Aquinas and Scotus in 14th-15th Century Orthodoxy? Could Palamas Have Relied On A 14th Century Thomism?

CHRISTIAAN W.
KAPPES
THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS
The Question of Gennadius Scholarius and Thomism George Gennadius Scholarius has been recurrently described in modern scholarship as a Byzantine Thomist1. Yet, this nomenclature is open to a wide variety of interpretations, even if it purports to delineate a certain Thomistic school of thought. Byzantine Thomist necessitates a dual consideration of the essential notes to qualify a writer as Byzantine under the more general heading of Thomist. Certainly, the first question (of defining Thomism) does not admit an easy answer. It is difficult to know (a priori) exactly what essential beneplacita a thinker must profess to fall within the Thomist camp. Martin Jugie, while often employing neo-Thomist critiques of Palamas (et alios), gave this appellation to Scholarius2. Jugie, judging Scholarius to be a fervent Thomist, was also one of the few scholars who knew well the thought and sources behind Scholarius literary production. Thus, Jugies evaluation of Scholarius underlying convictions should naturally possess a certain gravitas3. Furthermore, Jugies narrative has been more or less assumed and defended by many scholars. More recent scholarly works have branded Scholarius a philosophical Thomist who accommodates Thomism to Orthodox sensibilities when necessary4.
S. Guichardan, a pioneer scholar on the subject, attempts to be open to the question of whether Gennadius is open to many schools. His conclusions admit that Scholarius was under more than one influence, but only minimally. In short, Scholarius breathed heavily the air of Aquinas. See S. GUICHARDAN, Le problme de la simplicit divine en Orient et en Occident aux XIVe et XVe sicles: Grgoire Palamas, Duns Scot, Georges Scholarios, Lyon 1933, pp. 183-184. 2 For an idea of Jugies background, expertise and literary production, see V. LAURENT, Luvre scientifique du R. P. Martin Jugie, in Mlanges Martin Jugie, Paris 1953, pp. 7-32. 3 M. JUGIE, Georges Scholarios et saint Thomas dAquin, in Mlanges R. Mandonnet II/1 (Bibliothque Thomiste 13), Paris 1930, pp. 423-440. For his contrast of Gennadius Thomism and Scotism, see ID., Theologia dogmatica christianorum orientalium ab Ecclesia Catholica dissidentium, II, Paris 1933, p. 125. 4 For an early example from Jugies time, see S. SALAVILLE, Un thomiste Byzance au XVe s.: Gennade Scholarios, in chos dOrient 23 (1924), pp. 129-136. More recently, see H. BARBOUR, The Byzantine Thomism of Gennadios Scholarios and His Translation of the Commentary of
1
71
CHRISTIAAN W. KAPPES
However, this general consensus on Scholarius Thomism does not resolve the petitio principii that remains with respect to this preliminary question. Scholarius, as a Scholastic philosopher, occupied himself with logical definitions. Presumably, were it possible, Scholarius himself would not have objected to anyone categorizing his philosophy by employing the traditional use of genus and specific difference to name the species of philosophy that Scholarius himself represents. Yet, such an approach to categorize a philosopher assumes some sort of universal under which he can be collocated. Is there really a genus by which one merits the epithet Thomist? It seems to me that Roman Catholic authors (especially of a neo-Thomist bent) have accustomed themselves to use the canon of the famous twenty-four theses, published under Pope St. Pius X5, as a litmus test for awarding someone the badge of Thomist. Though anachronistic, it is certainly a clear and convenient way to deputize someone a defensor viae Thomae. However, when looking at the historical record, it becomes very difficult to predicate the term with respect to many followers of St. Thomas. For example, Hervaeus Natalis should be denied what he would have considered to be an honorable appendage to his title of Doctor rarus6. Hervaeus, a self-described Thomist and champion of first-generation Thomism, hardly qualifies as Thomasian when judged for his adherence to Pope Pius Xs standards7. As such, it seems to me that one must at least allow for some consideration of historical criteria in order to arrive at a working definition of Thomism. In Frederick Roenschs classic treatment on the matter, he permits doctrinal divergences among individual Thomist authors, while arguing for a general core set of doctrines that (more or less) constitute Thomist thinking8. Yet, even by Roenschs less stringent standards, selfArmandus de Bellovisu on the De Ente et Essentia of Thomas Aquinas, Vatican City 1996, p. 78. 5 SACRA STUDIORUM CONGREGATIO, Theses quaedam, in doctrina Sancti Thomae Aquinatis contentae, et a philosophiae magistris propositae, adprobantur, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 6 (1914) 383-386: 384-385. Relevant propositions for the current discussion: III. Quapropter in absoluta ipsius esse ratione unus subsistit Deus, unus est simplicissimus, cetera cuncta quae ipsum esse participant, naturam habent qua esse coarctatur, ac tamquam distinctis realiter principiis, essentia et esse constant [] XI. Quantitate signata materia principium est individuationis, id est, numericae distinctionis, quae in puris spiritibus esse non potest, unius individui ab alio in eadem natura specifica. 6 R. FRIEDMAN, Dominican Quodlibetal Literature c. 1260-1330, in TQMA, p. 432. Among his heresies are: a) denial of the essence-esse real distinction; b) admission of only 2/5 of Thomas proofs for Gods existence; c) rejection of matter as the sole principle of individuation; d) distinction of formalities with respect to the persons of the Trinity. 7 This is exemplified by his work Defensio doctrinae Thomae. See FRIEDMAN, Dominican Quodlibetal Literature c. 1260-1330, in TQMA, pp. 432-433. 8 The author defends the existence of core tenants of Thomism at the beginning of the book. He writes: Besides the unicity of substantial form, the related controverted theses were the pure potentiality of primary matter, the spirituality of separated substances, matter as the principle of
72
described Thomists like Hervaeus Natalis are still found wanting. The example of Hervaeus is apt to use since he was a Dominican, a devout self-styled follower of Thomas, the principal agent in Thomas canonization, and his champion against Scotist and so-called Augustinian attacks. He also fervently persecuted dissent from the common opinion9 of Brother Thomas within the Dominican order. Hervaeus obliged Dominican professors teaching on the Sentences of Peter Lombard to follow this common opinion. In short, if what has been termed John-of-St.-Thomism10 is the only name brand of Thomism, then Hervaeus Thomism is odd indeed. Consequently, he must be relegated to a generic school of Thomism, whose imitators strangely opposed anti-Thomists. Even if Hervaeus fortunes waned in the Renaissance, due to a more orthodox and monolithic Thomistic emphasis11, I know
individuation, and the real distinction between essence and existence. It is by the acceptance or rejection of these theses along with their correct understanding that the Thomism of an early defender of St. Thomas must be judged. F. ROENSCH, The Early Thomistic School, Dubuque, Iowa 1964, p. ix. Oppositely, in his conclusions, he admits: If an answer to the question What is a Thomist? is to be forthcoming, it may well be that the historian, in studies similar to the one above, will have to determine it within the context of a particular age and only in terms of the stage of development which Thomism had reached at that time. IBID., p. 316. Even by these rather liberal standards at the beginning of the book, Hervaeus Natalis is not Thomasian since he rejects a real distinction between essence and existence. He also rejects signate matter as the principle of individuation. 9 I. IRIBARREN, Durandus of St. Pourain. A Dominican Theologian in the Shadow of Aquinas, Oxford 2005, p. 4. This common opinion of Thomas Aquinas had a wide enough berth for Hervaeus to adopt Scotistic theses in his Trinitarian theology and alternatives to Thomas principle of individuation and the essence-existence distinction. The opinio communis was a turn of phrase adopted by the general Dominican chapter at Metz in 1313. However, judging from both Roenschs and Iribarrens treatment of the matter, such a common opinion only demands a reverential and referential reading (expositio reverenter) of the Sentences with respect to Thomas. This phrase cannot be read historically to demand a rigid Thomism that became typical in the Renaissance. 10 In reaction to the highly rigid Neo-Scholastic Thomism, John of St. Thomas (=1644) became (wrongly) symbolic of a fideistic Thomism. John of St. Thomas was famed for his claim to have never departed from a word of Thomas in his teaching. This was interpreted to mean that he was not open to theological or philosophic developments, especially those that transgressed an ad litteram reading of Thomas. In his famous post-Conciliar diatribe, Louis Bouyer spends considerable space criticizing rigid Thomism employing this epithet. See L. BOUYER, The Decomposition of Catholicism, Chicago 1969. 11 This orthodox or stringent Thomism was especially a facet of Renaissance-Italian Thomism (see M. TAVUZZI, Hervaeus Natalis and the Philosophical Logic of the Thomism of the Renaissance, in Doctor Communis 45 (1992), pp. 132-152). It is exactly this sort of Thomism that was introduced into Byzantium during Constantinoples first period of Scholasticism, which was eventually crushed by Orthodox authorities c. 1368. This first period of Greek Scholasticism did not experience a natural death, rather a brutal persecution. Anti-Palamites, by and large, became Thomists. If they did not formally subscribe to the synodal decrees on Palamism against Prochoros
73
of no Dominicans dedicated to defending the life and teaching of Aquinas who would be comfortable calling Hervaeus a non-Thomist or worse, a Scotist12! Instead, I would suggest, that one can speak of a theological school (like Thomism) by way of an aggregate of theologians and/or philosophers who adopt many of the same foundational theological principles of a common doctor in order to theologize13. Although this introductory point does not seem to have immediate bearing upon Gennadius sources and his systematic theology of the essence and energies of God, hopefully it will shortly become clear that the example of Hervaeus Natalis is apt for understanding Gennadius as a systematic theologian (as well as commentator and compilator). However, before treating Scholarius use of sources and his systematic theology de Deo uno et trino, it may be appropriate to indicate how I will be employing the adjective Byzantine with respect to Scholarius. The adjective is meant to highlight his unalienable affection for his homeland () and race (). Recent discoveries of many Latin sources for Byzantine theologians make it difficult to always demarcate the lines separating a Byzantine and Latin theologian14. The adjecCydones, they were threatened with beatings and imprisonment. See N. RUSSELL, Palamism and the Circle of Demetrius Cydones, in: Porphyrogenita, pp. 171-172. Gennadius Thomism falls within a second Thomism in Byzantium (at least ex professo Thomism among Byzantine authors). Still, latent yet direct adoption of crucial Thomistic ideas occurs in many Palamite authors (combined with ex professo Byzantine Thomists). This constitutes a bridge between these two phases of Byzantine Thomism. For a list of theologians known to be partim Thomists, see J.A. DEMETRACOPOULOS, Palamas Transformed. Palamite Interpretations of the Distinction between Gods Essence and Energies in Late Byzantium, in GLIH, pp. 263-372. 12 The subject of Hervaeus Thomism (et aliorum) was explicitly discussed from a philosophical, theological and historical point of view in AA.VV., Saint Thomas au XIVe sicles. Actes du colloque organis par LInstitut Saint-Thomas-dAquin les 7 et 8 juin 1996 lInstitut Catholique de Toulouse (Revue Thomiste XXVII/1), Toulouse 1997. The overall conclusions lead the reader to reject an a priori definition of Thomism for evaluating each author. An a posteriori approach is the only way to maintain the existence of a Thomist school among first generation Thomists. If this approach is not used, the only early Thomist may be Thomas himself! I am thankful to Fr. Walter Senner, O.P., for providing me with the relevant texts. 13 The question of a school often necessitates defining the positions of the Master that constitute the sine qua non for a faithful student to maintain the appellation of disciple. With first generation Byzantine Thomism, one can argue just as much if not more metaphysical consistency with Thomas on the questions of God and being than among the first generations of Thomists in the West. The various positions of Thomists in the West are again in Roenschs The Early Thomistic School. 14 Recently, J.A. Demetracopoulos has pointed out this glaring petitio principii. One must first provide for a unitary principle of what makes Byzantine Theology Byzantine. Only after delineating such a principle can one presume to select certain authors that fall within the school of Byzantine theology to the exclusion of others. From a Scholastic perspective, I might add that negations are not sufficient to define the object. By their nature, negations are multipliable ad infinitum! See J.A. DEMETRACOPOULOS, chos dOrient Rsonances dOuest: In Respect of: C.G. Conticello / V. Conticello (eds.), La thologie byzantine et sa tradition. II: XIIIe-XIXe S., in Nicolaus 37/2 (2010), pp. 67-148, at pp. 70-71.
74
tive, as used here, does not necessarily exclude either sources or theological and metaphysical principles (directly or indirectly) dependent on non-Byzantine sources. Here, Byzantine merely denotes that the author tenaciously held cultural, religious, and political values, which have been historically identified with those of the Byzantine state/sman, i.e. within the Eastern Roman Empire after Constantines founding of his Polis15. The Background of Gennadius Palamite Works In order to resolve the question of Gennadius hybrid theology of Thomism and Scotism, several established facts about Gennadius sources need to be taken into consideration. Due to the sheer magnitude of the opera omnia of Scholarius, I wish only to discuss works on the essence-energies question of the Trinitarian life ad intra16. These works are principally his commentary (i.e. translation) on Thomas Aquinas De ente et essentia (1445)17, his treatise Contre les partisans dAcindyne (c.
15 This description may not be satisfactory to everyone. However, I do not wish to engage in the debate (in this context) about the denomination of Eastern Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire. The first part of such a question concerns one of substantial change from one entity to another. The second part necessitates a precise or proximate date of the said mutation. 16 The essence-energies debate can be divided into three points of consideration, justified from two criteria. Mark Eugenicus himself divided the subject into three chapters or themes. The first division concerns the intra-Trinitarian relation of attribute to the divine substance and to any other attribute. See MARCUS EUGENICUS, , in MNC, pp. 217-225 (esp. Nos. 1-26 on the ad intra). Mark divides section one from section two by the title . Gennadius also explicitly distinguishes between the ad intra and ad extra energies in GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS, Commentaire du De ente et essentia, in OCGS VI, pp. 281, 284 (OCGS VI, c. 94, ll. 6-7; ibid., l. 23). He makes the same division in his first and second treatise on the subject. See ID., Contre les partisans dAcindyne, in OCGS III, p. 213 (see ll. 6-7). Gennadius also affirms such a division in his second treatise, via an argumentum ex silentio, on the essence-energies doctrine. He leaves untouched the doctrine of the uncreated light and how it is participated. However, prescinding from Mark and Gennadius as historical justifications, it is metaphysically sound to classify the energies (attributes and/or operations) ad intra and ad extra (along with their potential for participation). Finally, there is the metaphysical question of an uncreated light. I make this division based upon the systematic distinction among the: 1) immanent Trinity; 2) Economic Trinity; 3) and a tertium quid between God and creature, i.e. an uncreated aliquid. Marks division is different with regards to points (2) and (3). He proposes: 1) the intra-Trinitarian energies; 2); light; and 3) divine charisms. See MACRUS EUGENICUS, ..., in MNC, pp. 217-232. Gass edition is not critcal. J. Demetracopoulos has corrected the chapter division of Marks text on the basis of the manuscript used by Gass. See DEMETRACOPOULOS, Palamas Transformed, in GLIH, p. 347. 17 M.-H. BLANCHET, Georges Gennadios Scholarios (vers 1400 - vers 1472): un intellectuel orthodoxe face la disparition de lEmpire byzantin (doct. Diss.), Paris 2008, p. 318. Blanchet
75
August 1445), and his second essence-energies treatise, Sur la distinction entre lessence divine et ses oprations (c. 1458)18. The commentary on the De ente et essentia is a labor dedicated to Gennadius disciple Matthew Camarits. Gennadius expresses enthusiasm to provide his pupil with a deeper knowledge of philosophy19. Notably, Scholarius alters some of Armandus of Bellovisus titles in his translation to protect the Orthodox essence-energies doctrine20. Given the date of composition (1445), it is not surprising that Scholarius was concerned to promote Palamism21. This theme goes hand in hand with his burgeoning anti-unionism and anti-Latinism in theological matters. This was perhaps a factor motivating Scholarius to identify Latins divergencies from Palamite theology22. Generally, Scholarius retained a broadminded approach to philosophy
