Gennadius Scholarius and Palamism at Council of Florence

Caritas in Primo A Historical-heological Study of Bonaventure’s Quaestiones disputatae de mysterio Ss. Trinitatis by J. Isaac Gof Aca dem y of th e Im m acu l ate Ne w Be d f o rd , M A SAMPLE Caritas in Primo is a book prepared for publicaation by the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate [www.MaryMediatrix. com], POB 303, New Bedford, MA 02741. © 2015 Academy of the Immaculate New Bedford, MA All Rights Reserved Cum Permissu Superiorum ISBN 978-1-60114-0 Pr i nte d and b ou nd i n t he Unite d St ates of Amer i c a. SAMPLE Foreword Rev. Dr. Christiaan W. Kappes By God’s providence, Bonaventure of Bagnoregio or the “Seraphic Doctor” went the way of all lesh shortly after his collaboration in the work of union between the Latin and the Greek Churches at the Second Ecumenical Council of Lyons in 1274.1 So far as anyone knows, by the end of the same century, two of his most masterful works of theology had already fallen into total obscurity, never known to be cited verbatim again from among the pages of Schoolmen until their rediscovery in the late nineteenth century.2 Following upon the heels of his inceptive work Quaestiones disputatae de scientia Christi (scripsit 1254–1257), Bonaventure subsequently inaugurated yet another seemingly innovative treatise entitled Quaestiones disputatae de mysterio Trinitatis (scripsit 1254/5), which serves as the object of Dr. J. Isaac Gof’s present study. Granted Bonaventure’s ostensibly philosophicotheological innovativeness and his impressive synthesis of both pagan and Christian authorities into his aforementioned opera, it is incomprehensible to the modern mind how “the second leader of Scholasticism” could have sufered fortune to stow away this double triumph of genius on dusty medieval bookshelves of Franciscan studia until their rediscovery. Yet, that is exactly where fate left the literary duo until recent times, save one anomaly a century and a half after the Seraphic Doctor’s transitus ad patriam. 1 2 For what little is known of Bonaventure’s contribution to the Council, see Deno Geanakoplos, “The Two Mendicant Orders, and the Greeks at the Council of Lyons (1274),” in Constantinople and the West: Essays on the Late Byzantine (Palaeologan) and Italian Renaissances and the Byzantine and Roman Churches (London: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), 194–223. For the history and fate of the De scientia Christi, see infra pp. 15–23. xvii SAMPLE xviii Caritas In Primo As fate would have it, a second (albeit the last) ecumenical council of reunion between the Latin and Greek Churches provided the uniquely auspicious occasion for the resurfacing of Bonaventure’s De mysterio Trinitatis. Markedly, in preparation for the Ecumenical Council of Ferrara-Florence (8 November 1437),3 Pope Eugene IV (then residing in Florence) entrusted Franciscan periti with research into the question of the distinction between the divine attributes and divine essence of the Godhead due to Dominican cries for the posthumous condemnation of a Byzantine theologian,4 St. Gregory Palamas (d. 1359).5 Henceforward, some adherents to the oicial Byzantine school accustomed themselves to argue for the equivalent of the formal distinction (distinctio formalis a parte rei) among God’s essential attributes,6 whether these are distinguished among themselves or in comparison to the divine essence.7 According to Dominican Schoolmen, such metaphysical ad intra distinctions betokened inquisitorial investigation prior to the arrival 3 4 5 6 7 See Pope Eugene IV, Epistle 96, in Epistolae Pontificiae ad Concilium Florentinum Spectantes. Conclium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores Series A (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1940), 1.1:104. Pope Eugene invited 12 Franciscans to be periti on 23 September 1437. See Luke Wadding, Annales Minorum seu trium ordinum a S. Francisco Institutorum, 2nd ed., ed. J. Fonseca (Rome: Rochi Bernabó, 1734), 11:2. For additional information, see Celestino Piana, La facoltà teologica dell’universtità di Firenze nel quattro e cinquecento. Spicilegium Bonaventurianum 15 (Rome: Collegii S. Bonaventurae, 1977), 224. NB, Palamas’ cultus is sanctioned by the Holy See in: Congregation for Oriental Churches, Κυριακὴ Δευτέρα τῶν νηστείων τοῦ ἁγίου Γρηγορίου τοῦ Παλαμᾶ, in Ἀνθολόγιον τοῦ ὅλου ἐνιαυτοῦ (Rome: s.n., 1974), 2:1607–1619. This has been demonstrated in respect of at least two Palamite authors; namely, Mark of Ephesus and Gennadius Scholarius. See Christiaan Kappes, “A Latin Defense of Mark of Ephesus at the Council of Ferrara–Florence,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly (forthcoming); Kappes, “The Latin Sources of the Palamite Theology of George–Gennadius Scholarius,” Rivista Nicolaus 40 (2013): 71–114. The Palamite school derives its canonical tenets (including the attribute– essence distinction) from a series of professions of faith and Constantinopolitan synods. E.g., see The Endêmousa Synod of Constantinople, Neilus Cabasilas, and Philotheus Kokkinos, Τόμος κατὰ τοῦ μοναχοῦ Προχόρου τοῦ Κυδώνη, in Gregorio Palamas e oltre: studi e documenti sulle controversie teologiche del xiv secolo bizantino. Orientalia Venetiana 16, ed. A. Rigo (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2004), 1–134. SAMPLE Foreword xix of Greek Orthodox churchmen from Constantinople in 1438.8 For his part, Pope Eugene had just