No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
John Wyclif and the Optics of the Eucharist
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2016
Extract
In a rather unusual opening to one of his sermons John Wyclif remarks:
When I was younger and a wanderer among delights, I assiduously and extensively collected from manuals of optics the properties of light and other truths of mathematics which, upon consideration of the allegorical end of Scripture, I conceived to be contained in it.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1987
References
1 Sermones II p. 384.
2 Workman, H. B., John Wyclif: A Study of the English Medieval Church, 2 vols. (Oxford 1926) I p. 100.Google Scholar
3 Kitāb al-Manāẓir (Book of Optics) of Alhazen (Ibn al-Haytham C965-1039) was translated into Latin in the late twelfth—early thirteenth century, and circulated in the West (as De Aspectibus or Perspectiva), where it became the basis for the optical works of Roger Bacon, John Pecham and Witelo, writing in the 1260s and 70s. Witelo’s Perspectiva was composed C1273. The two were eventually combined in a printed edition, the Opticae Thesaurus, ed. F. Risner, (Basel 1572, reprinted, New York, 1972, with introduction by D. C. Lindberg), the edition cited here.
4 Statuta Antiqua Universitatis Oxoniensis, ed. S. Gibson (Oxford 1931) pp. 234-35.
5 They speken of Alocen, and Vitulon,
And Aristotle, that writen in hir lyves
Of queynte mirours and of perspectives,
As knowen they that han hir bookes herd.
The Squire’s Tale, lines 232-35, in The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, ed. F. N. Robinson (2nd ed. London, 1957) p. 130.
6 Tractatus de Logica III pp. 30 ff, see pp. 51, 61.
7 De Ente Praedicamentali pp. 217-18.
8 Miscellanea Philosophica I pp. 9-18. Cf De Logica 111 p. 40.
9 Problems of quantification: questions of action and alteration (intension and remission of forms) were often discussed by the Mertonians using optical models. See Sylla, E., ‘Medieval Quantifications of Qualities: The “Merton School”’, Archive for the History of Exact Sciences 8 (1971) 9–39, at pp. 24–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar. And cf. Wyclif, De Eni. Praed. pp. 96-7.
10 De Logica (tractatus III, c.vii) II pp. 139, 175-81.
11 Books I—III of the DeAspectibus of Alhazen are devoted primarily to direct vision, books IV-VI to catoptrics, and book VII to refraction. Witelo’s Perspectiva deals, after book I on pure geometry, with direct vision in books II—IV, catoptrics in books V-IX, and refraction in book X.
12 The ‘Opus Majus’ of Roger Bacon, ed. J. H. Bridges, 3 vols. (Oxford 1897-1900), V d.3 c.ii: II p. 162. Cf. De Eucharistia pp. 206 ff. Sermones III, p. 143; Wyclif compares bodily and intellectual vision at De Trinitate p. 110. De Ente. p. 108.
13 Alhazen I 19 (pp. 10-12), Witelo III 18 (p. 93). On Alhazen’s theory of visual pyramids and his point-by-point anlaysis of the visual field, see Lindberg, D. C., Theories of Vision from Al-Kindi to Kepler (Chicago 1976) pp. 71ff.Google Scholar
14 Sermones I p. 204, II p. 403. Cf. Trialogus p. 94.
15 It is unlikely that Wyclif was not familiar with Pecham’s widely read Perspectiva Communis, a digest of Alhazen’s more cumbersome work, which became the standard elementary optical textbook of the later Middle Ages (ed. and tr. D. C. Lindberg, in John Pecham and the Science of Optics (Madison, Wisc. 1970) see pp. 20-32).
16 1) Alhazen III 18 (p. 88), cf. Witelo IV 1 and passim (pp. 118 ff). Wyclif mentions the eight circumstances at Misc. phil. I p. 15, De Trinitate p. 113, Sermones II p. 402. 2) Witelo IV 2 and passim (pp. 118 ff), Alhazen II 15 (p. 34). The term sensibilia communia, used by Wyclif, suggests the influence of Bacon (Alhazen and Witelo prefer the term intentiones). 3) Witelo III 4 (pp. 85-7), Alhazen I 4 (pp. 3-4). 4) Alhazen I 23, 24 (pp. 14-15), Witelo III 5, 6 (pp. 87-8). Alhazen II 1, 2 (pp. 24-5), Witelo III 21 (p. 94); Alhazen I 19 (p. 10), Witelo III 17, 18 (pp. 92-3); Witelo III 46 (pp. 106-7); Witelo III 32 (p. 100); Witelo III 33 (pp. 100-1); Witelo III 44 (pp. 105-6) cf. Alhazen III 10 (pp. 80-1); Alhazen II 8 (p. 29), Witelo III 43 (p. 105).
