Bibliography A: medieval texts concerning the Amalricians
A.1 : Jean le Teutonique & Jean de la Chandeleur : Littera Compositionis
ED.: GUÉRARD, B.: Cartulaire de l’Eglise Notre-Dame de Paris (Collection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France: collection des cartulaires de France, no.4) vol.1 (Paris 1850) no.120, pp.113-114.
Dated September 1209. Whether this letter, which concerns presbyter W, may (or may not) be connected to the Amalrician story is discussed in the first and fourth pieces in the section on the Amalrician heresy. I think that it probably is, but I cannot conclusively demonstrate it.
A.2 : Jean le Teutonique : Sermon against the Epicureans of the time
ED.: CAPELLE, Germaine C.: Amaury de Bène, étude sur son panthéisme formel (Bibliothèque thomiste, no.16) (Paris 1932) appendix 1, no.1, p.90.
It does not mention the Amalricians by name, but it is believed to have been preached close to the time of their exposure.
A.3: Fragment from the Preliminary Episcopal Examination in the Paris Diocese
ED.: d’ALVERNY, Marie-Thérèse: Un fragment du procès des Amauriciens;
IN : A.H.D.L.M.A., vol.18 (Paris 1950-51) pp.331-333.
These notes from the interrogations of Johannes de Cones, Odo, Elenandus and Stephanus de la Celle are scribbled in an early 13th-century hand at the end of a 12th-century manuscript, MS. B.N. lat. 2702.
A.4 : The Amalrician Pater Noster
ED.: d’ALVERNY, M-T.: Un fragment du procès des Amauriciens;
IN ; A.H.D.L.M.A., vol.18 (Paris 1950-51) p.330.
Since this paraphrase of the Lord’s Prayer in Old French was added to the same manuscript, MS. B.N. lat. 2702, it was presumably used as evidence in the investigation.
A.5 : The Decree of the Council of Paris
ED.: DENIFLE, H. & CHATELAIN, E.: Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis (Paris 1889) vol.1, no.11 (XI), p.70.
Issued by Pierre de Corbeil, Archbishop of Sens, at the end of the Council of Paris, it condemned named Amalricians and proscribed certain books.
A.6 : A Report of the Council of Paris
ED.: DENIFLE, H. & CHATELAIN, E.: Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis (Paris 1889) vol.1, no.12, pp.71-72.
It contains a succinct catalogue of the Amalricians’ heresies.
A.7 : Garnier de Rochefort (attributed) : Contra Amaurianos
ED.: BAEUMKER, C.: Contra Amaurianos;
IN : Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, Band 24, Heft 5-6 (Münster-in-Westf. 1926).
This tract refuted the teachings of Godinus, or the Godini, point by point. It gives the impression that it was written during the time that they were active. At most it must have been within 5 years of that time because, at the end, the author refused to say anything about their prophecies for spiritual changes in 5 years’ time, as it was stupid to try to predict the future.
A.8 : Guillaume le Breton : Gesta Philippi Augusti, para. 152-155
ED.: DELABORDE, H.F.: Oeuvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton (Société de l’histoire de la France, no.279) (Paris 1882-5) vol.1, pp.230-233.
Guillaume gave a brief biography of Amaury, whom he must have known, and described the capture and some of the teachings of the Amalricians.
A.9 : Robert d’Auxerre : from his Chronicon
IN : Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, vol.26 (Hannover 1882) pp.275-6.
He included a brief history of the Council of Paris. He was probably writing quite soon after the event, as his part of the chronicle finishes in 1211.
A.10 : The Anonymous of Laon : from his Chronicon
IN : BOUQUET, M.: Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, vol.18 (Paris 1822) pp.714E – 715B.
The brief notices on Godinus, the Amalricians, Amaury, David de Dinant and Gautier de Mussy were probably written in 1212-1213, as the execution of Godinus in Amiens was treated as a recent event.
A.11 : Robert de Courçon : From his Regulations for the Schools of Paris
ED.: DENIFLE, H. & CHATELAIN, E.: Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis (Paris 1889) vol.1, no.20, pp.78-79.
Dated August 1215. It prohibited certain studies connected with Aristotle and his commentators, and any studies of the ideas of Amaury, David de Dinant or Mauricius Hyspanus.
A.12 : Sentence of the Fourth Lateran Council
ED.: MANSI, G.D.: Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol.22 (Venezia 1778) col.986.
Dated November 1215. This short personal condemnation of Amaury de Beynes was appended to the chapter concerning some specific Trinitarian errors of the Abbot Joachim.
The plain statement of the condemnation of Amaury with Joachim is also found in:
A.12A : Ex Johannis de Columpna Mari Historiis, book 7, para.147
IN : Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, vol.24 (Hannover 1879) p.281.
A.12B : Ex Chronico Sancti Martini Turonensi
IN : Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, vol.26 (Hannover 1882) p.467.
A.13 : From the Chronicle of Melrose
IN : BOUQUET, M.: Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, vol.19 (Paris 1833) p.250.
A narrative of the end of the Amalricians and Godini.
A.14 : Giraldus Cambrensis : from his Speculum Ecclesiae
ED.: BREWER, J.S.: Giraldi Cambrensis Opera, vol.4 (Rolls Series no.21 d) (London 1873) pp.9-10.