recently made a dramatic intervention into Dominican-Franciscan theological disputes, whereby he delivered the Florentine conciliar peritus, St. Bernardine of Siena, OFM, from the pyre of the Inquisition, despite Dominican eforts to secure the saint’s condemnation.9 hough Pope Eugene showed himself benevolent toward both Dominicans and Franciscans, the Domini canes were presently becoming notorious among fellow Schoolmen for fostering an exaggeratedly sectarian spirit beyond the common ruckus typical of the 8 9 A Dominican–trained Byzantine finished translating the Summa contra Gentiles into Greek in 1354, whereupon a school of Byzantine Thomism arose and consistently opposed Palamism, save a few idiosyncratic Thomists who opted for compromises ad mentem Thomae. For the Dominican introduction and teaching of Thomism in Byzantium during the Palamite controversies, see Christiaan Kappes, “The Dominican Presentation and the Byzantine Reception of Thomas Aquinas in Byzantium,” Academia.edu (academic website), February 18, 2014, https:// www.academia.edu/5503943/The_Dominican_Presentation_and_Byzantine_ Reception_of_Thomas_Aquinas_in_Byzantium. For various accommodations of Palamism to Thomism, see John A. Demetracopoulos, “Palamas Transformed: Palamite Interpretations of the Distinction between God’s ‘Essence’ and ‘Energies’ in Late Byzantium,” in Greeks, Latins, and Intellectual History 1204–1500, ed. M. Hinterberger and C. Schabel (Paris: Peeters Leuven, 2011), 282–395 and Antoine Lévy, “Lost in Translatio? Diakrisis kat’epinoian as a Main Issue in the Discussions between Fourteenth-Century Palamites and Thomists,” The Thomist 76 (2012): 431–471. The Orthodox conciliar Father, Bessarion of Nicaea (1403–1472), made Dominicans aware of this impending issue for debate at Ferrara-Florence in a letter to Andrew of Rhodes, OP, perhaps written as early as 1436/7. See André De Halleux, “Bessarion et le palamisme au concile de Florence,” Irénikon 62 (1989): 307–332. Pope Eugene felt beholden to the Dominicans in Florence, for they alone gave him refuge at Santa Maria Novella (1432), when forced to flee Rome and opposed by most Christian princes and perhaps a majority of the Roman populace. See Morimichi Watanabe, “Pope Eugene IV, the Conciliar Movement and the Primacy of Rome,” in The Church, the Councils, and Reform: the Legacy of the Fifteenth Century, ed. G. Christianson, T. Izbicki, and C. Bellitto (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2008), 180–181. In spite of this debt, Eugene grew tired of witchhunts against the likes of St. Bernardine. See ibid., 181. Subsequently, John Torquemada, OP, sought the condemnation of Franciscans as heretics at the Council of Basel because of the Immaculate Conception. See E. Pusey, Preface to Tractatus de veritate Conceptionis B. V. Mariae pro facienda coram Patribus Concilii Basileae anno Domini 1437 mense julio, by J. Torquemada (London: Jacob Parker, 1869), xvii–xviii. Torquemada’s intolerance was typical of orthodox Thomists, whose persecutions were reduplicated against St. James of Marches, OFM, another Florentine peritus, who sufered a Dominican Inquisitor to try him on a theologoumenon opposed to that of Aquinas. See Dionysius Lasič, Introduction to De sanguine Christi, by James of Marches (Falconara: Bibloteca Francescana Falconara, 1976), 25–27. SAMPLE xx Caritas In Primo Schoolmen of the age.10 his rigid system of orthodox homism did not augur a dispassionate probe into the Byzantine distinction between the essence and attributes (alias “energies”) as exempliied by Palamas and his intellectual successors, who were to form the “Palamite school.”11 10 See Paul Kristeller, “Le Thomisme et la pensé italienne de la Renaissance,” in Conférence Albert-Le-Grand 1965 (Montréal: J. Vrin, 1967), 84–90. Italian Dominicans oten ofended other religious and humanists through their insistence on the absolute necessity of defending Aquinas’ positions without distinction. For example, orthodox Thomists exasperated a Carmelite beatus, such that he undertook the composition of a screed against the fanaticism of the Thomistic culture of the day. See Bl. Baptist of Mantua, Opus auream in thomistas, in Conférence Albert-Le-Grand 1965, ed. P. Kristeller (Montréal: J. Vrin, 1967), 137–184, especially: Yet these [Thomists] are unmindful of both Apostle and reason and want to compel all [sacred doctors] ad sensum Thomae and in such manner that they prefer their own [Thomas] for nearly all groups of religious orders, even those by far more ancient, just as for our [Carmelites] and the Hermits of St. Augustine. In such a way they strive to prefer Thomas over howsoever many are the body of doctors who flourished from the beginning of the Church, the fact of which manifests a lack of probity and prudence. First they bring Thomas forward as they please, but only allowing that [other doctors] speak according to their own mind. They don’t permit a peep from other doctors, for they impose silence, they make judgments disdainfully [on other doctors] from their judicial benches and will only hear the testimony of Thomas and they regard all other witnesses to be insignificant perjurers. They regard Thomas to have arrived at the absolute culmination of all doctrines in every genus of dogma. They place him in the supreme rank of nature, and call him the very means of knowledge among men. Why do they spit with cocked eyebrow upon the other doctors as if they were beret of