DOCSLIB.ORG

New Perspectives on the Condemnation of 1277 and Its Aftermath

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Perspectives on the Condemnation of 1277 and Its Aftermath NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONDEMNATION OF 1277 AND ITS AFTERMATH In 1996 Kent Emery and Andreas Speer announced a project of research devoted to the aftermath of the Condemnation of 1277, sponsored by the Medieval Institute at the University of Notre Dame and the Thomas-Institut der Universität zu Köln1. Between 1997 and 1999 thirty-five European and American scholars held four meetings at Köln, Notre Dame and Tübingen. The Acts of these meetings have been published in 2001 under the title Nach der Verurteilung von 1277. Philosophie und Theologie an der Universität von Paris im letzen Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts. Studien und Texte2. Not only for its impressive size (more than 1000 pages), this magnificently printed book is a major contribution to the history of later medieval thought. The essays collected and edited by the directors of this scholarly enter- prise (Jan Aertsen, Kent Emery and Andreas Speer) present careful, detailed and fine analysis of very important issues in different fields of philosophy and theology at the University of Paris between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries: psychology and gnoseology, nat- ural philosophy, metaphysics, ethics and, needless to say, the contro- versial topic of the relationship between theology and philosophy. Some articles are entirely devoted to the most outstanding thinkers of this period: Albert the Great (Henryk Anzulewicz), Thomas Aquinas (Joseph P. Wawrykow), Henry of Ghent (Christoph Kann, Kent Emery), Giles of Rome (Giorgio Pini), Godfrey of Fontaines (John F. Wippel), Thomas Sutton (Gyula Klima), Duns Scotus (B. Carlos 1. K. EMERY, A. SPEER, «After the Condemnations of 1277: the University of Paris in the Last Quarter of the Thirteenth Century», in: Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 38 (1996), pp. 119-124. The project was sponsored by the German-American Academic Council Foundation under the auspices of the TransCoop Program. 2. J.A. AERTSEN, K. EMERY et A. SPEER (edd.), Nach der Verurteilung von 1277. Philoso- phie und Theologie an der Universität von Paris im letzten Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts. Stu- dien und Texte (Miscellanea Mediaevalia 28), Berlin-New York 2001, pp. X-1033. ©RTPM 70,1 (2003) 206-229 NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONDEMNATION OF 1277 207 Bazán, Stephen D. Dumont), Berthold of Moosburg (Stephen E. Gersh), Pietro d’Abano (Dag Nikolaus Hasse). Moreover, one can find in the volume remarkable philological acquisitions. Three essays (those by John F. Wippel, Richard Newhauser and Stephen D. Dumont) present relevant textual comparisons, and other five contributions pro- vide in appendices unedited documents and texts: a question on the third book of the Sentences, preserved in Brugge, Stadsbibliotheek, Ms. 491 (Wouter Goris and Martin Pickavé, pp. 163-177); a part of the Prologue of Prosper of Reggio Emilia to the first book of the Sentences (Stephen F. Brown, pp. 328-356); the list of the Questions on Metaphysics attributable to Radulphus Brito, with the edition of some of them (Sten Ebbesen, pp. 467-492); a critical edition of two questions on the generability and perishability of the heavens, pre- served in two different sets of Quaestiones supra librum De caelo et mundo written by Peter of Auvergne probably after 1277 (Griet Galle, pp. 567-576); a precise analysis of the manuscript tradition and an edition of a large selection of passages of an anonymous fifteenth- century commentary on the articles prohibited in 1277, discovered by Grabmann and generally called «Quod Deus» from its incipit (Claude Lafleur, David Piché and Joanne Carrier, pp. 946-995) 3. In the short space at my disposal I can scarcely give an exhaustive sketch of such a rich and interesting volume, which has already been celebrated and carefully discussed by several American and European Scholars in three seminars organized at the University of Notre Dame in April 20014. Therefore I will focus on only three points. I shall first report some contributions proposing new ideas and findings con- cerning the meaning and the influence of bishop Tempier’s ‘Syllabus’. Secondly I shall examine the historiographical categories and presup- positions that emerge from the entire volume. Thirdly I shall discuss some aspects of the Introduction written by two of the three editors, 3. Dealing with article 90, the anonymous commentator quotes Thomas as an author- ity against the ‘double truth’: «… quia ueritates non sunt distincte, ut dicit Thomas, et etiam omne uerum uero consonat». The latter sentence is a widespread scholarly adage extracted from the Nichomachean Ethics: see J. HAMESSE, Les auctoritates Aristotelis. Un florilège médiéval. Étude historique et édition critique (Philosophes médiévaux 17), Louvain- Paris 1974, p. 233 §15. In the passage of his commentary on the Metaphysics mentioned by the editors at p. 969, n. 206, Aquinas indirectly echoes this adage. 