AILLY, PIERRE d' (PETRUS DE ALLIACO). — French scientist, philosopher, and theologian, confessor to Charles VI, statesman, bishop, and cardinal, he was one of the most illustrious figures of the Church of France in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, indeed of the entire Middle Ages. He was called « Aquila Franciae » and also « aberrantium a veritate malleus indefessus ». Born in 1350, according to most authorities at Compiègne, into a prosperous but non-noble family originally from Picardy, he died at Avignon on 9 August 1420, after making generous bequests to churches, the poor, hospitals, and the College of Navarre. His remains, transferred to Cambrai in 1422, rested in the tomb that he had prepared for himself as early as 1399 within the choir of the cathedral until the French Revolution, during which his ashes were scattered to the winds by the Jacobins.
In 1363, at the age of thirteen, having obtained a scholarship, he was admitted as a student to the College of Navarre; on 11 April 1381 he received his doctorate and became a professor of theology; in 1384 he was appointed rector of the College of Navarre and in 1389 chancellor of the University of Paris; in 1391 the king appointed him his almoner. The cathedrals of France competed to offer him honors and well-paid canonries: thus he was canon at Soissons (1375), Noyon (1381), Compiègne (1391), Cambrai (1391), Rouen (1394), and Bayeux (1394), and obtained several benefices, which he accumulated throughout his life, at one point holding as many as fourteen simultaneously. On 2 April 1395 he was elected bishop of the diocese of Le Puy by Benedict XIII, who had known him personally and held him in high esteem. In March 1397 he was transferred to the more important see of Cambrai. Later he was also administrator of the dioceses of Limoges and Orange. Finally, on 19 December 1412, he was appointed by John XXIII cardinal of the title of St. Chrysogonus.
A. was both a scholar and a man of action.
As a scholar, amid his numerous occupations, he found time to write many works of a scientific, philosophical, theological, and ascetical nature. At present 174 are known, although this catalogue is not necessarily complete.
1. In his scientific writings, following in the footsteps of Roger Bacon, A. dealt with physics, cosmology, geography, astronomy, and even astrology: Imago mundi; De legibus et sectis contra superstitionos astronomos; De falsis prophetis tractatus duo; Vigintilogium de concordia astronomicae veritatis cum theologia; Epilogus mappae mundi; Apologia defensiva astronomiae... are the principal titles. Among other subjects, he also anticipated his age by proposing the correction of the calendar and preparing the Gregorian reform; he further discussed the rotation of the earth on its axis, described its spherical shape, and indicated the means of reaching the Far East by sea. The Imago mundi was certainly in the hands of Christopher Columbus and confirmed him in his ideas, as he apparently declared to the king after his third voyage: this is further attested by a copy, annotated by the great navigator, preserved in the Columbian Library of Seville.
2. In his philosophical writings, A. drew inspiration from the principles of nominalism: as a young man he had nominalist teachers, and his favorite books were the works of William Occam, whose teachings he followed, particularly in questions concerning universals and the notion of causes. In the library of Antwerp there is a manuscript by A. (414 pages) containing the complete catalogue of the English philosopher’s works.
