Liber de antichristo, and his Collectiones catholicae.57 The second sermon of this manuscript explicitly mentions the doctrines of the Introductorius.

This second sermon continues for a column and a half (f. 77rb–va); it has a more direct bearing on recent events at Paris than the first. This one concerns the satanic beings Gog and Magog and seeks to discern those who want to disrupt or destroy peace within the Church. William revisits this theme and expounds it further in Distinction Three of his Collectiones catholicae (Alitophilius, 1632: 322–323). As its theme, it cites a Psalms citation, Seek after peace and pursue it (Holy Bible, Ps. 33:15); it states that there are four points to be noted: what is this peace, who ought to seek after and pursue it, who keeps this peace, and what disturbs or impedes this peace. It denotes that there are three impediments to peace within the Church; it enumerates them as a tertia lingua (the tongue of a third person), Gog and Magog, and the concupiscence of the Church’s members. These three impediments form the structure of this sermon.

It first defines tertia lingua as the language of a detractor. The detractor destroys the peace between the one whom he has maligned and the one who has listened to his gossip. It then speculates on which offense is worse: to slander or to listen to a slanderer. It concludes that both are great sins and one cannot easily determine which is worse.58

It next speculates that the phrase ‘lingua tertia’ could refer to doctrine which is created anew, namely novel teachings which are professedly opposed to the faith. To elucidate this point, it provides some examples of this doctrine, all of which come either from the University of Paris’ list of errors culled from Gerard’s Introductorius or the cardinals’ report on the work: the power and dignity of Peter and his successors is called the Babylonian Empire,59 the sacrament of the eucharist will soon cease,60 and our faith will shortly be emptied. It then warns that these teachings are even now being preached and need to be resisted.

Next, it announces that the peace of the Church is being thwarted by Gog and Magog; their race (gens) seeks to multiply itself to disturb the world throughout the four quarters of the earth. It comments that Augustine treated a question on whether a race could multiply itself to disrupt the entire world. Augustine, however, concluded negatively but argued that one had to examine the significance of the words Gog and Magog: Gog means covered (tectum); Magog, uncovered (detectum).61 They both signify, therefore, those who hide in the pretext of sanctity and cover their evil with a feigned appearance of honesty. As long as they are unknown, they are Gog. When their true appearance is revealed, they are Magog. After having distanced itself from the statement by noting that they are the words of Augustine, and not its own,62 the text then hints that both Gog and Magog could be witnessed today by their false appearance of sanctity,63 and not only at Paris, but also throughout the entire Church.64

The third impediment to peace within the Church, the concupiscence of its members, is treated briefly. It cites a passage from the epistle of James asking the question: ‘What causes conflicts and quarrels among you? Do they not spring from the aggressiveness of your bodily desires?’ It simply states that it will say nothing of it for the moment.65

This second sermon provides clear evidence that the doctrines of Gerard’s Liber introductorius were very present in the academic conflict. Indeed, through its overt mention of Paris, the author identifies the milieu from which the sermon arose. Moreover, the use of Gog and Magog as apocalyptic signifiers for the mendicants will appear again in an expanded format, not only in the Collectiones catholicae, but also in the Liber de antichristo.66

The second sermon is followed by marginal rubric ‘Exceptiones scholarium Parisiensium contra fratres’ on f. 77va written in the same 16^th century hand as ‘Vide Catalogum Testium Veritatis p. 469’ on f. 77rb. A notation in calce written in the same hand as the text reads: ‘Hec sunt exceptiones scolarium contra fratres.’ The Articles of the Parisian scholars follow (f. 77va–vb).67

The first reason the University provides for not admitting the friars claims that membership into an association ought to be voluntary and cannot be obtained by force; William repeats this claim almost verbatim in his Responsiones (Faral, 1950–1951: 345). Second, the masters assert that to readmit the friars into the University would be dangerous; the latter have already influenced the studium in many injurious and perilous ways.68 Third, they allege that the manner of life of the mendicants differs so greatly from theirs that it would be impossible for them to enter the same academic association. Reason four cautions that if the Parisian masters did readmit the friars, they would be acting contrary to the Apostle’s admonition in Romans 16:17–18 not to allow dissenters in their midst (Geltner, 2008: 92; CUP I: 293), especially since these imposters serve their stomachs rather than God (Traver, 1995: 342),69 and use contrived words to deceive the simple through their sermons (Alitophilius, 1632: 226; Geltner 2008: 92).70 All of these same assertions and their scriptural references appear throughout William’s De periculis, his disputed questions, and his Collectiones catholicae. Reason five reappears in toto with little modification in the Responsiones. It argues, on the basis of Paul’s second epistle to Timothy, that the friars are pentetrantes domos; they enter the homes of the faithful and probe the qualities and consciences of men (Faral, 1950–1951: 345). Such intruders represent the heralds of the Last Times as the Apostle had predicted, and are especially to be avoided. These accusations are common stock phrases employed by William and appear frequently throughout De periculis and his sermons.71

