Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:34:34.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fourth Lateran Council's Definition of Trinitarian Orthodoxy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2009

Fiona Robb
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘Between Creator and creature there can be remarked no similarity so great that a greater dissimilarity between them cannot be seen’. With these words the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 concluded its condemnation of the doctrine of the Trinity held by Joachim of Fiore (d. 1202). The council based its assessment on Joachim's use of biblical texts as analogies for divine unity. For Joachim had, in the opinion of those who judged him, reduced the irreducible gap between God and His creatures by making God like His creatures. He had allegedly emphasised the principle of similarity at the expense of that of dissimilarity. The result was the dilution of the type of unity appropriate to the Trinity from a unity of essence to a mere unity of collection, no more binding than the spiritual unity among the faithful as expounded in many passages in the Bible, most importantly in John xvii. 22: ‘And the glory which thou has given me, I have given to them: that they may be one, as we also are one.’

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , January 1997 , pp. 22 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Thus canon 2: ‘inter creatorem et creaturam non potest tanta similitudo notari, quin inter eos maior sit dissimilitude) notanda’: Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, ed. Alberigo, J. and others, Bologna 1973, 232Google Scholar, lines 34–5; trans, in English historical documents, III: 1189–1327, ed. Rothwell, H., London 1975, iii. 644–5Google Scholar. Cf. Augustine, , De Trinitate xv. 20, 486–9Google Scholar, ed. Mountain, W. J., CCL 1-la., Turnhout 1968Google Scholar. I would like to thank Professor Henry Chadwick for drawing my attention to this passage.

2 This is the fundamental distinction in the Pseudo-Dionysian system of negative theology. See esp. Hugh, of St-Victor, (d. 1141), Expositio in hierarchiam coelestem iii, PL clxxv. 923–1154Google Scholar. Hugh's commentary was extremely influential in bringing the works of Pseudo-Dionysius to a large academic audience for the first time in the west.

3 In general see Colish, M. L., Peter Lombard, Leiden 1994Google Scholar.

4 On Joachim's historical thought see Reeves, Marjorie, The influence of prophecy in the later Middle Ages, Oxford 1969, 16–27Google Scholar, ‘The originality and influence ofjoachim of Fiore’, Traditio xxxvi (1980), 269–316Google Scholar; Wendelborn, Gert, Gott und Geschichte: Joachim von Fiore und die Hqffnung der Christenheil, Vienna 1974Google Scholar; Daniel, E. R., ‘The double procession of the Holy Spirit in Joachim of Fiore's understanding of history’, Speculum lv (1980), 469–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mottu, Henri, La manifestation de I' Esprit selon Joachim de Fiore, Paris 1977Google Scholar; various relevant articles in Storia e messaggio in Gioacchino da Fiore, ed. Russo, F. (Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Gioachimiti: S. Giovanni in Fiore 1980)Google Scholar, and L'eta dello spirito e la fine dei tempi in Gioacchino da Fiore e nel Gioachimismo medievale, ed. Crocco, A. (Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Gioachimiti: S. Giovanni in Fiore 1986)Google Scholar.

5 See Otto, Stephan, Die Funktion des Bildbegriffes in der Theologie des 12. Jahrhunderts, Münster 1963, 297–9Google Scholar, and ‘Die Denkform des Joachim von Floris und das Caput “Damnamus” des 4. Laterankonzils’, in his Materialen zur Theorie der Geistesgeschichte, Munich 1979, 106–15Google Scholar; Napoli, Giovanni di, ‘Gioacchino da Fiore e Pietro Lombardo’, Rivista di filosofia neo-scolastica lxxi (1979), 621–85 at pp. 654–7;Google ScholarMehlmann, Axel, ‘De unitate Trinitatis: Forschungen und Dokumente zur Trinitatstheologie Joachims von Fiore im Zusammenhang mit seinem verschollenen Traktat gegen Petrus Lombardus’, unpubl. PhD diss. Freiburg im Br. 1991, 577–84Google Scholar.

6 On conciliar procedure see Foreville, Raymonde, ‘Procédure et débats dans les conciles médiévaux du Latran (1123–1215)‘, Rivista di storia della chiesa in Italia xix (1965), 21–37Google Scholar; Garcia, Antonio Garcia y, Constitutions concilii quarti Lateranensis commentariis glossatorum, Vatican City 1981, 5–11Google Scholar.

