The Nature of Theology According to Albert the Great
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE NATURE OF THEOLOGY ACCORDING TO ALBERT THE GREAT Mikołaj Olszewski The period of Albert’s intellectual activity coincides with a transforma- tive period for medieval theology. The medieval “queen of the sciences” received a new form due to the interplay between a vision of theology rooted in the 12th century, still bound to Augustine’s tradition, and the growing reception of Aristotle’s texts pertaining to the theory of knowl- edge. The process by which Peripatetic epistemology influenced theology has been epitomized and described in a book published in 1927 by Marie- Dominique Chenu, Théologie comme science au XIIIe siècle.1 This work inaugurated a new epoch in studying the evolution of Scholastic theol- ogy because it established a new interpretative paradigm for the histori- cal process that took place at that time.2 On the basis of a careful study of authors ranging from William of Auxerre to Thomas Aquinas, Chenu formulated the following thesis: 13th-century theologians inherited from their intellectual predecessors a certain vision of theology inspired mostly by elements from Augustine’s works and transmitted by Peter’s Lombard 1 Marie-Dominique Chenu, Théologie comme science au XIIIe siècle, (Bibliothèque Thomiste) 33 (Paris: 1969), originally published as an article in Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 2 (1927), 31–71. 2 Chenu’s book was preceded by Engelbert Krebs’s Theologie und Wissenschaft nach Lehre der Hochscholastik an der Hand der bisher ungedruckten Defensa doctrinae D. Thomae des Hervaeus Natalis, (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters. Texte und Untersuchungen) 11/3–4 (Münster in Westfalen: 1912). Nonetheless, it was Chenu’s Théolo- gie comme science that received broader recognition and identified and named the process transforming theology during the 13th century. Since then, this process and its discovery have been connected with the name of the French historian of theology. Chenu’s book provoked a series of publications developing the same idea. At least two studies must be mentioned in this context, namely Martin Grabmann’s Die theologische Erkenntnis- und Einleitungslehre des Heiligen Thomas von Aquin auf Grund seiner Schrift In Boethium De Trinitate im Zusammenhang der Scholastik des 13. und beginnende 14. Jahrhun- derts dargestellt, (Thomistische Studien) 4 (Fribourg: 1948) and Ulrich Köpf ’s Die Anfänge der theologischen Wissenschaftstheorie im 13. Jahrhundert, (Beiträge zur historischen The- ologie) 49 (Tübingen: 1974). While Grabmann’s book concentrates on the scientific status of theology, Aquinas’s solution to this problem and its later fortune, Köpf demonstrates that metatheology spread out in several questions relatively independent from the scien- tific status of theology. This motif is particularly valuable in analyzing Albert’s standpoint. In addition, he casts doubt on the prominence given to Aquinas over other authors, which is interesting in regard to Albert’s Summa. 70 mikołaj olszewski Sentences. At the beginning of the 13th century, owing to translations of works by Aristotle, theologians were confronted with an elaborated and comprehensive theory of knowledge, in which the notion of science played a central role. Reading Aristotle made theologians reflect whether (and to what extent) Aristotle’s epistemology can be applied to an analysis of the nature of theology, while seeking a balance between tradition and new ideas. The definitive answer to this challenge was offered by Aquinas, who established an equilibrium between Aristotle and Augustine, ascribing to theology the status of a science; this, in turn, opened a path to the later fruitful development of Scholastic theology. Albert played a certain role in this process.3 Therefore, any study devoted to Albert’s understanding of theology must, nolens volens, take into consideration Chenu’s paradigm. Thus, apart from the reconstruction of Albert’s views that distinguished him from his contemporaries, and while disclosing its specific elements, 3 Chenu, Théologie comme science, 41–42. Soon after Chenu’s book, a series of publica- tions appeared: Martin Grabmann, “De quaestione Utrum theologia sit scientia speculative an practica a B. Alberto Magno et S. Thoma Aquinate pertractata,” in Alberto Magno. Atti della settimana albertina (Rome: 1930), 107–126; Manuel Cuervo, “La teologia como ciencia y la systematización teologica según S. Alberto Magno,” Ciencia tomista 46 (1932), 173–199; Martin Grabmann, “De theologia ut scientia argumentativa secundum S. Albertum Mag- num et S. Thomam,” Angelicum 14 (1937), 39–60; Anselmus Rohner, “De natura theologiae iuxta S. Albertum Magnum,” Angelicum 16 (1939), 3–23. All these studies rightly identify the doctrinal content of Albert’s texts. Grabmann especially placed this in the broader historical context, but the analysis these authors conducted is rudimentary and Albert is perceived from the neo-Scholastic perspective as a precursor to Thomas Aquinas, who, solving the same questions, “quoad claritatem, profunditatem et perfectionem praevalet”, as Rohner put it (22). Since the 1950s, several relevant and instructive studies on Albert’s metatheology have been published, including: Ralph McInerny, “Albert and Thomas on Theology,” in Albert der Grosse. Seine Zeit, sein Werk, sein Wirkung, ed. Albert Zimmermann and Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem, Miscellanea Mediaevalia 14 (Berlin: 1981), 50–60; Walter Senner, “Zur Wissenschaftstheorie der Theologie im Sentenzenkommentar Alberts des Grossen,” in Albertus Magnus. Doctor universalis 1280/1980, ed. Gerbert Meyer and Albert Zimmermann, Walberberger Studien: Philosophische Reihe 6 (Mainz: 1980), 323–343; Katsushiko Eguchi, “Ein Aspekt des praktischen Charakters der Theologie bei Albert dem Grossen,” Theologie und Glaube 88/3 (1998), 365–373; Edouard-Henri Wéber, “I primi maestri domenicani e Alberto Magno,” in Storia della Teologia nel Medioevo, 2: La grande fioritura, ed. Giulio d’Onofrio (Casale Monferrato: 1996), 769–820; Maria Burger, “Die Bedeutung der Aristo- telesrezeption für das Verständnis der Theologie als Wissenschaft bei Albertus Magnus,” in Albertus Magnus und die Anfänge der Aristoteles-Rezeption im lateinischen Mittelalter, ed. Ludger Honnefelder et al. (Münster: 2005), 281–305. Some articles deal with specific problems (McInerny, Eguchi, Burger) or with only one text (Senner); consequently, they lack a broader perspective. The only synthesis (Wéber) neglects the differences among Albert’s texts and the polemical context found in the Summa. Therefore, I will focus on the evolution of Albert’s conception, its historical context, and the debate with Aquinas in the Summa..