both nature and grace? (Opus aureum, 139.4–18) 11 Pope Eugene wisely foresaw the impossibility of Dominicans and Thomists giving Palamites a fair hearing. See the 1437 Thomist condemnation of Andrew Escobar, OSB, De graecis errantibus. Concilium Florentinum Doctores et Scriptores Series B, ed. M. Candal (Rome : Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1952), 4.1:83: O most blessed Father Eugene […] false, therefore, is the conclusion of some Greeks, and [their] errors, which claim that the attributes (attributa) difer essentially (essentialiter) from the divine essence (ab essentia divina) among [ad intra] divine items (in divinis). (De graecis errantibus 94, lines 3–4) His condemnation was seconded in 1438 by John Lei, Tractatus Ioannis Lei O.P. De visione beata Nunc primum in lucem editus: Introductione, notis, indicibus auctus. Studi e Testi 228, ed. M. Candal (Vatican City: BAV, 1963), 83–84, 193; in 1439 by John Montenero, Quae Supersunt Actorum Graecorum Concilii Florentini. Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores Series B, ed. J. Gill (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1953), 5.2:267 and Andreas of Santa Croce: Acta Latina Concilii Florentini. Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores Series B, ed. G. Hofman (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, SAMPLE Foreword xxi We can imagine that, in these circumstances, some Minorites happened upon the only presently known complete text of Bonaventure’s De mysterio Trinitatis, which had been absconded within the convent walls of the Franciscan studium of Florence.12 Even if Pope Eugene had commissioned the Franciscans to prepare an oicial treatise (aka De attributis divinis) to aid him in the ensuing altercations about Palamism at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439), this work is now lost.13 Alas, we must glean its possible content from the extant works of the Franciscan periti entrusted with its composition. Propitiously, upon surveying the theological authors dear to these Franciscan periti, both Bonaventure and John Duns Scotus come to the fore.14 Discouragingly, among the critically edited works of 1955), 6:177; in 1441 by John Torquemada, Apparatus super decretum Florentinum unionis Graecorum. Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores Series B, ed. G. Hofman (Rome: Pontificium Istitutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1942), 2.1:86: Concerning “God three and one”: this is written against those saying that beatitude (beatitudo), glory (gloria), or final happiness (felicitas ultima) of men does not consist in the vision of God Himself. Rather [they say it consists] of some other entity (entitas), which is thought to be really distinct from the very divine essence (essentia), or as the Greeks call it, “energy (energia),” or “act (actus),” or “illumination (fulgor).” (Apparatus, 102, lines 30–34) 12 Perhaps these works became lost since only one extant manuscript contains any attribution to Bonaventure by an original amanuensis. The Florence studium uniquely contains all the qq. of the De mysterio Trinitatis, the principal manuscript of which dates to the 14th century. See Prolegomenon to Quaestiones disputatas in universo, et speciatim quaestiones de scientia Christi et de mysterio Trinitatis, by Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, in Doctoris Seraphici S. Bonaventurae S.R.E. Episcopi Cardinalis opera Omnia (Quaracchi: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1891), 5:v–vi. 13 See Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 141. 14 Franciscan Fathers and periti naturally cite Bonaventure. More importantly, some explicitly recognize Scotus as a weighty authority in theology. Among conciliar Fathers, see Elias de Bourdeilles, OFM, Contra pragmaticam Gallorum sanctionem (Rome: incunabulum, 1486), 30, 40. Aloysius Foroliviensis, OFM, invoked Bonaventure (though not Scotus) in the debate on the filioque at least three times in: Andreas of Santa, Acta Latina. Concilium Florentinum Doctores et Scriptores Series B, ed. G. Hofmann (Rome: PIOS, 1955), 6:58, 60. Among the periti, see Augustine of Ferrara, OFM, Quaestio de potestate papae, ed. P. Celestino, Archivum Francescanum Historicum 41 (1948): 240–281 and Quaestiones super Librum Praedicamentorum Aristotelis. Acta Universitatis Schokholmiensis 45, ed. R. Andrews (Stockolm: Almquist & Wiksell, 2000). See also St. James of Marches, OFM, Dialogus contra fraticellos, ed. D. Lasič (Ancona: Falconara, 1975); James, De sanguine; James, Sermones dominicales, 4 vols., ed. R. Lioi (Ancona: Falconara, 1978–1982); SAMPLE xxii Caritas In Primo these very same Franciscan theologians, any citation from the De mysterio Trinitatis is perplexingly wanting.15 Be that as it may, these were the circumstances in which the De mysterio Trinitatis enjoyed its opportunity to make a lasting impression on the greatest philosophical mind of the so-called Byzantine Renaissance;16 namely, George-Gennadius Scholarius (d. c. 1472).17 Even if the precocious Scholarius normally showed himself an enthusiast for Latin learning from the sort of St. homas Aquinas and eclectic modistae of the fourteenth century (like unto Radulphus Brito),18 our Byzantine savant James, Sermo de excellentia Ordinis sancti Francisci, ed. Nicolaus dal Gál, Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 4 (1911): 303–313. James’ personal library contained Bonaventure’s