7 Robb, Fiona, ‘Did Pope Innocent m personally condemn Joachim of Fiore?’, Florensia vii (1973).77–91Google Scholar

8 Classen, Peter, ‘Rom und Paris: Kurie und Universitat in 12. und 13. Jahrhundert’, in his Studium und Gesellschaft im Mittelalter, Stuttgart 1983, 127–69Google Scholar; Maleczek, Werner, Papst und Kardinalskolleg von ugi bis 1216. Die Kardindle unter Coelestin III. und Innocent HI, Vienna 1984Google Scholar. Appointments of particular importance from the point of view of doctrinal theology were Peter of Capua, cardinal-priest of San Marcello (1200–14); Robert de Courson, cardinal-priest of San Stefano in Celiomonte (1212–19), and papal legate in France; Stephen Langton, cardinal-priest of San Crisogono (1206–28).

9 Ibid. 292–3.

10 Ibid. 294.

11 Dickson, Gary, ‘The burning of the Amalricians’, this JOURNAL xl (1989), 347–69 at PP. 351–2Google Scholar.

12 On the Lombard's cursory treatment of analogy see Otto, , Die Funktion des Bildbegriffes, 202–6Google Scholar.

13 Augustine, , De doctrina Christiana i. 5. 9, ed. Martin, J., CCL xxxii, Turnhout 1962Google Scholar; PL xxxiv. 21; cited by Lombard, Peter in his Sententiae in IV libris distinctae i. i. 2. 4, 56, ed. Brady, I., Grottaferrata 1971Google Scholar.

14 Schneider, J., Die Lehre vom dreieinigen Gott in der Schule des Petrus Lombardus, Munich 1961, 25Google Scholar; Courth, F., Trinität in der Scholastik, Freiburg 1985, 81Google Scholar.

15 ‘cum enim una et summa quaedam res sit divina essentia, si divina essentia essentiam genuit, eadem res se ipsam genuit, quod omnino esse non potest’: Sententiae i. v. 1. 6, 82, lines 20–1.

16 Napoli, Giovanni di, ‘Gioacchino da Fiore: teologia e cristologia’, Aquinas xxiii (1980), 1–51 at pp. 19–20Google Scholar. On Joachim's antischolasticism see Bloomfield, M. W., ‘Joachim of Flora: a critical survey of his canon, teachings, sources, biography and influence’, Traditio xiii (1957), 249–309 at pp. 272–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McGinn, Bernard, The Calabrian abbot: Joachim of Fiore in the history of western thought, New York 1985, 166–7Google Scholar.

17 Conciliorum decreta, 231, lines 6–8.

18 See Russo, Francesco, Regesto Vaticano per la Calabria, Rome 1974Google Scholar, i, nos 588, 665, for two letters of Honorius 111 (2 Dec. 1216, 17 Dec. 1220). The most well-known chronicle account is that of Paris, Matthew in the Historia Anglorum, ed. Madden, F., London 1866–1869,i. 411–17Google Scholar, and Chronica maiora, ed. Luard, H. R., London 1872–1883, ii. 310–13Google Scholar, in turn based on that of his predecessor at Albans, St, Roger of Wendover, in his Flores historiarum, ed. Hewlett, H. G., London 1886–1889, i. 118–23Google Scholar. For other accounts see Reeves, , Influence of prophecy, 65–6; Pispisa, E., Gioacchino da Fiore e i cronisti medievali, Messina 1988, 41–71Google Scholar.

19 Of the far-fetched variety see Foberti, Francesco, Gioacchino da Fiore: nuovi studi critici sulla mistica e religiosita in Calabria, Florence 1934Google Scholar, and Gioacchino da Fiore e il Gioachinismo antico e moderno, Padua 1942Google Scholar, who argued that the lost work was a Cistercian forgery. Several attempts have been made to identify the lost work with a series of anonymous theological texts, for which see Mehlmann, , ‘De unitate Trinitatis’. The misleadingly entitled Liber contra Lombardum (Scuola di Gioacchino da Fiore), ed. Ottaviano, Carmello, Rome 1934Google Scholar, is not one of them. Ottaviano's dubious assignation of the work to the ‘school of Joachim’ has been rejected by subsequent scholars. See Robb, Fiona, ‘A late thirteenth–century attack on the Fourth Lateran Council: the Liber contra Lombardum and contemporary debates on the Trinity’, Recherches de théologie ancienne el médiévale; lxii (1995), 110–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Napoli, Di, ‘Gioacchino da Fiore e Pietro Lombardo’, 679–80Google Scholar.

21 Ibid. 636 n. 57; Mehlmann, , ‘De unitate Trinitatis’, 247 n. 44Google Scholar; Selge, Kurt-Victor, ‘L' origine delle opere di Gioachino da Fiore’, in Capitani, O. and Miethke, J. (eds), Uattesa dellafine dei tempi net Medioevo, Bologna 1990, 87–130 at p. 113 n. 58Google Scholar.