17 Sermones II pp. 380-92. The text of these two sermons, with minor variations, appears also in Opus evangelicum I pp. 80-90. Various properties of light are allegorized further at Sermones IV pp. 210, 344-55. And cf. Trialogus p. 98, on the mystical nature of shadows.
18 Sermones II p. 386.
19 Also De lineis, De natura locorum, De iride. Wyclif appears to have absorbed Grosseteste’s light metaphysics as completely as he had Augustine’s teaching on light, and though there are passages where Grosseteste may well be the source (De Logica III p. 124, Misc. Phil. I p. 108, Op. Ev. I p. 80, par. 1) it is frequently impossible to separate the two (cf. De Dominio Divino p. 89 ‘lumen supernaturale est forma perfectiva luminis naturalis’).
20 Wyclif sometimes uses this last (the optical law that the angles of incidence and of reflection are equal) to illustrate his not infrequent assertion that nature always acts in the most economical manner: De Trin. p. 55, De Apos. p. 139.
21 De Dom. Div. pp. 187-8, De Civ. Dom. I p. 239, Sermones II pp. 388-9 (Op. Ev. I p. 88), Sermones II p. 402, and see Op. Ev. Ill pp. 138-9 and Sermones III p. 144. See Bacon, Opus majus, ed. Bridges, IV d.4 cxvi: I pp. 216-17, V d.3 c.ii: II p. 163.
22 Opus majus IV d.4 cxvi: I pp. 216-17.
23 De Civ. Dom. I pp. 237-40. Witelo’s seven kinds of mirrors and four causes of error in mirror vision (V 7, 8: p. 19) are also allegorized at Sermones III pp. 244-5. Cf. De Logica III p. 61.
24 De Comp. Horn. p. 90.
25 Trialogus p. 98.
26 Sermones IV pp. 485-6, De Civ. Dom. 1 pp. 376-7.
27 Dialogas sive speculum ecclesie militantis, ‘Speculum secularium dominorum’, in Opera minora pp. 74-91. Bale, Scriptorum Illustrium maioris Brytanniae Catalogus I (Basle 1557) pp. 451-4.
28 Misc. Phil. II pp. 5, 6.
29 De Comp. Horn. pp. 89-90, Sermones IV p. 483, Op. Ev. I p. 52.
30 Wyclif’s metaphor, occurring in his Principiam, differed slightly from the conventional Augustinian Bible-mirror metaphor. See Smalley, B.. ‘Wyclif’s Postilla on the Old Testament and his Principium ’, Oxford Studies Presented to Daniel Callus, OHS NS 16, 1964, 253–96Google Scholar, at p. 295. Smalley notes that she has failed to trace its origin: that it belonged neither to the Augustinian nor to Latin school tradition (‘The Bible and Eternity: John Wyclif’s Dilemma’, JWCI 27 (1964) 73-89, at p. 81). That the origin of the metaphor was scriptural, emerging from Wyclif’s meditation on the text of Sapientia 7:26, is suggested by its occurrence in De Ver. Sac. Scrip. I p. 111). (The mirror of Scripture appears also at De Ver. Sac. Scrip. II p. 200, De Eccies. p. 98, Op. Min. p. 165).
31 De Civ. Dom. 11 p. 68.
32 ‘Septuaginta due questiones … de sacramento eukaristie’, British Library, London, MS Harley 31, fols. 1r-94v, at fols 66v and 68r.
33 De Logica III p. 137.
34 Ibid. Ill p. 62.
35 De Ente p. 289.
36 De Euch. pp. 52 and passim.
37 Ibid. pp. 11, 25.
38 Ibid. pp. 14-15, 29, Sermones I p. 164.
39 Op. Min. p. 249. Cf. De. Eucb. p. 53, De Apos. p. 57, Op. Min. pp. 211-12.
40 De Euch. p. 347.
41 De Logica III p. 138.
42 De Ben. Incar, p. 191.
43 For the text of this passage see Benrath, G. A., Wyclifs Btbelkommentar (Berlin 1966) pp. 369–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44 Sermones IV p. 352.
45 Summa Aurea IV (ed. Paris 1500) fol. 259V.
46 Summa theol. 3.76.3.
47 De Apos. p. 109. Rupert of Deutz, De Divinis Officiis, ed. R. Haacke, CC Continuatiti Mediaevalis 7 (1967) II 5, p. 38.
48 Roger Bacon’s Philosophy of Nature. A Critical Edition, with English Translation, Introduction, and Notes, of ‘De multiplication specierum’ and ‘De speculis comburentibus’, by D. C. Lindberg (Oxford 1983), I c.1, pp. 4-6. I am especially grateful to Dr Katherine Tachau for drawing to my attention Bacon’s language and this passage. For a splendid discussion of species in the context of fourteenth-century theories of cognition, as mediators between object and knower, see her article, ‘The Problem of the Species in medio at Oxford in the Generation after Ockham’, Mediaeval Studies 44 (1982) 394-43.
