vivarium - vol 34, nos. 1-2, 1996
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
1/295
Vivarium
Volume 34
1996
Reprinted ith hepermission f theoriginal ublisher
by
Periodicals
Service
Company
Germantown,
NY
2010
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
2/295
Printedn cid-free
aper.
This
eprint
as
reproduced
rom
he
best
riginal
dition
opy
vailable.
NOTE O
THEREPRINT
DITION:
In ome asesfull
age
dvertisements
hicho not dd o
the
cholarly
alue f his olumeave een
mitted.
As
result,
ome
eprinted
olumes
ay
ave
rregularagination.
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
3/295
VIVARIUM
AN INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
FOR
THE
PHILOSOPHY
AND INTELLECTUAL
LIFE OF THE
MIDDLE AGES AND RENAISSANCE
VOLUME
XXXIV
(1996)
'
'
6
8
*
^
E.
J.
BRILL
-
LEIDEN
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
4/295
VIVARIUM
AN
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
FOR THE
PHILOSOPHY
AND INTELLECTUAL
LIFE OF THE
MIDDLE AGES AND
RENAISSANCE
VOLUME
XXXIV
(1996)
E.
J.
BRILL
-
LEIDEN
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
5/295
VIVARIUM
AN INTERNATIONAL
OURNAL
OR THE PHILOSOPHY
AND
INTELLECTUAL IFE OF
THE MIDDLE AGES AND
RENAISSANCE
vivarium
s devoted
n
particular
o
the
profane
ideof medi-
aeval
philosophy
nd the ntellectual
ife f
theMiddle
ges
nd
Renaissance.
editors L.M. de
Rijk,
Leiden)
H.A.G.
Braakhuis,
Nijmegen)
J.
Jsewijn,
(Louvain)
C.H.
Kneepkens,Groningen)
W.J.
ourtenay,
Madison).
Secretary
f he ditorialoard: r.
C.H.
Kneepkens.
Allcommunications,xcepthose fa businessature,hould e
addressed
o
C.H.
Kneepkens,
ijksuniversiteitroningen,
aculteit
der
Letteren,
akgroep
ediaevistiek,
.O. Box
716,
9700 AS
Groningen,
he
Netherlands.
advisory Tullio
Gregory,
Rome)
PaulOskar
risteller,
New ork)
Albert
committee
Zimmermann,
Cologne)
J.E.
Murdoch,
Cambridge,
A).
publishers
E.J.
rill, eiden,
he Netherlands.
published
Twice
early. ay
nd
November;
a.
280
pages early.
Copyright
996
by
.J.
Brill
Leiden,
he
etherlands
All
rights
eserved.
o
part f
his
ublication
ay
e
eproduced,
ranslated,
tored
n
a
retrieval
ystem,
r
ransmitted
n
ny
orm
r
by
ny
means,lectronic,
mechanical,
hotocopying,
ecording
r
therwise,
ithout
rior
ritten
permission
f
he
ublisher.
Authorization
o
hotocopy
tems
or
nternal
r
ersonal
use s
granted
y .J.
Brill
rovided
hat
the
ppropriateees
re
aid irectly
o
Copyright
Clearance
enter,
22
Rosewood
rive,
uite10
Darwers,A01923, SA. eesre
ubject
o
hange.
PRINTEDN
THENETHERLANDS
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
6/295
CONTENTS OF VOLUME XXXIV
(1996)
Isabel Moreira: Augustine'sThree Visions and Three
Salt Lake
City
Utah
Heavens
in
Some
Early
Medieval Flo-
rilegia
1
Klaus
Jacobi,
Christian
From
ntellectus erus/falsus o
thedic-
Strub,
Peter
King:
tum
propositions:
The
Semantics
f
Peter
Freiburg
m
Breisgau
Abelard nd his Circle
15
Hildesheim;olumbus,
hio
Fiona
Robb:
TheFunction
fRepetition
n
Scholasticheo-
Oxford bgyof
the
Trinity
41
Paul J J.M.Barker: Syncatgormesconceptsquwot:euxques-
Nijmegen
tions
nonymes
conservesans e ms.
Paris
BJV.,
at.
16.401,
lies la
smantique
e
Pierre
Ailly
c. 1350-1420)
76
Oleg V. Bychkov: The
Reflection
f
ome
raditionaltoic deas
Toronto in the
Thirteenth-Century
cholastic heories
of
Beauty
141
L.M.
de
Rijk:
Burky'
So-calledractatus
rimus,
withn
Mheer Edition
f
theAdditional
uaestio
Utrum
contradictio it maximaoppositio .... 161
Elizabeth
Karger:
Mental
entences
ccording
o
Burley
nd to
Paris the
arly
Ockham
192
DominikPerler:
Things
n the
Mind.
Fourteenth-Century
on-
Oxford
troveries over
Intelligible
pecies
231
Francis Cheneval:
La
rception
e la Monarchie e Danteou
Fribourg
Les
mtamorphoses
'une uvre
hilo-
sophique
254
L.G. Kelly:
A
Fragmentf
Michael e
Marbasio,
umma
Ottawa
Cambridge
demodis
ignificandi
268
Reviews Irne
Rosier,
La
parole
ommecte.
ur a
grammaire
t la
smantique
u
XIIIe
sicle
(Lauge
OlafNieben)
131
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
7/295
IV CONTENTS
Thomas Aquinas,
Selected
hilosophical
Writings
selected
nd translated
y
Timothy
McDermott
E.P.
Bos)
135
Matthias
Kaufmann,
egriffe
Stze,
inge
Referenz
nd Wahrheit
ei Wilhelm on
Ockham
Reinhardlsen)
140
AristotelesPeriHermencias.ebersetzt
nd
erlutertvon Hermann Weidemann.
Aristoteles
erken
deutscher
her
etzung,
begrndetonErnstGrumachherausgegeben
vonHellmut lashar
L.M.
de
Ryk)
270
J.
Follon and
J.
McEvoy
(eds.),
Actualit
de
la
pense
mdivale
E.J.
Ashworth)
274
Risto
Saarinen,
Weakness
f
the Will n
Medieval
houghtrom ugustine
oBuridan
(Kimberlyeorgedes)
275
The
Cambridgeompanion
o
Aquinas
edited
by
Norman
retzmann
nd Eleonore
tump
(E.P. Bos) 278
Leen
Spruit,
peciesntelligibilisfrom
er
ception
o
Knowledge
Dominik
erler)
280
Books
Received
284
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
8/295
Augustine's
hree
Visions nd
ThreeHeavens
in Some
Early
Medieval
lorilegia
ISABEL
MOREIRA*
When,
according
o
an
eighth
entury seudaugustinian
ext,
Orosius
wanted to
persuade
St.
Augustine
o elucidate some
particularly
notty
questions n thescriptures,e explainedforhis master nd forhis read-
ers
the
very
ssence of
the value of
florilegia
o
his
society.
It is
the case
that
many
verypious
men,
unlike
n
style
but
not unlike
n
faith,
have
published
nnumerable
ittle
works,
uch
that t is difficult
o
read
them
all;
and
they
which
re
read are
little nderstood
n
account
of
the
beauty
of
their
loquence
and
very
difficultntricacies
f the
questions. 1
This,
surely,
s a classic statement
n the educational
exigency
which
prompted genre
which
flourished
o
robustly
n the
middle
ages.
Yet
the
underlying
otivation
or he
production
f
florilegial
orks
an
only
be explainedpartlyn terms fproviding clarification fthe difficult
writings
f
the
ancients.
lorilegia
ere
compiled
for
variousreasons
which
*
I
wouldike
o hankhe
ollowing
cholars
or
heirdvicend
omments:
.
Cour-
tenay,
.M.
Gorman,
.
Meyvaert
nd
C. McDannell.
am also
grateful
o
J.
Divjak
for
roviding
ewith
list f
manuscripts
f he
ialogus
uaestionum
XV rom
is orth-
coming
olumen
France
or
ie
handschriftliche
berlieferung
erWerkees
eiligen
ugustinus.
1
Dialogusuaestionum
XVOrosii
ercontantis
t
AugustiniespondentisMigne,
L
40,
cols.