4. «Philosophy and Theology at Paris after the Condemnation of 1277: Three Collo- quia» (5-7 April 2001). 208 RECHERCHES DE THÉOLOGIE ET PHILOSOPHIE MÉDIÉVALES which is a model of what introductions should be: not a boring abstract of the content of the volume, but a brilliant and provocative discussion of some pivotal questions at stake. 1. — As clearly stated in the Introduction (pp. 11, 18), Nach der Verurteilung von 1277 does not intend to give a new, comprehensive account of the Condemnation of 7 March 1277 and its historical consequences. An excellent presentation of the origin and the signif- icance of this intervention, based on the ‘classical’ works by Van Steen- berghen, Hissette, Wielockx and other recent interpreters, is however available in the ample «Commentaire historico-philosophique» to the new edition and french translation of Tempier’s ‘Syllabus’, published at the end of 1999 by David Piché5, one of the collaborators of the project directed by Aertsen, Emery and Speer. Yet, some participants in this project suggested new perspectives on such standard issues as the authors, the causes, and the influence of the Condemnation of 12776. Paradoxically enough, we know very little about its instigators and authors: bishop Tempier; Ranulphus de la Houblonnière, who was soon to become his successor; the University chancellor, John of Orléans (des Alleux); the papal legate Simon of Brion, future pope Martin IV. The latter’s rôle is as decisive as it is neglected7. It is there- fore remarkable that the sixth and last section of Nach der Verurteilung 5. La condamnation parisienne de 1277. Texte latin, traduction, introduction et com- mentaire par D. Piché (Sic et Non), Paris 1999, pp. 151-288. See also ID., «Commentaires sur quelques articles d'une nouvelle édition de l'acte de censure parisien de 1277», in: Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales 65 (1998), pp. 333-352. 6. Another standard issue, i.e., the sources of the prohibited articles, is of course out- side the scope of a book devoted to intellectual changes that occurred «after» the Con- demnation of 1277. Nevertheless in his remarkable contribution on «Siger of Brabant ver- sus Thomas Aquinas on the Possibility of Knowing the Separate Substances», Carlos Steel argues convincingly that article 82 «aims at a doctrine such as the one defended by Siger in his De intellectu» (p. 229). 7. This has been rightly emphasized by F. X. PUTALLAZ, R. IMBACH, Profession: philo- sophe. Siger de Brabant (Initiations au Moyen Âge), Paris 1977, pp. 169-170; P. PORRO, «Metaphysics and Theology in the Last Quarter of Thirteenth Century: Henry of Ghent Reconsidered», in: J.A. AERTSEN et A. SPEER (edd.), Geistesleben im 13. Jahrhundert (Miscellanea Mediaevalia 27), Berlin-New York 2000, pp. 276-277. For important remarks on Simon’s role in 1277 see however R. WIELOCKX, «Commentaire», in: Aegidii Romani Opera omnia. III.1. Apologia (Unione Accademica Nazionale. Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi. Testi e studi IV), Firenze 1985, especially pp. 99-100. NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONDEMNATION OF 1277 209 von 1277, which deals with «The Condemnation of 1277 and its Aftermath», opens with an interesting article in which Götz-Rüdiger Tewes sheds more light on the juridical relations (and conflicts) between the Roman curia and the University of Paris, paying much attention to Simon (pp. 859-872). However some puzzling problems still remain. We know that at the beginning of 1277 the bishop charged a committee composed by sixteen Theology masters — that is to say, the greater part of the faculty of Theology — to draw up the list of ‘errors’ to ban8. But we know also that in that year none of the ecclesiastical authorities who promoted the doctrinal intervention was a master regent; that Tempier in 1264, when he had been chancellor of the University, presumed to impose himself as a regent master and dean, and for that reason he fell out with the faculty; that in the same year he put pressure on the faculty to accept as regent masters Ivus Bri- tus and John of Orléans; that, after having been raised to the episco- pacy, he supported the election of John, who was in very bad terms with the University, as a chancellor9; that some days after the Con- demnation of 1277 master Henry of Ghent (whose presence on the committee is certain) was intimidated by the legate Simon of Brion in the presence of Tempier, John of Orléans and Ranulphus de la Houblonnière10. Thus it is difficult to understand the nature and lim- its of the cooperation between Parisian theologians and ecclesiastical authorities11: did they feel themselves obliged to close their ranks in 8. On this point see R. WIELOCKX, «Commentaire», pp. 79-80, 98. 