The sixth reason for refusing the mendicants’ reentry into the University states that the local clergy have never examined the friars. Since they are not bishops, parish priests, or opitulatores or helpers mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians (Holy Bible, 1 Cor. 12:28), they have no ecclesiastical jurisdiction; it further warns that they may in fact be pseudo-prophets — a claim which appears with a large degree of frequency throughout William’s corpus.72 The final reason why the friars cannot be reintegrated into the University cautions that they are far too curious about other people’s affairs and spiritual works.73 Their excessive curiosity is unfortunate, since they are neither Apostles nor parochial clergy.74 Based on idiom, common expressions, and authorities, it is clear that William, probably in his capacity as the University’s proctor, authored this letter himself.

Immediately following this letter (ff. 77vb–77ar) is a short theological treatise highlighting biblical passages that contain the word ‘milk.’ The structure is based loosely on 1 Peter 2:2, but it has no thematic core except for its focus on the children of God and the usage of different types of milk: spiritual milk, the milk of innocence, of Scripture, of tribulation, of internal consolation, and of eternal sweetness. In fact, the passage reads like a sequence of biblical exempla that all contain the word lac in some form or another.

It notes, citing the first epistle of Peter, that young boys strive to preserve those things which pertain to the conduct of life, and it calls this ‘rational milk without guile,’ (Holy Bible, 1 Pet. 2:2) stating that a child that does not want to suckle is ill. It recites a story in Josephus narrating how the daughter of the pharaoh had Egyptian women brought in and Moses did not want to drink their milk. The sister of Moses then summoned a Hebrew woman and Moses suckled the milk of his mother (Blatt, 1958: 199). It refers to Egyptian milk as the ‘sweetening of guilt’ and advises that it is not to be suckled.75 Noting that even whales draw out their breasts to suckle their young (Holy Bible, Lam. 4:3), and labeling this milk the ‘milk of flattery,’ it cites Proverbs 16:29 warning that a wicked man will lead his neighbor down the wrong path. It labels this the milk of transitory pleasure.76

In this vein, it discusses scriptural justification for the milk of innocence, the milk of Scripture, the milk of tribulation, the milk of internal consolation, and finally the milk of eternal sweetness. Returning to Peter’s first epistle and the theme of spiritual milk without guile, it continues by citing ‘so that you may grow in faith through it’ (Holy Bible, 1 Pet. 2:2), explaining the benefits of spiritual milk for Samuel and John the Baptist. It then begins a division which will characterize much of the mid-portion of the treatise, noting three ways in which we may grow: in the increase of faith and virtue, in the knowledge of Christ, and in the perfection of life.77 After finding appropriate scriptural backing for each of these three reasons, it warns that there are many who do not grow in this manner. Using the example of Reuben from Genesis, who defiled the couch of his father Jacob’s concubine Bilhah, it relates that Jacob cast him out like water (effusus es … sicut aqua), so that neither taste, color, nor smell remained in him. Highlighting the verb effundo, the tract reports that taste remains in spilled wine, color remains in spilled milk, and scent remains in spilled odor. But for those who were cast out like Reuben, neither the taste of internal consolation, nor the odor of good operation, nor the color of a blessed way of life remain. It further warns that some do grow, but not in height, rather in width; these are those who increase their temporal possessions. Those who grow in height, however, augment their heavenly goods.

While the treatise recognizes that the sons of God procure their own salvation, it also states that many secure their own damnation. Advancing to the second epistle of Peter, it recalls that false prophets will bring swift disaster upon themselves (Holy Bible, 2 Pet. 2:1). It next cites Isaiah, reminding its listeners that we do not make our salvation (Is. 46:13). Finally, quoting the Apostle, it remarks that we work for salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12). It next claims that these are the ways in which the children of God are known: with the fear of death and the dread of judgment, or with the fear of sin and terror of the Last Judgment. Although the theological treatise states that there are many other ways to discern the children of God, it will not recite them at the moment.

While William does not cite the relevant biblical passages concerning milk in his known corpus, of special interest is the frequency with which the word occurs in the writings of William’s protégé, Nicholas of Lisieux.78 In his response to the Dominican Thomas Aquinas’ work De perfectione spiritualis vitae (On the perfection of the spiritual life) entitled De perfectione et excellentia status clericorum (On the perfection and excellence of the state of clerics), Nicholas cites the parallel passage 1 Cor. 3:2 frequently.