opts for a date suggested by Scholarius correspondence with his pupil John. I am grateful to Dr. Blanchet for her helpful comments to me with respect to questions of Scholarius chronology. 18 M. JUGIE, La polmique antibarlaamite..., in OCGS III, pp. xviii-xix. Jugie notes that this treatise was written in the monastery of the Prodromos. Blanchet has given a chronology of his tenure there. See BLANCHET, Georges Gennadios Scholarios, p. 467. 19 BARBOUR, Byzantine Thomism of Gennadios Scholarios, pp. 74-75. For Gennadius ex professo reasons for writing his commentary: SCHOLARIUS, Commentaire du De ente et essentia, in OCGS VI, p. 177. 20 BARBOUR, The Byzantine Thomism of Gennadios Scholarios, pp. 92-95. 21 Only in 1435 does Scholarius give satisfactory indications of direct familiarity with the Cydones brothers Summae. See M. CACOUROS, Georges Scholarios et le Paris. gr. 1932: Jean Chortasmnos, lenseignement de la logique et le thomisme Byzance. Contribution lhistoire de lenseignement Byzance, in 15 16 , Athens 2000, pp. 397-442, at p. 431. This falls within the same period that Mark Eugenicus is a monk in the Laura of Mangana. Mark had already been on intimate terms with the young George Scholarius as Georges tutor. Marks father, George Eugenicus, ran a school where George Scholarius was taught by Mark. Their relation was maintained from that time. In the 1430s, when a monk at Mangana (with its impressive library), Mark seems to have acquired first hand knowledge of Aquinas Graecus. Correspondences between the two have been preserved from the year 1440. As such, it is reasonable to suspect that Gennadius own familiarity with Aquinas Graecus is due to Marks studies at Mangana. See M. PILAVAKIS, Introduction. The Life of Markos, in M. PILAVAKIS, Markos Eugenikos. On the Distinction between Essence and Energy: First Antirrhetic against Manuel Kalekas. Editio princeps, London 1987 (unpublished doctoral dissertation), pp. 23, ll. 28-30. I would like to thank Marios Pilavakis for his kindness and stimulating conversations on Mark Eugenicus. 22 Scholarius expresses shock that the marvelous Thomas may not only be a protagonist for the Filioque (hardly a surprise), but to his horror a crypto-Akindynist. Scholarius reserves, however, final judgment and only expresses his suspicions about Armandus section on the divine attributes-names (OCGS VI, c. 94; p. 283, ll. 3-19). He informs his reader that he wishes to write an ex professo treatise on the matter in the future, should the opportunity present itself. This desire is only fully accomplished thirteen years after the fact (c. 1458). At that time he was already a veteran-professed monk. Retired to the monastery of the Prodromos, he finally found the time to complete his definitive work on the matter.
76
throughout his life. In contrast, his post-Florentine reflection on theological matters (c. 1440) pushed him in a different direction23. His spiritual Father and tutor Mark of Ephesus had by this time composed polemics against Greek Thomist works like those of Manuel Calecas24. This led to a significant development in Scholarius attitude towards some peculiarities of Latin theological thought25. After Mark of
23 Florence was also an occasion for Scholarius to intensify his cooperation and friendship with Mark. Emperor John VIII had commissioned both of them as study partners in a commission dedicated to Neilus Cabasilas writings and gathering of codices (April 1437). Certainly, this was an occasion to discuss the essence-energies doctrine and Latinophrn opposition. See J. GILL, The Council of Florence, Cambridge 1959, p. 76. This event may explain Gennadius oblique references to Cabasilass Regula theologica in his 2nd essence-energies treatise (e.g. OCGS III, p. 230). Compare their accusations against anti-Palamites. Gennadius writes: Surely then if this were said only about God only according to our thought, it would not actually be and in truth in God Himself, but would be as if God were only three and one merely by reason, which are the brainchildren of the insanity of Arius and Sabellius! (Distinction entre lessence divine et ses oprations, c. 4, ll. 29-30; translation mine) Nilus writes: Wherefore, if the divine hypostasis is the same thing with the divine nature, then they absolutely differ according to nothing; for either, because of one nature, the hypostasis will be one and then for what reason should we persecute Sabellius? ; or because the three hypostases there are just as many natures and this dogma is not far from the insanity of Arius! (Regula theologica IV, ll. 14-17; translation mine) See NILUS CABASILAS, Sancti Patris nostri Nili Cabasilae, archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis, compendiaria dissertatio in sententiam illam divi Gregorii Nysseni, perperam ab haereticis acindynianis intellectam, qua dicitur nihil esse increatum praeter naturam divinam; ubi ostenditur non solam Dei naturam, sed simul cum ipsa etiam naturales eius proprietates increatas esse, ed. M. CANDAL, in Orientalia Christiana Periodica 23 (1957), pp. 240-257, at p. 246. 24 Scholarius explictly cites Marks antirrhetic against Manuel Calecas in his first treatise on the essence-energies question. See SCHOLARIUS, Contre les partisans dAcindyne, in OCGS III, p. 212, ll. 7-17. He also seems to employ citations from Marks patristic anthology. For example, Gennadius cites verbatim, and at length, the same passage from Basil the Great (among others) with similar words of introduction. See MARK EUGENICUS, On the Distinction between Essence and Energy: First Antirrhetic against Manuel Kalekas. Editio princeps, London 1986 (unpublished doctoral dissertation), p. 169. Gennadius employed this passage in his Contre les partisans dAcindyne (OCGS III, c. 6; p. 215, ll. 21-34). I have found several other dependencies on Mark from citations within his first antirrhetic with his citations of Mark himself (e.g. OCGS III; p. 236, ll. 34-38 vs. Marks 1st Antirrhetic, p. 229) and Maximus the Confessor (OCGS III, c. 6; p. 216, ll. 8-24 vs. Marks 1st Antirrhetic, p. 231). 25 There is the prospect that Gennadius addendum to Armandus commentary signals the influence of Mark of Ephesus. This influence might account for his suspecting Aquinas as guilty of Barlaamite and Akindynist heretical views. Gennadius is clearly troubled and openly wonders about the consequences of Aquinas philosophy of divine names-attributes in SCHOLARIUS, Commentaire du De ente et essentia, in OCGS VI, p. 283. Marks two main works on the essence-energy debate remain unpublished. I am indebted to Dr. Marios Pilavakis (Thessaloniki) for his generosity in providing me with his edition of both works. They are as follows: MARCUS EUGENICUS, On the Distinction between Essence and Energy: First Antirrhetic; ID., On the Distinction between Essence and Energy: Second Antirrhetic against Manuel Kalekas. Editio prin-
77
Ephesus writings began associating Thomism and Latin theology with antiPalamism26, Gennadius himself explicitly began to associate latinophrn theology with the essence-energies question. In 1445 he already sees latinophrn theologians as propagators of heresy during the Palamite struggle, to which he alludes in his first treatise. Still, I do not think that a narrative of an aloof Scholarius gradually inculpating the Latin Church as a whole via the waxing influence of Mark sufficiently explains the evidence. Even while Scholarius was editing Armandus, he suspected that Thomas intrinsically lent himself to be used for pro-Akindynist propaganda27. Given his friendly relations with Mark, tutor and fellow lover of Aristotle28, it is likely to
ceps, Athens (forthcoming). A translation project of these treatises (et Marci alia) is still forthcoming in Modern Greek online at: http://www.markoseugenikos.gr/. 26 Marks association of Latinism itself (via Thomas) to anti-Palamism seems to have been made around the time Scholarius own period of reassessing the Council of Florence (1440/1442). J.A. Demetracopoulos has shown the exact passage of the Summa contra Gentiles of Aquinas that Eugenicus cites and condemns (SCG I, 73). Aquinas, naturally, argues for no real or formal distinction between Gods will and his essence. Mark does not merely see in this essential identification of Gods attributes and substance, but rightly interprets this as a denial of anything like a distinctio formalis a parte rei. See J.A. DEMETRACOPOULOS, Palamas Transformed, in GLIH, p. 342. 27 SCHOLARIUS, Commentaire du De ente et essentia, in OCGS VI, p. 283. , . , , , , . , , , , , , , , , , . (OCGS VII, c. 94, ll. 3-19) 28 In his personal correspondence with Mark of Ephesus (1440), he makes the point of citing explicitly Aristotle as an authority for some of his opinions. See SCHOLARIUS, Marc dEphse (1440), in OCGS IV, p. 447. Mark, for his part, writes his response as a loving father to a son. In warm pathetic terms, he asks George to come back to the path of Orthodoxy. He begins his letter praising Gennadius as the most learned, most wise, etc. However, by the end of the letter it is obvious that they are not morally equal in their friendship. Mark of Ephesus is speaking to his spiritual son who has erred from the path, even if not tenaciously or perniciously. Scholarius is bidden to flee the unphilosophic thinking of the Philosopher ( !) and align himself with the traditional Orthodox mindset. Mark makes a spiritual exhortation, exclaiming: O miserable (George)! See MARCUS EUGENICUS,
78
suspect that Gennadius informed Mark about the incriminating evidence he discovered linking Thomism with Barlaamites and Akindynists29. Even if Gennadius had been more sanguine about union with Rome, both men shared a common devotion to Gregory Palamas legacy30. If such an exchange of information occurred in the 1430s, this would help explain the negative evaluation of Aquinas in Scholarius earliest treatise on the essence-energies. Marks Syllogistic Chapters against the Akindynists can be firmly established as a production in the 1430s31. Scholarius, in
, in: P. BISERICII (ausp.), Sfntul Marcu Evghenicul. . Opera. Volumul I. , I, Bucharest 2009, pp. 274, 278. 29 The Thomist anti-Palamites (e.g. Andrew of Rhodes) saw the differentiating factor of the attributes in the mind of perceiving subject, viz., the human intellect. See M. CANDAL, Andreae Rhodiensis, O.P., ad Bessarionem Epistula (De divina essentia et operatione), in Orientalia Christiana Periodica 4 (1938), pp. 329-343: 334-335, 340. It appears that Andrew heavily relies on the works of Manuel Calecas, even to the point of citing verbatim Manuels patristic sources (e.g. the Damascene). The overarching goal of the author is to justify Thomism vis--vis Palamism. With Andrews virulent anti-Palamism and dependence on Manuel Calecas, it is no surprise that Andrew wrote with frightening invective against Eugenicus, following Florence, addressing him: propter te obstinatissimum hominem [] See ANDREAS CHRYSOBERGES, Testimonium ineditum Andreae Archiepiscopi Rhodi de Marco Eugenico, ed. G. HOFFMAN, in Acta Academiae Velebradensis 13 (1937), p. 19. Given Andrews fame for provoking Palamite debate at Florence (though outside the context of the formal sessions), and given his textual dependence on Calecas, could this have been the impetus for Marks second antirrhetic against Manuel Calecas? For Andrews provocations and his epistle before the Council, see M. CANDAL, Andreae Rhodiensis, O.P., ineditum ad Bessarionem epistula (de divina essentia et operatione), in Orientalia Christiana Periodica 4 (1938) 329-371: 341, 344-371. See also: A. DE HALLEUX, Bessarion et le palamisme au concile de Florence, in Irnikon 62 (1989), pp. 307-332: 310-314. Halleuxs corrections still allow us to date Bessarions query to Chrysoberges on Thomism and Palamism as early as 1436 and defend Bessarion as a faithful Palamite. 30 For the best evidence of Scholarius positive thoughts on Church union, see GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS, Orationes Georgii Scholarii in Concilio Florentino habitae ad fidem manuscriptorum edidit addita versione latina, ed. J. GILL (Concilium Florentinum. Documenta et Scriptores, Series B.8.I), Rome 1964. Even before the publishing of these sermons (and the ensuing controversy over their authenticity), Jugie had already made a fairly detailed study on the matter. See M. JUGIE, Lunionisme de Georges Scholarios, in chos dOrient 36 (1937), pp. 65-86. 31 J.A. DEMETRACOPOULOS, Palamas Transformed, in GLIH, p. 343. Demetracopoulos like Pilavakis (c. 1988) recognizes that authorship in the 1430s is a best guess. For Mark of Ephesus clear interest in Aquinas doctrine, see EUGENICUS, ..., in MNC, p. 220. ( ) , , . My translation: If each power is said with relation to something else (i.e. an object), because [power] is predicated/attributed with a relation to the possible [object]; and this same fact Thomas, the Magister of the Latins, expressly states. Therefore, one item is Gods essence and another item His power, unless someone would say that the essence is among things relative.
79
his addendum to Armandus commentary, weighs the argument that Barlaam and Akindynus were authors who used Thomas Aquinas for anti-Palamite purposes32. Of course, Scholarius came to know many of the Thomist and latinophrn anti-Palamite writings. It is a tribute to Scholarius philosophical acumen that he identified the principal logical approach of 14th century anti-Palamites. Armandus doctrine of the energies vis--vis 14th century anti-Palamite Thomists only confirmed his worst fears (expressed in this commentary on the De ente et essentia). Thomist metaphysics and metaphysical logic could be used as an intellectual scalpel to pick apart the theology of Palamas33. Nonetheless, an explicit association and condemnation of Latinism qua Latinism (as a theological tradition inherently opposed to Palamism) is only evidently stated in Gennadius late resum of the Summa Theologiae (Ia and Ia IIae) in 146434. Unsurprisingly, he links this condemnation of Latin theology to the fact that Thomas Aquinas is the Latins best and brightest theologian35.
32 SCHOLARIUS, Commentaire du De ente et essentia, in OCGS VI, p. 283 (OCGS VI, c. 94, ll. 7-14). 33 Scholarius tries to mitigate the circumstantial evidence that Barlaam and Akindynus were Thomists. They were suspected because they were contemporaries of the Cydones brothers and they held a logical theory reconcilable to Thomism via second intentions. Verbal or formulaic usage, even when coupled with a possible chronology, simple does not prove a necessary causal dependence. For arguments that convincingly support Barlaams anti-Thomism and nonScholastic theology and gnoseology, see A. FYRIGOS, Dalla controversia palamitica alla polemica esicastica. Con unedizione critica delle Epistole greche di Barlaam, Rome 2005, pp. 69-97. It is fairly clear, judging from Barlaams sources, that he was neither a Thomist nor a latinofrn. See J.A. DEMETRACOPOULOS, Further Evidence on the Ancient, Patristic, and Byzantine Sources of Barlaam the Calabrians Contra Latinos, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 96 (2003), pp. 83-122, at pp. 119-120. 34 The dating of Jugie has been secured by BLANCHET, Georges Gennadios Scholarios, pp. 215-216. See Scholarius association of Latinism to anti-Palamism in GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS, Rsum de la Somme contre les Gentils de saint Thomas dAquin, in OCGS, V, 1-2. It is asserted in his preface to his epitome of the Summa contra Gentiles in Greek. Gennadius makes this statement like his master Mark based upon the assumption (not entirely unfounded at this period) that Thomas Aquinas represents an official theology of the Latins. Although Thomas was beginning to make inroads, the Council of Florence may have given the distorted impression that Latins were generally Thomists. There was a larger representation of Dominican bishops than Franciscans. Furthermore, two principal speakers of the Council (viz., Juan de Torquemada and Giovanni Montero) were Dominicans. See GILL, The Council of Florence, pp. 140-141. 35 SCHOLARIUS, Rsum de la Somme contre les Gentils de saint Thomas dAquin, in OCGS V, p. 2. Scholarius mentions that the Roman Church, as such, agrees that he is the best and brightest theologian. It is certainly the impression that he would have received at the Thomistic Council of Florence. He had already recognized this in his commentary-translation of the De ente et essentia (viz., OCGS VI, c. 94; p. 283, l. 13).
80
Scholarius First Treatise on the Essence and Energies Scholarius first treatise on the essence-energies question is in response to an Orthodox churchman (viz. John Basilicus) curious about the 14th century Hesychast conflict. He seems to be unfamiliar with the subject and its historical debates. Gennadius attempts to respond to his friends request for information36. Blanchet, in her biography of Scholarius, has compiled the most updated chronology of Gennadius illustrious career. Her presentation of the situation in Constantinople sheds light on the background to this treatise. Thematically, there is a touch of a mystery behind this first essence-energies treatise of Scholarius because it mixes his discussion of the Barlaamites and Akindynists with a discourse against Latins on the Filioque. Blanchet has outlined the debates in Constantinople and the activities of the promoters of the Council of Florence in the capital during this same time. Scholarius, at the time of the publication of the first treatise, was in the midst of writing and correcting his materials for his debates with Latins and Latinophiles, especially on the subject of the Holy Spirit. These materials served his apologetic purposes against persons representing the Roman position. An example of such is Bartholemew Lapacci, who was in Constantinople in 144537. This background explains the treatises overt concern about the Filioque. The essence-energies question had traditionally involved Trinitarian distinctions to the extent that Gregory Palamas and David Dishypatos exploited the distinction of the Trinitarian emanations as an analogical proof for the possibility of distinction among the energies38. In summary, the arguBlanchet suggests that Scholarius began reconsidering his theological positions as early as 1440. See BLANCHET, Georges Gennadios Scholarios, pp. 77-78. John Basilikos is most likely the addressee (ibid., p. 483). Secondly, Blanchet also records the significant conflict with the Papal representative, Bartholomew Lapacci, and Scholarius in Constantinople. The debates between anti-unionists and unionists were raging in the capital. This explains the curious link between the Holy Spirit question and the essence-energies treatise of 1445. See ID., Georges Gennadios Scholarios, pp. 387-390. However, the accusations against a distinctio rationis tantum between the attributes and essence are not called Latin errors by Scholarius. Manuel Calecas is named passim at the beginning of the treatise. See, SCHOLARIUS, Contre les partisans dAcindyne, in OCGS III, p. 212 (see ll. 7-17). Thus, it is no surprise that Latinofrones were accused of the heresy of Barlaam and Akindynus. This seems natural enough since the Greek convert to Catholicism, Manuel Calecas, was an intimate of another Greek Orthodox convert and Thomist (viz., Demetrius Cydones). As a Byzantine Thomist (and Dominican) Manuel was very much in the image of his forebearer Demetrius. Scholarius explicit association of this theological point as a Latin heresy (scil. Latin theology per se) is only made explicit in the Introduction to his abridgement of the SCG (c. 1464) as noted above. 37 BLANCHET, Georges Gennadios Scholarios, p. 255. 38 For Palamas seminal arguments, see: GREGORY PALAMAS, , in P.K. CHRESTOU (ausp.), , Vol. II, Thessaloniki 1966, p. 111 (see 19,1-20). See also DAVID DISHYPATOS,
