Archa Verbi 2 (2006) 55–73

Scholastic theology in the 12th century Latin West.

The Tractatus Invisibilia Dei

by LUISA VALENTE

Introduction
This article consists of two sections:
– in the first section I shall try to draw synthetically some of the salient
characteristics of the Latin scholastic theology of the 12th century as they
emerged in the research of the last 100 years;
– in the second section I shall focus on a single work, the treatise Invisi-
bilia Dei: dated between approximately 1150 and 1180, it sums up significant
traits of the scholastic theology of this period.

1. The main characteristics of 12th century scholastic theology

1.1. Early Scholasticism, Sprachlogik, Aetas Boethiana

Some pioneering studies written in the first half of the 20th century
launched several significant keywords describing the 12th century theology,
keywords which have not yet lost their heuristic force. I would like to con-
sider three of them here: ‘Early scholasticism’, ‘Logic and language’, ‘Bo-
ethian era’.
1.1.1. ‘Early scholasticism’1
In his Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode. Nach den gedruckten und unge-
druckten Quellen dargestellt, edited in Freiburg between 1909 and 1911, Martin
Grabmann described the 12th century as the ‘developing period’ of the ‘scho-
lastic method’, though it reached its maturity only in the following century
with Thomas Aquinas (II, p. 4). As the salient characteristic of the ‘scholastic
method’, Grabmann indicates the effort to reach knowledge of the truths of
faith mainly through a valorisation of philosophy (I, p. 36); according to the
great German historian, the kind of philosophical work which most marked
12th century theology was the dispute, which has been formalised through
the rediscovery of the whole of the Aristotelian Organon.
In 1933 Gérard Paré, Adrien Brunet and Pierre Tremblay published, in
the series of the Institut d’études médiévales in Ottawa, La renaissance du XIIe

1 I am not going to consider here the intrinsic complexity and ambiguity of the notion
‘scholastics’, nor its long and quite complicated history. See for these subjects QUINTO
2001.
56 Luisa Valente

siècle. Les écoles et l’enseignement.2 The title takes up the notion of ‘12th century
renaissance’ launched by Charles H. Haskins in his famous book published
in 1927.3 In the study of Paré, Brunet and Tremblay, the 12th century is de-
scribed as the period of development of the “school” culture: that is, the pe-
riod of development of the school as a concrete institution aimed at the con-
servation, transmission and increasing of knowledge. This institution flour-
ished in the towns, mainly around the cathedrals. It is in this context, these
authors assert, that one has to see the setting up of the teaching methods and
of the different literary genera which were to dominate for centuries the
‘scholastic’ culture.
Artur Landgraf published in 1948 the still very useful Einführung in die
Geschichte der theologischen Literatur der Frühscholastik.4 In this work, Landgraf
synthesizes the theological culture of this period by the formula Frühscholastik
– scholastique naissante, – ‘early scholastic’.5 This is characterised, according to
Landgraf, by the attitude of the magistri to go beyond the patristic inheritance
and to adopt new points of view while forming a school in which their teach-
ing could keep being alive and developing.6 12th century is also, according to
Landgraf, the age in which the application of dialectics to theology produced
the theological quaestio as an independent literary form deriving from the
practice of the disputes.
1.1.2. Sprachlogik
Grabmann also introduced another keyword to indicate one of the char-
acteristics of 12th century theological renaissance, namely the notion of
Sprachlogik, which we could translate ‘logic and linguistic’.7 By this formula

2 PARÉ/BRUNET/TREMBLAY 1933. The book is a thorough revision of a work written more

than 20 years before: ROBERT 1909.
3 HASKINS 1958. The notion of ‘renaissance’ keeps being fondamental for the studies on
12th century. See e.g. BENSON/CONSTABLE 1982 and WIELAND 1995.
4 L ANDGRAF 1948; updated and translated in French as L ANDGRAF/GEIGER/L ANDRY 1973.
5 According to L ANDGRAF/GEIGER/L ANDRY 1973, p. 24, Clemens Bauemker already used
this notion. In BAEUMKER 1923, we find ältere Scholastick as opposed to ausgebildete Scho-
lastik (p. 342f.), and werdende Scholastik, for the period between Boethius and Alain of
Lille, as opposed to the later entwickelte Scholastik (p. 369f.). MÜCKSHOFF 1940, p. 109f.,
uses Vorscholastik for the time of Beda and Petrus Damiani, and Frühscholastik for the
12th century.
6 P. 25.
7 See GRABMANN 1929b, p. 144: “Die scholastische Theologie ... hat für die Ausprägung
einer möglichst präzisen und korrekten theologischen Terminologie von der
Sprachlogik und auch von der Theorie der modi significandi einen ausgiebigen Ge-
brauch gemacht. Simon von Tournai z.B. hat in der Einleitung seiner ungedrukten
theologischen Summa eingehende sprachlogische Erörterungen gepflogen und über
die verschiedenen Formen der significatio sich ausgesprochen. Auch in den gleichfalls
ungedrukten Summen des Petrus von Capua, des Martinus von Cremona, des Marti-
nus de Fugeriis und besonders des Praepositinus ist für theologische terminologische
 Scholastic theology in the 12th century Latin West ... 57

he meant the great development of the artes sermocinales in this century,

mainly, of grammar and logic. This growth had so important consequences
also in the domain of theology that Nikolaus M. Häring could later talk of a
theologische Sprachlogik: ‘theological logic of language’.8 The linguistic reflec-
tion is described as being the central element of the ‘early scholastic’ also by
Ernst Schlenker in his book about the Summa of Alexander of Hales and its
sources, published in 1938,9 and in a number of articles written by Marie-
Dominique Chenu, also in the thirties.10
1.1.3. Aetas Boethiana
Finally, the same Marie-Dominique Chenu introduced the definition of
the 12th century philosophy and theology as a ‘Boethian age’: Aetas Boethi-
ana.11 Boethius’ theological Opuscula influenced the theology of 12th century
at least as much as his logical treatises and his Consolation of Philosophy did.
They helped to build up a pre-Aristotelian metaphysics which is a main part
of the speculative theology of the period. A metaphysics developed not only
in the commentaries to the Opuscula written by Thierry of Chartres and Gil-
bert of Poitiers, but also in a major part of the scholastic theology of the sec-
ond part of the century, mostly in the Porretan school, the school of Gilbert
of Poitiers. The cornerstone of this metaphysics is the distinction between the
composed and determinate being, the id quod est or subsistens, and the formal
components by which the determinate being is what it is: its id quo est or esse
or forma or subsistentia, according to Porretan terminology.

1.1.4. Conclusions about the notions of ‘Early scholasticism’,MMMMMM

‘Logic and language’, ‘Boethian era’
These three keywords – ‘Early scholasticism’, ‘Logic and language’, ‘Bo-
ethian era’ – which try to synthesise the main characteristics of the 12th cen-
tury scholastic theology should not be used too strongly and exclusively:
there were contacts between the scholastic and the monastic cultures; not ev-
ery magister in theology used the arts of language; a great part of the scho-
lastic theology of this period does not consist in a speculative theology
marked by dialectics and/or by Boethius, on which I am focusing my atten-
tion, but in collections of Patristic sentences,12 biblical exegesis,13 sermons,14

Untersuchungen zur Gottes- und Trinitätslehre die Sprachlogik herangezogen”; GRAB-

MANN 1951; GRABMANN 1940; but already DE GHELLINCK 1913.
8 HÄRING 1981.
9 SCHLENKER 1938.
10 Among others, CHENU 1935a and CHENU 1935b.
11 CHENU 1957, pp. 142–158.
12 E.g. Anselm of Laon.
13 On the biblical exegesis in 12th century see the classic LUBAC 1954–64 and DAHAN
1999.
14 L ONGÈRE 1983.
58 Luisa Valente

treatises about morality15 and sacraments,16 practical theological literature as

the distinctiones, the theological fallacies and the theological tropes.17
Nevertheless, the fecundity of the three formulae is proved by a great num-
ber of editions and studies published during the last 50 years which focused
on these three elements: schools, theology and language, Boethius’ reception.
I mean the fundamental book Arts du langage et théologie chez Abélard by Jean
Jolivet; many editions and analyses by Nikolaus M. Häring,18 the studies pro-
duces by Bruno Maioli, Lauge Olaf Nielsen and Klaus Jacobi about Gilbert
of Poitiers,19 Giuseppe Angelini’s about Prepositinus of Cremona,20 Mechthild
Dreyer’s about Nicolaus of Amiens,21 Sten Ebbesen’s about Steven Langton
and Andrea Sunesen,22 Alain de Libera’s about Alain of Lille.23 And we could
go on mentioning other studies and scholars. Besides these contributions
written by singular authors, we have now also a good number of collective
books which testify of the richness and the intrinsic value of 12th century
scholastic theology (and philosophy): this can no longer be seen as just a
preparation for the university scholastic.24
Concerning in particular the relations between arts of language and the-
ology, some conclusions have been reached by the recent studies:
– first, not only did 12th century theology use the flourishing arts of lan-
guage, but we can see also the opposite phenomenon: an autonomous tradi-
tion of reflecting about logic and semantics developed within the domain of
theology and influencing on the domain of the arts;
– second, the “theological linguistic” of the 12th century should not be
perceived as dependent on the reception of the logica nova, that is, of the re-
discovered Aristotelian Elenchi, Topics, and Analytics, as Martin Grabmann
thought and as we still sometimes can read: the theologische Sprachlogik mainly
developed on the basis of the logica vetus: Isagoge by Porphyrius, Cathegoriae,
De interpretatione and the relative Boethian commentaries combined with the
ontology and the logic proper to the Boethian Opuscula theologica.