3. In his theological writings he deserves credit for defending the privilege of Mary’s Immaculate Conception and for making excellent observations concerning biblical exegesis, especially in the Epistola ad novos Hebreeos; but he is also at fault for almost completely neglecting the value of tradition and pontifical documents, and for following the tendencies of nominalist circles. Hence the inaccuracies, rash and paradoxical opinions, and errors found in them: a) errors concerning God (he denies that the existence, unity, and fundamental attributes of God, such as omnipotence and freedom, can be demonstrated with evidence); b) concerning the Most Holy Trinity (he asserts that the Trinitarian doctrine is not explicitly contained either in the Old Testament or in the New); c) concerning the ultimate end (he asserts that the existence of an ultimate end of man is not evident); d) concerning Christian morality (he claims that there is neither an act essentially good, nor an act essentially evil, nor one essentially meritorious, nor one essentially demeritorious: «nullum est ex se peccatum, sed praecisse quia lege prohibitum»); e) concerning the Sacraments (he admits impanation as a possibility in the Eucharist); f) but, above all, he falls into many errors concerning the organization of the Church because of his marked tendency to diminish papal authority, a tendency
that can perhaps be explained if one considers the troubled times in which he lived—for he entered public life during the Great Western Schism—and the active part he took in its events. He maintains that Jesus Christ did not found his Church upon Peter. «Quis enim in Petri infirmitate Ecclesiae firmitatem stabilit?». The Pope is merely the principal minister of the Church, «principalis inter ministros»; jurisdiction over bishops and priests comes directly from Christ, not from the Pope, who is not necessarily the bishop of Rome, since the primacy was at Antioch before being transferred to the capital of the Roman Empire. It follows that the Pope is not infallible, that he is subject to the general council, and that he can be deposed by the ecumenical council, which, although it too may err, so that an appeal may be made from one to the other, must nevertheless be regarded as superior to the Supreme Pontiff. Only the universal Church is infallible. These errors, which prevailed in practice at the Council of Constance, had extremely serious repercussions in later centuries. Luther, who claimed to have learned A.’s books by heart, certainly derived from him the system of Eucharistic impanation; the Reformers of the sixteenth century claimed to have been inspired by him for several of their doctrines contrary to Catholic teaching; the Gallicans (v. GALLICANESIMO), and not without reason, regard him as one of their precursors; even philosophers of the eighteenth century occasionally appealed to him.
As a man of action, A. sincerely loved the Church and worked tirelessly on its behalf. In his diocese of Cambrai he promoted useful reforms; he condemned a sect of false mystics whose leader was a certain William of Hildernissem; he combated the excesses of the flagellants; he served as commissioner in the case of the Dominican Matteo Grabow; but the work to which he devoted his greatest energies was ending the schism. Although obedient to Clement VII, the cousin of the king of France, A., following the example of the entire nation and of the University of Paris, spared no effort to achieve this end.
More than thirty of his writings were directed toward this goal, particularly the Epistola diaboli Leviathan, the Inversiva Ezechielis contra Pseudopastore, the De materia concilii generali, the Tractatus de potestate ecclesiastica; the Tractatus agendorum in concilio generali de Ecclesiae reformatione; and the Tractatus super reformatione Ecclesiae in concilio Constantiensi. First of all, in the Epistola diaboli, around 1381, he indicated the «tres vias» out of the schism, namely: «l'arbitralis concordia», the «resignatio utriusque contendentis», and the «futurum concilium generale», although he favored the third, which in fact ultimately prevailed.
In the highly animated discussions that followed on this matter in France, he consistently worked for conciliation, avoiding extreme positions and opposing the forced cession that it was desired to impose upon Benedetto XIII (1395), as well as the refusal of obedience (1398); and, after the latter course had been adopted, he proposed a settlement that was accepted (30 May 1403), thanks to a prudent distinction between essential and accidental papal rights. For this same purpose A. undertook several embassies: as extraordinary ambassador of Venceslao, King of the Romans, he was sent to the court of Avignon; in 1403 he was sent once again to that city as his king’s legate; subsequently he was a member of the embassy that went to the two rival popes to induce them to resign; and in 1413 he was the legate of Giovanni XXIII in Germany. Finally, always with the aim of putting an end to the division that was rending the Church, he took part in the Council of Pisa (1409) and in that of Constance (1414). He arrived at Pisa on 7 May and recognized the newly elected Alessandro V, but played no important role. At Constance, however, where he arrived on 17 November with a retinue of 44 persons, his influence was strongly felt. He succeeded in prevailing upon the council to adopt the principles of his conciliar doctrine, definitively abandoned Giovanni XXIII, approved the abdication of Gregorio XII, cooperated in the deposition of Benedetto XIII, and adhered to Martino V. life.