36
81
ment states that if the persons are of a greater distinction than the energies, and the persons do not threaten the unity of the essence, a fortiori neither does any energetic distinction threaten the divine essence. This Trinitarian aspect of the essence-energies debate does not intrinsically lend itself to any obvious consideration of the Filioque. Nonetheless, Gennadius is intent on including both themes. Lastly, Gennadius condemns the Latins use of violence and force to turn people toward the Roman Church. In the background are lingering concerns about Latin figures like Leonardo of Chios. He was an Inquisitor in the East (1431) and a forceful promotor of the Union. He had even lamented the fact that Emperor Constantine XI did not forcefully rid himself of Gennadius Synaxis and its opposition and propaganda against Florence (1452)39. Scholarius Second Treatise on the Essence and Energies More problematic is the contextualization of the last treatise, which as far as I am aware represents a polemic against an unknown opponent (it is written against generic partisans of Barlaam and Akindynus). Its content and references seem to shift the focus from the first treatise against Barlaamites and Akindynists (along with the Latin-minded). Its arguments utilize a Latin logical theory of second intentions against Akindynist heretical teachings on the subject of the Orthodox essence-energies dogma40.
, ed. D. TSAMIS ( 10), Thessaloniki 1973, pp. 8689. 39 E. BASSO, Leonardo da Chio, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani 64 (2005): http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/leonardo-da-chio_(Dizionario_Biografico)/ (last access: May, 31, 2013). 40 Jugie and Barbour consider this treatise against nominalism. However, it can be argued that nominalism could result from a reductio of the Thomist position of a distinctio rationis ratiocinantis. This, in fact, represents Cross critique of Aquinas position. See R. CROSS, Duns Scotus on God, Great Britain 2007, p. 104. In effect, Thomist authors admit that any distinction can simply be reduced to a distinction of reason. When, for example, R. Garrigou-Lagrange writes his defense of Thomas against Gods attributes being a mere tautology, he asserts: Very many theologians admit a minor virtual distinction between Gods essence and His attributes, inasmuch as His essence, which is conceived by us actually and implicitly, but not explicitly, signifies the attributes that are derived from it. However, it is the nature of the minor distinction that ought to scandalize a true Palamite. G.-Langrange states: The virtual distinction is a distinction founded on reality, which means, contrary to Scotuss theory, that it is non-existent previous to the minds consideration, and it does not destroy Gods absolute simplicity. The referent (signatum) for each of these conceptually distinct ideas (e.g. goodness, wisdom) in the mind is the unitary principle of the divine essence. Thus, there are no processions, emanations, or other mentally distinct compenetrating or circumstantial quasi-attributes. There is only a singular principle that is the kind of thing that somehow is all these items that logically differ when considered quoad nos. God is all these attributes substantially, even if we conceive them as manifold via creaturely perfections. Each inten82
In light of research by Blanchet and Ganchou, I believe a provisional solution for this question of the motive and dating of the second treatise exists. It satisfies both the chronological and theological context of this work. In the 1440s Scholarius had made up his mind to publish an ex professo a treatise dedicated to the subject of the essence and energies question41. Only the second treatise fulfills his earlier intention42. His inspiration may have been occasioned by the Latin bishop Leonardo of Chios43 (+1459)44.
tion refers back to a unitary immutable principle. Thus, from a logical point of view, this explanation may still leave Thomas open to Gennadius exasperating evaluation that the Akindynist logical theory of Gods attributes as mere second intentions differs in no substantial way from Thomas himself. See R. GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE, The One God. A Commentary on the First Part of St. Thomas Theological Summa, London 1955, pp. 392, 168. Gennadius first recognizes Thomas position to be a distinctio rationis tantum in his translation-commentary of Armandus. See SCHOLARIUS, Commentaire du De ente et essentia, in OCGS VI, p. 283. Compare with: S. Th. I, q. 13, a. 4 and S. Th. I, q. 28, a. 2. 41 SCHOLARIUS, Commentaire du De ente et essentia, in OCGS VI, p. 285. , , , . , , , , (OCGS VI, c. 94, ll. 18-22). 42 I base this on several observations. First, the addendum of 1445 De ente et essentia concerns principally ad intra Trinitarian attributes. There does appear a passing mention of the attributes . However, this is clearly not his concern with the context of Armandus (this does not necessarily mean a fuller treatise would neglect the issue of the ad extra energies). Secondly, his express intention in the first treatise is to acquiesce to a learned Orthodox who wanted more details on the historical conflict. However, Scholarius distracted himself with other issues (the Filioque, the Inquisition). He, or his secretary Syropoulos, also seems to have spliced the section on Maximus the Confessor on the ad intra perfections. The insertion veers off course into the Thaborlight and other related themes. Once that parenthesis is closed, the treatise immediately returns back to Maximus the Confessor and ad intra discussion of Gods attributes. See SCHOLARIUS, Contre les partisans dAcindyne, in OCGS III, pp. 219-223. Section eight begins the excursus terminating in section ten. A full treatise on intentions is only accomplished in the 2nd work. 43 The following is significant for the present discussion: Dominican eyewitness to the fall of Constantinople [] died probably Genoa, 1459. After studies in Italy, Leonard became archbishop of Mytilene (1 July 1444) [] He joined Isidore of Kiev and a papal delegation at Chios and arrived with them at Constantinople on 26 Oct. 1452 to realize ecclesiastical union. Leonard returned to Italy ca. 1458 to work for a counteroffensive against the Turks and probably died there. See the entry in AA.VV., The xford Dictionary of Byzantium, II, Oxford 1991, p. 1212. However, the best summary of his life and deeds, as well as his personal enmity with Scholarius, was conveniently provided for in the article previously cited and available online at: http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/leonardo-da-chio_(Dizionario_Biografico)/ (access 2012). 44 K.-P. MATSCHKE, Leonhard von Chios, Gennadios Scholarios und die Collegae Thomas Pyropulos und Iohannes Basilikos vor, whrend und nach der Eroberung von Konstantinopel durch die Trken, in 21 (2000) 227-236. The association with the Palamite controversy may come from the explicit invocation of the Brothers Cydones and especially Manuel Calecas. These anti-Palamite examples are used to challenge Scholarius to a reflection on reconciliation
83
Leonardo wrote an Apologia fidei catholicae45 to Scholarius in 145546. Gennadius, having just become Patriarch, had no time to write a reply47. Only after his retirement into a monastery did he begin serious studies (1456)48. However, supposing Jugie correct that the treatise was composed in the monastery of the Prodromos, Gennadius Palamite defense likely dated to a time before the death of Leonardo. Scholarius had recently taken up his position in the Prodromos monastery (c. 1458)49. Still, this hypothesis does not completely explain why the treatise was written in Greek. On one hand Leonardo was a native-born son of Chios, yet he wrote to Gennadius in Latin. However, Leonardo himself was a Greek speaker. The authors that he recommended to Scholarius for reflection (e.g. Demetrius Cydones and Manuel Calecas, etc.) were outstanding examples of anti-Palamism, who themselves wrote in Greek. Was this the occasion for Gennadius inspiration (anticipated in 1445) in order to expound more deeply on the essence-energies question? At this point, my affirmative response is merely a probable guess. The Philosophical Sources behind Scholarius Translation-Commentary on the De ente et essentia of St. ThomasAquinas Hugh Barbour published his doctoral thesis in 1993 arguing that Gennadius had produced little more than a translation of Armandus of Bellovisus own commentary
with the Roman Church. See M.-H. BLANCHET / TH. GANCHOU, Les frquentations Byzantines de Lodisio de Tabriz, Domicain de Pra (1435): Grgios Scholarios, Ianns Chrysolras et Thodros Kalkas, in Byzantion 75 (2005), pp. 71-103: at pp. 85; 94. An important edited extract in the article reads: Hanc predecessores magni viri Graii litteratissimi, Simon et Philippus, effecti clerici in ordine Predicatorum professi, Demetrius Chidonius, Manuel Chrisollora et Iohannes eius frater, Maximus perinde ac Theodorus et Andreas, fratres carnales et apud Predicatorum ordinem professi et ad pontificium ultimi duo assumpti, item Manuel Calacha litteratissimus et ius frater Theodoritus monacus, sed prior ad Predicatorum reductus clarus evasit, Romanam fidem constantissime tenuerunt (De emanatione recte fidei, f. 138r). 45 TH. GANCHOU / L. CALZAMIGLIA, Un indit de larchevque de Mytilne Leonardo di Chio adress au patriarche de Constantinople Gennadios Scholarios (1455): le De emanatione recte fidei. d., trad. et comm., in Revue des tudes Byzantines 58 (2000). I thank Dr. Ganchou for having alerted me to the fact that this edition has yet to be published. 46 BLANCHET - GANCHOU, Les frquentations, p. 85. 47 J.A. DEMETRACOPOULOS, Georgios Gennadios II-Scholarios Florilegium Thomisticum II (De fato) and Its Anti-Plethonic Tenor, in RTPM, p. 340. 48 This takes place first at the monastery of Vatopedi winter 1456 until spring 1458. Then, he is installed in the Prodromos in August of 1458. See BLANCHET, Georges Gennadios Scholarios, p. 467. 49 JUGIE, La polmique antibarlaamite, in OCGS III, p. xix.
84
on Aquinas only purely philosophical work50. Since that time, it became more and more obvious that the early Scholarius was not only very heavily reliant on Thomas Aquinas (e.g. translations of his philosophical commentaries)51, but also on Thomist authors. These findings only strengthened Jugies overall evaluation of Gennadius Thomism. Because Gennadius adopted Armandus views for his own (for the most part), it might seem a foregone conclusion that Gennadius represents a strict and orthodox philosophical Thomism52. This would certainly be attractive since it would place him on a parallel track with the Thomism that was being propagated on the Italian peninsula53. After all, his humanist, philosophical, and theological contacts had been principally Italians. Even if humanists were eclectic and as a rule antiScholastic, Italian Thomism (mainly a Dominican phenomenon) was very strictly orthodox. It had become so especially in the last decades of the 14th century via the reforms of Blessed Raymond of Capua54. Thus, there is a puzzle to solve with respect to Gennadius prima facie Thomism. In his logical translation-commentaries (1430s), Scholarius was known to have heavily relied on Radulphus Brito (c. 1270 - d.c. 1320)55. Since Ebbesen and Pinborgs discovery of Scholarius virtual plagiarism of Radulphus (published in 1982), Scholarius early philosophical dependence on Radulphus has been confirmed time and again56. However, if Gennadius enthusiastically moved to embrace orthodox Thomism it is somewhat a surprise to find that he sometimes went out of his way to insert Radulphus opinions in the commentary of Armandus. This would be especially strange since he inserted opinions that were prejudicial to Thomas Aquinas. It
50 Most of Thomas Aquinas thought has been characterized as a theology heavily reliant on Aristotelian and neo-Platonic philosophy. This work represents, in the opinion of many, the young Thomas purely philosophical interests. See J.F. WIPPEL, The Metaphysical Thought of Thomas Aquinas: from Finite Being to Uncreated Being, Washington, D.C. 2000, p. 404. 51 J.A. DEMETRACOPOULOS, Georgios Scholarios-Gennadios II, in GGP. In the article the author provides updates on some sources for Scholarius works, including logic. 52 Barbour spends considerable effort demonstrating a number of philosophical points in both logic and metaphysics that place Armandus squarely within the tradition of orthodox Thomism. See BARBOUR, The Byzantine Thomism of Gennadios Scholarios, pp. 63-73. 53 S. EBBESEN / J. PINBORG, Gennadius and Western Scholasticism. Radulphus Britos Ars Vetus in Greek Translation, in Classica et Mediaevalia 33 (1981-82), pp. 263-319, at p. 269. Gennadius sources and his contacts suggest that he was aware of the orthodox Thomistic movement in Italy. This same movement was generally negative in its evaluation of Hervaeus Natalis. 54 For the reforming activities in Italy and his forceful imposition of Thomism in the houses of reform, see H.-M. CORMIER, Il Beato Raimondo da Capua, XXIII Maestro Generale dellOrdine Dei Frati Predicatori, sua vita, sue virtu, sua azione nella chiesa e nellordine di San Domenico, Roma 1900. 55 For a brief introduction to his life and works, see G. WILSON, Radulphus Brito, in CPMA, pp. 550-551. 56 EBBESEN / PINBORG, Gennadius and Western Scholasticism, pp. 263-319.
85
is now standard fare to assume Gennadius Thomism is a simple fact57. This is even the case in the matters of logic and philosophy around 144558. The next section of this paper will attempt to show that Scholarius is more eclectic than his self-styled Thomism might suggest. This fact may be important for the discussion of the essence-energies debate as well. For, as we shall see, the point of departure for Scholarius so-called Scotist sympathies dates from his editing of Armandus by the inclusion of a chapter on the essence and energies. Radulphus Brito and Scholarius: Byzantine Thomist or Eclectic Philosopher and Theologian? The young Scholarius translations/commentaries have often been assumed to reflect his own doctrinal preferences or his own scholastic allegiances. However, if Thomism is at the core of Scholarius thought, how is this reconcilable with what has already been well established as core philosophoumena of Radulphus Brito59? Gennadius use of Brito and his commentary on the Ars Vetus places Scholarius within a Scholastic tradition that adopts non-Thomistic foundational principles: 1) Radulphus believes genus, species, etc. (second intentions) are not mind-created intentions. They really reflect modes of being outside the mind, and are caused by
A certain surprising degree of anti-Thomism exists in his translation-commentary of Britos Ars Vetus. For example, Gennadius writes: . , , , , . , , , . (OCGS VII, c. 12, ll. 18-23) See SCHOLARIUS, Sur lIsagoge de Porphyre, in OCGS VII, p. 77. Given the fact that George Scholarius is simultaeously editing Aquinas commentaries (like the De anima), it is difficult to reconcile an orthodox Thomist image with what is actually found in his translations. This is especially the case since he does correct the text and interject opinions from time to time. Are we to conclude that he is merely a translator here, or does he agree with Armandus? Such a question can beneficially be asked with respect to each translation of Scholarius. 58 G. KAPRIEV, Philosophie in Byzanz, Wrzburg 2005, p. 340. 59 The commentary on the De ente et essentia is later than his translation of the logic of Radulphus Brito. Thus, if one supposes that Gennadius began to nuance (and virtually) abandon his old theory of individuation because of his burgeoning Thomism, it is puzzling that he states: it is better to say materia signata according to the phraseology of Aquinas. All the while his solutio is to accommodate Aquinas to Radulphus doctrine and not vice versa.
57
86
these extra-mental things60. They are not results of reflexive activity of the mind61. 2) Radulphus explicitly adopts indivisible quantity as the principle of individuation62. 3) Radulphus sees the distinction between esse and essentia as something incomprehensible63. 4) Radulphus favors logical univocity in his Porphyrian commentary64. Scholarius, as noted by Barbour, edits and rearranges parts of Armandus treatise based upon his Palamite sensitivities65. Ebbesen and Pinborg have also noted that editing, and not merely a translation, takes place in Scholarius translation of Radulphus66. The question of interest now becomes: Why does a committed Thomist not correct these philosophical errors? Clearly, in Armandus commentary,
