Tatiana Krapivina EXEGESIS ACCORDING to the RULES OF
CEU eTD Collection
METHODOLOGICAL CONFLICT NINTH-CENTURYMETHODOLOGICAL IN THE EXEGESIS ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF ACCORDING RULES PHILOSOPHYEXEGESIS THE TO PREDESTINATION CONTROVERSY PREDESTINATION CONTROVERSY MA Thesis in Medieval Studies Studies MedievalMA Thesis in OR THE RULE OF RULE FAITH? OR THE Central European University Tatiana Krapivina May 2010 Budapest
CEU eTD Collection
Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfilment of the requirements Centralfulfilment of European University,theBudapest, partialrequirements in ______METHODOLOGICAL CONFLICT NINTH-CENTURYMETHODOLOGICAL IN THE EXEGESIS ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF ACCORDING RULES PHILOSOPHYEXEGESIS THE TO Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, the to DepartmentStudies, Thesis submitted of Medieval Accepted the conformancewith standards in CEU of the of the Arts MasterStudies degree Medieval of in PREDESTINATION CONTROVERSY PREDESTINATION CONTROVERSY Chair, Examination Committee Chair, Examination OR THE RULE OF RULE FAITH? OR THE Tatiana Krapivina Thesis Supervisor May 2010 Examiner Examiner Examiner Examiner Budapest (Russia) by
CEU eTD Collection
Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfilment of the requirements Centralfulfilment of European University,theBudapest, partialrequirements in ______METHODOLOGICAL CONFLICT NINTH-CENTURYMETHODOLOGICAL IN THE EXEGESIS ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF ACCORDING RULES PHILOSOPHYEXEGESIS THE TO Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, the to DepartmentStudies, Thesis submitted of Medieval Accepted the conformancewith standards in CEU of the of the Arts MasterStudies degree Medieval of in PREDESTINATION CONTROVERSY PREDESTINATION CONTROVERSY OR THE RULE OF RULE FAITH? OR THE External Examiner Examiner External Tatiana Krapivina May 2010 Budapest (Russia) by
CEU eTD Collection
Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfilment of the requirements Centralfulfilment of European University,theBudapest, partialrequirements in ______METHODOLOGICAL CONFLICT NINTH-CENTURYMETHODOLOGICAL IN THE EXEGESIS ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF ACCORDING RULES PHILOSOPHYEXEGESIS THE TO Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, the to DepartmentStudies, Thesis submitted of Medieval Accepted the conformancewith standards in CEU of the of the Arts MasterStudies degree Medieval of in PREDESTINATION CONTROVERSY PREDESTINATION CONTROVERSY OR THE RULE OF RULE FAITH? OR THE Tatiana Krapivina Supervisor May 2010 Budapest (Russia) by
CEU eTD Collection Budapest, 2010 25May degree. academic an for education higher of institution other any to form this in submitted been has thesis the of part no that declare also I institution. or person any of copyright the on thesis infringes the of part no and others, no of work that the of declare made was I use illegitimate bibliography. and unidentified and notes in credited information external such only and research my on based work, own my exclusively is thesis present the that herewith declare undersigned, the I, , candidate for the MA degree in Medieval Studies, Studies, Medieval in degree MA the for candidate Krapivina, Tatiana
______intr Signature CEU eTD Collection E 3. PRUDENTIUS’FLORUS’ AND CRITIQUES: TRIVIUM BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 2. ERIUGENA’S D 1. THE DEBATE: PREDESTINATION A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW...... 7 ...... INTRODUCTION LIST ABBREVIATIONS...... OF CONCLUSION...... ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... TABLE CONTENTS...... i OF XEGESIS ACCORDING TOFIDEI THEXEGESIS REGULA ACCORDING 2.4. Justification of the method...... 33 of2.4. Justification the method...... 33 Ars dialectica2.3. Ars grammatica2.2. Ars and 2.1. The “theory language”...... 20 of 1.2. John Scot’sDe Praedestinatione 1.2. John ...... 7 1.1. Gottschalk’sandcontroversy the theory beginningof the 3.2. Inconsistency of the method? Application of dialectic...... 40 Inconsistency Application3.2. of dialectic...... 40 method? of the of3.1. Critiques Eriugena’s approach...... 37 1.4. The Methodological significance of the controversy...... 16 significance1.4. The controversy...... 16 Methodological of the 1.3. The end of the debate...... 13 2.3.2. Dialectic and theological truth: A means of salvation...... 31 2.3.2. Dialectic Asalvation...... 31 means truth: and of theological ...... 28 2.3.1. Dialectic truth and philosophical ...19 ...... 19 E PRAEDESTINATIONE ...... 28 ...... 28 in biblical exegesis ...... 21 ...... 21 rhetorica biblicalexegesis in TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE and its critics...... 11 critics...... 11 and its ...... 46 ...... 46 ...... 48 ...... 48 ...... 1 ...... 1 : EXEGESIS: TO THE ACCORDING i
...... iii iii ...... ii ...... ii ...... 36 ...... 36 CEU eTD Collection
havepeoplewritten.work been my wouldnot these Without lacking. been never have I afar from support strong whose S., to and family the with help kind my to thanks enough Never me. for there being alwaysand assistance their forBranislav) and her for Rasson Judith James Madalina, Dora, Jana, (especially, colleagues my all to to thanks special A proofreading. thanks Many and work comments. my to useful attention and always interest her for Somfai Anna to grateful also am I started. has philosophy medieval with acquaintance real my that say I can feel Isources the with help guidance and his to year.Thanks Academic duringthe encouragement and support invaluable wud ie o xrs m gaiue o my to gratitude my express to like would I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
supervisor György Geréby for his his for Geréby György supervisor CEU eTD Collection
Contra JoSco Aduersus JoSco ISEBH HEJSE GSE ESQ SPES JSE PL DP
. In. Augustino 115, atque PL Fulgentio uidelicet aGregorio, Hieronymo, Patribus, caeteris a siue Erigenam Prudentio, a correctus Scoti Johannis liber seu cognomento Scotum Iohannem contra praedestinatione De Johannis aduersus Lugdunensis liber Scoti Erigenaedefinitiones erroneas Ecclesiae nomine sub diaconi Flori Turnhout:Brepols, 1956-.Migne, reprint, Facsimile 1844- f h 9 the of Hermeneutics and Bible The Eriugena: Scottus Iohannes SPES, the M. and of McEvoy J. Conference Ed. LeuvenLeuven:Dunne.University 2002. Press, 2000. International 16-20, Time August his Dublin, 10th and and Maynooth the Eriugena Scottus of John Proceedings in Eschatology and History Florence: Mainoldi. S. Ernesto tr. and del Galluzzo,2003.Edizioni Ed. . carolingia rinascenza Eriugena. Scoto Giovanni Werner ed. Beierwaltes Universitätsverlag, Carl Winter (Heidelberg: 1980. 1979, August 27-30 Freiburg/Br. Internationalen IIIEriugena-Colloquiums, des Vorträge Quellen. seinen zu Studien Eriugena. Society of Eriugenian the Promotion for Studies Vrin,août –2septembre 1986. ed.Allard. Guy-H. Paris: 1983), Scot Jean McEvoy. James Steel, Carlos Riel, LeuvenLeuven: University Press, 1996. Van Gerd Edd. 1995. June7-10, cols. 1009C-1366A. Patrologia cursus completus, series latina. Ed. J.-P. Migne. Paris: J.-P. J.-P. Paris: Migne. J.-P. Ed. latina. series completus, cursus Patrologia Brepols,Goulven Madec.Turnhout: 1978. Eriugena. Scottus Johannes
th olqim f h SE, evn n Louvain-La-Neuve, and Leuven SPES, the of Colloquium É Ats u V olqe nentoa. otél 28 Montréal international. Colloque IV du Actes crivain. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS LIST iii
Dialettica e teologia all’apogeo della della all’apogeo teologia e Dialettica e iia raetntoe liber preadestinatione diuina De . In. 119,cols. 101B-250A. PL . Proceedings Proceedings . Ed. . . CEU eTD Collection in (New York: Charles Scribner’s Son, 1912). Although the book is somewhat dated, it is still useful. useful. isitstill dated, issomewhat Although thebook 1912). Son, Scribner’s Charles (NewYork: in Culture” Biblical “Carolingian Contreni, Aristotle’s Aristotle’s Wallach, Luitpold by author. was its Alcuin that argues and the edition ofletter theauthorship of theproblem the from Literature quoted and History is Carolingian letter the of text penetrare ualeatis mysteria scripturarum diuinarum rectius et facilius ut discere, certam hoc ad intentione Cassiodore’s Cassiodore’s 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Sacra lun n the in Alcuin educational written the in Carolingian the documents addressee –exhorts revival adtr euain f h Faks ceg ws fiily launched. officially was clergy Frankish and the ubiquitous of of education program mandatory the which from which from documents the of one was That simplified, collected, and taught. On the other hand, Alcuin’s revival of the liberal arts liberal revival the Alcuin’s of hand, the other taught.On collected,and simplified, on the interpretations teaching wereHolyFathers, assimilated, studied, and whose of the texts rely to was wisdom biblical acquire to ways main the of one hand, one the On homogeneous. readBible.” the in they what “understand clergy the make to also but ones, new the produce and Bible the of copies existing amend to only not was reforms the goalsof main the of one life, ecclesiastical philosophy and logic on texts the Studying exegesis. biblical of method another of rise the for way the Among these texts were texts these Among West, F. Andrew see learning of revival the in Alcuin of role the For Contreni, was reforms Contreni, educational establishing for important document Another Fulda. abbotBaudulf of to isaddressed letter The Quamobrem hortamus litterarum studia non solum non neglegere, uerum etiam humillima et Deo placita placita Deo et humillima etiam uerum neglegere, non solum non studia litterarum hortamus Quamobrem Carolingian Learning, Masters and Manuscripts Mastersand Learning, Carolingian Augustine’s , h dvlpet f ilcl xgss a Cnrn shows, Contreni as exegesis, biblical of development The
u rte t aqie h poe kolde f hs i odr ht ih an with properly the Scriptures. mysteries of the Holy that and easier order penetrate can in you God these to pleasing of and humble knowledge intention proper the acquire to rather but letters, the of study the neglect to not only not you advise we reason, this For Carolingian Biblical Culture Biblical Carolingian Carolingian Biblical Culture Biblical Carolingian e Interpretatione De 7 Institutiones and training in grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic at school laid a foundation for foundation a laid school at dialectic and rhetoric, grammar, in training and psoa e itrs colendis litteris de Epistola e Trinitate De 4
etc. See footnote 8. 8. footnote See etc. Categoriae Decem Categoriae , Porphyry’s Porphyry’s , s el s atau Capella’s Martianus as well as
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1959), 203. Wallach also discusses discusses also Wallach 203. 1959), Press, University Cornell NY: (Ithaca, , 3. 3. , . Idem., “Inharmonious Harmony: Education in the Carolingian World,” World,” Carolingian the in Education Harmony: “Inharmonious Idem., . ISEBH INTRODUCTION Isagoge (a paraphrase of Aristotle’s Aristotle’s of paraphrase (a , 1-20. 1-20. , (Hampshire: Variorum, 1992), 81-96. 81-96. 1992), Variorum, (Hampshire: , Boethius’ Boethius’ , 2
1
oe f h ms fmu ad influential and famous most the of one – De Consolatione Philosophiae Philosophiae Consolatione De Alcuin. The Rise of the Christian Schools Christian the of Rise The Alcuin. e uti Piooie t Mercurii at Philologiae Nuptiis De lun n Calmge Suis in Studies Charlemagne: and Alcuin Categories doii Generalis Admonitio 5 by an anonymous author), author), anonymous an by was rapid, but not not but rapid, was 3 eie regulating Besides 1
and and . See John John See . Opuscula 6 paved The The , ,
CEU eTD Collection Early Middle Ages Middle Early 10 9 8 used, widely were Bible thethe on commentaries Fathers’ of compilations Maurus’ Hrabanus results: brought already reforms the decades few a in Thus, texts. sacred the interpreting towards approach philosophical a of formation the practices Carolingian revival. during the exegetic ofvariety and complexitythe show to try Iwill debate predestination the of example the these on Thus, implied. methods of these that problems the applications and texts, biblical similarities, the to approaches and differences the their investigate approaches, will I their debates. of predestination principles the during – Lyon of Florus and Troyes of Prudentius – opponents his and Eriugena Scot John by treatises the in raised problems Ithe To these time. research. polemicsdevote will the present ofscholars and prominenttheologians,politicians, most the yearsinvolved twentyand almost and lasted prolonged It society. Carolingian most century mid-ninth of the life intellectual the of in events complicated one was It date. early this at sources Antique and Christian had already been applied creativelyhad alreadyissues. applied been theological to xmls f uh nelcul conflicts, intellectual such of examples ofled disagreements to methodology. onquestions and problems theological revealed inevitably practices exegetical different of help the with them with deal to attempts and works Fathers’ the and Bible the of complexity extreme The caused. they that contradictions and problems also but reforms, educational the of success John Marenbon, Marenbon, John Contreni, See The other controversies of the ninth century included the Trinity, Eucharist, etc. etc. Eucharist, theTrinity, included ninth century the of controversies other The In this work, I focus on the problems of the methodology of dealing with theological theological with dealing of methodology the of problems the on focus I work, this In Early and mid-ninth century Carolingian society, however, witnessed not only the the only not witnessed however, society, Carolingian century mid-ninth and Early The mid-ninth century polemical exchanges on predestination were one of the the of one were predestination on exchanges polemical century mid-ninth The Carolingian Biblical Culture Biblical Carolingian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 2006). Press, University Cambridge (Cambridge: From the Circle of Alcuin to the School of Auxerre: Logic, Theology and Philosophy in the in Philosophy and Theology Logic, Auxerre: of School the to Alcuin of Circle the From
. . 10 asd y n cie n rpd siiain f the of assimilation rapid and active an by caused 2
8 and the logical tools and vocabulary and tools logical the and 9
CEU eTD Collection . Grabmann Periphyseon work major the philosopher’s of themainly basis on studied attention, particular received method philosophical Scot’s John field. this in studies further stimulated and philosophy Eriugena’s to scholars of attention the attracted 1970s, in international the century, twentieth started which Studies, the Eriugenian of Promotion the for Society of the by organized conferences turn the as early as shown was Eriugena’s philosophy to interest active an Although well-researched. are philosophy and works his solving theological problems. Florus’ Prudentius’ – contemporaries his of works Brill, 1992), 181-194. 181-194. 1992), Brill, Jeauneau Edouard of Honour in Studies Thought. Medieval and Neoplatonism in Method,” in language,” of capacities Verlagshandlung, 1909). 1909). Verlagshandlung, 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 Praedestinatione (Louvain: Peeters W.B.Eerdmans, 1995). 1995). W.B.Eerdmans, Peeters (Louvain: 1989). Press, University Cambridge (Cambridge: furthergeneration. the in method and thought philosophical of development the on influence and sources its f rueas w fruain f i mto ad t apiain n h treatise the in application its and method his of formulation own Eriugena’s of discussion a to devoted is chaptersecond The methodologicalsignificance. its highlight tryto ok b Jeauneau, by works the of scholasticism; development the of context the in philosophymethod Scot’s and John of Carabine Deidre Carabine, Carabine, Deidre Moran, Dermot in contraires,” the and Scottus “John Marenbon, John propositions des logique la Eriugena’s et of Scot Development “Jean the Allard, and Guy-H. Periphyseon the in Contradiction and function “Biblical the O’Loughlin, of Thomas valuation Eriugena's on Reflexions object. its and “Language Beierwaltes, Werner Jeauneau, Édouard Grabmann, Martin In the first chapter I give the historical background of the predestination debate and and debate predestination the of background historical the give I chapter first the In John Scot Eriugena is an eminent figure in the history of philosophy, and generally and philosophy, of history the in figure eminent an is Eriugena Scot John Aduersus Johannis Scoti Erigenae erroneas definitiones liber definitiones erroneas Erigenae Scoti Johannis Aduersus 18 ISEBH and others are devoted to the discussion of the particularity of Eriugena’s method, Eriugena’s of particularity the of discussion the to devoted are others and , 103-120. 103-120. , . In the third chapter, I discuss the critiques of John Scot’s approach in the in approach Scot’s John of critiques the discuss I chapter, third the In . h Piooh o Jh Souu Eign. Suy f daim n h Mdl Ages Middle the in Idealism of Study A Eriugena. Scotutus John of Philosophy The Études érigéniennes Études h Ukon o. eaie hooy n h Paoi Taiin Pao o Eriugena to Plato Tradition: Platonic the in Theology Negative God. Unknown The i Gshct dr coatshn Methode Scholastischen der Geschichte Die JSE 12 Beierwaltes, , 209-228. 209-228. ,
Categoriae Decem Categoriae (Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1987). 1987). augustiniennes, Études (Paris: 13 O’Loughlin, De praedestinatione contra Iohannem Scotum Iohannem contra praedestinatione De 3
,” in ,” ESQ 14 Allard, , 117-134. 117-134. , . Vol. 1 (Freiburg/Br.: Herdersche Herdersche (Freiburg/Br.: 1 Vol. . 15 , ed. Jan Westra Haijo, (Leiden: (Leiden: Haijo, Westra Jan ed. , Marenbon, – and their methods of of methods their and – From Athens to Chartres. Chartres. to Athens From 11 shows the role showsthe 16 Moran, e divina De and and 17
CEU eTD Collection 183–90. 183–90. philosophie la de John Scot Eriugena) ( Eriugena) Scot John произведениях praedestinatione liber praedestinatione University, 1998. 1998. University, 283-302. Variorum,1990), VT: (Brookfield, ed. 2d L.Nelson, Janet and Gibson carolingienne L’époque 1991). Paul, 1954 (Paris, 1955), 519-28. 519-28. 1955), (Paris, 1954 praedestinatione 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 24 23 22 21 20 19 eeomn o Jh So Eign’ hlspia ves (Cappuyns, views philosophical Eriugena’ Scot John of development des religions