22 The term insania was a common one in accusations of heresy. For example, Abelard, Peter, Theologia Christiana iv. 77, 301, ed. Buytaert, E. M., CCM xii, Turnhout 1969, andGoogle ScholarDialtctica, ed. Rijk, L. M. de, rev. edn, Assen 1970, 554–5Google Scholar; Robert, of Melun, , Sententie [sic], ed. Martin, R. M., Œuvres de Robert de Melun, iv, Louvain 1952, i. 3. 1, 2, lines 7–9;Google ScholarWalter, of St-Victor, , Contra quatuor labyrinlhos Franciae, ed. Glorieux, P., Archives eThistoire doctrinale et littéraire du mqyen age (hereinafter cited as AHDLMA) xix (1952), 187–335 at p. 319, lines 6, 10Google Scholar.

23 ‘O quam perverse modis omnibus emendavit utrumque qui dixit unam substantiam esse quandam summam rem communem tribus personis, et singulam personam esse illam substantiam. Tale est enim, ac si pro substantia ponatur centenarius numerus, pro personis autem denarii tres; aut si non vult illam dicere maiorem cuiuscumque persone, ac si tres denarii ponerentur pro personis et quartus denarius pro substantia, tamquam si non esset deus trinitas, sed quaternitas. Qui autem eo modo nituntur palliare vesaniam istam, ut dicant unamquamque personam esse illam substantiam, ac si dicerent tres denarios esse unum denarium, et unum denarium esse tres. Utrumque autem iniquum est. Sed denarius unus pertinet ad Patrem, denarius unus ad Filium, denarius unus ad Spiritum Sanctum, tri[ce]nariussimul ad trinitatem […] Denarius itaque numerus positus est pro designanda perfectione persone, non pro significanda quantitate. Ternarius [tricenarius] pro designanda trinitate, non pro significanda quantitate […] Tres ergo denarii tres personas designant, quarum quelibet perfectus est deus. Unus tricenarius qui est collectio denariorum, unius substantie trinitatem, quia perfectus deus trinitas, perfectus deus singula personarum’: Psalterium decent chordarum, Venice 1517, fo. 277ra–b. See alsoGoogle ScholarMehlmann, , ‘De unitate Trinitatis’, 548–57Google Scholar.

24 ‘Weil Joachim kein quantitativ-numerisches Verstandnis der gottlichen Einheit hat, liegt ihm ein kollektiver Begriff der Einheit der Trinitat von vorneherein fern!’: thus Mehlmann, , ‘De unitate Trinitatis’, 555Google Scholar, defends Joachim's orthodoxy; but a little further on he acknowledges the susceptibility of some of Joachim's images, ‘Mann kann nicht ausschliessen, dass manche Begriffe, Bilder und Vergleiche, die Joachim in seinem Libellus contra Petrum Lombardum benutzt hat, Anlass zu Missverstandnissen gegeben haben könnten’: ibid. 582.

25 ‘potest unus accipi de collectione multorum, ut unus populus, una plebs’: Psalterium, fo. 23Irb; ‘tribus Juda, et tribus Beniamin, et tribus Levi que remanserunt filiis David et templo domini unus simul populus dicte sunt’: ibid. fo. 232va (Mehlmann, ‘De unitate Trinitatis’, 561, defends this image); ‘unum tamen dicimus non singularem, non utique, sicut dicimus unum sydus, unum iaspidem, unum smaragdum; set unum ab unitate utpote cum dicimus unum gregem, unum populum, unam turbam’: De articulisfidei, ed. Buonaiuti, Ernesto (Fonti per la Storia d'ltalia 78), Rome 1938, 5Google Scholar, lines 3–6; ‘si una massa auri distingueretur in tres statuas, maxime si ut solent fieri in arte fusoria, tote tres essent coniuncte; si diceretur singula statua esse unum aurum ut tamen simul tres non dicerentur nisi unum aurum? et miratur homo si singula divinitatis Persona dicitur verus Deus, et simul tres unus Deus?’: ibid. 7, lines 4–8; ‘unum sunt unitate non singularitate, ac si tria vasa ex una fornace procedentia dicerentur unum aurum. Ac per hoc, etsi singulum dicatur et sit aurum et unum aurum, differt tamen hoc unum ab illo uno, quia illud unum non dicitur collective, set singulariter de singulo, istud dicitur collective de tribus’: Professiofidei, ed. Leo, P. de, Gioacchino de Fiore: aspetti inediti della vita e delle opere, Soveria Mannelli 1988, 173–5 at p. 173, lines 22–6Google Scholar. Cf. Augustine, , De Trinitate vii. 11Google Scholar, 264, PL xlii. 944.