9. Cf. Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, edd. H. DENIFLE et A. CHATELAIN, fac- simile reproduction of the Paris 1891-1899 edition, Culture et Civilisation, Bruxelles 1964, vol. I, pp. 438, 440-441, 441-442, 444-445, 494. In the light of these often neglected facts, one might wonder whether Courtenay’s claims about 1290 as a turning point in the relationship between Parisian bishops and theologians (pp.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tra Antichità E Modernità. Studi Di Storia Della Filosofia Medievale E
    ABSTRACTS Fiorella Retucci, «Magister Thomas Anglicus Minor». Tommaso di York fon- te dell’Expositio di Bertoldo di Moosburg, pp. 1–41 Berthold of Moosburg had the whole Sapientiale by Thomas of York con- stantly at hand when writing his commentary on Proclus. Even thought Ber- thold never refers by name to the English Franciscan except in his tabula auc- toritatum, where Thomas is registered as «Magister Thomas Anglicus minor», he quotes extensively and verbatim from the Sapientiale throughout his Expo- sitio of Proclus; astoundingly, Berthold quotes more from Thomas than he does from his Dominican predecessors in the Teutonic Province, Albert the Great, Ulrich of Strassburg and Dietrich of Freiberg. The following articles describes the presence of Thomas of York in Berthold of Moosburg’s Expositio super Elementationem theologicam. An appendix provides a systematic investigation of the relationship between the texts of the two authors. Keywords: Berthold of Moosburg; Expositio super Elementationem theologicam; Thomas of York; Sapientiale. Stefan Kirschner, Albertino Rinaldi da Salso on the Motion of Elements and Mixed Bodies in a Void, pp. 42–70 In his questio on the motion of elements and mixed bodies in a void the Italian 1145 professor of practical medicine, Albertino Rinaldi da Salso di Piacenza (Alb- ertinus de Rainaldis de Placentia, also known as Albertino da Piacenza), held the clearly non-Aristotelian view that an element in a void would not move instantaneously, but successively. To prove his conclusion Albertino draws to a large degree on arguments proposed by Richard Kilvington. Among the few 14th century authors who rejected Aristotle’s account of motion in a va- cuum Kilvington had presented the most thorough analysis of this subject.
    [Show full text]
  • Jan Aertsen. Annotated Bibliography of His English Writings
    Jan Aertsen. Annotated Bibliography of His English Writings https://www.ontology.co/biblio/jan-aertsen.htm Theory and History of Ontology by Raul Corazzon | e-mail: [email protected] Selected Bibliography of Jan A. Aertsen. Writings in English Jan Adrianus Aertsen (Amsterdam, 1938 - 2016), formerly professor of Medieval Philosophy and Modern Catholic Philosophy at the Free University of Amsterdam (since 1984), was the director of the Thomas Institute in Cologne (Germany) until 2003; his areas of interest were the history of transcendentals, the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and Meister Eckhart. A complete bibliography of his writings up to 2002 was published by Sabine Folger-Fonfara in: Martin Pickavé (ed.), Die Logik des Transzendentalen. Festschrift für Jan A. Aertsen zum 65. Geburstag, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003, (Miscellanea Mediaevalia, 30), pp. XXIII-XXXII. I give an updated bibliography with the omission of the publications in Dutch and of some minor writings. BOOKS AUTHORED 1. Aertsen, Jan A. 1984. Medieval Reflections on Truth. Adaequatio rei et intellectus. Amsterdam: VU Boekhandel. Inaugural address on the occasion of his taking up the chair of Medieval philosophy of the Free University in Amsterdam on November 9, 1984. "There are certain basic words which form the undertone of our thinking and of the manner in which we experience things. These basic words are not unchangeable; they often receive a different content . One such basic word is 'truth'." This is the start of the report of the Synod of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, issued in 1981, "On the nature of the authority of Scripture".(1) How does it happen that the Bible is read so differently? In searching for an answer to this problem, the report adopts a course remarkable within the.