Breviloquium, Scotus’ entire commentary on the Sentences and extracts from bk. four of the same, Francis Meyronnes’ sermons, and sermons of his spiritual Father, Bernardine of Siena. See Biblioteca Francescana Falconara. “La biblioteca di San Giacomo” February 18, 2014. http://www.sangiacomodellamarca. net/biblioteca_san_giacomo.htm. See too Francis Ariminensis, OFM, Tractatus de immaculata conceptione b. Mariae Virginis, in Tractuatus quatuor de immaculata conceptione b. Mariae Virginis, nempe Thomae de Rossy, Andreae de Novo Castro, Petri de Candia, Francisci de Arimino: Bibliotheca Franciscana Scholastica Medii Aevi 16, ed. C. Piana, T. Szabò, and A. Emmen (Firenze: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1954). Perhaps the greatest example of synthesis between Bonaventure and Scotus is accomplished in: St. Benardine of Siena, OFM, S. Bernardini Senensis Ordinis Fratrum Minorum opera omnia, 8 vols. (Florence: Ad Claras Aquas, 1950–1965). Still, I have looked in vain for intra-Trinitarian metaphysics or references to the De mysterio Trinitatis. 15 Among the Franciscan conciliar periti, whose works not yet available in a critical edition, nothing appears promising. E.g., St. John Capistran, OFM, took Aquinas as his principal doctor. See John Hofer, St. John Capistran Reformer, trans. P. Cummins (London: B. Herder, 1943), 39–40. Among his opera omnia, the influence of Scotus is limited to select matters, such as logic and his (lost) treatise on the Immaculate Conception. See Aniceto Chiappini, Reliquie lettararie caestranesi, storia, codici, carte, documenti (Aquila: Oficina grafiche Vecchioni, 1927), 51, 143. His works are very favorable to Franciscans such as Alexander of Hales alongside of his beloved Aquinas. For brevity, it sufices to note that other Franciscan periti are eclectic, seemingly neglecting Scotus. E.g., see Albert Sarthiano, B. Alberti a Sarthiano Ordinis Minorum Regularis Obseruantiae vita et opera, ed. P. Dufy and F. Harold (Rome: Joannes Baptista Bussottum, 1688). 16 For this narrative of late Byzantium, see Steven Runciman, The Last Byzantine Renaissance (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1970). 17 For his life and times, see Marie-Hélène Blanchet, Georges Gennadios Scholarios (vers 1400–vers 1472): un intellectuel orthodoxe face à la disparition de l’Empire byzantine (Paris: Le Boccard, 2008). 18 Sten Ebbesen and Jan Pinborg, “Gennadius and Western Scholasticism: Radulphus Brito’s Ars Vetus in Greek Translation,” Classica et Medievalia 33 SAMPLE Foreword xxiii gradually warmed to the classic Franciscan school.19 Under the aegis of his tutor and spiritual father, the “Pillar of Orthodoxy” Mark of Ephesus (1392–1444),20 Scholarius distanced himself from homism on not a few points, decidedly dissatisied with Aquinas’ capacity either to justify or to harmonize with Byzantine theological commitments.21 Instead, Scholarius turned his attention to the Subtle Doctor in preparation for the Council (1981–1982): 263–319. Scholarius, in his De processione de Sancto Spiritu prima, in OCGS, 2:223, warns Orthodox to ignore later Schoolmen (viz., sycophants of Richard of Middleton and Scotus). He remarks that these self-glorifying Schoolmen changed terminology and traditional theological method and our savant concludes that Scotus and Mayron are the last theologians to maintain the mens patrum (πατερικὸν φρόνημα). NB, all references to OCGS = George-Gennadius Scholarius, Oeuvres Complètes de Georges Scholarios, 8 vols., ed. L. Petit, X. Sidéridès, and M. Jugie (Paris: Maison de la Bonne Presse, 1929–1935). 20 For the most recent biography and bibliography on Mark, see Nicholas Constas, “Mark Eugenikos,” in La théologie byzantine et sa tradition (XIIIe–XIXe s.), ed. C. & V. Conticello (Turnhout: Brill, 2002), 2:412–441. 21 Scholarius’ cafeteria Thomism, typical of the 13th–14th century (before the onset of orthodox Thomism), has been demonstrated in Kappes, “The Latin Sources,” 74–114. Recently, valuable selections of Scholarius’ laudatory comments for Aquinas have been collected in John A. Demetracopoulos, “Georgios Scholarios - Gennadios II,” in Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Begründet von F. Überweg. Die Philosophie des Mittelalters. 1.1: Die byzantinische Philosophie, ed. G. Kapriev (Basel: forthcoming). Still, Scholarius’ reverence and constant reference to Aquinas must be balanced against his significant doctrinal and philosophical criticisms of Aquinas. See Scholarius, Prologue to the Summa Theologiae, by Thomas Aquinas, in OCGS, 5:1–2, where Scholarius overcomes his begrudging criticism of Aquinas’ typically Latin tenets by praising Aquinas’ scripture commentaries and purely philosophical works, especially metaphysics, though he admits that Aquinas’ filioque and essence-energies doctrine (viz., Akindynism) constitutes an insurmountable obstacle between the Latin and Greek Churches. See Scholarius, De anima, in OCGS, 6:327 (bk. 1, ch. 1, n. 2), where Scholarius accuses Aquinas of plagiarizing John Philoponos. See Radulphus Brito, On Porphyry’s Isagogue, trans. G. Scholarius, in OCGS 7:78, where he approvingly translates Radulphus Brito’s metaphysically critical position of Aquinas on materia signata, while in other places Scholarius supplies glosses to mitigate some criticisms against Aquinas (e.g., ibid., 6:283). See Scholarius, De processione prima, in OCGS, 2:18, wherein he accuses Aquinas of falsely distorting Damascene into a Nestorian in order to extort acquiescence of the Greeks to the filioque. See Scholarius, De processione secunda, in OCGS, 2:377, wherein he bids Orthodox to flee from Aquinas’ doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Of course, citations against Aquinas’ pneumatology could be multiplied. Finally, Scholarius is likely responsible for a condemnatory gloss of Aquinas’ ad intra metaphysics of the divine attributes, employing the heretical epithets of “Barlaamite” and “Akindynist” to Aquinas. See Séverin Salaville, “Un thomiste à Byzance au XVe s.: Gennade Scholarios,” Echos d’Orient 23 (1924) : 129–136. 