26 ‘Die Einheit Gottes ist für Joachim diese Perichorese der drei Personen, daher verurteilt er in aller Scharfe den Versuch, das Eins (”unum”) des gbttlichen Wesens in einem den drei Personen gemeinsam unpersbnlichen Gottwesen zu sehen’: Mehlmann, , ‘De unitate Trinitatis’, 567Google Scholar; Schachten, W. H. J., ‘Die Trinitatslehre Joachims von Fiore im Lichte der Frage nach der Subjectivitat Gottes in der neueren Theologie’, Franziskanische Studien lxii (1980), 39–61Google Scholar.

27 Dresden, , Landesbibliothek, MS A. 121Google Scholar, fo. 8gr. See also Tondelli, L., Il Libra dellefigure dell'abbate Gioachino, 2nd edn, Turin 1953, i. 61Google Scholar; ii, plate xxvia; Reeves, Marjorie and Hirsch-Reich, Beatrice, Thefigurae of Joachim of Fiore, Oxford 1972, 212–23Google Scholar; Lee, Harold, ‘The anti-Lombard figures of Joachim of Fiore: a reinterpretation’, in Williams, Ann (ed.), Prophecy and millenarianism: essays in honour of Marjorie Reeves, Oxford 1980, 129–42Google Scholar.

28 Reeves, and, Hirsch-Reich, , Figurae, 20; Obrist, Barbara, ‘La figure géometrique dans lœuvre de Joachim de Fiore’, Cahiers de civilisation mé‘diévale xxxi (1988), 297–321Google Scholar.

29 See Tondelli, , Il Libro delle figure, i. 61Google Scholar.

30 Lee, ‘The anti-Lombard figures’.

31 Fournier, Paul, Études sur Joachim de Fiore et ses doctrines, Paris 1909Google Scholar; Vicaire, M. -H., ‘Les porrétains et l'avicennisme avant 1215’, Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques xxvi (1937), 449–82 at pp. 449–50Google Scholar; Dondaine, Antoine, Ecrits de la ‘petite école’ porrétaine, Paris 1962Google Scholar.

32 Régnon, T. d é, Études de théologie positive sur la Sainte Trinité, Paris 1892–1898Google Scholar, esp. i. 285. An example of de Régnons influence is the similar contrast drawn in theNew Catholic encyclopedia, Washington 1967, iii. 880Google Scholar.

33 Anitchkof, Eugène, Joachim de Flore et les milieux courtois, Rome 1931, 146–52Google Scholar. On th e relationship between Joachim and Greek theology see Bloomfield, , ‘Joachim of Flora’, 282–8Google Scholar; Crocco, Antonio, Gioacchino da Fiore e il Gioacchimismo, 2nd edn, Naples 1976, 117–19Google Scholar, who notes a similarity between Joachim and the Greek tradition, but absolutely no textual dependencies or references.

34 Rdgnon, De, Études de théologie, i. 366Google Scholar.

35 This view goes back to the thirteenth century, ‘unde sentencia, quam ponit pro magistro decretalis, non est contraria Joachim, sed est illud quod Joachim dicebat’: thus Angelo Clareno in his Historia septem tribulationum ordinis minorum, ed. Ehrle, F., Archivfur Literatur und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters ii (1886), 106–64, 249–336 at p. 276Google Scholar.

36 For the patristic period see Augustine, ep. cc, PL xxxiii. 452–62. Augustine does not accuse anyone of Quaternity but merely points it out as an error.

37 Bernard's De consideration is Joachim's ‘trinitatstheologisches Lehrbuch’ according to Mehlmann, ‘De unitate Trinitatis’, 349.

38 De consideration v. 15, Sancti Bernardi opera, ed. Leclercq, J. and Rochais, H. M., Rome 1957–1977, iii. 479Google Scholar. Gerhoch of Reichersberg also associates Quaternity with Gilbert of Poitiers in hisLetter to Pope Hadrian about the novelties of the day, ed. Haring, N. M., Toronto 1974, xliii. 2Google Scholar, 107, lines 82–4 (written 1155–6).

39 ‘Queritur, cum una sit et eadem communis trium essentia personarum, si sit diversa a personis ut sit quaternitas, non trinitas, ut quidam dicunt heretici. Nos autem dicimus non esse diversam. Sed, ut ait Augustihus, ratio dividit’: ‘Die Sententie magistri Gisleberti Pictavensis episcopi’ (long version), ed. Haring, N. M., AHDLMA xlv (1978), 83–180 at p. 111, no. 7 (written before 1148)Google Scholar.

