Thomas M. Izbicki has consistently gone beyond the traditional confines of "medieval history" to explain and illuminate medieval phenomena, so it is appropriate that this volume in his honor brings together a wide array of scholars from different disciplines to consider the themes and implications of his work. While comprised primarily of historians, contributors also hail from political science, theology, and philosophy. The diversity of disciplinary approaches underscores the wide-ranging nature of Izbicki's work and provides a fitting tribute to the breadth of his impact.
The structure of the volume is fairly traditional, with twelve articles thematically organized into four sections, with a contextualizing introduction; appendices including a reflection on Izbicki as a scholar and friend; an Afterward by Izbicki himself (a very nice touch); and a bibliography of his published works. The introduction does a nice job laying out the expectations of the volume, which sets out to "bring into clear focus the intellectual and institutional transitions in Europe that crystallized in the modern era" (4). One of those traditions is the perceived link in Latin Christendom between secularity and modernity, a link that the editors see as still largely informing our discourse on the division between the late medieval and early modern periods.
Section 1 of the volume features three articles by historians examining the theme of heresy and reform. The first, "Pierre d'Ailly: The Trinitarian Dynamics of Personal Reform and Renewal," examines the writings of the fourteenth century French theologian Pierre d'Ailly, and was compiled by Christopher M. Bellito from the notes of Louis Pascoe (who died before finalizing it). It serves as an effective lead-off for the volume and provides a good overview of d'Ailly's beliefs on human dignity and potential (themes that underscore the future articles in the volume). Writing during the Great Schism, d'Ailly saw church unity as necessary for the healthy functioning of Christ's body on Earth; personal efforts of reform were salutary for the individual's soul, but also would make church unity on earth stronger and easier to achieve. Thus, he saw "personal reform as key to all church renewal" and that personal and institutional reforms were inseparable (27).
Thomas A. Fudge follows with an article on competing depictions of Jan Hus entitled "History, Heresy, and Hell: Lateran IV and Dante in the Battle for Jan Hus". Fudge's goal is to give a nuanced depiction of Hus, a figure often obscured by polemic and propaganda, and to do so within the context of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and Dante Alighieri (1315). In this he is largely successful in giving a strong overview of how the reputation and legacy of Hus has been crafted to serve various political and ideological purposes, though the connection to Dante's writings could have come through more clearly.
The final article of this section, "History and Legitimacy in the Dominican Responses to John of Pouilly," by Thomas Turley situates the writings of John of Pouilly, a French theologian of the late-thirteenth and early-fourteenth century, in the ongoing fourteenth century arguments of episcopal versus papal supremacy. Turley does an excellent job laying out the groundwork for the fourteenth century arguments, from the twelfth century decretalists' outlining of episcopal power through the thirteenth century attempts by canonists to grow papal authority. Along the way he demonstrates the differentiated approaches to the argument, with episcopalists largely using historical precedent to support their cases, and pro-papalist mendicants relying primarily on theology. Ultimately theology and historical precedent were brought together in the condemnations of Pouilly's positions.
Section 2, entitled "Transforming Ideas and Traditions," brings together three articles linked by a common thread of intellectual revision. The first article, by co-editor and political scientist Cary J. Nederman, examines the Roman roots in the writings of Ptolemy of Lucca and Marsilius of Padua. Nederman pushes back against the habit of short-changing the Roman influence on medieval thinkers in favor of a resurgent interest in Greek philosophers such as Aristotle. He shows definitively that Ptolemy of Lucca's defense of republicanism, for instance, was influenced by a variety of Roman authors, including Cicero. Marsilius of Padua, in arguing against the pro-papal positions of Ptolemy, relied also on Roman authors (though not as much as Ptolemy) such as Cicero and Sallust. Ultimately, Nederman argues convincingly that Roman authors resonated more than Greek in the fourteenth century European world.
The second and third articles in this section both deal with the connections between revising texts and reform ideology. In her article entitled "Nicholas Cusanus and Lorenzo Valla as Virtual Colleagues: Humanism as Defining" literary philosopher Nancy Struever casts humanism as a frame for enabling revisionist inquiry, a frame that can fit both Cusanus and Valla as reformers.