ai sucs ht nlecd rueas raie ee tde b Madec, by studied were treatise Eriugena’s influenced that sources Latin The edition. new a in treatise the of analysis brief, although comprehensive, and translation polemics, the other roles ofparticipants the ideas. and their predestination of history the of analysis complete a been not has there far so Nevertheless, controversy. the in participants other of roles the show also and itself debate predestination Stock, Amann, Marenbon, 25 Ernesto S. Mainoldi, “Su alcune fonti ispiratrici della theologia e dell’escatologia del del dell’escatologia e theologia della ispiratrici fonti alcune “Su Mainoldi, S. Ernesto Scot Jean par in Augustine” Eriugena’s of Search “In Stock, Brian Augustine Saint de textes des “L’utilisation Mathon, Gerard European le dans Scot Jean Central de “L’augustinisme Madec, Goulven Budapest: Thesis. MA Predestination,” on Debate Ninth-Century “The Stanciu, Diana in “Introduzione,” Mainoldi, S. Ernesto in Predestination” on Debate “The Ganz, David in prédestienne,” controverse “La Amann, Émile Devisse, Jean Brilliantov] [Alexandr Marenbon, John O’Meara, J. John Cappuyns, Maïeul Emmanuel Aegerter. “Gottschalk et le problème de la prédestination au IXe siècle” in in siècle” IXe au prédestination la de problème le et “Gottschalk Aegerter. Emmanuel 31 rdsiain oeis ae en icse ete a a at f hsoy f the of history a of part a as either discussed been have polemics Predestination The 24 hl Mainoldi while Aegerter, , 116 (1937): 187-233. 187-233. (1937): , 116 21 DP Brilliantov,
Иоанна Hincmar archevêque de Reims 845-882 Reims de archevêque Hincmar ” in ” , Colloques internationaux du CNRS, 561, ed. René Roques (Paris : Editions du CNRS, 1977), 1977), CNRS, du Editions : (Paris Roques René ed. 561, CNRS, du internationaux Colloques , has been also studied from various perspectives. Thus, Mainoldi provides a a provides Mainoldi Thus, perspectives. various from studied also been has Early Medieval Philosophy (480-1150). An Introduction An (480-1150). Philosophy Medieval Early Eriugena Jean Scot Erigène sa vie, son oeuvre, sa sa pensée oeuvre, son vie, sa Erigène Scot Jean Augustinus Magister Augustinus М di Giovanni Scoto Eriugena,” in Eriugena,” Scoto Giovanni di oscow: Martis, 1998). 1998). Martis, oscow: (Paris, 1947), 320–44. 320–44. 1947), (Paris, 25
Скота t.. ok b Ganz, by Works etc.). Александр (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988). 1988). Press, Clarendon (Oxford: 22 32 etc.) or in connection to Gottschalk’s life and (Devisse, teachings life Gottschalk’s to etc.)connection in or rcs h ifune f h Gek hlspia ad theological and philosophical Greek the of influence the traces
Эригены
Бриллиантов (The influence of Eastern theology on the Western in the works by by works the in Western the on theology Eastern of influence (The GSE , Actes du Congrès international augustinien, Paris, 21-24 septembre septembre 21-24 Paris, augustinien, international Congrès du Actes , , IX-XLI. IX-XLI. , Histoire de l’église depuis les origines jusqu’ à nos jours nos à jusqu’ origines les depuis l’église de Histoire hre te ad Cut n Kingdom and Court Bald: the Charles 26 ESQ HEJSE 4 , , . 3 vols. (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1975-1976). 1975-1976). Droz, Librairie vols.. 3 (Geneva: Mainoldi
De predestinatione De Влияние , 85-104. 85-104. , , 313-329. 313-329. ,
восточного (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1933). 1933). Brouwer, de Desclée (Paris: 27 n Stanciu and , 2d ed. 2d , ,” in ,”
Jean Scot Érigène et l’histoire l’histoire et Érigène Scot Jean богословия
(London: Routledge&Kegan Routledge&Kegan (London: 28
19 r dvtd o the to devoted are rgn dn son dans Erigène . . O’Meara, J. J. 29 Mathon, Revue d l’histoire l’histoire d Revue
, ed. Margaret T. T. Margaret ed. , на
западное De divina divina De 30 and De De
23 20 в ,
CEU eTD Collection de Jean Scot,” in Scot,” Jean de Its Critiques, to the to Critiques, Its inevitably which task a – limits possible their define to themselves philosophy and theology for necessity the to led also debate this show, to try will I as Moreover, strategies. exegetic various formulating of process the show can debate the during raised was which – Bible? the read to how – question methodological important an to answers different the of analysis An development. a such illustrates that example particular a is – “methodological” debate this the within conflict and – general in debate predestination the opinion, my In revival. Carolingian the of developmentandphilosophical theological the ofdiscussion the accountin the isolation; into taken be in should they and attention deserve considered also milieu his of achievements be intellectual cannot thought philosophical Eriugena’s Marenbon), the in elaborated he that the philosophical system his studying of origin for the reveals and source stages early a its in as thought his of serves development polemics the during written treatise Eriugena’s exegesis Florus further research. of and themselves Prudentius require 36 34 33 the on tradition L. Nelson, 2d ed. (Brookfield, VT: Variorum, 1990), 303-325. 303-325. Variorum,1990), VT: (Brookfield, ed. 2d L.Nelson, considered in isolation. He points out how some critical remarks made by Florus and and Florus by made remarks the on Prudentius critical some how out points He isolation. in considered teto. Marenbon attention. proper enjoyed not have general, in exegesis and views theological their as of well particularities as Florus), and Prudentius (including polemics predestination the in participants arguments 35 John Marenbon, “John Scottus and Carolingian Theology: From the From Theology: Carolingian and Scottus “John Marenbon, John d’Onofrio, Giulio “ d’Onofrio, Giulio Anneli Luthala, “Time and the Substantial Verb in Eriugena” in in Eriugena” in Verb Substantial the and “Time Luthala, Anneli The predestination debate requires attention for several reasons. On the one hand, hand, one the On reasons. several for attention requires debate predestination The Compared to the quite developed studies on Eriugena’s philosophy, the roles of other other of roles the philosophy, Eriugena’s on studies developed quite the to Compared 34 in the in DP JSE Periphyseon Fons scientiae. La dialettica nell’Occidente tardo-antico nell’Occidente dialettica La scientiae. Fons , 229-263. 229-263. , Disputandi disciplina Disputandi DP DP 36 influenced the major work of Eriugena in in Eriugena of work major the influenced DOoro nlzs h rl o dialectic of role the analyzes D’Onofrio . ; Luthala ; rus ht h dvlpet f on cts huh cno be cannot thought Scot’s John of development the that argues ,” in ,”
35 Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom and Court Bald: the Charles devotes her research to the use of grammar devotes the to use her of the in treatise. research . Procédés dialectiques et et dialectiques Procédés . O te te hn, ad are with agree I (and hand, other the On Periphyseon. 5
, 77-87. 77-87. , HEJSE logica vetus vetus logica De praedestinatione De edd. Margaret T. Gibson and Janet Janet and Gibson T. Margaret edd. (Naples: Liguori Editore, 1986). 1986). Editore, Liguori (Naples: . The works and and works The . Periphyseon 33 dans le langage philosophique philosophique langage le dans n te tutr of structure the and , Its Background and and Background Its , CEU eTD Collection Notre Dame Press, 1998). 1998). Press, Dame Notre 37 onlynot teachings, these betweenalso within different but teachings themselves. contradictions and ideas, radical tendencies, unstable rather but doctrines, mature and firm find not does one why is That formation. active of process the in were philosophy medieval and exegesis medieval Latin of principles the when period a was century ninth The time. that of situation intellectual the of complexity the mind in bear should one revival Carolingian ninth-century of studies of field the in philosophy. contribution a the see during I conflict methodological polemics the predestination of discussion my in Thus, difficulties. implies
the texts by translation. arethegiven Florus texts and my Prudentius in the from passages the of translations own mygive will I sometimes John Scotus Eriugena, Eriugena, Scotus John In the work, I will use the English translation of the the of translation English the use will I work, the In the of issues methodological and philosophical as well as theological with Dealing
Treatise On Divine Predestination Divine On Treatise
6
, tr. Mary Brennan (Notre Dame, IN: University of of University IN: Dame, (Notre Brennan Mary tr. , DP by Mary Brennan, Mary by DP . The quotations from quotations The . 37 although CEU eTD Collection 44 jours IXe nos à jusqu’ au origines les depuis prédestination l’église de Histoire la de problème le et “Gottschalk siècle,” Aegerter, Emmanuel 1958); Vrin, J. Philosophique Jolivet, Jolivet,
of the beginning and theory 1.1. Gottschalk’s controversy and phases Florus,last respectively. be first and of will considered asthe polemics, the Prudentius by treatise Eriugena’s of critique the followed that councils the at of predestination problems the of discussions and refutation, a written had Scot John before Gottschalk by provoked controversy, the of beginning the Thus, attention. particular requiring debate the of history the in phase a as it followed that polemics the and participation Scot’s John consider will I respects, many in remarkable event, crucial a as debate the in intervention Eriugena’s Taking simple. is division the of principle The development. of stages three into perspective.from the methodological importance its highlight will I end the at and problem, and points key the on focusing debate a give to not is the theof history present brieflyIwill Here, predestination polemics. the complete accountof however, chapter, this in goal My written. be to remains – significance and results its positions, their and participants contradictions, and questions implications, and reasons the – controversy predestination ninth-century the of history comprehensive A Augustine. later of teaching the on based predestination double of theory the proposed who
38 For the life, works and theology of Gottshcalk and his participation in the predestination polemics, Jean Jean polemics, predestination the in participation his and Gottshcalk of theology and works life, the For . Cyrille Lambot, “Opuscules grammaticaux de Gottschalk,” Gottschalk,” de grammaticaux “Opuscules Cyrille Lambot, Godescalc d’Orbais et la Trinité: La Méthode de la théologie a l'époque carolingienne, l'époque a théologie la de Méthode La Trinité: la et d’Orbais Godescalc Revue d l’histoire des religions des l’histoire d Revue The debate was initiated by Gottschalk, a monk from Fulda and then from Orbais, from then and Fulda from monk a Gottschalk, by initiated was debate The debate predestination the divide roughly will I order, and convenience of sake the For THE PREDESTINATION ATHE HISTORICALOVERVIEW DEBATE:
, 116 (1937): 187-233. Émile Amann, “La controverse prédestienne,” in in prédestienne,” controverse “La Amann, Émile 187-233. (1937): 116 , CHAPTER 1 7
. Vol. 6. 6. Vol. . Revue bénédictine Revue L’époque carolingienne L’époque 44 (1932): 120-4. 120-4. (1932): 44 , (Paris, 1947), 320– 1947), (Paris, , (Paris: Librairie Librairie (Paris: 38
CEU eTD Collection based on the difference between God’s essence (foreknowledge) and accident (predestination). (predestination). accident and (foreknowledge) essence God’s between thedifference on based 44 43 42 41 on teaching Gottschalk’s rejected he which in treatise a predestination. and letter a – Verona of Noting(846). who was Hrabanus–the send Maurus, bishop Gottschalk’sFulda, to in teacher Friuli of Eberhard Count of court the at later years few a and (840) Verona of diocese the in predestination on theory his presented Gottschalk Rome, to pilgrimage a During damnation. eternal to wicked the and life eternal to elected the predestined God theory, this to According a creator of evil, which is impossible, is which evil, of creator a of the same contents as the previous one. previous the as contents same the of faith. Christian the to according lives their who conducted who those those predestined and foreknew sins committed only God that states and predestination and foreknowledge God’s predestination controversy since the council of Quierzy, wrote in turn a letter to to letter a turn in wrote Quierzy, of council the since controversy predestination a of movementmanwill oftowards the free salvation. supports he grace his through but sin, to man a force not does God that states and God of will elso, otcak omltd i tei i a hr tets ad upre i wt the with it supported fromquotations the ScriptureFathers. and the and treatise short a In in monastery. thesis Hautvilliers his to formulated sent Gottschalk seclusion, and heresy in accused again was he (849), Quierzy atBald of the Council year the presence Charles One the of in later, was a proclaimed heretic. himself Gottschalk condemnedand wasdoctrine his Mainzhowever, (848),of Council the At 40 39 Gotteschalcus, Gotteschalcus, cols.1555B-1557C. Ibid., Maurus, Hrabanus God by predestination and foreknowledge between distinction a makes Hrabanus Here, 1532CD. col. Ibid., Ibid., col. 1531BC. 1531BC. col. Ibid., Maurus, Hrabanus 41 Later, Hrabanus wrote a letter to Eberhard with a refutation of Gottschalk’s doctrine Gottschalk’s of refutation a with Eberhard to letter a wrote Hrabanus Later, Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, who had become an especially active figure in the in figure active especially an become had who Rheims, of archbishop Hincmar, Upon his return to Fulda, Gottschalk continued preaching on double predestination. predestination. double on preaching continued Gottschalk Fulda, to return his Upon Confessio 39 In this letter, he states that dual predestination by God would mean that he ishe that mean would byGod predestination dual that states he letter,In this Epistola ad Heberardum comitem Heberardum ad Epistola Epistola ad Notingum cum libro de Praedestinatione Dei Praedestinatione libro de cum Notingum ad Epistola , PL 121, cols. 147D-150B. cols.147D-150B. 121,
40 and he also makes an important distinction between distinction important an makes also he and 42 In this letter, Hrabanus also defends the salvific the defends also Hrabanus letter, this In 44 , , 8 PL PL
112, cols. 1553D-1562C. 1553D-1562C. cols. 112, 43
, , PL 112, cols. 1530D-1553C. cols.1530D-1553C. 112, CEU eTD Collection 309. 309. Jean Joviet “L’enjeu de la grammaire pour Godescalc” in in Godescalc” pour grammaire la de “L’enjeu Joviet Jean te a autem Bona bona. tantummodo uero praedestinasse mala, siue bona siue futura erant quaecunque saecula mortem ad reproborum more detailed treatise, detailed more a with letter this answered Gottschalk sources. patristic the from excerpts the of basis the on 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 parishioners, usitatissimum genus locutionum usitatissimum Farthers and elaborates Isidore’s treatment of predestination, oftreatment Isidore’s elaborates andFarthers praedestinata bifariam sunt bifariam praedestinata pro uobis pro “The Evans, R. Century,” theNinth in Predestination ofGillian Grammar 79-87; 1977), CNRS, du Éditions (Paris: 561 No. CNRS, du Internationaux Colloques interpretations of the Fathers, but he does not agree with Hincmar on the main matters. main the on Hincmar with agree not does he but Fathers, the of interpretations wrote a letter to Hincmar and Pardulus, and Hincmar to letter a wrote Prudentius teachings. own their than theoryGottschalk’s to support more lent which opinions and Ferrières of Lupus Maurus, Ratramnus of Corbie. Hrabanus Troyes, on of discussion the Prudentius in were part predestination took who theologians these Among subject. the on opinions their express to theologians influential most the asked doctrine, Gottschalk’s of refutation the previous writing. Gottschalk claims that predestination is one ( one is predestination that claims Gottschalk writing. previous the
but at the same time it is double ( double is it time same the at but justice. with wicked the punishes and grace the with elected the saves it – action or “effect” double Prudentius, quoting the Gospels, claims that Christ died died Christ that claims Gospels, the quoting Prudentius, Prudentius, see debate, predestination the in and exegesis biblical Gottschalk’s in grammar of role the For 358A. Ibid., cols.357C-358C. Ibid., Gotteschalcus, Hispalensus, Isidorus Gotteschalcus, Hincmar, 49 Meanwhile, Hincmar and his companion, Pardulus of Laon, looking for support in the the in support for looking Laon, of Pardulus companion, his and Hincmar Meanwhile, Against their expectations, however, Hincmar and Pardulus were confronted with with confronted were Pardulus and Hincmar however, expectations, their Against (Ibid, col. 276CD). 276CD). col. (Ibid, In this work, Gottschalk also underlines the importance of Priscianus’ art and this and art Priscianus’ of importance the underlines also Gottschalk work, this In Ad reclusos et siplices et reclusos Ad Epistola ad Hincmarum et Pardulum et Hincmarum ad Epistola 45 encouraging them and explaining the inconsistency of Gottschalk’s teaching teaching Gottschalk’s of inconsistency the explaining and them encouraging Confessio prolixior Confessio ofsi prolixior Confessio . . Senteniae 46 ... in which he bases his argumentation on the authority of the Church the of authority the on argumentation his bases he which in , ed. W. Gundlach, W. ed. ,
I 6 1. 6, II , , , PL , cols. 349D-350C. 349D-350C. cols. , in biblicalexegesis. in 121, cols. cols. 349C-366A. 121, gemina 51 Gemina est praedestinatio, siue electorum ad requiem, siue siue requiem, ad electorum siue praedestinatio, est Gemina in which he points out Gottschalk’s mistakes in the in mistakes Gottschalk’s out points he which in ) or twofold ( twofold or ) Journal of Theological Studies Studies of Theological Journal , , PL Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte für Zeitschrift 115, cols. 971D-1010B. 971D-1010B. 115, cols. 9
Credo sequidem atque confiteor praescisse te ante ante te praescisse confiteor atque sequidem Credo non pro omnibus, sed pro multis; non pro aliis, sed sed aliis, pro non multis; pro sed omnibus, pro non en ct rgn e lhsor d a philosophie la de l’histoire et Érigène Scot Jean 50