40 The three Peters (Abelard, the Lombard and Peter of Poitiers) and Gilbert of Poitiers. For the Lombard's alleged doctrine of Quaternity see Contra quatuor labyrinthos, 310–26.

41 ‘Quod vero sequitur: an essentia genuit essentiam, quid ad Spiritum Sanctum pertineat omnino nescitur cum non sit genitus, nisi sicut Abeilardus et iste sentit: si Spiritus Sanctus de substantia Patris est duos filios habet; si inquam, ita proposuisset non fecisset fucum ut dicit Ambrosius, timens proferre quod sentit nee consequentia sua diabolica illam quartam divinitatem quam Augustinus et veritas damnant, et ipse sub nomine divine essentie denuo ressuscitatam introducere auderet personis tribus communem nulli autem propriam, quasi aliud sit persona, aliud essentialis natura’: ibid. 317, lines 16–24.

42 ‘Que cum ita sint, manifestissimis rationibus et auctoritatibus conuincunctur isti falsum introducere trinitatem per nescio quam divinitatem siue essentiam quartam, tribus quidem communem, nulli autem propriam, que nee gignit nee gignitur’: ibid. 322, lines 5–9. Mehlmann, , ‘De unitate Trinitatis’, 276Google Scholar, draws particular attention here to the resemblance with Joachim's attack.

43 ‘Quod Pater et persona Patris gignit, sed non de natura. Quod Filius et persona Filii gignitur, sed non de natura. Quod Spiritus Sanctus procedit de utroque, sed non de natura. Quod persona et gignit et gignitur et procedit; natura nee genuit nee genita est nee procedit. Quod una est trium personarum quarta divinitas tribus communis, nulli propria.’: Contra quatuor labyrinthos, 333, lines 13–17.

44 Fournier, Études sur Joachim. Fournier cites extensively from the only copy of the work, held in Grenoble, , Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 1085Google Scholar.

45 Liber, MS Grenoble 1085, fos 62ra–78vb.

46 ‘Moderni vero non solum confundant personas in se invicem, dicendo rem una m esse Patrem et illam eandem numero esse Filium et ipsam eandem numero esse Spiritum Sanctum, sicut Sabellius, sed etiam confundunt personas ipsas in ipsis proprietatibus personarum, dicentes personas ipsas esse ipsas proprietates personarum’: ibid. fo. 63vb.

47 ‘Sic ergo confundunt hec omnia simul in his simul omnibus, scilicet personas, proprietates, naturam, deum ipsum, et unitatem in hanc unitatem ficticiam’: ibid.

48 ‘Causa vero huius erroris eorum, quo scilicet incidunt in heresim Sabellianam, hec est, quia, scilicet videntur ignorare multimodam significationem huius nominis “unus”, “una”, “unum”’: ibid. fo. 64rb; cf. Joachim, Psalterium, fo. 23Irb.

49 ‘unitas est collectio trium personarum que nichil aliud est quam trinitas’: Liber, MS Grenoble 1085, fo. 68ra.

50 ‘unum propter maiestatis communionem’: ibid.

51 ‘nec trinitas est unitas, nee unitas est trinitas. Trinitas enim est proprietas simul trium personarum non nature. Unitas quoque proprietas est nature, non personarum. Persone enim tres sunt numero non una. Natura quoque una est numero, non tres’: ibid. fo. 68rb.

52 ‘sicut trinitas est tres persone, ita dualitas due persone, et unitas una persona, quare cum trinitas sit unitas et econverso, et dualitas sit unitas et econverso, tres persone sunt una persona et econverso’: ibid.

53 Fournier, , Études, 82–3Google Scholar, for references.

54 Liber, MS Grenoble 1085, fo. 68rb.

55 Ibid. fo. 64va.

56 Cf. ‘manifeste protestans, quod nulla res est quae sit Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, nee est essentia nee substantia nee natura, quamvis concedat quod Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus sunt una essentia, una substantia, unaque natura’: canon 2, Conciliorum decreta, 231, lines 14–17.

57 On these developments see the excellent study by Evans, G. R., Old arts and new theology: the beginnings of theology as an academic discipline, Oxford 1980Google Scholar.

58 For this view see Otto, , Die Funktion des Bildbegriffes, 8Google Scholar.

59 Gentner, D., ‘The mechanisms of analogical learning’, in Vosniadou, S. and Ortony, A. (eds), Similarity and analogical reasoning, Cambridge 1989, 199–241 at p. 201CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Excellent on this difference is Ricoeur, Paul, ‘The metaphorical process as cognition, imagination, and feeling’, in Sacks, S. (ed.), On metaphor, Chicago 1979, 141–57 esp. pp. 146–7Google Scholar.