    [Show full text]
  • Forgetful Platonism: Misrepresenting Proclus and Twentieth-Century
    Misrepresenting Neoplatonism in Contemporary Christian Dionysian Polemic: Eriugena and Nicholas of Cusa versus Vladimir Lossky and Jean-Luc Marion American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 82:4 (2008): 683–703. Wayne Hankey Part I: From Eriugena to Nicholas of Cusa The Corpus Areopagiticum in Greek—or at least a part of it—circulated in Rome, probably from the time of Gregory the Great‘s Homily XXIV (592 or 593), but certainly from the middle of the seventh up to the second half of the ninth century.1 Nonetheless, there was no profound encounter by the Latins with the philosophical and mystical content of the corpus, until the translations by Hilduin and Eriugena consequent on its arrival at the Frankish court in 827.2 John the Scot‘s grasp and development of what the Areopagite passed on from his sources has only rarely been equalled. After Boethius, he was the first to draw together the Greek and Latin Platonists. Among the Latins, Augustine and Boethius, together with Ambrose, because, as Eriugena wrote, he so often followed the Greeks, were pre-eminent .3 He learned most from the Greek texts he translated—the Dionysian corpus, the Ambigua and Scoliae of Maximus the Confessor, and the De hominis opificio of Gregory of Nyssa—; what he took from the Latins was generally assimilated to their logic.4 His sources were so nearly exclusively Christian, and the texts so predominantly theological and mystical—despite such ―secular‖ and pagan authorities as the De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii of Martianus Capella from his Irish education5—that no real confrontation between Hellenic and Christian Neoplatonisms occurs for him.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Proclus and the Bookof Causes
    introduction Reading Proclus and the Book of Causes: Notes on the Western Scholarly Networks and Debates Dragos Calma University College Dublin / Newman Centre for the Study of Religions, Dublin The majority of contributions reunited in this volume were first presented during the first of the three sessions of the conference “Les Éléments de thé- ologie et le Livre des causes du Ve au XVIIe siècle”. It took place at the École pratique des hautes études, Paris, on 13–14 November 2015, during the ter- rorist attacks.1 The second took place on 12–13 February 2016, and the third on 14–15–16 April 2016; all within the framework of the project LIBER (ANR- 13-PDOC-0018-01) which I directed between 2013 and 2017 at the École pra- tique des hautes études, Paris, and which generously financed these meet- ings and the publication of the proceedings.2 The conferences were organ- ised by Marc Geoffroy and myself, under the auspices of Olivier Boulnois, Philippe Hoffmann, Ruedi Imbach, Zénon Kaluza and Dominique Poirel. I wish to acknowledge the important support of the following bodies in the organisa- tion of the conference: École pratique des hautes études, Équipe “philosophie arabe” of the Centre “Jean Pépin”—CNRS (UMR 8230), Laboratoire d’études sur les monothéismes—CNRS (UMR 8584), Labex haStec (Laboratoire européen d’histoire et anthropologie des savoirs, des techniques et des croyances), Insti- tut de recherche et d’histoire des textes—CNRS, Centre “Pierre Abélard”— Université Paris Sorbonne. Compared to the original program of the three conferences, minor thematic rearrangements have been made for publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Gracia, Jje / Tb Noone, Eds
    GRACIA, J. J. E. / T. B. NOONE, EDS.: A COMPANION TO PHILOSOPHY IN THE MIDDLE AGES Philosophy in the Middle Ages: An Introduction: Jorge J. E. Gracia PART I. THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT 1 The Ancient Philosophical Legacy and its Transmission to the Middle Ages: Charles H. Lohr 2 The Patristic Background: Stephen F. Brown 3 Philosophy in the Latin Christian West: 750–1050: Peter King 4 The School of Chartres: Winthrop Wetherbee 5 Religious Orders: M. Michèle Mulchahey and Timothy B. Noone 6 Scholasticism: Timothy B. Noone 7 The Parisian Condemnations of 1270 and 1277: John F. Wippel PART II: THE AUTHORS 1 Adam of Wodeham: Rega Wood 2 Adelard of Bath: Jeremiah Hackett 3 Alan of Lille: John Marenbon 4 Albert of Saxony: Edward Grant 5 Albertus Magnus: Mechthild Dreyer 6 Albumasar (Abu Ma’shar): Jeremiah Hackett 7 Alexander of Hales: Christopher M. Cullen 8 Alfarabi (Al-Farabý): Deborah L. Black 9 Algazali (Al-Ghazalý): Thérèse-Anne Druart 10 Alhacen (Al-Hasan): David C. Lindberg 11 Alkindi (Al-Kindi): Jean Jolivet 12 Alrazi (Al-Razý): Thérèse-Anne Druart 13 Anselm of Canterbury: Jasper Hopkins 14 Arnaldus of Villanova: Francisco Bertelloni 15 Augustine: Scott MacDonald 16 Avempace (Ibn Bájjah): Idris Samawi Hamid 17 Avencebrol (Ibn Gabirol): Tamar Rudavsky 18 Averroes (Ibn Rushd): Richard C. Taylor 19 Avicenna (Ibn Sýna): David B. Burrell 20 Bernard of Clairvaux: Brian Patrick McGuire 21 Berthold of Moosburg: Bruce Milem 22 Boethius: John Magee 23 Boethius of Dacia: B. Carlos Bazán 24 Bonaventure: Andreas Speer 25 Dante Alighieri: Timothy B. Noone 26 Denys the Carthusian: Kent Emery,: 27 Dietrich of Freiberg: Roland J.
