i The Trinitarian Perspectives of St. ies aa oo
CHAPTER ONE
HISTORICAL ORIENTATION
I. THE TRINITARIAN PERSPECTIVES OF
ST. AUGUSTINE AND RICHARD OF ST. VICTOR
To the great theologians of the Patristic and Scholastic ages, the mystery of the trinity was seen as foundational to the Christian faith. It seemed impossible to say what Christians felt obliged to affirm concerning the person and destiny of Jesus Christ without in some way expanding the concept of God mediated by the Old
Testament in Exodus 3, 14. Neither was it possible to accept at facevalue the Platonic or the Aristotelian versions of metaphysics, for both seemed incapable of providing an adequate framework in which to express and speculate on the matter of God's self-communication to the world for the world's salvation in the person of Jesus Christ. The trinitarian dogma has emerged in the Christian world as a function of Christology, dealing first with the theological understanding of the Word and later with the question of the Holy
Spirit. Moving from the basis of the dogma, theological reflection has — over the centuries — developed a form of metaphysical reflection on the nature of the first Principle of reality which differs profoundly from anything which the heritage of Greek philosophy could offer. In its full flowering in the Scholastic period, trinitarian thought was not only a religious dogma but a highly developed metaphysical doctrine which held pride of place in the great theologians of the thirteenth century.
There are two figures in the history of Western thought who must be considered in approaching the trinitarian style of Bonavena deeper understanding of faith. As worked out in reference to the dogma of the trinity, this program would clearly reflect philosophical structures of a neo-Platonic inspiration as well as a profoundly moving psychological analysis of the experiences of the human
INTRODUCTION
spirit! _It was clear to the Bishop of Hippo that Scripture required faith in the trinity. While earlier theologians had sought to shed light on the dogma by making use of analogies drawn from the realm of physical nature, Augustine sensed that the inadequacy of such images was all too obvious. He was familiar also with certain emanationist forms of neo-Platonism, forms which assumed, at times, triadic structures, as in the case of Plotinus.* But none of these, as they stood, were adequate to carry out what Augustine felt was necessary.
"Unless you believe, you will not understand."? Faith can enlighten and purify reason. One must love God and desire Him in order to enter more deeply into some understanding of that which one loves. Such a view could help the theologian grow in understanding even while avoiding the excesses of rationalism which Augustine saw in Sabellianism and Arianism. In his own attempts to develop trinitarian speculation, Augustine would employ the philosophical tools available to him so as to move beyond the limitations of the earlier physical analogies and to develop a more apt understanding of relation, thereby making it possible to conceive of one God in three persons without introducing division or inequality into the Godhead.
The broader lines of Augustine's notion of the human person as an image of God are deeply rooted in Plotinian emanationism.
That which is said to emanate is the image of that from which it flows. An image, therefore, is that which flows from another; but its existence as an image is brought to its fullness in as far as it turns back to its source. It is precisely in the turning back to its source that it is constituted as an image in the full sense. The image can then project itself into yet another as its image; and thus a series of emanations arises.
Augustine's general understanding of the created world reflects this emanationist structure, though in a cor1M. Schmaus, Die Psychologische Trinitdtslebre des hl. Augustinus. Minsterische
Beitrage zur Theologie, Heft 11 (Miinster, 1927, 1967) p. 1-10. Also, in the 1967 reprint, the Nachwort, p. III-X XI; A. Schindler, Wort und Analogie in Augustins
Trinitatslehre. Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie, 4, Ed. Ebeling, Fuchs,
Mezger (Tiibingen, 1965) p. 196-228.
* J. M. Rist, Plotinus, The Road to Reality (Cambridge, 1967, 1977) p. 21-52, 66-83 of 1977 edition; J. Hirschberger, Geschichte der Philosophie. Altertum und
Mittelalter, Vol. 1 (Herder, 19615) p. 303-307; I. Brady, A History of Ancient Philosophy (Bruce, 1959) p. 180-186; F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Vol. 1, prt. 2 (Newman, 1946) p. 463-475.
* Is. 7,9. This text in the Old Latin version inspired Christians early in Western history to the program of faith seeking understanding.
* J. E. Sullivan, The Image of God. The Doctrine of St. Augustine and Its Influence (Priory Press, 1963) p. 3-25; M. Schmaus, op. cit., p. 195-200.
HISTORICAL ORIENTATION
rected form. He recognizes in the world a hierarchy of participations, of weaker and stronger resemblances. To exist as an image of God will mean, for Augustine, to exist in the tension between the goingforth and the return, and thus to be characterized by a deep and abiding tendency of the soul to God who is always present to the soul as both source and goal.
If the human person is constituted as an image of God, it should be possible — by probing into the deep recesses of human experience — to derive some clues as to the nature of the ultimate source and goal of the image. Thus, the latter books of the De ¢rinitate
(Bk. 9-15) are devoted to the elaboration of triadic structures in the human person which provide more adequate analogies tor speaking of the triune nature of God. The triads mens-notitia-amor and memoriaintelligentia-voluntas were to have a profound effect on centuries of trinitarian speculation in the West, lending to it a strongly psychological tone.
