Henry of Ghent and the Inevitable Failure of Divine Illumination〔１〕

YingyingZHANG

(DepartmentofWorldReligions,GraduateSchool,ChineseAcademyofSocialSciences)

Author :YingyingZhang,DepartmentofWorldReligions,GraduateSchool,ChineseAcademyofSocialSciencesAddress: No．１１,ChangyuDajie,FangshanDist．,Beijing１０２４８８,P．R．China．Tel:＋８６Ｇ１３７Ｇ６４５２Ｇ１０２８．Email:vinessazy＠１６３．com

Abstract :HenryofGhentattemptedtointegrateanAristotelianempiricism,PlatonicexemplarismandanAugustinian doctrineofDivineIllumination,toformafirmphilosophicalbasisforAugustineƳstheoryofknowledge,meanwhiletrying torestoreitstheologicalconnotations．However,hisnewsynthesiswasdoomedtofail,becausethetensionsbetweenthe

ChristianmetaphysicalworldviewandtheepistemologicalrequirementsoftheAristoteliansystem wereunsolvable．The th needfordivineilluminationwaswaninginthefaceofencroachingAristotelianismattheendof１３ century． KeyWords :DivineIllumination,Augustine,Platonism,Aristotelianism,exemplar

１．IntroductionDivineIlluminationＧAuustinianEistemolo before１３Centur : g p gy y

DivineIlluminationisthetheoryofknowledgewhichSt．AugustineappropriatedfromtheNeoＧ PlatonismandcombinedwithChristianfaith,todecipherhumanƳscognitiveactivities．AsTimothy NooneputinTheCambridgeHistoryofMedievalPhilosophy(Vol．I):“(DivineIlluminationis)the theoryofhowGodƳslightisrequiredtoaccountfullyforhowhumansarecapableofattainingthe 〔２〕 truththattheymanagetoattainthroughtheirintellectualactivities．” St．Augustinedevelopedhis viewofDivineIlluminationinhisvariouswritings,butheneversystematicallyillustratedthetheory, whichresultsinmanyconflictinginterpretationsbybothhisfollowersandopponents． TheinfluenceofNeoＧPlatonismisevidentinAugustineƳstheoryofknowledge．JustasPlotinus understandstherealityinordersorlevels,AugustineƳsontologytakesanhierarchicalstructureof 〔３〕 realitywithGoditscreator,attheapexandtheworldofbodiesatthelowestlevel． Incontrastto hisontologyproceeding downward,AugustineƳsepistemology rising upwards,from corporeal (senses),spiritual(imagination),tointellection(reasons)．Heclaimsthatmanbeginswithsensation

〔１〕 Cf．,PanＧchiuLAI,“DivineLoveandHumanLove”,InternationalJournalofSinoＧWesternStudies,vol．１２,１０９Ｇ１１９． (https://www．sinowesternstudies．com/backＧissuses/volＧ１２Ｇ２０１７/) 〔２〕 TimothyNoone,“DivineIllumination,”vol．１ofTheCambridgeHistoryofMedievalPhilosophy,ed．RobertPasnau (New York:CambridgeUniversityPress,２０１０),３６９． 〔３〕 RonaldH．Nash,TheLightoftheMind:St．AugustineƳsTheoryofKnowledge (Lexington:TheUniversityofKentucky, １９６９),５．

９５１ 国学与西学 国际学刊 第 期 年 月 １９ ,２０２０ １２

〔４〕 butattemptstoclimbbywayofreasontotheeternalideasinthemindofGod． InSoliloquia, Augustineobservesthatasinthesensibleworldallobjectstobeseenmustbeillumined,soalsoin theintelligibleworld．Theanalogyofsunisapplied．“Aboutthiscorporealsunnoticethreethings．It exists．Itshines．Itilluminates．Soinknowingthehidden Godyou mustobservethreethings．He 〔５〕 exists．Heisknown．Hecausesotherthingstobeknown．” Therefore,withoutthelightofthe sun,oureyes,evenifpurified,cannotseeanything．Withoutdivineillumination,thereisnohuman knowledge,eithersenseknowledgeorintellectualone．ItisGodthatmakesknowledgepossiblejust asthelightofthesunmakeitpossibletosee． InAugustineƳsthreeearly works,De magistro,Soliloquia,Dediversisquaestionibusoctoginta tribus４６,hesuggestedthatthefunctionofilluminationwerethreefold．“Illuminationisthesourceof thecognitivecapacity;itsustainstheongoingprocessofcognition;anditsuppliestheverycontentof 〔６〕 thought．” However,itseemsthatSt．Augustineneverintendstodevelopasystematicsystem．Noone claimsthatbeforethethirteencentury,onemightonlyspeakofthethemeofDivineIllumination,not 〔７〕 thetheoryofDivineIllumination． Despitebeingunsystematicandambiguous,AugustineƳsviewof DivineIlluminationisrich andappealing,especiallytothethirteenth century philosophersand theologians．Undoubtedly,itpermeatesthemedievalChristiantradition．UntilThomasAquinas,the theoryofDivineIlluminationhadplayedaprominentroleinallthemostinfluentialmedievaltheories of knowledge,including those of Anselm,Albert the Great,Roger Bacon,and especially 〔８〕 Bonaventure． St．BonaventurebelievedthatthedivinelightactuallyguidedhumanƳsintellectualcognitionas regulatingandmovingcause,presentinallouractsofintellectualknowledge．HedidnƳtdenytherole ofsenseknowledgeandabstraction,whicharepartialcauses,cooperatingwiththedivinelight．This isthe standard Franciscan interpretation．Simply put,a prioriconcepts coming from Divine Illuminationdonotaffordtheactualknowledge,butregulatetheprocessofcognitiontoensurethe conceptsgeneratedbymindcorrespondtothedivineideasaboutrealityandarethereforeabsolute certain． TheintroductionofAristotleƳsmostimportantworkstothemedievalwestEuropebroughton revolutionarychangesinthethirteenthＧcenturythought,butattheexpenseofdeclinesofsome doctrines．ThegrowingdominanceoftheAristoteliantheoryofcognitionquicklymadeAugustinian 〔９〕 theoryofDivineIlluminationseemsuperfluous． However,thecondemnationof２１９propositions byEtienneTempier,theyearof１２７７witnessedarevivalofAugustinianthoughtandamoveaway fromtheincreasinglypopularAristotelianism．HenryofGhentwasthemostrepresentativeofsuch