    [Show full text]
  • AT the CROSSROADS of SCHOLASTICISM and NORTHERN HUMANISM* the Late Medieval and Early Modem Periods Experienced Change in a Vari
    JTA ~'s. In this they show them­ l focused perspective'. 'The MJ.F.M. HOENEN 'Jissance and Renascences in 1 altemately galvanized and AT THE CROSSROADS OF SCHOLASTICISM AND NORTHERN ~ping at its grave and tried to HUMANISM* IüS moment it succeeded. ,44 : to that last conclusion, it is ~onsolatio form an apt illust­ The late medieval and early modem periods experienced change in a variety f the northem humanists to a I offields: economics, religion, theology, and philosophy. These changes have :}uity'. been studied in many articles and book publications, most recently in the two-volume Handbook ofEuropean History 1400-1600.1 Some of the most interesting studies have shown - if we restrict ourselves to the transition from scholasticism to humanism - that scholasticism already bears humanist elements and that conversely humanism still carries with it scholastic attributes, an observation which mutatis mutandis also applies to many other changing areas of the period? The distinction, then, between scholasticism and humanism is not as strict as some of the standard works of intellectual history would have it. This is hardly surprising. Historical reality is always more complex than human concepts can express. To meet this complexity, the transition from scholasticism to humanism needs to be studied again and again, when new questions suggest themselves, and in the light of newly revealed or neglected scholastic sources. Only then can we begin to understand the complexities of intellectual history as it evolved in the late medieval and early modem period.3 For my part I would like to investigate the similarities and differences between scholasticism and northem humanism based on some interesting scholastic source materials, that in my view deserve closer attention and study.
    [Show full text]
  • Dionysian Mystical Theology in the Commentaries of Thomas Gallus (D.1246)
    Experiencing the Word: Dionysian Mystical Theology in the Commentaries of Thomas Gallus (d.1246) The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:37925651 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Experiencing the Word: Dionysian Mystical Theology in the Commentaries of Thomas Gallus (d.1246) A dissertation presented by Craig Henry Tichelkamp to The Faculty of Harvard Divinity School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Theology In the Subject of Theology Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts November 2017 © 2017, Craig Tichelkamp All rights reserved Dissertation Advisor: Professor Amy Hollywood Craig Henry Tichelkamp Experiencing the Word: Dionysian Mystical Theology in the Commentaries of Thomas Gallus (d.1246) Abstract The mystical theology of Thomas Gallus, “the last great Victorine,” was inseparable from his theology of sacred literature. This dissertation analyzes Gallus’s major works: his commentaries on the Song of Songs and the Corpus Dionysiacum (CD). I argue that Gallus’s mystical theology emerges from his analysis of constitutive theological tensions in the CD about God, language, and mystical perfection. That is, in navigating the CD’s conceptual apertures, Gallus is even more thoroughly Dionysian than has been previously estimated. At the same time, Gallus’s mystical theology is an original creation—distinctively Augustinian and Victorine, and informed by his complementary interpretation of the Song as depicting the union between the soul and the Word.