This understanding of the human person as an image of God together with the development of the doctrine of relation set the stage for centuries of theological work. Yet it was not the only style of trinitarian thought to develop in the West, for out of the Victorine school of the twelfth century was to come an approach which differed markedly from that of Augustine. The difference is all the more significant in view of the fact that the Victorines clearly knew the work of Augustine.® Yet, the influence of the great African was not so great as to obliterate other possibilities. It is above all in Richard of St. Victor that we discern a new and original style of trinitarian reflection. While aware of the heritage of Augustine,
Richard's primary orientation seems to be not through the analysis of human cognitional experience, but through an analysis of the nature of love. He thus chose an element which was marginal in Augustine and placed it in the center of his own thought.
After showing through an analysis of certain attributes of God that there can be but one God from whom all creatures proceed,'
5 Hugh of St. Victor, Summa Sententiarum, tt. 1, c. 6 (PL 176, 51) and De Sacramentis 1, 3, c. 20 (PL 176, 225); c. 21 (PL 176, 225); c. 25 (PL 176, 227); c. 26 (PL 176, 227-228) clearly indicate an awareness of the Augustinian heritage.
6 BE, Géssman, "Die Methode der Trinitétslehre in der Summa Halensis," in: Ménchener Theol. Zeitschrift 6 (1955) p. 256: "Der methodische Neuansatz
Richards von St. Viktor ist der Grund, weshalb im Mittelalter die Trinitatslehre unter Beibehaltung der dogmatischen Definitionen aus der Vaterzeit eine eigenstindige Fruchtbarkeit erreicht hat." Géssman argues that the major difference between Augustine and Richard lies in the fact that the former takes his primary analogies from the individual human soul whereas the latter draws his from the love relation between several human petsons (p. 256-7).
7 De Trinitate I c. 14 — Il, c. 8 (PL 196, 898-905).
INTRODUCTION
Richard states that the God who is substantialiter unus® is the highest good and consequently is goodness itself.* The first two books lead to the conclusion that God is the fullness and perfection of all goodness. But of all things that are good, nothing is better or more perfect than charity.1° Charity is the supreme content of the good.
Thus two important themes are brought into conjunction: the concept of God as perfect goodness, and the New Testament concept of altruistic love which is seen as the highest form of goodness.
The line of Richard's development begins to emerge clearly. However we approach the mystery of God, He is to be seen as the fullness of all perfections. But, "where the fullness of divinity is found, there is the fullness of goodness, and consequently the fullness of charity."
Charity, which is the supreme form of the good, becomes the basis for showing the necessity of a plurality of persons in the Godhead. Since charity necessarily involves a relation to another,!* there can be no charity where there is no plurality. Charity must be in proportion to the good that is loved. A creature, as a limited good, cannot be the object of the highest love of God; for such love would be inordinate and would conflict with divine wisdom. Since
God alone is supreme goodness, He alone is supremely lovable.
Hence, God cannot show supreme love to anyone who lacks divinity.
The fullness of divinity cannot exist without the fullness of goodness.
And the fullness of goodness cannot exist without the fullness of charity; nor can the fullness of charity exist in God without some sort of plurality in God Himself; for the supreme charity which must be found in God must be directed to God Himself if it is not to be inordinate. Hence, it is the nature of charity, which is the highest form of the good, that necessarily requires a plurality in God; and this plurality Richard locates at the level of person.
A further analysis of the communication of love leads to the conclusion that such a communication must involve no less than three persons. If there were only one person in God, then a perfect selfcommunication would not be possible at all; for no creature could sustain such a communication. So, there must be at least two persons
8 De Trin. I, c. 16 (PL 196, 898).
2 Devin, Wc. 16.(PL 1965910):
Lie Deslszinks llenem2a(P ie 069916):
1 De Trin. V, c. 7 (PL 196, 954). Richard bases his view on a well-known passage of Gregory (Jn Evangelia Hom., 17 [76, 1139).
18 De Trin, Ill, c. 2 (PL 196, 916): "Oportet itaque ut amor in alterum tendat, ut charitas esse queat."
18 De Trin. Ill, c. 2 (PL 196, 917).
HISTORICAL ORIENTATION
in God; there must be a perfectly lovable other. But if there were only two, then there could only be their love for one another; and this would not be the fullness of love. For if love by nature involves a relation to another, the highest perfection of love demands that each of the two persons in love share that love with yet another.
Hence, Richard argues that there must be in God not only a dilectum but a condilectum as well.14 Condilectio is found where a third is loved by two_in harmony.!® his style of reflection leads to an understanding of God in terms of modalities of love. There are three such modalities in God: amor gratuitus, amor debitus, and amor ex utroque permixtus, which describe the three persons of the trinity.1® The first is found in the Father in as far as He is love who freely gives without having received. The third is found in the Holy Spirit in as far as He returns love to those from whom He has received the free gift of love. The second corresponds to the Son who both receives the free gift of the Father's love, and together with the Father confers the gift of free love on the Spirit. Chapters 17-19 of the fifth book make an extended application of this analysis of the modalities of love, and chapter 20 makes use of the analysis to show why a fourth person is impossible.