15 L OTTIN 1942–1960.
16 See L ANDGRAF 1954–1955; MACY 1984; VAN DEN EYNDE 1949–1950 and 1951–1952; ROS-
IER-CATACH 2004.
17 See VALENTE 1997, chap. II, § 3.
18 In particular, the edition of the Opuscula commentaries by Thierry of Chartres and his
school, and by Gilbert of Poitiers: Theodoricus Comm. in Opuscula, Gilbertus Exp. in
Opuscula. Bibliography of articles and editions by N. M. HÄRING in Medieval Studies 44
(1982), pp. X-XVI.
19 MAIOLI 1979; NIELSEN 1976 and 1982; JACOBI 1995a, 1995b, 1996.
20 ANGELINI 1972.
21 NICOLAUS AMBIANENSIS Ars. See also DREYER 1994, 1996.
22 EBBESEN 1987; SUNESEN Hexaemeron.
23 DE LIBERA 1987.
24 See the issue n. 30 of the review Vivarium (1982), edited by William Courtenay and
dedicated at the notion of ‘nominalism’ in 12th century philosophy and theology;
BENSON/CONSTABLE 1982; JOLIVET/DE LIBERA 1987; DRONKE 1988; CRAEMER-RUEGENBERG/
SPEER 1994; BIARD 1999; BERNDT/BACHMANN/STAMMBERGER 2002; LUTZ-BACHMANN/FIDORA/
NIEDERBERGER 2004; SOLÈRE/VASILIU/GALONNIER 2005.
 Scholastic theology in the 12th century Latin West ... 59

2. The treatise Invisibilia Dei

2.1. Introduction

Tractatus Invisibilia Dei is a Porretan treatise which according to me summa-

rises those characteristics of the 12th century scholastic theology which I have
presented in the precedent section of this article.25 The treatise is found in
the ms. Arras, Bibliothèque Municipale 981 (399), ff. 85–95, sited after a se-
ries of works some of which written by Simon of Tournai (the commentaries
to the Symbolum Quicumque and the Creed of the Apostles). The work has been
edited by Häring in 1973. The editor considers this treatise as having a “high
intrinsic value”,26 and dates it around 1150. However, it seems to me that the
close similarities between this treatise and some Porretans works of the sec-
ond half of the century could suggest a later dating, in the years 60, 70 or
even 80.27
Generally Invisibilia Dei are interesting because it presents in a quite clear
and concise way a global concept of theology which is based on a coherent
combination of ontological, gnoseological, epistemological, logical and lin-
guistic theories. These theories follow evidently the philosophy of Gilbert of
Poitiers, but they also show a high degree of autonomy: the author directly
mentions logical texts of Boethius (the commentaries to the Porphyrian Isa-
goge and to De interpretatione), and uses sources which are common among
the Porretans but not traceable in Gilbert, like the Ps. Dyonisius. Moreover,
we find in Invisibilia Dei an echo of the exegetical theology inspired by Au-
gustine and cultivated in St. Victor.28
The treatise, for example, begins with two paragraphs concerning the
analogy between the created world and a book, an analogy, which is recur-
rent in the text. The created world, the author writes, is, like the book in the
vision of Ezechiel (Ez 2,9), “written inside and outside”: inside, so that the

25 On this treatise see NIELSEN 1976; COLISH 1979 and COLISH 1994, pp. 142–145; VALENTE
2000, pp. 156–163; VALENTE Logique, ch. I, § 2.2.
26 Ivi, p. 106.
27 Häring based its datation around 1150 on the fact that the work contains theses which
could not be sustained in public after the 1148 Reims councile, and on the fact that
the manuscript seems to derive from the middle of the century (see Invisibilia Dei,
pp. 106 and 116). But the same Häring points out that the treatise has many evident
parallels in the works of Porretan authors such as Simon of Tournai, Alain of Lille and
Evrard of Ypres, all active in the last three decades of the century. To bring into ac-
cordance these two facts, Häring assumes a written or oral common source which must
be Gilbert of Poitiers himself (Invisibila Dei, p. 115). The treatise also shows close anal-
ogies with Compendium logice Porretanum, which Häring did not know and which dates
to last three decades of 12th century.
28 Although the exegetical-symbolic approach to theology which is common among Vic-
torins differs from the scientific-systematic approach of the Porretans, some theoretical
contacts between the two ‘schools’ may be observed. For the analogies between the
works of Hugh of St. Victor and those of Alain of Lille see, e.g., POIREL 2005.
60 Luisa Valente

men can read in it using their intellect; outside, so that they can read in it
using their senses. Using the senses, the man turns outside to encounter the
visible things; using his intellect, he will catch, inside, the invisible things: that
is, the natures, the causes, the principles and the order of things, and will
enjoy them:
Invisibilia dei per ea que facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur (Rom I, 20). Li-
brum quemdam i.e. hunc sensibilem mundum sapientia conposuit
conpositumque homini legendum proposuit. Erat autem liber scriptus
intus et foris, ut uidelicet eum legeret intus, legeret foris: intus per in-
tellectum, foris per sensum et ut ingrederetur et egrederetur et
pasqua inueniret: egrederetur ad uisibilia per sensum, ingrederetur
ad inuisibilia per intellectum. Per sensum foras egreditur et pasqua
inuenit dum scilicet uisus colorem, auditus melodie dulcorem, olfac-
tus odorem, gustus saporem, tactus blandi corporis lenitatem unde se
pascit inuenit. Per intellectum intus ingreditur et pasqua inuenit re-
rum naturas causas principia cursusque et ordines mirabiliter a sa-
pientia dispositos inspiciendo et se delectabiliter de inuisibilibus refi-
ciendo.29
Now, this text presents strong analogies with a passage from Hugh’s of St.
Victor De sacramentis christianae fidei – the work which is contained in the same
manuscript which preserves Invisibilia Dei.30

29 Invisibilia Dei, p. 116. See also § 14, p. 118: “Scriptura extrinseca est in uisibilibus, in-
trinseca in inuisibilibus ut per uisibilia ueniretur ad inuisibilia. Hunc autem librum
quando scribebat, calamum in mente tingebat et ad similitudinem sui erum pingebat.
Creator enim rerum, quando librum suum i.e. hunc uisibilem mundum fecit, formam
secundum quam operaretur extra se non quesiuit sed ei sapientia sua exemplar fuit
iuxta cuius rationem opus suum peregit.” The expression calamum in mente tingebat is
referred to Aristote writing the De interpretatione in a topic formula quoted by CASSIO-
DORUS De artibus, p. 114, 21–22 and ISIDORUS Ethimologiae, II, 28, 3–4.
30 HUGO DE SANCTO VICTORE De sacramentis, I, 6, 5 (PL 176, 266C-D): “Anima autem ratio-
nalis idcirco duplici sensu instructa est, ut visibilia foris caperet per carnem et invisibi-
lia intus per rationem quatenus et visibilia et invisibilia ad laudem Creatoris illam ex-
citarent. Neque enim in omnibus operibus suis Deus a rationali creatura laudaretur, si
non opera Dei omnia a rationali creatura cognoscerentur. ... Sic itaque una creatura
erat cujus sensus totus intus erat, et alia creatura erat cujus sensus totus foris erat. Et
positus est in medio homo ut intus et foris sensum haberet. Intus ad invisibilia, foris
ad visibilia. Intus per sensum rationis, foris per sensum carnis, ut ingrederetur et con-
templaretur; et egrederetur et contemplaretur, intus sapientiam, foris opera sapientiae,
ut utrumque contemplaretur, et utrinque reficeretur; videret et gauderet, amaret et
laudaret. Sapientia, pascua intus erat; opus sapientiae, pascua foris erat. Et admissus
est sensus hominis ut ad utrumque iret, et in utroque refectionem inveniret. Iret per
cognitionem, reficeretur per dilectionem. Sapientia liber erat scriptus intus, opus sa-
pientiae liber erat scriptus foris.”
 Scholastic theology in the 12th century Latin West ... 61

2.2. Summary of the content

It is surely not possible here to sum up the whole content of the treatise
Invisibilia Dei. I shall merely try to present its structure and then I shall con-
centrate myself on two topics, which help to understand the strict interrela-
tion between theology and philosophy in this work.
The treatise can be divided in four parts, of different length.
The first part has the gnoseological character: here the author explains
how men, starting from considerations concerning the sensible world, can
ascend to a relative knowledge of God (§§ 1–33).
The second part has the ontological character: the author describes here
– using a complex theory of forms – the complexity of the created world as
opposed to the divine simplicity (§§ 33–39).
The third part is the longest, it occupies about 60 % of the text (§§ 40–
–125). We find here the “theological logic” of the treatise, which depends, of
course, on its ontology. Among many other subjects, the author analyses the
notion of privation (§ 53f.), the problem of the universals (§ 59f.), the logical
predication (§ 78f.), the theory of the transfer of meaning into the theologi-
cal language (§§ 100–101).
Only the fourth part is strictly speaking theological, it treats Trinity and
Christology (§§ 125–131).
As this short summary shows, Invisibilia Dei testifies of a very conscious
approach to the theological gnoseology: before discussing theological subjects
like trinity or incarnation, the author justifies his own method by indicating
how theology and its language are possible, and which are their limits, since
God is ineffable and a direct contact between men and divinity is impossible
– because every knowledge departs from the senses. In fact, for the author
of Invisibilia Dei theology cannot but have an intrinsic improper and negative
character.31