733-52:
Licet ultit
robatissimi
iri iverso
uidem
tifo,
ed on iversa
ide
nnumerabilia
pus-
cula
diderint,
ta
ut
difficile
it orummnia
egere
ea tarnen
uae
eguntur,ropter
loquii
enustatem
etdiffidllimasuaestionumerplexitates,inimentelliguntur.ncatalogingllAugustininan-
uscripts,ncluding
hose ttributed
o
Augustine
n themiddle
ges,
ie
handschriftliche
ber-
lieferung
erWerkees
eiligenugustinus
. itzungsberichte
er sterreichischen
kademieer
Wissenschaften,
Philosophisch-historischlasse'
vols.
Vienna
969-76),
dvancesur
nowledge
f his
mpor-
tant
orpus
f exts.
ee
also,
.
Cavallera,
ugustin
Aprocryphes
ttribus
saint),
n:Dictionnaire
de
piritualit
I,
Paris
937 ols.
1130-5.
On
florilegia
nd
other elated
ource
ypes,
.-M.
Rochis,
ontribution
l'histoirees
florilges
sctiques
u
haut
oyenge
atin
in:Revue
ndictine,
3
1953),
46-91
specially
bibliographie
otes
.
246
n.
2,
p.
248
n.
3. B.
Blumenkranz,
a survie divale
e aint
Augustin
traverses
pocryphes
in:
Augustinus
agister
tudesugustiniermes
,
Paris
954,
003-18.
J.
Leclercq,
he
ove
f
earning
nd
he esire
or
God.
study
f
monasticulture
3rd
d.,
New
York
982,
82-4.
.
Bischoff
endepunkte
n
er
eschichte
erateinischen
xegese
m
rhmittelalter,
in:Sacris rudiri,(1954), 89-279. . Bardy,a littratureatristiquees Quaestionest
responsiones
ur'criture
ainten:Revue
iblique,
1
1932),
41-69. .
Hathaway,ompilatio
From
lagiarism
o
Compiling,
n:
Viator,
0
1989),
9-44.
E
J.
Brill,
eiden,
996
Vivarium
4,1
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
9/295
2
ISABELMOREIRA
are not
always
obvious.
Indeed
caution
is
needed even
if,
or
perhaps
especially
f,
n
overtly
ngenuous xplanation
or
omposition
s
provided
by
the author of
the
text.
Many florilegio.
,
and
this s the
case
with the
pseudaugustinian
ialogus
uaestionum
XV
which
was
quoted
above,
com-
prised
a
selection
f
readings
which related to circumstances ther
than
those indicated
by
the
work.
The
Dialogus
uaestionum
XV
was
suppos-
edly
a
dialogue
between
Augustine
nd
Orosius that was intended to
provide
clear
answers
to difficult
uestions
raised
in
the
writings
f the
ancients.
n
fact,
the
work
was fashioned rom
xcerpts
primarily
rom
Augustine'sworkand the questionand responseformof the text was
rapidly
ransformednto
a
biblical
commentary.
he
true
purpose
of the
work,
however,
was
to
contribute
criptural
nd
patristic uthority
o
a
particular
ide of
a
late
eighth entury hristological
ispute.
This
particular
lorilegist
howed remarkable kill
n
fashioning
work
which
operated
on a
diversity
f levels. His
composition
s
an
important
indicator hat the
florilegist's
raft,
which s oftendeemed
to be
an
infe-
rior
iterary
ndeavour,
s
not the
artistically
r
intellectually
terile
rocess
of
cut
and
paste
that
t
can
often eem. Nor is
the
finished
roduct
nec-
essarilya misshapenmonsterpieced togetherfrom borrowed iterary
corpses.
n
the
hands of a
skilled
florilegist,
r even the
not so
skilled,
the
excerpted
exts ame to the attention f new audienceswho
read
new
meaning
nto them.
In
order to
fully
ppreciate
he contributionhat this
type
of iterature
made
to the
early
medieval
understanding
f
patristic
exts,
t is
neces-
sary
to
move
beyond
studieswhich focus on
the vertical
relationship
between the
pseudonymous
ext and the
original
ource
text,
nd
strive
towards
a
horizontal
investigation
cross
a wide
spectrum
of
early
medieval lorilegia.hat is to say, it would be useful o be in a position
to
trace how
these texts
related
to one
another
to create a
literary
ul-
ture of their
own.
It
is the kind of
study,
however,
which s
not
easily
accomplished.
Many florilegia
ave
not
survived
althoughpseudonymous
attributions
o
Church
Fathers must have
improved
survival
rate)
and
they
re
often ifficulto date
with
ny
accuracy.
Anystudy
which
ttempts
to
survey
hese
ittle
tudied textsmust
begin
by
investigating
he
date
and
origin
of
the
work
under review.Even then
t
may
not
be
possible
to recreate
ccurately
he transmission f
ideas
through urvivingexts,or be certainof the contextsn which
they
were first
or secondly)
dis-
cussed.
Any
discussion
f the
florilegist's
rt mustbe framed
y
these nd
many
other
imitations.
evertheless,
here re cases where
groups
f such
texts
urvive
whose
relationship
o
each other
re
more
securely
nown.
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
10/295
AUGUSTINE'S
HREEVISIONS
ND
THREEHEAVENS
3
It is then
instructiveo consider how
compilers
reated their
material,
what
decisions
were
made
concerning
he context
n which
certain
ypes
of
nformation
ere
discussed,
nd
ust
as
importantly,
hat
material
was
ultimately ropped
from
onsideration. his is best
accomplished
y
ref-
erence to concrete
xamples;
cases where
we
can followthe
process
of
text
selection
and elimination
mong
florilegio,
hose
history
s known.
Consequently
will
focusattention
n the transmissionf one
particular
theme which
appears
in
some
early
medieval
lorilegio.:
ugustine's
hree
categories
f
vision.
As we shall
see,
the
Augustinin
heme
found new
contexts,nd thusopportunityornewmeaning, s it was excerptednto
some
early
medieval
lorilegio.
In
book
1
of
his De Genesid litteram
ugustine
xpounded
his famous
tripartite
ision
categorization
which
definedthe
gradations
of
human-
kind'svision
or
knowledge
f
God
by
means
of the
following
hree cat-
egories.
Corporeal
vision
s thatvisionwhich
s seen
by
the
body. Spiritual
or
imaginative
ision
s
that
seen
with the
mind's
eye,
and
finally,
ntel-
lectual
vision
is that
pinpoint
of divine illuminationwhich
is
beyond
human intellection.2
ugustine
onsidered these three
categories
to be
mutually nterdependent iththe exceptionof the third ategory. hus
corporeal
vision
requires
piritual
ision
to enable it to
process
and store
information
n
the
memory.
piritual
ision needs the intellectual
apac-
ity
to understand nd
interpret
he
vision,
while
being
able to function
without
orporeal
vision.
ntellectual
ision
alone
has no need of other
vision
types
ince that
vision was itself
ure knowledge
nd
understand-
ing.
To
each of these vision
categoriesAugustine ssigned
correspond-
ing gradation
f heaven.
Although
Augustine's
iscussion
f
thistheme
was
to
have
a
long
his-
tory n thewritings f the highmiddleages, it was relatively eglected
in
the first ewcenturies
fter
is death. One
possible
explanation
or
his
neglect
ay
in
the arcane
philosophical
nature of the
visionary
heme
which
did not
have the
doctrinal,
criptural
r
pedagogical
nterest hich
usually
determined he
choice of texts
given
new
exposure
n
florilegio
3
2
Augustine,
e
Genesi
d itteramibri
II,
XII.6,
d.
Zycha,
CSEL
28)
Vienna
894,
3-435.
3
In
Italy
nd
Gaul,
wo
egions
ith
particularly
lose ssociation
ith
ugustine's
work,isinterestnAugustine'sisionheoryscategorical.nItaly,ugippiusfLuculla-
num's
xcerpta
x
operbus
.
Augustini
early
th
C)
provides
hemost
latant
xample
f
this
eficiency.ugippius'
ommissionas o
make selectionf hemost
mportant
each-
ings
f he
aintlyishop.
his nvolvedim
na
project
hose
cope
nd
omprehensive-
nesswasnot
o
be
equalled
or enturies.s M.M.
Gorman
as
hown,
ugippius'
crip-
toriumad
particularly
ntimate
cholarly
onnection
ith
ugustine's
e Genesi
d
itteram.