61 Ryle, Gilbert, The concept of mind, Harmondsworth 1949, 233–42Google Scholar; Dennett, Daniel C., ‘Two approache s to menta l images’, in his Brainstorms: philosophical essays on mind and psychology, Hassocks, Sussex 1979, 174–89Google Scholar.

62 Most famous is Thomas Aquinas's doctrine that words apply primarily to God and secondarily to creatures. See Davies, Brian, The thought of Thomas Aquinas, Oxford 1992, 70–5Google Scholar, for an excellent summary. In the west this approach dates to the twelfth century, especially to Alan of Lille. See Evans, G. R., Alan of Lille: the frontiers of theology in the later twelfth century, Oxford 1983, 30–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 The best attempt to define the difference between scholastic and monastic theology is Leclercq, Jean, ‘The renewal of theology’, in Constable, Giles and Benson, Robert L. (eds), Renaissance and renewal in the twelfth century, Oxford 1982, 68–87Google Scholar.

64 The polymathic nature of medieval scholarship means that it is often more relevant to speak in terms of the characteristics of textual genres rather than particular authors. This approach is also an enormous advantage when the work under consideration is anonymous.

65 ‘verum unitatem huiusmodi non veram et propriam, sed quasi collectivam et similitudinariam esse fatetur, quemadmodum dicuntur multi homines unus populus, et multi fideles una ecclesia, iuxta illud: Multitudinis credentium erat cor unum et anima una, et Qui adhaeret Deo unus spiritus est cum illo; item Qui plantat et rigat unus sunt, et omnes unum corpus sumus in Christo; rursus in libro Regum: Populus metis et populus tuus unum sunt. Ad hanc sententiam adstruendam, illud potissimum verbum inducit, quod Christus de fidelibus inquit in evangelio: Volo, Pater, ut sint unum in nobis, sicut et nos unus sumus, ul sint consummate in unum. Non enim, ut ait, fideles Christi sunt unum, id est una quaedam summa res quae communis sit omnibus, hie modo sunt unum, id est una ecclesia propter catholicae fidei unitatem et tandem unum regnum propter unionem indissolubilis caritatis’: Conciliorum decreta, 231, lines 17–29.

66 Cf. ‘cum enim una et summa quaedam res sit divina essentia, si divina essentia essentiam genuit, eadem res se ipsam genuit, quod omnino esse non potest’: Sententiae i. v. 1. 6, 82, lines 19–21, with ‘Quoniam quaedam summa res est Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, et ilia non est generans neque genita nee procedens’: Conciliorum decreta, 231, lines 10–12. For Mehlmann, , ‘De unitate Trinitatis’, 253Google Scholar, the omission of the word una in the council's version suggests that the reference in the decree is to Joachim's citation of the Sentences in the libellus, rather than to the Sentences themselves.

67 Otto, , ‘Die Denkform des Joachim’, 107Google Scholar, says that this section was either copied from the lost work or represents the first draft.

68 ‘Quocirca quia ipse in unitate trinus est, quesivit semper et queret, quomodo plures homines et diversi populi convenirent in unum, sciens quod nulla possit esse felicitas ubi scissio et diversitas est […] Inde est quod Filius orat pro electis suis, ut sint unum ad sue et Patris sui similitudinem unitatis, dicens sic: Pater sancte serva eos in nomine luo quos dedisti mihi, ut sint unum sicut nos […] Ego clarilatem quam dedisti mihi dedi eis ut sint unum sicut el nos unum sumus. Certe audivimus ex verbo veritatis quomodo nos velit Filius esse unum ad imaginem et similitudinem illius unitatis qua ipse et Pater unum sunt. Est autem unitas ista in Spiritu, secundum illud quod scriptum est in actibus Apostolorum: Multitudinis autem credentium erat cor unum et anima una. Secundum hunc modum unitatis, accipiendum est illud quo d Apostolus ait: Qui adheret domino unus spiritus est’: Psalterium, fo. 233va.

69 ‘Wienun Joachim die “unitas in spiritu” verstanden wissen will, ist schwer zu deuten’: Schachten, W. H. J., Ordo Salutis: das Gesetz als Weise der Heilsvermitllung. £ur Kritik des HI. Thomas von Aquin an Joachim von Fiore, Münster 1980, 25Google Scholar.

70 ‘inter creatorem et creaturam non potest tanta similitudo notari, quin inter eos maior sit dissimilitudo notanda’: Conciliorum decreta, 232, lines 34–5.

71 Crocco, , Gioacchino da Fiore, 136–7Google Scholar; Napoli, di, ‘Gioacchino da Fiore e Pietro Lombardo’, 654–6Google Scholar; Mehlmann, , ‘De unitate Trinitatis’, 580Google Scholar.