〔４〕 Ibid．,５． 〔５〕 J．H．S．Burleigh,ed．,Augustine:Early Writings(London:SCM,１９５３ ),３２． 〔６〕 LydiaSchumacher,“Illumination,Divine．”In The Oxford Guidetothe Historical Reception of Augustine．:Oxford UniversityPress,２０１３．Accessedon Nov．５,２０１８．http://www．oxfordreference．com．ezproxy．library．ubc．ca/view/１０．１０９３/acref/ ９７８０１９９２９９１６４．００１．０００１/acrefＧ９７８０１９９２９９１６４ＧeＧ３９０． 〔７〕 TimothyNoone,“DivineIllumination”,３６９． 〔８〕 RobertPasnau,“HenryofGhentandtheTwilightofDivineIllumination”,TheReviewofMetaphysics,Vol．４９,１ (１９９５): ５０． 〔９〕 Ibid．,４９．

１６０ YingyingZHANG:HenryofGhentandtheInevitableFailureofDivineIllumination

NeoＧAugustinianthoughtinthelatethirteenthcentury．

２．HenryofGhentƳsNewSynthesis

HenryofGhent(? Ｇ１２９３),alsoknownasDoctorSolemnis,wassecularmasterintheFacultyof TheologyattheUniversityofParisfrom１２７６to１２９２．Asapanelmemberofthepapacommission underEtienneTempier,BishopofParis,in１２７７,hehaslongbeenviewedastheleadingconservative th 〔１０〕 philosophicalforce at the University of Parisin last quarter of the １３ century． Inhis epistemology,heattemptedtointegratean Aristotelianempiricism,Platonicexemplarism andan AugustiniandoctrineofDivineIllumination．Healsotriedtorestorethetheologicalconnotationto DivineIllumination．IntheyearsbetweenThomasAquinasandJohnDunsScotus,HenryofGhentis certainlymostinfluentialphilosopher．Hisworkbecamethestartingpointandthetargetofcriticism forDunsScotus．ItshouldalsobenotedthatitisJohnDunScotuswhovirtuallybroughtthetheory totheend．ItƳsreasonabletoproclaim HenryofGhentasthelastforcefuldefenderofthetheoryof DivineIlluminationinthe Medieval Ages．However,HenryƳsadaption of DivineIlluminationis doomedpartlyinhisowntheoreticalsynthesis． Theyearsaround and afterthecondemnations,the defenders of Augustiniantradition,in particularthetheoryofDivineIllumination,werefaceduptheincreasinglycriticalandcontroversial climate．Variousattemptsweremadetoexplainhowthedivinelightinteractedwithordinarypowers ofhumanunderstanding．HenryofGhent,asTempierƳspanelmemberin１２７７andaleadinginfluence atParisbetween１２７７to１２９３,wasfullyawareofthedifficultiesofthetraditionalphilosophy．Itis interestingtonotethat HenrybeganhisSumma withaquestion whetheritispossibletoknow anythingatall．Itsignalsadeparturefromhispredecessors,sincetheyhadbeguntheirworkswith questionson GodƳsnature．After Henry,itbecamecommonforFranciscanstofollow,askingthe 〔１１〕 questionaboutthepossibilityofknowledgeattheoutsetofmajortheologicalworks． Logically, thequestion “can manknowtruth?”ispriortoinvestigationsintothesubjectofhow manknow truth． ２．１ TheKnowledgeoftheTrueandtheKnowledgeofTruth

HenrythinksthatapparentsuperfluityofDivineIlluminationismerelyapparentandtriesto buildasolidepistemologicalbasisformaintainingthetheory．Differentfrom Augustine,however, HenryclaimsthatDivineIlluminationisnotrequiredforallknowledge．Hisdefenseofthetheoryof DivineIlluminationrestsonadistinctionbetweentheknowledgeofthetrueandtheknowledgeofthe truth (veritassyncera)．

Tothefirstargumentontheotherside,thathumanbeingscanthroughtheir

〔１０〕 John Marenbon,ed．MedievalPhilosophy．Routledge HistoryofPhilosophy,v．３．London;New York:Routledge,１９９８,P． ４８３．CF:Pasquale Porro,“An HistoriographicalImage of Henry of Ghent”,Henry of Ghent:Proceedings oftheInternational th ColloquiumontheOccasionofthe７００ AnniversaryofHisDeath(１２９３),ed．W．Vanhamel(Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPress,１９９６), P．３９３． 〔１１〕 LydiaSchumacher,DivineIllumination:TheHistoryandFutureofAugustineƳsTheoryofKnowledge (WestSussex,UK; Malden,MA:WileyＧBlackwell,２０１１),１８７．