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
11/295
4
ISABEL
MOREIRA
What t did
have
was a
numerical ormulation
three ypes
f
vision)
which
gave
it
genuine ppeal
to the
compiler
f
lorilegio,
nd which
occasionally
overcame
the
passage's
potential
or
completeobscurity.
or the
purpose
of
this
tudyAugustine's
reatment
f the
three
visionshas
the
additional
advantage
of
being
a
formulation hich
s
recognizably ugustine's
wn,
expounded
n
a
single
work,
nd
so
ensuring
hat the
ultimate
ource of
the
information
an
be
identified
ith
certainty.4
In
tracing
he fate of
Augustine's isionary heory
s it is
presented
n
early
medievali
lorilegio,
e will uncover
the
moment
of the
florilegist's
choice.Augustine's extwillemerge pitomized, ransformed,ewlynter-
preted,
nd tailored
o fit
ontexts
nimagined
y
its
author.First
o
be
examined is the
tripartite
ision theme
n
some
early
Irish
works,
nd
secondly
he use of the
vision
categories
n
the
Dialogus
uaestionum
XV
written n the
European
continent.
Augustine's
isionary
hemen
Some
rish
lorilegio
The
earliestworks
n
which
Augustine's
ext
on the
three
types
of
vision was reproduced,were two commentaries n the catholicepistles
dated
by
R.E.
McNally
to the late seventh nd
early eighth
enturies.5
The work as
read
with
are nd
Eugippius
ncludedourteen
assages
rom
t n
his
book
f
xcerpts.ignificantly,
one
f he elected
assages
ere
aken romook welve
(the
ision
reatise)
nd
ts
bsence,
hen
we
know
he
ompiler
ead he
ntire
ork,
s
a clear ndication
hat
his
articularugustinin
dea was
considered
arginal.
n
Eugippius
nd
his ircle ee M.M.
Gorman,
hapter
eadings
or
t.
Augustine's
e Genesi
ad
litteram,
n:Revue es
tudes
ugustiniennes,
6
1980),
9-104,
nd
Eugippius
nd he
Origins
f
he
anuscript
radition
f
t.
Augustine's
e Genesi
d
itteram,
n:
Revue
ndictine,
90 1980), -79.
Augustine's
isionreatises
equally
bsent romincentfLrins'
ugustine-inspired
florilegiumomposed
n the
arly
ifth
entury,
xcerpta
ed.
Hamman,
L
Suppl.
ll
23-45.
These
xcerpts
re onfinedo
Augustine's
ork n
the
rinity
ndhis efutationfArms
andNestorius.
hey
rethe ort
f
writings
sefulo
a
bishop
oncernedith radicat-
ingheresy.
ee
J.T.
Lienhard,
he
arliest
lorilegiafAugustine
in:
Augustinin
tudies,
(1977),
1-31.
incent's
ork,
hich
y
omparison
ith
ugippius'
s
very
rief,
allsnto
a
category
f
lorilegium
hich
as no
aspiration
o
broad
epresentation,
eing
irected
rathero
narrowly
efined
octrinal
uestions.
ikewise
rosper
f
Aquitaine's
iberen-
tentiarum
early
ifth
entury)
hich
urveys
wider
pectrum
f
Augustine'shought
han
does
Vincent,
s
very
imited
evertheless,
nd
althoughrosper
oesmake selection
from ook welve
f
heDe
Genesid
itteram
XII.7),
chapter
n
which
ugustine
ffers
an elaborationnthe efinitionf he hreeisionypes,rospermits isionheoryle-
ments.
rosper
f
Aquitaine,
iberententiarumc.
295,
d.
P.
Callens
CGSL 8A),
urnhout
1972,
29.
4
The
tri-partite
hemes
tobe
found
n
other
orks
yAugustine,
utnot
n
this
re-
cise
ormulation
ith
he
hree ision
ypes
orresponding
o the hree eavens.
5
Commentariusn
pistolas
atholicas.cottus
nonymus
ed. R.E.
McNally,
criptores
iberniae
Minores
,
(CCSL
108B),
urnhout
973,
-50.
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
12/295
AUGUSTINE'S
HREE
VISIONS
ND
THREE
HEAVENS
5
These two commentaries
hich
were
composed
n
the Irish
tradition
all
intothat
ategory
f
exegetical
omposition
which,
n
its wholesale
ppro-
priation
f earlier
ources,
s
hardly
o be differentiated
rom
florilegium.
The first
ommentary
s
probably
he work f the
scriptorium
f
Reiche-
nau;
an Irish
composition
f
the late seventh
entury.6
he
commentary
of
this Scottus
nonymus,
r the work
from
which
t
derived,
nfluenced
strongly
second,
slighdy
ater
commentary
n the
catholic
epistles,
he
Tractatus
ilarii n
septem
pistolas
annicas
which
McNally
also considered
to
be
an Irish
composition,
atingprobably
between
690
and
708.7
The
Tractatus ilariiwas in turn almostcertainly ede's source for much of
his
well-known
xpositio
n
epistolaseptem
atholicas
omposed
c.
708-9,
a
workwhich would
not
reproduceAugustine's
ext.8
The
dependence
f the
second rish
commentary
n the first ommen-
tary
n
James
s
easily
discerned
n
passages
which ntroduce
Augustine's
tripartite
isionary
heme.
n
both
works he
theme
of
three
visionswas
used to
clarify
hetext f
James
2.8,
Diliges
roximum
uumicut e
psum.
his
was,
in
fact,
one-of the
biblical
passages
which
Augustine
had used to
illustrate is
visionary
ategories
n
his De Genesi d
litteramII. 6
and 11.
Lookingmoreclosely t theway in whichthecommentatorsmoulded
their orrowed heme
o the
scriptural
ontext,
we
discover hat he selec-
tion
of
Augustine's
ext
which
n
the firstrish
commentary perated
with
a
readily
perceived
f
clumsy
ationale,
ailed to make sufficientonnec-
tion with the
scriptural
assage
in
the second.
The
anonymous
uthorof
the first
ommentary
irst
xplained
forhis
reader
the
meaning
of
James
2.8
concerning
ove for
one's
neighbour
and
then,
n
a
substantiell
dditional ection ntroduced
Augustine's
hree
types
f vision.9
6
On
the rish
xegetical
radition
ee
J.F.Kelly, ugustine
nHiberno-Latiniteraturein:
Augustinin
tudies,
(1977),
39-49,
.
Grosjean,
uelquesxgtes
rlandaisu VIIe
icle,
in:
acris
rudiri,
1955),
7-98
nd
M.
Herren,
he
seudonymous
radition
nHiberno-Latin
an ntroductionin: T.T. 'Meara
nd B. Naumann
eds.),
atin
cript
nd etters
00-900
Leiden
976,
21-31.
Tractatusilariin
septempistolas
annicas
ed.R.E.
McNally,
cnptores
iberniae
inores
I,
CGSL
108B),
urnhout
973,
3-124.
s
McNallyoints
ut,
he tated
uthorf his
work,
ilary,
eed ot
necessarily
e a
pseudonymous
ttributiono
Hilary
fPoitiers
r
Hilary
f
Aries,
ut
may enuinely
ave
een he ame
f
he uthor.
hework
s referred
to as Pseudo-Hilaryevertheless.8
Bede,
xpositio
n
pistolaseptem
atholicas
(CGSL 121),
urnhout
983,
81-342.
9
Commentariused. R.E.
McNally,criptores
iberniaeinores
,
(GGSL108B),
urnhout
1973,
2.
Lengthyigressions
n
a
topic
uggested,
owever
bliquely,y
a
particular
biblical
assage,
as he
ccepted
ethodology
mployed
y arly
medieval
xegetes.
ee
Beryl
malley,
he
tudyf
he ible
n he
iddle
ges,
rd
d.,
Oxford
983,
nd
.Leclercq,
The
ove
f
earning
nd he
esire
or
God3rd
d.,
New
York
982,
1-88.
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
13/295
6
ISABELMOREIRA
The
commentator
rgued
that
the text
of
James
2.8
could be
under-
stood
by
reference
o the three
types
f
vision;
the
visio
arnalis,
isio
pir-
italis
sic)
et
ntellectualis.
e
explained
that the first wo vision
types
like
the
first
ategories
f
love)
are
subject
to
error,
nd both
require
indi-
gent)
he intellectual
ision.