S. EBBESEN, Radulphus Brito: the Last of the Great Arts Masters, Or: Philosophy and Freedom, in: J.A. AERTSEN / A. SPEER (eds.), Geistesleben im 13. Jahrhundert (Miscellanea Mediaevalia 27), Berlin 1999, p. 237. This is certainly not Aquinas, Hervaeus Natalis, Duns Scotus or Armandus of Bellovisu. 61 This becomes important for analyzing Gennadius explanation of second intentions in his treatises on the essence-energies. He does not see second intentions via developing a more strict Aristotelian parallelism between concepts inside and realities outside the mind. Instead, he asserts that second intentions are mind-created objects of thought. For example, see SCHOLARIUS, Contre les partisans dAcindyne, in OCGS III, p. 212, ll. 25-26. This follows the doctrine of Armandus in manner of terminology and theory. See ID., Commentaire du De ente et essentia, in OCGS VI, p. 278, ll. 4-5. 62 Gennadius translates him thus: Now, on one hand, some said that the individual pertaining to a substance is an individual due to matter, or through matter. They have favored the account mentioned above and this opinion has been produced by Thomas of Aquino. Now, note that this has not been said, because if an individual pertaining to a substance were individual through matter, that matter or that which properly belongs [to it] (i.e. the signate matter, or individuating matter) is by means of form (the translation mine from OCGS VII, c. 12, ll. 18-21). He goes on to say: , . (OCGS VII, c. 12, ll. 10-11) See SCHOLARIUS, Sur lIsagoge de Porphyre, in OCGS VII, p. 78. This is explicitly in contrast to Aquinas and Armandus materia signata. It is also clearly nothing like a haecceity of Scotus and Hervaeus principle of individuation, which is substance and its individual accidents. 63 EBBESEN, Radulphus Brito, in NV, p. 457. 64 EBBESEN, ibid., pp. 457-458. Ebbesen has edited excerpts from Brito on univocity. Radulphus position can be summed up: [E]ns est unius rationis secundum se ad substantiam et accidens. Although failing to identify the sources, Paul Tavardon has successfully exposed Scholarius doctrine of univocity that is irreconciliable to Thomism. See P. TAVARDON, Le conflit de Georges Gmiste Plthon et de Georges Scholarios au sujet de lexpression dAristote , in Byzantion 47 (1977), pp. 268-278. However, the question of Scholarius own beneplacita is still open. 65 BARBOUR, The Byzantine Thomism of Gennadios Scholarios, pp. 86-88. 66 EBBESEN / PINBORG, Gennadius and Western Scholasticism, pp. 269-270.
60
87
Gennadius was not shy to correct him if he deemed it necessary67. One would think that Gennadius, if an orthodox Thomist, would rearrange or eliminate materials that were contrary to his Tomassian commitments68. For example, as a case in point (viz. #2), Scholarius translates Radulphus criticism and rejection of Thomas principle of individuation. Are we to take this to mean that Scholarius rejects Thomas, or is he
67 Armandus is fully committed to materia signata as the principle of individuation. Scholarius opts for a conciliatory view that is not that of Armandus and is hardly reconcilable with Thomas Aquinas. Barbour edits several excerpts from a manuscript of Armandus. On this score, one excerpt reads: Ad hoc est dicendum sicut dicit doctor, quod materia signata est principium individuationis. Et ratio huius est quia illud per quod individuum habet esse individuum in se et divisum ab alio est principium individuationis, sed materia signata est huiusmodi, igitur et caetera. Maior patet quia illa quo sunt de ratione individui. Minor declaratur quia per materiam individuum habet esse individuum in se, quia secundum philosophum in primo physicorum substantia abstracta a quantitate remanet indivisibilis, per quantitatem autem habet esse divisibile ab alio, quia divisio et distinctio attribuitur quantitati, igitur utrumque coniungendo materiam cum quantitate tale coniunctum est principium individuationis. Sed talis materia est materia signata, igitur et caetera. Ad argumentum in oppositum est dicendum quod forma eo modo dat esse, etiam unum esse in specie, et si dicatur quod forma tamen haec dat esse materiale, dicendum est quod verum est, sed illa forma non est haec nisi per signationem, igitur tota causa individuationis est materia signata et non forma neque aliquid aliud, igitur et caetera. This is word for word the same as: ARMANDUS OF BELLOVISU, Expositio Fratris Armandi Ordinis Predicatorum super libellum de ente et essentia compositum per S. Thomam de Aquino Doctorem Angelicum, Padua 1482, f. 15. The arguments start on f. 11 and are Thomistic. 68 In fact, this appears not to be the case. Although Barbour has attributed the commentary on De ente et essentia principally to Armandus, it appears that Scholarius was mixing and matching authors. In the De ente et essentia commentary (OCGS VII, c. 56) Scholarius employs Britos summation of some people (he calls the ancients) who talk about form as the principle of individuation, but he claims in response: , , <> , . , (OCGS VI, c. 53; p. 235, ll. 7-10). This line of argumentation and presentation is exactly that found in Britos works on the Ars Vetus. See EBBESEN, Radulphus Brito on the Metaphysics, in NV, pp. 459-460. Here, Ebbesen produces some extracts from Britos commentary. For example: dico quod individuum substantiae, licet sit individuum per aliquod accidens, sicut iam apparebit, illud accidens quod addit super speciem non includit in suo significato [] dico quod individuum substantiae est individuum per quantitatem indivisam et signatam (Quaestiones Porphyrii, 19-21). This coincides with the doctrine espoused by Scholarius in his translation of Radulphus, where he writes in Sur lIsagoge de Porphyre: , , . , , , . , , . (OCGS VII, c. 12; p. 78, ll. 1-11)
88
simply acting as a translator who only sometimes comments and edits Radulphus when he deems it necessary (e.g. theological Orthodoxy) or interesting to do so69? Scholarius apparent rejection of Thomas in his translation-commentary of Radulphus is turned on its head with his translation and editing of Armandus. He introduces Radulphus to Armandus and proposes a conciliatory view between quantitas indivisa70 and materia signata as the principle of individuation71. Scholarius presents the arguments of some philosophers for matter simpliciter ( ) as the principle of individuation. After noting other variants, he argues that: []72 Finally, he proposes that Thomas essentially is in
69 Although a modern scholar can clearly draw great contrast between Radulphus and Thomas, this was not necessarily the case in the generations of 14th and 15th century philosophers coming after Brito. n fact, he was sometimes considered by authors to be a Thomist. Commentaries were even found invoking Radulphus to defend Thomas Aquinas. See EBBESEN / PINBORG, Gennadius and Western Scholasticism, p. 270. 70 Viz., . The discussion is found in SCHOLARIUS, Commentaire du De ente et essentia, in OCGS VI, pp. 235-236. 71 EBBESEN, Radulphus Brito on the Metaphysics, in NV, p. 459. Ebbesens collection of extracts clearly illustrates Ralphs ontology. Those who claim that materia signata is the principle of individuation are metaphysical wimps. The materialists are simply unwilling to admit that once matter becomes the principle (along with its first manifestation through combination with form, viz., accident of quantity), honesty forces us to reduce everything to form. Form is that out of which matters accidents arise and, by speaking of matter under modification, one implies that it is informed. Only when quantity is taken in isolation, does one have something not intrinsically divisible among forms since it is a this that results after the combination of matter and form. An accident in isolation individuates for Ralph. The effect of this thesis for the Christian is that each man is only accidentally different from another. These consequences require a Christian to abandon the theory (as Ralph does upon becoming a theologian). Gennadius reconciliation of these two positions is not in my opinion due to naivet on his part, but due to his lectio reverenter of Aquinas, even if he disagrees with his doctor. Ralphs reductio is actually supported by Thomas himself in less cited passages on individuation: Ad tertium dicendum quod essentia proprie est id quod significatur per definitionem. Definitio autem complectitur principia speciei, non autem principia individualia. Unde in rebus compositis ex materia et forma, essentia significat non solum formam, nec solum materiam, sed compositum ex materia et forma communi, prout sunt principia speciei. Sed compositum ex hac materia et ex hac forma, habet rationem hypostasis et personae, anima enim et caro et os sunt de ratione hominis, sed haec anima et haec caro et hoc os sunt de ratione huius hominis. Et ideo hypostasis et persona addunt supra rationem essentiae principia individualia [] (S.Th. Ia, qu. 29, art. 2 ad 3) 72 SCHOLARIUS, Commentaire du De ente et essentia, in OCGS VI, pp. 236,2-237,3: , , [] . , , [] [...]
89
agreement with such philosophers since the Aristotelians (i.e. those using the Physics)73 dont explicitly deny that signate matter is the principle of individuation. Since both signate matter and indivisible quantity have their closest link with matter, they are two sides of the same coin. As such, he concludes, two supposed contrary positions can be made to agree with Thomas. Scholarius merely proposes that it is better to say what Thomas declares: is the principle of individuation. Nonetheless, in the end, it is merely a matter of perspective74! For the purposes of this paper, this case in point (on individuation) is cause enough to be wary of a total Thomistic approach to even purely philosophical questions with Scholarius. I believe that this will be helpful in contextualizing the
, [], . (OCGS VI, c. 53) 73 Scholarius refers to them as as many as follow the Philosopher. See ibid., p. 235. 74 Scholarius discusses the question in detail in his commentary: ibid., pp. 235-237 (i.e. OCGS VI, c. 53). This caseof agreement may be where Gennadius agrees with Thomas insofar as Aquinas is reconcilable to Aristotle in Gennadius reading of the Physics and Metaphysics which he mentions in the same discussion. This nuancing of Thomas smacks of a loose Thomism like Hervaeus Natalis. It does not represent the Italian Renaissance Thomism then in vogue. In fact, on the subject of Hervaeus, Scholarius second treatise on the essence-energies question seems once again to shift his view. He holds something like Hervaeus position that primary substance, along with its individual accidents, is the principle of individuation. Scholarius asserts in his Distinction entre lessence divine et ses oprations: , , , , , , , , , . , (OCGS III, c. 1; p. 229, ll. 12-18). One cannot hypothesize a gradual development of more Thomist affinities or some sort of on-going Thomist conversion. Here, it may be better to say that Scholarius simply changes his mind on philosophical matters later in life. This need not be a reason to criticize him. After all, he may simply be convinced that the more recent argument is closer to the truth. Hervaeus holds that final principle of individuation (after considering informed material as a primary substance): [M]ihi videtur differunt de quantitate et de aliis accidentibus [] (Quodlibet. III, q. 11) See HERVAEUS NATALIS, Quodlibeta, Venice 1486, 223r. Gennadius declares: Still, below these, the diverse speciated items are distinguished under the genus itself; for example, like a man and like a horse, which are under the genus animal; and even and odd number are under a certain quantity; and again under these individuals [such] are distinguished unto the species; for they are distinguished by accidents alone by which they are individuated, but these very items are in every instance through the [same] species, and they are only distinguished items by number (not at this point by substance). So, on one hand, this man and that man would not come together at some time or other into one individual, and a man and a horse into one species; but, on the other hand, the composite substance has harmoniously come together with accident through necessity (my translation and emphasis is of the passage further above).
90
essence and energies question. Gennadius pattern of philosophizing may favor Thomas and tend to read him with a lectio reverentialis, but Gennadius does not feel entirely beholden to him. The purely philosophical discussion above also demonstrates that this loose Thomism does not merely deal with theological considerations. Palamite Theology vis--vis Armandus de Bellovisu This earliest apologia pro Palama of Scholarius has already been noted for its concern to omit certain modes of expression that could be threatening to Palamite emphasis of a real distinction obtaining between attributes within the essence of the Godhead75. Barbour details some minor title changes that could be indications of a less Thomistic mode of expressing divine simplicity76. In chapter eighty-six of Scholarius translation of Armandus, he faithfully translates the meaning of the text that deals with the production of accidents from the principles of substance. In this, both Latin and Greek theologians find it uncontroversial that no real accidents exist in God77. Then, from chapter 87 to 92, Scholarius translates the commentary on separated substances that have no direct bearing on Palamism. In chapter 93, another universal value is affirmed by denying any in the Godhead. Despite Barbours helpful analysis of these chapters, it may have missed a crucial part of the story of Palamism within the work of Armandus. First, as was shown earlier, we can suspect that there is a metaphysical mixture of Radulphus Brito with Thomas Aquinas in Gennadius version of the Armandus commentary. So far as I know, this has not been mentioned by Barbour or by other authors until present78. However, this fact (illustrated by Gennadius factual adherence to Armandus undivided quantity as the principle of individuation) has potentially far-reaching implications. First, if Scholarius Thomism is in an ever progressive crescendo, he should naturally attempt to accommodate his former opinions to Thomas Aquinas. This is only
75 Gennadius also brings up the subject with Plethon. His discussion of the point is rather brief. See DEMETRACOPOULOS, Georgios Scholarios - Gennadios II, in GGP. For a discussion of Plethons anti-Palamism, see B. TAMBRUN-KRASKER, Allusions antipalamites dans le Commentaire de Plthon sur les Oracles chaldaques, in Revue des tudes Augustiniennes 38 (1992), pp. 168-179. 76 BARBOUR, Byzantine Thomism of Gennadios Scholarios, p. 86. 77 SCHOLARIUS, Commentaire du De ente et essentia, in OCGS VI, pp. 270-272. 78 Barbour was aware of Britos influence on Scholarius. He cites Ebbesen and Pinborgs article on Scholarius in both his bibliography and in his treatment. BARBOUR, The Byzantine Thomism of Gennadios Scholarios, pp. 110; 122. Nonetheless, he did not notice the pro-Radulphus portions of the text. It causes one to wonder if there is not much more Radulphus (or Hervaeus) lurking in the so-called translation.
91
attempted superficially with respect to Armandus doctrine of the principle of individuation. This has some importance for other metaphysical considerations in chapter ninety-four of the commentary on the De ente et essentia of Armandus. Clearly, this case in point demonstrates that Scholarius is not an ex professo Thomist such that he is not willing to part ways philosophically with his . Now, in chapter ninety-four he proposes an evaluation of second intentions that are at odds with Radulphus Brito and are largely the standard fare that any self-respecting Thomist might adopt. First, second intentions are creations of the mind and they are not directly caused by things outside the mind. For Radulphus, second intentions are caused by things. For him, a second intention (especially those of the first order like species and genus) reflects some real mode in a being extra animam. If Scholarius understands Britos commentary on the Logica Vetus79 and I have no reason to doubt that he did then this should be the key moment to tear apart Barlaam and Akindynus logically and metaphysically. I can think of three main lines of attack: 1) Aristotelian: He could attack according to the conceptions of his friend and teacher, Mark Eugenicus. Mark is notable for a naive epistemological realism80 in believing that there is always a structural basis for distinctions of thought (e.g. attributes such as intellect and will) in the reality of an object81. Brito reinforces
See especially: OCGS VII, c. 12, ll. 10-11. See also SCHOLARIUS, Sur lIsagoge de Porphyre, in OCGS VII, pp. 99-106 (OCGS VII, c. 16, l. 9 - c. 17, l. 11). For the relevant passage, my thanks to J.A. Demetracopoulos for providing me with his article: DEMETRACOPOULOS, Georgios Scholarios- Gennadios II, in GGP. 80 DEMETRACOPOULOS, Palamas Transformed, in GLIH, p. 344. 81 As far as I can see, this is extremely encouraging to defend a school of Byzantine thought arguing for an essentially Scotistic formal distinction. One might suppose that Mark himself discovered this distinction while reading Thomas works in Greek and sharing his insights with Scholarius before 1445. Whoever it was that first posited something like the formal distinction (Mark or Gennadius), it is certainly irreconciliable with the Thomistic distinctio rationis cum fundamento in re (being more real) or the Thomistic virtual distinction (due to conceptual distinctions within Gods self-knowledge). Iribarren has come to these same conclusions, writing: Note, however, that this is not yet Scotus formal distinction. At this early stage, Hervaeus still presupposes Aquinas notion that the ratio of a thing is the result of second intentional knowledge, whereas the Scotist formal distinction presupposes a notion of formality as discerned in first intentional knowledge. The formal distinction is therefore not equivalent to but stronger than the Thomistic distinction of reason. I. IRIBARREN, The Scotist Background in Hervaeus Nataliss interpretation of Thomism, in The Thomist 66 (2002) 607-627: 620. The proof of this statement is easily demonstrated with Scotus understanding of Gods self-knowledge or theology ad intra. God knows each of the formalities and also knows His will as something formally distinct in His intellect. For that reason it is not a true proposition to say Gods intellect chooses A or Gods will knows A. The will is simply irreducible, formally speaking, to intellect as a notion because of some meaningful referent. As such, even in the divine intellect, the two concepts do not refer to one monadic prin79
92
this Aristotelian gnoseological approach with well argued-positions. Why did Scholarius fail to do so? 2) Metaphysics: He could attack the Barlaamites and Akindynists for being bad metaphysicians. If there is a real mode of existence for first, second and third order second intentions, then two realities have escaped the notice of the antiPalamites82: a. Their theory of second intentions does not solve the problem of composites in God. It simply removes the question from first intentions and places the problem at the level of second intentions. b. Their theory of second intentions actually proves the Palamite position. Every second intention (causa Britonis) has a corresponding reality that causes its conception in the human mind83. Thus, whatever is known to be in the divinity: i. is some sort of modally distinct real item and ii. is caused by a res (or aliquid rei) in the real essence and not by the mind alone. 3) Logic: He could argue that the Palamites are actually the better metaphysical logicians because they have noticed that things cause ideas (as opposed to a fictio mentis), no matter how abstract. Britos philosophy is apt for this use. The Akindynists believe that second intentions are only mental fictions. Again, why is Scholarius silent when Brito provides him with natural support for Palamism?