2.3. The theory of the three types of verba

The first topic which I would like to deepen is the theory of the three
types of verba. This theory is exposed in the first part of the treatise and is
strictly connected with the conceptions of creation and of the sensible beings
as composed of form and substratum.
Paragraphs 12 and 13 explain how man can ascend from the knowledge
of the effects (e.g., the coloured thing) to the knowledge of their causes (e.g.,
the colours), and how the sensible world is the effect of the insensible causes
or forms. The descriptions of causes, contends the anonymous author, are
given on the base of their effects.32 The colour for example is the property

31 Invisibilia Dei, § 115, p. 141f.

32 In the preceding paragraph the anonymous author exposed in an astonishingly clear
way the difference between the order of the existence (or of the nature of the things)
and the order of the human intelligence of them. This difference was later fundamen-
62 Luisa Valente

by the participation of which something is coloured. The first things are dem-
onstrated by the second ones, as the colour, which is shown by the coloured
thing. Those things in fact which are nearer to the senses are nearer to the
intellectual comprehension. Every concept draws its origin from the sense:
Inde est quod descriptiones causarum dantur secundum suos effec-
tus. Verbi gratia, color est proprietas participatione cuius aliquid est
coloratum. Prima igitur demonstrantur per secunda ut color ostendi-
tur per coloratum. Que namque sunt sensui uiciniora, intellectui sunt
propinquiora. Omnis enim intellectus principium suum trahit a
sensu. Percipiendi namque occasionem sumit ab eo. Verbi gratia, res
colorata primo uisu percipitur et deinde ad percipiendam rei colorate
causam i.e. colorem intellectus inuitatu.33
The first things are understood through the second ones, the unknown
through the known, the intelligible through the sensible. Through the sen-
sible things we reach the visible forms and through these we reach the intel-
ligible causes. God, first cause and cause of all causes, composed this visible
world as a book with two scriptures, one is intrinsic, the other one extrin-
sic:
Prima igitur per secunda, ignota per nota, intelligibilia per sensibilia
capiuntur. Per res enim uisibiles uenitur ad uisibiles formas et per
uisibiles formas ad intelligibiles causas. Prima igitur omnium causa-
rum causa, causa causalissima ceterarum genitrix causarum, deus
uidelicet, sicut dictum est, librum quendam i.e. hunc sensibilem mun-
dum composuit in quo duplicem scripturam contexuit: scripturam
extrinsecam et intrinsecam.34
We have then the following series of elements, which describes all be-
ings:
1) The visible things, exempla, starting point for man to achieve step by
step the relative knowledge of God;
2) the visible forms, which are caused by the invisible forms;
3) the invisible causes, which are said exemplaria;
4) God, cause of all causes.

tal for Thomas Aquinas. On the first level, causes are prior to effects and effects pos-
terior to causes. On the second level, on the contrary, causes are posterior to effects
and effects prior to causes: Invisibilia Dei, § 11, p. 118: “Dicendum est hoc in loco quo-
niam duo sunt ordines: ordo existendi et ordo intelligendi. In ordine existendi omnis
causa prior est suo effectu naturaliter et omnis effectus sua causa posterior naturaliter.
In ordine intelligendi econtra quia quod prius est naturaliter, posterius est intellectua-
liter et quod posterius naturaliter, prius est intellectualiter. Prior est ergo causa suo
effectu natura sed posterior intelligentia. Et effectus posterior est sua causa natura sed
prior intelligentia ut color causa est colorati et coloratum est effectus coloris. Estque
color colorato prior natura et coloratum colore prius intelligentia.”
33 Invisibilia Dei, § 12, p. 118.
34 Invisibilia Dei, § 13, p. 118.
 Scholastic theology in the 12th century Latin West ... 63

The created world, exemplum, is formed, as stated in § 17, by resemblance

with the exemplaria: the invisible forms, which constitute God’s wisdom. The
process is exemplified by the analogy with the production of an object by an
artisan. Before making the object, the artisan conceives the project in the
uterus of his mind.
As Anselm of Canterbury,35 the author of Invisibilia Dei interprets the tra-
ditional analogy between creation by God and handmaking by an artisan36
using the Augustinian notion of the inner discourse pronounced at the bot-
tom of the heart: as an object produced by an artisan, before being produced,
is ‘pronounced’ inside the heart, the world, before being created, was in the
mind of God as cogitationes, uerba, ydeae, formae, divinae precognitiones:
Sapientia itaque dei exemplar est. Mundus uero eius exemplum est
quia ad eius similitudinem est formatus. Inde Boethius ad deum dicit:
Tu cuncta superno / ducis ab exemplo pulchrum pulcherrimus ipse /
mundum mente gerens similique ymagine formans.37 Vide exemplum
de artifice. Artifex uolens aliquid facere prius in mentis sue utero
cogitationem concipit et deinde secundum formam concepte cogita-
tionis opus suum disponit. Antequam aliquid faciat, mentem suam
interrogat et iuxta mentis sue responsa consummat opera sua.38
Vt enim ait quidam: Inicium omnis operis uerbum (Eccli. XXXVII,
20). Enimuero quicquid fit ab artifice, primo dicitur in corde quam
fiat in opere. Nam ex motu mentis pendet motus corporis. Secundum
hunc modum faber mundi deus fecit opus suum. In mente diuina
quasdam ydeas i.e. formas philosophi esse uoluerunt secundum quas
deum operari dixerunt. Hee autem nichil aliud sunt quam diuine
precognitiones39 que sunt harum uisibilium formarum matres. Ab illis
enim iste uenerunt talesque foras iste apparuerunt quales ille eas ge-
nuerunt.40
Further, the treatise proposes three analogies which help to illustrate how
men, through an attentive “reading” of the world – “the visible scripture” –
can arrive to know the “invisible writer”, that is, the Creator. These analogies
are the mirror, the word (verbum), and the signs perceived by the soul:

35 ANSELMUS CANTUARIENSIS Monologion, 10, p. 24, 24–29: “Illa autem rerum forma, quae
in eius ratione res creandas praecedebat: quid aliud est quam rerum quaedam in ipsa
ratione locutio, veluti cum faber facturus aliquod suae artis opus prius illud intra se
dicit mentis conceptione? Mentis autem sive rationis locutionem hic intelligo, non cum
voces rerum significativae cogitantur, sed cum res ipsae vel futurae vel iam existentes
acie cogitationis in mente conspiciuntur.”
36 Cf. e.g., AUGUSTINUS De trinitate, XV, 11 (p. 489, 57–73) and In Iohannem, I, 9 (p. 5,
1–16.)
37 See BOETHIUS Consolatio, III 9, 6–8, p. 80, 6–8.
38 Invisibilia Dei, § 17, p. 119.
39 See ALANUS Summa, p.126; BOETHIUS Consolatio, V, 5, p. 147.
40 Invisibilia Dei, § 18, p. 119.
64 Luisa Valente

Euidenter ergo relucet quod per uisibilis libri i.e. mundi scripturam
uisibilem ad scribam uenitur inuisibilem. Quod triplici exemplo po-
test manifeste ostendi. Primum sit de speculo, secundo de uerbo, ter-
cium de animo.41
After discussing the mirror, in § 27 the author considers the verbum. Ac-
cording to Boethius, the text says, the verbum is threefold: written, pro-
nounced, and conceived. The written signifies the pronounced, the pro-
nounced the conceived. The written is perceived by the sight and is the ‘vis-
ible scripture’. The pronounced verbum is perceived by the hearing and it is
the spoken word (vox). The verbum in the intellect is conceived by the mind
and it is the knowledge (cognitio):42
Nunc de uerbo exemplum ponatur. Secundum Boethium triplex est
uerbum: uerbum scriptum, uerbum prolatum, uerbum intellectum.
Quorum primum significat secundum, secundum tercium. Verbum
scriptum est illud quod uisu percipitur i.e. scriptura uisibilis. Verbum
prolatum est illud quod auditu percipitur i.e. uox. Verbum intellec-
tum est illud quod in mente concipitur i.e. cognitio.43
The words then, it is said in § 28, were instituted to express the human
concepts (intellectus). Using the words we open our souls as if they were a sort
of keys. As the concepts of the mind (conceptus mentis), that is, the verba con-
ceived in the mind, are expressed through the spoken words (vocibus), in the
same way the invisible word (invisibile verbum) which creates all things is re-
vealed through the visible verba, that is, the visible creatures:
Ad exprimendos autem humanos intellectus uoces sunt institute. Sicut
enim quibusdam clauibus ita ipsis uocibus animos aperimus. Quemad-
modum itaque conceptus mentis i.e. uerba in mente concepta uocibus
demonstrantur sic inuisibile uerbum per quod facta sunt omnia uisi-
bilibus uerbis i.e. uisibilibus operibus reuelatur.44
In the distinction between the three types of verba and in the parallel be-
tween pronunciation of an interior verbum and the creation we can see the
integration of the logica vetus into the context which is dominated by the Au-
gustinian theory of the verbum cordis.45 The analogy between inner word and
the divine, generated word that is the creator of all things is the principal
element of the famous Book XV of Augustine’s De trinitate. In chapter 11, for