    [Show full text]
  • Neoplatonism in the Cologne Tradition of the Later Middle Ages: Berthold of Moosburg (Ca. 1300–1361) As Case Study
    HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies ISSN: (Online) 2072-8050, (Print) 0259-9422 Page 1 of 15 Original Research Neoplatonism in the Cologne tradition of the later Middle Ages: Berthold of Moosburg (ca. 1300–1361) as case study Author: The objective of this article is to present an overview, based on the most recent specialist 1 Johann Beukes research, of Neoplatonist developments in the Cologne tradition of the later Middle Ages, Affiliation: with specific reference to a unique Proclian commentary presented by the German Albertist 1Department of Philosophy, Dominican, Berthold of Moosburg (ca. 1300–1361). Situating Berthold in the post-Eckhart Faculty of Humanities, Dominican crisis of the 1340s and 1350s, his rehabilitating initiative of presenting this extensive University of the Free State, (nine-volume) commentary on the Neoplatonist Proclus Lycaeus’ (412–485) Elements of Bloemfontein, South Africa Theology in his Expositio super Elementationem theologicam Procli, the only of its kind from the Corresponding author: Middle Ages, is contextualised with reference to Berthold’s discursive indebtedness to his Johann Beukes, Dominican predecessors, Albert the Great (ca. 1200–1280), Ulrich of Strasbourg (ca. 1220–1277) [email protected] and Dietrich of Freiberg (ca.1250 – ca.1310), as well as two Dutch-Cologne successors, the Dates: Albertist Heymeric of Camp (1395–1460) and the Carthusian Thomist Denys de Leeuwis Received: 29 July 2020 (1402–1471). Berthold’s unique contribution to the philosophical discourse of the Middle Ages Accepted: 20 Nov. 2020 is indicated therein that the Expositio provided a synthesis of the late Medieval version of Published: 19 Mar. 2021 Neoplatonism and contemporaneous German–Dominican theories.
    [Show full text]
  • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Influence of Arabic and Islamic Philosophy on the Latin West
    03/05/2017 Influence of Arabic and Islamic Philosophy on the Latin West (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Influence of Arabic and Islamic Philosophy on the Latin West First published Fri Sep 19, 2008; substantive revision Tue Mar 18, 2014 The Arabic­Latin translation movements in the Middle Ages, which paralleled that from Greek into Latin, led to the transformation of almost all philosophical disciplines in the medieval Latin world. The impact of Arabic philosophers such as al­Fārābī, Avicenna and Averroes on Western philosophy was particularly strong in natural philosophy, psychology and metaphysics, but also extended to logic and ethics. Among the influential Arabic theories are: the logical distinction between first and second intentions; the intension and remission of elementary forms; the soul's faculty of estimation and its object, the intentions; the conjunction between human intellect and separate active intellect; the unicity of the material intellect (Averroism); naturalistic theories of miracles and prophecy; the eternity of the world and the concept of eternal creation; the active intellect as giver of forms; the first cause as necessary existent; the emanation of intelligences from the first cause; the distinction between essence and existence; the theory of primary concepts; the concept of human happiness as resulting from perfect conjunction of the human intellect with the active intellect. 1. Transmission 2. Division of the Sciences 3. Logic 4. Natural Philosophy 4.1 Eternity of the World 4.2 The Elements in a Compound 4.3 Spontaneous Generation 5. Psychology 5.1 Estimation 5.2 Active Intellect 5.3 The Four Intellects 5.4 Averroes' Unicity Thesis 5.5 Naturalistic Theories of Prophecy 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Eriugenism in Berthold of Moosburg's Expositio Superelementationemtheologicamprocli
    chapter 14 Eriugenism in Berthold of Moosburg’s Expositio super Elementationem theologicam Procli Evan King University of King’s College, Halifax The importance of sources transmitting the thought of John Scotus Eriugena for the Expositio super Elementationem theologicam Procli written by Berthold of Moosburg O.P. (sometime between 1327 and 1361) has been acknowledged among Berthold’s contemporary readers at least since 1974. In that year, Loris Sturlese and Paolo Lucentini published, respectively, critical editions of Berthold’s Expositio (Propositions 184–211) and the 12th-century Clavis physi- cae of Honorius Augustodunensis in the series Temi e testi.1 Eugenio Massa, as editor of the series, highlights the importance of their concurrent publication and offers insightful suggestions for situating Berthold within the broader cur- rents of medieval Eriugenism, especially