The threevision
types
were thus
presented
s
corresponding
o
three
types
of
love,
and were therefore
made relevant
to
the
passage
on
love.10This
was
followed,
or
good
measure,
by
an
additional discussion
of the four
types
of
love,
two visible
Love
your
neighbour,
nd
love
your
enemies)
and
two
invisible
Love
your
God,
and love yoursoul a veryNeoplatonicconcept).11 etweenthe two de-
finitions,
he first
ommentary
overed the standard
exegeticalresponse
to
the
question
of
love
in
this
period,
as a
glance
at other
minor
xeget-
ical
works,
ncluding
seudo-Isidore's
Questions
n theOld and
New
Testament
show.12
The
second
commentary,
he Tractatusilarii ntroduced he three ision
types
t
exactly
he same
juncture
n
the
text,
but
there s a
significant
difference.
hereas
the
earlier
commentary
llowed
the threevisions o
correspond
o different
ypes
of
love,
thus
commenting
n
James
2.8,
in
the Tractatus ilariiAugustine's hreevisionsentirelyost any exegetical
relevance.
he
clumsy
nclusion f the
visionary
ormulation
n
the Tractatus
Hilarii
now
totally
igressionary,
s witness o the
mechanical
reproduc-
tion
of
information
o common
n
this
period.13
Bede,
who as mentioned arlier
used the Tractatusr
a
related
ext
for
10
he late
ighth
entury
uthor f
the
Questiones
vangelii,
GCSL
108B),
urnhout
1973,
50-1
sed
xactly
hese
erms,
ut
ssigned
hemothe efinitionf
piritual,
ntel-
lectualnd rational:
piritualits
hospilalitatis
xhibitio.ntellectuality
ut
ic
diligamus
roximum
absentemicutt raesentem.ationabiliter,n rimat ecunda.11
Commentarius
ed. R.E.
McNally,criptores
iberniae
inores
,
(GCSL 108B),
urnhout
1973,
2.
12
Exegetical
orks
nd
florilegia
ended
o define
ove
y
means freferenceo ssues
brought
p
n
James
.8.
The four-foldlassificationf
ove,
sed
y
both
ommentators
tofollow
he
ripartite
ision
heory,
as
nothertandard
eans
f
definition.
heenor-
mously
opular id-eighthentury
seudo-Isidore,
e vetet
novo estamento
uaes
ions,
d.
R.E.
McNally,
mptores
iberniaeinores
,
(CGSL
108B),
urnhout
973,
97-205,
nnu-
meratedn chs.
7-8
he our
ypes
s
love or
God,
ove
orGod as we ove
urselves,
love or
ur
neighbours,
nd ove or
ur
nemies.
he
commentary
f he Scottus
no-
nymus learly
emonstratests
arentage
n
Pseudo-Isidores
this
assage
eveals:
Deum
ergo lus uam
nos
diligere
ebemus:
roximum
icut
os;
nimicumt
proximum.
t
nisiDeumprimumilexerimus,osmetipsosenimeilegereotemus.c. 38]These
were
he
ommentator'sentiments
xactly.
ee alsoPrebiarum
emultorium
xemplaribus
24
on three
ypes
f
ove,
nd
Prosper
f
Aquitaine,
iberententiarum
367
which raws n
Augustine,
ract,n
v.
oh.,
5.5.
13
n
fact,
passage
n oveforGod
and
neighbours
s
to be found
n theTractatus
Hilarii's
nterpretation
f
James
.4.
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
14/295
AUGUSTINE'S
HREEVISIONS ND
THREE
HEAVENS 7
his
Exposition
n the
Catholic
pistles
was
familiarwith
Augustine's
e
Genesi
ad litteramnd chose
to omit
the threevisions
passage
from
his commen-
tary.14
hus
by degrees
he
interpretation
f
James
2.8
and
love
forGod
and one's
neighbour y
means
of
Augustine's
isionary
heme was lost.
The
appropriation
f
Augustine's
isionary heoryby
the Irish com-
mentaries xamined above
can tell us
something
f
the
way
in which
information as
preserved,
made
redundant
and
eventually
ost.
The
author
of
the first
rish
commentary
n the
catholic
epistles
was able to
experiment
ith he use
of
Augustine's
ision
reatise
o
illustratehe
pas-
sage on love because the commentary as indeed thefirsto be written
on the catholic
pisdes.
Without
xegetical xamplesupon
whichto
draw,
the
compiler
was not
restricted
y
convention
ut
was
rather
open
to
any
information
hich
might
ontribute
o a better
nderstanding
f
the
text.Once the
tenuousconnection
etween
Augustine's
ision
categories
and the biblical text
was
brought
o
the attention
f the
learned
Bede,
rather han
a rote
copier,
he association
f the
two textswas
abandoned.
In
thesethree
works, hen,
we see
how
a
particular
ext
came
to
be
asso-
ciated
with,
or
acted
as
a
commentary
pon
another,
nd likewise
he
processbywhich t disappeared.
Augustine's
isionsn
the
t
'Dialogus uaestionum
XV
Turning
now to the
pseudaugustinian
ialogus uaestionum
XV we
find
the
earliest
ext to
offer
synthesis
f
Augustine's
ision treatise
n
the
context f the
book
of Genesis}0
f all
the
pseudaugustinian
lorilegia
f
14
ede sedAugustine'se Genesid itteramxtensivelyor is wn xegeticalorknGenesisrittenfter21: nGenesimed. Gh.W.
onesCGSL
118A),
urnhout967. ede
was nfluenced
y
Eugippius'
xcerpta
n his
election
f
passages
rom
ugustine
n his
own
lorilegium,
. I.
Fransen,
'Eugippius
Bdee Vnrablein:
Revue
ndictine,
7
1987),
187-94. n Bede's
ibrary,
.L.W.
Laistner,
he
ibraiyf
heVenerableede
in: A.H.
Thompsoned.),
ede: is
Life
Times,
nd
Writings
Oxford
935,
37-66.
Furthervidencehat
ugustine's
e
Genesi
d itteram
asknown
n
relandt
an
early
date omes
n
the
ragment
f
hework
inEugippius'
dition)
n
an rish
pitome
f he
late
h
entury,
.
Gorman
nunedited
iagment
f
n
rish
pitome
fAugustine's
De
Genesi
ad
itteram,
n:Revue
esEtudes
ugustiniennes,
8
1982),
6-85.
15
Migne,
L
40,
733-52.
here
s to date
no criticalditionf
this
ext,
nd this
s
not
he
lace
oexaminehe
ialogusuaestionum
XV
n
ts
ntirety.study
f he
work
byM.M.Gormans now urrentlynder ay. wouldike othankim or iscussing
this ork
ithme.
Latermedieval
seudaugustinian
orks
ealing
pecifically
ithhe ision
heory
bound.
A
particularly
ulsomeersion
s
supplied
y
he ibere
ognitione
erae
itae hich
s
mani-
festly
f he
high
middle
ges, robably
hework
fHonoriusfAutun
12th
entury),
B.
Blumenkranz,
a survie
divalee aint
ugustin
travers
es
pocryphes
n:
Augustinus
agister
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
15/295
8 ISABELMOREIRA
the middle
ages
to
preserveAugustine's
ision
classification,
his
s with-
out a
doubt
the most
nteresting.
ts
early
date
and
fidelity
o
the inten-
tion of
Augustine's ommentary
ontributes o
making
t
an
important
record
of
familiarity
ith
Augustine's
work,
nd
his vision theme n
par-
ticular.
Unfortunately,
he text has
been
little
tudied,
nd its
date and
origin
re still
open
to
question.
Before
consider
Augustine's
isionary
theory
n
the
work,
short
digression
will
be
necessary
n
which
make
my
own
suggestions
oncerning
ts date and
origin.
A
description
f the
textand its main
components
will
clarify
ome of the
issues
surrounding
itscomposition nd date.
In
the
first ection
of the
work,
Orosius launches
immediately
nto
twelve
uestions
oncerning
he
Trinity
tarting
ith
Genesis .1.
The sec-
ond
section
questions
welve
to
twenty) omprises
uestions
on the
Old
and
New
Testament et
out
n
no
apparent
rder.The third
ection
ques-
tions
twenty-one
o
sixty-two)
eturns
o the
beginning
f Genesis
nd fol-
lows
the normal
sequence
of
questions
on the text.
A
significant
ortion
of this
ection
has verbatim
orrespondences
iththe
Commentary
n Gene-
sis,
a
more
substantial
ommentary
n
Genesis than the
Dialogus uaes-
tionumXV erroneously ttributedn the middle ages to Eucheriusof
Lyons
sixth
entury),
ut now
considered o
be
the work
of Claudius of
Turin
(ninth
entury).16
The
final
section s
perhaps
the most
interesting
f all.