19 SAMPLE xxiv Caritas In Primo of Florence in 1437.22 Upon his encounter with the Subtle and, thus, Marian Doctor, Scholarius recognized the potential for a meeting of minds from both East and West vis-à-vis Orthodox dogma.23 Scotus appeared to have a Greek pedigree in respect of the Trinitarian primitas of the Father, the ilioque,24 the formal distinction, and the Immaculate Conception.25 Naturally, upon arrival at both Ferrara and Florence in 1438 and 1439, respectively, Scholarius enthusiastically frequented the Franciscan studium in each respective city.26 here, in the studium library of Florence, Franciscans likely acquainted Scholarius with the See John Monfasani, “The Pro-Latin Apologetics of the Greek Émigrés to Quattrocento Italy,” in Byzantine Theology and its Philosophical Background, ed. A. Rigo (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), 165–168. 23 Scholarius, Introduction to De ente et essentia, by Thomas Aquinas, in OCGS, 6:179–180, issued Duns an “imprimatur” in Orthodox theology, writing: 22 Some in Italy, especially those of the habit of Francis, whose school, so to speak, I have oten frequented, associate themselves more with later teachers, whom they allege in their opinion to surpass [Thomas.] Nor are we ashamed of Francis [Mayron] or his teacher [John Duns Scotus], as long as we give first place to the one who is first [Thomas Aquinas], all the while admiring the subtlety of their intelligence, and even siding with them on many points of inquiry […] But according to the designation of most of us, the more recent [Schoolmen] are fairly orthodox in comparison to Thomas; being that they are closer to us and to the truth; namely, those surrounding the Master John Scotus. 24 For the of the Father’s primitas and filioque ad mentem Graecorum, see Richard Cross, Duns Scotus on God (Vermont, VT: Ashgate, 2007), 203–222, and Scholarius, De processione prima and secunda (cf. supra p. xxiii n. 19), in OCGS 2:227; 2:349. 25 Definitive proof demonstrates that Scholarius did not merely adopt the Latin doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Instead, he was acutely aware of the patristic doctrine of St. Gregory Nazianzen for the Immaculate Conception via the concept of “prepurification.” Adopting this universal theological value of the Palamite school, Scholarius argued Mary’s immaculateness from her first moment of existence based upon her “prepurification.” He only ulteriorly justified these arguments with recourse to Latin theology from the Franciscan school. See Christiaan Kappes, The Immaculate Conception: Why Thomas Aquinas Denied, While John Duns Scotus, Gregory Palamas, and Mark Eugenicus Professed the Absolute Immaculate Existence of Mary (New Bedford: Academy of the Immaculate, 2014). 26 Scholarius almost certainly attended lectures of Scotistic magister, Augustine of Ferrara, OFM, at the impressive Franciscan studium at Ferrara (1438). Augustine gained fame for lecturing publicly on the plenitude of power of the Pope within Ferrara. See Celestino Piana, “Lo studio di S. Francesco a Ferrara nel Quattrocento: Documenti inediti,” Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 61 (1968): 153–154, 160–162. The studium taught Greek literature at the time of the Council (ibid., 115). Scholarius frequented many lectures. See Scholarius, Introduction to De ente et essentia, in OCGS, 6:180 (cf. supra p. xxiv n. 23). SAMPLE Foreword xxv very inspiration for Duns’ formal distinction; namely, the De mysterio Trinitatis.27 Whether Scholarius wholly or partly translated Bonaventure, or more implausibly cited him indirectly via another Scholastic author, is currently unknown. At any rate Scholarius bequeathed Byzantium a “breviloquent” sampling of the Seraphic Doctor through a translation of a critical section of the De mysterio Trinitatis in his 1445 translation-commentary on the De ente et essentia,28 wherein Scholarius approvingly cited Bonaventure’s divisions of being contra the putative nominalism behind the “analogical concept of being.”29 he Common Doctor had gained notoriety in Byzantium for his doctrine of analogy, such that Scholarius presented Byzantine theologians with a study aid via a homistic commentary of Armandus of Bellovisu (d. 1334).30 Gof, Caritas in Primo has underlined the solid proof for this conclusion (cf. infra pp. 24–25 n. 28). See Titus Szabó, “De distinctionis formalis origine bonaventuriana disquisitio historico-critica,” in Scholastica ratione historico-critica instauranda, ed. Charles Balić (Rome: Antonianum, 1951), 379–445. 