１６１ 国学与西学 国际学刊 第 期 年 月 １９ ,２０２０ １２

ownactivityacquireknowledge,itshould besaidthatthisistrue [asregards knowledge]ofnaturalthingsinknowingwhatistrueasregardsthething．ButGod teachesthis,bygivinganaturalcapacityforjudgmentthroughwhichonediscerns thethingstobeknown．Puretruth,however,oranytruththatmustbecognized supernaturally,orperhapsanytruthatall,cannotbeknown withoutGodhimself 〔１２〕 doingtheteaching．

Henrythinkshumanbeingiscapableofacquiringknowledgeofthetrue,thatis,whatistrueas regardsnaturalthings．ItislikelythatHenryhashadAquinasinmindinhisoriginaleffortstoface upwiththechallenges．Explicitly,Henryopposed AquinasƳpositionthatordinary (ornatural ) 〔１３〕 DivineIllumination amounts merelyto a naturallyinnatecapacityto know thetruth． For Aquinas,thefirstprinciplescomefromthedivinelightbytheimpressingitslightonhumanagent intellect．Thishappensatthecreationofthehumansoulanditisthenaturalendowmentoftheagent intellect．Aquinasdeniesanyfurtherneedforthedivinelighttoconcurwiththehumanintellect beyondthecreation．For Henry,Aquinasoverestimatesthepowerofhumanintellectandfailsto 〔１４〕 distinguishbetweenthetruththatcanbeobtainedfromsenseＧbasedimagesandtheeternaltruth． Henrydoesrecognizethedignityandperfectionofthecreatedintellect．Hebelievesthatnatural objectscan be known purely naturally,whilethe knowledge ofthetruthis acquired on the indispensabilityoftheDivineIllumination．Incontrast,acknowledgingthenaturalilluminationand specialillumination,ThomasAquinasbelievesthattheverynatureoftherationalsoulenablesusto knowcertainkindsoftruthsthroughsensiblethings,andothertruthssuchasfuturecontingentsand truthsoffaiththattranscendthefacultyofreasoncannotbenaturally known withoutspecial 〔１５〕 illuminationＧprophecy,inotherwords,orrevelation． Tojustifyhisclaims,Henryfirstdistinguishesbetweenthetwosortsofknowledgeasfollows:

ƺstillitisonethingtoknowofacreaturewhatistruewithrespecttoit,and anothertoknowitstruth．So,thereisonecognitionbywhichathingiscognized, anotherbywhichitstruthiscognized．Foreverycognitivepowerthatthroughits cognitionapprehendsathingjustasithasexistenceinitself,outsidethecognizer, apprehendswhatistrueinit．ButthroughthisitdoesnotapprehendthethingƳs

〔１２〕 “Ad primum in oppositum,quod homo potestproprio motu acquirerescientiam:dicendum quod verum estderebus naturalibus,sciendoidquodverumestinre:quodtarnendeusdocet:dandonaturaleiudicatoriumquosciendadiscernit．Synceramautem veritatem,autaliquamveritatemsupernaturalitercognoscendam,autforteveritatem quamcunque,nonpotestsciresineipsoproprio docente”;Ghent,Summa１．７ad１;１７rM．HenryofGhent,Summa (QuestionesOrdinariae),art．１Ｇ５,in HenricideGandavo Opera Omnia,ed．G．A．Wilson (Leuven:Leuven UniversityPress,２００１)．ArticleoneandtwoofHenryƳsSummahavebeentranslatedby RobertPsnauinTheCambridgeTranslationsofMedievalPhilosophicalTexts,Vol．３:Mindand Knowledge (Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress,２００２);allfivequestionsofarticleonehavebeentranslatedby RolandJ．Teskein HenryofGhentƳsSummaof OrdinaryQuestions(AritcleOne):ThePossibilityofHuman Knowledge (SouthBend:St．AugustineƳsPress,２００８)．Thequotations usedinthispaperaretakenfrom TheCambridgeTranslationsofMedievalPhilosophicalTexts,Vol．３:MindandKnowledge,translated byRobertPasnau． 〔１３〕 RobertPasnau,“HenryofGhentandtheTwilightofDivineIllumination”,５５． 〔１４〕 Noone,“DivineIllumination”,１:３８２． 〔１５〕 Ibid．,５２．

１６２ YingyingZHANG:HenryofGhentandtheInevitableFailureofDivineIllumination

truth．Forthesensesevenin bruteanimalsapprehend wellenoughconcerning athing whatistrueinit———forinstance,atruehumanbeing,truewood,atruestone, andespeciallytheproperobjectswithrespecttowhichthesensesarenecessarily true．Butstilltheyapprehendorcognizethetruthofnothing,becausetheycannot judgeregardinganythingwhatitisinactualtruth———e．g．,concerningahuman being,thatitisatrue human being,orconcerning acolor,thatitisatrue 〔１６〕 color?