It
comprises
three
questions
sixty-three
o
sixty-five).uestion
sixty-three
s a
synthe-
Paris
954,
003-18.n this
work,
he
ision
materials
fleshed
ut
by
he
seof
pagan
oneiromantic
nd
philosophic
erminology.
he 11th
entury
e Tribusabitaculisritten
bybishop
atrickf
Dublin,
nd
ttributedo
Augustine
mong
thers,
s
another
xcep-
tionalase wherehe uthorshipas wellknownnmanymanuscripts,ut nothers
acquired
ts
Augustinin
ttributionueto the isionontent
ecognizably
eriving
rom
his
work.
he
pseudonymous
ttributionf
both hese orkss a
clear ndicationfhow
routinely
nd
uniformly
ugustine
as
dentified
ith
ision
heory
n
themedieval
eriod.
See,
Libere
ognitione
erae
itae,
L
40, 1028;
e
tribusabitaculis
ed.A.
Gwynn,
Scriptores
Latini
iberniae),
ublin
955,
1-8.
woother
seudonymous
orks,
he ibere
piritu
et
nimand he iber
oliloquiorum
nimaedDeum id
not raw n the
ripartite
isionat-
egorization
s the
thers
ad
done,
utdrew n
book
2
of
heDe Genesid itteramor
related
spects.
heLiber
e
piritu
d
nima
.24
or
xample,
rew
erbatim
n
Augustine's
definitionf
cstasy
n
theDe
Genesi
d
itteram
II.26.
On
ClaudiusfTurin's
uthorship
f he
seudo-Eucherian
ommentary
n
Genesissee
M.L.W.
aistner,
ome
arly
edieval
ommentaries
n
he ld
estamentn:
The
nteUectucd
eritage
of he arly iddlegesCornell957, 00-1who ites omBellet, laudioeTurnyutor
de os
omentarios
In
genesim
t
regam
el seudo
uqurio
in:
Estudios
blicos,
(Madrid
1950),
09-23;
lthough
ote
M.M.Gorman's
orrectionf he
mistaken
ttribution
f he
MS
Autun
7
commentary
o
Claudius,
he
ncyclopedicommentary
nGenesis
reparedor
Charlemagne
y
Wigbod,
n:
Recherches
ugustiniennes,
7
1982),
92
ootnote9.See also
Gorman,
he
ncyclopedicommentary
192.
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
16/295
AUGUSTINE'S
HREE
VISIONS
NDTHREE
HEAVENS
9
sis of
Augustine's
ision
categories
s
expounded
n
book XII
of his De
Genesid litteram.
uestion sixty-four
ffers
our
ategories
f
Apostle,
nd
question
ixty-five
sks
how we are
to
know which
prelates
re
sent
by
God. The last three
questions,
hen,
return o the concerns
with
which
the document
opened,
namely
the need to discern true
teachings
from
false,
nd true teachersfromfalse.
The natureof the
heresy
which the document
ought
to address
may
directus to
its
date and
origin.
The
Dialogus
uaestionum
XV
opens
with
the errors f the heretical abellians
who
maintain hat God
is one
per-
son rather han the orthodoxpositionwhich discerns hree:personasis-
tinguimus
non eitatem
eparamus).
his
is
not
very
helpful
n
securing
date
since
early
medievalauthorswere wont to
identify
n a
new
heresy,
till
without
name,
its
root
in
one
of
the older
establishedheresies.Both
the fourth
entury
riscillianists
nd
the
eighth
century
Migetians
were
considered
y
orthodox
hurchmen
o
sharetheir rror
with
he
Sabellians,
for
they
doubted
n
common
that
the second
person
of
the
Trinity
was
withthe Father from
he
beginning.17
The next doctrinal ssertion s that the Son of God is
God's son
by
nature nd notby adoption igituriliusDei naturastFilius,non dopone,
forotherwise herewould be two Sons. This
doctrine
f two
Sons
(Nes-
torianism)
as
espoused
by
Elipandus
of
Toledo and
his
followers
who,
in
seeking
o distance themselves
rom
he
Migetian
error
which
fused
the divine nd
human
n
Christ),
made
so
stark distinction etween
he
The
striking
orrespondences
etweenlaudius'
ommentary
ndthe
Dialogus
uaestionum
LXV hould ot
vershadow
he
rue
egree
f
ssociation.
y
far
he
reater
art
f his
sections not
rawn
romhe
Commentary
n
Genesis.
1
ThePatripassiansnd Sabellianselievedhat he econd ersonf theTrinitysonewith he athero the xtentfnot
being
istinguished
rom im. he Father as
incarnatend
uffered
s Christn
a
distinct
emporal
xistence,
eaning
hat
hristid
not xist rom
he
eginning.igetius
as ccused f
eaching
hat
here ere hreeor-
poreal ersons
n the
rinity,
he
econd
eing
hristorn
f he
Virgin,
nd hus har-
ing
with he
atripassians
ndSabellians
he
eliefhat
he
econd
erson
f he
Trinity
didnot xist
eforehe ncarnation.
igetius'
eachings
ere ondemned
t
the ouncil
ofSeville
n
782
and re
pecifically
ountered
y
he
rthodox
ompiler
f he
Dialogus
quaestionum
XV.
y
85,
eeking
odistance
imselfrom
he
Migetian
rror,
ishop lipan-
dus
f
Toledo ndhis ollowers
roposed
distinctionetweenhrist'sivinendhuman
nature
hich
as
o
radical
hatt
mplied
he
xistence
f
wo
ons,
nd hus his
osition,
too,
s
countered
y
he
ompiler.
n
the
atripassians
nd
abellians,
.F.
Bethune-Baker,
An ntroductiono he arly istoryfChristianoctrine9th d.,London 951, 03-6. n
Migetian
eliefsee
Elipandus'
etter
o
Migetius,pistulaM>igetio
reticoirectaed.
J.
Gil,
(Corpus
criptorum
uzarabicorumol.
1)
Madrid
973,
8-78. ee also
.
Vives,
ondlios
visigticos
hispano-romanos
arcelona-Madrid
963,
.J.
HefelendH.
Leclercq,
istoirees
Conles
II,
2,
Paris
910,
85-92
ndmost
ecendy
.
Cavadini,
he ast
hristologyf
he
West
Philadelphia
993.
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
17/295
10 ISABELMOREIRA
two
persons
f
Christ
hat
they
ikewise ell nto error.18he
explicit
efu-
tation of this error
uggests
hat
the
Dialogus
uaestionum
XV,
or
at
least
the
opening
section
of
it,
is
an
anti-adoptionist
ract
of
the
late
eighth
century.
his
would
place
the
preface
fter
85,
when the
dispute
began
to
surface.19
A
terminus
nte
uern
an
be also
posited.
Claudius of Turin's
Commentary
on Genesiswhich has the
Dialogus uaestionum
XV as one
of
its
sources,
s
securely
ated to
81
1
(the
date of the
earliest
manuscript).20
nd Michael
Gorman
has shownthatthe
Dialogus
uaestionum
XV
was used
by
Wigbod
for the Genesis commentarywhich he composed for the Emperor
Charlemagne,
work which he
dates
between 775
and
800.21
Finally,
the vision
section
of the
Dialogus uaestionum
XV was
reproduced
erba-
tim
in
the
Libri Carolini hose date is
c. 793.22The
Dialogus uaestionum
18
Elipandus
fToledo
rgued
hat
hrist
n
his
ivinity
as he
onofGod
by
nature,
but n his
human anifestation
as
he
on f
God
by doption.
is
teachings
ere
on-
demned
y
Pope
Hadrian in
788
council
f
Narbonne)
nd
byPope
Leo
III in
798
(council
f
Rome).
he
correspondence
enerated
y
this
ispute
s to
be found
n
the
Corpuscriptorum
uzarabicorum
d.
J.
Gil,
ited
bove,
nd n the
Patrologia
atina 01.
Seealso, .Cavadini,he astChrisology.
19
he
ssue fdate s
not
more
ubstantially
larified
y
ooking
t the
work's
epend-
ent ources. e
know,
or
xample,
hat
he
ialogus
uaestionum
XV
rew
n
Eucherius
of
Lyons'
nstructiones
a work
fthe ixth
entury
hichhus
ubstantially
ntedateshe
Dialogusuaestionum
XV.G.