), that is, being one, it has a a has it one, being is, that ), bipartita 47 which he already referred to in to referred already he which 33 (1982): 134-45. 134-45. (1982): 33 ) and good ( good and una) 10 (1899): 93–144, 258– 93–144, (1899): 10 bona), 52 In 48 ,
CEU eTD Collection hss n rdsiain hc is which predestination on thesis problems of predestination. the solve them help to school, palace the at arts liberal the of master the Scot, John to appeal an was took Pardulus and Hincmar that step next The polemics. the in involved became time same the at king the to close was and milieu intellectual the in reputations best the of one Quapropter cum dicitur de malis, quia ad poenas praedestinati sunt praedestinati poenas ad malis, de quia dicitur cum Quapropter 646D. redemerit quos nisi redempti sunt nulli et uoluerit, quos omnes redemerit Deus sanguine suo quod Variorum, 1990), 283-302. 283-302. 1990), Variorum, Kingdom and Court Bald: the Charles 57 56 55 54 53 forpunishments ( their sins to but death, or sin to not wicked the predestined God that specifies Prudentius letter, the
wo a, oevr a red f Gottschalk) of friend a moreover, was, (who split in the ecclesiastical authority, which would have influenced the political order and and order power. political the influenced have would which authority, ecclesiastical the in split the by explained be can debate the into Bald the Charles as figure political eminent such of a involvement The predestination. on discussion the into Ratramnus presented and Lupus drew who Bald he when 849, the as Charles also was it early and Quierzy, of as Council the at theses shown Gottschalk’s of condemnation was debate the in Bald the Charles of apparently by astheir aviews. considered and not Hincmar strongsupportof Pardulus Noting and Eberhard, that is, that God predestined only to good. to only predestined God that is, that Eberhard, and Noting toletters his in said already had he what repeated he where letter short a in Hincmar’srequest answered Maurus Hrabanus predestination. twofold of theory Gottschalk’s with agreement For more on the political implications of the controversy see David Ganz, “The Debate on Predestination,” in in Predestination,” on Debate “The Ganz, David see controversy the of implications political the on more For Maurus, Hrabanus Corbeiensis, Ratramnus Ferrariensis, Lupus 976AB. Ibid., 57
The predestination controversy was also momentous as a political event. The interest interest The event. political a as momentous also was controversy predestination The It is no wonder, then, that in such a situation the involvement of the person who had had who person the of involvement the situation a such in that then, wonder, no Itis Epistola ad Hincmarum Rhemensem Hincmarum ad Epistola Liber de tribus questionibus tribus de Liber e rdsiain Dei predestinatione De non ad culpam sed ad poenamnon adculpam sed ad
n, e bipartita sed una, , 2d ed., ed. Margaret T. Gibson and Janet L. Nelson (Brookfield, VT: VT: (Brookfield, Nelson L. Janet and Gibson T. Margaret ed. ed., 2d , , , , , PL PL 10 : 119, cols. 621D-648B. 621D-648B. cols. 119, 121, cols. 11C-80. Ratramnus specifies Gottschalk’s Gottschalk’s specifies Ratramnus 11C-80. cols. 121, ...Sequitur ut opera Dei uniuersa sint praedestinata. praedestinata. sint uniuersa Dei opera ut ...Sequitur 54
, , n Rtans f Corbie of Ratramnus and PL 112, cols. 1518D-1530C. cols.1518D-1530C. 112, , col. 79A. col. , ). 53 TheLupus of works Ferrières of 56 This letter, however, was however, letter, This Nos autem, salua fide, hoc est, est, hoc fide, salua autem, Nos 55 lo reflected also ... Ibid., col. Ibid., ... CEU eTD Collection indiuiduum, inseparabileque sit, - unitas enim simplex est atque incommutabilis atque est simplex enim unitas - sit, inseparabileque indiuiduum, 62 61 60 59 58 Scot’s De1.2. John Praedestinatione ex deo factum est nullum uitium boni efficit boni uitium nullum est factum deo ex hooia rnil htGdssbtnei n,sml n good. and simple one, is substance God’s that principle theological contemporary of eyes the in theologians looked quiteambitious. it purpose, current the for appropriate most the as approach considered the philosophical Although he from the theologicalwhich problems. Eriugenadiscusses one, philosophical the is, that perspective, very the by explained be can treatise the of novelty The statements. own his prove to and thesis Gottschalk’s refute to arts liberal the applied he which with scope the was indeed work the in novel was What will. human free the with lies sin for responsibility that implies also idea This punishment. for nor death and sin for neither responsible is God that was prove to had aimed he Hrabanus that idea core and the Thus, asserted. Hincmar that ones with coincided points main the novel; were work the in defended he that ideas the of all Not problems. predestination the to solutions own ohn, n b is aue n ant e foreseen. be cannot in nature its by and nothing, is it good; of absence the is evil Scot, John to according because, God, for impossible is evil which is again impossible because of the unity of the divine substance. divine the of unity the of because impossible again “multiple,” is which implies already “double” because accepted, be cannot God of predestination eas ohrie e ol nt e good. be not would he otherwise because sin, and death for responsible not is he that and damnation to anyone predestine not could evil (in the notion of which Eriugena includes sin, death, suffering, and punishment) and suffering, death, sin, includes Eriugena which of notion the (in evil
Ibid., X, 3. X, 3. Ibid., 5. III, 6; II, Ibid., X, 2-5. Ibid., “ 4: XVI, in syllogism the example, for see, Ibid., DP , II, 3. 3. II, , In 851, John Scot wrote the wrote Scot John 851, In The whole system of the arguments in Eriugena’s treatise is built on the single single the on built is treatise Eriugena’s in arguments the of system whole The Cum igitur diuina substantia uel essentia uel natura uel quomodo dici potest, in se ipsa unum, unum, ipsa se in potest, dici quomodo uel natura uel essentia uel substantia diuina igitur Cum
...” etc. etc. ...” De divina praedestinatione liber praedestinatione divina De and itscritics and 59 onme bonum aut deus est aut ex deo factum est; omne quod quod omne est; factum deo ex aut est deus aut bonum onme oevr t peetn ad vn o foreknow to even and predestine to Moreover, 11
60 f hs s h cs te, h double the then, case the is this If ...... , where he proposed his his proposed he where , 58 This means that God that means This 61 Responsibility for Responsibility 62 lies in lies CEU eTD Collection 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 commandments. God’s against or with accordance in either life his conduct can he which through will rational free a is which man, a of nature the locutionum statements need which just be to deciphered. way. proper the in reality divine the express to power have not does which language, human the distinguished as correspondingly a correspondingly as distinguished trustworthy interpretation. trustworthy the by provided be can (which tools the of application an requires Fathers the of texts the and Scripture the with Dealing difficulties. exegetical good and evil deeds while through his predestination he determines only good. only determines he predestination his through while deeds evil and good man can find support on his waymanhis can findsalvation. support on towards
case, if the Scripture says “predestination” it should becase,“foreknowledge” “predestination”should understood Scripture it as says if the t s ad h peetnd” h poe udrtnig ol b “e i nt predestine.” not did “he be would understanding proper the predestined,” “he said is it lcs n h Bbe r h Ftes bt ih epc t te nt o te iie substance divine the of unity samepredestination God.and in and the are one foreknowledge the to respect with but Fathers, the or Bible the between in places distinction particular of the understanding better even the for that only means made is which predestination and simple, foreknowledge and one is God that is, that principle, main the mind in bear should one however, difficulty, exegetical any with Dealing Ibid., XVII, 1. XVII, Ibid., 2. chapter see methods Eriugena’s analysisof moredetailed the X. For Ibid., XV, 6. Ibid., 5. II, Ibid., 1-2. IX, Ibid., IX. I; Ibid., 3; II, Ibid., XVI. 8; XV, VI;VII; Ibid., 66 ht s h te citr ad h Ftes sd bcr o seigy contradictory seemingly or obscure used Fathers the and Scripture the why is That In each particular exegetical situation, one should apply the most appropriate most the apply should one situation, exegetical particular each In Besides theological and anthropological issues, Eriugena was also concerned with with concerned also was Eriugena issues, anthropological and theological Besides Tu, n n cs Gds oenweg ad rdsiain hud be should predestination and foreknowledge God’s case one in Thus, . 65 The problem with the interpretation of a text is that it is based onbased is it that is text a of interpretationthe with problem The
genus and a and 12
: through foreknowledge God foresees foresees God foreknowledge through : forma 64
63 Through the grace of God, however, God, of grace the Through triuium 70 ) that are guides to the most most the to guides are that )
67 In another In 68 genus genus or if 69
CEU eTD Collection saluari et uenire ad Deum ad uenire et saluari 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 to maketo any salvation. movement towards Lyon, but scholars argue that it could have been by Florus. Florus. by have been could it that argue scholars but Lyon, Troyes predestination became more distinct. The letter to Gottschalk by Amulo, bishop of Lyon, of bishop Amulo, by Gottschalk to letter double The distinct. more of became predestination theory the and Gottschalk towards attitude and assertions Hincmar’s criticize the debate of end 1.3. The
man (which, according to both theologians, is not constituted by free will) free by constituted not is theologians, both to according (which, man rdsiain nt cetn hs sinet f peetnto” o h sbtne f God of substance the to “predestination” of assignment his accepting not predestination, o ov te rbes f hooy nta o rlig n te la epaain o the of explanations clear “the Fathers.” Church the on and Scripture relying of instead theology of problems the solve to means a as dialectics usingfor Scot John blame works criticalBoth methodologicalstand. his as assertions anthropological and theological Eriugena’s much as were critiques the of targets ua wl ad iie rc i slain Puetu ad lrs cue Eign of Eriugena accused Florus and Pelagianism Prudentius salvation. in grace divine and will human and the treatise the and justice. God’s of manifestation the to belongs it because punishment a determine not does God that idea very the also and Remigius Lugdonensis, Remigius Lugdonensis, Amulo “ 115A col. Ibid., 132BC. col. Ibid., Prudentius, Florus, Prudentius, Prudentius, example, for See, Florus, Prudentius, 71 rtqe o Jh So’ tets floe imdaey oe y rdnis of Prudentius by one – immediately followed treatise Scot’s John of Critiques After Florus had written his treatise, the tendency to defend Gottschalk’s teaching and and teaching Gottschalk’s defend to tendencythe treatise, his written had Florus After Adversus JoSco Adversus JoSco Aduersus and soon after another by Florus of Lyon, of Florus by another after soon and Contra JoSco Contra JoSco Contra JoSco Contra 77 and stressed that on its own anddivinegraceable not andthatonits without is stressed human will the De tribus epistolis tribus De nullo bono opere, nullo bono merito praecendente, merito bono nullo opere, bono nullo Epistola ad Godescalcum ad Epistola , col. 104C. 104C. col. , , , PL ,” cols. 136D-137A. cols.136D-137A. ,” PL , cols. 1051A-1054A; Florus, Florus, cols.1051A-1054A; , Florus, cols.1037A-1039A; , , PL 121, cols. 985B-1068. The authorship of this treatise was ascribed to Remigius of of Remigius to ascribed was treatise this of authorship The 985B-1068. cols. 121, 119, cols. 101B-250A. 101B-250A. cols. 119, 115, cols. 1009C-1366A. cols.1009C-1366A. 115, Contra JoSco Contra
75 h ohr set o ter rtqe cnen h ntr of nature the concern critiques their of aspects other The , 80 73 which followed Florus’ refutation of Eriugena’s treatise, Eriugena’s of refutation Florus’ followed which They also disagreed with John Scot’s point of view on view of point Scot’s John with disagreed also They , cols. 1011D-1024B; Florus, Florus, cols.1011D-1024B; , , PL 78
116, cols. 84C-96. cols.84C-96. 116, 13 Aduersus JoSco Aduersus JoSco Aduersus
72 probably written in the same year. The year. same the in written probably
solo gratiae diuinae beneficio hominem hominem beneficio diuinae gratiae solo , cols. 129A-130B, 135B-136D. 135B-136D. 129A-130B, cols. , 108B-120A. cols. , Aduersus JoSco Aduersus 76 , cols. 104A-107D. 104A-107D. , cols. and the roles of roles the and 79 74
CEU eTD Collection 126, cols. 122A-132C. cols.122A-132C. 126, 86 85 84 83 82 81 Gottschalk, of treatment “inhumane” the of author the of critique the respects. Thus, many in positions Pardulus’ and Hincmar’s with disagreements express clearly that is, thatGod predestinedthat is, neithernor sin punishment. for same, the was which of claims main the of one predestination, God’s on position theological treatise the wrote Hincmar Bald, the Charles of request the at and Valence of council the at attack the to response In (859). Savonnières of council the at and Langres at meeting episcopate the in again on touched was question Eriugena’s as well as capitula Hincmar’s however, (855), Valence of council the At Bald. the Charles by to subscribed and council, this At (853). four Hincmar’s Quierzy of council the at predestination on view of point his for of view on predestination in the same decisive manner as before. as manner decisive same the in predestination on view of point his express not does he council the for wrote Hincmar which letter the In (860). Tusey icse te rbe i te ot eta ad ilmtc way. diplomatic and neutral most the in problem the discusses and predestination concerning formulations sharp avoid to tries Hincmar letter this in notes, debates.closure of the predestination further proposed and the as considered be can Tusey in predestination 860 of council the (863), Metz of council the in on discussion polemics the continue to willing be to seemed Hincmar’s stand. own theological Ernesto S. Mainoldi, “Introduzione,” in “Introduzione,” Mainoldi, S. Ernesto Hincmar, 1034A-1035D. cols. ibid., example, For cols.1054C-1055A. Ibid., cols.1027C-1030D. Ibid., PL 125, cols. 55B-474B. cols.55B-474B. 125, Realizing that his prestige and authority were at stake, Hincmar tried to find support find to tried Hincmar stake, at were authority and prestige his that Realizing The next council where the question on predestination was again raised gathered in in gathered raised again was predestination on question the where council next The Epistola consilii Tusiacensis ad rerum ecclesiasticarum peruasores et ad pauperum praedatoris pauperum ad et peruasores ecclesiasticarum rerum ad Tusiacensis consilii Epistola , in which he presents his views on predestination, were confirmed were predestination, on views his presents he which in , capitula
DP DP 83 GSE
were again refuted by Florus and condemned. Then the the Then condemned. and Florus by refuted again were 81 , XL-XLI. XL-XLI. , i ivleet f ruea n h debate, the in Eriugena of involvement his e rbs epistolis tribus De 14 De praedestinatione De
84
s ocre wt Hincmar’s with concerned is 86 lhuh otcak still Gottschalk Although , in which he defends his his defends he which in , 85 Moreover, as Mainoldi Mainoldi as Moreover, 82 and , , PL
CEU eTD Collection sources which were not available in the library used by Hincmar of Rheims, etc. Diana Stanciu, “The Ninth- “The Stanciu, Diana etc. Rheims, the of 1998. University, European Central Budapest: MA Thesis. Predestination,” on useDebate Hincmar century by could used Florus library example, the for in Thus, available not debates. were the which cased sources that factors the of one also was evolved, debates 89 88 87 Augustine reflect the role of the free will of man.reflect will the rolefree of the ons f view. of points contradictory for serve could Augustine same the of authority the why is That Pelagianism. against as teaching, Manichaean against as – purposes various for and – years later the in different in will human conservativetheologian more a asearly and theworks in a philosopher –as life his of periods of role the and predestination on views his expressed he where texts the wrote Augustine arguments. and opinions their based debate the of participants the which on themselves, texts Augustine’s in found be can that will free the and predestination etc. etc. the as well as itself a became which Bible, the problem and Fathers the in found statements the contradictory and ambiguous of complexity the by explained be can polemics the of complexity The critique. the of targets became – Eriugena and Pardulus Hincmar, – Orbais of monk the attacked had who those 850s the by but presumptions, theological Gottschalk’s years aimed at critiqueIn first the few the than chaotic predictable. wasof rather the polemics The development grace salvation. in divine and will of human role the avoid of the discussion not could which bliss, eternal to only or punishment and death damnation, to predestines God whether of question the was polemics the of cornerstone The society. Carolingian of life for lasted which polemics political and ecclesiastical the intensive in event important an became and years twenty approximately and ardent provoked predestination of problem For example, example, For quotes example, for Gottschalk, the where centers, the in Augustine by writings the of availability the of lack the claims, Stanciu Diana As
One of the reasons for the polemics was the confusion on the question of of question the on confusion the was polemics the for reasons the of One Thus, Gottschalk’s particular interpretation of Augustine and the Scripture on the the on Scripture the and Augustine of interpretation particular Gottschalk’s Thus, 88 while John Scot used the works with strong philosophical implications or which or implications philosophical strong with works the used Scot John while Confessiones 87 hs fr xml, otcak eid oe n h dcrn o te late the of doctrine the on more relied Gottschalk example, for Thus, , , De Genesi contra Manichaeos contra Genesi De
De Civitate Dei Civitate De 89
(liber XXII), XXII), (liber 15
, , De trinitate De Enchiridon , , De uera religione uera De , In
Joannis evangelium tractatus evangelium Joannis , , Soliloquia etc. etc.