The text, which is in an extremely poor and incomplete state, deals with scholastic prohibitions in France, consequent upon a recent outbreak of heresy.
A.15 : From the Second Continuation of the Chronica Regia Coloniensis
IN : Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, vol.16 (later 18) (Hannover 1880) pp.187-188.
This narrates the success of Raoul de Namur, when he pursued those the chronicler calls Beggini (a name he also uses for Albigensians), so that the Bishop of Paris could have them eliminated. The story bears some similarities to that of Caesarius (A.17). This part of the chronicle ends in 1220.
A.16 : From the Third Continuation of the Chronica Regia Coloniensis
IN : Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, vol.16 (later 18) (Hannover 1880) p.230.
A very brief mention of the end of the Amalricians. This version of the Köln Chronicles covers the same period as does the Second Continuation and ends in 1219.
A.17 : Caesarius von Heisterbach : Dialogus Miraculorum, part 5, chapter 22
ED.: STRANGE, J.: Dialogus Miraculorum (Köln 1851) vol.1, pp.304-307.
Caesarius gathered his collection of stories (in 12 parts, like the 12 baskets of leftovers in the story of Jesus’ feeding of the multitude) to show that God could still intervene in human affairs. Part 5 was concerned with contemporary works of the devil (or demons). His account of the Amalricians’ doctrines and their capture is remarkably detailed. It dates itself 13 years after the event, i.e. in about 1222-23.
A.18 : Albéric des Trois-Fontaines : from the Chronica
IN : Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, vol.23 (Hannover 1874) p.890.
This chronicle was compiled in about 1227-1240 in a Cistercian monastery in Champagne. Its account of the Amalricians is derived from the work of Guillaume le Breton.
A.19 : Henricus Ostiensis : Apparatus in Decretali Gregorii I, 1, 2: “Reprobamus”
ED.: CAPELLE, G.C.: Amaury de Bène, étude sur son panthéisme formel (Bibliothèque thomiste, no.16) (Paris 1932) appendix 1, no.5, p.94.
Enrico di Susa, Cardinal of Ostia, having heard that Amaury might have used Eriugena’s work, went on to give examples of Eriugena’s heretical statements. His commentaries on the decretals were written for Pope Alexander IV (1254-61).
A.20 : Vincent de Beauvais : Two notices from his Speculum Historiale
IN : Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, vol.24 (Hannover 1879):
(a) Book 29, chap.107, p.159; (b) Book 30, chap.64, p.166.
The information comes from Guillaume le Breton’s account and from the condemnation of the Fourth Lateran Council.
A.21 : Aquinas : Summa Theologiae, pars I, quaestio 3, articulus 8
ED.: CARAMELLO, P.: Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologiae, vol.1 (Torino / Roma 1948) p.20.
He mentioned, among possible errors on the immanence of God, that the opinion that God was the formal principle of all things was held by the Amalricians. The work is dated between 1265 and 1273.
A.22 : Martinus Polonus : from his Chronicon Pontificum et Imperatorum
IN : Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, vol.22 (Hannover 1872) p.438.
Martinus Polonus (Martin von Troppau) gave a completely new and different summary of Amalrician doctrine, based upon the Periphyseon of Eriugena. The confusion that this caused is discussed in the chapter entitled Eriugena and the Amalricians. The work is dated c.1268-71.
A.23 : Gaufridus de Collone : from his Chronicon
IN : BOUQUET, M.: Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, vol.18 (Paris 1822) p.724.
Writing in the late 13th century (he died in 1295), he reported, obviously in confusion, that Innocent III condemned Joachim and Amaury in 1206.
A.24 : Mentions by Later Medieval Writers
a) Guillaume de Nangis (d. about 1301): IN: BOUQUET, M.: Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, vol.20, p.754 & p.758: derivative from Guillaume le Breton, Robert d’Auxerre and the 4th Lateran Council.
b) Peppino di Bologna (d.1320): ED.: CAPELLE, G.C.: Amaury de Bène, étude sur son panthéisme formel (Paris 1932) appendix 2, no.7, p.106: reproduced Martinus Polonus almost word for word.
c) Amaury de Béziers (d.1326): ED.: CAPELLE, G.C. op. cit., appendix 2, no.13, p.110: mentioned a book written by Amaury de Beynes. This misunderstanding derived from Martinus Polonus.
d) Tolomeo di Lucca (d.1327): ED.: CAPELLE, G.C. op. cit., appendix 2, no.10, pp.108-109: derivative from Martinus Polonus and Vincent de Beauvais.
e) Nicholas Triveth (d.1328): ED.: CAPELLE, G.C. op. cit., appendix 2, no.8, p.107: reproduced Martinus Polonus almost word for word.
f) Bernard Gui (d.1331): ED.: CAPELLE, G.C. op. cit., appendix 2, no.9, pp.107-8: reproduced Martinus Polonus almost word for word.
g) Angelo Clareno (d.1337): ED.: CAPELLE, G.C. op. cit., appendix 2, no.12, p.109: described Amaury de Beynes as the instigator of the Free Spirit movement.
h) Gerson (1363-1429): ED.: CAPELLE, G.C. op. cit., appendix 1, no.6, pp.95-97: based his account on the 4th Lateran Council, Henricus Ostiensis and Martinus Polonus.