Accordingly,toknowtheknowledgeofthetrueinvolvesacognitionthatrepresentstheobject asitis,basedonthesensesornaturalconception．Accordingto Henry,bothhumansandanimals whicharelackofreasoncangraspsomethinginthisway． ２．２ TheCreatedExemplarandtheDivineExemplar

Toknowthetruth,however,ismorecomplicated．Itinvolvesthemechanismoftwoexemplars: humanideasanddivineideas．Henryexplainsthatthetruthofathing “canbecognizedonlyby 〔１７〕 cognizingtheconformityofthecognizedthingtoitsexemplar．” Therefore,therearetwowaysof graspingthetruth．

AthingƳstruthhastwowaysofbeingcognizedbyahumanbeing,withrespect totwoexemplarsƺ．Thefirstexemplarofathingisitsuniversallikeness[species] existingwithinthesoul,through whichthesoulacquiresacognitionofallthe individualsitstandsfor．Thisexemplariscausedbythething．Thesecondexemplar 〔１８〕 isthedivineartcontainingtheidealformulationsofallthings．

Thefirstexemplariscreatedbyhumanintellectonthebasisofsenseexperience．Thesecondis anuncreatedonethatsubsistsinthedivineintellect．Ontheonelevel,thetruthofathingrequiresa conformityofacognitionofthatthinginhumanintellecttothething．Ontheanotherlevel,thetruth ofathingrequiresthethingƳsconformitytothedivineintellect．Inotherwords,thething matches thedivineexemplar．ItisalittlemisleadingwhenHenrysaysathingƳstruthmaybecognizedintwo ways．Itsuggestswe mightknowthetruthofathingeitherbycomparingourownideastothe

〔１６〕 “Aliudtarnenestsciredecreaturaidquodverumestineaetaliudestscireeiusveritatem:utaliasitcognitioquacognoscitur res,aliaquacognosciturventaseius．Omnisenimvirtuscognoscitivapersuamnotitiamapprehendensramsicutihabetesseinseextra cognoscentemapprehenditquodverum estinea．Sed non perhocapprehenditeiusveritatem．Sensusenim etiam in brutisbene apprehenditderequodverumestinea．Sedtarnennulliusreiveritatemapprehenditsivecognoscit:propterquoddenullopotestiudicare quidsitinreiveritate,utdehominequodsitverushomo,veldecolorequodsitveruscolor”;Ghent,Summa１．２;４vC．Translatedby RobertPasnau,TheCambridgeTranslationsofMedievalPhilosophicalTexts,Vol．３:MindandKnowledge,１１５． 〔１７〕 “Intentioenim veritatisinreapprehendinonpotestnisiapprehendendoconformitatemeiusadsuum exemplar”;Ghent, Summa１．２;５vE．Translatedby RobertPasnau,TheCambridge Translationsof MedievalPhilosophicalTexts,Vol．３:Mindand Knowledge,１１７． 〔１８〕 “DupUciteradduplexexemplarveritasreihabetabhominecognosciƺPrimumexemplarreiestspecieseiusuniversalisapud animamexisteras,perquam acquiritnotitiam omnium suppositorum eius:etestcausataare．Secundum exemplarestarsdivina continensomniumrerumidealesrationes”;Summa１．２;５vE．TranslatedbyRobertPasnau,TheCambridgeTranslationsofMedieval PhilosophicalTexts,Vol．３:MindandKnowledge,１１８．

１６３ 国学与西学 国际学刊 第 期 年 月 １９ ,２０２０ １２ thing,orbycomparingthethingtothedivineideas．However,itisthelatterconformitythatmakes 〔１９〕 thethingtrue． Thetruthofathingliesintherelationshipbetweenthethinganddivineintellect． ThematchbetweenathingandthedivineexemplaristhatofthethingsƳessencewiththeexemplar． “Andsosinceeverycreatureisakindofimageofadivineexemplar,thetruthofeverycreatureis 〔２０〕 cognizedmosttrulyandcompletelyinitsquidditybyseeingthedivineessenceuncovered．” For Henry,thetruthofanobjectjustistheobjectƳsessence．Knowingthetruthisthegraspingthe essencesoftheobject．Therefore,theimagecanbecognized (apriori)throughanexemplar,and conversely,theexemplarcanalsobecognized(aposteriori)throughtheimage．Henryconcedesthat humanbeingshavetheabilitytoknowwhatistrue．Heevenconcedesthatoursensearereliableand 〔２１〕 thusgiveusveridicalawarenessoftheexternalworld． However,Henrystillclaimsthatweare unabletogobeyondsuperficialappearancesbysensesandgrasptheessenceofwhatitistobea certainkindofthing．HeacceptedtheAristotelianpositionthat “wedohavefixedknowledgeof 〔２２〕 changeable,particular,sensible,naturalthingsthroughtheiruniversalsexistingintheintellect．” However,Henrydeniesthatthiseffortcouldleadtotheessencesofaobject．Itisnotpossiblefor humanbeingsontheirowntogobeyondthesensesandprogresstothedeepestunderstandingofthe 〔２３〕 essencesofcreatures． Theknowledgeoftruthispossibleforhumanbeings,onlyonthecondition oftheaidsfrom DivineIllumination． Intheprocessofcognition,Henrydistinguishestwowaysofutilizingtheexemplarastheobject ofknowledgeorasthemeansofknowing．AccordingtoHenry,thedivineexemplarsofBeing,unity, 〔２４〕 truth,andgoodness,areimprintedorpouredonthe mindthroughspecialillumination． These uncreatedexemplarscheckthetruthoftheexemplarsthathavebeencreatedbythemindandthus confirmthattheyareabsolutelycertain．Thatistosay,DivineIlluminationdoesnƳtofferknowledge, butregulatesthecognition． TheclaimthatweareunabletograspnaturallythetruthofthingsdistinguishesHenryfrom AquinasandtheAristotelianismofhisage．Aquinasbelievesthatthenaturallightofagentintellect sufficestogetbehindtheappearanceandreachthetruenatureofreality． ２．３ ThreeWaysofHowDivineIllumination Works