72 See Kannengieser, C., Athanase d' Alexandrie: evêque et écrivain: une lecture des traite's contre les Ariens, Paris 1983, 326–38Google Scholar, for Athanasius’ interpretation of John xvii. 11, 20–3, as analogies for the unity of the faithful in one Church after the model of divine unity;Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, xv. 2, 1601Google Scholar; Hilary, of Poitiers, , De Trinitate viii. 5–17Google Scholar, ed. P. Smulders, CCL lxii, Turnhout 1979–80, ii. 317–29; PL x. 240–9 for Acts iv. 32, 1 Cor. iii. 8, and John xvii. 20–1; Augustine, , De Trinitate iv. 12Google Scholar, 176–8, PLxlii. 896, for John xvii. 20–2. For twelfth-century usage see Javelet, Robert, Image et ressemblance au douzième siècle, Paris 1967, i. 447–50Google Scholar.

73 ‘Quamvis autem Deus omnipotens sine quantitate magnus sit, res tamen quibus eum assimilando intelligere querimus quantitate necesse est terminentur’: Psalterium, fo. 234rb; ‘necesse est ut cedat quantitas illi magnitudini que quantitatem non habet, et visibilis forma invisibili nature, et comprehensibile corpus incomprehensibili deitati’: ibid. fo. 230va. See Otto, , ‘Die Denkform des Joachim’, 109Google Scholar; Mehlmann, , ‘De unitate Trinitatis’, 582Google Scholar.

74 Ibid. 585, suggests that the analogies in the lost work may have been more ambiguous than those in the Psalterium.

75 Psalterium, fos 233rb–va. I n general see Javelet, , Image et ressemblance, i. 136Google Scholar: ‘L' expression qui traduit le mieux le rapport entre le Créteur et les creatures, est celle de Dissemblance ressemblante ou celle de Ressemblance dissemblante. L'affinitépeut done exister, mais il convient sans cesse de rappeler que le ciel est “incomparable” à la terre.’

76 Otto, , Die Funktion des Bildbegriffes, 299Google Scholar.

77 See Foberti's work, cited above, n. 19. On the Order of Fiore founded by Joachim see Russo, Francesco, Gioacchino da Fiore e le fondazione florensi in Calabria, Naples 1958Google Scholar.

78 R. J.Spiro and others, ‘Multiple analogies for complex concepts: antidotes for analogy-induced misconception in advanced knowledge acquisition’, in Vosniadou, and Ortony, , Similarity and analogical reasoning, 498–531 at p. 502Google Scholar.

79 Ep. cxxviii, Anselmi opera omnia, ed. Schmitt, F. S., Seckau–Edinburgh 1938–1961, iii. 271Google Scholar. Hopkins, J., A companion to the study of St Anselm, Minnesota 1972, 100–8Google Scholar, has an excellent summary of the dispute. For an important reassessment of Roscelin's theology see Constant Mews, J., ‘St Anselm and Roscelin: some new texts and their implications’, AHDLMA lviii (1991), 55–97Google Scholar, and, ‘Nominalism and theology before Abelard: new light on Roscelin of Compiegne’, Vivarium xxx (1992), 4–33Google Scholar. On patristic usage of the sun image see Pelikan, Jarosla v, The light of the world: a basic image in early Christian thought, New York 1962 55–72Google Scholar.

80 ‘similitudines illas quas ad hanc generationem Filii vel processionem Spiritus defendendam, seu ad diversitatem personarum assignandam a sanctis patribus didicimus, minus satisfacere quibusdam videantur, quod in illis rebus quae per simile inducuntur non possit unius essentiae identitas servari. Unde et nonnullos fidelium quasi irridentes murmurare saepe audivimus, cum de his ad hoc similitudo inducitur quae non sunt eiusdem essentiae’: Theologia christiana iv. 82, 303, lines 1178–85. On the relationship between the various versions of the Theologia see Buytaert, E. M., ‘Abelard's Trinitarian doctrine’, in Buytaert, E. M. (ed.), Peter Abelard: proceedings of the international conference, Louvain 1974, 127–52Google Scholar; Constant Mews, J., ‘The development of theTheologia of Peter Abelard’, in Petrus Abaelardus (1079–1142): Person, Werk und Wirkung, Trier 1980, 183–98Google Scholar.

81 ‘nonnulli murmurent novi, dicentes quidem haec nihil attinere ad vim quaestionis, quae de indentiate [sic] unius substantiae in tribus personis orta est’: Theologia christiana iv. 82, 303, lines 1196–9.