This citation recurs in Nicholas’ treatise directed against the Franciscan John Pecham and the Dominican Thomas Aquinas appropriately known as Contra Pecham et Thomam:

Moreover, in both of these works, Nicholas cites 1 Peter 2:1, the apparent theme of this tractate.

However, Nicholas develops this theme more explicitly than its counterpart in W. His Liber de ordine preceptorum ad consilia offers six reasons why the mandates should be mastered before the evangelical counsels; reason five states that the mandates precede the counsels just as milk precedes solid food in nutrition. He contrasts the milk of mandates with the solid food of counsels, both to argue that one should be grounded in the commandments before attempting to vow to observe evangelical counsels and to attack the mendicant practice of accepting young boys into religious orders (Bierbaum, 1920: 229).79 While such an approach may be implicit in the manuscript with its reference to pueri Dei and young boys suckling, it is never expressly articulated. The fact that some of the same biblical citations reappear in the works of Nicholas of Lisieux may possibly be an argument in favor of William’s authorship, given Nicholas’ proven tendency to follow his master closely (Glorieux, 1934a: 354; Glorieux, 1934b: 23).

The question remains, however, as to whether William authored these texts contained on folios 77ra–77ar of W. In the case of the first piece about King Herod, it is difficult to determine since a portion of it is missing. The link between Herod and hypocrisy and the insistence on the eternity of evangelical doctrine are topoi used throughout William’s writings, and in all probability serve as a clue to his authorship. The second sermon is almost definitely a product of William due to its recitation of Gerard of Borgo San Donnino’s errors, the fact that the author identifies himself as present in Paris, its shared material in William’s other works, and the many idiomatic phrases and expressions. The university letter protesting the reintegration of the mendicants is undoubtedly a product of William. The theological treatise on milk resembles a florilegium of scriptural citations that Nicholas of Lisieux later incorporated into his own writings.

What then is this material and how does it relate to William’s literary career? It is unlikely that any of these short pieces comprise any of William’s lost sermons identified in the Responsiones. Due to the content of the matter contained in the folios 77ra–77ar and the recurring themes of hypocrisy, those who feign sanctity, and Gerard’s Liber introductorius — all topics that would have been familiar to a Parisian audience in 1255/6 — it seems likely that William wrote and/or preached this material probably in the 1255–6 academic year at Paris. These brief sermons, the articles, and the theological treatise therefore provide further evidence of professional activity on the part of William before his condemnation.

It is also unlikely that the annotation ‘Duae conciones Wilhelmi de S. Amore’ that Flacius or an associate made in the header of f. 77r refer to the first two items contained on f. 77ra–va of W. Why would Flacius herald two sermons of William and then not print them? It seems more likely that Flacius removed two sections of the lost Braunschweig manuscript, the first one originally foliated 107, containing the Articles of the Parisian scholars, and the second foliated 148–53, comprising William’s two sermons De pharisaeo et publicano and Qui amat periculum, combined them, and simply annotated the header of the first section ‘Two sermons by William of Saint-Amour and Articles by the Parisian scholars against monks.’ In so doing, he kept the additional material surrounding the Articles and the sermons partially intact. And by switching the terminology and turning the fratres into monks, Flacius gave the Articles of the Parisian scholars additional relevance in the 16^th century and used them as a useful Reformation propaganda piece to attack monasticism.

The first two items in Part Nine of manuscript W on folio 77ra–b, regarding King Herod and Gog and Magog and the fourth piece on milk (ff. 77vb–ar) only survive because they circumscribe the Articles of the Parisian scholars (f. 77va–b). Flacius saw the text on f. 107v of the Braunschweig manuscript, detached it, and in so doing preserved the proximate matter. Flacius had no intention of printing the other three pieces since his goal was to publish clear, coherent texts that suited the goals of the Reformers: in this way, the Articles of the Parisian scholars thus bore witness to a perceived period of conflict between monks and scholars at Paris and therefore became a polemical work to question the legitimacy of all monks.

Flacius’ goal was not to publish an opera omnia of William but rather to find select relevant texts by him, as a witness persecuted and proscribed by the pope, that fit his agenda. Flacius identified William as a witness and utilized several of his works as testimonies to bolster the Lutheran case against monasticism. Three hundred years after the first secular/mendicant conflict at Paris, therefore, William’s polemical works could still be reused and repurposed to address very disparate situations.