Asmentionedabove,theclassicform of DivineIlluminationattemptedtoresolvethedual problemsofhowthemindgeneratestheideasandhowthemindmakesthejudgmentofthetrueand certainknowledgefromthefalseone．AsGilsonpointsout,theintellectoperationsinvolvecriteria andideogenesis．To Augustine,thejudgmentalfunction of DivineIlluminationfar outweighed 〔２５〕 ideogenesis． Inotherwords,thelightplaysmoreimportantnormativeroleinhumanknowledgeof

〔１９〕 RobertPasnau,“HenryofGhentandtheTwilightofDivineIllumination”,５８． 〔２０〕 Henry,Summa,translatedbyRobertPasnau,TheCambridgeTranslationsofMedievalPhilosophicalTexts,Vol．３:Mindand Knowledge,１２４． 〔２１〕 RobertPasnau,“HenryofGhentandtheTwilightofDivineIllumination”,６０． 〔２２〕 Henry,Summa,translatedbyRobertPasnau,TheCambridgeTranslationsofMedievalPhilosophicalTexts,Vol．３:Mindand Knowledge,１０５． 〔２３〕 RobertPasnau,“HenryofGhentandtheTwilightofDivineIllumination”,６２． 〔２４〕 Schumacher,DivineIllumination,１９０． 〔２５〕 EtienneGilson,“SurquelquesdifficultésdelƳilluminationaugusinienne,”Revuenéoscolastiquedephilosophie３６ (１９３４), ３２１Ｇ３１．

１６４ YingyingZHANG:HenryofGhentandtheInevitableFailureofDivineIllumination thepuretruth．ItseemsthatHenrywaswellawareofAugustineƳsstatementsandtiedtointegrate themintothreewaysofexplicationofhow DivineIlluminationworksinhumanƳsknowledgeoftrue truth．Accordingto Henry,thefunctionofGodperformedinhumanƳscognitionservesasspiritual 〔２６〕 light,aformorspeciesandafigureormark,akindofdivineart． Steven Marronethoughtthat HenrydidnƳtrejectthe multiplefunctions of DivineIllumination hefoundinthe writings of 〔２７〕 Augustine,andhowever,tookmuchgreatercaretobepreciseoftheexplication． First,Godactsasanintellectuallightilluminatingthemind,notdirectlyenablingittoseethe 〔２８〕 puretruth,butsharpeningandcleansingittoseeclearly ．ThedivinelightdoesnƳtgetinvolvedin manƳsactualcognitiveprocess,butpreparesthewayforit．Themindisbelievedtocloudedbythe baseaffectionofthefleshandsin,justasthebodilyeyesneedtobepurgedsothattheycouldreceive thevisibleimages．Interestingly,itisnotedthatpurgingthereceptivecognitivepowerisoneoftwo rolesHenryattributedtotheagentintellect．Moreover,inhislaterworks,HenrydiddescribeGodas 〔２９〕 thesecondagentintellectinthenaturalprocessesofcomingtoknowtheobjectsintheworld． Suchagentintellectisexternalofthemind,andGodilluminatedtheintellectindirectly．AsSteven MarronepresumedthatinHenryƳsunderstanding,whathappenedwasthatthedivinelightdiffused itselfontheintelligiblespeciesofthings,andtheycarriedittothemind,whereitthendiditsworkof 〔３０〕 cleansingandhealing． Second,Godactsasaformandspecies,whichactuallyengagesinmindƳscognitiveprocessand 〔３１〕 transformsthemindtoseethepuretruth． Unlikethespirituallightelaboratedabove,thesecond roleoffersthemindthespeciesandformstocometoknowthepuretruth．Henryusedtheanalogyof blurredvision．Theeyeswouldknowonlythattherearesomeobjectpresentedtothem ,butwould notknow whattheyareactuallyseeing．InthecontextofHenryƳstheoryoftruth,itisnƳthardto understand．Therearetwospecies,oneistakenfromtheexternalobjectbythesenses;theotheris theexemplarinGod,thecauseofthething．Themindhastocomparethetwospeciesinorderto form the perfect word,the actual psychological manifestations of the pure truth in its 〔３２〕 understanding． Theknowledgeoftruthistheconformityoftheobjecttoitsdivineexemplarin thedivinemind．Theimpressedspeciesdrawnfromtheobjectisnotperfectandpreciselycorrect, accountingforthemindƳsinitialconfrontationviasenses．Themindisstillinsufficienttocometothe puretruth,stillrelyingontheDivineIlluminationforthesecondspecies,thedivineexemplartoflow intoit．Thereisacontradiction．AccordingtoHenry,themindinthislifenormallycouldnƳtseethe divineexemplarasanobject,instead,meansofcognition． Third,Godactsasafigureoramark．Godcontainstheeternalreasonsofallthingsintheworld,

〔２６〕 Summa,art．１,q．３ (I,９rＧv[D])． 〔２７〕 StevenJ．Marrone,TruthandScientific Knowledgeinthe Thoughtof HenryofGhent,Cambridge,Massachusetts,The MedievalAcademyofAmerica,１９８５,３１． 〔２８〕 Summa,art．１,q．３ (I,９vD)．“Estenim primoratiocognitionisutlux,mentum solummodoillustrando:utadintuendum sinceramveritatemreiacuatur:nonuteamintueaturetiamvideat．” 〔２９〕 Summa,art．５８,q．２ (II,１２９vＧ１３０r[E])． 〔３０〕 StevenJ．Marrone,TruthandScientificKnowledgeintheThoughtofHenryofGhent,３２． 〔３１〕 Summa,art．１,q．３ (I,９vEandF)．”Secundo mododuesestratiocognitionisutformaetspecies mentemimmutansad intuendum．” 〔３２〕 Summa,art．１,q．３ (I,１０rG)．SeealsoSumma,art．１,q．４ (I,１２vD)．