in view of the theory of deification expounded in the Expositio.2 The name of Berthold of Moosburg has remained almost entirely absent from surveys of the subsequent reception of Eriugena’s thought.3 This is due perhaps to the provisional nature of judgements like Massa’s, which relied on only a partial edition of the Expositio. As of 2014, the eight-volume edition of the commentary is available in the Corpus Philosophorum Teutonicorum Medii Aevi.4 In 2013, Ezequiel Ludueña demonstrated the character and the extent of Berthold’s debt to Eriugenian sources in his doctoral dissertation for the Uni- versity of Buenos Aires.5 It is fitting that the first monograph-length study to 1 Berthold von Moosburg 1974 = De animabus; Honorius Augustodunensis 1974 = Clavis. Chap- ters 316–529 from the Clavis are cited according to the critical edition of Pasquale Arfé: Honorius Augustodunensis 2012 = Clavis.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Proclus and the Bookof Causes
    Provided by the author(s) and University College Dublin Library in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite the published version when available. Title Reading Proclus and the Book of Causes: Notes on the Western Scholarly Networks and Debates Authors(s) Calma, Dragos Publication date 2019-04-25 Publication information Calma, D. (ed.). Reading Proclus and the Book of Causes. Volume I: Western Scholarly Networks and Debates Publisher Brill Link to online version https://brill.com/ Item record/more information http://hdl.handle.net/10197/10749 Publisher's statement This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC 4.0 License. Publisher's version (DOI) 10.1163/9789004395114_002 Downloaded 2021-09-27T23:09:33Z The UCD community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters! (@ucd_oa) © Some rights reserved. For more information, please see the item record link above. introduction Reading Proclus and the Book of Causes: Notes on the Western Scholarly Networks and Debates Dragos Calma University College Dublin / Newman Centre for the Study of Religions, Dublin The majority of contributions reunited in this volume were first presented during the first of the three sessions of the conference “Les Éléments de thé- ologie et le Livre des causes du Ve au XVIIe siècle”. It took place at the École pratique des hautes études, Paris, on 13–14 November 2015, during the ter- rorist attacks.1 The second took place on 12–13 February 2016, and the third on 14–15–16 April 2016; all within the framework of the project LIBER (ANR- 13-PDOC-0018-01) which I directed between 2013 and 2017 at the École pra- tique des hautes études, Paris, and which generously financed these meet- ings and the publication of the proceedings.2 The conferences were organ- ised by Marc Geoffroy and myself, under the auspices of Olivier Boulnois, Philippe Hoffmann, Ruedi Imbach, Zénon Kaluza and Dominique Poirel.
    [Show full text]
  • Berthold of Moosburg, Nicholas of Cusa, and Marsilio Ficino As Historians of Philosophy
    chapter 14 Berthold of Moosburg, Nicholas of Cusa, and Marsilio Ficino as Historians of Philosophy Stephen Gersh University of Notre Dame 1 Introduction Berthold of Moosburg, Nicholas of Cusa, and Marsilio Ficino are undoubt- edly the three pre-eminent Platonists of the fourteenth and fifteenth centu- ries ranked in chronological order. However, it is a rather surprising that none of the three acknowledges the influence of his predecessor within the group and indeed they scarcely mention one another. Nicholas of Cusa discusses the erroneous assumptions concerning God’s presence in all things when this notion is not approached with “learned ignorance” and the consequent justi- fication with which certain saints argue that the intellectual light should be withdrawn from those with weak mental eyes. This intellectual light is then illustrated with a list of authors and books including the commentaria Iohannis de Mossbach in propositiones Procli.1 Marsilio Ficino responds in a letter dated 12 June 1489 to an inquiry by his friend Martin Prenninger regarding the avail- ability of books in Latin setting out the essentials of Platonic philosophy. He supplies a list of books including both scholastic and more modern authors that ends with quaedam speculationes Nicolai Cusii Cardinalis.2 These ref- erences of Nicholas to Berthold and of Ficino to Nicholas together with the absence of any reference in Ficino to Berthold do not take us beyond the level of basic bibliography. Indeed, the bibliography is rather defective given that 1 Nicholas of Cusa, Apologia doctae ignorantiae, h ii, p. 30, l. 1–3 in Nicholas of Cusa, Opera omnia, iussu et auctoritate Academiae Heidelbergensis ad codicum fidem edita (Hamburg: Meiner, 1932–2006) [= h].
    [Show full text]