379G Sibylla, Bartholomaeus, active approximately 1434, Nicolaus de Byard (13th century).
Speculum peregrinarum questionum eruditissimi viri
Bartholomei Sibille Monopolitani ordinis predicatorum, sacre theologie professoris : tres decades complectens in quibus varie questiones de animabus rationalibus in coniuncto, [et] separatis, deq[ue] angelis bonis [et] malis, multisq[ue] alijs scitu dignissimis, [et] ad ipsas responsiones ponuntur : ex vastis [et] viuacissimis theologorum, iurispontificu[m], philosophorum ac astrologorum, campis [et] floribus excerptum : quod studiosis quibuscunq[ue], [et] animarum curam agentibus, no[n] minus vtile, q[uaeq][ue] necessariu[m] est.
Dictionarius pauperum omnibus pr[a]edicatoribus verbi diuini
pernecessarius in quo multu[m]succinte contine[n]tur materi[a]e singulis festiuitatibus totius anni tam de tempore q[uam] de sanctis accommodand[a]e, vt in tabula huius operis facile & lucide cognoscetur.
Venundantur Lugd. : Apud Scipionem de Gabiano in vico Mercuriali sub signo fontis.,1534
Parisiis : ex officina Ambrosij Girault: 1511
$3,900 Octavo, .
A8( -A8)–a-r8 s10 [and] a-q8,r6
Bartholomew Sibylla (†1493) studied at Bologna and Ferrara. He became the Prior of the Dominican convent in Monopoli near Bari. The Speculum peregrinarum is Bartholomew’s major writing. The text is ordered mystically into three parts, or “decades,” of ten chapters each. The first decade contains questions concerning the origin and immortality of the human soul, hell, limbo, purgatory, the Elysian fields, paradise, the beatitudes, etc.; the second decade contains questions concerning the good angels, their esse et essentia, knowledge, powers and attributes; the third decade treats likewise the powers, etc., of evil angels. In form and substance, this work by a Calabrian Dominican unites a rather Joachimite rhetorical disposition with popular devotion concerning the last things and Scholastic questions. On demonology, astrology, divination, and ghosts. Sibylla also discusses herbs, charms and written words as symbols, and authors he cites are Hermes Trismegistus, Apuleius, Ptolemy, Seneca and Aulus Gellius. In his prefatory dedication to Alfonso of Aragon, he makes particular reference to the magnificent library of Alfonso’s father, Ferdinand.
(The Devil’s Tabernacle: The Pagan Oracles in Early Modern Thought Anthony Ossa-Richardson Princeton University Press, 2013)
BAYARD, NICHOLAS (fl. 1300?), theologian, was, according to Bale, a Dominican theologian at Oxford, where he obtained his doctor’s degree. Pits’s account tends in the same direction, and both biographers praise their author for his knowledge of pontifical law. Bale adds that he was very skilled for his age in Aristotelian studies, but accuses him of distorting the Scriptures by ‘allegorical inventions and leisurely quibbles.’ His principal work appears to have been entitled ‘Distinctiones Theologiæ,’ and, according to the last-mentioned authority, this book was largely calculated to corrupt the simplicity of the true faith, as it consisted, like Abelard’s ‘Sic et Non,’ of an assortment of theological opinions opposed to one another. A manuscript of this work is still preserved in Merton College library (cclii.), and Tanner gives a list of other writings of this author that are to be found in English libraries. The date assigned to Nicholas Bayard by his English biographers is about 1410; but this can hardly be correct if Mr. Coxe is right in assigning the handwriting of the Merton manuscript to the previous century. The whole question of the era in which this writer lived, and his nationality, is minutely discussed by Quétif in his ‘Scriptores Ordinis Prædicatorum,’ who inclines to believe that Bayard was a Frenchman of the thirteenth century. This, according to Quétif, is the opinion of an ancient French writer, Bernard Guido. Quétif also shows how, in the collections of that age, preserved up to his days in the Sorbonne, Bayard’s sermons constantly occurred in company with those of William of Auvergne, bishop of Paris (1228–48), and other great characters of Louis IX’s reign. More conclusive as to the date is Quétif’s assertion that in the ‘Liber Rectoris Universitatis Parisiensis’ Bayard’s great work is mentioned as being for sale in Paris before the year 1303; that several other discourses of Bayard were for sale in Paris at the same time; and that his ‘Sermones Dominicales’ formed part of a parchment folio in the Sorbonne library, containing Robert de Sorbonne’s ‘Liber de Conscientiâ’ (d. 1274). Quétif does not, however, adduce any indubitable evidence that Bayard was a Frenchman. But if he was the writer of the ‘Summa de Abstinentia,’ which Quétif unhesitatingly assigns to him, and does really, as Quétif asserts, mingle French words with the Latin text, the fact of his French residence, if not of his French birth, may perhaps be considered as proved. Lastly, as regards the order to which Bayard belonged, Quétif observes that there is no certain evidence whether he was a Franciscan or a Dominican. In all the manuscripts excepting one he appears to be called simply Frater Nicholas de Bayard, and in the only one which is more precise he is called a Minorite. Only one of Bayard’s works seems to have been printed, and that one of somewhat doubtful authenticity, the ‘Summa de Abstinentia,’ which was published under the title of ‘Dictionarius Pauperum’ by John Knoblouch at Cologne in 1518, and again at Paris in 1530.