１６５ 国学与西学 国际学刊 第 期 年 月 １９ ,２０２０ １２ likeastorehouseofexemplarsordivineideas．Inthisway,Godislikeanart (ars),impressing, 〔３３〕 sealingandmarkingthemind withitsimages． Thisis,Henrybelieved,moredirectandperfect thanthefirsttwo modes．However,itishardtoexplainhowthismodeisdistinctfromtheother two．Usingthetraditionalanalogytoasignetring,whichmadeitsmarkonthesealingwax,Henry echoedAugustineinDeTrinitate,literallyindicatingthedivineilluminationimpressingtheimage ontothe mindthroughanimpression．Henrybelievedthattheknowledgeoftruthisa wordor conceptdrawnfromtheobjectinconformitywithdivineexemplar．Thewordortheconceptissimply thenoeticmarkerfortheknowledgeofsimilitudethatconstitutetruth．Thepuretruthturnsoutto betheadequationbetweentheconceptintheintellectandGod．However,thisisnotwhatHenry intended．Hetookpainstoemphasizethattheperfectconceptoftruthwasformedinthemindby divineexemplar,butthewholeprocesscouldnotoccurwithouttheuseofacreatedexemplardrawn 〔３４〕 fromtheexternalobjectintheworld． Therefore,Henryclaimedthatoncethemindhadattained theknowledgeofanexternalobjectbymeansofthecreatedspecies,thedivineexemplarshoneupon 〔３５〕 thisknowledgeandthusledthemindtoperceivethepuretruth． HerethefunctionofGodinthe cognitiveprocessisdefinedas“art”,notofferingnewspeciestoformconcepts,instead,moldingthe conceptsthemindhadalreadydevisedfromthecreatedexemplar．Tobemoreprecise,themindtakes twosteps,firstusingthecreatedexemplartakenfromtheexternalobjecttoform anincomplete conceptorword(imperfectandstillinneedofadjustment),andthenbyimpressingtheseconddivine exemplarmoldingandshapinghewordtobetheperfectwordofpuretruth．Theexternalobjectis theimpressioninthe materialworldofthedivineexemplar;theconceptinthe mindreceivesthe impressionfromthesameexemplarfrom God,andthusthetruthwhichtheconceptsignifiesreflects thecreativerelationshipbetweenthecreatedobjectandGod．AsHenryexplainedthatoncetheword intheintellecthadbeen markedbythesealofGodƳsdivineexemplar,itbecamethemoreperfect 〔３６〕 similitudeoftheobject,becausebothofthem werenowimpressionsleftbythesameseal． Sofar,Henryhaddevelopedageneraloutlineofthetheoryofhumanknowledge．Basedonthe distinctionbetweentheknowledgeofthetrueandtheknowledgeoftruth,Henryofferedhissolution toskepticism．Ontheleveloftruthinthelightoftwoexemplars,Henrybelievedthemindcould enteredtherealm ofscienceand withaidofthespecialillumination,the mindcouldattainthe knowledgeoftruthofvariedcertitudeandperfectsense．Onlyinthedivinelightcouldthehuman intellectreachthepuretruth (sinceraveritas)．As Henryhimselfclaimed,hisphilosophyoffersa 〔３７〕 synthesis of Aristotle and Plato in the Augustinian tradition． Clearly,Henry is a true Augustinian,buthedidnƳt makeconcessionstoaneverＧencroaching Aritstotelianism．Instead,he perceivedtheinadequacyinAristoteliantheoryofknowledgeandturnedtoDivineIlluminationfor thesolution．

〔３３〕 Summa,art．１,q．３ (I,１０rF)．“Tertio modoestratiocognitionisutexemplaratquetransfigurans mentem addistincte intelligendum:ethocrationeaeternarumregularumindivinaartecontentarum．” 〔３４〕 StevenJ．Marrone,TruthandScientificKnowledgeintheThoughtofHenryofGhent,３６． 〔３５〕 Summa,art．１,q．３ (I,１０rFand１０vG)． 〔３６〕 Summa,art．１,q．３ (I,１０rG)． 〔３７〕 Summa,art．１,q．４E．