ciple that virtually somehow contains these two notions indistinctly. Rather, both what is proper to the formal notion of being voluntary and what is proper to the formal notion of being intellectual compenetrate the divine essence as an object, but without composition due to its intrinsic aptitude for certain attributes to be infinite (without logical contradiction). As such they are apt to both exist in a finite mode (as accidents) or an infinite mode indifferently. Incidently, Hervaeus Natalis turns his attention to the divine ratio in each of the three persons as a formally distinct series of rationes and then applies the same metaphysics to the attributes of God. See Ord. I, d. 2, p. 2, qq. 1-4; d. 4, p. 2, q. 1; Metaph. VII, 18. 82 Hervaeus, on this question is more reconcilable to Thomas. See F. AMERINI, Realism and Intentionality, in S. BROWN / T. DEWENDER / TH. KOBUSCH (eds.), Philosophical debates at Paris in the Early Fourteenth Century (Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 102), Leiden 2009, pp. 244; 247. Hervaeus notion of a second intention is also unique since it includes notionally a relation. A first intention, objectively, does not at all contain the notion of a relation to real being. See also L. DE RIJK, Giraldus Odonis, O.F.M. Opera Philosophica. II: De secundis intentionibus, Leiden 1997, p. 352. 83 M. DE RIJK, Giraldus Odonis..., pp. 349-350. Brito is a strict Aristotelian with a view to a logical-real parallelism from the mind to the world.
93
Britos arguments are both available and advantageous for apologetic purposes; nonetheless Scholarius adopts the Thomist position that second intentions are mind creations (and reflexive acts of the mind not caused by things)84. This line of considering second intentions will be maintained in both the first and second treatise dedicated to the essence-energies question. Instead of using a more advantageous line of attack (with both philosophical and ad hominem value), Scholarius chooses a more Thomistic route. Before ending this section of inquiry, however, one last point will become quite valuable when dealing with the future treatises. Scholarius shows his philosophical genius in his intervention contra Armandum in chapter ninety-four. He begins his defensio Sancti Gregorii with a startling assertion. He makes the simple propositional claim that God is infinite85. From that point de dpart Scholarius begins a series of propositions and headings that he plans to develop (at some later time) in his defense of Palamism86. However, the mode of argumentation is strangely reminiscent of Scotism87. Given the chronology of the work, it is possible to attribute Scholarius use of Scotist themes to his contacts with the Franciscan Studium in Florence. Only two avenues seem to me to be open. First, there is the more probable route of indirect Scotist influences through Prochorus translations of Hervaeus Natalis commentary on Lombards Sentences and his Quodlibetales88. Secondly, there is the less probable avenue of his contact with the Franciscan convent in either/both Pera or/and Florence89.
For example: , , [] (OCGS III, c.2; p. 230, ll. 3435) 85 SCHOLARIUS, Commentaire du De ente et essentia, in OCGS VI, p. 285. When developing a full treatise on the essence-energies question, he asserts more precisely (ad mentem Scoti): the essence of God is formally infinite. (OCGS III, c. 11, ll. 5-6) See also ID., Contre les partisans dAcindyne, in OCGS III, p. 226. 86 See OCGS VI, c. 94, ll. 18-22. This was already cited above in footnote 41. 87 In part, this is the case because of dividing being and its attributes into the disjunctive transcendentals. Being is either eternal or temporal, either infinite or finite, either absolute or not absolute, either participated or imparticipated. See ibid., p. 282. 88 G. MERCATI, Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone, Manuele Caleca e Teodoro Meliteniota, ed altri appunti per la storia della teologia e della letteratura bizantina del secolo XIV (Studi e Testi 56), Vatican City 1931, pp. 37-38. The terminus ante quem for Prochorus translations of both the Sentences commentary and Quodlibeta is 1370-1371. See J.A. DEMETRACOPOULOS, Latin Philosophical Works Translated into Greek, in: R. PASNAU / CHR. VAN DYKE (eds.), The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy, Cambridge 2010, pp. 822-826, at p. 824. 89 These are the most likely. Other mendicant libraries in the East are also possible (viz., Candia). A more tantalizing possible source of Scholarius Scotism lies in the Franciscan contingent of theologians at Ferrara. It is very interesting that Pope Eugenius IV commissioned them (not Dominicans) to prepare a study on De attributis divinis by the Fall of 1438. If this Franciscans
84
94
Hervaeus Natalis: a Link between Scotus and Scholarius I believe the Hervean option preferable for several reasons. First, Scholarius may have had easy access to the Greek translations of the Cydones brothers before 143590. He mentions Thomas translations in chapter ninety-four of the commentary of the De ente et essentia (1445)91. In the translation of the commentary of Armandus, he references these translations as if he knows their content and Thomas teaching on second intentions as contained in them92. Greek translations of Thomas Aquinas were
treatment of the divine attributes proved to be thoroughly Scotistic (or even Bonaventuran), it would go a long way to explain Scholarius positive evaluation of the Franciscans theology as more Orthodox. It would also help explain why Palamism was not a theological issue at Florence when anti-Palamites like Andrew Chrysoberges were present. Since the Franciscans were put in charge of these theological issues, it is doubtful that Palamism (viz., ad intra theology) would have been seen in a bad light. Pope Eugenius IV was satisfied to skip the issue, despite the fact that Thomistically inclined bishops pleaded with him. The Benedictine, Andrew Escobar, in his De graecis errantibus, pleaded O most blessed Father Eugenius He then proceeded to list the Greeks errors, accusing them of the heresy of an essential distinction between attributes and essence in the Godhead. He concludes: ergo falsa est conclusio, et errores, aliquorum Graecorum, que dicit quod attributa in divinis differunt essentialiter ab essencia divina (De graecis errantibus 94, ll. 3-4). See ANDREAS ESCOBAR, De graecis errantibus, ed. M. CANDAL (Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores Series B.4.1), Rome 1952, p. 83. Apparently, Eugenius did not accept their objections, but in the open debates the Dominicans pressed the Palamites hard. See GILL, The Council of Florence, pp. 141, 266-267. This is important, since Eugenius refused the union pressed for by the Greeks after the Filioque was resolved. Eugenius, a stickler, would not yield until both papal primacy and the consecratory formula of the Eucharist had been resolved in some way. For this process: ibid., pp. 279-291. 90 CACOUROS, Georges Scholarios et le Paris. gr. 1932, p. 431. See also BLANCHET, Georges Gennadios Scholarios, p. 487. Gennadius also makes another reference (c. 1464) to the Cydones translations, but this is too late to contribute to the current discussion. See SCHOLARIUS, Rsum de la Somme contre Gentils de saint Thomas dAquin, in OCGS V, p. 2. 91 It is true that this is a vague mention. I only wish to suggest that it does not exclude Hervaeus. Gennadius may have easily accepted Hervaeus Thomist credentials according to at least two criteria: a.) The translator, Prochoros, was a fierce and unwavering Thomist; b.) Hervaeus himself pays due respect to Thomas in both his commentary on the Sentences and Quodlibeta. When Hervaeus himself opts not to utilize Thomas, he sometimes remains silent about mentioning him. This is at least the case with the principle of individuation. See M. HENNINGER, Hervaeus Natalis and Richard of Mediavilla, in IS, p. 311. 92 SCHOLARIUS, Commentaire du De ente et essentia, in OCGS VI, p. 285. Aquinas was not under the influence of the 14th century vocabulary of second intentions. The logical language employed by Scholarius is most easily attributed to Armandus. J. Demetracopoulos has also shown that in his 2nd treatise on the essence and energies, Gennadius uses language typical of 14th century modistae. DEMETRACOPOULOS, Georgios Scholarios - Gennadios II, in GGP. Demetracopoulos suggests that this is due to Radulphus distinction. All the same, Hervaeus Natalis (in the Sentences and Quodlibeta) avails himself of distinguishing between de abstracto and de concreto with particular regard to the distinction of the persons in the divine essence. For example, he writes: Unde
95
also known to Mark Eugenicus in the 1430s93. This increases the possibility that Scholarius had access to such works in Greek if Marks copies also contained Prochorus translations of Hervaeus. Other historical evidence also allows for this hypothesis, since the only Scotistic works known in Greek are the translations of Hervaeus Natalis. Like Scholarius, Hervaeus was a fierce self-styled Thomist. He also was very outspoken in upholding the common opinion of Frater Thomas. Like Scholarius grafting of Aquinas onto Brito (viz. the principle of individuation), Hervaeus was accustomed to graft Scotus onto Thomas. This is particularly the case in his metaphysics of both the Trinitarian emanations and the formal distinction (as opposed to a rational distinction)94, which obtains between the attributes and the essence. Hervaeus, I would like to suggest, has the unique potential to explain satisfactorily Scholarius Scotism. Even if Gennadius became more familiar with the Scotistic school in Florence, he may have already been aware of its clear reconciliability to the real distinction of Palamite metaphysics. Strong arguments exist for dating Gennadius Florilegium Thomisticum to 144495. With this in mind, Gennadius is not merely occupied with the Latin question of the Holy Spirit (in the first essence-energies treatise) and the heretical application of the logical theory of second intentions. He is also worried about polemics against
ista est vera Sortes est homo. Alio modo accipit natura et suppositum pro abstracto et concreto sicut est hic homo et humanitas (Sent. L. I, d. 4, q. 2). See HERVAEUS NATALIS, In quattuor Petri Lombardi Sententiarum volumina scripta subtilissima nuperrime in lucem castigatissime prodenutia, Venice, 1505, f. 17r. As such, it is quite possible that Gennadius is using one or both authors. Brito is still being employed in 1445 for the De ente commentary for the principle of individuation. Hervaeus criticizes Britos aggregate theory of intentions by resorting to a typical Thomist critique in Sent. L. I, d. 4, q. 2; f. 18v. However, given Hervaeus Quodlibeta and their questions regarding individuation which I believe Gennadius adopts it may be that Scholarius abandons Brito in several matters. After all, Hervaeus argues against the indivisa quantitas in his Quodlibet (and elsewhere). Is this why Gennadius seems to abandon it in the 2nd treatise on the essence and energies? Also, Hervaeus Quodlibet III discusses his logical theory of second intentions. Certainly the Latin quodlibetal manuscript existed in Byzantium (via Prochoros). G. Mercati asserted his suspicions that many other translations of Prochoros were probably contained in Vat. Gr. 609. Mercatis list of distinctiones from the Sentences misses the bulk of Hervaeus material on the formal distinction. Nonetheless, Mercatis remarks leave the question open. See MERCATI, Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone, pp. 37-38. 93 Marks were already cited above. 94 IRIBARREN, The Scotist Background, in The Thomist 66 (2002), pp. 607-627, at pp. 624-627. This is especially the case from Quodlibet IV. 95 J.A. DEMETRACOPOULOS, Georgios Gennadios II-Scholarioss Florilegium Thomisticum II, in RTPM, pp. 342-343. Recall that the first essence-energies treatise dates to August 1445 (via autograph of Sylvester Syropoulos).
96
Plethonism96. A doctrine that is central to Gennadius debate is the notion of 97. Some of the same themes that are part of the Plethon-Scholarius debate are, in fact, also contained in Prochorus translation of Liber II of Hervaeus Sentences commentary (c. 1302)98. The two Greek titles concern the eternity of the cosmos99. Scholarius interest may have been initially sparked because of the debate on the eternity of the world with Plethon. Scholarius used the Greek Summa Theologiae for notes against Plethon. Therefore, it is tempting to think that Prochorus other translations were available. Thus, he might have had his hands on Hervaeus Natalis100. Hervaeus treatise provides an ingenious answer to the metaphysical enigma of the essence-energies problem. Thomas simplicity criterion proves to be philosophically irreconciliable with true Palamism. Hervaeus ad hoc use of Scotism solves a Thomist-Gordion knot of how to distinguish the attributes ad intra. Because the first part of Liber II of Hervaeus commentary on the Sentences deals with De aeternitate mundi, Scholarius may have first been interested in the translation for his polemics against Plethon. Hervaeus is a proponent of a positive notion of divine infinity. This is something altogether lacking in Thomas theological preoccupations, due to his negative Aristotelian definition of infinity101. Hervaeus is an apologist for divine infinity reconciliable to the divine attributes through their complete actuality while compenetrating the divine essence. He also considers the Scotist analogical argument that is
Jugie long ago investigated the salient points of the controversy. See M. JUGIE, La polemique de Georges Scholarios contre Plethon, in Byzantion 10 (1935) 517-30. Recently, this controversy has been explored in exhaustive detail by: J.A. DEMETRACOPOULOS, : , Athens 2004. Inter alia, Plethons arguments for the eternity of the world are investigated. 97 Gennadius was not the first pro-Palamite Byzantine to tackle this theme via Aquinas. Theophanes of Nicaea had already confronted the issue using the Doctor Communis. See THEOPHANES OF NICAEA, , . Editio princeps. , , , , ed. I.D. POLEMIS (Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi Philosophi Byzantini 10), Athens 2000. 98 For dating, please see FRIEDMAN, Dominican Quodlibetal Literature c. 1260-1330, in TQMA, p. 424. 99 MERCATI, Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone, pp. 37-38. Hervaeus commentary is dated c. 1302. See IRIBARREN, The Scotist Background, in The Thomist 66 (2002), pp. 607-627: 627. Prochorus Cydones certainly translated Sent. L. I, d. 1, qq. 1-4 and 7 and Sent. L. I, d. 9, q. 3 to L. I, d. 17, q. 3. N.b. d. 11, q. 1 only is translated and the last ad sextum and q. 2. Also a Greek translation of Sent. L. II, d. 1 and d. 2, q. 1 (De aeternitate mundi) is known. 100 Investigation of Prochoros Vat. Gr. 609 and Vat. Gr. 1102 is still wanting. A study on the theological interplay between Hervaeus, Prochorus and Scholarius is sorely needed. 101 CROSS, Duns Scotus, pp. 44-45. AquinasAristotelian simplicity criterion is aptly described by Cross as a controlling idea that effectively closes the door on any consideration along the lines of Scotism.
96
97
dear to any Palamite; namely, if the division of the persons is greater than that of the attributes, then provided that there is a real distinction between the persons, all the more does a less powerful distinction hold between the attributes102. Despite this probable influence, there is still the possibility of Scotistic influence directly from the Franciscan convent of Pera. The evidence for Scotist influence on Scholarius via the convent is currently non-existent. There are no known translations of Franciscan Scholastic works. All the same, Franciscan writings were being translated into Greek in Byzantium. Fragments of these works still survive103. Other circumstantial evidence is found with Demetrius Cydones. His theological opinions include the Scotist theologoumenon on the subject of the Immaculate Conception. This suggests access to Franciscan theology104. Furthermore, Demetrius edited Hervaeus translations, as remarked by G. Mercati. This suggests that despite Prochorus misfortunes on Mt. Athos Demetrius was able to provide for dispersion of Prochorus works and manuscripts within the confines of Byzantium. The proximity of the Franciscan convent at Pera made access to Franciscan Scholasticism a real possibility. However, until the year of Gennadius Latin learning can be verified, it is difficult to know how much time he had to peruse the works in the convent at Pera before he began his work on translating Armandus. Except for Cacouros discovery of Scholarius probable use of the Greek translations of the Cydones in 1435, I have no knowledge of earlier citations from Gennadius from the Greek works of the Cydones brothers105. However, it has been brought to light that Scholarius once paid a certain monk (Gregory) to transcribe him a copy of the Summa Theologiae in 1432. It would not be surprising, then, if earlier citations from the Summae are found. Gennadius may have read and cited it around this time. Perhaps, Prochorus Latin manuscripts of Hervaeus were easily accessible as well, whether on Mount Athos, the monastery of Mangara, or even within the Dominican Convent of Pera. Hervaeus Natalis: Ally of Palamas ad mentem Scoti In this section, I wish to present some initial considerations for proposing Hervaeus as a source for Scholarius:
102 IOANNES DUNS SCOTUS, Quodlibetal Questions, Princeton, NJ 1975, pp. 109-111, 118-119 (viz., Quodlib. V, 7; V, 30). 103 For example, there are fragments remaining from the Rule of St. Francis in Greek: S. SALAVILLE, Fragment indit de traduction grecque de la Rgle de saint Franois, in chos dOrient 25 (1926), pp. 167-172. 104 MERCATI, Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone, p. 38. 105 See DEMETRACOPOULOS, Georgios Gennadios II - Scholarios Florilegium Thomisticum II, in RTPM, p. 334.
98