49 De Euch. pp. 11-12.
50 Ibid. p. 13.
51 Ibid. pp. 19-20.
52 De Logica II pp. 139, 176, 178, Misc. Phil. I pp. 14,15, De Trin. p. 110, De Civ. Dom. I p. 377, De Eccles. p. 436, Sentones II p. 388 (Op. Ev. 1 p.88). Sermones Hip. 245. As applied to the eucharist: De Euch. pp. 13, 20, Sermones p. 462, IV p. 352, De Apos. p. 162.
53 Trialogus p. 272.
54 Lechler, G., John Wycliffe and his English Precursors, tr.Lorimer, P. (2nd ed. London 1884) pp. 339–61Google Scholar, Workman, , John Wyclif II pp. 30–41Google Scholar, Vooght, P. de, Hussiana (Louvain 1960) pp. 292–99Google Scholar, Leff, G., Heresy in the Later Middle Ages, 2 vols. (Manchester 1967) II pp. 549–57.Google Scholar
55 De Euch. p. 271 ‘potest tamen distendi in uno loco et habere aliud esse spirituale in alio tamquam in signo aut virtute, sicut dictum est de rege. Et sic patet de corpore Chrisri, quod est dimensionaliter in celo et virtualiter in hostia ut in signo’. Op. Min. pp. 307-8 ‘ipsa hostia consecrata est in situ quo extenditur verus panis, et non est ibi corpus Chrisri, licet sit figuraliter vel sacramentaliter corpus Chrisri quod est in celo’. And see FZ pp. 115-16, where Wyclif tries to equivocate.
56 De Euch. p. 83; cf. p. 143.
57 Ibid. p. 148.
58 Ibid. p. 219.
59 Ibid. pp. 299-300.
60 Ibid. p. 301. Cf. Witelo IX 43 (pp. 401-2). See also De Statu Inn. (De Mand. p. 490) where Wyclif refers to burning mirrors and alludes to this passage in Witelo.
61 I am indebted to Professor David Lindberg and Professor A. I. Sabra, who explained the meaning of mukephi and drew this to my attention. For an edition of the Latin translation (De Speculis Comburentibus, probably the work of Gerard of Cremona), see Heiberg, J. L. and Wiedemann, E., ‘Ibn al Haitams Schrift über parabolische Hohlspiegel’, Bibliotheca mathematica, 3rd series, 10 (1900-10) 201–37.Google Scholar
62 De Euch. pp. 232-33.
63 Trialogus p. 272.
64 Lines 132 ff. Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, ed. Robinson, p. 129.
65 V d.3 c.iii, ed. Bridges, II pp. 164-5.
66 De Euch. pp. 84-6.
67 De luce seu de inchoationeformarum, in Die Philosophischen Werke des Robert Grosseteste, Bischofs von Lincoln, ed. L. Baur, Beitraäge IX (1912) pp. 51-9, at pp. 54 and passim. I am grateful to Sir Richard Southern for helping me to unravel this passage.
68 Cf. Sermones II p. 382, De Blas. p. 53.
69 Fz p. 353.
70 Cambridge University Library, MS Ff.VI.44, fols. 6Or-139V, at fols. 68v-69r.
71 De Apos. pp. 99-100, 143-45.
72 De Euch. p. 54, De Apos. p. 108.
73 See McLuhan, M., The Gutenberg Galaxy (Toronto 1962) pp. 75Google Scholar and passim.
74 For example, the extramission-intromission problem, of which Wyclif speaks as though it were still controversial (De Logica II p. 179: ‘Vanum tamen est credere…’). Wyclif’s position is that of Alhazen, as taken over by Bacon, Witelo and Pecham: an immaterial visual power goes forth from the eye while material light rays enter it. (See also De Logica II pp. 132, 142, III pp. 84, 138, De Civ. Dom. I p. 239, Trialogus pp. 97-8. And see Lindberg, D. C., ‘Alhazen’s Theory of Vision and its Reception in the West’, Isis 58 (1967) 321–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, and Theories of Vision pp. 58-121.) That the subject was still a live issue is further suggested by the first of two questions dealt with in the chapter De sensationibus, of the Trialogus: Utrum autem sensationes fiunt per extramissiones virtutum ab organis, cum aliis difficultatibus, praetermittis,…’ (pp. 97-8).
75 See Beaujouan, G., ‘Motives and Opportunities for Science in the Medieval Universities’, in Scientific Change, ed. Crombie, A. C. (London 1963) pp, 219–36, at pp. 220 ffGoogle Scholar, and Weisheipl, J. A., ‘Ockham and the Mertonians’, ch. 16 of The History of the University of Oxford I: The Early Oxford Schools, ed. Catto, J. I. (Oxford 1984) pp. 607–58.Google Scholar
76 De lineis angulis et figuris seu defractionihus et reflexionibus radiorum, in Die Philosophischen Werke, ed. Baur, pp. 50-65, at p. 59.