Bardy,
a
littrature
atristique
es
uaestiones
t
responsiones
sur 'criture
aintein:Revue
iblique,
1
1932),
37, ited,
.M.
Gorman,
he
ncyclope-
dic
ommentary
178 ootnote
8.
The
uggestion
hat he
arolingian
seudaugustinian
iber
deTrinitatet
Unitale was
source
or
he
Dialogus
uaestionum
XVwasrevised
y
he
learned enedictine
onks
f the
Congregation
f St.
Mauer,
or t s theLiber hich
depends
n the
ialogusuaestionum
XV.
Admonitio,
L
40,
733,
ndPL
42,
1193).
Most
telling,
owever,
s the lose
elationship
etweenhe
ialogus
uaestionum
XV
ndClaudius
ofTurin's ommentariusnGenesimhich as lreadyeenmentionedbove. hetwo extsare closenot
nly
ncontentut lso n
date,
lthough
atherhan hebriefer
ialogus
quaestionum
XV
being
contractionf
Claudius'
onger
ork,
s
Migne
elieved,
he
Dialogusuaestionum
XV
s one
of
ts ources.
20
M.L.W.
aistner,
ome
arly
edievalommentaries
191,
ontra
.
Madoz,
e
Symbole
du
XL
concilee
Tolde,
ouvain
938,
64-91 ho ased is ater
ating
n the rroneous
beliefhat he
Benediction
f
he
atriarchsontainedn thework as
derivedrom
lcuin
whohad
t from
ede.Laistner
ecognized
hat t
wasfrom ufinus
d. 410)
ndwas
used
y
sidore
mid
th
entury).
laudius as onsecrated
o
the
ee
ofTurinn
818,
seven
ears
fter is
commentary
as written.refero him
by
his title
or
asier
identification.
21
M.M.
Gorman,
he
ncyclopedicommentary.
22TheodulffOrleanssthe ikelyuthorf he ibri aroliniA.Freeman,heodulff
Orleans
nd
he ibri
arolini,
n:
Speculum,
2
1957),
63-705,
.
Meyvaert,
he
uthor-
ship
f
he Libri
aroliniObservations
romptedy
recent
ook,
n: Revue
ndictine,
9
(1979),
9-57,
nd
A.
Freeman,
heodulff
Orleansnd he salmitations
f
he ibri
aro-
lini,
n:Revuendictine47
1987),
95-224.
L.
Wallach
uts
casefor lcuinian
uthor-
ship,
iplomatic
tudies
n
Latin
nd
Greek
ocuments
rom
he
arolingiange
Ithaca-London
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
18/295
AUGUSTINE'SHREEVISIONS NDTHREEHEAVENS
11
LXV
therefore,
annot
be later than
793,
and is
perhaps
as
early
as 775.
Whereas it
is
impossible
o know
whether he
work
was
commissioned
by
one
of
the
disputants,
t
was
clearly
written
within he context
f this
dispute.
he
dialogue
form
nvolving
ugustine
nd Orosius was intended
to associate
Augustine
ntimately
ith he
anti-adoptionistosition,
which
was
a
preferred
actic
by
both sides
of
the
dispute.
Turning
now
to the
work's
place
of
composition.
he earliestmanu-
script
vidence for the
Dialogus
uaestionum
XV
is
a
fragment, eyden,
Bibliotheek er
Rijksuniversiteit
.P.L.3230,
which
Virginia
Brown,
Bern-
hard BischoffndJamesJ. Johnhave identified s eighth entury,writ-
ten
in a
French hand.23
However,
there are
good
reasons for
thinking
that the
Dialogus uaestionum
XV was
written ot
by
a
Frankish cholar
but
by
a
Spanish
exile
working
t
the Frankish ourt.
The
firstndication
hat
the text temsfrom
milieufamiliar
withthe
Spanish
Christian radition
s
its
verbatim
quotation
from
part
of
the
Symbol
f Toledo
XI
-
an
unlikely
hoice of
text
for Frankish uthor.24
Secondly,
s
we
have
seen,
the earliest se
of
the
Dialogus
uaestionum
XV
is seen in
works
written
y Spanish
exiles
working
t
the
Carolingian
court:ClaudiusofTurin'sCommentarynGenesisnd Theodulfof Orleans'
LibriCarolini.
inally,
he choice of locutors
n
the
dialogue
is
also
sug-
gestive
f a
Spanish
milieu.The
dialogue
purports
o take
place
between
Augustine
nd his
disciple
Orosius,
who
lived
in
North
Africa
from
14
onwards,
but who
was
Spanish
by
birth and education. As G. Morin
noticed,
pseudonymous
ttributionsend to follow nationalist
ines.25
t
may
be
confidendy
sserted
hat
the
Dialogus uaestionum
XV
in
the
form
1977, 2-3.]Althoughrittennstages,he ibri aroliniasprobablyargelyrittenn
793,
A.
Freeman,
arolingian
rthodoxy
ndhe ate
f
heibri
arolini,
n:
Viator,
6
1985),
65-108.
23
Addendao he odices atini
ntiquioresII),
n:Mediaeval
tudies,
4
1992),
86-307.
The arliest
omplete anuscript
s Escorial.IV.
which
.Divjak,
ollowing
.
Bischoff,
dates o
he
econd
alf f
he
inth
entury,
.Divjak
a
prsence
e
aint
ugustin
n
spagne)
in:
Coloqio
obrerculadon
e odicesescritosntre
uropa
la
peninsula
n os
iglos
LLL-XLLL,
Universidad
e
Santiago
e
Compostela
988,
1
footnote
3.;
G.
Anatoln,
talogo
e os
cdicesatinose a Real
ibliotheca
el scorialvol.
1
Madrid
910,
03-4
escribedhe
man-
uscript
nd
ssigned
10th
entury
ate.
he Escorial
anuscript
s
n
Carolingiancript
with
isigothic
otations.
umerousater
manuscripts
an be foundn
other
uropean
collections.
he
redactor
ftheworks
unknown.ee
Die
handschriftlicheberlieferung
er
WerkeesHeiligenugustinus(SitzungsberichteersterreichischenkademieerWissen-
schaften,
hilosophisch-historisch
lasse),
vols.,
ienna
969-76,
have
een nable o
discover
ny
ubstantiation
o
J.
Divjak's
ttribution
o
Quodvultdeus,
a
prsence
e
.
Augustin
en
spagne
31.
24
Symbol
f
Toledo
XI,
PL
84,
454.
25
Cited
y
B.
Blumenkranz,
m urvie divale
1014.
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
19/295
12
ISABEL
MOREIRA
we have
it,
with
ts
preface
nd
concluding uestions,
s a
Spanish
com-
position.
t was
probably
written etween775 and
793,
and was used
by
the
Spanish
nti-adoptionistamp
as
a
genuine atristic
ext n
the
ubject.
Turning
now to the
Dialogas
uaestionum
XV' use of
Augustine
ision-
ary categories,
we find he
issue
raised
n
question
ixty-three.
n
answer
to
the
question, uot
unt
enera
isionm
,
the
readerwas
informed f
three
things:
irst hat there
were three
vision
types,
orporeal,
piritual,
nd
intellectual.
econdly, they
earned that
Augustine
had
determined hat
Paul's was
the
highest
ort of
vision,
ntellectual
ision,
as
he
was
rapt
up to God in the thirdheaven. And thirdly, heyread thattherewere
three
heavens
corresponding
o
the three
visions
numerated,
correla-
tion which was
the
essence of
Augustine's
osmographie
pproach
to
the
vision theme.
These
were the
primary,
nduring
eatures f
later
pseu-
donymous
bridgements
f
Augustine's
ision
theory.
For
our
purposes
t is
interesting
o note how
sophisticated
his
syn-
thesis
s
in
comparison
o
later
medieval
attempts.
parse
as the
details
are
in
the
Dialogus uaestionum
XV,
it
preserved
feature
f
Augustine's
treatise
which
did not
always
make it
into the ater
compilations,
amely
the nterdependencefthe vision ategories. orporealvision annotoper-
ate without
piritual
ision,
piritual
ision can exist
without he
corpo-
real,
and
finally
he
intellectual ision
requires
neither he
spiritual
nor
the
corporeal
vision.
The
significance
f this
nformation
s
its
purely hil-
osophical
importance.
This
element
ifts
he
summary
from a
floating
list
to
a
genuine,
f
rudimentary
ynthesis
f
Augustine's
vision
thesis.