1) Hervaeus is currently the only possible source for the via Scoti in Greek106. 2) Hervaeus argues explicitly for a formal distinction in divinis a parte rei in his Sentences107 commentary and Quodlibeta (especially Quodlibet. IV). It is preferable to think that Scholarius relied more on the Quodlibeta over and above the Sentences, since he matches exactly the terminology of Hervaeus in the former (e.g. instead of speaking of a distinctio formalis a parte rei)108. 3) Hervaeus argues divine infinity as a sufficient justification for the co-existence of formally distinct hypostases109 and actualized attributes within the divine essence110. 4) Hervaeus employs the Scotistic (and Palamite) argument that: if the persons do not threaten the unity of the essence, a fortiori nor do distinct attributes111.
A less complete list of Hervaeus Greek works than Mercatis also exists in: ST. G. PAPADOPOULOS, : . , Athens 1967, p. 91. 107 This is especially the case in his Sentences commentary in: Sent. L. I, d. 2, qq. 2-4. 108 The Sentences commentary is less Scotistic in many regards. Hervaeus continuously (especially in L. I, d. 2) refers to his distinctions as a distinctio formalis a parte rei intellectae (smacking of second intentions). See HERVAEUS, In quattuor Petri Lombardi Sententiarum, f. 10v. It is more valuable to produce some passages from the later Quodlibeta. There is a repeated use of the formal distinction between velle and intellegere to distinguish persons (see column 2): prima talis est relatio et fundamentum differunt formaliter ex natura rei [] Differunt formaliter ex natura rei [] albedo et color differunt formaliter ex natura rei [] Sciendum albedo et color dicunt unam rem simpliciter, ergo in una re simpliciter sunt aliqua formaliter differentia ex natura rei (Quodlibet. I, q. 5). See ID., Quodlibeta, f. 167r. He also makes the same distinctions between res and quid rei with the attributes and essence, as does Scholarius (viz., ). The quid rei is defined as: illud per quod habetur de re cognitio specialis cognoscendo suam naturam specificam et in speciali (Sent. L. I, d. 3, q. 1; f. 14r). Nor should it be thought that the the divine nature is an opaque and unitary principal such that the divine attributes are not seen by the divine intellect. Hervaeus is quite explicit that the divine ad intra conceptions are of formalities that are not merely logical but based on real realities compenetrating the essence. ID., Quodlibeta, f. 164r: Imo sapientia Dei vel in eo quod est sapientia divina est omnis perfectio simpliciter dicata formaliter formalitate reali. (Quodlibet. I, q. 2) 109 ID., In quattuor Petri Lombardi Sententiarum, f. 17r: Unde in Deo bene fundant respectus producentis et producti in eadem essentia simplici propter infinitatem suam cum cuius unitate fiat distinctio realis plurium suppositorum: sed in nulli essentia creata hoc potest esse [] (Sent. L. I, d. 3, q. 5) ID., Quodlibeta, f. 164v: [D]ico quod non video aliam rationem nisi infinitatem divine essentie que sicut propter infinitatem suam est sapientia et iusticia et consilia: quae non possunt esse idem per essentiam in creaturis: ita etiam possunt esse opposite relationes. (Quodlibet. I, q. 2) 110 IBID., 163r: Secundum hoc, queritur utrorum attributa (puta sapientia vel iusticia) dicant diversas formalitates ex natura rei circumscripto omni actu intelligendi distinctas: ita que ista distinctio non sit secundum rationem intelligendi tantum sed ex natura rei. (Quodlibet. I, q. 2) 111 ID., In quattuor Petri Lombardi Sententiarum, f. 11v. Et ulterius dicunt quae si ista distinctio deberet reduci in aliquam diversitatem realem magis deberet reduci ad distinctionem per106
99
5) Hervaeus has a theory of second intentions that utilizes the same terminology of Radulphus Brito and yet his metaphysical logic112 like Thomas presupposes that second intentions are mind creations and reflexive acts of the mind113. 6) Hervaeus takes up the peculiar question of the essence as formally infinite vs. the attributes that are conceptually finite and potentially modally infinite114. 7) Hervaeus employs the disjunctive transcendentals, e.g. either participatum or imparticipatum ens, etc115.
sonarum et suarum emanationum que realiter differunt quantum ad distinctionem creaturarum [...] (Sent. L. I, d. 2, q. 4). He goes on to conclude that such distinctions (formally) exist within the divine essence since they are not real in the sense of separate res like horse and man, but separate things as understood by the divine intellect ad intra, without any reference to ens extra animam real beings. 112 HERVAEUS, In quattuor Petri Lombardi Sententiarum, f. 13r: [C]redo quod recurrendum est ad infinitatem divine perfectionis quae scilicet infinitas perfectionis divine sicut est ratio quae eadem essentia numero est voluntas et intellectus et iustitia et sapientia que in creaturis non possunt esse una essentia simpliciter propter earum limitationem: ita eadem infinitas est ratio quare eadem essentia et idem esse absolutum sint plures opposite relationes et per consequens opposite res relative [] (Sent. L. I, d. 2, q. 4) 113 Hervaeus is the first author to explicitly write a treatise on second intentions. See HERVAEUS NATALIS, A Treatise of Master Hervaeus Natalis (d. 1323) the Doctor Perspicacissimus on Second Intentions, II, ed. J. DOYLE (Medieval Philosophical Texts in Translation 44), Milwaukee 2008. He argues the reflexive nature of the act of the mind with second intentions early. He also asserts that such intentions are products of the intellect (not of things) and results of the intellect comparing one notion to another. See ID., In quattuor Petri Lombardi Sententiarum, f. 11v. At the end of this question, Hervaeus (like Scotus) thinks of the Father and Son as exemplifications of the essence (something like an instance of the essence that does not divide it, such that each exemplar completely partakes of it). 114 Secundo quod: sequeret quod non omnis persona divina haberet omnes perfectiones simpliciter: quod nulla persona hab[et] omnem relationem [] ratio talis est: infinitum formaliter continet omnes perfectiones simpliciter [] nulla relatio divina continet omnes perfectiones simpliciter et realiter [] paternitas non erit infinita formaliter [D]ico quod si accipiat infinitum formaliter, si pro ipsa negatione finis sic, nulla res creata vel increata absoluta videtur respectiva est formaliter infinita que nulla ratio quidditativa alicuius positivi est negatio cuiuscunque entitatis[]dico quod non solum de relatione divina scil., de quocunque divino accepit per modum substantie vel per modum cuiuscunque attributi si accipiat cum perfectione aliorum licet possit esse infinitum secundum quoddam modum [] (Quodlibet. I, q. 4; f. 166r) Compare with Scholarius: [] , , , , , . (OCGS III, c. 11; p. 226, ll. 8-11) 115 [O]mne ens finitum vel infinitum quod unitatem habendam de ente participante vel participato, relatio autem non sic est ens [] ens participans nihil aliud est quod ens diminutum habens entitatem et quasi participantem entis; ens autem participatum dicitur ens habens plenitudinem entitatis supereminent cuius participatione alia sunt entia (Quodlibet. I, q. 4; f. 166r). There is no doctrine of participation (except one paragraph) within the Corpus Scoticum. Thus, these disjunctions are fascinating. The Latin source for such disjunctive transcendentals is St. Bonaventure:
100
8) Hervaeus holds that the principle of individuation is primary substance taken together with its accidents116. These considerations are important philosophically (and theologically) since they are in thematic and theological agreement with the essence-energies solutions proposed by Gennadius (in 1445 and 1458). Hervaeus Meld of Aquinas and Scotus in divinis The first point, i.e. Hervaeus as the unique transmittor of Scotism into Greek, has already been discussed in 3.1. So, let us move on to the next point in 3.1 on the divine attributes. Isabel Iribarrens treatment on the matter has recently illustrated the salient points of Scotism within the Hervaean corpus117. In her recent work on the issue,
Item, si est ens ab alio, est ens non ab alio [] Item, si est ens respectivum, est ens absolutum [] Item si est ens diminutum seu secundum sive secundum quid [] Item si est ens propter aliud, est ens propter se ipsum [] Item, si est ens per participationem, est ens per essentiam [] (De mysterio Trinitatis Q. 1, a. 1). BONAVENTURE OF BAGNOREGIO, Quaestiones disputatae de mysterio Trinitatis, in Doctoris Seraphici S. Bonaventurae Opera Omnia V, Quarrachi 1891, pp. 46-47. With a slight change in order, Gennadius is saying the same thing in Greek: , , , , , (OCGS VI, c. 94; p. 282, ll. 22-26). Given these obvious affinities, it may be that this represents the influence of Richard of Middleton on Scholarius, since Scholarios claims to know this Franciscan. For the identification of Richard, see C. TURNER, The Career of George-Gennadius Scholarius, in Byzantion 39 (1969-1970), pp. 420-455, at p. 427. For Richards close link with Bonaventure on questions like created-uncreated disjunctives, see R. CROSS, Richard of Middleton, in CPMA, pp. 573-378. As of yet, I have found no citations from either Hervaeus or Francis Mayron that correspond to these disjunctive transcendentals. Richard is the next most likely source. 116 This point was already demonstrated earlier. Nonetheless, authors often mention vaguely that Hervaeus argues that matter + quantity = individual. In his mature treatment of the matter he also includes other accidents (not just quantity and its relation to matter). For he said in Quodlibet. VIII, q. 9: It seems to me that [individuals] differ from quantity and other accidents. See HERVAEUS, Quodlibeta, f. 223v. Martin Pickav has also noticed this as an important development, showing that Hervaeus sees quantity in an extended sense (including time and spatial dimensions). See M. PICKAV, The Controversy over the Principle of Individuation, in TQMA, p. 73. 117 IRIBARREN, The Scotist Background, in The Thomist 66 (2002), pp. 607-627. It is tempting to derive Scholarius doctrine from John Damascene. Scholarius already complains that the heretics corrupt (or exaggerate) the Damascenes doctrine of divine infinity (these preoccupations will be addressed in the conclusions). Thus, he has Damascene on his mind in his compositions. The examples of the Damascene (man, horse and cow) vs. Scholarius (man and horse), etc., lend themselves to direct dependence. Yet again, they are merely common vocabulary and examples of both the patristic and Scholastic tradition. St. John writes:
101
however, one difficulty presents itself for the current hypothesis. All the passages that Iribarren cites in her article, and even in her more recent book, do not coincide with what is known of Hervaeus graecus118. Still, this is not necessarily an obstacle to the current hypothesis. First, Mercatis observations have already been recorded, wherein he suspects far more translations of Latin works by Prochoros exist in Greek. Secondly, Prochorus use of these manuscripts, and Demetrius knowledge of his brothers sources, sufficiently allow for Scholarius potential access to these materials. Lastly, Iribarrens interest principally lies in Hervaeus conversion of the Thomasian ratio-esse distinction (between persons and essence) into the Scotistic distinctio formalis119. Thus, the question about the essence-energies (attributes ad intra and essence) is not the primary object of her study. Her work is focused on Latin Scholastic debates about the nature of intra-Trinitarian relations.
, . (Dialectica 8-9, 27-29) See JOHANNES DAMASCENUS, Dialectica, ed. B. KOTTER (Patristische Texte und Studien 1), Berlin 1969, p. 73. Later he writes: , , , [] (Expositio fidei 50, 8-11) This is extremely close to both Hervaeus and Gennadius. ID., Expositio fidei, ed. B. KOTTER (Patristische Texte und Studien 12), Berlin 1973, p. 120. Compare this with Scholarius: , . (OCGS III, c. 1; p. 229, ll. 1718) They may be reconcilable, but Scholarius looks to be more reliant on Hervaeus rejection of opposing theories in favor of a composite (first) substance + accidents = individual. 118 See again Durandus of St. Pourain by IRIBARREN. The Latin passages of the extant Hervaeus graece contain hints of Scotism already in the first question. For example: Item ex lumine naturali potest haberi quod omnis operatio terminat ad aliquod operatum: sciendum: in divinis scimus esse duas operationes, scil., Intelligere et velle: ergo oportet ponere in divinis duo producta ad que terminent intelligere et velle [] quod si secundum operationes sint producta cum intelligere et velle in Deo sint unum secundum rem erit tamen unum productum in divinis: quod est manifeste falsum [] (Sent. L. I, d. 1, q. 1, resp.) HERVAEUS, In quattuor Petri Lombardi Sententiarum, f. 2r. Hervaeus begins distinguishing: formalia quae distinctio formalis obiectorum reducit in diversitatem potentiarum. (Sent. L. I, d. 1, q. 2) He writes on Gods formal infinity: Prima est quod infinitum secundum quod infinitum et secundum rationem infiniti non potest esse subiectum scientiae finitae: sed Deus secundum quod Deus dicit[ur] aliquid infinitum [] (Sent. L. I, d. 1., q. 7, ad 1) One definition of infinity he employs is typically Scotistic: adhuc potest sciri scientia finita precipue loquendo de tali infinito sicut infinitum convenit Deo propter suam immensam actualitatem [] (Sent. L. I., d. 1, q. 7) Hervaeus comes to the explicit conclusion: [E]t diverse ydee ad diversa ydeata: vel que illa secundum suam absolutam acceptionem nata sunt esse sive invicem sive differre re sicut dictum est de voluntate et intellectu: ita quo dato quod in aliqua natura sint idem re: hoc accidit eis inquantum talia. Et sic videt mihi quae differentia rationis puta se tenet ex parte rei intellecte [] (Sent. L. I, d. 2, q. 2) ID., In quattuor Petri Lombardi Sententiarum, f. 11r. 119 For a full discussion of this development, see IRIBARREN, The Scotist Background, in The Thomist 66 (2002) 607-627.
102
With respect to the divine attributes, Hervaeus position can be summarized as follows: ibi etiam ostensum est in Deo esse plura attributa ex infinitate divine essentie120. He explicitly argues for a formal distinction in divinis based on the necessary distinction made between will and intellect in the divine essence121. Furthermore, Hervaeus argues for a metaphysical logic that requires for every ens rationis there is a corresponding object122. If the entia rationis are diverse, then the referent must be something not contained under one ens rationis, etc123. Even from the point of view of vocabulary and phraseology Hervaeus fits perfectly with Gennadius. He even goes so far as to predicate (in Palamite fashion) certain attributes of the divinity using the terms quasi-accidents or quasi-accidental items124. Throughout the Sentences and Quodlibeta, Hervaeus continuously employs the attributes of goodness, justice, and wisdom (as does Scholarius)125. Since
HERVAEUS, In quattuor Petri Lombardi Sententiarum, f. 10v. This explanation has some resemblance to Palamism: In Deo esse plura attributa ex infinitate divine essentie: hoc etiam idem est ostendum ex qualitate, ex causalitate autem potest hoc ostendi dupliciter. Uno modo sic: quod Deus est agens primum et nobilissimum. Ideo est agens per intellectum et voluntas. Et sic sunt ibi duo attributa, scil., Intellectus et voluntas. Et ulterius qui est perfectus secundum intellectum: est ibi sapientia et scientia. Et quod voluntas eius habet bonum non extra se: ideo est ibi bonitas et sic et de aliis. (Sent. L. I, d. 2, q. 2, ad. 2) Compare Scholarius: , , [] (OCGS III, c. 11, ll. 5-9) See SCHOLARIUS, Contre les partisans dAcindyne, in OCGS III, p. 226. Compare the statement of Hervaeus: nullus dubitat quod essentia sit infinita formaliter [] (Quodlibet. I, q. 4) 121 This was already an important theme for Gregory Palamas. See M. CANDAL, Fuentes palamticas. Dilogo de Jorge Facrasi sobre el contradictorio de Plamas con Nicforo Grgoras, in Orientalia Christiana Periodica 16 (1950), pp. 303-327, at p. 321. 122 He does not hold for a merely virtual distinction. He holds for a full formal distinction ad mentem Scoti. For example: iste formalitates non sunt idem formaliter quod differre formaliter est differre in formalitatibus. (Quodlibet. I, q. 2) HERVAEUS, In quattuor Petri Lombardi Sententiarum, f. 163v. 123 Ita pluralitas ad pluralitatem. Scil., omne ens rationis sumit ab aliquo ente reali. Ergo pluralitas rationis habet ortum a pluralitate reali. (Quodlibet. III, q. 3) 124 See HERVAEUS, In quattuor Petri Lombardi Sententiarum, f. 14r. I.e. Quasi-accidentia or quasi-accidentalia. On the Greek side of things, this terminology was already present in St. Cyril of Alexandria: [.] [...]; see J.A. DEMETRACOPOULOS, : , Athens 1997, p. 143. On the latin side, J.A. DEMETRACOPOULOS has also already alluded to the concept of quasi-accidents in St. Augustine (De Trinitate, Book V), expressed the same idea without the term; see Palamas Transformed, p. 275, note 30. 125 E.g., this is found already in the beginning of the Sentences commentary in Vat. Gr. 609, f. 201v (see all of l. 16): Vat. Gr. 609, f. 201v (see all of l. 16): , , , , ,
120
103
Armandus himself employs these traits, Hervaeus discourse slips seamlessly into Gennadius excursus on the essence-energies debate in chapter ninety-four of his translation-commentary. Also the turns of phrase of Hervaeus: iusticia et sapientia et consimilia and suchlike are shared by the two authors. So far as I can tell, Gennadius has simply compressed Hervaeus arguments and language into a few statements that are assumed to be obvious or shared theological values among Orthodox theologians126. Of course, Hervaeus actual Quodlibeta are quite extensive. A careful reading of Hervaeus questions on the distinction with respect to the persons, the attributes, and individuation seems to coincide perfectly with Gennadius mature doctrine. Considering the numerous references that have already been provided, it seems to me that the case is quite strong. This is especially true since Hervaeus himself had few known imitators, and none of them are known in Greek translation127. However, to be sure, authors like Francis Meyronnes128 and Richard of Middleton129 will have to be studied and excluded definitively from the Scholarian corpus130.