１６６ YingyingZHANG:HenryofGhentandtheInevitableFailureofDivineIllumination ３．TheOntologicalBasisforHenryƳsSynthesis

ItƳsevidentthatHenrybelievedthatthemindcanreachsomekindoftruth ,buthadaproblem explaininghow thatcouldbe．In Aristotelianterms,ournaturalwayofacquiring knowledgeis throughsensation．Anexemplarcreatedbyabstractingfromphantasmswouldbesufficienttoknow thetruthfor Aristotle,while Henry wouldnƳtacceptitbecause Henry and hiscontemporizes inhabitedadifferent metaphysicaluniversethan Aristotle;theirtheologicalcommitmentsentailed 〔３８〕 thattheywouldhavedifferentstartingpointsthanthoseofAristotle． Thedivineexemplarwould berequiredforHenryfortheknowledgeofpuretruth,anddivineilluminationwhichwaspervasive intheChristiantraditioncouldhelpsolvethedilemma． ManyscholarshavenoticedthatHenryƳsthoughtshadwentthroughchanges．TheophielNys firstdetected HenryƳs moveandreorientationin hisstance on noeticsand epistemology．Nys demonstratedthat Henry madeextensiveuseofthe Aristoteliannotionofanintelligiblespecies impressedonthemindinintellectionasameansofknowingsimpleobjectsinhisfirsttwentyarticles ofSumma．InQuodlibetIV,Nysshowed,Henryforthefirsttimedefinitelyandirrevocably,rejected 〔３９〕 therecoursetoimpressedintelligiblespecies． InQuodlibetV,Henrylaidouthismaturetheoryof word (verbum)tosubstitutetheintelligiblespecies．Steven P．MarroneproposedathreeＧstage developmenthypothesis:thefirststagerevealingHenryasanAugustinian;thesecondmanifestinga 〔４０〕 turntoAristotelianformalism;thelastpresentingaexquisiteintegrationoftheprevioustwo． Anotherconvincingproofis HenryƳssilenceonDivineIlluminationinhismiddleyears．However, Henryseemssimplyto haverevertedto hisearliestposition,going back on the Aristotelian 〔４１〕 innovationsofthemiddleyearstoreaffirmthepurelyAugustiniandoctrineofadivinelight． In hismostmaturethoughts,Henryhadcomefullcircle．Hereturnedtotheimageofilluminationand theideaofgodlyinterventionfashioninhisveryearlyworks,butitwasnottorepeatandresurrect thesameimageandidea．ThenewsynthesisofDivineIlluminationissomehowoldandnewatthe sametime．HenrytendedtoelaborateGodƳsactionasanart(ars),astorehouseofformsworkingon 〔４２〕 thematerialoftheartifact． HenryƳsmetaphysicsinsightsaresupposedtobeexaminedtoaccount forthedevelopmentinHenryƳsepistemology． Fromthebeginning,HenrytookastanceotherthanThomasAquinas,firmlyrejectinganyreal distinctionbetweenbeingandessence．Theyaredifferent,butnotdifferentenoughtorefertotwo 〔４３〕 differentthings(res)toformathirdorcompositeone． Astotherealityofcreatedthings,Henry proposedtwokindsofstateofbeing:thebeingofessence(esseessentiae)andthebeingofexistence (esseexistentiae)．Theformerindicateditparticipatedinadivineexemplarthroughitsessence,while

〔３８〕 PatrickJ．Connolly,“HenryofGhentƳsArgumentforDivineIlluminationReconsidered”,AmericanCatholicPhilosophical Quarterly,Vol．８９,No．１,６５Ｇ６６． 〔３９〕 SeeTheophielV．Nys,Depsychologiacognitionishumanaesecundum Henricum Gandavensem,Rome,１９４９,９,３４,and４２． 〔４０〕 StevenP．Marrone,“HenryofGhentin MidＧcareerasInterpreterofAristotleand ThomasAquinas”,HenryofGhent: th ProceedingsoftheInternationalColloquiumontheOccasionofthe７００ AnniversaryofHisDeath (１２９３),１９４Ｇ１９５． 〔４１〕 StevenJ．Marrone,TruthandScientificKnowledgeintheThoughtofHenryofGhent,９９． 〔４２〕 Quod．IX．q．１５ (ed．Macken,P．２６５):“ƺagensenimquiDeusest,agitsicutarsquaeponitformaminmaterialartificii;agens veroquiestpotentialanimae,agitsicutlumencircaphantasmataƺ” 〔４３〕 Summa,art．２１,q．４(I,１２７vS)．

１６７ 国学与西学 国际学刊 第 期 年 月 １９ ,２０２０ １２ thelattermeanseachthinghasarealobjectexistenceintheworld,asaneffectofdivinecreativeact basedontheexemplars．Veryuniquely,itseemedHenryalsoproposedathirdlevelofreality,thatis thecognitivebeing (esserationis)．Simplyput,thecognitivebeingindicatesthecreatedthings existedinthemind． Byusingthebroadestmetaphysicalcategorythin Henryformulateaframeworktoanalyzethe reality．Themostinclusivething (res)includesbeing (ens)andnonＧbing (nonens),which was identifiedbyHenryasresareorreris．Therewerethingswhichcouldhaveexistedintheworld, becausetheyallpossessedorrelatedtotheexemplarsinthedivinemind,whicharethebasisforall creationandthefoundationforactualbeingintheworld．Henryassociatedthislevelwithnature (natura)andessence (essentia),andidentifyingasresaratitudine．Athirdlevellay withinthe secondone,includingthingswhichhadactualexistenceintherealworld,eitherintherealworldor inthemind．Henryidentifieditasresexistensinactu． AdiagramcanbestexplainHenryƳsmetaphysicalframework:

Inthesecondcircle,thingsbeinganessencepossessedexemplarsin God,therefore,andare objectsoftheintellect．TheessencedidnƳtmeanthatithadbeenactualized．Inthethirdcircle,with beingofexistenceadded,thingsaremadeactuallyexistingobjects．Onthelevelofessence,therewas arelationwithGod,consistingthecoreofthecreatedthings．WithHenryƳsmetaphysicalframework, letƳsexaminehow histheoryofbeingandessence wasintegratedintohisepistemology．Essence reflectedacorrespondencetoadivineexemplar,andalsogaveeachthingitstruth．Ifessenceoffered thefoundationforthingsƳtruth,italsoprovidedthebasisforthetruthofhumanknowledge．Inorder words,essencenotonlylayattheontologicalcoreofthethings,butatthecoreofhumanknowledge． ThemindperceivedthetruthwiththeultimateontologicalbasisinGod．Therefore,theminddidnƳt havetoshiftfromtwodifferentthings:thecreatedexemplarandthedivineexemplar,toobtainthe puretruth,butpushedfurthertowardstheultimate metaphysicalbasis,theabsoluteessence．God actedasadivineart,impressingafromonthemind．Comingtotruthisgraspingtheessence,which wasatheartperceivingtherelationtoGod．Themindcouldonlyseekthetruthfromthebeingof essence,instead ofbeing ofexistence．Allin all,takingthe Aristotelian pathtothescientific knowledgeentailedcomingtorecoursethetraditionalAugustiniantermsandtheology．Henryhad pusheda waytoresolvetheconflictsbetweenthe Aristotelian pathandthe Augustineoneof explainingtruth．Byincorporatinghisinnovativetheoryofdistinctionofessenceandbeing,hefound theunityofthepathfromtheexistingobjecttotheessenceandfinallytoGod．Tosomeextent,he wasgenuine Platonism,using explicitly Augustinian language．With the analyticaltoolsfrom