41 Invisibilia Dei, § 25, p. 121.

42 About the notion of the ‘inner word’ in medieval philosophy and theology see ARENS
1980, MAIERÙ 1996 and 1999, PANACCIO 1999, and VALENTE Verbum (all with bibliogra-
phies).
43 Invisibilia Dei, § 27, p. 121.
44 Invisibilia Dei, § 28, p. 121.
45 On this notion in Augustine and the medieval use of it see at least the classic ARENS
1980, VECCHIO 1994, and the studies quoted above at the note 42.
 Scholastic theology in the 12th century Latin West ... 65

example, Augustine writes that, as the divine word makes all things, so there
exists no human product which would not have been spoken inside the heart
before being produced:
Animaduertenda est in hoc aenigmate etiam ista uerbi dei similitudo
quod sicut de illo uerbo dictum est: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, ubi
deus per unigenitum uerbum suum praedicatur uniuersa fecisse, ita
hominis opera nulla sunt quae non prius dicantur in corde. Vnde
scriptum est: Initium omnis operis uerbum. Sed etiam hic cum uerum
uerbum est, tunc est initium boni operis.46
The analogy between human inner word and the creating word of God
is used in the 12th century by Peter Abelard47 and Hugh of St. Victor, whom
we have already mentioned with regard to notion of the world as a book. For
example, Hugh writes in his De sacramentis christianae fidei that
As the thinking (cogitatio) of men is like his intrinsic word, which stays
hidden until revealed by the prolation of the mouth ... so God’s inte-
rior and occult and invisible word is the word of his heart; and this
word was his wisdom and it was invisible until it has been manifested
by an extrinsic and visible word, which is his work.48
On the other hand, the theory of the three types of verba as it is presented
in Invisibilia Dei explicitly depends on the Boethian commentary on De inter-
pretatione. In a famous and much discussed passage, Boethius attributes to
some Peripatetics the thesis, extrapolated from Aristotle, which states that
there are three ‘discourses’ (orationes): one which can be written by letters,
one which can be proffered by the voice, one which is constituted by the
thought (cogitatione) and which consists of concepts (intellectibus); there are

46 AUGUSTINUS De trinitate, XV, 11 (p. 489, 57–63).

47 Cf. PETRUS ABAELARDUS In Hexaemeron, pp. 16–18; cf. also his THEOLOGIA SCHOLARIUM,
p. 342f., 673–693.
48 HUGO DE SANCTO VICTORE De sacramentis, I, 3, 20 (PL 176, 225B): “Nam sicut sapientia
hominis non videtur nisi ab ipso homine donec exeat et manifestetur per verbum, ita
sapientia Dei invisibilis fuit et non potuit cognosci nisi ab ipso solo cujus erat, donec
manifestata est per opus suum. Et erat ipsa sapientia verbum. Sed quasi verbum in-
trinsecum et absconditum quod omnino sciri non posset nisi per verbum extrinsecum
manifestaretur; quemadmodum cogitatio hominis quasi intrinsecum verbum illius est
quod latet et absconditum est donec reveletur per prolationem oris; et est ipsa prolatio
vocis verbum similiter ut verbum est cogitatio cordis; sed verbum quod manifestum est
prodit et revelat verbum quod occultum est: sic et in Deo verbum intrinsecum et oc-
cultum et invisibile verbum fuit cordis ejus; et sapientia erat hoc verbum et invisibile,
donec manifestatum est per verbum extrinsecum quod visibile factum est, quod erat
opus ejus. Sicut per verbum oris manifestatum est verbum cordis; sic loquitur omnis
natura ad auctorem suum, et indicat quod factum est opificem intelligendi sensum ha-
bentibus” (I have changed the punctuation). On the notion of inner word in Hugh of
Saint Victor see VALENTE Verbum.
66 Luisa Valente

names and verbs which are written, names and verbs which are said, and
names and verbs which are ‘treated by the silent mind’.49 We can then see in
the Invisibila Dei a conscious and explicit intention to combine the Augustin-
ian tradition of the inner word and the logical tradition of Aristotle and Bo-
ethius.50 It is not insignificant that in Invisibilia Dei the term oratio which is
used in the corresponding text from Boethius commentary on De interpreta-
tione, is substituted by the term verbum: instead of the tres orationes mentioned
by Boethius, the anonymous author speaks of triplex verbum.51

2.4. The theory of the universals

The second topic which I would like to analyse is the theory of the uni-
versals as exposed in Invisibilia Dei. Here too ontology and language analysis

49 BOETHIUS Comm. Peri H., IIa ed., 36; (PL 64, 407): “Unde illud quoque ab Aristotele
fluentes Peripatetici rectissime posuere, tres esse orationes, unam quae scribi possit lit-
teris, alteram quae voce proferri, tertiam quae cogitatione connectitur, unamque intel-
lectibus, alteram voce, tertiam litteris contineri. ... Quod si tres orationes sunt, partes
quoque orationis triplices esse nulla dubitatio est. Quare quoniam verbum et nomen
principaliter orationis partes sunt, erunt alia verba et nomina quae scribantur, alia quae
dicantur, alia quae tacita mente tractentur. ... Nam sicut vocalis orationis verba et no-
mina conceptiones animi intellectusque significant, ita quoque verba et nomina illa
quae in solis litterarum formulis jacent illorum verborum et nominum significativa sunt
quae loquimur, id est quae per vocem sonamus.” For a discussion of this Boethian text
see MAGEE 1989, pp. 118–141; EBBESEN 1991, p. 153; MAIERÙ 1996, p. 76f.; MEIER-OESER
1997, p. 40f.; PANACCIO 1999, pp. 134–137. This text raises the following problem: does
the Boethian threefold distinction imply the theory of the thought as an interior non-
linguistic discourse composed by components similar to names and verbs, but indepen-
dent from any historical language? Or does Boethius mean by the oratio cogitatione con-
necta just a silent representation of an already linguistically formed discourse? John
Magee states that for Boethius “the inner locution is evidently not translinguistic”. Al-
fonso Maierù and Sten Ebbesen contend that, since Boethius’ text is not clear enough,
judgement should probably be suspended. Claude Panaccio, on the contrary, asserts
that Boethius clearly identifies the ‘intellect’s discourse’ with the Aristotelian concep-
tions of the mind, which are the same for all and previous to any linguistic instance,
so that we can speak for Boethius of a ‘translinguistic’ theory of the intellectual dis-
course. The same position is asserted by Stephan Meier-Oeser.
50 For a similar intention in Anselm of Canterbury and Peter Abelard see VALENTE Ver-
bum.
51 We find the same substitution of the Boethian threefold oratio by the threefold verbum
– but more than fifty years later – in the De universo of William of Auvergne (I, 20);
and even then it is to be considered remarkable and exceptional. Cf. PANACCIO 1999,
p. 161f. The interpretation of the Boethian threefold oratio as a description of the rep-
resentation by written and vocal words of cognition conceived as an inner discourse
becomes common in the 14th century. Mentioned by Burley and Campsall, it is funda-
mental for William of Ockham. But occasionally we find this interpretation also in the
13th century, e.g. in the Pseudo-Kilwardby’s commentary on Priscian and in Roger Ba-
con. See PANACCIO 1999, pp. 161, n. 1, 171, 235, and 241f.
 Scholastic theology in the 12th century Latin West ... 67

are inseparable. The author begins with § 59 with the lapidary assertion that
“everything is singular, nothing is universal”: “Omnis res est singularis. Nulla
res est uniuersalis”. This holds not only for the beings which are composed
of forms and substratum (quod subest), but also for the substantial forms (quod
inest) and for the accidental forms (quod adest).52 In other words: not only ev-
ery single, determinate and composed being, for example, a man, is singular,
but also every substantial form, and every accidental form of every single be-
ing is singular and different from every other form of the same or of any
other being. This means that there is a singular humanity for every single
man, which is different from humanity of any other man; and a singular
whiteness for each singular white being which is different from any other
whiteness:
Post premissa sciendum est quod omnis res est singularis. Nulla res
est uniuersalis. Sicut enim Petrus singulariter est unus homo, singu-
lariter unum animal, sic singulariter est una essentia qua ipse est
homo, singulariter est una essentia qua ipse est animal. Quod auctori-
tate monstrandum est. Quodam in loco dicit Boethius: Quicquid est,
ideo est quia unum numero est. Que uniuersitas non est uaga sed est
rebus subiectis acconmoda. Itaque si omne quod subest est unum nu-
mero et omne quod est unum numero est singulare, omne ergo quod
subest est singulare et ita nichil quod subsit est uniuersale.53
Nunc de predicabilibus ponatur auctoritas. De quibus dicit Boethius:
Quicquid est in singulari, est singulare. Si autem omne quod est in
singulari est singulare, ergo nichil quod insit est uniuersale. Sed omne
quod inest, est singulare. Hiis duabus auctoritatibus patet quod omne
quod subest et omne quod inest et omne quod adest est singulare.54
The two authorities mentioned here as Boethian are diffused in the Por-
retan milieu and in the Boethian theology of the 12th century. The first one
– “Quicquid est ideo est quia unum numero est” – is a literal quotation from
the second commentary by Boethius on Porphyrius’s Isagoge55 and it is used