Here the groundwork is laid for a style quite different from the Augustinian psychological theory; yet it also may be seen as rooted in an analysis of psychological experience, though it seems to be located above all in those areas which we would designate as interpersonal and moral. It_is_a theology which would never achieve a position of equal influence, but which would play a significant role in the thought of the early Franciscan school and to some degree in the work of St.
Bonaventure, though the elements which the Seraphic Doctor employs are transformed into a framework which draws its inspiration from quite different sources.
In the late nineteenth century, De Regnon produced a study of the history of trinitarian thought!? which argued eloquently for the presence of different traditions in Western trinitarianism, pointing out the existence of fundamental differences between Aquinas and Bonaventure, oa aaa a fratris Alexandri proximately t0 Richard of St. Victor and remotely to Pseudo-Dionysius. By way of contrast, the lineage of Aquinas
14 De Trin. Ul, c. 14 (PL 196, 924-5).
15 De Trin. Ill, c. 19 (PL 196, 927).
16 De Trin. V, c. 16 (PL 196, 961).
17 Th. De Regnon, Etudes de théologie positive sur la sainte Trinité, 3 vols. (Paris,
1892-98).
St. Bonaventure, Disputed Questions
INTRODUCTION
was seen to be rooted in Augustine. The two major lines of development which De Regnon traces are: 1) Dionysius
- Richard of St. Victor - William of Auvergne - William of Auxerre - Alexander - Bonaventure; and 2) Augustine - Anselm - Lombard - Albert Aquinas. The fundamental differences between the two he traces to the dynamism of neo-Platonic thought in the first line and the static character of Aristotelian thought in the second.'§
De Regnon's thesis was to set the tone for many studies of Medieval thought, influencing even the Quaracchi-editors of the Summa fratris Alexandri. Stohr's extended study of Bonaventure!® focuses primarily on the historical sources and the scientific dimensions of Bonaventure's work. While criticizing many particular points of De Regnon's study, Stohr accepts the main line of the argument and interprets Bonaventure accordingly. Despite the extensive influence' of Augustine elsewhere in Bonaventure's writings
— so writes Stohr — hardly a trace of the African's influence can be found at the roots of Bonaventure's trinitarian theology while the influence of Richard and Pseudo-Dionysius is everywhere apparent.?° Stohr agrees with De Regnon's assessment of the Dionysian character of Richard's thought,"! but he differs in his understanding of the Summa both as regards its own theology and as regards its influence on Bonaventure.
Standing within the same basic framework are the studies of Schmaus, Imle-Kaup, Villalmonte, and Szabo.?2 With minor variations, the basic argument of De Regnon lived on and influenced subsequent historical studies to a significant degree. Of fundamental importance in this thesis is the question of the sources of Bonaventure's theology, particularly Richard of St. Victor and Alexander of Hales, for the way in which one understands these two in relation
18 Op. cit., vol. 2, p. 448 ff.
1° A. Stohr, Die Trinitatslebre des hl. Bonaventura: Eine systematische Darstellung und bistorische Wirdigung. I Teil, Die wissenschaftliche Trinitatslebre (Minster, 1923).
20 (Op acits pao.
* Op. cit., p. 78. Stohr speaks with approval of De Regnon's analysis of two theories in Richard; the first a metaphysical theory of the good; the second, a psychological theory of love.
22M. Schmaus, Der Liber Propugnatorius des Thomas Anglicus und die Lebrunterschiede zwischen Thomas von Aquin und Duns Scotus. II Teil, Die-Trinitarischen
Lehrdifferenzen (Miinster, 1930); F. Imle - J. Kaup, Die Theologie des bl. Bonaventura. Darstellung seiner dogmatischen Lehren (Werl, 1931); A. de Villalmonte, "Influjo de los Padres griegos en la doctrina trinitaria de San Buenaventura," in:
XII Semana Espanola de Teologia, 14-19 Sept. 1953 (Madrid, 1954) p. 553-557; Osan De ss. Trinitate in Creaturis Refulgente Doctrina S. Bonaventurae (Rome,
HISTORICAL ORIENTATION
to Bonaventure as well as in the inspiration of their own thought will significantly influence one's historical assessment of Bonaventure.
In a more recent study, Olegario Gonzalez?' takes up the question in a fresh way in the light of new materials concerning Richard of St. Victor.*4 So significantly have the results of studies in that area changed the terrain that Gonzalez does not hesitate to speak of a "Copernican revolution."*> The earlier position tended to present
Richard as a deserter from the camp of Augustine who drank deeply from Greek streams and thus developed a style that was truly competitive to the Augustinian tradition. More recent studies have shown
Richard to be far more Latin than would have been allowed in the older interpretation.* Recognizing the importance of the concept of love in the Victorine's work, Gonzalez writes: "Lo que in Ricardo es una intuicidn explicativa de toda la obra, es una nota marginal en Agustin."?? While the older theory placed great weight on the Dionysian influence in Richard, the more recent studies indicate two significant facts which oppose that view: 1) the concept of the good in Richard finds a more likely explanation in Anselm's
"'being than which no greater can be conceived;'' and 2) the dominant idea in Richard's thought is not the idea of the good but 23 ©. Gonzalez, Misterio Trinitario y existencia humana: estudio historico teologico en torno a san Buenaventura (Madrid, 1966).