[] (Sent. L. I, d. 1, q. 4) I would like to thank Dr. Charalambos Dendrinos (London) for his assistance and corrections in reading Vat. Gr. 609. 126 This is true generally of the Commentaire du De ente et essentia (e.g. OCGS VI, c. 94, pp. 282-283). Hervaeus had already harmoniously accomplished the grafting of the formal distinction onto Thomism. See Quodl. IV, q. 7, ff. 233r-327r. As such, there is no need to posit originality in Scholarius for this transition. Nor is it necessary to turn to the like of Francis of Meyronnes. In the Scotist spirit, one could adjust the so-called Ockhams razor to state: fontes non sunt multiplicandi praeter necessitatem! 127 For example, Henry of Lbeck. See M. HENNINGER, Hervaeus Natalis and Richard of Mediavilla, in IS, 73-74. However, by the Renaissance, his influence on many matters was beginning to wane. See M. TAVUZZI, Hervaeus Natalis and the Philosophical Logic of the Thomism of the Renaissance, in Doctor Communis 45 (1992), pp. 132-152. Hervaeus suffered from multiple opponents within the Dominican Order (even in his own lifetime). Nonetheless, a list of his followers and admirers in metaphysics and logic exists. See J. DOYLE, Hervaeus Natalis on Second Intentions. Translators Introduction, in: A Treatise of Master Hervaeus Natalis (d. 1323) the Doctor Perspicacissimus on Second Intentions 1, Milwaukee 2008, pp. 24-31. 128 Despite his error in identifying Scholarius source as a Briton (instead of a Frenchman, scil., Breton) and his misplaced assumption that Scholarius commentary was original (instead of a Latin translation), Paul Tavardon does seem to have identified Francis of Meyronnes as the Scotist that Gennadius cites with approval. See P. TAVARDON, Georges Scholarios, un thomiste byzantin?, in 3 (1983), pp. 57-74, at p. 67. 129 C. TURNER, The Career of George-Gennadius Scholarius, in Byzantion 39 (1969-70), pp. 420455, at p. 427. 130 Study of these figures is necessitated by Scholarius own mention of them. These are referred to in his texts and cited earlier. On the other hand, if Hervaeus, Armandus, Radulphus and Aquinas account for all significant theological insights attributable to Latin authors, Scholarius mention of these authors may just be his way of recording the fact that he was familiar with famous Latins and their philosophical approaches.
104
Conclusions: Scholarius and Palamismus in fieri131 Authors of the last century (exemplified by Jugie), along with more recent authors, have successfully highlighted Scholarius esteem for Thomas Aquinas. Multiple citations can be found throughout Scholarius works that leave little doubt about his appreciation for Aquinas as an outstanding disciple of Aristotle and an amazing philosopher in his own right132. He is even highly lauded for his theological prowess, despite his deviation from Orthodoxy on some few points133. This paper has not sought to contradict the standard reading of Scholarius through this lense. It has only attempted to refract the full spectrum of color through the prism of other comments and sources that make Scholarius irreconcilable to orthodox Thomism. Scholarius does at times deviate from Thomas Aquinas. If Scholarius finds himself generally in admiration of his doctors insights and approach to philosophy and theology, what can possibly carry more weight than these criteria? If I venture to guess that Orthodoxy is the more powerful regulatory idea that dominates Scholarius Trinitarian theology, I would hardly be original. Jugies judgment of Scholarius apparent Scotism had been true, insofar as Scholarius confessional motives are concerned. Yet, in my conclusions, I would only like to mention a few areas that I believe are important for considering Scholarius motives for his rejection of orthodox Thomism in order to resolve the essence-energies question. This, I hope, will explain the process of Palamismus in fieri within the Scholarian corpus.
M. JUGIE, Theologia dogmatica, 148. Jugie was familiar with Duns Scotus Scriptum on the Sentences. He had read Scotus Ord. IV, d. 13 and correctly noticed parallels between Scholarius and Duns (There also exists a very strong thought-parallel to Scholarius OCGS III, c. 3, p. 232; ll. 15-37 in Scotus Ord. IV, d. 16, p. 3). However, Duns and Scholarius vocabulary are quite diverse. A follower of Scotus would not be familiar with Scholarius technical terms, but a follower of Hervaeus Natalis would be. Still, Jugie correctly saw Scotistic ad intra metaphysics as an anticipation of Palamas. He was also critical of Scotus along Thomistic party lines. Thus, he concludes: Scotismus in haec quaestione est quasi Palamismus in fieri. 132 This, of course, is complimentary toward Aquinas. Since Aristotle became symbolic of Christianity in Scholarius polemics with Plethon (taking as his standard Plato), Aquinas unabashed love of Aristotle endeared him to Scholarius. For the full story on Scholarius association of Aristotelianism with Christianity against paganism, see M. JUGIE, La polmique de Georges Scholarios contre Plthon, in Byzantion 10 (1935), pp. 517-530. The most recent updating of this conflict, from the perspective of theology, is: J.. DEMETRACOPOULOS, . , Athens 2004; ID., Georgios GemistosPlethons Dependence on Thomas Aquinas Summa contra Gentiles and Summa Theologiae, in Archiv fr mittelalterliche Philosophie und Kultur 12 (2006), pp. 276-341. See also G. KARAMANOLIS, Plethon and Scholarius on Aristotle, in: K. IERODIAKONOU (ed.), Byzantine Philosophy and its Ancient Sources, , Oxford 2002, pp. 252-282. 133 Most recently, J.A. Demetracopoulos has compiled the most outstanding references of admiration for Aquinas. See DEMETRACOPOULOS, Georgios Scholarios - Gennadios II, in GGP (see section 3: Werk und Lehre).
131
105
The key to interpret Scholarius in this realm lies in the philosophical underpinnings of two authors accepted by Scholarius for their Orthodoxy. Although three Franciscans are mentioned by name in his works (Duns Scotus, Francis of Mayron134, and Richard of Middleton), only Duns and Francis share the same basic theological tenants because of Francis reliance on his Master135. Duns and Francis can be read in sync with Palamas ad intra theology. Gregory Palamas and Scotists both admit of a peculiar reading of two of their sources: St. John Damascene and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite136. Scholarius philosophical aptitude and concern for correct interpretation of the Damascene on the essence-energies question naturally disposes him to see the Scotistic Hervaeus as the only plausible solution to a subtle theological problem137. Taking his queue from texts inspired by the Damascene138, Duns first argument for Gods existence and nature (from causality) already aim at understanding the energies of an infinite being139. Furthermore, in his proof for God as the first agent of
For some remarks about additional developments in Francis of the Subtle Doctors theology, see E. BOS, The Theory of Ideas according to Francis of Meyronnes Commentary on the Sentences (Conflatus), I, Dist. 47, in L.G. BENAKIS (ed.), Noplatonisme et philosophie mdivale (Socit Internationale pour ltude de la Philosophie Mdivale - Rencontres de Philosophie Mdivale, 6), Turnhout 1997, pp. 211-228. 135 SCHOLARIUS, Commentaire du De ente et essentia, in OCGS VI, p. 180; ID., Premier trait sur la procession du Saint-Esprit, in OCGS II, p. 223. 136 Especially chapters 8-9 of the DAMASCENEs Expositio fidei and chapters 3 and 5 of PS.DENYS De divinis nominibus. 137 So far as I know, Hervaeus does not justify his claims by St. John Damascene. Instead, he simply argues Scotus position. This is what I have encountered up to distinctio 8 in the Liber I of the Sentences, as well as the Quodlibeta. For Scotus, the matter is more patristic than dialectical in inspiration. Scholarius mentions the Akindynists misinterpretation of the Damascene in several places. For example: SCHOLARIUS, Contre les partisans dAcindyne, in OCGS III, p. 210 (especially ll. 20-24): , , [] He believes the Akindynists do nt understand how to use the divine infinity as an argument in Damascene to justify essence-energy distinctions. He pairs this complaint with mentioning the combination of simplicity and of Dionysius in the very next paragraph (ibid., p. 211, ll. 5-15). He seems well aware of this reading of the two authors. Yet, I have not yet found either Hervaeus or Francis explicitly noting these two sources. 138 Ord. I, d. 8, p. 1, q. 4 (nos. 198-212). IOANNES DUNS SCOTUS, Ioannis Duns Scoti Doctoris Subtilis et Mariani opera omnia 4, IV, Vatican City 1956, pp. 264-270. 139 In ente infinito sunt proprietates respectivae ad creaturas, et ex respectivo esse concluditur aliud esse. Ideo, proprietates respectivae Dei ad creaturas sunt propriae viae cognoscendi esse Dei et eius infinitatem, et huiusmodi proprietates oportet ostendere. (Lectura I 2.38)
134
106
the universe, he adopts the theme of Dionysian excellence140. In doing so he concentrates on showing that the divine nature is the foundation of Gods infinity141. He writes:
The thesis that God is infinite is shown on account of the divine essence which explains divine knowing. Just as an act of knowledge which is distinctly related to a number of things is more perfect than that act of knowledge which is only related to one thing, so also is the principle for knowing distinctly a number of things more perfect than is the principle for knowing only one of them. Thus an essence which represents a number of things distinctly is more perfect than the essence which represents but one. However, the divine essence represents an infinity of things distinctly. Therefore, this essence possesses an infinite power of representation. Therefore, the divine essence itself is infinite142.
This argument is inspired by both Anselm of Canterbury and Richard of St. Victor, as explained in: M. WASS, The Infinite God and the Summa Fratris Alexandri, Chicago 1964, pp. 3536. As an example, Richard himself relies heavily on St. Anselm (as noted in Salets edition). In Richard of St. Victors magnum opus, a surprising (non-Augustinian and non-Boethian) discourse on divine infinity is found. Richard begins this: Quod caret initio et fine, procul dubio constat infinitum esse [] (De Trinitate II,5,3; ed. J. RIBAILLIER, Richard de Saint-Victor. De Trinitate. Texte critique avec introduction, notes et tables, Paris 1958, p. 112). It is interesting that both the G. Salet and the editorial team compiling the adjoining commentary lack any footnotes referencing the sources of what follows (esp. L. II, c. 20). Might this be inspired by Ps.-Denys? See Ps.Denys in De divinis nominibus I.1.2.2. Here, note: 1.) God is infinite, 2.) This infinity makes him one above all other sorts of one, 3.) It cannot be participated but its products/energies can according to measure (). This is like Richard notes 1.) Gods positive infinity, 2.) This makes Him necessarily one, 3.) The result is that he is immense (). Did, in fact, Richard carry on the Dionysian tradition of Hugh of St. Victor after all? See RICHARD DE SANCTO VICTORE, De Trinitate libri sex. Texte Latin, introduction, traduction et notes, ed. G. Salet, Paris 1999, pp. 116-146. Especially note L. II, cc. 5, 12 and 20. As the Victorine school is also important for Duns, it is certainly a tempting area of study to establish an indirect access to Dionysius thought. A satisfacory explanation of divine infinity is also lacking in R. ANGELICI, Richard of Saint Victor. On the Trinity. English Translation and Commentary, Eugene, Oregon 2011. Neither commentator has indicated the Augustinian origin, yet non-Augustinian development, of divine immensity and infinity in Richard. For a comparison between Gregory of Nyssas and Augustines accounts of infinity, see W. ACHTNER, Infinity as a Transformative Concept in Science and Theology, in M. HELLER / W. WOODEN (eds.), Infinity: New Research Frontiers, Cambridge 2011, pp. 27-28. 141 The translation is provided by: A. VOS, The Philosophy of John Duns Scotus, Edinburgh 2008, p. 480. 142 VOS, from the footnote above, renders his translation from the following: Hoc ostenditur ex parte essentiae divinae, quae est ratio intelligendi: sicut enim intellectio quae est distincte plurium, est perfectior illa quae est unius tantum, sic illud quod est principium intelligendi distincte plura, est perfectius illo quod est tantum principium intelligendi unum. Et essentia quae reprae140
107
When reviewing Scotus sources, one is struck by two important parts of his theology of God that will make him interesting to a Palamite theologian like Scholarius. In his writings, he shares two main sources for his conviction that a real distinction was both a patristic and dogmatically convincing position. First Scotus interpreted in contradistinction to Thomas Aquinas Dionysius to argue for a real distinction143. Scotus goes on to explain, in the same section, that two kinds of unity-contaiment objects are possible. For example, when the soul is considered, its intellectuality is not the same as is voluntariness. These energies of the soul cannot be mistaken as referring to the same kinds of activities/powers. They are formally (mentally) distinct and are distinct from the idea of the soul iself. So, there are realities in the soul (intellect and will) as quasi-parts. The soul is a unity (insofar as it is capable of subsisting by itself and its quasi-parts are really inseparable from it and from each other), yet it is in a sense composed of energies (will, intellect, vegetative and sensitive powers). Scotus also bases his distinction on the analysis of the fact that goodness taken as a concept is not concentric with wisdom. At least on this score, these three authors have a common inspiration for a mode of considering such a question. Palamas144, Scholarius145, and Duns Scotus all rely on Dionysius146.
sentat distincte plura, erit perfectior illa quae tantum repraesentat unum. Sed essentia divina distincte repraesentat infinita, igitur habet virtutem infinitam repraesentandi. Est igitur infinita (Lectura I, 2.80). 143 De continentia unitiva loquitur Dionysius V De divinis Nominibus quia continentia unitiva non est omnino eiusdem ita quod idem omnino contineat se unitive nec esse omnino manentium distincte; requirit ergo unitatem et distinctionem. (Reportatio II 16.1) See also PSEUDODIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA, De divinis nominibus, in Corpus Dionysiacum, I, ed. B.-R. SUCHLA (Patristische Texte und Studien 33), Berlin 1990, p. 180. . , , , ( ), . (De divinis nominibus V.1.8-13; PG 3 : 816B) 144 M. JUGIE, Theologia dogmatica, pp. 81-82. The Latin renderings of Palamas texts and quotations by Akindynus attributed to Palamas are as follows: aliud essentia Dei, et aliud ejus operatio; aliud ejus vita, et aliud eius sapientia; aliud bonitas, et aliud potentia. Habet Deus aliquid quod non est ejus essentia. This is the very point of departure for Duns. Jugie accuses Palamas of new ways of speaking for the terms: , , and . In fact, Palamas is simply exploiting Dionysius language. Even calling the divine attributes aliud et aliud is something taken from Dionysius in the same context. J. Demetracopoulos is more nuanced in his critique. He notes that indeed the terms themselves and phraseology are not unknown in Christian authors (viz., Ps.Denys). However, he agrees with M. Jugie to the extent that Palamas use of the terms cannot be strictly reconciled to Ps.-Denys. Thus, J. Demetracopoulos emphasizes that Proclus is a more satisfactory source with respect to Palamas. See DEMETRACOPOULOS, Palamas Transformed, in GLIH, pp. 265-268. 145 SCHOLARIUS, Distinction entre lessence divine et ses oprations, in OCGS III, p. 232. 146 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS, De divinis nominibus, in Corpus Dionysiacum 1, ed. B.-R. SUCHLA
108
Ronin William147 and David Bradshaw148 have proposed that Palamas was original in arguing that Dionysius and were essentially identified with the Cappadocian and Damascene 149. If this is correct, it is fascinating to see that in the West in the very same century the exact same synthesis is taking place in Duns Scotus! Scotus does not have the wealth of the Eastern tradition to seal his arguments by heavily basing them on the Fathers150. Instead, he differs from Palamas by employing syllogistic logic to support his reading of Dionysius and the Damascene151. All the same, I propose that Gennadius could have easily read Palamas and the Scotistic-Hervaeus as arguing the exact same position152. Dionysius emana(Patristische Texte und Studien 33), Berlin 1990, p. 181: , , , (De divinis nominibus V.1.16-21; PG 3: 816D-817A). 147 R. WILLIAM, The Philosophical Structure of Palamism, in Eastern Churches Review 9 (1977), pp. 27-44, at pp. 36-37. 148 D. BRADSHAW, Aristotle East and West. Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom, New York 2006, p. 269. 149 This reading is hardly original. Already, Mark Eugenicus had explicitly pushed this reading of Palamas several times in his first antirrhetic against Calecas. See EUGENICUS, On the Distinction between Essence and Energy: First Antirrhetic, pp. 166-167, 205. E.g.: , (p. 205, ll. 21-23). 150 This question, however, is not merely patristic. Mark Eugenicus is convinced that its veracity is a necessary interpretation of the analogy between divine and human hypostases, whose components (will, intellect), and divine and human natural operations (i.e. energies), were pronounced upon at Constantinople III. E.g. see EUGENICUS, On the Distinction between Essence and Energy: Second Antirrhetic, p. 6. He emphasizes: . (ll. 6-8); ibid., p. 15: [] , , . (ll. 1518); ibid., p. 40: [] , , . (ll. 3-6) Eugenicus (and later Gennadius as his disciple) utilized this analogy as authoritative in justifying the analogy of the soul as a perfect image applicable to the distinction of the divine energies in parallel fashion. Scotus would have presumably been pleased to have the support by the 6th Ecumenical Council (680-681), whose Exposition has been preserved in the Greek original. See Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, I, Georgetown 1990, p. 124. For the texts of Exposition of the Faith making a parallel between the distinction in divine and human nature and activity, see: COeD, pp. 128-130. 151 For example, see SCOTUS, Ioannis Duns, IV, p. 230 (Ord. I, d. 8, p. 1, q. 4; nos. 8-14). ven here he is inspired by the Damascene speaking about predication of attributes. 152 The most recent opinion on the subject affirms Scholarius intellectual sincerity in believing this represents a happy solution to the problem. See DEMETRACOPOULOS, Georgios Scholarios Gennadios II, in GGP (see the section: Werk und Lehre).
109