In her article entitled "
Section 3, entitled "Cusa and Philosophy: Origins and Applications," features
three articles all engaging with the work of Nicholas of Cusa, the fifteenth
century German philosopher and theologian. The first article, by professor of
philosophy Donald F. Duclow examines Cusanus'
The second article, by religious scholar Constant J. Mews, examines Cusa in the context of his predecessors Peter Abelard and Anselm of Havelberg. She shows that Cusa relied heavily on a series of twelfth century thinkers who offered him different ideas than those found in the most commonly cited twelfth century philosopher, Peter the Lombard. So, while Cusa's ideas cannot be traced back to any individual literary source, so we should be aware and cognizant of his diverse foundations and intellectual curiosity.
The final article in section three, historian James Muldoon's "Nicholas of Cusa, the Papacy, and the World Order: Vision and Reality" also places Cusa as straddling the "medieval-modern divide" and saw him (along with the fifteenth century popes) as both embracing the universal mission of the church to bring all of the world under Christianity (though Cusa did not elucidate how that would happen). He shows that, while Cusa considered the theoretical implications of the universalizing mission of the church, the popes were more pragmatic of the problems that they would likely run into, including the encroaching Muslims and the nature of the civilizations whom they were encountering.
The fourth section, "The Great Schism and the Conciliar Option", has three articles spanning the fifteenth to nineteenth centuries. The first article, by historian Joëlle Rollo-Koster, is entitled "The Great Western Schism, Legitimacy, and Tyrannicide: The Murder of Louis of Orléans (1407)." She argues that the growth of the use of the term "usurper" during the schism led to a slippage into a justification for tyrannicide, and uses the murder of Louis of Orléans as an example. Her discussion is interesting and illuminating, though she does not actually discuss the case Louis of Orléans' murder as much as the title would indicate.
Professor of Theology Ian Christopher Levy's article, "Dispensing Against the Apostle: John Wyclif and the Canonists" examines English theologian John Wyclif's reaction against papal claims to grant dispensations. Wyclif relied on a canon stating that popes could not make laws in areas clearly addressed by Christ or the apostles, despite the efforts of the glossator (Johannes Teutonicus) to make it mean the opposite.
The final article, "Henri Louis Charles Maret (1805-1884): Last of the Conciliarists?" by historian Francis Oakley brings the implications of the papal/conciliarist argument into the nineteenth century. He follows Tom Izbicki in seeking to reach beyond the confines of the medieval period to draw connections. He shows that Maret argued against the infallibility of the pope, but also against the unlimited power of church councils. Though, no one had made such an argument about the power of the conciliar movement, he said Popes and bishops both had shares of the divine authority. He argues that in many ways, Maret should be recognized as the last of the conciliarists, and thus a fitting place to end this volume.
The appendices to the volume bring a poignant discussion of Izbicki's career from Gerald Christianson, who approaches it as an opportunity to discuss Izbicki's contributions to intellectual and institutional history. He shows that Izbicki contributed to both sides of the "were the later Middle Ages modern or medieval" debate, and overall gives a very nice overview of Izbicki's importance, leavened with personal anecdotes that give it humanity and context.
The Afterword by Izbicki himself is a lovely touch, and one that more festschrifts should include if possible. He provides a nice overview of the relationship between theory and practice in the topics discussed (a relationship that suffused his career) and he gives a brief overview of his perception of the loss of coherence in the pre-Reformation church.
Ultimately, this volume is a fitting celebration of Thomas M. Izbicki's contributions to our understanding of the later Middle Ages, and the diversity of disciplines represented in the contributions speaks to his cross-disciplinary appeal and importance. With such a wide variety of disciplines and topics covered, the editors had to balance thematic unity and with who would best be able to comment on the work of Izbicki. While it is a trend in edited volumes to try to maintain strict thematic unity, this volume shows the value in allowing a bit of divergence in contributions (perhaps festschrifts lend themselves to such breadth of coverage). The only complaint is that, as this is essentially a festschrift for Thomas M. Izbicki, that should be reflected in the title. Nevertheless, Koch and Nederman have assembled a splendid volume that both does credit to its honoree, and to the myriad subjects that he has investigated over his career.