CEU eTD Collection 313-329. 313-329. del dell’escatologia e theologia della Hrabanus Maurus, Eriugena, Angelomus of Luxeuil, and Haimo of Auxerre in “pushing the development of of development the “pushing in Auxerre 7. of p. directions,” various in exegesis Carolingian Haimo and Luxeuil, of Angelomus Eriugena, Maurus, in Hrabanus Culture,” Biblical “Carolingian see exgesis, Contreni, Carolingian of development John the on more For cetury. ninth the of half first the in exegesis biblical 91 90 Augustine). (especially Fathers the and and Bible the death – solutions their determined prove to also sources same the he had them of or All punishment. salvation to elect the only predestined God whether – solve to problem one had polemics the in participants the of All century. mid-ninth the in exegesis Biblical of development the for stimuli the of one as considered be can controversy the of participants the by supports and proof stronger finding of or predestination God’s of question the to answer proper a finding of necessity The remarkable. also were implications the controversy Methodologicalsignificanceof 1.4. The the during interpretations elaborated more polemics. and attention scrupulous more for subject that is, to work out out work to is, that fulfill, to task another to them led however, opinions, their support to used they that texts the controversy was the development of by exegeticcontroversy century. the development mid-ninth techniques was the of results the of one Eventually, polemics. predestination the stimulated that forces the among were persuasive, arguments most and strongest the is, that proper, the find concerns to be disregarded or underestimated; they are evidence of an active elaboration of exegesis exegesis of elaboration active an of evidence are they underestimated; or disregarded be not should compilations These texts. authoritative the from excerpts compiling in consisted argumentation their of principle main the Initially, debate. the of beginning very the from Predestination polemics, of course, cannot be considered as the only factor that influenced the development of of development the influenced that factor only the as considered be cannot course, of polemics, Predestination ispiratrici fonti “Sualcune Mainoldi, See sources. Greek the used already been have might Eriugena Although eie te hooia ad oiia iprac o te eae is methodological its debate, the of importance political and theological the Besides The development of the methods applied by early medieval theologians can be seen seen be can theologians medieval early by applied methods the of development The how o nepe te et and texts the interpret to
90 De divina praedestinatione liber praedestinatione divina De The problems caused by the ambiguity and inconsistency of inconsistency and ambiguity the by caused problems The ISEBH 16
, 1-20. Contreni especially underlines the role of of role the underlines especially Contreni 1-20. , y what by di Giovanni Scoto Eriugena,” in Eriugena,” Scoto Giovanni di
means I m oiin their opinion, my In . 91
HEJSE , CEU eTD Collection analyzed from the perspective of their exegesis and theological ideas. ideas. theological and exegesis their of perspective the from analyzed been not have still extent, greater a to studied been have who Eriugena, and Gottschalk except chapter, present Eriugena’s exegesis in general see Catherine Kavanagh, “The Philosophical Importance of Grammar for for Grammar of Importance Philosophical “The Kavanagh, Catherine in in Eriugena,” Verb Substantival the and “Time see Luthala Anneli and Eriugena” general in exegesis Eriugena’s the same structure also can be found in such works as works such in found be can also structure same the the in mentioned theologians the by works the Thus, elaborated. been not has century) the of half first the in etc. etc. 94 93 92 BibleFathers. and the the during written works the all the of compilations on basedexegesis in authors theirmastery of Thus, the controversydemonstrate texts. the with work selective and of scrupulous outcome the were they and author, particular a of logic specific the on based is which biblical testimonies –becamebiblical testimonies especially Eriugena’s visible work. after and patristic 3) argument; on a less or or more based quotation refutation or (acorrection its 2) opponent paraphrase); an of statement a 1) – as such Structures pronounced. quite became way scholarly and organized an in statement particular a prove to or work previous the to critique a structure to – conscious or spontaneous – tendency the Thus, arguments. of formulation the in and treatises and letters of structure formal the in reflected is which logical same the using avoid terminology –logicalcertain extent their critiques. andin exegeses a techniques –to and not could opponents his theology, of applying matters for blamed to was dialectic Eriugena although chapters, following the in show to try will I as Moreover, inquiry. theological in essential was dialectic using Scot, exegetic John For ninth-century practices. the of enrichment an to led that step crucial a was interpretations n grammar. in interpretations their for tools useful found Eriugena and Gottschalk Thus, strategies. exegetic various tried theologians Carolingian exegesis. ninth-century of evolution the to contribution
Besides Eriugena, Prudentius and Florus can be acknowledged as masters of an “academic” critique. Almost Almost critique. “academic” an of masters as acknowledged be can Florus and Prudentius Eriugena, Besides the in grammar of role The (especially theologians ninth-century the of approaches exegetic the of analysis an far so knowledge, my To It is also interesting to note that with time the debate took on a “scholarly” character, character, “scholarly” a on took debate the time with that note to interesting also is It The application of the tools taken from the liberal arts also made a significant significant a made also arts liberal the from taken tools the of application The 93 Next, an introduction of dialectics and rhetoric as a means of biblical biblical of means a as rhetoric and dialectics of introduction an Next, 92
DP
see in the chapter 2. For the importance and application of grammar in in grammar of application and importance the For 2. chapter the in see 17 De tribus epistolis liber epistolis tribus De
, which authorship is questioned, questioned, is authorship which , HEJSE 94
, 61-76; 77-87. 77-87. 61-76; , CEU eTD Collection
strategies, on one side, by Eriugena and by Prudentius and Florus, on the other, will be be will other, the discussed the in chapters below. on Florus, methodological and Prudentius further), by show and Eriugena to by side, try one on will strategies, I (as compatible but conflicting, two these Thus, exegesis. of principles the on views own their defending and formulating of necessity the at arrived also turn in Florus and Prudentius methodology, Scot’s John with Confronted application. conscious received and Bible the in places obscure the of interpretation proper the for indispensability their of awareness absolute with formulated were of exegesis principles biblical the treatise, Scot’s John In climax. a reached opponents his by and himself Eriugena by principles methodological these of recognition and formulation the debate, the techniques the triuium of applied consistently and introduced he because only not exegesis Carolingian of development the for significance particular had polemics the in participation Eriugena’s to the interpretation of sacred texts, but also because, at this stage of of stage at this also because, but texts, sacred theof to interpretation 18
CEU eTD Collection preadestinatione ex liberarum disciplinarum ignorantia inoleuit ignorantia disciplinarum liberarum ex preadestinatione spreuistis non roborare diffinitionem praedestinationis view on predestination since they support Gottschalk’s doctrine. doctrine. Gottschalk’s support they since predestination viewon 98 97 96 95 ratiocinationibus to fact, in means, formulation Eriugena’s to according faith” our the of affirmations the “defend “by to that is however, treatise, the to preface the from clear already is What precisely reasoning.” “strengthened” be to questions predestination “some ability to defend the salvation of all of us, namely the Catholic faith.” Catholic the namely us, of all of salvation the defend to ability “some has who one as him choosing for predestination, dual of doctrine the of refutation a write to him commissioned who Pardulus, and Hincmar thanks Eriugena treatise, the to preface the In rtczn hs poet – otcak n, rbby Lps n Ratramnus and Lupus probably, and, Gottschalk – opponents his criticizing and argument his developing treatise, the of end the By punished. be will who those of deaths and sins the for responsible not is he and salvation to elect the only predestines God dual; not is predestination God’s that is himself Eriugena and Pardulus, Hincmar, to according on based method, oy ahr d hs rw fo te goac o te iea arts.” liberal the of ignorance the from grown has do Fathers Holy the that way different a in predestination understand who those of error the “that stresses strengthen your perfect definition of the faith of predestination by the affirmation of our our reasoning.” of affirmation the by predestination of faith the of definition perfect your strengthen to scorned not have “you for gratitude, his expressing task, his specifies he preface, same Ibid., XVIII, the title of the chapter: chapter: the of title the XVIII, Ibid., of points their at aims also critique his treatise, the in Ratramnus and Lupus name not does Eriugena Although ... 356A Ibid., DP ERIUGENA’S PRAEDESTINATIONE DE , Praefatio, 355A ... 355A... Praefatio, , The aim of John Scot in the in Scot John of aim The 96 It is uncertain whether Hincmar and Pardulus expected their positions on the on positions their expected Pardulus and Hincmar whether uncertain is It –by of reasoning. means nostrae tamen ratiocinationis astipulationibus uestram perfectissimam de fide fide de perfectissimam uestram astipulationibus ratiocinationis tamen nostrae ieau disciplinarum liberarum quid ualentem in defendenda omnium nostrum salute, quae est professiochatholica est quae salute, nostrum omnium defendenda in ualentem quid
Quod error eorum qui aliter quam patres sancti sentient de de sentient sancti patres quam aliter qui eorum error Quod DP CHAPTER 2 is to proclaim and defend the truth of faith, which which faith, of truth the defend and proclaim to is TRIVIUM wih e mle i te rfc ad follows and preface the in implies he which , 19 ......
: EXEGESIS ACCORDING TO THE ACCORDING THE : TO EXEGESIS
. Translation is mine. is Translation . prove 98 hs Jh Scot’s John Thus, the faith with the the with faith the 95 97 Later in the in Later Eriugena – ...... CEU eTD Collection naturewhich wasrole a to certainelaborated ofextent and the language, in “theorylanguage”2.1. The of or, other in can words,arts what alltogether) liberal logic(and theology? the doin explained, be can religion in philosopher a of presence the him, to according how, is chapter ad notitiam creatoris suis redire nititur redire suis creatoris notitiam ad modos ascensionis suae signa uocis inuenit quibis ea quae intus intelligit sensum secum secundum secundum secum sensum intelligit intus quae ea quibis inuenit uocis signa erudit oboediens caritati uolentium, conscendere uel conscendentium suae ascensionis modos 100 99 the in method his of justification and role, presentation, the what is here answered be to question The exegesis. Eriugena’s in significance their discuss and problem predestination the to arts liberal the of applications discuss will I Here, chapter. this of focus the be will treatise, the in constantly mentis significationibus gradually ascend God. to the to possible it make that means powerful are Eriugena, to according which, words, of itself avails principle, this achieve to order in mind, human the crucial; becomes process this in plays language that role the fragment, this of light the In God. – things all of beginning the to returning and ascending by is matters theological can in mind understanding achieve human the way the Scot, John for that, is passage this in noting worth is What
Ibid., III, 1. 1. III, Ibid., Ibid., II, 3. ... 3. II, Ibid., b wih h mn srvs o eun o h kolde f t creator.” its of knowledge the to return to strives mind the which by ) h mto o te ua mn ( mind human the of motion The Before speaking about the Eriugena’s method, one should clarify his understanding of of understanding his clarify should one method, Eriugena’s the about speaking Before s on ct as Gd i nmd y aiu sgiiain o words of significations various by named “is God says, Scot John As desire it. ascend with to or ascending are who those of senses the to understanding inner its imparts it ( symbols verbal finds it ascent, its of means the to according thus, and gradually, ascend to strives beginning Motus etenim humani animi quo principium sui repetit, gradatim ascendere nititur, ideoque iuxta ideoque nititur, ascendere gradatim repetit, sui principium quo animi humani etenim Motus uariis tamen uerborum significationibus nominatur secundum affectum humanae mentis quibus quibus mentis humanae affectum secundum nominatur significationibus uerborum tamen uariis acrig o h dsoiin o te ua mn ( mind human the of dispositions the to according ) DP is. The more general question addressed to Eriugena by the end of this this of end the by Eriugena to addressed question general more The is.
99 . .
signa uocis signa humani 20
) by which, in obedience to charity, to obedience in bywhich, ) animi ) by which it returns to its its to returns it which by ) . . affectum humanae humanae affectum DP . 100
( Although uerborum uerborum CEU eTD Collection suae intelligentiae diuersis uocationum signis appellat signis uocationum diuersis intelligentiae suae uerborum aliarumque orationis partium signa proprie de deo dici non posse non dici de deo proprie signa partium orationis aliarumque uerborum 103 102 101 ( nature divine the of notion full the express able be would they way a “the to return to mind such in God of said be cannot uses mind human human the that names the creator,” its of knowledge the for means indispensable an considered is language the to compared that, shows that picture vivid a gives Eriugena situation, contemporary the about Complaining faith. Catholic the of truth according to “the modes of its own understanding” ( understanding” own its of modes “the to according and affections inner own its by influenced words, the onto meaningsthe imposes which mind are because a apparently in while disadvantageousposition, importance of rhetoric as one of the major means (together with dialectic) with (together means major the of one as rhetoric of importance andin rhetorica exegesisbiblical grammatica 2.2. Ars in noticeable especially is Eriugena’sexegesis. which freedom, allow can mind human the where and itself mind, human the where interpretations of field immense an opens Language task. this do to opportunity powerful only the as contains it that expressions of richness the and language regards he contrary, the On questions. theological of interpretation proper the in effectively proceeding for obstacle an fact this consider not itself. human mind the of limits the within restricted are understanding, of ways various and mind human the of conditions on depends which language, of capabilities epistemological the that means This Analysis of the role of dialectic is discussed in chapter 2.3. 2.3. chapter in isdiscussed dialectic of theofrole Analysis 4. II, Ibid., 1. IX, Ibid., In the first chapter of the the of chapter first the In does language, of imperfectness and limits the of aware absolutely being Eriugena, Proinde humana ratio, duce ueritate deum suum multipliciter intellegis, ipsum secundum modos modos secundum ipsum intellegis, multipliciter suum deum ueritate duce ratio, humana Proinde Ubi primo notandum, quoniam nihil digne de deo dicitur, omnia poene siue nominum siue siue nominum siue poene omnia dicitur, deo de digne nihil quoniam notandum, primo Ubi
DP , explaining his methodology, Eriugena emphasizes the emphasizes Eriugena methodology, his explaining , . . 21 assertoribus falsitatis assertoribus duce ueritate duce
Ars dialectica Ars secundum modos suae intelligentiae suae modos secundum and the liberal arts, can exercise exercise can arts, liberal the and . . , below. below. , , the , digne defensores ueritatis defensores 103 of defending thedefending of ). 101 The human The ). 102
CEU eTD Collection mine. mine. prauissimum sensum redigunt, ex utilium disciplinarum ignorantia, quas ipsa sapientia suas comites comites suas sapientia ipsa quas ignorantia, disciplinarum utilium ex fieriuoluit... inuestigatricesque redigunt, sensum prauissimum dormitent frigidique lenti ueritate pro isti ardenter, exhortentur exhilarent, contristent, terreant, dicendo impellentesque mouentes errorem in audientium animos illi refutare; ualeant falsa nec defendere, uera nec isti falsitatem, asserant oppugnent, ueritatem argumentis fallacibus illi libeat; non postremo credere pateat, 105 104 lack the proper training in rhetoric (and, eventually, in all the liberal arts). liberal the all in eventually, (and, rhetoric in training proper the lack truth the strengthen to want who those because just believers of hearts the in shaken be easily can– itself in stable eternaland – truth The serious. arequite rhetoric of defenders’ignorance truth the of results the that shows character, comical somewhat its of spite in picture, This tenth chapters (although he uses it occasionally from the very beginning of the treatise). It “is “is It treatise). the of beginning very the from occasionally it uses he (although chapters tenth whichwhole for Eriugenapivotal treatise. constantly, is the uses rhetoricaldevice, this that notes one rhetoric, of usage seeminglypoor this of In spite treatise. only applies Eriugena generally that is note to interesting is What theory. Gottschalk’s against arguments his constructing and exegesis for means a as the mainly techniques On rhetorical inconsistent. uses Eriugena is persuasion of he instead that contrary, or rhetoric disregards Eriugena that mean not does that bythe falsity,andallows one persuade it to their believers manipulating emotions. disproving and truth thedefending while argumentation strongin be to one aids it techniques, rhetorical of knowledge good providing by second, organized; speech a make and thought articulate to helps it First, ways. various in helps rhetoric that is passage this in underlines Ibid., XVIII, 1. XVIII, Ibid., 3.… I, Ibid., the former set forth the false briefly, clearly and in a verisimilar way, the the way, verisimilar a in and clearly briefly, false the forth set former the
John Scot introduces and explains this important rhetorical element in the ninth and and ninth the in element rhetorical important this explains and introduces Scot John The urging the souls of their audience to an error, with their speech ardently ardently speech fall – their feeble asleep truth. for the and with slow – others error, the them; an exhort and to delight, sadden, audience terrify, and their misleading of former, souls The the falsehood. urging refute can nor others truth the the falsehoods; defend assert neither and arguments former false The with believed. truth the willingly attack not eventually and not to, understandable, listen to tedious clearly are they that way a such in truth the forth set others DP illi falsa breuiter, aperte, uerisimiliter, et esti uera sic narrent ut audire tedeat, intelligere non non intelligere tedeat, audire ut narrent sic uera esti et uerisimiliter, aperte, breuiter, falsa illi , however, is far from being a rhetorical text; logic prevails in it. Nevertheless, Nevertheless, it. in logicprevails text; rhetorical a being from far is however, , Errorem itaque seuissimus eorum qui uenerabilium patrum... ac per hoc mortifere, ad suum suum ad mortifere, hoc per ac patrum... uenerabilium qui eorum seuissimus itaque Errorem
104
22
one htrcl iue hogot h whole the throughout figure rhetorical 105 What Eriugena What ... Translation is is Translation ... CEU eTD Collection partium signa proprie de deo dici non posse non dici de deo proprie signa partium KATANTI 109 108 107 106 signs.” verbal and reasoning of modes all of noblest the is called
ad f o i te rpr es, ny rm smlrt t tmoa things. temporal to similarity a from only sense, proper the in God of said , ira assuch humansoul, the of conditions the God to ascribecan differenceone of mode the With respectively. attention, and vision operation, – actions God’s express to used be can “ears” example, example, rhetorical/dialectical tool imply and why it should play a supreme role in exegesis? rhetorical/dialectical imply play tool anda should role why supreme it exegesis? in ueritas ( sense quasi-proper the in God of said be can expressions and words as r drce t ter prayers.” their to directed are ears eorum preces in eius aures et justos super substance and all its best( qualities substanceall its and very the nature, human in present is which best the and first the signify they because sense quasi-proper a in God to applied are They nouns). the (among “destination” “knowledge,” rhetorical figure is is figure rhetorical otaies ( contrariness ( likeness from a) expressions: such of types three names Eriugena Ps. 33:16. 33:16. Ps. 10:8 Job. 1 IX, Ibid., 1… X, Ibid., , indignatio by dialecticians and rhetoricians, but by grammarians kat'¢nt…frasin, which which kat'¢nt…frasin, grammarians by but rhetoricians, and dialecticians by entimema , In the ninth chapter of the the of chapter ninth the In te vra epesos r ue ipoel o i te iuaie es ( sense figurative the in or improperly used are expressions verbal Other Ф uirtus sum PACIN, et est omnium argumentorum signorumque uerbalium nobilissimus uerbalium signorumque argumentorum omnium est et PACIN, …Nihil digne de deo dicitur, omnia poene siue nominum siue uerborum aliarumque orationis orationis aliarumque uerborum siue nominum siue poene omnia dicitur, deo de digne …Nihil , ad ) rm ifrne ( difference from c) and ) contrario a locum, qui ut praediximus, a dialecticis ac retoricis entimema uocatur, a grammaticis uero uero grammaticis a uocatur, entimema retoricis ac dialecticis a praediximus, ut qui locum, , est etc. – “anger,” “indignation,” “sadness.” Eriugena explains that such such that explains Eriugena “sadness.” “indignation,” “anger,” – etc. tristitia sapientia, , erat manus tuae fecerunt me fecerunt tuae manus , esse scientia, – “I am,” “he is,” “he was,” “to be” (among the verbs); the (amongbe” “to was,” “he is,” “he am,”“I –