tiones () are equivalent to Damascenes operationes () for Duns Scotus153. He interprets Dionysius in the exact same fashion as he interprets the Damascene154. Scotus theology places him within the pale of Byzantine theology (at least on this point). He is also an apologist for the presentation of the divine essence as an immanent universal (haec essentia) in the line of St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. John Damascene155. Fortunately, this patristic affinity has received attention from Scotist scholars156. These studies do not hint at any interest (or awareness) of Scotus importance for the Palamite essence-energies debate. Because these authors lack any apologetic aims in order to demonstrate Scotus Eastern perspective, their arguments are all the more interesting for verifying Scotus Palamite pedigree. Richard Cross, when noting Gregory of Nyssas contribution to Trinitarian predication and
This explains Gennadius sincere belief that Scotus distinction was reconcilable to Palamas. 154 J.A. ERTSEN, Being and One: the Doctrine of the Convertible Transcendentals in Duns Scotus, in: E.P. BOS (ed.), John Duns Scotus (1265/6-1308): Renewal of Philosophy, Amsterdam 1998, pp. 25-26: Dionysius wants to make clear that all beings are in God, not, however, as they are in created things, where they possess diversity and plurality, but unitively. From the Dionysian idea Scotus framed the notion of unitive containment. He employs it in the discussion of the question concerning the relation between God and his many attributes, but also applies it to other problems. One of these is the relation between being and the convertible transcendentals. Scotus elaborates the concept of unitive containment in several passages of his work. What is unitively contained are not perfections that are altogether identical, for those are not united but are one. Union presupposes some distinction. Neither are perfections unitively contained that are really distinct in the sense that they are different res, because those are contained multipliciter or dispersim. The distinction presupposed by unitive containment is, as we have seen, a minor real difference, that is a difference not constituted by the intellect. Elsewhere Scotus calls this difference a formal distinction, because it exists between different formalitates or realitates, which are not things but quiddities independent of the intellect. Thus the model of unitive containment connects a real identity with a formal non-identity. These two features hold for the relation between being and the convertible transcendentals. Scotuss answer to the question whether the transcendental one expresses some other res than being is thus affirmative, provided that thing is understood in the sense of realitas or formalitas. 155 Most recently, Iribarrens conclusions have confirmed R. Cross argument when viewed under the optic of Hervaeus own synthesis of Aquinas and Duns on this question. See IRIBARREN, Durandus of St. Pourain, p. 73. 156 It seems that the modern ad fontes approach to Scotism (vis--vis the East) was inaugurated with CROSS Scotistic research. See R. CROSS, Perichoresis, Deification, and Christological Predication in John of Damascus, in Mediaeval Studies 62 (2000), pp. 69-124; Gregory Nyssa on Universals, in Vigiliae Christianae 56 (2002), pp. 372-410; Two Models of Trinity?, in Heythrop Journal 43 (2002), pp. 274-294; Duns Scotus on Divine Substance and the Trinity, in Medieval Philosophy and Theology 11 (2003), pp. 181-201.
153
110
the use of infinity in theology, notes that Scotus does not seem to know Gregory of Nyssa at all157. So how is it that he follows his theological line? Fortunately, the link has been secured in the theology of St. Gregory of Nanzianzus, especially when considering his Oration XXXI, nn. 12-20158. Gregory of Nanzianzus is the main source text for the Damascenes own Trinitarian predication159. The dependence is direct. Even if Scotus shows no personal knowledge of St. Gregory of Nazianzus in his works, his reliance on the Damascene forces him to reconcile the essence-energies distinction and problems of predication. Scotus relied directly and heavily on the Damascene as his point of departure for theologizing. He then uses his mastery of dialectics to find a way to justify his theological a priori thinking160. In contrast, Palamas is often assumed to invoke his theoptic experience as his authority. Clearly, Palamas mystical intuitions are commonly agreed to be an important guide and perhaps the regulatory idea in his theology of the immanent and economic Trinity. Yet, where does Palamas propose such an exact parallel interpretation of both the Damascene and Dionysius as Scotus? One clear example is had in his debate with Nicephoros Gregoras. Palamas does not argue from , rather he asserts his arguments based on his explicit reading of Damascene and Dionysius through the same optic161. He even argues from categorical predication162! In the
157 ID., Gregory Nyssa on Universals, in Vigiliae Christianae 56 (2002), pp. 372-410, at p. 410. He concludes by noting that the Damascene is Scotus access to Gregory of Nyssas thought. There is no evidence for it being direct. 158 I investigated this link by consulting B. Kotters critical text: JOHN DAMASCENE, Expositio fidei, ed. B. KOTTER (Patristische Texte und Studien 2), Berlin 1973, p. 29. Cfr. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS, Discours 31. Cinquime Discours thologique: Du Saint-Esprit, in Grgoire de Nazianze. Discours 27-31 (Discours thologiques). Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes (Sources chrtiennes 250), eds. P. GALLAY / M. JOURJON, Paris 1978, pp. 300-314. Along with CROSS (see footnote 156), I have detected no references to either Gregory of Nyssa or Gregory of Nazianzus in the philosophical and theological works of Scotus (incomplete) critical edition. Several volumes of Scotus theological opera omnia are still in need of correction and publication. 159 CROSS, Duns Scotus on Divine Substance and the Trinity, in Medieval Philosophy and Theology 11 (2003), pp. 181-201, at p. 183. 160 A. Wolter refers to this as Scotus theologic. Scotus concerns were, most likely, historically guided as a theologian. It is only later in life that he develops themes like the formal distinction to enter into his activities of pure philosophy. Wolter brings up the point of Duns theologic multiple times in: A. WOLTER, The Transcendentals And Their Function in the Metaphysics of Duns Scotus, St. Bonaventure 1946. 161 GEORGE FRACRASS, Narratio Brevis, Quantum possibile est, disputationis in palatio coram imperatore habitae, Domnum Gregorium Thessalonicensem inter et philosophum Gregoram, a quodam e selectis senatoribus qui praesens adfuit et propriis auribus audivit exarata, ed. M. CANDAL, in Orientalia Christiana Periodica 16 (1950), pp. 328-357. 162 See CANDAL, Fuentes palamticas, in Orientalia Christiana Periodica 16 (1950), pp. 303327, at p. 323. If Palamas is read to be logically consistent with his rejection of Gods attributes
111
debate, Gregoras is not refuted by an appeal to divine vision or personal spiritual authority. Instead, Palamas argues one thing is quality x and another thing is quality y163. This is merely a citation of the Damascene and an academic argument from some sort of predication. There is little doubt in this since Gregoras responses to Palamas are by way of references to either a nominalistic or analogical predication of the traits in question with respect to the divinity. In short, to my mind, this parallel between Scotus and Palamas can be argued as univocal predication in Palamas164. As such, it would be no surprise if Scholarius referred to Scotus as more Orthodox165 than Thomas Aquinas based upon these sorts of readings of the Greek
fitting into the genus of any of the nine predicaments (exempting substance), then a mental insight into the transcendental or meta-categorical attributes of God is a safe approach. He calls these attributes quasi-accidents. This reasoning could be based on the fact that there is something univocal in the formal concept of goodness between a categorical goodness and a trans-categorical goodness. By the Scoto-Dionysian interpretation, it would only be necessary to deny any limitation and imperfection to this attribute and then to modify it by the concept of infinite without contradiction (i.e. the two terms must be compossible). The result is a univocal modus intelligendi of the attribute and this expresses itself in the modus significandi even if the modus essendi is really different for both God and the creature. With this view in mind, Palamas can be argued to have simply taken his mystical insight and analyzed it with reference to the significatum of each term in question. This would simply be a sort of laymans logical attempt to avoid total equivocation. For a detailed discussion of Palamas own employment of the Categories in relation to his theology see: J.A. DEMETRACOPOULOS, , pp. 13-14; 49-63; 191-192. 163 First Palamas notices that operation and essence have a diverse definition in Expositio fidei I, 3 (PG 94: 1048A). He follows up later in the debate with Damascenes (I, 8-9) -Duns preferred texts distinguishing Gods activities from his essence. Palamas explicitly links this with PSEUDO-DENYS De divinis nominibus, 3 and 5. FRACASS, Narratio Brevis, in Orientalia Christiana Periodica 16 (1950), pp. 328-357, at pp. 330-334, 336-341, 346. 164 Scotus explicitly attributes his univocal predication to Dionysius, by way of a process. Scotus argues: [A]dducitur intentio Dionysii De divinis Nominibus, qui ponit tres gradus cognoscendi Deum, scilicet per eminentiam, per causalitatem, et per abnegationem; et ponit illam cognitionem per abnegationem esse ultimam, quando removentur a Deo omnia illa, quae sunt communia creaturis; ergo non intelligit ipse, quod aliquis conceptus, qui est abstractus a creaturis, remaneat in Deo, secundum quod fuit communis creaturae (Ord., I, d. 8, q. 3, n. 2). 165 But according to the designation of most of us, the more recent [Schoolmen] are more orthodox than Thomas; being that they are closer to us and to the truth; i.e., those surrounding the Master John Scotus (OCGS VI, Prooemium; p. 180, ll. 32-35; translation mine). In the same work, he also makes this affirmation about unnamed theologians in order to mitigate the criticism of Thomas Aquinas. He does not defend Thomas directly, but does defend (Thomas?) successors (viz., Hervaeus?) connected with his doctrine: [T]hey do not know that many from among the Latin magistri have laid down definitions more in harmony with Holy Gregory of Thessalonica and with our entire Church. [] It would not be just to despise these men, since they are most wise and have cast their lot on the side of our Church, being that they have distinctly thought it good to form a lofty opinion about these matters (OCGS VI, c. 94; p. 283, ll. 14-19; translation mine).
112
Fathers and fellow Palamites. Nonetheless, Scholarius approval of Scotus and his school does not constitute a direct dependence on Duns Scotus writings. This necessitates our mediator, Hervaeus. As Iribarren notes:
Hervaeuss affinity to Scotus is remarkable. Both theologians believe that the divine essence, as a singular being, is predicated by identity of the three persons without thereby incurring division. In this respect, Hervaeus explains the distinction between essence and relations as a non-converse identity, which, like the Scotist formal distinction, is based on a fundamental distinction between the reality and the formality of a thing166.
Scholars may not agree that Palamas allows for a consistent read with respect to his essence-energies distinction167. It would be unsurprising, therefore, if some will reject the thesis that Palamas can be read in harmony with Duns Scotus on this specific point (scil., the ad intra energies). Still, Gennadius reading of Palamas is a separate question. It is sufficient to say that Gennadius was apt to see the reconcilability between these two positions. Iribarrens point-by-point comparison of Scholastic authors in her recently published book on Durandus of Pourain also helps us solve many questions about Scholarius168. In short, Scholarius by using Hervaeus was able to preserve an approach that was both built upon Thomistic foundations and yet was capable of bridging the insurmountable gap between Thomism and Palamite Orthodoxy via the theology of the Subtle Doctor169.
IRIBARREN, The Scotist Background, pp. 626-627. For example, Williams usefully fills the opening pages of her work on Aquinas and Palamas with a summary of all the various positions and readings of Palamas on a variety of questions. See A. WILLIAMS, The Ground of Union. Deification in Aquinas and Palamas, Oxford 1999, pp. 8-27. Most recently, J. Demetracopoulos has challenged the assertion that there is any consistent reading of Palamas within the context of the Palamite tradition of the 14th and 15th centuries. He has even argued that Mark of Ephesus is not internally consistent with his own presentation of Palamas distinction as being a distinctio rationis or distinctio rationis cum fundamento in re. See DEMETRACOPOULOS, Palamas Transformed, in GLIH, pp. 263-372, at pp. 342-371. 168 E.g. IRIBARRENs demonstration of Hervaean hybrid-Thomism makes certain comments and critiques of Scholarius anachronistic. For example, Barbour wonders if Gennadius was confused about Thomism. Barbour has the impression (like some other 20th century authors) that Scholarius does not clearly understand the difference between the Thomistic and Scotistic school. See BARBOUR, Byzantine Thomism of Gennadios Scholarios, p. 78. In reality, it is modern scholars who have only begun to understand fully the free mixing and borrowing of Thomists from Scotus (and even early Franciscans from Thomas, e.g. Richard of Middleton). As such, Gennadius had a more accurate view of the Thomistic school of the 13th and 14th century than many 20th century scholars. 169 I would like to express my sincerest thanks to Rev. Dr. Peter Damian Fehlner, F.I., for his insights and suggested corrections, especially with respect to the Doctor Marianus. I would also like to thank Carol Kappes for her helpful suggested corrections contributing to clarity of expression of this papers English.
166 167
113
Abbreviations Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, EDB, Bologna 1991. A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages, Blackwell Publishing, eds. J. Garcia / T. Noone, Oxford 2003. GGP Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Begrndet von F. berweg. Die Philosophie des Mittelalters. I/1: Die byzantinische Philosophie, ed. G. Kapriev, Basel (forthcoming). GLIH Greeks, Latins, and Intellectual History 1204-1500, eds. M. Hinterberger / Ch. Schabel (Recherches de Thologie et Philosophie Mdivales. Bibliotheca, 11), Leuven 2011. IS Individuation in Scholasticism: The Later Middle Ages and the CounterReformation, 1150-1650, ed. J. Garcia, New York 1994. Lectura IOANNES DUNS SCOTUS, Ioannis Duns Scoti Doctoris Subtilis et Mariani opera omnia , Civitas Vaticana 1950-. N.b. This includes Books 1 and 2 of the Lectura (vols. XVI-XIX). Metaph. IOANNES DUNS SCOTUS, Quaestiones super libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis. Libri VI-IX, IV, St. Bonaventure N.Y. 1997. MNC W. GASS, Die Mystik des Nicolaus Cabasilas vom Leben in Christo, Leipzig 1899 (1st edition: 1849), pp. 217-225. NV Nach der Verurteilung von 1277. Philosophie und Theologie an der Universitt von Paris im letzten Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts Studien und Texte, eds. J.A. Aertsen / K. Emery, Jr. / A. Speer (Miscellanea Mediaevalia 28), Berlin 2000. OCGS GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS, Oeuvres Compltes de Georges Scholarios, I-VIII, eds. L. Petit / X. Sidrids / M. Jugie, Paris 1928-1935. Ord. IOANNES DUNS SCOTUS, Ioannis Duns Scoti Doctoris Subtilis et Mariani opera omnia, Civitas Vaticana 1950-. N.b. Vols. I and IV are part of the Ordinatio (Opus Oxoniense). PG Patrologiae Graecae Cursus Completus, ed. J.-P. Migne, Paris 1857-1866. Porphyrogenita Porphyrogenita. Essays on the History and Literature of Byzantium and the Latin East in Honour of Julian Chrysostomides, eds. Ch. Dendrinos / J. Harris / I. Harvalia-Crook / J. Herrin, London 2003. Quodlibet. Quodlibeta seu Quaestiones quodlibetales. Reportatio IOANNES DUNS SCOTUS, The Examined Report of the Paris Lecture: Reportatio IA. Latin Text and English Translation, I, St. Bonaventure 2004. RTPM Recherches de Thologie et Philosophie mdivales 74/2 (2007). Sent. Sententiae or any general Commentum in Sententias Petri Lombardi. SCG THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa contra Gentiles. Editio Leonina Manualis, Rome 1946. S.Th. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologiae, Torino 1999. TQMA Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages. II/2: the Fourteenth Century. Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages, ed. Ch. Schabel, Leiden 2007. Vat. Gr. Vaticanus Graecus. COeD CPMA
114

Aquinas and Scotus in 14th-15th Century Orthodoxy? Could Palamas Have Relied On A 14th Century Thomism?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aquinas and Scotus in 14th-15th Century Orthodoxy? Could Palamas Have Relied On A 14th Century Thomism?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHRISTIAAN W.

THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS

THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS

THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS

THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS

THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS

THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS

THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS

THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS

THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS

THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS

THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS

THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS

THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS

THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS

THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS

THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS

THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS

THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS

THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS

THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS

THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS

THE LATIN SOURCES OF THE PALAMITE THEOLOGY OF GEORGE-GENNADIUS SCHOLARIUS

You might also like