28 See Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, De mysterio Trinitatis, in Doctoris Seraphici S.R.E. Episcopi Cardinalis Bonaventurae opera omnia (Quarrachi : Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1891), 5:46–47: 27 Likewise, if there is being-from-another (ens ab alio), then there is beingnot-from-another (ens non ab alio) […] Likewise, if there is being-in-relation (ens respectivum), then there is unconditional being (est ens absolutum) […] Likewise, if there is diminished being (ens diminutum) or being-ater-something-else (secundum quid) […], then there is being simpliciter […] Likewise, if there is being because of another (ens propter aliud), then there is being because of its very self (ens propter se ipsum) […] Likewise, if there is being via participation (ens per participationem), then there is being via essence (ens per essentiam) […] (De mysterio Trinitatis q. 1, a. 1). 29 See Gof, Caritas in Primo (see infra pp. 209–210 n. 19). Scholarius writes (Scholarius, De ente et essentia, in OCGS, 6:282): [The divine operations are not merely distinctions of terms within the soul] just as when these very attributes are distinguished through being absolute and non-absolute (τῷ ἀπολελυμένῳ καὶ μὴ ἀπολελυμένῳ), or by relation, i.e., by being indistinct and distinct (τῷ ἀδιακρίτῳ καὶ διακεκριμένῳ), by being in-relation-to-itself and in-relation-to-another (τῷ πρὸς ἑαυτὸ καὶ πρὸς ἄλλο), by being from-something-else and not-from-something-else (τῷ ἔκ τινος καὶ τῷ οὐκ ἔκ τινος), by being participated and non-participated (τῷ μεθεκτῷ καὶ οὐ μεθεκτῷ), and such distinctions as these, which are all contradictories (ἀντιφατικά). (ch. 94, lines 22–26) 30 See Hugh Barbour, Byzantine Thomism of Gennadios Scholarios and His Translation of the Commentary of Armandus De Bellovisu on the “De Ente Et Essentia” of SAMPLE xxvi Caritas In Primo Precisely because of a parallel metaphysical approach to God’s essence and attributes, Franciscans would have been amenable to Palamas and were in fact not inclined to condemn him at the Council of Florence in 1437–1439.31 he Franciscan school led Pope Eugene to drop the ensuing discussion from conciliar debates to the chagrin of the Dominicans and homists.32 For his part, Scholarius heartily airmed Bonaventure’s fundamental divisions of being into being-in-itself and being-in-another, participated and unparticipated being, etc. Scholarius’ Bonaventura graecus latently supplied Byzantium with a complement to the ever-indeinite list of transcendental disjunctives in both Bonaventure and Palamas, to the latter of whom Scholarius was ilially devoted. It may be that the future will bequeath us even more quotations from the “latent Bonaventure,” potentially hidden within the pages of late Byzantine theologians. Of course, this would serve to further the ecumenical legacy of Bonaventure’s theological program so very appreciated by Scholarius. Lamentably, Scholarius’ incipient synthesis of Franciscan and Byzantium theology via the De mysterio Trinitatis came to a tragic halt following the complete destruction of the Byzantine Empire upon the Turkish sacking of Constantinople in 1453. Henceforth, both Latins and Greeks, along with philosophy and theology itself, groaned for over four hundred years in unconscious anticipation of a lingua franca whereby they could directly speak to one another, that is, until Bonaventure’s treatise happily reemerged from the cupboards of Franciscan archives as a result of the eforts of Fidelis a Fanna (published 1891).33 Dr. Gof’s erudite study at last provides the contemporary philosopher and theologian with a “Rosetta Stone,” by means of Thomas Aquinas (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticano, 1996). Quae supersunt actorum graecorum, 5.2: 442. 32 Andrew of Rhodes explicitly cited Palamas to provoke debate at Florence. See Quae supersunt actorum graecorum, 5.1:102. He did this in spite of the fact that Pope Eugene and Emperor John VIII preliminarily agreed to table the discussion ater their independent investigations into Scotism in 1437–1438. See Eugene’s intervention against John Montenero, OP, during his anti-Palamite attack in: Acta Latina, 6:179. 33 Gof, Caritas in Primo (see infra, pp. 15–23). 31 SAMPLE Foreword xxvii which the methodological and semantic code of Bonaventure’s magnum opus may be decrypted. My claim is bold, indeed, but not without warrant. Fortunately, Dr. Gof veriies my assertion when introducing his reader to the De mysterio Trinitatis by tackling the status quaestionis of this work within the history of modern and contemporary scholarship. What emerges from Dr. Gof’s succinct description of previous scholarly work in chapter two is a tale of scholars far too bereft of the requisite dynamism necessary to warm the frosty glass through which the interior light of Bonaventure’s intellect might manifest itself in all its resplendence. Each preceding scholar wholly or partially confronted the challenge of the De mysterio Trinitatis, all the while accompanying himself or herself with his or her peculiar merits over and above those common to scholars at large. Nonetheless, each academic evidenced weaknesses common to his or her context and time. Dr. Gof notes that initial demythologization of the mystery of the De mysterio Trinitatis was hampered by several factors; namely, (1) reading the De mysterio Trinitatis as a coetaneous composition instead of a seminal and foundational work, (2) reading presently in vogue neo-homism over and against Bonaventure, and (3) reading Bonaventure against the background of a highly prejudicial neo-thomistic historical narrative. Nineteenth and early twentieth-century investigations into the De mysterio Trinitatis happened to