ipsam substantiamipsam et). eius optima DP 109 . . – “essence,” “truth,” “virtue,” “wisdom,” “wisdom,” “virtue,” “truth,” “essence,” – destinatio n oh ae, h wrs uh hns” ee, and “eyes,” “hands,” such words the cases, both In , Eriugena claims that there is no word that could be could that word no is there that claims Eriugena , – “the eyes of the Lord are upon the just and his his and just the upon are Lord the of eyes “the – – “your hands have made me” made have hands “your – 23
). An example of the first first the of example An ). differentia a a similitudine a 106 . . ht os this does What , for ), propria quasi 108 or 107 oe f the of Some Oculi dominiOculi ). translata ), b) from from b) ), essentia, CEU eTD Collection priuilegio excellentiae suae merito a graecis entimemata dicantur, hoc est conceptionis mentis conceptionis est hoc dicantur, entimemata graecis merito a suae excellentiae priuilegio 114 113 112 111 110 meanings. remote express to used be can divinity, the to similar not are meanings their although words, and praescientia taken the in absolute sense. contrariness of figure a caseof the be will This imprudent.” the of imprudence rejectthe shall the things that exist in him. in the things thatexist all knows he eternity his in that means things “foreknows” he that God of say To similarity. from only him of said from meaning their taking God to words these apply can be one hand, other the On contrariness. can words these therefore, future; no is there eternal, is who God, for but future, the in happen would that something predestine and foresee to had he that mean would God to referring “foreknowledge” and “predestination” words The contrariness. ( mode of contrariness, which Eriugena also calls also Eriugena which contrariness, of mode he whom “those example, for saying, a understanding allows it for arguments, Eriugena’s that notes one – death predestine rte “ sal eto te idm f h ws ad hl rjc te rdne f the of prudence the reject shall and wise prudent,” the of wisdom the destroy shall “I written is it if example, For meanings. opposite their taking by words the interpret to has one that x iiiuie tu contrarietate atque similitudine ex Ibid., IX, 5; X, X, 1. 5; IX, Ibid., 1:19. Cor. I 3. IX, Ibid., DP DP , IX, 3. 3. IX, , 2. IX, , The most proper way of interpreting sayings about God, however, is to apply the the apply to is however, God, about sayings interpreting of way proper most The Another way to apply the same figure is to take it together with the figure of likeness likeness of figure the with together it take to is figure same the apply to way Another Going back to the main task of Eriugena’s treatise – to prove that God does not not does God that prove to – treatise Eriugena’s of task main the to back Going 112 110 the right way to read this would be “I shall destroy the folly of the foolish and I and foolish the of folly the destroy shall “I be would this read to way right the
Restat ea quae contrarietatis loco sumuntur, quibus tanta uis inest significandi, ut quodam quodam ut significandi, inest uis tanta quibus sumuntur, loco contrarietatis quae ea Restat O te n hn, hs trs a b apid o i from him to applied be can terms these hand, one the On . praedestinatio 114 113
. xmls f uh obntos eern t Gd are God to referring combinations such of Examples ). a b te efc isrmn t support to instrument perfect the be can entimema 24
entimema. 111 This figure of speech implies speech of figure This . . CEU eTD Collection Introduzione e ple t the to applied be of text the mainlyin them hediscussed Although 181-194. 1992), Brill, (Leiden: Chartres. Neoplatonism and Medieval Thought. Studies in Honour of Edouard Jeauneau Edouard of Honour in Studies Thought. Medieval and Neoplatonism Chartres. rpstos se u-. lad “en ct t a oiu ds rpstos otars” in contraires,” propositions des logique la et Scot “Jean Allard, Guy-H. see propositions” III, 7.... III, nm iseqe usata sn, iia udlct e naturae et uidelicet, diuinae sunt, substantiae eiusdemque enim 121 120 119 118 117 116 115 destruction” to predestined Moreover, such phrases as Moreover, as phrases such takenmean, fact, from in the opposite, that h ms avnaeu fgr o sec “o atog eeyhn ta i poue b the by produced is that everything although “for speech of figure advantageous most the is this explains, he Furthermore, meaning. opposite its taking by saying a of understanding taken from similarity. also if be would meaning its what and way, a such meaning,in said opposite was it “real” why reasons its understand mind in bearing should, exegete an case particular each automaticallyin be not should contrary, absolutely be punishment will meanings final the though Even negation. or their into “translated” death predestined God that say literally that Fathers Holy the or Scripture the in phrases the However, general. in views theological his for also but predestination, of theory Scot’s John for only not suitable absolutely is which Ibid., XV, XV, 9. Ibid., ... 2. II, Ibid., V, 1. Ibid., ... 7. III, Ibid., 2. II, Ibid., 6. XVIII, Ibid., DP XVIII, 5. 5. XVIII, qui a semet ipsis inuenturi peccata sua quibus essent perituri essent suaquibus peccata inuenturi ipsis semet a qui “God foreknows evilthings” “Predestination the and onesame,” are not foreknowledge and “Predestination and foreknowledge are one and the same,”“Predestinationand and the are one foreknowledge “God does not foreknow evil things,”“God does foreknow not Thus, “God abandoned sinners,” “God abandon not did sinners,” , in , Recte ergo dicitur omnis praedestinatio praescientia, non omnis praescientia praedestinatio praescientia omnis non praescientia, praedestinatio omnis dicitur ergo Recte Praescientia sua deus malefacta hominum futura praeuidit futura hominum malefacta suadeus Praescientia Peccatum, ni fallor, et peccata et poenas nec a deo fieri nec ab eo praesciri uel praedestinari uel praesciri eo ab fierinec a deo nec poenas et peccata fallor,et ni Peccatum, GSE Non quod in eis ipse fecit relinquet uel deserit, aliquin eorum natura ad nihilum rediret nihilum ad natura eorum aliquin deserit, uel relinquet fecit ipse eis in quod Non quod est praescire, hoc est praedestinare, et quod est praedestinare, hoc est praescire; unius unius praescire; est hoc praedestinare, est quod et praedestinare, est hoc praescire, est quod reliquit quosdam , as Eriugena explains, is a figure of speech which allows allows which speech of figure a is explains, Eriugena as entimema, DP , LXXVII. LXXVII. , Fr mr eaoae al o te otay rpstos n the in propositions contrary the of table elaborate more a For ...... 115
s toe hm e i nt rdsie o destruction.” to predestine not did he whom “those as 117 118
and on, so 120
121 25
. For more on the “logic of the contrary contrary the of “logic the on more For . . . . . 119 Periphyseon
116
, ed. Westra Haijo Jan Jan Haijo Westra ed. , , the same idea can can thesame idea , DP rm tes to Athens From see Mainoldi, Mainoldi, see ... Ibid., Ibid., ...... CEU eTD Collection 329. 329. del dell’escatologia e theologia concipitur eandem uim significationis, dum sensibus feruore infunditur, habere uidetur habere infunditur, feruore sensibus dum significationis, uim eandem concipitur 127 126 125 124 123 122 of the senses.” seen influenced whenby is is havesamemind to it power signification the the disturbances of the by conceived is that everything not nevertheless mind, the by conceived first is voice
t fieri uoluit, crediderim sumpsisse primordia insuper etiam grecarum litterarum inscitia in quibus quibus in inscitia litterarum grecarum etiam insuper primordia sumpsisse gignit calligio ambiguitatis nullam interpretatio praedestinationis crediderim uoluit, inuestigatricesque comites fieri suas sapientia ipsa quas ignorantia, disciplinarum utilium ex ... confuse sententias liberal arts, but also of the Greek language and the texts written in Greek, in written texts the and language Greek the of also but arts, the liberal of only not ignorance of consists wrongly Fathers Church and Scripture the interpret who those of mistake the that claims he chapter, eighteenth Inthe Greek. ofknowledge his to due explanations linguistic to resort to able also was Eriugena rhetoric, and grammar of help the with predestination God’s of interpretations Besides him. to available were that methods m noted that the words with the same root, such as the verb the as such root, same the with words the that noted and δυν ει predestine.” ρο α ς προορ σας “ Bible. word the way same the In destine.” “I and ranslated into Latin with three words – words three with Latin into ranslated rdsie acrig o o’ plan.” God’s to according predestined eans Eph. 1:11. 1:11. Eph. 1:5. Eph. 1:4. Rom. 1. XVIII, Ibid., Scot’s John on influence Greek Eastern the For 3. IX, Ibid., προορισθ ντες 124 – In order to prove his point of view on predestination, John Scot applies all the the all applies Scot John predestination, on view of point his prove to order In In the letter to Romans, Eriugena continues, it is written a) written is it continues, Eriugena Romans, to letter the In praeuideo, o, ruea xlis i te re te word the Greek the in explains, Eriugena For, “of the son of God destined for power;” for destined God of son the “of Quamuis enim omne quod uoce profertur prius mente concipiatur, non tamen omne quod mente quod omne tamen non concipiatur, mente prius profertur uoce quod omne enim Quamuis 122
“n hrt peetnn us;” predestining charity “in –
Errorem itaqie seuissimum eorum qui uenerabilium patrum maximeque sancti Augustini Augustini sancti maximeque patrum uenerabilium qui eorum seuissimum itaqie Errorem .
n rnltos no ai, s e ute pit out points further he as Latin, into translations In and praediffinio De divina praedestinatione liber praedestinatione divina De
– “I foresee,” “I predetermine” and “I “I and predetermine” “I foresee,” “I – praedestino 127 uideo, ροορ , ροορ , DP n l tee ae, on ct xlis i cn be can it explains, Scot John cases, these all In π see Ernesto S. Mainoldi, “Su alcune fonti ispiratrici della della ispiratrici fonti alcune “Su Mainoldi, S. Ernesto see 26 126 and deffinio
n c) and composed of the same root and the prefix, prefix, the and root same the of composed 125 in the letter to Ephesians b) Ephesians to letter the in di Giovanni Scoto Eriugena,” in in Eriugena,” Scoto Giovanni di . . ροιθνε κτ π ηι θεο πρ θησιν κατ ροορισθ ντες
ρ π ρ
– “I see,” “I determine,” determine,” “I see,” “I – destino
, a a ih enn. t a be can It meaning. rich a has are used: are ο
τ ,
in all three cases the the cases three all in ρισθ ντος . .
ρισθ ντος 123 including the including
υ ο θεο ν ν θεο υ ο HEJSE ,
προορ σας ν γ π ν , 313- , –
CEU eTD Collection 129 128 verb the from derived noun a to comes it When originals. the of as such words Latin other with translated be could meanings, their of richness the to due however, words, Greek These caritate in word interpretations can revealed. be the with Only of texts. interpret guidance to way proper most the is it him for radical, seem might – word a or phrase a of meaning opposite the take to – proposes Eriugena that method the translated in three ways, that is, p translatedthat is, ways, three in i enns f h Gek od wt te ae ot s h word the as root same the with words Greek the of meanings of variety The predestine.” “to as well as foresee” “to including meaning, of spectrum richer far a implies Latin the to compared which word, Greek the to refer can he since destruction,” foresaw “God only as destruction” to predestined “God say, phrase, a treat to him allows also arguments onetheological ofviews. for Eriugena’s own main his is which God, of substance the to them of both refer and predestination and foreknowledge s nterpret predestination by God as one and the same as his foreknowledge, that is, to identify to is, that foreknowledge, his as same the and one as God by predestination nterpret ame translation possibilities should also be taken into account. Thus, account. into taken be also should possibilities translation ame neologism. Eriugena’s wordisprobably This DP XVIII, 2. 2. XVIII, and its compositions with the prefix are used: a) used: are prefix the with compositions its and destino hs igitc n eyooia prpcie teghn Jh So’ psto. It position. Scot’s John strengthens perspective etymological and linguistic This All in all, the role of grammar and rhetoric is cruc is rhetoric grammarand of role the all, in All praedestinans entimema a te idn enn o te citr ad h Farthers’ the and Scripture the of meaning hidden the can nos and praeuideo
c) ; , praediffinioraeuisio and. praedestinatio praedestinati without losing or changing the meanings meanings the changing or losing without prediffinio 27 eudm rpstm dei propositum secundum
ial in Eriugena’s exegesis. Although Although exegesis. Eriugena’s in ial destinati ρ
ρ
,
lo allows also that is, is, that ροωρ σια π filii dei in uirtute in dei filii 129 (emphasis mine). mine). (emphasis προωρ σια
Eriugena to to Eriugena can also be also can , 128
; b) ; the
CEU eTD Collection 1986), 277-320. 277-320. 1986), Giovanni Scoto Eriugena” in Eriugena” Scoto Giovanni smi atmdeae i plczoe el isgaet daetc: il dialettici: insegnamenti degli applicazione di altomedievale esempio of feature remarkable a is application their in constancy Eriugena’s and variety the contrary, the On scarce. also 131 130 text. the in appear that definitions scarce the to according dialectic of understanding his of aspects important most the outline Iwill meanings. their of depth and complexity the by counterbalanced is however, – guide methodological his of characteristics some own his theological views. of support for and doctrine Gottschalk’s against arguments the of development the for tool powerful a as served it for Eriugena for significance crucial a of also is Dialectic Scripture. the and Fathers the of texts the from predestination on passages the of exegesis dialectica 2.3. Ars is mine. is ignorantes ea dum est, data inquirit. ueritatem omnibus certissime in colligit, separata diuidit, hoc confusa discernit, falsaque uera ad erudit, eam quoniam uti, bene uoluerit si donatur, homini deo a dubitante a For variety. its all in dialectic of tools the in the arguments the analyze of analysis detailed not will I however, research, present the In treatise. the functions and structure: truth 2.3.1. Dialectic philosophical and Scot’sapplication ofJohn logic.
DP the of tools the of application Scot’s John that however, mean, not does This VII, 1. 1. VII, n h tets oe a fn ol a e psae wee ruea etos r gives or mentions Eriugena where passages few a only find can one treatise the In anfor necessary providesinstruments it rhetoricbecauseadvantage oftakes Scot John Someone skilled, for example, in the art of disputation [ disputation of art the in example, for skilled, Someone term the uses Eriugena views, his Encapsulating discern the true from the false, divide what is confused, reunify what is is what reunify confused, is what divide it, false, of things all in the truth separated, andsearch for the ignorant are from who true those the teaching while discern – purpose that for given was it certainlybecause – cause good a for it use like would he if can man, on God [ dialectic called is that
Potest enim in disciplina verbi causa disputandi quae dicitur dialectica peritus, quae nullo nullo quae peritus, dialectica dicitur quae disputandi causa verbi disciplina in enim Potest 130 Fons scientiae. La dialettica nell’Occidente tardo-antico nell’Occidente dialettica La scientiae. Fons I will examine them one by one and also provide some examples of examples some provide also and one byone them examine will I
], which, as no one doubts, was bestowed by bestowed was doubts, one no as which, dialectica], DP see Giulio d’Onofrio, “ d’Onofrio, Giulio see 28
. The brevity of these passages, passages, these of brevity The dialectica. [italics mine]. Disputandi disciplina, quae est ueritas est quae disciplina, Disputandi n oncin o its to connection in dialectica e iia reetntoe liber praedestinatione diuina De disciplina disputandi disciplina triuium 131
(Naples: Liguori Editore, Editore, Liguori (Naples: , logic in particular, is is particular, in logic , Translation Translation ] ] . Un . di CEU eTD Collection lun o h Sho o Axre Lgc Telg ad hlspy n h Ery ide Ages Middle Early The in Philosophy and Theology 2006). Logic, Press, University Cambridge Auxerre: of School The to Alcuin indicating what is hidden through what is manifest, reveals; the fourth, by separating separating by fourth, the reveals; resolves.” simple, into compound manifest, is what through by hidden third, is the what concludes; indicating many, among from one determining by second, the separates; many, into one dividing by first “the treatise: the in further use will he asserts he that rules olgt tri pr aiet ocla eosrno prt qat cmoia n ipii sprno resoluit separando simplicia in composita quarta aperit, demonstrando occulta manifesta per tertia colligit, caput XXII, dijudicentur XXII, caput falsa at uera disputando quemadmodum quaestionem generibus pluribus Marenbon, John see logic medieval early of development the For 1993). Press, Clarendon as dialectic of definitions Boethius’ 287-288. Op.cit., and Augustine’s in seen be 134 133 132 one first atchapter the of beginningof the the another with corresponds passage this here, emphasize to want I that view of point the From the ancient history of philosophy. Traces of it can be found in the four “dialectic ways,” proposed by the the by proposed ways,” “dialectic four the in found be can Porphyry’s it on commentators of Alexandrian Traces philosophy. of history ancient in the rooted is philosophy of rules logical the of division four-fold particular this d’Onofrio, Giulio to According in truth the for search and separated is what reunify confused, is what divide false, the from structure and organize thought and, consequently, speech, since a thought exists in close close andconnection perceptible outer equivalent. its with in exists thought a since speech, consequently, and, thought organize to and all, structure of first is, disputation of art the or dialectic of task main the why is them That possible. make and thoughts constitute – demonstration and definition, separation, division, – operations logical fundamental these thought, of framework a being for, formulated, be to requires further discussion. it but obvious seem may This rules. logical of set a all, of first is, dialectic that fact the is , falso a disinguens verum logic, on textbook medieval a to introduction every almost Alcuin, Alcuin, Broadie, Alexander see logic, medieval of problems the On 1. I, Ibid., With these rules, dialectic provides the necessary grounds and conditions for thought thought for conditions and grounds necessary the provides dialectic rules, these With – ueritas – truth the with deals dialectic that forgotten be not should It ilgs e htrc e uirtutibus et rhetorica de Dialogus PL Quarum enim prima unum in multa diuidendo segregat, secunda unum de multis diffiniendo, diffiniendo, multis de unum secunda segregat, diuidendo multa in unum prima enim Quarum 82, 140A. 140A. 82, 134 and as Eriugena repeats, with its help one can “discern the true the “discern can one help its with repeats, Eriugena as and
132 Isgoge What I wish to underline in connection to these passagesthese to connection in underline to I wish What , , . As he shows further, the same structure of dialectic can also also can dialectic of structure same the further, shows he As . PL 0, 4-4, 3 I. e as Isidorus also See IX. 332 947-948, 101, 29 DP
where John Scot lists and defines wherelists main Scot four John 133 Inroduction to Medieval Logic Medieval to Inroduction
r dfiini dsrbed e colligendi et distribuendi diffiniendi, ars ilcia s dsuai acuta disputatio est dialectica , , Etymologiae . As is defined in in defined is As . From The Circle of of Circle The From , 2nd ed. (Oxford: (Oxford: ed. 2nd , oe ei in enim docet (Cambridge: (Cambridge: , Liber II, II, Liber , . . CEU eTD Collection between the art of disputation and the truth is quite curious one. Further in the present chapter I will discuss discuss will I chapter present the in Further one. identification. this of meaning curious possible another quite is truth the and disputation of art the between dubitat non perueniri eruditus ea in omnis ueritas, est quae disciplinam, mine. mine. constitutus sit uocari, solet philosophia graecis a quae discipline, ea in inuenitur, apertissime et 137 136 135 things.” all dialectic for is him – way expressive and vivid a in truth the to dialectic ofconnection expressesthis Scotus John truthful. as regarded be can rule logical another or one to according made are that statements those and validity, the their for bases as bring serve statements of forms which logical correct The achieved. conclusions, reasoning of end the at that so definitions, fact, in is, nothingdisputation “exercising a of but constantphilosophy.” their speech in rationes reflects and restores and things with deals It thinking. of technique pure a only not is however, disputation, of art The way. correct a in articulated be to thought for philosophy. identifieswith Scot dialectic the for searches Dialectic As Eriugena says, reality. about state arguments and propositions these that truth the for rather but themselves, Ibid., I, 4 4 I, Ibid., 131. footnote See DP I, 2. I, The task of dialectic is manifold. It contains logical rules that provide a formal basis formal a provide that rules logical contains It manifold. is dialectic of task The f ua raoig ta te ey r o dsuain wih is which disputation, of arrived is mine], at. art very the that reasoning, human of method fourfold honourable and useful some by as parts, four those by of means indeed is it that doubt any has disputation of art the in instructed man No