52 In Invisibilia Dei the verb inesse is used to express the ‘inherence’ of the substantial
forms in the subsistent things, while adesse is used to express the ‘adherence’ of the ac-
cidental forms in the subsistent things: Invisibilia Dei, § 52, p. 127: “Habemus nunc
sufficientem de rebus naturalibus distinctionem quarum quedam subsunt, quedam in-
sunt, quedam assunt. Res subiecte subsunt, substantiales proprietates insunt, acciden-
tales assunt. Petrus subest, corporalitas inest Petro, albedo adest non inest Petro.” This
technical use of the verbs inesse and adesse is quite different from the one proposed by
Gilbert of Poitiers in his commentaries on Boethius: for Gilbert, both substantial and
accidental forms insunt in the subsistent things, while both adsunt each to the prior
forms (prior in generality, not temporally) in order to constitute the complete form of
the subsistent thing. See MAIOLI 1979, pp. 296–298.
53 Invisibilia Dei, § 59, p. 128.
54 Invisibilia Dei, § 60, p. 128f.
55 BOETHIUS Comm. Isagoge, p. 221f.
68 Luisa Valente

also in the commentaries on the Opuscula theologica by Thierry of Chartres

and his school, by William of Conches, a commentator of the Consolation of
Philosophy, by Alain of Lille and Simon of Tournai, and later by Gundissalinus
in his De unitate et uno and by the author of the De causis primis et secundis.56
The second authority – “Quidquid est in singulari, est singulare” – not only
does not seem to be authentically Boethian, but it also contradicts the Bo-
ethian philosophy of singularity and individuality. Boethius, in fact, speaks of
a qualitas communicata and universalis which is one and completely present
(tota) in each single individual of the same species, while the individuals are
individualized only by the accidents.57 The formula “Quidquid est in singu-
lari, est singulare”, which the author of Invisibilia Dei attributes to Boethius,
does not express the real theory of Boethius, but could be deduced from the
formula “quidquid est, singulare est”, which can be found in Gilbert’s of
Poitiers Commentary on the Boethian Contra Eutichen.58 In the form “Quidquid
est in singulari, est singulare”, it is also used by Everard of Ypres in his Dia-
logus Ratii et Evererdi59 and by Alain of Lille in his Summa Quoniam homines.60
Let us come back to the Invisibila Dei. In the § 61 we find the rational
demonstration of the thesis that everything is singular: that is, not only the
composed beings – in the Gilbert’s terminology, the subsistentia (pl. of sub-
sistens) but also the forms – subsistentiae (pl. of subsistentia) The demonstration
is based on the thesis that if form were common to more singulars, it would
be impossible to see the relation of similarity between two beings in this re-
spect, since the similarity is a relation between different beings:
Quod iterum (scil.: quod omne quod subest et omne quod inest et
omne quod adest est singulare) ratione potest probari hoc modo: Al-
bedo est in Petro. Albedo est in Paulo. Eadem uel alia. Si eadem, ergo
eadem similitudine uel eodem numero. Tot enim modis idem dicimus
et non pluribus. Si eadem similitudine, ergo alia albedo est in Petro,
alia in Paulo. Nichil ergo quod sit in Petro est in Paulo. Et ita alia al-
bedo est in uno et alia in altero. Si eadem numero albedo est in Petro
et in Paulo, ergo Petrus non est similis Paulo in albedine. Similitudo
namque diuersorum est et ex diuersis causis. Inde est quod non pos-
sum dici similis esse corpori meo in albedine nec similis spiritui meo
in rationalitate. Eadem enim singulariter albedine qua ego sum albus
corpus meum est album. Et eadem singulariter rationalitate qua ego
sum rationalis spiritus meus rationalis est.61

56 For the detailed references see VALENTE Names.

57 See BOETHIUS De Trinitate, 1, p. 168, 56–63; BOETHIUS Comm. Peri H., (PL 64, 462D and
464). On Boethius’s theory of individuality see GRACIA 1988, pp. 65–121.
58 Invisibilia Dei, § 29, p. 270.
59 EVRARDUS YPRENSIS Dialogus, p. 263.
60 ALANUS AB INSULIS Summa, pp. 172f., 192.
61 Invisibilia Dei, § 61, p. 129. The idea that the similarity between more beings presup-
pose their numerical non-identity is clearly expressed by Gilbert of Poitiers in his Com-
 Scholastic theology in the 12th century Latin West ... 69

Ontology which states the singularity of every being – form or composed

being – involves a non-realist theory of the universal, since every realist the-
ory assumes the existence of res which is a universal common to more beings.
In § 62 the author of Invisibilia Dei affirms clearly that ‘no thing is universal’,
and then asks what one should think of the universals genus, species, differen-
tia, proprium and accidens (the Porphyrian preadicabilia). One has to say first
that no universal is ‘one thing’ (unum), but that every universal is ‘a multiplic-
ity of things’ (plura):
Apparet itaque quod omnis res que subest et que inest et que adest
est singularis. Nulla ergo res est uniuersalis. Quid ergo dicturi sumus
de his uniuersalibus: genus species differentia proprium accidens?
Dicendum est itaque quod nullum uniuersale est unum sed plura.62
The universal, as the author of Invisibilia Dei wishes to demonstrate, is a
multiple cause of similar effects. As asserted in § 64, in the supposed things
(res subiectae: that is, the determined and composed beings) there are many
properties. Some of them have similar effects, other dissimilar. The proper-
ties which have similar effects are those which make similar to each other the
objects in which they are, like those essences which make some beings men
or some beings white. In fact, the substantial forms, i.e., ‘humanities’, make
men to be men likewise, and the accidental forms ‘whitnesses’ make the white
objects to be white the same way. The properties or forms, then, which pro-
duce similar effects are ‘collected’ in one universal (in unum uniuersale colli-
guntur). As many men who live together in the same country are a nation,
and many soldiers who serve under one commander are an army, so many
predicables that operate in a similar way are one universal:
In his rebus que subiecte sunt diuersas esse proprietates superius dic-
tum est. Quarum quedam habent similes effectus, quedam dissimiles.
Ille proprietates similes habent effectus que assimilant subiecta in qui-
bus sunt ut ille essentie quibus aliqua sunt homines: faciunt namque
illa similiter homines, et ille quibus aliqua sunt alba: faciunt namque
illa similiter alba (my punctuation). Proprietates itaque similium ef-
fectuum in unum uniuersale colliguntur. Sicut enim plures homines
simul habitantes propter ciuilem rationem sunt unus populus et
plures milites sub uno duce militantes sunt unus exercitus sic plura
predicabilia similiter operantia sunt unum uniuersale.63
In the following paragraph the author concludes with his definition of an
universal: an universal is ‘a collection of singular properties which have sim-
ilar effects’:

mentary on the Boethian De trinitate, p. 72: “Sed quamuis conformes tamen diuersas –
immo quia conformes ergo numero diuersas.”
62 Invisibilia Dei, § 62, p. 129.
63 Invisibilia Dei, § 64, p. 129f.
70 Luisa Valente

Que uero dissimiliter operantur, in unum uniuersale non congregan-

tur: sicut ille essentie quibus aliqua sunt homines et ille quibus aliqua
sunt asini. Vnde quia illud singulare quo Petrus est homo non habet
conformem effectum cum illo quo brunellus est asinus, neque hoc
dicere 〈 possumus? 〉 hominum alius est Petrus, alius est brunellus.
“Alius” enim nota est distributionis que non potest esse nisi inter res
eiusdem generis. ... Collectio itaque singularium similes effectus ha-
bentium sunt unum uniuersale.64
The thesis that everything is singular and the thesis that a universal is a
collection of properties based on the similarity in their effects come surely
from Gilbert of Poitiers. His ontology is in fact centred on the notion of the
‘singularity’ of all beings and the theory of the universal as a ‘collection’ of
forms based on their ‘conformity’ and ‘similarity’.65
Commenting on a passage from the Contra Eutichen concerning the dis-
tinction between universal and singular substances,66 for example, Gilbert
states clearly that:
Quicquid enim est, singulare est. Sed non: quicquid est, indiuiduum
est. Singularium namque alia aliis sunt tota proprietate sua inter se
similia. Que simul omnia conformitatis huius ratione dicuntur ‘unum
diuiduum’: ut diuersorum corporum diuerse qualitates tota sui specie
quales. Alia uero ab aliis omnibus aliqua sue proprietatis parte dissi-
milia. Que sola et omnia sunt huius dissimilitudinis ratione indiuidua:
ut hic lapis hoc lignum hic equus hic homo.67

64 Invisibilia Dei, § 65, p. 130.

65 On the theory of universal in Gilbert of Poitiers and in his school see MAIOLI 1974, pp.
302–349; MAIOLI 1979, p. 341f.; DE LIBERA 1997, p. 170f.; NIELSEN 1976, p. 45f.; MARTIN
1983, p. XLIf.; ERISMANN 2005; VALENTE Realismo. On the difference between the no-
tions of singularity and individuality in Gilbert of Poitiers see, beside the mentioned
studies, also GRACIA 1988, pp. 155–178, and JACOBI 1996.
66 See BOETHIUS Contra Eutychen, 2, p. 214, 153–162: “Rursus substantiarum aliae sunt
universales, aliae particulares. Universales sunt quae de singulis praedicantur, ut homo,
animal, lapis, lignum ceteraque huiusmodi quae vel genera vel species sunt; nam et
homo de singulis hominibus et animal de singulis animalibus lapisque ac lignum de
singulis lapidibus ac lignis dicuntur. Particularia vero sunt quae de aliis minime praedi-
cantur, ut Cicero, Plato, lapis hic unde haec Achillis statua facta est, lignum hoc unde
haec mensa composita est.”
67 Invisibilia Dei, §. 29f., p. 270. Cf. GILBERTUS Expositio in Opuscula, Ex. in De trinitate I,
p. 72, § 11f.: “Nam secundum naturalium rationem – que est: numero diuersorum
diuersas numero esse naturas – contra euenit [sc. contra rationem theologicam] ut:
‘Plato est homo, Cicero est homo, Aristotiles est homo, igitur Plato et Cicero et Aristo-
tiles sunt tres homines non unus singularitate subsistencie homo’. Cum enim dicitur:
‘Plato est homo, Cicero est homo, Aristotiles est homo’, non solum de alio sed et sin-
gularitate sui aliud dicitur secunda affirmatione quam prima et aliud tercia quam prima
uel secunda. Quamuis enim secunda et tercia prime praedicatiuum reppetant nomen,
rem tamen predicatam non reppetunt. Sed quamuis conformes tamen diuersas – immo
 Scholastic theology in the 12th century Latin West ... 71