conclude correctly that Bonaventure’s work rejoiced in a Greek pedigree. However, upon closer investigation, the very same authors failed to base their conclusions on a complete survey of Bonaventure’s Greek sources or on an analysis of how these same Greek sources were given priority over and above Latin authorities on fundamental metaphysical points de départ. Contrariwise, modern commentators tended to adopt narrative categories, whereby a medieval theologian’s prioritization of “person” or “essence” necessarily encapsulated him into the genus of “Greek” or “Latin” theology. Defunct Schoolmen were conveniently defenseless to resist their intellectual exhumation to be relocated into the newfangled and limsy theological boxes of either a Latin catafalque or a Greek SAMPLE xxviii Caritas In Primo sarcophagus; both of which were mere mental constructs suitable only for centaur and goat-stag theologians. Surprisingly, despite the advancements in method and approaches to exegesis, contemporary authors have persisted in placing historical considerations and context of the De mysterio Trinitatis at the margins of their investigations. Grosso modo, this has led to only a haphazard collocation of this seminal work within the puzzle of Bonaventure’s Trinitarian and metaphysical program. Dr. Gof presents the reader with a concise description of contemporary contributions and shortcomings within his introduction. Given Dr. Gof’s eye to detail, there is little doubt that his overall conclusion is correct; namely, the De mysterio Trinitatis has not yet been read as a foundational document to be understood within its own remote and proximate historical context. For this reason Dr. Gof in chapter three takes pains to alert the reader to logical, philosophical, and theological currents in the Roman Church and the environs of Paris leading up to Bonaventure’s literary production. What is more, Dr. Gof ills a signiicant number of pages with a detailed description of the universitarian environment of thirteenth-century Paris. To my mind, he would have been welcome to exhaust the depths of current research on the Franciscan studium in Paris and other minutiae. Prudently, so that his book serves as a true prolegomenon to the De mysterio Trinitatis, Dr. Gof opts to provide the non-specialist with suicient background to divorce his or her mind from any comparison and contrast to homas Aquinas and other igures posterior to the De mysterio Trinitatis. Such personages are historically irrelevant to Bonaventure’s original synthesis. Only after providing the reader with a solid historical setting and detailed indications about Bonaventure’s literary sources does Dr. Gof dare to broach the topic of Bonaventure’s organization, method, and intellectual commitments (let alone theological conclusions) of this underappreciated masterpiece of Trinitarian theology. After detailing historical considerations for several chapters, Dr. Gof introduces the reader to an important irst consider- SAMPLE Foreword xxix ation; namely, the role of St. Francis in the theology of Bonaventure. In chapter four, Dr. Gof suiciently secures the reader’s mind that it is legitimate to view Bonaventure through the optic of “Franciscanism.” While avoiding exaggerations that would attribute excessive dependence on either Francis’ writings or on his mens, Dr. Gof delineates Bonaventure’s literary dependence on St. Francis during diverse phases of Bonaventure’s literary production. he net weight of his arguments gravitate the reader toward the conclusion that both the memory of St. Francis, as well as certain selections from among his writings, were important considerations in Bonaventure’s approach to sacred study and to his mentality of avoiding anything that smacked of secularization and, thus, useless curiosity in matters of either science or faith. It is of great import that Dr. Gof painstakingly arranges Bonaventure’s early works according to their chronology, so as to expose the underlying thematic continuity between them. In so doing, Dr. Gof reaps the reward of clarity with respect to the De reductione artium ad theologiam and De scientia Christi. When these three early Scholastic treatises are viewed in relation to one another and their historical context, they manifest Bonaventure’s theologic and worldview. Instead of blindly treating each separate work of Bonaventure as a coetaneous and systematic composition, Dr. Gof reveals Bonaventure’s progress of investigation and thought, which culminates in the Trinitarian mystery. Anachronistic reads destroy the unity of this sacred trio of texts and darken the intellect of the scholar who consciously or unconsciously approaches the ancient text from motives subservient to modern needs. First, Bonaventure must be appreciated within his own context and in view of his own concerns, thereafter the scholar may discern what and how much of Bonaventure’s theologic and Weltanshauung is salvageable for the hic et nunc. Moreover, on the question of the structure of the De mysterio Trinitatis, Dr. Gof enlightens his reader as to the purpose of the irst quaestio in relation to those that follow. When viewing the irst disputed question as a propaedeutic or preamble to the SAMPLE xxx Caritas In Primo sevenfold division of the remaining questions in chapter seven, the entire organization of the work comes to life. Furthermore, Dr. Gof suggests potential paradigms for Bonaventure’s highly unusual structure. he