Since every method of the true and complete doctrine, by which the the … philosophia which by doctrine, call usually complete Greeks the which discipline that within established elucidated,is and true the [ principle of method every Since On the other hand, dialectic does not serve for the truth of propositions and arguments arguments and propositions of truth the for serve not does dialectic hand, other the On , the truth of things, with the utmost clarity. For John Scot, dialectic, being an art of of art an being dialectic, Scot, John For clarity. utmost the with things, of truth the , His enim, tanquam utili quodam honestoque humanae rationationis quadriuio, ad ipsam disputandi disputandi ipsam ad quadriuio, rationationis humanae honestoque quodam utili tanquam enim, His 135 Cum omnis piae perfectaque doctrinae modus, quo omnium rerum ratio et studiosissime quaeritur quaeritur studiosissime et ratio rerum omnium quo modus, doctrinae perfectaque piae omnis Cum Dialectic incorporates various rules for structuring thoughts and making correctmaking and thoughts structuring for rules various Dialecticincorporates ratio the truth itself. the truth 137 ] of all things is most diligently investigated and most clearly most and investigateddiligently most is things all of ]
rationes 136
of things – the principles of their of principles the – things of 30
. This strong formulation of the identity identity the of formulation strong This . esse [italics truth , which is why John John why is which ,
rt, a be can truth, ... Translation is is Translation ... CEU eTD Collection dum multifariam diuersisque modis diuidatur, bis binas tamen partes principales ad omnem questionem questionem omnem ad principales partes tamen binas bis diuidatur, dinoscitur habere necessarias soluendam modis diuersisque multifariam dum Quae, philosophiam. ueram esse religionem ueram conuersumque religionem ueram philosophiam esse ueram nec sacramenta nobis cum communicant cum nobis sacramenta nec approbamus, non doctrinam quorum hi, cum religionem, aliam et studium, sapientiae est id philosophiam, esse inde Conficitur exponere? regulas inuestigatur, rationabiliter et colitur humiliter et deus, causa, rerum omnium 139 138 salvation meansof truth: A2.3.2. Dialectic theological and tiig n hs omlto i ta, olwn Agsies phrasing, Augustine’s following that, is formulation this in striking is What dialectic. of task the on views Eriugena’s of dimension new a reveals passage This sought philosophy claims, God is As Eriugena of religion. questions to be applied should contains necessity with that rules logical the faith; only not is goal this achieve to means the further: ( God” – things all of cause primary and origin “the is, that seek, and for strive them of both which goal one having in coincide religion and philosophy him, to According Eriugena? for mean this does What same. the and one are philosophy and religion that claims and religion with philosophy truth the as disputation of art the of definition expressive Scot’s John discussion, this of light the In same. the and one are (revelation) faith of Truth the and reason of truth the consequently, and, matters, theological on reasoning rational as same the is faith Scot, John For God. for searches it if is, that religion, with coincides it if only true is philosophy – vice-versa and rules, logical on based is it if is, that philosophy, is it if genuine ( uiie colitur humiliter Augustine, Augustine, Ibid., question. seen, is every of solution it the for necessary up, parts principal two divided twice have to however, be ways various and many in may true philosophy While that then follows It philosophy. true is religion true that conversely sought? and religion true is philosophy rationally and humility with is God, worshipped things, all of cause principal and of supreme rules the the which by of religion exposition true the but philosophy of exercise the is else …What claims that: Scot In treatise, opens the John the phrasethat
rationally DP , . … 1. I, De vera religione vera De 138 um e picpls mim eu cua deus causa, rerum omnium principalis et summa ). What Eriugena also stresses in this phrase is that religion can only be be only can religion that is phrase this in stresses also Eriugena What ). ( quid est aliud de philosophia tractare, nisi uerae religionis, qua summa et principalis principalis et summa qua religionis, uerae nisi tractare, philosophia de aliud est quid
ainbltr inuestigatur rationabiliter , 5, 8. 8. 5, ,
Sic enim creditur et docetur, quod est humanae salutis caput, non aliam non caput, salutis humanae est quod docetur, et creditur enim Sic . Eriugena quotes it in the it Eriugena quotes . . . 31 ), which is the same as worshipping God God worshipping as same the is which ),
DP I, 1. 1. I, ). Their confluence goes goes confluence Their ). ad ipsam disputandi disputandi ipsam (...ad 139 ruea identifies Eriugena CEU eTD Collection 1018-1019 points out, the out, points Mainlodi As impressive. is – application their of frequency the and syllogisms and arguments preparatio atque dispositio. Si ergo ante saecula nihil creditur et intelligitur praeter solum deum fuisse, fuisse, deum solum praeter intelligitur praedestinationem pertinere eum et naturam ad atque esse colligitur deum ipsum dei ambiguit, creditur sanus nullus nihilesse creaturam omnem saecula ante dei ante autem praedestinationem ergo Si dispositio. atque preparatio thelastgroup. to belongs things worldly theof beauty the and second; the to belong dialectic and man a of choice free the gift; God’s of type first the to belong ( great is, that gift, est... certissimedata ad hoc uti, quoniam bene uoluerit 146 145 144 143 142 141 140 ueritas est quae disciplinam, preparation and disposition of all things before the creation. the before things all of disposition and preparation is, salvation. is, that mankind, of goal primary the of fulfillment the for essential is it because strengthening and training needs faculty this Scot, John to According man. by neglected or disregarded forgotten, be not should and nature, his in rooted is it nevertheless, nature; his constituting oefl en o slain ( salvation of means powerful thatcandiscipline divineTruth. achieve bad. as well as good – intentions both for used be can that one to is, that will, the of choice free nothing except God, but the predestination of God was before creation; therefore, the the therefore, creation; before was God of predestination the but God, except nothing bestowed on a man by God himself. God by man a on bestowed predestination belongs to the substance of God. John Scot uses an argument “from “from argument an uses Scot John God. definition.” God’s of that substance proof the his take to will belongs I predestination questions, theological to logic of application Scot’s According to Madec, this definition is taken from Augustine’s Augustine’s from taken is definition this Madec, to According Mainoldi, God’s of types three are there which to according gifts, God’s of theory Augustine’s follows Eriugena Ibid., 139. footnote See formulation. isAugustine’s This 136. footnote See DP DP 143 , II, 2. 2. II, , VII, 1. 1. VII, ilci, en Gds it nt eog t te aue f a i te es of sense the in man of nature the to belongs not gift, God’s being Dialectic, The scope in which John Scot applies logic in the treatise – the variety of types of of types of variety the – treatise the in logic applies Scot John which in scope The Being indispensable in theological questions, dialectic automatically becomes a a becomes automatically dialectic questions, theological in indispensable Being .
Introduzione 145 Est enim diuinia praedestinatio, ut ait Augustinus, onmium quae deus facturus estante saecula saecula estante facturus deus quae onmium Augustinus, ait ut praedestinatio, diuinia enim Est .dsuad qa dctr ilcia eiu, ue ul dbtne do oii oau, si donatur, homini deo a dubitante nullo quae peritus, dialectica dicitur quae ...disputandi is, e ie a eiiin codn t Agsie dvn peetnto is predestination divine Augustine: to according definition a gives he First, magna bona magna DP itself can be considered as “un grande sillogismo.” grande “un as considered be can itself , XLI. , ), middle ( ),
...) uaa slts caput salutis humanae 140 media a b as epand n h wy ht ilci i the is dialectic that way the in explained also be can 142 It belongs to the same category of God’s gifts as the as gifts God’s of category same the to belongs It ), and inferior ( inferior and ), . . 32
minima De dono perseuerantiae dono De ). 141 ) good. Justice, prudence, temperance, etc. etc. temperance, prudence, Justice, good. ) oevr ti dsiln was discipline this Moreover, 146 Before the creation there was there creation the Before 144 To illustrate John illustrate To , PL , 45, Cap. XVII, Cap. 45, , CEU eTD Collection incoherencies in heresies. Thus, Gottschalk is wrong in his theological presumptions because presumptions theological his in wrong is Gottschalk Thus, heresies. in incoherencies reveal can they second, and, difficulty exegetical any to solution proper the find first, help, the thinks he contains propermeans the most for why biblicalexegesis. and methods his justifies he how are Scot John to address to want I that questions the Thus, theology. of matters to disciplines these of applicability very the question can one exegesis, biblical in arts liberal the of supremacy the of conviction firm the of role leading the against Scot’sclaim John of As one note, can methodological questions. however, raise can diversity, This arguments philosopher. the of of position theological formulation the of support his in and doctrine, in Gottschalk’s exegesis, Eriugena’s in play dialectic roles and grammar, fundamental rhetoric, show, to aimed also I As treatise. the of diversity of the 2.4. Justification method intellectual religious endeavor and experience. of unity the – unity stable a is there diversity apparent this in but ways, various in method his philosophical to refers Eriugena way,redemption. seeking and faith same without alone stand the not does reasoning in Truth; divine the for searching without used be cannot reasoning correct of technique a as dialectic Eriugena, For carelessly. words using of result the not is religion” true of rules the of exposition the but philosophy of exercise the is else Scot’sopponents. by show below,waswill it criticized John I as and theology, Eriugena’s for crucial is substance God’s and predestination of unity the on statement and proof This nature. his to belongs and himself God is God of predestination As John Scot himself explains, logic and rhetoric are indispensable because they can can they because indispensable are rhetoric and logic explains, himself Scot John As In the discussion above, I wanted to give a picture of the methodological richness and and richness methodological the of picture a give to wanted I above, discussion the In “what phrases: “monstrous”) say would rivals (his outstanding most the of one Thus, triuium in theological questions is quite ambitious. Despite Eriugena’s Eriugena’s Despite ambitious. quite is questions theological in 33
triuium
CEU eTD Collection ai atro nelcu cpltr u i e uda es onu ntrrm qa a e cete sunt, creatae eo ab quae naturarum, omnium esse uideat eo in scientiam ut appellat mox ipsa notionem, incomprehensibilem copulatur, intellectui aeterno ratio perfectissimamque habeat notionem, qua omnem exsuperat intellectum creaturae intellectum exsuperat omnem qua notionem, habeat perfectissimamque 149 148 147 be found the in secondof the DP chapter can questions these to answer the opinion, my In truth? theological identifying and for philosophical grounds Eriugena’s are What religion? of truth the reveal to able are that he whatlogic was points at mistaken. show exactly can of application proper the that means which logic, of rules the and reason follow not does he supreme of conviction Eriugena’s that saying for grounds gives passage this opinion, my In divinity. the to ascent an intelligence,” eternal “joining of process the is knowledge obtaining Truth itself,” the consult and above, is what at look oneself, into return “should one place, another in says copulatur intellectui aeterno ratio way: precise and divine direct a the quite in conviction approach this formulates Eriugena to notion. reason human for possible still is it realized, be ever can God of of any creature,” any of theperfect ownunderstanding ofeternal its substance, notion immutable and which beyond is and complete very a possesses itself intelligence “divine that claims Scot John above line which intellect, highest the is God nature; rational a has God Scot, John to According implications. philosophical and theological strong has passage This bd, I 4 ... 5.... XV, DP, 4 II, Ibid., DP II, 4 4 II, h dvn nto b wih o udrtns [ understands God which by notion divine The This answer, however, leads to another question. Why it is logic and human reasoning reasoning human and logic is it Why question. another to leads however, answer, This According to John Scot, one should search for the knowledge of God because because God of knowledge the for search should one Scot, John to According
nelgne [ intelligence [ wisdom called nopeesbe oin f l te aue ta hv be cetd y that by created been have that natures intelligence, knowledge callsreason thereupon it [ the all of notion incomprehensible ... ipsa diuina notio qua semet ipsum deus intelligit sapientia proprie uocatur. Cum autem eadem eadem autem Cum uocatur. proprie sapientia intelligit deus ipsum semet qua notio diuina ipsa 149 in se ipsum redeat, altius intendat, ipsam ueritatem consultat. ueritatem ipsam intendat, altius redeat, ipsum se in fora between thereconnection and divineintellect. is human 148 ipse diuinus intellectus aeternae suae immutabilisque substantiae plenissimam plenissimam substantiae immutabilisque suae aeternae intellectus diuinus ipse which means that no ambition of the human mind to reach the knowledgethe reach to mind human the of ambition no that means which een itlet copulatur intellectu aeterno ]. But when the same reason is joined to eternal eternal to joined is reason same the when But ]. sapientia
– “the same reason is joined to the eternal intellect.” As he he As intellect.” eternal the to joined is reason same “the – , where John Scot says Scot where John , 34
. s ta rao se i i an it in sees reason that so ] intelligit scientia]. intelligit hmef s properly is himself ]
147 . .
himself. Although one Although himself. autem eadem eadem autem CEU eTD Collection the and logic of role philosopher the realms of religion and faith, on one side, are not separate from those of of those from philosophy and knowledge,other. onthe separate not are side, one on faith, and religion of realms the philosopher the for that say can one why is That dialectic. – method Eriugena’s legitimates God of nature intellectual the that think I connection. this on views his elaborate not does himself Eriugena
triuium is based on the very rational nature of God, although in the in although God, of nature rational very the on based is 35
DP
CEU eTD Collection the treatise besides Prudentius’ summaries. See Marenbon, See summaries. Prudentius’ besides treatise the 150 from Prudentius, and makes critical comments on eachfrom critical and Prudentius, makes comments on of them. formulated probably chapters, nineteenth Eriugena’s of ideas main the of paraphrases uses fact that Eriugena’s theses that Florus uses in the treatise coincide with the formulations in Prudentius’ Prudentius’ in formulations the with coincide treatise the in uses Florus Recapitulatio that theses Eriugena’s that fact uts h woe asg fo the from passage whole the quotes Prudentius differently. somewhat structured are works critical these in assertions the Eriugena’s from one corresponding the on comment they chapter each in and chapters, nineteen into divided are they treatise; Eriugena’s these follow structures, precisely works their In errors.” “gravest the correcting as well as contradictions minor to attention paying theses, Scot’s John refuting and analyzing paragraph-by-paragraph, and the discuss Florus and Prudentius features. common many have extent, and decisions, exegetical style, temperament, in different somewhat although Eriugenam was criticized by the Carolingian theologians Prudentius and Florus. In light of this critique I critique this of light In Florus. and Prudentius theologians Carolingian the by criticized was haddeal great theological with early questions significance for theologians. medieval Last the and punishment, will, of question the also but free important, terms and ways correct and proper the in judgment man, of nature the actions, God’s the about think of problem the was only Not contemporaries. his by critiques sharp of target the also was position methodological Eriugena’s views, anthropological and theological the besides John Marenbon assumes that Prudentius read the the read Prudentius that assumes Marenbon John rdnis work Prudentius’ I will examine, in terms of methodology, the main points for which John Scot’ treatise treatise Scot’ whichfor John points main themethodology, terms of in examine, Iwill Prudentius and Florus criticize the criticize Florus and Prudentius and Florus’ composition, Aduersus Definitiones Joannis ScotiErigenae Erroneas composition, Florus’ and ( PL 115, 1351D-1366A) supports this point of view. of point this supports 1351D-1366A) 115, EXEGESIS ACCORDING REGULA EXEGESIS FIDEI THE TO PRUDENTIUS’ AND FLORUS’ CRITIQUES:FLORUS’ PRUDENTIUS’ AND De Praedestinatione Contra Johannem Scotum cognomento cognomento Scotum Johannem Contra Praedestinatione De
DP CHAPTER 3 n wie detailed writes and DP DP 36 in toto, while Florus might have read only extracts from from extracts only read have might whileFlorus toto, in from various aspects. As I mentioned above, above, mentioned I As aspects. various from
John Scottus and Carolingian Theology Carolingian and Scottus John DP correctiones 150 in detail, chapter-by-chapter chapter-by-chapter detail, in
DP Te euain of refutations The . afterwards. Florus Florus afterwards.
, 311. The 311. , what how to to to to , , CEU eTD Collection et prophetis dei: nec in mundanae doctrina quadruuiis, sed in una et uera uia, quae dicit de semetipsa: Ego sum Ego semetipsa: de dicit quae uia, uera et una in sed quadruuiis, doctrina mundanae in nec dei: prophetis et apostolis sed philosophis, requirendam esse non exprimitur, praedestinationis uocabulo quae dei, ordinationis 152 151 exegetical they methods applied. what and them, articulated they as were, approaches exegetical own their what discuss will
uia, ueritas et uita et ueritas uia, Eriugena’s 3.1. Critiquesof approach concerning convictions their on methodology particularity exegeses. stress not the of their only focus will I respects, some in different are works their Although approach. exegetical same the and one of proponents are theologians these rules of the whole philosophy:” Eriugena’s towards attitudes Florus’ and asmethodological wellambitions as their own methodological views. Prudentius’ demonstrate chapters these from texts, passages Two approach. both Eriugena’s of critique the the to devoted of especially are however, chapters second and throughout first found The compositions. are Florus’ methodology and Prudentius’ Eriugena’s concerning Remarks texts. sacred the in hidden Truth the defend and for search to used be to was dialectic while Fathers, the and Scripture the in sayings the of interpretation proper the in help to were grammar and rhetoric exegesis, for guide a As arts. liberal the of tools the with theology of question any solve to Florus, Florus, DP , I. I. , I will consider the works by Prudentius and Florus together because, in my opinion, opinion, my in because, together Florus and Prudentius by works the consider will I As I have discussed in the previous chapter, John Scot was convinced of the necessity necessity the of convinced was Scot John chapter, previous the in discussed have I As lrs ipts rueas ttmn ta “vr qeto cn e ovd ih four with solved be can question “every that statement Eriugena’s disputes Florus The faith of the Church answers from the contrary statement that the truth of truth the that statement contrary the from answers Church the of faith The true way who said about himself: “I am the way and truth and life” (John, (John, life” and truth and way the 14:6). am “I himself: about said who way true the and one in but doctrine, mundane the of rules four in not word is it and God, of the prophets the by and apostles expressed the but philosophy, are need not whichdoes ‘predestination,’ regulation, God’s and judgment eternal dess JoSco Aduersus 152 . .
