104 Shank
philosophical reasoning; in effect, it also sealed the existing methodologi-
cal separation of the faculties of arts and of theology at Paris. It forbade
masters of arts who were not also theologians from making theological
pronouncements. Natural philosophy was about the ordinary course of
nature and human reason; it was not about God, not even when the small
minority of masters of arts who became theologians engaged in it.^103 In
effect, the interface between natural philosophy and theology was a one-
way valve. Long trained in the faculties of arts, the theologians knew their
natural philosophy as well as anyone and they used it.^104 In this way, natu-
ral philosophical issues, assumptions, and techniques deeply infl uenced
many academic discussions in theology, medicine, and even law.^105THE CONTESTED PLACE OF THEOLOGY IN THE HIERARCHY
OF KNOWLEDGE
The oft- repeated claim that, in the Middle Ages, theology was queen of
the sciences is widely misunderstood and fl atly false without substantial
qualifi cations. Everyone boasted of the superiority of his own discipline,
of course. When the Parisian theologians did so, particularly in their strug-
gles of the 1260s and 1270s, they were staking a claim, not necessarily
settling a dispute.^106 Whereas everyone conceded the supreme dignity of
the object of theology (God), not everyone conceded the superiority of
theology as a way of knowing. Indeed, theologians themselves often asked
explicitly “whether theology is a science,” and their answers varied.
Both the question and some answers to it illuminate the extent to which
the philosophical criterion of natural reason set the terms of the debate
in other faculties. Like scientia, theologia has various context- dependent
meanings and some ambiguity. It was Aristotle—no Christian—who had
fi rst ranked theologia (“fi rst philosophy” or metaphysics) as the highest of
the sciences because it dealt with the fi rst principles of being. It was this
discipline that Aquinas also called “scientiarum rectrix et regulatrix” (the
ruler and governess of the sciences), and he did so while commenting on
Aristotle’s Metaphysics. In short, he was explaining a pagan philosopher,
not outlining a quintessentially medieval Christian view.^107
The ambiguity of “theology”—metaphysics versus the principles of
Christian faith—had already raised the hackles of some thirteenth- century
theologians. For Alexander of Hales, “First Philosophy [= metaphysics]...
is the theology of the philosophers, and concerns the cause of causes”—
not to be confused with Christian theology, as Albertus Magnus agreed.^108
From the late thirteenth century to around 1340, when theologians asked