24 Richard of St. Victor, De Trinitate. Texte critique avec introduction, notes et tables, publié par J. Ribaillier, en Textes philosophiques du Moyen Age 6 (Paris,
1959); G. Salet, La Trinité. Text Latin, introduction, traduction et notes de G. Salet; en Sources Chrétiennes 63 (Paris, 1959); G. Dumeige, Richard de Saint Victor et
LP idée chrétienne de amour (Paris, 1952).
25 Op. cit., p. 337: "...tenemos que confesar que la investigacién de los ultimos quince afios ha realizado un giro copernicano."
26 Op. cit., p. 337-8: "Ricardo es uno puro latino, un agustiniano, que su teologia ha surgido bajo la fascinacién de Agustin; y que, si no exclusivamente, si fundamentalmente es agustiniano."
27 Op. cit., p. 338. Also, Ribaillier (op. cit., p. 136-7) suggests an Augustinian inspiration for the notion of caritas ordinata, which plays a significant role in Richard's argument.
Cf. Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, 1, 27 (PL 34, 29-30).
2 Gonzalez, op. cit., 345. One need simply add to the Anselmian concept the idea that goodness is a perfection which must therefore be found in such a being. In his critical edition of the Victorine text, Ribaillier (op. cit., p. 123-126) suggests only Latin sources, including Anselm and Boethius, as the inspiration for Richard's chapters on the good (III, c. 16-19). Cf. also
Ribaillier, op. cit., p. 18-19 on pattistic sources represented in Richard's De Trinitate. Ribaillier indicates that the definition of charity is inspired by Gregory the Great while the concept of ordered love is drawn from Augustine, and the notion of beatitude is inspired by Boethius. Cf. also Salet, op. cit., p. 10-13.
INTRODUCTION
the psychological analysis of love.2® Dumeige concludes that there is scarcely a trace of the Dionysian concept in the whole of Richard's work on the trinity.3° This is not to deny that there is a neo-Platonic influence in Richard. Ribaillier sees such an influence reflected in Richard's frequent use of ternary groups, the over-all double movement of his dialectic, and in the concept of harmonious beauty.*! Yet at the core of the Victorine argument for a plurality of divine persons lies not the Dionysian concept of the good, but the analysis of charity. Neither does this deny the existence of an alternative system of trinitarian theology in the Middle Ages contrasting with that developed by Aquinas out of largely Augustinian sources. But if there is such an alternate trinitarianism living largely from Dionysian neo-Platonism, this would not be traced to Richard as has been done repeatedly. While his trinitarian thought is different from that of Augustine, the difference does not lie in the fact that one is Latin and the other
Greek; for it seems that Richard's trinitarian thought can be accounted for on the basis of Latin sources, including Augustine himself.
This shift in Victorine studies unavoidably raises many new questions about Bonaventure, for it has long been assumed that he was deeply influenced by Richard, and that he imbibed a Dionysian inspiration from the great Victorine. If such an inspiration is lacking in Richard, it is — nonetheless — present in Bonaventure. But from what sources is it derived ? And what is the precise nature of the tie between Richard and Bonaventure if the latter is fundamentally
Dionysian while the former is not ? These questions raise the further question of Alexander of Hales both in relation to Richard and Dionysius on the one hand, and to Bonaventure on the other.
In view of the still unresolved question of the Summa fratris Alexandri, it is necessary to distinguish between the Summa, which 8° The structure of Richard's argument appears clearly in De Trinitate II, c. 2 (PL 196, 926-7). A comparison with Bonaventure's Itinerarium 6, 1-2 (V,
310-311) shows a dramatic contrast at least between these two works. To what extent the J#inerarium is characteristic of Bonaventure's work as a whole will be examined later. It is, indeed, the concept of charity which plays the decisive role in Richard's view, not a supposedly Dionysian metaphysic of the good.
Cf. also Salet, op. cit., p. 477-480.
3° Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, art. Denys, col. 327: "Son grand ouvrage sur la Trinité ne porte pas trace des conceptions dionysiennes."' Gonzalez also concludes that while Richard is an original thinker, the source of his thought is not Greek but Latin; Dionysius has no influence on his trinitarian speculation, nor was Plotinus known to him. If one is to speak ofa Greek-Dionysian movement, it must be placed after Richard, op. cit., p. 363.
31 Op. cit., p. 24-27.
HISTORICAL ORIENTATION
is a compilation,** and those works which may be ascribed to Alexander with certainty, such as the Quaestiones disputatae and the Glossa on the Sentences of Lombard.** The trinitarian doctrine of the Quaestiones reveals abundant references to Augustine's De trinitate.
While citations of Richard of St. Victor are scarce,®4 his definition of person is known. Citations of Pseudo-Dionysius are frequent.
