sign in sign up
<<
Home , Boethius, Godfrey of Fontaines

Metaphysical Composition of Angels in , Aquinas, and

John F. Wippel

Christian thinkers in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries were much concerned with protecting the absolute simplicity of and, in their effort to support this point, by way of contrast often attributed some kind of composition to all created entities. By the mid-1280s, very differ- ent ways of doing this had been proposed by different and theologians. One widely held position maintained that in all created sub- stances other than God there is a composition of matter and form—of a corporeal matter and a corporeal form in the case of corporeal entities, and of a spiritual kind of matter and a spiritual form in the case of purely spiritual beings such as angels and human according to some, or of one and the same kind of matter in both corporeal entities and in spirits according to others. Another position appealed to some version of a dis- tinction and composition, originally proposed by , between quod est and esse in all beings with the exception of God, even though this distinction and composition was interpreted in widely divergent ways by different thinkers. Still other thinkers insisted that one could adequately defend the non-simple character of substances other than God without appealing to any real distinction and composition either of matter and form or of and existence (esse) within them. The chapter consider these three positions successively in three different sections as they were developed by Bonaventure, , and Godfrey of Fontaines.

1. Matter-Form Composition of Angels: St. Bonaventure

The first theory, widely accepted by the mid-thirteenth century, is often referred to as universal hylomorphism, that is, the claim that in all beings with the exception of God there is a distinction and composition of form and matter. The historical origins of this theory were disputed in the thir- teenth century and, for that matter, continue to be subject to some dis- pute today. On the one hand, certain defenders of this position, especially among the , attempted to trace it back to Saint Augustine 46 john f. wippel and contrasted this and other Augustinian positions with the dangerous innovations which, they maintained, had recently been introduced into Christian thought by thinkers such as Albert the Great and Thomas Aqui- nas. Certain modern scholars, especially Roberto Zavalloni, agree that the theory is indeed Augustinian in origin.1 On the other hand, various thir- teenth-century figures, including Albert and Aquinas, maintained that its true originator was the Spanish-Jewish Avicebron (Ibn Gabi- rol), who, writing in Arabic, produced an influential work known by its title as the Fons vitae which had been translated into Latin in the twelfth century, and in which this theory is developed.2 In his Commentary on Book II of the of , distinction 3, part 1, while considering the natural attributes of angels, Bonaventure introduces the issue of the simplicity of angelic by raising three questions: (1) whether an angel is simple, or composed of matter and form; (2) if it is granted that it is composed of matter and form, whether the matter present in spirits is essentially the same as that found

1 Roberto Zavalloni, Richard de Mediavilla et la controverse sur la pluralité des formes: textes inédits et étude critique (Leuven: Éditions de l’Institut Supérieur de Philosophie, 1951), 422. While he recognizes the influence of Avicebron on the doctrine of universal hylomor- phism, he denies that it is preponderant and cites Thomas of York in his effort to show that Augustine’s influence was more direct and decisive (see 442–43). Also see Gonsalvus of Spain, Quaestiones disputatae 11, ed. Amorós, Bibliotheca Franciscana Scholastica Medii Aevi 9 (Quaracchi, Florence: Editiones Collegii S. Bonaventurae Ad Claras Aquas, 1935), 221, who attributes this theory to Augustine. 2 For the second view, see Erich Kleineidam, “Das Problem der hylomorphen Zusam- mensetzung der geistigen Substanzen im 13. Jahrhundert, behandelt bis Thomas von Aquin” (Ph.D. diss., Schlesische Friedrich-Wilhelm-Universität zu Breslau, 1930), 14, who cites Albert’s In Sent. 2.1.A.4, ed. A. Borgnet (Paris: Vivès, 1890–1899), 27:14b, as does James Weisheipl, “ and Universal Hylomorphism: Avicebron. A Note on Thir- teenth-Century ,” in Albert the Great: Commemorative Essays, ed. and with an introduction by Francis J. Kovach and Robert W. Shahan (Norman: University of Okla- hama Press, 1980), 239–60, at 256. In this reference, Albert identifies the title of Avicebron’s work (Fons vitae) but assigns it to . For Aquinas’s explicit identification of its author as Avicebron see below. See Kleineidam, “Das Problem,” 7–8, 11–14, and Weisheipl, “Albertus Magnus,” 244–49, for their assessments of the respective influences of Avicebron and his translator, Gundisalvi, on the development of universal hylomorphism in the Latin West in the early thirteenth century. Also see Odon Lottin, “La composition hylémorphique des substances spirituelles: Les débuts de la controverse,” Revue néoscolastique de Philosophie 34 (1932): 21–41. For a helpful update on recent literature concerning the identity, life, and writings of , see Alexander Fidora, Die Wissenschaftstheorie des Dominicus Gundissalinus: Voraussetzungen und Konsequenzen des zweiten Anfangs der aristotelischen Philosophie im 12. Jahrhundert (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2003), 12–19, 195–96 (his philosophical writings and his ).