Later
pseudaugustinian
reatments
f the
threevisions
were often
weight-
ier
in
terms
f
quantity
f
information,
ut
they
tended to lose
sight
of
the
thesis.26
Finally,the contextof the discussionof vision types n the Dialogus
quaestionum
XV
immediately
ollowing
he
commentary
n
Genesis istin-
guished
it
from the
Irish
commentaries
which
disregarded ntirely
he
original
context
of
Augustine'svisionary
discussion.The
Dialogus
uaes-
tionumXV is
unusual
also when
set
beside
other
early
medieval
Genesis
commentaries hich
borrowed
material
rom
Augustine's
e
Genesid litte-
ram for
they
omitted he
seemingly angential
nformation
n
the vision-
ary
gradations.
Claudius of Turin's
Commentary
n Genesis id not
include
the
vision
treatise,
or did
the Genesis
ommentaryomposedbyWigbodfor
Charlemagne.27
leventhand twelfth
entury
pseudonymous
exts
26
ee
my
note 5
above.
27
Wigbod,
uaestiones
n
Genesim
ps.-Bede),
L
93,
233-430.
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
20/295
AUGUSTINE'SHREEVISIONS NDTHREE
HEAVENS
13
tended
o lead intothe discussion
f
visionsnot
n
connection
withGenesis
but
n
the context
f
discussions f the soul.
It
is this
fidelity
o the struc-
ture
and
meaning
of
Augustine's
De
Genesi
d
litteramhich
makes the
Dialogus uaestionum
XV such an
important
ocument.
To conclude:
From such
a
remove
t
is often
difficulto
identify
he
reasons
for
the
florilegiss
hoice
of texts
n
the
early
middle
ages.
We
cannot
always
be sure which textswere
available
to
him
and
in
what
formor condition
hey
were known.
Speculation
about
the
reasons
for
the
preference
f one textover another s limited
y
such
considerations.
Yet by followingAugustine's ripartite isionary lassification s it was
presented
n
some
early
compilations,
we have been
able
to
document
some
of the
impulses
t work.
In
the first
lace,
certain extshad
a
sound bite value
in
that
they
were
easily
remembered.Medieval scholars had
a
tremendous
apacity
for
remembering
umbered
categories
uch
as
the four
types
of
death,
or
the seven
types
of
prophecy.
Augustine's
hree
vision
types
fit this
mnemonic orm
o
the extent
hat,
s we have
seen,
it
could
appear
in
the unusualcontext
f a
commentary
n
James
.8.
Unusual,
that
s,
only
because thisparticular ssociation ftextsdid notsurvive. he use of the
visionary
heory
n
the Irish commentaries llustrates he
imaginative
process
t
work
t
a
particular
moment
n
time,
timewhen the
exeget-
ical
response
o a biblical text had not
yet
gelled
into
an
authoritative
code,
first
ermitting
ugustine's
ext to
be used
and then discarded.
Secondly,
he use of
Augustine's
ripartite
isionary
heory
s
it
appears
in
the
pseudaugustinian ialogus uaestionum
XV
alerts
us
to motivations
in
text
selection
beyond simple
clarification. he
danger
of doctrinal
error ent uthors
currying
ack to
patristic
extswhich
they
ransformed
into useful nd easilydigestible extbooks r epitomesof the weightier
originals.
n
this
case,
the
Christological ispute
n
progress
determined
the choice of
questions
nd answers ulled from he De Genesi
d litteram
Unlike other ommentaries
n the book
of
Genesis
n
this
period,
which
quite ogically
rew
only
on the Genesis
portion
f
Augustine's
e
Genesi
ad litteramthe
Dialogus
uaestionum
XV
strove to introduce
Augustine's
commentary
n
something
pproaching pitomai
form.
Finally,
he
place
of the
florilegist
s
an
important
nd
sometimes re-
ative contributoro the
early
medieval
ntellectual
phere
should
not be
overlooked.fwe look
beyond
the
apparent
ntellectual nervationwhich
such derivative
iterary
media
suggest,
we find hattheseworkswere com-
piled
with a
measure of
understanding
or the
needs
of their
ntended
audience which
gave
them a timeliness nd relevancewhich the
original
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
21/295
14
ISABELMOREIRA
workshad
sometimes
ost. The
florilegist'sesponse
o
Augustine's
work
as it has been examined here constitutes ore thanan
after-image
f
an
original iterary orpus.
The
florilegist
as the
ability
o
promote
nd
pop-
ularize
certain
deas
within
is
culture
which
might
therwise
e
neglected.
The
absence
of
lorilegio,
ould be
far
more ndicative f
ntellectual
ecay
than their
presence,
orwhile
essentially
erivative
n
content,
hey
ome-
times
displayed
onsiderable
ngenuity
n
form nd
presentation.
As
florlegia
ecome more
widely
studied,
one
anticipates
reat
riches
for
understanding
he
literary
ulture
f
the
early
middle
ages.
For it is
the ultimate ronyof this iterature hatwhile thecompiler's urpose n
creating florilegium
as often
ast as
a
process
of
simplification,
pro-
cess
by
which the
problem
of
obscurity
was
resolved,
n
reality
he flo-
rilegist
resents
o the
historian he
riches of
obscurity,
o more
easily
penetrated
han
the
beautiful
loquence
of the
ancients.
Salt
Lake
City,
Utah
The
University
f
Utah
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
22/295
From ntellectus erus/falsus
o
the
dictum
propositions:
The Semantics
f
Peter
belard nd his Circle
KLAUS
JACOBI
CHRISTIAN
STRUB
PETER KING
/
In
his
Commentary
n Aristotle'sPeri
hermeneias,
1
Abelard
distinguishes
the
form
f
an
expression2
oratio)
romwhat it
says,
that
s,
its content.
The
content
of
an
expression
s
its
understanding
intellectus).
his
dis-
tinction
s
surely
he most
well-knownnd central dea
in Abelard's com-
mentary.
t
provides
him with the
opportunity
o
distinguish
tatements
{enuntiationes)
rom therkinds
of
expressions
ithout
mplying
difference
in
their
ontent,
ince
the
ability
f a statement o
signifyomething
rue
or
false
verum
el
alsumf
annot be found
n its
content.
More
precisely,Abelard
distinguishes
tatementsothfrom
omplete
xpressions
orationes
perfectae)
hat
re not statements ut rather
uestions,
equests,
ommands,
etc.
nd from
ncomplete
xpressions,
hat
s,
mere word
strings
orationes
imperfecta^
,
such
as homo
lbus.
These kinds
of
expressions,
ccording
to
Abelard,
do not differ
n
the
understandingheypresent
but
in
the
way
theypresent
t.
1
The
text
f
Abelard's
ommentary
nAristotle'sPer ermeneiaswas
published
romhe
MilanmanuscriptnGeyer1927].Minio-Paluello1958] 25-8 ublishedome dditions
andcorrections
o
Geyer's
ditionased n theBerlin
manuscript.
e are
preparing
new
nd
omplete
dition
f he ull ext or he
orpus
hrislianorum
eries,
o
ppear
hortly;
we
give
eferenceso
the
age
nd
inenumberf
Geyer1927],
ut
we
supply
ur
wn
versionfAbelard's
ext,
hich iffers
n
some ases
rom
eyer.
itationsrom
ristotle
are
given
y
Bekker
umber
or
he
Greek ext nd
the
quivalentage
nd ine
num-
berforBoethius's
atin ranslations
given
n Aristotelesatinus
abbreviatedL)
in
Minio-Paluello
1965].
2
We use
expression"
o
pick
ut
trings
fmore han
newordwhich
re
n
gram-
matical
greement.
single
ords
not
n
oratiout
dictioin our
erminology,
ot n
expression
ut
merely
word.
3
That
statement
s an
expression
ignifying
omething
rue r false
s
implied
y
Aristotle,ho aid hatnotveryxpressions a statement,ut nlyhosenwhichhere
is truthr
falsity"
Peri
ermeneias
a2-3),
nd tated
xplicidy
n
Boethius,
e
topicis
iffrentiis
1174B
oratio
ignificare
erum
alsumve).
ee also
375.29-32.
E.J.
rill,
eiden,
996
Vivarium
4,1
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
23/295
16
KLAUS
ACOBI,
HRISTIANTRUB
PETERKING
The
reasoning
hat
eads Abelard
to this thesis
can be
found
n
the
prologue
ofhis
Commentary
nAristotle'sPerihermeneias.Here Abelarddes-
cribes
the
subject
of the
work he is
going
to
comment
n,
namely
voces
significativae
d
placitum
er
se
(307.12-3).