While the texts cited reveal a knowledge of the concepts of fontality, fecundity, and goodness, the ideas are not developed as they will be later by Bonaventure.
In contrast with the QOxaestiones, the Glossa in its treatment of the same matters cites Richard with great frequency. Among the texts quoted are those which are especially characteristic of Richard,*> and which will play a very important role in Bonaventure.
We find also significant citations of Pseudo-Dionysius on the nature of God as the supreme good, as well as a Dionysian description of love as a circle: ""Amor ostenditur sicut quidam aeternus circulus, per optimum, ex optimo, in optimo et in optimum..."3¢ Such language will be found later in Bonaventure where it will express a view that has become fully personalized by the Seraphic Doctor.
Thus, in his certainly authentic writings,, Alexander both knows and uses Pseudo-Dionysius and Richard of St. Victor, though the characteristic insights of neither are developed to a significant extent.
32 Summa Theologica, Tome IV (Quaracchi, 1948). Section II, LIX-LXXXI; V. Doucet, "A New Source of the 'Summa Fratris Alexandri'"' in: Franciscan
Studies 6 (1946) p. 403-417; V. Doucet, "The History of the Problem of the Authenticity of the Summa," in: Franciscan Studies 7 (1947) p. 26-41; 274-312. Esp.
Doucet's carefully worded conclusions on p. 310-312. To a great extent, the first three books were compiled before Alexander's death. These books are clearly compilations which draw from the writings of John of Rupella and Alexander among others. As to the more precise clarification of the origin of these books, the problem has yet to be solved. The first three books reflect a strong influence of Alexander which may by clarified by the fact that he was one of the compilers, and that his works were an important source and were used extensively.
33 Ouaestiones Disputatae 'antequam esset Frater.' Bibliotheca Franciscana Scholastica Medii Aevi, X1X-XXI (Quaracchi, 1960); Glossa super
IV Libros Sententiarum. Bibliotheca Franciscana Scholastica Medti Aevi, X1I-XV (Quaracchi, 1952-57).
34 Of the few references to Richard's work, two ate mistakenly attributed to Augustine and one to Hugh of St. Victor.
35 Glossa, 1, d. 3, p. 74 cites a text which gives the characteristic argument of Richard for the plurality of persons in God. The argument moves from the fullest goodness to the fullest charity to the plurality of persons. Cf. Richard,
De Trinitate, Tl, c. 2 (PL 196, 916 ff.). Also d. 18, p. 182 cites Richard on the three modes of love (PL 196, 978); d. 19, p. 195 cites the argument for supreme charity in God from the highest felicity (PL 196, 928).
36 Glossa, 1, d. 17, p. 173.
INTRODUCTION
While the Summa in its entirety is not the personal work of Alexander, yet he is certainly a major influence behind the work of the compilers. The Summa manifests Aristotelian, Platonic, Dionysian,
Augustinian, and Victorine influences. The only Greek sources to which it refers are Pseudo-Dionysius and John Damascene.?? Two factors which will later assume the most fundamental role in Bonaventure's development of trinitarian theology stand out as significant already in the Samma: 1) the predominant role of the Dionysian concept of bonum diffusivum sui in arguing for the existence of the trinity; 2) the Aristotelian principle affirming two perfect modes of procession, i.e. by nature and by will.3* The Dionysian concept of the self-diffusive good plays a leading role, though it is joined with elements drawn from Anselm and Richard.®* Together with John Damascene, Pseudo-Dionysius is the most frequently cited source, and in this regard the Summa seems to go beyond
Alexander's authentic writings.
We may, therefore, conclude that Bonaventure became familiar with both Pseudo-Dionysius and Richard through Alexander as well as through the developments in the early school of the friars after the death of Alexander in 1245. To what degree Bonaventure's contact with these two sources may have been the ordinary contact which would have been a self-evident part of his education at Paris at that time remains unclear. As we will see, the Dionysian tradition will assume a unique importance in Bonaventure's trinitarian thought, and the Victorine insights will be exploited in a distinctively personal way. Despite the obvious historical and literary relations between Bonaventure and the Summa, it is indisputable that the Seraphic
Doctor's trinitarian theology transcends that of the Samma in unity 87 De Regnon's statement (op. cit., Il, p. 355) that the Swwma appealed to all the Greek Fathers appeats as an exaggeration in the light of this. Cf. also
Summa IV, sec. Il, § 2, cap. 1, V, p.
LX XXIX.
38 Summa Theol. I, prol.,-sec. Il, § 1, p. XVIUI-XXXV; cf. E. Gdssmann, "Die Methode der Trinitatslehre..." p. 253-262. The Summa makes use of the Dionysian concept of the self-diffusive good to derive the persons in the trinity and to explain the incarnation, but it is used only in a modified sense in the area of creation theology, probably because of the danger of pantheism (p. 255-6).
Cf. also. E. Géssmann, Metaphysik und Heilsgeschichte. Eine theologische Untersuchung der Summa Halensis (Miinchen, 1964) p. 363-370.
