WORLD WITHOUT END NICHOLAS OF CUSA’S VIEW OF TIME AND ETERNITY Matthieu van der Meer* In his preface to the first printed edition of Apuleius’ works, Giovanni Andrea Bussi, librarian of the Vatican Library, praised his former patron Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) as a connoisseur, not only of authors from an- cient times, but also from the media tempestas.1 Until recently, Bussi’s remark was considered to be the first witness of Renaissance self-awareness.2 No doubt, many authors (e.g. Petrarch, Salutati, Bruni) at that time were striving for the realisation of a new concept of man in which human dependence on God (oratio) and independence through man’s own rational powers (ratio) were united.3 Subsequently, the study of what it means to be human, the studia hu- manitatis, changed the traditional curricula and opened new intellectual hori- zons. Even if Bussi’s phrase media tempestas is less new than it has been pre- sumed to be, it characterises Nicholas of Cusa as a figure at the crossroads of the middle ages and the age of humanism.4 Ever since the renewed interest in * The author wishes to thank Anthony Lewis, Daniel O’Connell and Albrecht Diem for their comments. 1 M. Miglio, Giovanni Andrea Bussi. Prefazioni alle edizioni di Sweynheym e Pan- nartz (Milan, 1978), p. 17: “Vir ipse, quod rarum est in Germanis, supra opinionem elo- quens et latinus, historias idem omnes non priscas modo, sed mediae tempestatis, tum veteres, tum recentiores usque ad nostra temp ora, memoria, retinebat”. 2 T. Ricklin, “Giovanni Andrea Bussi und die media tempestas oder was die Ge- schichte von einem Esel lehrt”, in Internationale Zeitschrift für Philosophie 2 (2004), pp. 5-47. 3 P. R. Blum, “Humanismus”, in Enzyklopädie Philosophie, ed. H. J. Sandkühler (Hamburg, 1999), pp. 266-270, at p. 267. 4 Works by Nicholas of Cusa are cited from Nicolai de Cusa opera omnia iussu et auctoritate academiae litterarum Heidelbergensis ad codicum fidem edita (Leipzig, 1932- ) [henceforth: h]: Apologia doctae ignorantiae, h, vol. 2, ed. R. Klibansky (Leipzig, 1932); Coniectura de ultimis diebus, h, vol. 4, Opuscula I, ed. P. Wilpert (Hamburg, 1959); De docta ignorantia, h, vol. 1, ed. E. Hoffmann and R. Klibansky (Leipzig, 1932- ); De ludo globi, h, vol. 9, ed. H.-G. Senger (H amburg, 1998); De venatione sapientiae, h, vol. 12, ed. R. Klibansky and H.-G. Senger (Hamburg, 1982); Sermones CCIV-CCXVI, h, vol. 19, Sermones IV, fasciculus 1, ed. Kl. Reinhardt and W. Euler (Hamburg, 1996); Trialogus de possest, h, vol. 11/2, ed. R. Steiger (Hamburg, 1973). With regard to De docta ignorantia, I will first give the edition of Nikolaus von Kues, Philosophisch-theologische Werke, Lateinisch-Deutsch, Philosophische Biblio- 318 MATTHIEU VAN DER MEER Cusanus at the beginning of the twentieth century,5 it has been a question as to which of these realms Cusanus belongs and how meaningful the distinction be- tween them is with regard to Cusanus.6 These questions cannot be solved in this article, but Bussi’s image of the Cardinal as connoisseur of ancient and medie- val authors does justice to the way he appears to a modern reader in search for his ideas on the end of time. This topic, scarcely discussed in Cusanus- scholarship,7 is especially relevant in the context of the question of the com- patibility of classical philosophical ideas with Christian teaching, a question that is intrinsically connected with the term “Christian humanism”. In fifteenth-century Italy, the studia humanitatis, with its emphasis on the study of classical authors, had caused a renewed interest in the practical branches of philosophy: rhetoric, ethics, economics and politics. As a result, purely theoretical disciplines, especially in their scholastic form, lost interest and legitimacy. The study of classical authors also led to a controversy about the question of which philosopher was more compatible with Christianity: Plato or Aristotle. This dispute primarily took place among emigrés from Byzantium, but it also involved Nicholas of Cusa.8 thek 264, (Hamburg, 1994-1999), which is based on the critical edition h, vol. 1, but is provided with paragraph numbers that lack in the 1932. Subsequently, the identical place in h, vol. 1, will be given. 5 Even though Cusanus had never been “forgotten”, the study of his philosophy re- ceived an important incentive through the publications of Pierre Duhem (1909) and Ernst Cassirer (1906). See K. Flasch, Nikolaus Cusanus (Munich, 2001), p. 149ff. 6 See K. Flasch, Nikolaus von Kues. Geschichte einer Entwicklung (Frankfurt am Main, 1998), pp. 324-329 et alibi. 7 The most important articles in which this topic is discussed are M. Weichenhan, “Spannungsvolle Endzeit. Überlegungen zur ‘Coniectura de ultimis diebus’ des Nicolaus Cusanus”, in Lebenstechnologie und Selbstverständnis, ed. I. Hübner et al. (Münster, 2004), pp. 75-98; H.-G. Senger, “Das Zeit- und Ewigkeitsverständnis bei Nikolaus von Kues im Hinblick auf die Auferstehung der Toten”, in Unsterblichkeit und Eschatologie im Denken des Nikolaus von Kues, ed. K. Kremer and K. Reinhardt, Mitteilungen und Forschungsbeiträge der Cusanus-Gesellschaft [henceforth MFCG] 23 (Trier, 1996), pp. 139-157 and G. Santinello, “In welchem Sinne versteht Cusanus Charakter und wechsel- seitige Bezogenheit von Leib und Seele im Menschen? Wie versteht er den Tod?”, ibid., pp. 3-20. 8 The Platonist Georgios Gemistos Pletho (1360-1452) instigated a controvery over the question of which philosophical paradigm suits Christianity better: Platonism or Aristoteli- anism. Soon after the publication of De differentiis Aristotelis et Platonis, in which he showed his preference for Plato, Pletho was attacked by the Aristotle-scholars Georgios Scholarios and George of Trebizond. They accused him of integrating the ancient gods of the Greeks into his philosophy. See J. Monfasani, George of Trebizond. A Biography and A Study of His Rhetoric and Logic (Leiden, 1974), pp. 201-229; C. H. Lohr, “Metaphysics”, in The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy, ed. C. B. Schmitt, Q. Skinner and E. Kessler (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 535-638, at p. 559; P. Schulz, “Georgios Gemistos Plethon, Georgius Trapezuntios, Kardinal Bessarion. Die Kontroverse zwischen Platonikern und Aristotelikern im 15. Jahrhundert”, in Philosophen der Renaissance. Eine Einführung, ed. P. R. Blum (Darmstadt, 1999), pp. 22-23, at p. 23. The dispute that fol-.