, I, 104A. 104A. I, ,
151 u fds clsa e otai rsodt urttm een jdci et judicii aeterni ueritatem respondet, contrario e ecclesiae fides Cui
37
CEU eTD Collection manifestaret, assumpsit, ne doctrina coelestis, quae erat plena uirtutum, auxilio uideretur indigere uerborum. indigere uideretur auxilio uirtutum, plena erat quae coelestis, doctrina ne assumpsit, manifestaret, institutione cognoscat, qui omnes nationes ad illuminationem fidei uocaturus, non de philosophis aut aut philosophis se de quos per non piscatoribus, uocaturus, et humilibus fidei de sed illuminationem elegit, famularentur, ad Euangelio Christi nationes praedicando Jesu qui nostri omnes oratoribus, domini ipsa qui ex uitare, cognoscat, christiana fides institutione debeat quantum uanitatem, nocentissimam hanc liberal arts to the to arts liberal the of application an towards only understood be should opinion, my in fragments, the of rhetoric negative The nunquam deesse poterunt qui ueritati audeant reluctari, et de mundanae sapientiae loquacitate confidere: cum confidere: loquacitate sapientiae mundanae de et reluctari, audeant ueritati qui poterunt deesse nunquam 155 154 153 And as Prudentius formulates: And as formulates: Prudentius otia coelestis doctrina disagreeto application his ofarts with theological the to liberal issues. opponents Scot’s John groundsfor sound finds onefragments these in aside, rhetoric Leaving
those of the liberal arts. liberal the of those are study its for applied be to tools proper the and world), created the of part the is (which mind human the of exercise of field the is world created the to belongs that everything Thus, them. of each for specific are roots, different have doctrines the since approaches, These divine Truth,stands onhuman the wisdom. second the holds first the if different: are passages, the in implied The is as world. doctrines, createdthese of the natures of laws the comprises one second the while realm, divine the of mysteries the contains doctrine first The doctrine. mundane the and Truth, the of doctrine the Prudentius’ and Florus’ sharp attacks on dialectic do not reflect their rejection of the liberal arts in general. general. in arts liberal the of rejection their reflect not do dialectic on attacks sharp Florus’ and Prudentius’ formulation. Florus’ Prudentius,
First, both theologians stressed the separation and principal difference between between difference principal and separation the stressed theologians both First, Second, particular approaches are required to penetrate the spheres of both doctrines. both of spheres the penetrate to required are approaches particular Second, h hml ad ihre, y hm e aietd isl, o ht the that so the help of words. himself, manifested require to as seen hebe not should virtues, of whom full was which doctrine, heavenly by fishermen, and and humble philosophers the the among among from them selected from has he but gospels, not the of preaching the followers in orators his chosen has this light, to the about nations all call to learn intending who, Christ, Jesus could Lord our of One instruction the wisdom. mundane from can, it as far ofas avoid should faith Christian the which vanity, pernicious loquacity the on rely no would be who and Truth would the against struggle there to dare would opinions, who those of human lacking the on debate to free be would it if For ota JoSco Contra doctrina coelestis doctrina (or otia ueritatis doctrina 155 I 1014CD. I, , 153 The “tools” that are applicable to the celestial doctrine should be should doctrine celestial the to applicable are that “tools” The
. .
Nam si humanis persuasionibus semper disceptare sit liberum, liberum, sit disceptare semper persuasionibus humanis si Nam ) 154 and 38
te evny doctrine, heavenly the – mundana doctrina
CEU eTD Collection ats s eiai. uno eis qatqe auru aee, i n ure eptrau ua innitens, uia sempiternaque huius Quadriga salutaris. panditur uia uerae nobis quibus manantia, fonte paradisi uni uno euangelia, quatuor sunt si uiae huius Quadriga diligeres! ageres, diuersa in ire raptum typho salubrius inflatus tui quadriuii quam quantoque uehi, humilis illius quadriga melius, Quanto ueritatis. es factus nos, Sed definiuit. multipliciter tam doctrinae, paternae attestatione ulla absque diuinae, scripturae testimonio 158 157 156 the from taken Quadriga huius uiae sunt quatuor diuinorum eloquiorum species historica, ethica, allegorica, anagogica, anagogica, allegorica, ethica, historica, species eloquiorum diuinorum inducimur eius, gratia illuminante intellectum, litterarum sacrarum omnem ad quibus quatuor sunt uiae huius Quadriga uenustatur. probitas morum omnis quibus justitia, fortitudo, temperantia, prudentia, uirtutes sunt quatuor uiae sitdiscernamus sentiendum regulam fidei eis de juxta quid discutentes, uigilanter singula adjuuante, domino etmn o te iie citrs n atsain f h tahn o te Fathers.” the of teaching the of attestation and Scriptures divine the of testimony as it defines Florus HolyFathers. the and Bible the of testimonies the in found be only can which knowledge, hidden, although ( persuasions and opinions ( wisdom human of object is another of issues the to them of an be cannot nature the Thus,according divineTruth Florus, by impossible. and Prudentius to one of tools the of application an that is doctrines
applied the liberal arts – the worldly discipline – to divine matters to which they are not not are applicable. they which to matters divine to – discipline worldly the – arts liberal the him, applied accuse opponents his as Eriugena, world. created the in things explores other Truth, while divine the for searches discipline One exclusive. mutually are that methodologies the liberal arts. The world of divine wisdom, on the contrary, is not the place for human human for place the not is contrary, the on wisdom, divine of world The arts. liberal the historical, ethical, allegorical, and anagogic. – exegesis biblical of methods traditional four to keep and Gospels, the of way” fourfold “the use should one teaching celestial the of mysteries the penetrate to emphasizes, Prudentius Prudentius, Prudentius, 108B. II, Ibid., Florus, formulation. Florus’ Fourth, John Scot made a mistake, the theologians point out, by confusing confusing by out, point theologians the mistake, a made Scot John Fourth, heavenly and mundane between separation the of implication important an Third, Thus, as Prudentius and Florus claim, the human world is the field of competence of of competence of field the is world human the claim, Florus and Prudentius as Thus, ota JoSco Contra disciplinae ecclesiasticae disciplinae ce una rpsi, m ult miu sqed e nmn djdcna asu ullo absque dijudicanda, nemini et sequenda omnibus uelut imo proposuit, quanta Ecce eua fidei regula , Epilogus, 1352AB. 1352AB. Epilogus, , Aduersus JoSco Aduersus uai persuasionibus humanis . t s o a il fr h eecs o human of exercise the for field a not is It ). sapientia mundana
– “the rule of faith,” which, according to him, is “the “the is him, to according which, faith,” of rule “the – , II, 110A. II, , 156 Relinque quadriuium uanitatis, quod sequens extorris uiae uiae extorris sequens quod uanitatis, quadriuium Relinque – “the ecclesiastical discipline.” In other places, other In discipline.” ecclesiastical “the – 158 39
, u o fih ad oi ad immutable, and solid and faith, of but ), . . 157 As . . CEU eTD Collection substantially and the statement that predestination can be referred to God only from the similitude to the the to similitude the from only God to referred be can Florus, things. temporal predestination that statement the and substantially 162 161 160 159 for only but reasoning, argumentation. Prudentius starts his refutation from the reference to the categories. the to reference the from refutation his Prudentius’ starts Prudentius argumentation. follow will I categories. the of help the with theologians both by solved and f h uiy f h dvn sbtne wih los i t atiue rdsiain o the foreknowledge. to with predestination identify predestination and God of substance attribute to him allows which substance, divine the of unity the of principle the on arguments his based above, stated I as Eriugena, bliss. eternal to elect the of predestination the only is there that and damnation to predestine not does God that assertion of dialectic the method? Application of 3.2. Inconsistency matters.” divine treat to is another and world human the on speculate to is thing “one says, Prudentius statements, Eriugena’s in inconsistencies out pointing or them on comments and Bible the and Fathers detail. in discussing worth are opinion, my in positions, Eriugena’s against proposed theologians – primary the is one which among categories, ten are there notes, is permanent and does not change with time. On the other hand, if one says of a man that he that man a of says one if hand, other the On time. with change not does and permanent is ( man” “a is he that example, for man, a of say can One substance. the to not but accidents, to belongs underlines, Prudentius accidents are Prudentius, Prudentius, God of said is predestination that assertion between contradiction the out points Florus example, for Thus, See … 1120A. IX, Ibid., DP One of the major points on which Florus and Prudentius disagree with John Scot is his his is Scot disagreeJohn with andFlorus Prudentius on which major points the One of f h uul ehd o rftn Jh So’ tee wr rfrne t te Church the to references were theses Scot’s John refuting of methods usual the If , II, III. III. II, , 159 161
Contra JoSco Contra
the issue of whether God predestined to death and punishment was discussed was punishment and death to predestined God whether of issue the ( ). The category of relation, as as relation, of category The ). substantia in accident quae est id accidentia, aliud est enim diuina, aliud humana tractari humana aliud diuina, enim est aliud Aduersus JoSco Aduersus , II, 1037A-1039A. , 1037A-1039A. II, otia ueritatis doctrina
), which means that he refers to man’s substance which which substance man’s to refers he that means which homo), , IX, 157BC. IX, 157BC. , or 40 ecclesiascticae disciplina disciplina ecclesiascticae
. . – while the other nine nine other the while – usia 160 The arguments that the that arguments The ht wl i i. As it. in dwell that 162 As he As CEU eTD Collection since “this relation in God refers partly to God himself and partly to created things,” created to partly and himself God to partly refers God in relation “this since and predestines, God that creatures and world the other, the on and, predestines, who God, hand, one on implies, God of said “predestination” word the man, a of predications the with relationem ( relation to according or substance to according why is which him, “determination” accidentally. abut mansubstantially, saidnot of is by determined something is there when only determines” who “one while time, the all man” “a called be can man a Thus, someone. by determined is necessity, of determined, is which thing a – vice-versa and determines he which something to relation in only exists determines” who “one because relation, a of category the to rather belongs determines” who “one predication The b) life. his of periods some during only but time, the determines”all who “one not is thata man the mightcase it be change but life, his throughout not does man a of substance the because man, a of substance the about anything say not does 164 163 ( determines” who “one is God’s of multiplicity a imply not does predestinations” “God’s say to For, multiple. is God of predestination the that say to mistake a not is it happen, to wills and regulates, arranges, he concludes, said of not God is substantially. predestination Prudentius Therefore, God. of substance the to only but else, something to reference without ( etc. “goodness,” “knowledge,” “wisdom,” predications the contrary, the On relatively. God ( etc. “judge” “regulator,” “maker,” “creator,” as well as predestines,” who “one predications , sapientia judex ordinator, factor, creator, Ibid., II, 138A. ... 138A. II, Ibid., ... 1037D. II, Ibid., vrtig a Puetu cnius ta cn e ad f o, s ad f i either him of said is God, of said be can that continues, Prudentius as Everything, Since “predestination” does refer not to the substance itself of God, but to things that that things to but God, of itself substance the to not refer does “predestination” Since ); either properly or figuratively ( figuratively or properly either ); scientia, conficitur ergo nullatenus destinationem de deo essentialiter praedicari essentialiter dedeo destinationem nullatenus ergo conficitur quae tamen relatio in deo partim ad se, partim ad creaturas refertur creaturas ad se, partim ad partim deo in relatio tamen quae bonitas destinator …) refer to God substantially because they are said of him him of said are they because substantially God to refer …)
…) belong to the category of relation and they are said of of said are they and relation of category the to belong …) ), he uses a predication which belongs to accidents. a) It a) accidents. to belongs which predication a uses he ), uel proprie, uel translate uel proprie, uel 41
secundum substantiam, aut secundum secundum aut substantiam, secundum 164
). In the same way as way same the In )...... 163 the CEU eTD Collection to claim that the truth is not ainsane. claimnot is to thatthetruth is truth only not truth, utmost the contain formulations Scriptures’ the Since sense. is no makes it but dangerous, affirmations biblical of negation direct of method Eriugena’s claims, Florus as Moreover, declares. Eriugena as contrariety from Scriptures the of interpretation the allow not does Prudentius, to according eloquence,” divine the of “authority solid the Thus, be. to going are that events and things of determination and establishment the hand, other the on and, knowledge, hand, one on signifying, literally as understood be should they and properly, world. See Florus, Florus, See world. created the to refers it since relatively only God of said be can “predestination” impossible; is God of substance proferre ualere: quantum tamen ipso uniuersitates auctore datur atque conceditur ipsis quibus humanam humanam quibus ipsis conceditur praedicari institut uoluit sunt atque datur sua quae digne sumentis, capacitate auctore et distribuentis, munere uocibus pro significationibus, uerborum uniuersitates ac dedit, uti naturam signis ipso rerum tamen corporalium nullis quantum deus, ualere: uerus proferre et unus trinitas, est quae naturam immutabilemque 168 167 166 165 created. things the as manifold as be can which world, created the in operations and ordinations his of multiplicity the only but substance, uerborum aliarumque orationis partium signa proprie de deo dici non posse non dici de deo proprie signa partium orationis aliarumque uerborum
is the onlyis of elected predestination salvation. to there that claiming and God of substance the to predestination referring in mistake a commits sense. proper the actions in words the predicate divine to man ordains of and wants God interpretation Scriptures, the in to revealed Nevertheless, comes signification. it when of that power argues theologian, enough a Prudentius, have not do nature” the divine to applied “ineffable and things corporal to similarity the from taken words and signs any that by Prudentius in a different way than John Scot proposes. Scot John than way different a in Prudentius by Florus, Florus, Prudentius, the to “predestination” predicate to that states also Florus Prudentius. of that to similar is argument Florus’ DP , IX, 1. 1. IX, , 167 Furthermore, the problem of language and its applicability to the divinity was solved solved was divinity the to applicability its and language of problem the Furthermore, hrfr, h peiain “oenweg” n “rdsiain rfr o God to refer “predestination” and “foreknowledge” predications the Therefore, Aduersus JoSco Aduersus Ubi primo notandum, quoniam nihil digne de deo dicitur, omnia poene siue nominum siue siue nominum siue poene omnia dicitur, deo de digne nihil quoniam notandum, primo Ubi ota JoSco Contra Aduersus JoSco Aduersus , X, 158CD. 158CD. X, , . , IX, 1118D-1119A. 1118D-1119A. IX, , , II, 108C-112A. 108C-112A. , II,
168 42
Uerum est quidem illam ineffabilem, incorpoream incorpoream ineffabilem, illam quidem est Uerum 165
Therefore, Prudentius concludes, Eriugena concludes, Prudentius Therefore, 166 Prudentius agrees with Eriugena with agrees Prudentius
CEU eTD Collection soul, but the substance of man is a soul and a body together. Florus, Florus, together. body a souland is a man of substance the but soul, know, but a body and soul in inseparable connection. He stresses that these three attributes belong to the human human the to belong attributes three these that stresses He connection. inseparable in soul and body a but know, et erant ualde bona (Gen. 1:33) (Gen. bona ualde erant et attributa conditoris dono substantiae, ornamenta sed natura, atque substantia uelle et scire. Est enim et uult et scit, uult se esse et scire, scit se esse et uelle et essese scit scire, et essese uult scit, et uult et enim Est scire. et uelle est igitur uoluntas hominis creatura dei; nulla enim creatura dei mala, nonulla autem hominis uoluntas mala uoluntas hominis autem nonulla mala, dei creatura enim nulla dei; creatura hominis uoluntas igitur est 4:4) Tim. (I bona est non dei scriptura: attestante sunt, bona condidit summebonus auctor quae omnia quia 174 173 172 171 170 169 teto i dvtd o dsuso o te aue f man. of nature the of discussion a to devoted is attention uerborum aliarumque orationis partium signa proprie de deo dici non posse. non dici de deo proprie signa partium orationis aliarumque uerborum Then, taking the conclusion of this syllogism as a minor premise,minor syllogismcontinues: Then, ofPrudentius a this taking conclusion as the whichsyllogisms, can recapitulatedfollowing be the way: in evn a “raet” ( “ornaments” as serving gifts, God’s to belong rather they but man, of nature the constitute not do knowledge and scire ( will free rational is God, of image the to according created was who man, a of substance rational ( soul as not is God, of image the to according created was continues, uoluntas libera rationalis libera uoluntas Ibid., IV, 1052BC. 1052BC. IV, Ibid., to and will to be, to not is man of substance the that argues He opinion. different a of is however, Florus, Prudentius, 6. IV, Ibid., Prudentius, DP – “to be,” “to will,” and “to know.” “to and will,” “to be,” “to – , IX, 1. 1. IX, , Another interesting passage in Prudentius’ critical work which I think is worth worth is think I which work critical Prudentius’ in passage interesting Another n re t poe i pit f iw Puetu rsrs o esnn bsd on based reasoning to resorts Prudentius view, of point his prove to order In Therefore, human volition is not a not creature is Therefore, of God. human volition good) is (EverythingGod created by Not every good, is evil volitions human since volition are there Therefore,everything good. is created good.bygoodWhatever established is asourceis supremely Everything byGodcreated as a established is source. Contra JoSco Contra Contra JoSco Contra Ubi primo notandum, quoniam hihil digne de deo dicitur, omnia poene siue nominum siue siue nominum siue poene omnia dicitur, deo de digne hihil quoniam notandum, primo Ubi rationalis rationalis mens Quamuis enim beatam uitam peccando perdidit, substantiam suam non amisit quae est esse, esse, est quae amisit non suam substantiam perdidit, peccando uitam beatam enim Quamuis Cum enim constet quod omnia quae creata sunt, deo auctore sint condita, nimirum liquet liquet nimirum condita, sint auctore deo sunt, creata quae omnia quod constet enim Cum , IV, 1050D-1052C. 1050D-1052C. , IV, , IV, 1051A. 1051A. IV, , ; omnis autem uoluntas hominis non est bona, quaedam enim uoluntas mala: non mala: uoluntas enim quaedam bona, est non hominis uoluntas autem omnis ; Patet ergo quod omnis creatura dei, sicut apostolus ait, bona est. est. bona ait, apostolus sicut dei, creatura omnis quod ergo Patet ), o te usac o man. of substance the of ornamenta) 170 ).
and that the nature of man has three attributes – attributes threehas man of nature the that and 173
Sed esse est eius natura atque substantia; uelle et scire non sunt eius sunt non scire et uelle substantia; atque natura eius est esse Sed 171 Prudentius, on the contrary, argues that the will the that argues contrary, the on Prudentius, 43
Aduersus JoSco Aduersus 174
169 . .