89 Dionysian, Anselmian, and Victorine overtones are present in the Summa's description of the highest diffusion: "Summa autem diffusio est qua maior excogitari non potest; maior autem diffusio cogitari non potest quam illa quae est secundum substantiam et maxime secundum totam; ergo summum bonum necessario se diffundit secundum substantiam totam... (Sama, I, n. 295, p. 414).
Though Richard is cited several times in this question, no reference is made to his concept of charity in explaining the generation of the Son.
HISTORICAL ORIENTATION
and coherence of thought. It clearly bears the mark of a single, keen mind that has appropriated the tradition in a personal way.
Bonaventure expresses his respect for Alexander explicitly on several occasions*® and his intention of following the opinions of the early school.*! His references to Alexander are best seen as pointing to Alexander himself rather than to the Summa, though Bonaventure's writings frequently show entire sections that parallel the Summa at times only in general structure, but at other times even down to particular arguments. The_ Dionysian concept _of the good, already y present in Alexander* and in the Samma,** becomes dominant in a very personal way in Bonaventure; thus his trinitarian thought is deeply conditioned by the Areopagite, certainly through indirect contact, and possibly by direct contact as well.44
The Summa already had transformed Victorine materials in the light of the metaphysics of the good. Even more so is this the case with Bonaventure whose fundamental arguments for the trinity are clearly different from those of Richard. Yet, there are many ties with Richard that become apparent especially in Bonaventure's plurality of persons is drawn from. the analysis of love. i in the theology of Bonaventure the same argument is integrated into a metaphysics
Sul fathmaa Wie Senta (Leet) Ll Senhd.125,.as 2514-1 5.9adi. (Ll) 547) pise de Tribus Quaestionibus n. 11 (VIII, 335).
Ai irlex 1s 45381).
£2 Glossasel, (G2) 5, Dacilsid.15, p.. 400.
43 Cf. Summa Theol. I, prol., sec. II, § 2, p. XXXV-XXXVIII. "Etenim Alexander a schola S. Victoris repetit principium fundamentale, non solum suarum inquisitionum circa mysterium SS. Trinitatis, ut iam recte observaverat cl. de
Régnon, S.I., sed etiam totius sui systematis generalis, scilicet conceptionem extaticam summi boni sive amoris."' Also, Summa I, n. 64, ad 4, p. 96 and ad 5, p. 96. The idea of the good is basic in the derivation of the plurality of persons.
The good is to be understood not only in the absolute sense, but also in as far as it is in the person of the Father, who is "principium totius divinitatis" (n. 297, ad 10, p. 427; and ad 23, p. 429). The argument from carifas is also in the Summa.
Perfect charity tends to another because "nunquam potest esse solitaria" (n. 324, ad 4, p. 440). The communication of the good can take place in only two ways: per modum naturae and per modum voluntatis (n. 319, sol. p. 469).
44 Both the Summa and Bonaventure cite the translation of John Sarracenus whose work, together with that of Thomas of Vercelli, opened Western theology to the influence of the Areopagite. To trace the influence of Dionysius on Bonaventure would require a separate study. On the one hand, there seem to be no cogent textual reasons to assume an influence beyond that which would have normally been expected in the Schools of that time. On the other hand, the fact that a number of crucial Dionysian concepts assume an exceptional importance as early as the Sentence Commentary suggests that it must remain an open question whether Bonaventure may have had a close personal acquaintance with the works of the Areopagite. Cf. J. Ratzinger, The Theology of History in St. Bonaventure, tr. Z. Hayes (Chicago, 1971) p. 86-94.
INTRODUCTION
based expressly on the concept of the good. Thus, the terminology itself, though it sounds Victorine, frequently takes on a new meaning as it is conditioned by the dynamics of fecundity which played no role in Richard.* In attempting to assess Bonaventure's work in relation to its sources, Gonzalez concludes that there is indeed a style of trinitarian thought in the thirteenth century that differs fundamentally from that of Thomas; its creator and systematizer, however, is not Richard but Bonaventure.'® Its fundamental inspiration is to be sought in the religious experience of St. Francis and in philosophical elements drawn from Pseudo-Dionysius and Aristotle as these had been transmitted to Bonaventure by Alexander and by the developments of the early school of friars at Paris. Other elements, including the Augustinian and the Victorine trinitarian traditions, are transformed within the framework which was built upon these primary sources. Thus Bonaventure's trinitarian view of reality, while it draws from many and disparate sources, appears as a piphly per sonal synthesis. In this sense, we can continue to speak of two styles, as De Regnon had argued, but our understanding of the author and the sources of the one has been drastically revised.
Il. THE TRINITARIAN WORKS OF BONAVENTURE
The materials presented in the Disputed Questions on the Trinity in no way represent a full treatment of trinitarian theology. On the contrary, they are limited in scope and presuppose the work which the Seraphic Doctor had already done in his Sentence Commentary.
It is in the latter work that he treats scientifically the major problems of both the metaphysical and logical orders. His doctrine on the divine processions, relations, persons, properties, notions, appropriations, and the questions of logic and language are all found there in the fullest treatment he was ever to give them. None of these materials are repeated in the Disputed Questions, though the treatment found in the latter is clearly shaped by the Commentary.