Gilbert thinks that universals are “collections” of abstract forms which are
put together on the basis of a ‘conformity’ between each other: this “confor-
mity” allowing the beings in which the forms are to be similar under that
respect. Thus, for example, the following passage, quoted from the commen-
tary on Boethius’s Contra Eutichen:
Genus uero nichil aliud putandum est nisi subsistentiarum secundum
totam earum proprietatem ex rebus secundum species suas differenti-
bus similitudine comparata collectio. Qua similitudinis comparatione
omnes ille subsistentie dicuntur “unum uniuersale unum diuiduum
unum commune unum genus una eademque natura”.68
But it is evident that the theory of universal sketched in Invisibilia Dei is
closer to the Porretan works of the second half of the century than to the
commentaries on Boethius by Gilbert of Poitiers. And, what is more impor-
tant, Invisibilia Dei as well as the other Porretan texts deepen, clarify and
partly modify Gilbert’s theory. For example while Gilbert was more con-
cerned with the c o n f o r m i t y between the forms themselves, the Porretans
stressed the importance of the similarity i n t h e i r e f f e c t s, as we can see
in the Compendium logicae Porretanum, a logical treatise to be connected to the
Porretan secta which has been dated within the last three decades of 1100:
Ratio quare dicatur omne universale esse plura singularia. Duo sunt
genera rerum: unum quod est eorum que subsunt, secundum quod
est eorum que insunt. Sicut ergo omne, quod subest, causam existendi
assumit ab eo, quod ei inest, eodem modo omne quod inest causam
existendi assumit ab eo, quod est suus effectus. Nulla enim forma est
in subsistere ociosa. Sicut aliquid est quale a participatione qualitatis,
sic omnis qualitas est quia efficit quale. [...] Formarum itaque alia est
causa similitudinis, ut albedo, alia est causa dissimilitudinis, ut propria
qualitas Platonis. Forme itaque que est causa similitudinis unus est
principalis effectus et proprius, ut albedinis facere album, alius se-
cundarius, scilicet facere tale quale aliud. A principali ergo effectu est
impositum hoc nomen ‘albedo’, a secundo hoc nomen ‘universale’.
Unde omnes albedines, quia in subiectum similem habent effectum,
dicuntur [h]unum universale, quasi universa [h]unientes que albed-
inibus participant. Eodem 〈 modo 〉 omnes humanitates unum univer-
sale dicuntur. Sicut enim homines colliguntur in [h]unum populum
quia eodem [h]iure vivunt, et milites sub [h]uno duce militantes ex-
ercitus, sic singularia sunt [h]unum universale ratione similitudinis
suorum effectuum simul collecta.69

quia conformes ergo numero diuersas – a se inuicem naturas de numero a se diuersis

affirmant. Et hec trium de tribus predicatorum necessaria differentia non patitur hanc
adunationem, ut dicatur: ‘Plato et Cicero et Aristotiles sunt unus singulariter homo’.”
68 Invisibilia Dei, § 118f., p. 312.
69 Compendium, De significatis vocum, III, 29, p. 49f., 32–52.
72 Luisa Valente

The resemblance of this passage from the Compendium logice Porretanum

and the text quoted above from Invisibilia Dei is evident. We could add simi-
lar passages from the Institutiones in sacram paginam of Simon of Tournai,70
from the Summa Quoniam homines of Alain of Lille,71 which also speak of forma
similitudinis and forma dissimilitudinis, or from Evrardus Ypresis.72

3. Conclusion
It seems to me that the few passages that we have seen from Invisibilia Dei
permit to appreciate the plurality of its inspirations and the philosophical
richness of this “theological” text. The theological quest for explanation of
how the human beings can ascend to God gives an opportunity for the purely
philosophical reflection of how men know and how they communicate their
knowledge. Here philosophy – gnoseology, ontology, logic, and semantics – is
dealt with as an indispensable premise to theology stricto sensu. Nevertheless,
it is quite evident that the interest of this master in philosophical questions
is authentic and independent, and that he is very well aware of the contem-
porary philosophical debates. In his theory of universals, the author of In-
visibilia Dei is clearly influenced by Gilbert of Poitiers, at the same time shar-
ing his position and his terminology with some contemporary theological and
logical treatises. The philosophical sources are often inserted within the Au-
gustinian framework, but they do not lose their philosophical significance.
This is obvious, for example, in the connection between the interpretation of
creation as manifestation of the inner word and the Platonic theory of the
sensible world as a manifestation of the original incorporeal ideas or forms
existing in God’s mind. This is also obvious in the interpretation of the Bo-
ethius’s theory of the threefold discourse on the one hand by using the Au-
gustinian notion of the inner vs. pronounced word, on the other hand by
identifying the “words” conceived inside the mind with the concepts of the
mind.
We could then describe the theology proposed in Invisibilia Dei as the the-
ology which generates from itself a coherent and well-constructed philosophy
putting to good use in an original way all the philosophical materials avail-
able in that period: the logica vetus, Augustine, Boethius the logician and Bo-
ethius the theologian commented by Gilbert of Poitiers, Hugh of Saint Victor.
Our treatise shares these characteristics with great masters in sacra pagina of
the second half of the 12th century, like Alain of Lille and Simon of Tournai.
Certainly, 12th century scholastic theology was more than this, nevertheless
we can touch here high peaks of the philosophical as well as theological vital-
ity and originality.

70 SIMON TORNACENSIS Institutiones, p. 60f., 11–24.

71 ALANUS AB INSULIS Summa, p. 172f.
72 EVRARDUS YPRENSIS Dialogus, p. 255.
 Scholastic theology in the 12th century Latin West ... 73

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SOURCES
ALANUS AB INSULIS Summa
ALANUS AB INSULIS: Summa Quoniam homines, ed. PALÉMON GLORIEUX, in
AHDLM 20 (1953) 113–368.
ANSELMUS CANTUARIENSIS Monologion
ANSELMUS CANTUARIENSIS: Monologion, ed. FRANCISCUS SALESIUS SCHMITT
OSB, S. Anselmi opera omnia I, Edinburg 1946.
ARISTOTELES De interpretatione
ARISTOTELES: De interpretatione, Transl. Boethii, ed. L ORENZO MINIO-PALU-
ELLO (Aristoteles Latinus II, 1–2), Bruges/Paris 1965.
AUGUSTINUS De trinitate
AUGUSTINUS HIPPONENSIS: De trinitate, ed. W. J. MOUNTAIN/FRANÇOIS GLO-
RIE (CChSL 50 et 50A), Turnhout 1968.
AUGUSTINUS In Johannem:
AUGUSTINUS: Tractatus in Iohannem, ed. D. R. WILLELMS (CChSL 36), Turn-
hout 1954.
BOETHIUS Consolatio and Opuscula:
BOETHIUS: De consolatione Philosophiae. Opuscula theologica, ed. CLAUDIO
MORESCHINI (Bibliotheca Teubneriana), Monachi/Lipsiae 2000.
BOETHIUS Comm. Peri H.
BOETHIUS, Commentarii in librum Aristotelis PERI ERMHNEIAS, Prima
editio, ed. CHARLES MEISER, Lipsiae 1877; Secunda editio, ed. CHARLES
MEISER, Lipsiae 1880.
BOETHIUS Comm. Ysagoge sec. ed.
BOETHIUS: In Isagoge Porphyrii commenta, Secunda editio, ed. GEORG
SCHEPSS/SAMUEL BRANDT (CSEL 48), Vienne/Leipzig 1906.
CASSIODORUS Institutiones
CASSIODORUS: Institutiones divinarum et et saecularium litterarum, ed. ROGER
A. B. MYNORS, Oxford 1937; 21961.
Compendium
Compendium logice porretanum, ed. STEN EBBESEN/KARIN M. FREDBORG/
L AUGE O. NIELSEN, in Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen Age grec et latin 46
(1983) 1–113
EVRARDUS YPRENSIS Dialogus
EVRARDUS YPRENSIS: Dialogus Ratii et Everardi, ed. NIKOLAUS M. HÄRING,
“A Latin Dialogue on the Doctrine of Gilbert of Poitiers”, in Mediaeval
Studies 15 (1953) 243–289.
GILBERTUS Exp. in Opuscula
GILBERTUS PICTAVENSIS: Expositiones in Boethii Opuscula Sacra, ed. NIKO-
LAUS M. HÄRING, The Commentaries on Boethius by Gilbert of Poitiers (Studies
and Texts 13), Toronto 1966.
HUGO DE SANCTO VICTORE De sacramentis
HUGO DE SANCTO VICTORE: De sacramentis christianae fidei, PL 176.
74 Luisa Valente