An encyclopedia of Christian philosophy,for the use of preachers, arranged alphabetically from “De abstinentia” to “De vita eterna.” The attribution to de Byart is tentative as described above. In the thirteenth century Dictionarius pauperum compiled by Nicolas de Byard, we find the admonition that
“just as robbers easily have the treasure after they have broken the chest,so the devil has the soul after he has confused a man and stolen his patience, because “the heart of a fool is like a broken vessel, no wisdom at all shall it hold.”
Baudrier, H.L. Bib. lyonnaise,; t. 7, p. 178; Adams,; S1057; Brunet,; t. 5, column 369; Grässe,; t. 6, p. 397; BM STC French, 1470-1600,; p. 400
376G Melanchthon, Philipp. 1497-1560 Philippi Melanchthonis Philosophiae moralis epitomae libri duo emendati & aucti : nam tres virtutes additae, quintus Aristotelis totus immutatus : accessit etiam tractatus De autoritate principum & alter De arbore consanguinitatis & affinitatis, & index copiosus.
Argentorati [Strasburg] : Crato Mylius,1540 $3,500
Octavo, 16.5 x 10.5 cm.. First Edition (before the text there is a leaf full of contemporary notes see images) [A]8
B-Z8 a8.(7 & 8 blank one present Blind stamped pigskin with Muse , center plate cupids with oak leaves . Monogrammed “FD” and the year 1540. One leaf has the bottom margin trimmed neatly and not touching the text.
First issue of Melanchthon’s moral philosophy with his De arbore consanguinitatis , which was published in the same year with Joseph Klug of Wittenberg as a single issue . Further contributions are by Melchior Folst This edition Includes selections of Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics translated into Latin.
As a scholar Melanchthon embodied the entire spiritual culture of his age. At the same time he found the simplest, clearest, and most suitable form for his knowledge; therefore his manuals, even if they were not always original, were quickly introduced into schools and kept their place for more than a century.
Knowledge had for him no purpose of its own; it existed only for the service of moral and religious education, and so the teacher of Germany prepared the way for the religious thoughts of the Reformation. He is the father of Christian humanism, which has exerted a lasting influence upon scientific life in Germany. [But it is Erasmus who is called, “The Prince of the Humanists.]
His works were not always new and original, but they were clear, intelligible, and answered their purpose. His style is natural and plain, better, however, in Latin and Greek than in German. He was not without natural eloquence, although his voice was weak. He started from scholasticism; but with the contempt of an enthusiastic Humanist he turned away from it and came to Wittenberg with the plan of editing the complete works of Aristotle. Under the dominating religious influence of Luther his interest abated for a time, but in 1519 he edited the “Rhetoric” and in 1520 the “Dialectic.”
The relation of philosophy to theology is characterized, according to him, by the distinction between law and Gospel. The former, as a light of nature, is innate; it also contains the elements of the natural knowledge of God which, however, have been obscured and weakened by sin. Therefore, renewed promulgation of the law by revelation became necessary and was furnished in the Decalogue; and all law, including that in the scientific form of philosophy, contains only demands, shadowings; its fulfilment is given only in the Gospel, the object of certainty in theology, by which also the philosophical elements of knowledge—experience, principles of reason, and syllogism—receive only their final confirmation. As the law is a divinely ordered pedagogue that leads to Christ, philosophy, its interpreter, is subject to revealed truth as the principal standard of opinions and life.
Besides Aristotle’s “Rhetoric” and “Dialectic” he published De dialecta libri iv (1528); Erotemata dialectices (1547); Liber de anima (1540); Initia doctrinae physicae (1549); and Ethicae doctrinae elementa (1550).
.”Melanchthon declared dialectics, as in Aristotelian dialectics—as the basic methodology for all branches of knowledge. He later produced commentaries on Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics.
Melanchthon’s relation to Aristotle can be described and understood by a strict separation of these areas and a clear use for reason and philosophy in theology. In his commentary to Aristotle’s Politics, he provided a guide for distinguishing theology and philosophy. The Gospel did not serve the establishment of a Christian state but revealed the spiritual and eternal righteousness of the human being. Politics, in contrast, taught about property, contracts and laws, which all take on different forms in different nations. Thus, Aristotle can and ought speak only about these things, which are areas subject to reason. Melanchthon highlighted the difference between politics and the Gospel for the secular realm and thus stayed away from militant revolutionary movements.
Melanchthon was not a wishy-washy and pussy footing diplomat as he is often made out to be. He treasured greatly the Aristotelian virtue of the golden mean, but this was not to be confused with indecisiveness and faulty attempts at reconciliation, as happened in Regensburg. To him, what is needful in the church in the face of unsolved disputes and endless wars of words is not more instruction in overly erudite disputation about the formulation of concepts and also not in overblown, quarrelsome and dazzling speech. Instead, what is needed is a language that loves the truth, and for this purpose there is dialectics, on which Melanchthon held a high regard for. For him dialectic in the church is the bond of unity.
We can indeed learn much from Melanchthon how to handle philosophy and theology in a non exclusive way but also not diluting or distorting the Gospel proclamation.
Lutheran Quarterly Vol XXV(2011) entitled, “Philip Melanchthon and Aristotle” first written by Nicole Kuropka in German and translated into English by Timothy Wengert.