Written after both the Sentence Commentary and the Disputed 4° Gonzalez, op. cit., p. 363. Gonzalez sees Richard's influence on Bonaventure as minimal in the basic trinitarian arguments though Bonaventure does share
Richard's confidence in reason.
"° Op. cit., p. 363: "El creador-sistematizador de la doctrina trinitaria, que correr4 paralela a la tomista repartiéndose el siglo XIII, no es Ricardo, sine San
Buenaventura.
HISTORICAL ORIENTATION
Questions, the Breviloquium may be dated about 1257,47 which would Place it at the end of Bonaventure's university career or at the beginning of his work as Minister General. Conceived as a sort of summary for students of theology, it is a most valuable source for Bonaventure's own synthesis. While some development over the Sentence Commentary may be noted in the treatment of Christology, the presentation of trinitarian materials seems to be but a concise statement of major positions worked out in the Commentary, here presented in almost skeletal form and devoid of all arguments.
The Jtinerarium, which dates from 1259, is a work written without the pressure of the demands and expectations of the university discipline. It is written in a more personal style and reveals with greater clarity the characteristic concerns of the Seraphic Doctor, who was already General of the Order at the time he wrote this remarkable text. It becomes immediately clear to what extent trinitari his entire vision of reality. The sixth chapter
'provides a specifically trinitarian reflection in which we see to what ex 's_thought was i ed by the Dionysian concept of the good. Traditional materials stemming from Augustine
Sic Ganson uate the power of that concept, while materials from Richard of St. Victor will provide a complementary line of argument as needed to fill out some of the inadequacies of the neoPlatonic tradition. Thus this work, brief as it is, and rich with insights into the work of Bonaventure as a whole, is equally significant for what it reveals of his trinitarian style and its relation to his predecessors.
Nowhere is the trinitarian vision of reality more persistent than in the Col/lations on the Hexaemeron, the final work of Bonaventure.*®
Here more than anywhere his thought appears in a dense and manylayered style of theology. His vision appears like a tightly drawn circle. Regardless of where one takes hold of it, it reaches out to the trinity and Christology, to creation and man, to metaphysics and epistemology. Behind the bewildering complexity of symbolism and historical-theological speculation, one feels the presence of a mind that has a penetrating insight into the fundamental structures of reality that pervades all that is said. Woven within a text that is trinitarian throughout are particular sections more expressly trinitarian in tone, such as Collation X, 4. 16. 17, and Collation XI. of Bonaventure tr. , de Vinck (Paterson, 1963) p. 171182; J. F. logy of St. Bonaventure," in: Franciscan Studies 32 (1972) p. 1
48 Dated to 1273, the work was left incomplete by his elevation dinalate and his subsequent activity at the Council of Lyons.
\ OSIA SAS
INTRODUCTION
Beyond these major works, trinitarian motifs appear universally in Bonaventure's spiritual and mystical writings as well as in his sermons, two of which expressly reproduce the conclusions of his scientific work.49 While the sermons and ascetical writings may be taken as an indication of the close relation between scientific theology and spirituality, they offer no fundamentally new insights into the major trinitarian questions.
III. THE DISPUTED QUESTIONS ON THE TRINITY
Thus, the Disputed Questions on the Trinity stand in the context of a rich body of literature treating the same theological concerns, all of which can shed light on the concerns of the Questions. As the title indicates, this work follows the form of the Scholastic disputation.6° The set of questions on the trinity is one of three sets published in the fifth volume of the Quaracchi edition; it is judged both from internal and from external evidence to be an authentic work of Bonaventure. The work is commonly dated between 1253 and 1257, which places it later than the Sentence Commentary and shortly before Bonaventure's departure from the university. The state of the manuscript tradition indicates that the latter part of the work, beginning with the middle of the response of question six, article two, is found in only one manuscript. This might legitimately raise the question as to whether the work was left unfinished by Bonaventure and completed from notes by someone else.®! If this is the case, the question then arises as to what might have lead
Bonaventure to break off his work at this point. Could it have been his appointment as General of the Order ? If so, this would allow for a dating from late 1256 to early 1257, since Bonaventure's appointment occurred in February of 1257. The question cannot be decided definitely without more work on the chronology of Bonaventure during this period of his life.
4° Sermo I: De Triplici Testimonio Sanctissimae Trinitatis (V, 535-538); Sermo de Trinitate (IX, 351-357).
°° Of the two types of Scholastic disputes, the ordinary and the quodlibetal, these conform more closely to the former. Quodlibetal questions reflect a more wide-ranging style while the ordinary questions are restricted in scope. Bonaventure has left no questions in the quodlibetal form.
5! The Quaracchi editors (V, VI) say: "It is certain that even the final questions are genuine"' since the text refers expressly to the preceding questions (e.g. Q. 7, a. 1, ad 8 [V, 109]). Though the material may be genuinely Bonaventurean, this does not exclude the possibility that the latter questions in their present form may be the work of another hand.