privileged station of Greek sources and themes tempts one to speculate about the inluence of the famous Neo-Platonic Liber de causis. Still, Dr. Gof’s detailed presentation of the evidence allows for the equally likely hypothesis that Bonaventure adapted the order of his discussion along the lines of some other Greek source. Whether this thematic arrangement hails from a Father as antique as Nazianzen or as relatively contempo as Damascene remains to be seen. Still, the probable conclusion endures; namely, Bonaventure abhors innovation (kainotomia) and prefers rather to synthesize Latin and Greek traditions by recourse to a binary lectio reverentialis. Despite my own fascination with Bonaventure’s Byzantine pedigree, it is nonetheless the case that Dr. Gof shows equal interest in potential Latin inspiration for much of what Bonaventure has to say. he reality is that Bonaventure accomplished a synthesis of East and West. As such, one would be unwise to expect a unilateral approach to any one of Bonaventure’s highly metaphysical questions on the Trinity. Keeping this caveat in mind, Dr. Gof notably highlights areas of concentric thought between Bonaventure’s theological predecessors and especially the successor par excellence of his school, Blessed Duns Scotus. In this vein Dr. Gof gives his reader seminal indications for further and specialized investigation into Bonaventure’s authorities. What begins to take shape in Dr. Gof’s historical and detailed narrative is the inluence of the school of Augustine, an unusually generous sampling of Greek patristic authorities, Greek philosophers, the school of St. Victor, Alexander of Hales, and others. Perhaps the most surprising facet of Bonaventure’s project lies in the fact that Aristotle is a central igure of discussion within Bonaventure’s pivotal Trinitarian thesis. Dr. Gof argues convincingly for Bonaventure’s courageous incorporation and handling of Aristotle’s corpus, which he masterfully confronts but only to lose subsequent interest, as betrayed by an ever-decreasing number of citations in his sequential corpus. In SAMPLE Foreword xxxi fact, we can suspect that Bonaventure’s proto-scotistic doctrines are responsible for his lack of enthusiasm for much of the Aristotelian craze that continued to afect the Latin West, as best historically exempliied by none other than homas Aquinas. Dr. Gof’s underlining of key Bonaventuran metaphysical points clearly foreshadows Scotus’ own insights into the formal distinction, the disjunctive transcendentals, the adoption of Anselm’s simpliciter perfections, non-formal identity distinguishing the divine attributes, and especially the positive ininity characterizing the divine essence. What is more, in chapter eight, Dr. Gof correctly centers the thrust of his metaphysical analysis into Bonaventure’s unique doctrine of divine ininity. In opposition to Greco-pagan sources and coeval Aristotelico-theologians, Bonaventure exploits Gregory of Nazianzen’s and John Damascene’s designation of the divine essence as “a sea of ininite being.” Not only this, but Bonaventure privileges the Damascene in his metaphysics, whose doctrine of divine ininity can be reduced to the Cappadocian notion of a singular, immense, immanent universal with three divine exempliications.34 Dr. Gof adequately and in detail discusses the purely Greco-Christian notion behind Bonaventure’s metaphysical foundation stone, which will subsequently serve the Franciscan school in so many ways. Ominously, Dr. Gof’s description and handling of the sources lead the reader to suspect that even Maximus the Confessor and John Scottus Eriugena are ultimately required to give a satisfactory account of Bonaventure’s theological repertoire. In efect, Dr. Gof forces Bonaventuran scholarship to expand its horizons and dig more deeply into the rivulets feeding the fontal source of the Franciscan tradition of metaphysics. In conclusion, Dr. Gof provides the enthusiast and specialist with a real prolegomenon to Franciscan metaphysics. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Dr. Gof’s work is best utilized as a heuristic device to lush out valid strategies and observations, which have been previously employed by Dr. Gof’s academic 34 See Richard Cross, “Gregory Nyssa on Universals,” Vigiliae Christianae 56 (2002): 372–410. SAMPLE xxxii Caritas In Primo predecessors in their own eforts to expound the De mysterio Trinitatis. Dr. Gof’s historico-textual presentation is best likened to a scale whereupon the weight of exaggerated foci, myopic or ahistorical reads, and anachronistic speculation may be measured and classiied as either too heavy or too light to qualify as a gloss in the margins of the folios of this Bonaventuran masterstroke. We can only hope that the most recent scotistic commendations from the Ordinary Magisterium, to which Dr. Gof himself explicitly makes reference, may garner wider appreciation for the profound theology of Bonaventure and Scotus and, thus, these doctors might ind their enhanced ecclesiastical stature useful in the service of ecumenical dialogue. Given the fundamental parallelism between the perennial theology of the Franciscan and Byzantine traditions, Franciscanism seems principally and naturally apt to function as a lingua franca between East and West. At least for now, Dr. Gof has succeeded in deciphering the fundamental hieroglyphs of the lingua Francescana within a founding document of Franciscan metaphysics. SAMPLE