Invisibilia Dei
Invisibilia Dei, ed. NIKOLAUS M. HÄRING, in RTAM 40 (1973) 105–146.
ISIDORUS Ethimologiae
ISIDORUS HISPALENSIS: Etymologiarum sive Originum libri XX, 2 vol, ed.
W.M. LINDSAY, Oxford 1911 (reprint 1957, 1962).
NICOLAUS AMBIANENSIS Ars
NICOLAUS AMBIANENSIS: Ars catholicae fideis, ed. MECHTHILD DREYER, Niko-
laus von Amiens Ars fidei catholicae – Ein Beispielwerk axiomathischer Methode
(BGPTMA NF 37), Münster/B 1993.
PETRUS ABAELARDUS In Hexaemeron
PETRUS ABAELARDUS: Expositio in Hexaemeron, ed. MARY ROMIG (CChCM
15), Turnhout 2004.
PETRUS ABAELARDUS Theologia scholarium
PETRUS ABAELARDUS: Theologia scholarium, ed. † ELIGIUS M. BUYTAERT/
CONSTANT MEWS, Petri Abaelardi Opera theologica III (CChCM 13), Turn-
hout 1987.
SIMON TORNACENSIS Institutiones
SIMON TORNACENSIS: Institutiones in sacram paginam. Edition of some parts
in MICHAEL SCHMAUS, “Die Texte der Trinitätslehre des Simon von Tour-
nai”, in RTAM 4 (1932) 59–72, 187–198, 294–307. The introduction is
edited by COSTANTINO MARMO, “Simon of Tournai’s Institutiones in sacram
paginam. An Edition of Its Introduction about Signification in Theo-
logical Discourse”, in Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen Age grec et latin 67
(1997) 93–103.
SUNESEN Hexaemeron
ANDREA SUNESEN: Hexaemeron, ed. STEN EBBESEN/L ARS BOJE MORTENSEN
(Corpus Philosophorum Danicorum Medii Aevi 11, 1/2), Copenhagen
1985–1986.
THEODORICUS Comm. in Opucsula
THEODORICUS CARNOTENSIS: Commenta in Boethii Opuscula theologica, ed.
NIKOLAUS M. HÄRING, Commentaries on Boethius by Thierry of Chartres and
his school (Studies and Texts 20), Toronto 1971.

STUDIES
AERTSEN/SPEER 1996
Individuum und Individualität im Mittelalter, ed. JAN A. AERTSEN/ANDREAS
SPEER (Miscellanea Mediaevalia 24), Berlin/New York 1996.
Angelini 1972
GIUSEPPE ANGELINI: L’ortodossia e la grammatica. Analisi di struttura e dedu-
zione storica della Teologia Trinitaria di Prepositino, Roma 1972.
ARENS 1980
HANS ARENS : “Verbum cordis. Zur Sprachphilosophie des Mittelalters”, in
Historiographia Linguistica 7 (1980), 13–27.
 Scholastic theology in the 12th century Latin West ... 75

BAEUMKER 1923
CLEMENS BAEUMKER: Die christliche Philosophie des Mittelalters, in WILHELM
WUNDT et a., Allgemeine Geschichte der Philosophie, zweite Auflage, Leipzig/
Berlin 21923, 339–431.
BENSON/CONSTABLE 1982
Renaissance and renewal in the Twelfth Century, ed. ROBERT L. BENSON/GILES
CONSTABLE, Cambridge Mass. 1982.
BERNDT/BACHMANN/STAMMBERGER 2002
“Scientia” und “Disciplina”. Wissenstheorie und Wissenschaftspraxis im 12. und
13. Jahrhundert, ed. RAINER BERNDT/MATTHIAS LUTZ-BACHMANN/RALF M.W.
STAMMBERGER (Erudiri Sapientia III), Berlin 2002.
BIARD 1999
Langage, sciences, philosophie au XIIe siècle. Actes de la table ronde inter-
nationale organisée les 25 et 26 mars 1998 ..., ed. JOËL BIARD, Paris
1999.
BUYTAERT 1968
P. ELIGIUS M. BUYTAERT: “Abelard’s Expositio in Hexaemeron”, in Antonia-
num 43 (1968) 163–194.
CHENU 1935a
MARIE-DOMINIQUE CHENU: “Grammaire et théologie aux XIIe et XIIIe
siècles”, in AHDLMA 10 (1935), 5–28 (relabor. in CHENU 1957, 90–107).
CHENU 1935b
MARIE-DOMINIQUE CHENU : “Un essai de méthodologie théologique au
XIIe siècle”, in RSPT 25 (1935) 258–267.
CHENU 1957
MARIE-DOMINIQUE CHENU : La théologie au XII e siècle, Paris 1957.
COLISH 1979
MARCIA COLISH : “Early Porretan Theology”, in RTAM 56 (1989) 58–79.
COLISH 1994
MARCIA COLISH, Peter the Lombard, 2 voll., Leiden/New York/Köln 1994.
CRAEMER-RUEGENBERG/SPEER 1994
Scientia und Ars im Hoch- und Spätmittelalter. Festschrift A. Zimmermann,
ed. INGRID CRAEMER-RUEGENBERG/ANDREAS SPEER (Miscellanea Mediaevalia
22), Berlin 1994.
DAHAN 1999
GILBERT DAHAN: L’exégèse chretienne de la Bible en Occident médiéval. XIIe-
XIVe siècle, Paris 1999.
DREYER 1994
MECHTHILD DREYER: “Regularmethode und Axiomatik. Wissenschaft-
liche Methodik im Horizont der artes-Tradition des 12. Jahrhunderts”,
in CRAEMER-RUEGENBERG/SPEER 1994, 145–157.
DREYER 1996
MECHTILD DREYER: More mathematicorum. Rezeption und Transformation
der antiken Gestalten wissenschaftlichen Wissens im 12. Jahrhundert (BGPTM
NF 47), Münster 1996.
76 Luisa Valente

DRONKE 1988
A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy, ed. PETER DRONKE, Cam-
bridge 1988.
EBBESEN 1987
STEN EBBESEN: “The Semantics of the Trinity according to Stephen
Langton and Andrew Sunesen”, in JOLIVET/DE LIBERA 1987, 401–435.
EBBESEN 1991
STEN EBBESEN: review of MEGEE 1980, in Vivarium 29 (1991) 150–153.
EBBESEN 1995
Geschichte der Sprachtheorie 3. Sprachtheorien in Spätantike und Mittelalter,
ed. STEN EBBESEN, Tübingen 1995.
ERISMANN 2005
CHRISTOPHE ERISMANN: Alain de Lille, la métaphysique érigénienne et la plu-
ralité des formes, in SOLÈRE/VASILIU/GALONNIER 2005, 19–46.
FIDORA/NIEDERBERGER 2002
Vom Einen zum Vielen. Der neue Aufbruch der Metaphysik im 12. Jahrhundert.
Eine Auswahl zeitgenössischer Texte des Neoplatonismus, herausgegeben, ein-
geleitet, übersetzt und kommentiert von ALEXANDER FIDORA/ANDREAS
NIEDERBERGER, Frankfurt 2002.
DE GHELLINK 1913
JOSEPH DE GHELLINCK: Dialectique et dogme aux Xe–XIIe siècles (Quelques
notes) (BGPM, Supplementband I), Münster in W. 1913, 79–99.
GRABMANN 1929a
MARTIN GRABMANN: Mittelalterliches Geistesleben (Abhandlungen zur Ge-
schichte der Scholastik und Mystik I), München 1929.
GRABMANN 1929b
MARTIN GRABMANN: Die Entwicklung der Mittelalterlichen Sprachlogik, in
GRABMANN 1929a, I, 104–146.
GRABMANN 1940
MARTIN GRABMANN: Die Sophismataliteratur des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts mit
Textausgabe eines Sophisma des Boetius von Dacien (BGPTM 36/1), Mün-
ster 1940.
GRABMANN 1951
MARTIN GRABMANN: “Die Geschichte der mittelalterliche Sprachphiloso-
phie und Sprachlogik”, in Melanges Joseph De Ghellinck, Gembloux 1951,
2, 421–434.
GRACIA 1988
JORGE GRACIA: Introduction to the problem of individuation in the early Middle
Ages, München and Wien 21988.
HÄRING 1981
NIKOLAUS M. HÄRING: “Die theologische Sprachlogik der Schule von
Chartres im Zwölften Jahrhundert”, in KLUXEN 1981, 930–936.
HASKINS 1958
CHARLES H. HASKINS: The Renaissance of the 12th Century, Cleveland/New
York 1958, 1st ed. 1927.
 Scholastic theology in the 12th century Latin West ... 77