HISTORICAL ORIENTATION
Even though they contain authentic Bonaventurean materials of great significance, the Disputed Questions have been generally neglected over the centuries. The Quaracchi editors describe the Questions on the Trinity as a work that stands "inter praestantissima ejusdem opera;"®? and which is carried out in a style that is "modo prorsus singulari."® A close reading of the text shows that this is scarcely an exaggeration. Simply in terms of its general structure, t esti rinity stand out in the history of trinitarian literature. Rarely if ever has the relation between the philosophical doctrine of being and the trinitarian dogma of faith been worked out with such elaborate care, the result being that the major categories of the traditional philosophy of being are subjected to a new interpretation in the context of faith. In its very structure as well as in its content this work is illustrative of the most basic characteristics of Bonaventure's theological style, revealing fundamental tendencies in his style of argumentation as well as the characteristic
Bonaventurean concept of God.
The QOvxestions offer a powerful picture of a mind well trained in the art of logic in a theologian who is all too often viewed only as a mystical theologian. The all-pervasive argument is that of the Bonaventurean reduction whereby the mind attempts to trace reality to its ultimate source and goal. Reduction can be seen at two levels.
The first, and perhaps the most obvious, is the level of logical analysis and argument; here reduction is realized in the cognitive order.
Reduction at this level, however, is intimately related to an ontological reduction, which is the real return of creatures to God through grace. "Therefore it follows that eternal life consists in this alone, that the rational spirit, which emanates from the most blessed trinity and is a likeness of the trinity, should return after the manner of a certain intelligible circle — through memory, intelligence and will — to the most blessed trinity by God-conforming glory."®4 The concept of reduction at both levels reveals the neo-Platonic structure of emanation and return which is so basic to Bonaventure's vision of reality, and is frequently symbolized by the circle. God Himself is an intelligible circle;®> all created beings flow from this source to move in a circle to their goal. Especially
52 (VY, prol. III).
Sse ibicde 54 Og. Dd. de Trin. q. 8, ad 7 (V, 115).
55 | Sent. d. 37, p. 1, a. 1, q. 1, ad 3 (I, 639); De Reduc. 7 (V, 322); Brevil. 5,
1 (V, 253); Hex. 1, 18.19.20 (V, 332-333). Cf. also, Z. Hayes, What Manner of Man ? Sermons on Christ by St. Bonaventure. Translated with an Introduction and Commentary (Chicago, 1974) p. 91, n. 45.
INTRODUCTION
in human beings is that circular movement most clearly realized as the spiritual powers of the finite spirit move into ever greater conformity to the knowledge, the will, and the governing power of God.
At the cognitive level, reduction means — among other things — that all imperfect forms of being must be reduced to more perfect forms logically since they are grounded ontologically in the more perfect. One cannot recognize a limit as a limit unless one is somehow beyond the limit; hence, one cannot know a limited good as limited except through reduction to an unlimited good in the same order.
The over-all structure of the Questions is a clear reflection of this conviction.
Within that over-all framework, some more specific concerns of Bonaventure's thought are obvious. Bonaventure views t heology as a practical science whose b: basic purpose is to help human _ beings achieve their ultimate goal in. in life. Since that goal is not speculation for its own sake but loving union with God, rational argument, though important, has an ancillary role. There is in Bonaventure a tendency to prefer opinions which seem more religious even though other opinions are logically possible. His concern is expressed pointedly in the axiom that we are to think of God "altissime et piissime,''®¢ a principle whose influence is extensive both in the arguments and in the language of the Qzestions. The constant flow of the arguments of the reduction is to that which is highest in any particular category, while the language itself reflects the axiom in its frequent use of superlative forms.
Bonaventure's guarded optimism in the power of reason is reflected in his appeal to necessary reasons, where he is under the influence of Anselm and Richard of St. Victor. That there should be necessary reasons in trinitarian theology is not surprising in the context of Bonaventure's metaphysical and epistemological convictions. If God is what He is necessarily, then there must be necessary reasons for what He is. The question would then be whether such reasons are accessible to the human mind, and if so, under what conditions. What sources of light must come together to enable us to see the reasons and to see them precisely as necessary ? If God is necessary being, then there should be a necessary relation between the unity of His essence and the trinity of persons. If the necessary attributes of being accessible to reason are necessary attributes of God, then there ought to be some rational connection between these attributes and the mystery of the trinity. This mode of argumentation
88 Brevil, 1, 2 (V, 211).
HISTORICAL ORIENTATION
does not pretend to offer philosophical demonstrations for the trinity itself, for it operates within the framework of faith. Its purpose is to make faith intelligible, and through the contact between faith and reason to bring reason to its fuller possibilities. Thus in carrying out his reduction, Bonaventure finds it possible to encounter God in every category of being, not only as God but as trinity also.5?
57 Salet, op. cit., p. 465-467; Ribaillier, op. cit., p. 89; A. de Villalmonte, "Bl argumento de 'razones necessarias' en San Buenaventura," in: Estudios
Franciscanos 53 (1952) p. 5-44.