82 ‘Nemo enim, inquiunt, dubitat quin in eodem opere diversae res diversa agant, aut in eadem substantia diversas habeant vires diversae qualitates. Sed hoc, inquiunt, miramur, cum sit una penitus substantia sive essentia trium personarum, qua ratione haec incarnata dicatur et non ilia, cum ipsa divinitatis substantia carnem susceperit quae una et eadem singulis aeque inest personis’: ibid. iv. 82, 303–4, lines 1199–1205.

83 Epistola de incarnatione verbi, 2nd redaction (c. 1090–9), Opera ii. 3–3 5 a t pp. 31–3. SeeEvans, G. R., ‘St Anselm's images of the Trinity’, JTS xxvii (1976), 46–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Anselm and a new generation, Oxford 1980, 102–10Google Scholar.

84 Clanchy's, Michael T. argument, ‘Abelard's mockery of St Anselm’, this JOURNAL xli (1990), 1–23Google Scholar. For Anselm's justification of papal censorship see Epistola de incarnatione verbi 3–4

85 Theologia Christiana iv. 83, 304; Theologia ‘Scholarium’ ii. 120, 467–8, ed. E. M. Buytaert and C. J. Mews, CCM xiii, Turnhout 1987.

86 Epistola de incarnatione verbi 33.

87 ‘Sed haec quoque similitudo non magis satisfacere potest, quod non est simul eadem substantia fontis et rivi atque stagni, sed per temporis successionem eadem aqua primo fons erat, deinde rivus, denique stagnum facta est’: Theologia Christiana iv. 83, 304, lines 1220–5; Theologia ‘Scholarium’ ii. 120, 467, lines 1806–9.

88 ‘Immo fortassis haec similitudo illi maxime suffragatur haeresi quae ita per tempora proprietates personarum commiscet, ut eamdem personam dicat quando vult esse Patrem, quando vult Filium vel Spiritum Sanctum’: Theologia Christiana iv. 83, 304, lines 1229–33; Theologia ‘Scholarium’ ii. 120, 468, lines 1812–15.

89 ‘Ut itaque satisfacere per similitudinem de hac generatione vel processione valeamus, excogitanda est talis similitudo generationis vel processionis, in qua eadem simul sit substantia generantis et generati, vel procedentis et a quo procedit, et tamen proprietates eorum impremixtae maneant, ut videlicet genitum non sit generans nee procedens a quo procedit’: Theologia Christiana iv. 84, 304–5, lines 1234–40; Theologia ‘Scholarium’ ii. 121, 468. For the same approach among Abelard's school, see Sententiae florianenses, ed.Ostlender, H., Bonn 1929, 7Google Scholar, which rejects the sun and the river image in favour of the bronze seal; similarly, Die Sentenzen Rolands, ed. Gietl, A. M., Freiburg 1891, 28Google Scholar.

90 Theologia ‘Scholarium’ ii. 141–5, 478–9.

91 See William's, Disputatio adversus Petrum Abaelardum, PL clxxx. 249–82 at cols 254–7Google Scholar, and accompanying letter, PL clxxxii. 531–3. For Bernard, see ep. clxv, Opera viii. 17–40 at pp. 18–24Google Scholar, PL clxxxii. 1053–72 at cols 1058–60; on the evolution of this letter see Leclercq, Jean, ‘Les formes successives de la lettre-traite de Saint Bernard contré Abélard‘, Revue bénédictine lxxviii (1968), 87–105Google Scholar. Bernard's letters against Abelard are conveniently collected together by Babolin, A., Bernardo di Chiaravelle: le leltere contra Pietro Abelardo, Padua 1969Google Scholar. On Sens see Jolivet, Jean, ‘Sur quelques critiques de la théologie d' Abéard’, AHDLMA xxx (1963), 7–51 at pp. 22–47Google Scholar; Constant Mews, J., in his introduction to the Theologia ‘Scholarium’, 277–92Google Scholar, and ‘The list of heresies imputed to Peter Abelard’, Revue Benedictine lxxxxv (1985), 73–110Google Scholar. For a full discussion of the accuracy of the accusations see Luscombe, David E., The school of Peter Abelard: the influence of Abelard's thought in the early scholastic period, Cambridge 1969, 115–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

92 See Otto, , Die Funktion des Bildbegriffes, 70–7Google Scholar.

93 Disputatio, P L clxx. 255C.

94 Disputatio, PL clxxx. 256AB. Similarly Bernard, ep. cxc, Opera viii. 21, lines 8–10, PL clxxxii. 1058B.

95 Moltmann, Jürgen, The Trinity and the kingdom of God, London 1981Google Scholar, andHistory and the triune God, London 1991Google Scholar; Gunton, Colin E., The promise of Trinitarian theology, Edinburgh 1991Google Scholar.