１６８ YingyingZHANG:HenryofGhentandtheInevitableFailureofDivineIllumination

Aristotleand ThomasAquinas,Henrystillmaintainhistheologicalandepistemologicalposition． StevenP．Marronewasquiterightinclaimingthetheoryofbeingandessencehadnotonlybridged thegapbetweenthecreated worldand GodƳsideas,therebyeliminatingtheneedforanyexplicit theoryoftwoexemplarsinthemind;ithasalsomadeHenryƳstwotypesoftruth,thescientifictruth 〔４４〕 oftheanalyticalmindandthepuretruthoftheilluminatedintellect,thesame．

４．Conclusions

BeinganAugustinian,butwithaconsiderabledifference,HenrywaswillingtoacceptAristotle 〔４５〕 whennoessentialsareatstakeandisasympatheticreaderofAvicenna． Inhisepistemological system,heabidesbytheAugustinianprinciplethatnopuretruthcancomebymeansofthesenses, whilethenaturalknowledgeacquiredbasedonsensesis,innormalcircumstances,true,despitebeing notpureandfulltruth．Still,itbecomesincreasingly difficultto defendthetheory of Divine Illuminationphilosophically．DespiteHenryƳschallengetothegrowinginfluenceoftheAristotelian accountandhissynthesisofan Aristotelianempiricism,Platonicexemplarism andan Augustinian theoryofknowledge,thetheoryofDivineilluminationdeclinedinevitably．Thetensionbetweenthe ChristianmetaphysicalworldviewandtheepistemologicalrequirementsoftheAristoteliansystemis unsolvable．TheneedfordivineilluminationiswaninginfaceofencroachingAristotelianism．Henry wouldneverthoughthissynthesishadalimitedinfluenceinthecomingage．HistheoryofDivine th Illuminationis,tocertainextent,doomed．Inthepredicamentoflater１３ century,theconservative theologians,oratleastthoseoftheirnumberwhobelongedtotheorderofFriars Minor,beganto 〔４６〕 receivean assistancefrom the genius of Duns Scotus． John Duns Scotusis an empirical Aristotelian,whorejectedtheroleofDivineIlluminationinordinarycognition,andlimititasthe sourceofknowledgeaboutGod．Thatis,innaturalcognitiveprocesses,DivineIlluminationceasesto getinvolved．Themindattainsknowledgebyabstractingtheessencefromtheobjectspresentedby thesenses,thusattainingtheconcept．Scotusclaimedthathumanintellectwascompetenttoattain thetruthwithoutanydirectdivineillumination．Virtually,thetheoryofDivineIlluminationdeclined afterJohn Duns Scotus．Historically speaking,the nonＧilluminationistaccount of mind,first advocated by Aquinas and developed into a thoroughgoing theory by Scotus,displaced illuminitionism．Thefocusofepistemologyshiftedfromtheproblemofeternaltruthandcertaintyto thetopicofuniversalknowledgeanalyzedthroughcompetingversionsofintuitiveandabstractive 〔４７〕 cognition．

〔４４〕 StevenJ．Marrone,TruthandScientificKnowledgeintheThoughtofHenryofGhent,１４０． nd 〔４５〕 DavidKnowles,TheEvolutionofMedievalThought,２ ed．D．E．LuscombeandC．N．L．Brook (LondonandNew York: Longman,１９８８),２７５． 〔４６〕 Ibid．,２７６． 〔４７〕 Noone,“DivineIllumination”,１:３８２．

１６９ 国学与西学 国际学刊 第 期 年 月 １９ ,２０２０ １２

中文题目: 根特的亨利和注定失败的光照论

作者:张迎迎 上海立信会计金融学院外国语学院讲师 中国社会科学院研究生院世界宗教研究系博士生 本文系上海 , ; , 市哲学社会科学规划一般课题“‘光照论’在欧洲中世纪哲学史中的流变及影响考论”（批准号：2020BZX010）阶段性研究成 果。上海文翔路2800号1号楼209办公室，201620，电话：+86-137-6452-1028。电子邮箱：[email protected]。

摘 要:根特的亨利试图整合亚里士多德的经验主义 柏拉图的范型主义和奥古斯丁的光照论 为奥古斯丁的认识论 建立 坚实的哲学基础 同时试图恢复其神学内涵 然而、 他的新综合是注定失败的 因为基督教形,而上学的世界观和亚 , . , , 里士多德体系的认识论要求之间的张力是无法解决的 在 世纪末 面对不断侵蚀的亚里士多德哲学 对神圣光照的 . １３ , , 需求日趋衰减 .

关键词:光照论 奥古斯丁 柏拉图主义 亚里士多德主义 原型 ; ; ; ;

１７０