Those
conventionally eaningful
utterances
re
single
words
liquid
sse
el
non sse.
Thus the author of GDS holds the
following
air
of
theses:
(A)
Understandings
re
strictly
inkedwith
xpressions
o
which
true
or false"
s
applicable.
Abelard
avoids the
link
proposed
here
in
(A)
since he wants to
separate
the
comprehensible
ontentfrom
he
variety
f
forms
f
expressions.
(B) Understandings
re classifiednto
complete
nd
incomplete
nder-
standings.
Abelard
avoids this classification
ince he
wants to
identify
he
compre-hensiblecontentof
incomplete
xpressions
with the content f the cor-
responding
omplete
expressions.
But
(A)
is not formulated
xactly
f
one takes
B)
into
account.
The
point
made
in
(A)
must
refer
o
completeunderstandings,
ince
f
under-
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
32/295
FROM
NTELLECTUS
ERUS/FALSUSO
THE DICTUM
ROPOSITIONS 25
standings
ould
only
be
found
n
expressions
o
which
"true or false" s
applicable,
hat
s
to
say
only
n a
subclass
of
complete xpressions,
hen
incomplete xpressions
ould
not
signify
nderstandings
t all. The
author
of
GDS,
however,
nsists
hat
ncomplete
xpressions
ignifyncomplete
understandings.
o understand
A)
correctly
herefore
resupposes
the
acceptance
of
(B).
We
may
thus
replace
(A)
with the
following
hesis:
(A*)
Complete
understandings
re
stricdy
inked
with
expressions
o
which "true
or false"
s
applicable.
Perhapsthe author of GDS was unaware of the logical dependenceof
(A)
on
(B),
since he discusses
A)
beforehe discusses
B).
We
followhis
order
of
presentation
n our
discussion.13
The author of GDS
begins
with
A)
/(A*)
that
is,
with the elabora-
tion
of
different
ypes
of
complete expressions
nd
their
relationship
o
understandings.
t
is
hardly
urprising
hat he
tries
to reserve
he
con-
cept
of
understanding
or
statements.
hough
requests
nd the
like
sig-
nify
assions
of the
soul,
they
do
not
signify nderstandings.
e illus-
trates
hiswith
"
Utinam
egerem "
n
this
case the will of the
speaker
i.e.
hispassio nimi) s signified. n understanding,owever, o which "true
or
false" s
applicable
s not
signified.
his
is
in
contrast o "F0/0
egere
"
where
an
understanding
s
signified,
claim
justified
by
reference o
Priscian
181vb32-49):
Nos
autem icimus
rationes
mperativas
el
deprecativas
t huiusmodiullatenus
verumel
falsum
ignificare,
edtantum
uasdam
nimi
assiones
onstituere,
on
verum
elfalsumntellectumoncedimus.
ui
enim icit Utinam
egerem "
ullum
animintellectum
ed olam14
nimi
oluntatem
anifestat;
n
auditorearnenerum
generat
ntellectum;
xverbisnim ius
oncipit
uditor
llum elie
egere.
nde
sta
oratio
Utinam
egerem "
olius oluntatist
non ntellectusota
st,
sta
ero Volo
legere"ntellectusota st. ntellectusnimroferentisemonstratt ignificaieun-
dem
amenntellectum
traque
n
uditoreonstituit.
imiliterum
uer etit anem
sibi
ari,
icens
Da mihi
anem ,"
on d ntellectum
uem
abeat
manifestandum,
cum on
ntelligit
e hoc
velie,
ali tituroce ed
potius
d ilium15
nimaeffectum
indicandum.onstituitamen
ox llaverum
elfalsum
ntellectum
n
animo udi-
toris.
ntelligit
nim
ui
audit
psummperare
anem
ibidari.
ignificantgitur
huiusmodirationes
on ntellectused
uosdam
nimiffectus.
nde icit riscianus
:
Modi untnclinationes
nimi,
arios ius ffectus
ndicantes.
13
he
author
f
GDS
expounds
belard's
iew
n
181vbl8-32
efore
urning
o his
own heses. e
postpone
ur
discussion
fhis
xposition
o
V.
14
olamDe
Rijk 1966]
7;
llam
.
15
illum'
lium
=
De
Rijk
1966]
8.
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
33/295
26
KLAUS
ACOBI,
HRISTIANTRUB PETERKING
Sicut nim
iversi16
unt nimi
ffectus,
icad illorum17
esignationes
iversae
unt
orationes:mperativad imperationem,ptativad optationem,tsicde caeteris.
Another
spect
of
the
theory
ecomes
thereby
lear.
The
theory
has
to
distinguish
etween the
speaker
and the
listener,
ince even
if
one
who
makes
a
request
s
signifying passion
of the
soul and not
an
under-
standing,
he
istener
will
nevertheless
ave an
understanding,
amely
n
understanding
hat
the
speaker
wants
omething,
s
noted.18 s
far
as the
speaker
s
concerned,
ompleteexpressions
hat aren't
statementsre on
a
par
with the cries of
brute animals
182ral-6):
Ex atratunimanis
ui
audit anemratumum
ntelligit,
on arnenox lla ni-
malis19ntellectusomen
st,
um nimal
roferens
ocem ullum abeatntellec-
tum;
imiliter
icimus
uod
nec
veri
ecfalsintellectusb
imperfectisignificantur
orationibus.olius nim
ffirmationis
unt uiusmodi
ntellectus
uarum
stverum
velfalsum
ignificare.
A
person
ssues an
order
f
he wants
someone to
obey
him,
ust
as a
dog
barks
n
case it
is
angry.
On the
otherhand
the listener as
a
complete
understanding
both
of
the
commander's
will
and of the
dog's
anger
cf.
186va53-186vb3).
In 182va42 the author of GDS beginsto elaborate B). After eport-
ing
Abelard'sview
182va44-182vb5),
e
says
that
ncomplete xpressions
don't
signifyny
true or
false
understanding
182vb5-ll).
He doesn't
say
what
they
do
signify,
ut,
with
respect
o Aristode's
ext
16a9-ll
=
AL
5.11-4),
he
explicitly
oints
out that
ncomplete xpressions
o
signify
n
understanding
182vbl4-21).20
e returns o the
problem
f
complete
nd
incomplete xpressions
fter
ommencing
is
commentary
n
chapter
5
of
the Peri
hermeneias
21
which he
begins
with sed
notandum
uod
quidam
(186va40).
After
iting
Abelard's
position
once
more he
continues
he
explanation
he
began
earlier
186va47-53):
16
iversi
De
Rijk i
661
8;
diversa.
17
llorum
aliorum
=
De
Rijk
1966]
8.
A
crucial
eaturefthis
heory
s
the
way
t
capitalizes
n thedifference
etween
speaker
nd
istener,
orkedut
n
182ra6-20;
he
roblem
ffalse
tatements
ndcor-
rect
nderstandings
182vb23-33)
eems o
be
original
n
GDS,
though
erhapsnspired
by
Boethius.
n
general,
he
uthorfGDS has
lively
ense
f he
ontext-dependence
of
semantics.
n
185vbl4-5
e
argues
hat he
understanding
onstituted
y
a word s
taken x
demonstratioe n
the ircumstances
f ts
utterance;
n
186ra24-48
e
argues
hat
indexicaltatementsuch segoegoandhence on-indexicaltatementsuch slegoibrum,
require
contextor
he
valuation
f
heiremanticontent:
ed llud
alsum
el llud
erum
non
x e
ed x
roferentis
ignificai
emonstration
186ra46-7).
animalis]
ltus .
20
ee also
183ra3-5
nd
186rb29f.
21
17a2
AL
8.8
Enuntiativa
ero
on mnis
)
It s
another ark f he
lose imilar-
-
7/26/2019 Vivarium - Vol 34, Nos. 1-2, 1996
34/295
FROMNTELLECTUS
ERUS/FALSUS
O
THE
DICTUM
ROPOSITIONS 27
Nobis
ero
on
lacet erfectam
t
mperfectam
scil. rationem>
undem
ignificare
intellectum.lteriusnimntellectusota st Socratesegit"t "Socratesegens."
Omnes
nim
llas rationes
erfectas
ocamus
uae
n
auditore
erf