JACOBI 1995A
KLAUS JACOBI: “Sprache und Wirklichkeit Theorienbildung über
Sprache im frühen 12. Jahrhundert”, in EBBESEN 1995a, 77–108.
JACOBI 1995b
KLAUS JACOBI: “Natürliches Sprechen – Theoriesprache – Theologische
Rede. Die Wissenschaftslehre des Gilberts von Poitiers”, in Zeitschrift für
philosophische Forschung 49 (1995) 511–528.
JACOBI 1996
KLAUS JACOBI : “Einzelnes – Individuum – Person. Gilbert von Poitiers’
Philosophie des Individuellen”, in AERTSEN/SPEER 1996, 3–21.
JOLIVET/DE LIBERA 1987
Gilbert de Poitiers et ses contemporains aux origines de la Logica Moderno-
rum. Actes du septième symposium européen d’histoire de la logique
et de la sémantique médiévales, Poitiers 17–22 Juin 1985, ed. by JEAN
JOLIVET/ALAIN DE LIBERA, Napoli 1987.
KLUXEN 1981
Sprache und Erkenntnis im Mittelalter. Internationaler Kongress für mittel-
alterliche Philisophie, ed. WOLFGANG KLUXEN, Berlin/New York 1981.
L ANDGRAF 1948
ARTUR L ANDGRAF: Einführung in die Geschichte der theologischen Literatur der
Frühscholastik, Regensburg 1948 (updated and transl. in French as
L ANDGRAF/GEIGER/L ANDRY 1973).
L ANDGRAF/GEIGER/L ANDRY 1973
ARTUR L ANDRAF: Introduction à l’histoire de la littérature théologique de la sco-
lastique naissante. Édition française par le soins de ALBERT-M. L ANDRY,
trad. de l’allemand par L OUIS-B. GEIGER, Montréal/Paris 1973.
L ANDGRAF 1954–55
ARTUR L ANDGRAF: Dogmengeschichte der Frühscholastik. Dritter Teil: Die Lehre
von den Sakramenten, I Regensburg 1954, II Regensburg 1955.
DE LIBERA 1987
ALAIN DE LIBERA: “Logique et théologie dans la Summa ‘Quoniam ho-
mines’ d’Alain de Lille”, in JOLIVET/DE LIBERA 1987, 437–469.
DE LIBERA 1997
ALAIN DE LIBERA : La querelle des universaux. De Platon à la fin du Moyen-
-Âge, Paris 1997.
L ONGÈRE 1983
JEAN L ONGÈRE: La prédication médiévale, Paris 1983.
L OTTIN 1942–1960
ODON L OTTIN : Psychologie et morale aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles, Gembloux
1942–1960 (6 voll.)
LUBAC 1954–64
HENRI DE LUBAC, Exégèse médiévale les quatre sens de l’Écriture, 2 parts in
4 voll., Paris 1954–64.
LUTZ-BACHMANN/FIDORA/NIEDERBERGER 2004
Metaphysics in the Twelfth Century. On the Relationship among Philosophy,
Science and Theology, ed. MATTHIAS LUTZ-BACHMANN/ALEXANDER FIDORA/
78 Luisa Valente

ANDREAS NIEDERBERGER (FIDEM, Textes et études du Moyen Age 20),

Turnhout 2004.
MACY 1984
GARY MACY: The Theologies of the Eucharist in the Early Scholastic Period,
Oxford 1984.
MAGEE 1989
JOHN MAGEE: Boethius on signification and mind (Philosophia Antiqua 52),
Leiden/New York/Köln 1989.
MEIER-OESER 1997
STEPHAN MEIER-OESER : Die Spur des Zeichens. Das Zeichen und seine Funk-
tion in der Philosophie des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit, Berlin/New
York 1997.
MAIERÙ 1996
ALFONSO MAIERÙ: Il linguaggio mentale tra logica e grammatica nel medioevo
il contesto di Ockham, in Società Filosofica Italiana, Momenti di storia della
logica e storia della filosofia. Atti del convegno Roma, 9–11 novembre
1994, Roma 1996, 69–94.
MAIERÙ 1996
ALFONSO MAIERÙ: “‘Signum’ negli scritti filosofici e teologici fra XIII e
XV secolo”, in Signum. IX Colloquio internazionale del Lessico Intellet-
tuale Europeo, Firenze 1999, 119–141.
MAIOLI 1974
BRUNO MAIOLI: Gli universali. Storia antologia del problema da Socrate al XII
secolo, (Biblioteca di cultura 63) Roma 1974.
MAIOLI 1979
BRUNO MAIOLI: Gilberto Porretano. Dalla grammatica speculativa alla metafi-
sica del concreto, Roma 1979.
MARENBON Many Roots
The Many Roots of Medieval Logic. Acts of the 15th European Symposium
on Medieval logic and Semantics, Cambridge July 1–4, 2004, ed. JOHN
MARENBON, Nijmegen 2007 in print. = Vivarium 45 (2007).
MARTIN 1983
CHRISTOPHER J. MARTIN: “The Compendium Logicae Porretanum. A Survey
of Philosophical Logic from the School of Gilbert of Poitiers”, in Cahiers
de l’Institut du Moyen-Age grec et latin 46 (1983) XVIII-XLVI.
MÜCKSHOFF 1940
P. MEINOLF MÜCKSHOFF: Die Quaestiones disputatae de fide des Bartho-
lomäus von Bologna O.F.M., (BGPTMA 24, 4), Munster 1940.
NIELSEN 1976
L AUGE OLAF NIELSEN: “On the Doctrine of Logic and Language of Gil-
bert Porreta and His Followers”, in Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Age grec
et latin 17 (1976) 40–69.
NIELSEN 1982
L AUGE OLAF NIELSEN: Theology and Philosophy in the Twelfth Century. A
Study of Gilbert Porreta’s Thinking and the Theological Expositions of the Doc-
 Scholastic theology in the 12th century Latin West ... 79

trine of the Incarnation during the Period 1130–1180 (Acta Theologica

Danica XV), Leiden 1982.
PANACCIO 1999
CLAUDE PANACCIO : Le discours intérieur. De Platon à Guillaume d’Ockham,
Paris 1999.
PARÉ/BRUNET/TREMBLAY 1933
GÉRARD PARÉ/ADRIEN BRUNET/PIERRE TREMBLAY : La renaissance du XIIe
siècle. Les écoles et l’enseignement, Paris/Ottawa 1933.
POIREL 2005
DOMINIQUE POIREL : “Alain de Lille, héritier de l’école de Saint-Victor?”,
in SOLÈRE/VASILIU/GALONNIER 2005, 59–82.
QUINTO 2001
RICCARDO QUINTO : Scholastica. Storia di un concetto, (Studia Mediaevalia
Patavina), Padova 2001.
ROBERT 1909
M.G. & ROBERT: Les écoles et l’enseignement de la théologie pendant la pre-
mière moitié du XIIe siècle, Paris 1909.
ROSIER-CATACH 2004
IRÈNE ROSIER-CATACH: La parole efficace. Signe, rituel, sacré (Des travaux),
Paris 2004.
SCHLENKER 1938
ERNST SCHLENKER: Die Lehre von den göttlichen Namen in der Summe Alex-
anders von Hales. Ihre Prinzipien und ihre Methode (Freiburger theologische
Studien), Freiburg in Breisgau 1938.
SCHMAUS 1932
MICHAEL SCHMAUS : “Die Texte der Trinitätslehre des Simon von Tour-
nai”, in RTAM 4 (1932) 59–72, 187–198, 294–307.
SOLÈRE/VASILIU/GALONNIER 2005
Alain de Lille, le docteur universel. Philosophie, théologie et littérature au XIIe
siècle. Actes du XIe Colloque internationale de la Société Internationale
pour l’Étude de la Philosophie Médiévale, Paris, 23–25 octobre 2003,
ed. JEAN-LUC SOLÈRE/ANCA VASILIU/ALAIN GALONNIER (Rencontres de Phi-
losophie Médiévale 12), Turnhout 2005.
VALENTE 1997
LUISA VALENTE: ‘Phantasia contrarietatis’. Contraddizioni scritturali, discorso
teologico e arti del linguaggio nel De tropis loquendi di Pietro Cantore
(† 1197), Firenze 1997.
VALENTE 2000
LUISA VALENTE: ““Cum non sit intelligibilis, nec ergo significabilis”. Modi
significandi, intelligendi ed essendi nella teologia del XII secolo”, in Docu-
menti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 11 (2000), 132–194.
VALENTE Logique
LUISA VALENTE: Logique et théologie. Les écoles parisiennes entre 1150 et 1220,
Paris, in print.
80 Luisa Valente

VALENTE NAMES
LUISA VALENTE: “Names which can be said of everything. Porphyrian
tradition and ‘transcendental’ terms in 12th century logic”, in MARENBON
Many Roots.
VALENTE Verbum
LUISA VALENTE: “Verbum mentis, vox clamantis. The notion of interior word
in 12th century theology”, in The Word in Medieval Philosophy, Theology
and Psychology. Acts of the 13th Annual Congress de la Société Interna-
tionale pour l’Étude de la Philosophie Médiévale, Kyoto 27 September
– 1 October 2005, (Rencontres de Philosophie Médiévale), ed. CHARLES
BURNETT.
VALENTE Realismo
“Un realismo singolare. Forme e universali in Gilberto di Poitiers e
nella Scuola Porretana”, in Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica me-
dievale 19 (2008).
VAN DEN EYNDE 1949–1950
DAMIANUS VAN DEN EYNDE : “Les définitions des sacrements pendant la
première période de la théologie scolastique (1050–1235)”, in Antonia-
num 24 (1949) 182–228 and 439–488; 25 (1950) 3–78.
VAN DEN EYNDE 1951–1952
DAMIANUS VAN DEN EYNDE: “The theory of the composition of the sacra-
ments in Early Scholasticism (1125–1240)”, in Franciscan Studies 11
(1951), 1–20 and 117–144; 12 (1952), 1–26.
VECCHIO 1994
SEBASTIANO VECCHIO: Le parole come segni. Introduzione alla linguistica agos-
tiniana, Palermo 1994.
Vivarium 30 (1992)
a monographic issue dedicated to the secta of the nominales in 12th cen-
tury.
WIELAND 1995
Aufbruch – Wandel – Erneuerung. Beiträge zur “Renaissance” des 12. Jahr-
hunderts. 9. Blaubeuer Symposion von 9. bis 11. Oktober 1992, hg. von
GEORG WIELAND, Stuttgart–Bad Kannstatt 1995.