. . on ct lis ht the that claims Scot John 172 Et uidit deus cuncta quae fecerat, fecerat, quae cuncta uiditdeus Et uelle h ntr o mn he man, of nature The , IV, 129A-130B. 129A-130B. IV, , and and scire esse Nulla creatura creatura Nulla , , but as a a as but , uelle and . . CEU eTD Collection 176 175 man,” of substance the on imposed gifts God’s are they but substance, his to belong not do man of knowledge and will “the that is syllogisms these from draws Prudentius that conclusion general The pl te ol ad h triooy f ilci i ti wy n hi ciia texts. critical their in way this in dialectic of terminology the and tools the apply sed dona dei indita humanae substantiae, id est animae rationali animae est id substantiae, humanae indita dei dona sed and of theology?rejection Florus’ the into interference ofarts the liberal Prudentius’ of context the in explained be logic of application the can ask, might one How, remarkable. quite is claims theological his and position methodological Eriugena’s of critique level. philosophical a onto debate this moves which philosophically, ideas anthropological and applying in theologians the theological their formulating of in also but questions, maturity theological to terminology and philosophical mastery the only not show They issues. creation. created, was man which – modality one only includes to according God of image the that implies man, of the substance to belong not do knowledge and will that stating however, Prudentius, image. God’s a – is unity three-fold man of substance the that claims Eriugena above, shown have I As God. of likeness and image the of concept the issue, anthropological and theological important an implies of the Eriugena’s free of in treatise. man will stressed and Florus’ of principle main the change not does language and tools logical of application Florus, however, does not use syllogistic reasoning. syllogisticreasoning. use not does however, Florus, 1052B. IV, Ibid., On the one hand, to my knowledge these are the only cases where both theologians both where cases only the are these knowledge my to hand, one the On The presence of these arguments in the whole system of Prudentius’ and Florus’ Florus’ and Prudentius’ of system whole the in arguments these of presence The interesting reveal man of nature the and God of predications the on discussions These also man of nature the on Prudentius and Eriugena between views of difference The Unde luce clarius colligitur quod colligitur clarius luce Unde esse 175 which is quite important for Prudentius argumentation against the role the against argumentation Prudentius for important quite is which , uelle and
esse scire – while – – which means that these three modalities are parts of parts are modalities three these that means which – uelle
44 uoluntas hominis atque scientia non sunt eius substantia, substantia, eius sunt non scientia atque hominis uoluntas and and
scire . . were granted by God only after the the after only God by granted were 176 The CEU eTD Collection not did ideas anthropological achieve elaboration philosophical views. such as Eriugena’s and theological their although formed, been had thought Eriugena’s which in framework and logical same the in shape taken had thinking of Prudentius’ ways Florus’ Nevertheless, paradoxical. seem might situation This mistake. logical a also but doctrinal a only not committed he that and groundless, were matters anthropological and theological on speculations philosophical Eriugena’s that prove to way powerful a was terminology philosophical to resort to arts, liberal the in educated well were who Florus, and reasoning be can questioned. philosophical) (and logical of samples isolated these of significance the texts, authoritative of compilation the on based exegesis their of character general the Prudentius). consideration into Taking (especially Fathers the from excerpts relevant extensive and Bible the from quotations on predominantly critiques their base theologians these works their throughout Thus, them. around arguments own their build and texts sacred the in found formulations the to loyal stay to – exegeses biblical their and treatise Eriugena’s of critique Prudentius’ Prudentius for that seems It neglected. be cannot arguments these hand, other the On 45
CEU eTD Collection
and the and logic of role supreme the of conviction Eriugena’s opinion, myIn religion. of Truth the is for seeking is philosophy that truth the consequently, and, unity, inseparable an formed theology and philosophy Eriugena, For interpretations. false and heresies against Truth biblical the defend as well as problem theological any to solution reliable most the the find to provide tools proper can logic and rhetoric, grammar, him, to According texts. in these freedom interpreting intellectual him gave which difficulties, theological solving and texts sacred of interpretation the to arts liberal the of techniques applied consistently He Eriugena. Scot of by themore predestinationform or polemics. allthe lesselaborated participants in given of was question problem this to answer the An Scriptures? to the read led one can question How methodology. predestination the the on and Fathers passages Holy biblical the the of of testimonies interpretation proper the establish to necessity a and tradition theological received in uncertainty An exegesis. Carolingian of development the for these theologians, is not a place for exercising human reasoning and “insane” arguments. arguments. “insane” and reasoning human exercising for place a not is theologians, these to according wisdom, divine the arts, liberal the of competence of field the is world human the If confused. had Scot John which philosophy, of principles the and theology of principles the distinguish should one that claim Florus and Prudentius method. Eriugena’s confronting in formulation its of necessity the to came who Prudentius, and Florus opponents Eriugena’s idea.this elaborate fully not does he text this in although intellectual, is DP, the in it defines Scot John as which, God, of nature very the on views his by explained be might logic to gives he that
Another methodology for dealing with the Scriptural Truth was proposed by by proposed was Truth Scriptural the with dealing for methodology Another The predestination controversy, as I have tried to show, had a particular significance significance particular a had show, to tried have I as controversy, predestination The One of the exegetic strategies was formulated and used during the debate by John John by debate the during used and formulated was strategies exegetic the of One triuium was based on theologico-philosophical ideas of John Scot. The supreme role role supreme The Scot. John of ideas theologico-philosophical on based was CONCLUSION CONCLUSION 46
CEU eTD Collection be to established. began field each of autonomy the that say to possible is it why is That approaches. theological and philosophical between theology) by only opposition formulated an was however, created (which, rejection This over. step to allowed not showing is it and limits independence the philosophy its defending of position of active scope an the took to application theology its theology, of limits the independent expand their to establishing tried philosophy of If process “territories.” active the in were philosophy and theology shows the century. complicacy thethe in mid-ninth intellectual situation of it that in curious is case very this character, inconsistent and random rather even a had syllogisms and categories of application their Although refutation. any for tools indispensable logic, of tools applyingthe avoid not could themselves Florus and Prudentius however, ideas, of the arts of the triuium self- the of language language the to superior is theologians, these to according texts, holy the in very God of revelation the Furthermore, revealed. is Truth divine the where source only the is Fathers Holy the and Scriptures the of testimonies the in found knowledge Solid of theological as philosophical reasoningtake well argumentations as place. and could development autonomous the where framework conceptual general a created already had arts liberal the century, mid-ninth the by that say can one Thus, stresses. and nuances different with extents, different to applied was it although participants, the of all among common was On the other hand, the language of the polemics – of authority and logical reasoning – reasoning logical and authority of – polemics the of language the hand, other the On both reveals, conflict methodological and theological this as hand, one the On to order In prove , which was reasonalone. invented, byhuman the groundlessness of Eriugena’s theological and anthropological anthropological and theological Eriugena’s of groundlessness the 47
CEU eTD Collection
______. ______. De praedestinatione Epistola adHincmarum______. Epistola Rhemensem Hrabanus adHeberardum Epistola comitem Maurus. Gundlach, W. Ed. simplices,” et reclusos “Ad Rhemensis. Hincmar lrs Lugdunensis. Florus Lugdunensis. adGodescalcum Amulo Epistola Primary Sources Ratramnus Corbeiensis. De predestinatione Dei adHincmarum______. Epistola et Pardulum Trecensis. Prudentius questionibus deLupusFerrariensis. Liber tribus Eriugena. Scottus John Eriugena. Scottus Johannes tres Isidorus libri Senteniae Hispalensus. ______. rinascenza carolingia.and Giovanni Eriugena.Dialettica Scoto all’apogeo della eEd. teologia Prolixior ______. Confessio InGotteschalcus.. Confessio PL Kirchengeschichte pauperum praedatoris tr. Ernesto S. Mainoldi. Florence: Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2003. del Galluzzo, Florence:tr. Ernesto Mainoldi. Edizioni S. Scoti Erigenae erroneas definitiones liber Scoti Erigenaedefinitiones erroneas seu liber Johannis Scoti correctus a Prudentio, siue a caaeeris Patribus, uidelicet a Ina . Gregorio, atque Hieronymo,Augustino Fulgentio PL uidelicet Patribus, caaeeris a siue Prudentio, a correctus Scoti Johannis liber seu DameIN:University Press. 1998. of Notre Brepols, 1978. 1553C. Epistola ad Notingum cum libro de PraedestinationeDeide libro cumadNotingum Epistola psoa osli uicni a rrm clsatcrm eusrs t ad et peruasores ecclesiasticarum rerum ad Tusiacensis consilii Epistola lr daoi u nmn Eceie udnni auru Johannis aduersus Lugdunensis Ecclesiae nomine sub diaconi Flori De praedestinatione contra Iohannem Scotum cognomento Erigenam Erigenam cognomento Scotum Iohannem contra praedestinatione De . Tr. Mary Brennan. Notre Dame, Dame, Notre Brennan. Mary Tr. . Predestination Divine on Treatise 10 (1899): 93–144,258–309. (1899): 10 De diuina preadestinatione liber preadestinatione diuina De . In PL. 126,cols. 122A-132C. . In. PL . In. 125,cols. 55B-474B. PL 121, cols. 147D-150B. 121,cols. 147D-150B. BIBLIOGRAPHY 121, cols. 349C-366A. 121,cols. 349C-366A. . In. 83. PL 48
. In PL. 116,cols. 84C-96. . In PL. 121,cols. 11C-80. . In PL. 112,cols. 1518D-1530C . In. PL 119,cols. 621D-648B.
. In PL. 115,cols. 971D-1010B. . In. PL . In . 112,cols. 1553D-1562C. PL 119, cols. 101B-250A. . Ed. Goulven Madec. Turnhout: Turnhout: Madec. Goulven Ed. . 115, cols. 1009C-1366A. 115,cols. 1009C-1366A. . In PL 112, cols. 1530D- cols. In112, PL . Zeitschrift für für Zeitschrift CEU eTD Collection Broadie, Medieval to Alexander. Inroduction Logic c Secondary Sour Lugdonensis.Remigius mn, ml. L cnrvre rdsine” In prédestienne.” controverse “La Émile. Amann, in contraires” propositions des logique la et Scot “Jean Guy-H. Allard, Devisse, Jean. Jean. Devisse, Aegerter, Emmanuel. “Gottschalk et le problème de la prédestination au IXe siècle.” IXe au prédestination la de problème le et “Gottschalk Emmanuel. Aegerter, . Naples: Liguori Editore, Naples: tardo-antico . nell’Occidente dialettica La ______. Fonsscientiae. “ Giulio. D’Onofrio, History of Theology Augustinian the and Freedom Human “Predestination. Robert. Crouse, In World.” Carolingian the in Education Harmony: “Inharmonious ______. Maïeul. Cappuyns, Alexandr] [Brilliantov, “CarolingianContreni, John. BiblicalIn ISEBH Culture.” Deidre. Carabine, the of Valuation Eriugena’s on Reflections Object: and “Language Werner. Beierwaltes, Luthala.Anneli, Eriugena.” in VerbIn the “Time Substantival and западное d l’histoire desd l’histoire religions hrrs Noltns ad eivl huh. tde i Hnu o Edouard of Honour in Studies Thought. Leiden: WestraJeauneau Haijo,Brill,ed. 181-194. 1992. Jan , Medieval and Neoplatonism Chartres. jusqu’ à nos jours jusqu’ ànos langage philosophique de Jean Scot.” In Scot.”langage Jean de philosophique 1975-1976. praedestinatione Eriugena’sin divina De Masters andManuscripts Learning, theology thein works Eriugena]. Scot byМ onthe Western John 1986. Louvain:Eriugena . Peeters 1995. W.B.Eerdmans, Brouwer, 1933. Language.”ofIn Function and Capacities . 3 vols. Geneva: Librairie Droz, Droz, Librairie Geneva: vols. 3 845-882. Reims de archevêque Hincmar
e в The Unknown God. Negative Theology in the Platonic Tradition: Plato to Plato Tradition: Platonic the in Theology Negative God. Unknown The s s
en ct rgn s ve sn eve s pensée. sa oeuvre, son vie, sa Erigène Scot Jean произведениях Poéé daetqe et dialectiques Procédés . disciplina Disputandi De , Бриллиантов . Vol.6.L’époque carolingienne tribus epistolis tribus 116(1937): 187-233.
Иоанна Александр. . In. 121,cols. 985B-1068. PL , 81-96. Town, Hampshire: 1992. Variorum,
49 49 Скота ,, 229-263. JSE,, 229-263. .” In.” HEJSE , 209-228. JSE, 209-228. . 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. . 2nded.Clarendon Oxford: itie e ’gie eus e origines les depuis l’église de Histoire Влияние Эригены , 1-20. , 320–44.Paris,1947. 303-311.
восточного Te nlec o Eastern of influence [The HEJSE oscow: Martis,1998. oia vetus logica ai: ecé de Desclée Paris: , 77-87. ,
From Athens to to Athens From богословия Carolingian as le dans Revue Revue
на CEU eTD Collection
Marenbon, John. John. Marenbon, ____ “The ______. Mainoldi, Ernesto S. “Su alcune fonti ispiratrici della theologia e dell’escatologia del del dell’escatologia e theologia della ispiratrici fonti alcune “Su S. Ernesto Mainoldi, the From Theology: Carolingian and Scottus ______.“John ______. ae, ole. Lagsiim d Ja So dn le dans Scot Jean de “L’augustinisme Goulven. Madec, Luthala, VerbInAnneli. the “Time Substantial Eriugena.” and in HEJSE Gottschalk.” de grammaticaux “Opuscules Cyrille. Lambot, In Eriugena.” for Grammar of Importance Philosophical “The Catherine. Kavanagh, Jolivet, Jean. Jean. Jolivet, Jeauneau, érigéniennes Édouard. Études rban Martin. Grabmann, In Predestination.” on Debate “The David. Ganz, vn, ila R “h Gamr f rdsiain n h Nnh Century,” Ninth the in Predestination of Grammar “The R. Gillian Evans, divina praedestinatione liber Papers of the 8 the of Papers West. and Scot’s the John in Sources Patristic of Disagreement Érigène et l’histoire de la philosophie la de l’histoire et Érigène René Roques, 183–90. Paris : Editions du CNRS, duCNRS, 1977. René Editions Roques,183–90.Paris: Philosophy in thePhilosophy in Early Cambridge Middle Ages.Press, 2006. Cambridge: University 1991. Routledge& KeganPaul, VT: Variorum, 1990. Kingdom carolingienne 120-4. 61-76. Background and Its Critiques, to the to Critiques, Its and Background of Eriugenian Studies. Chicago and Notre Dame, 18-20 October, 1991. October, 18-20 Dame, Notre and Chicago Studies. Eriugenian of HerderscheVerlagshandlung, 1909. 1990. Variorum, VT: Brookfield, ed. 2d 283-302. Nelson, L. Janet and Gibson T. Margaret 33(1982): Studies Theological 134-45. McGinn and Willemien Otten, 69-94. Notre Dame, London: University of Notre Notre of University London: Dame, Notre Dame Press, 1991. 69-94. Otten, Willemien and McGinn rm h Crl o Aci t te col f uer: oi, hooy and Theology Logic, Auxerre: of School the to Alcuin of Circle the From oecl dObi e l Tiié L Mtoe e a hooi a l'époque a théologie la de Méthode La Trinité: la et d’Orbais Godescalc edd. Margaret T. Gibson and Janet L. Nelson, 2d ed., 303-325. Brookfield, 303-325. ed., 2d Nelson, L. Janet and Gibson T. Margaret edd. f uutn ad insu: oad a emnui o the of Hermeneutic a Towards Dionysius: and Augustine of Concordia 2 ed. 2d Introduction. An (480-1150). Philosophy Medieval Early . Paris: Librairie Vrin, . Paris: J. 1958. Philosophique i Gshct dr coatshn Methode Scholastischen der Geschichte Die th International Colloquium of the Society for the Promotion the for Society the of Colloquium International di Giovanni Scoto Eriugena.” In GiovanniEriugena.” di Scoto HEJSE . Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1987. Études augustiniennes, 1987. . Paris: 50 ” In Periphyseon.” , Colloques internationaux du CNRS, 561. Ed. 561. CNRS, du internationaux Colloques ,
Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom and Court Bald: the Charles e predestinatione De .” In Peiphyseon.” eu bénédictine Revue Charles the Bald: Court and Court Bald: the Charles e paedestinatione De Vl 1 Freiburg/Br.: 1. Vol. . , 77-87. , , 313-329. , 313-329. ” In .” Eriugena. East East Eriugena.
4 (1932): 44 ed. Bernard Bernard ed. Journal of of Journal Jean Scot Scot Jean London: London: HEJSE Its , , ed. , De , CEU eTD Collection
oa, Dermot. Moran, Scot Jean par Augustine Saint de textes des “L’utilisation Gerard. Mathon, O’Loughlin, Thomas. “Biblical Contradiction in the Periphyseon and the Development of of Development the and Periphyseon the in Contradiction “Biblical Thomas. O’Loughlin, Stock, Brian. “In Search of Eriugena’s Augustine.” In Brian.ofStock, Eriugena’sESQ Augustine.” Search “In Budapest: Thesis. MA Predestination.” on Debate Ninth-century “The Diana. Stanciu, Eriugena Clarendon J. . Oxford: O’Meara, Press, 1988. John West, Andrew F. Andrew West, Luitpold. Wallach, augustinien,septembreParis, 1955. Paris, 21-24 1954,519-28. praedestinatione De Eriugena’s Method.” InEriugena’s ISEBH Method.” CambridgeMiddle Ages.Press, 1989. Cambridge: University Central European University,1998. Son, 1912. Son, Ithaca, CornellUniversity NY: Press, 1959. h Piooh o Jh Souu Eign. Suy f daim n the in Idealism of Study A Eriugena. Scotutus John of Philosophy The Alcuin. The Rise of the Christian Schools Christian the of Rise The Alcuin. Alcuin and Charlemagne: Studies in Carolingian History and Literature and History Carolingian in Studies Charlemagne: and Alcuin ” In .” uutns Magister Augustinus , 103-120. 51
, Actes du Congrès international international Congrès du Actes , , 85-104. . New York: Charles Scribner’s Charles York: New .
Erigène dans son son dans Erigène .