JOHN OF MIRECOURT

Cistercian scholastic theologian of French origin (de Mirecuria, Vosges), often referred to simply as the white monk (monachus albus ); flourished Paris 1345–47. He studied theology at Paris. In 1345 he was a bachelor of theology and wrote a commentary on the Sentences. In 1347 Parisian masters of theology censured 63 propositions from this commentary; later the chancellor, acting on the advice of the masters, condemned 41 of these [Chartularium universitatis Parisiensis, ed. H. Denifle and E. Chatelain, 4 v. (Paris 1889–97) 2:610–614]. To each of these university actions John reacted with an apology justifying his position [Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 5 (1933) 40–78; 192–204]. Two versions of the commentary are extant, but the second seems to be an anonymous compilation based on the first. Neither version has been published. It is most likely that John never became a master in theology.

Two themes are dominant through the commentary, namely, the difficulty of attaining human certitude and the capacity of nature in moral matters. For John, there is little hope of more than mere probability because (1) it is rarely possible to reduce proofs to the basic first principle that contradictories cannot be true at one and the same time, since sense knowledge is deceptive, and (2) God can always intervene miraculously. For him, probability characterizes any statement not known with certainty, or believed by faith, or determined by the Church, or proposed by one whose statement ought not be negated or its opposite affirmed. John's insistence on the probable character of most human knowledge led him to maintain many absurd views as at least equally probable. Agreeing that God's existence is not a per se nota proposition, he maintained that assent to demonstrations of His existence is less meritorious than assent to articles of faith based on charity. He held that God can by His absolute power (potentia absoluta ) command man to hate Him. Moreover, God can be said to be the cause of sin, provided "cause" is restricted to permissive causality. John and many of his contemporaries, notably nicholas of autrecourt, defended disturbingly extreme views for two reasons. They wanted to guarantee unquestionable certitude in knowledge, and they wished to emphasize the unlimited freedom of God. In his two Apologies John carefully explained that he wished to prove merely that outside the data of faith, very few demonstrations are more than probable.

John was influenced by william of ockham, rob ert holcot, and thomas of buckingham; some historians maintain that he was also influenced by the De causa Dei of thomas bradwardine. He had considerable influence on peter of ailly and the development of late medieval nominalism in theology.

Bibliography: john of mirecourt, Commentary on the Sentences (Paris), Biblical Naturalist Manuscript Latin, 15882 (folio 1–184: book 1): Manuscript Latin 15883 (folio 1–94: book 2; folio 95–133: book 3; folio 134–150: book 4). a. birkenmajer, Ein Rechtfertigungsschreiben Johanns von Mirecourt, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, 20.5;(1922). k. michalski, "Die vielfachen Redaktionen einiger Kommentare zu Petrus Lombardus," Miscellanea Ehrle (Rome 1924) 1:219—. a. pompei, Enciclopedia filosofica, 4 v. (Venice-Rome 1957) 2:762.

[j. r. o'donnell]