Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:10:12.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Philosophy as Handmaid of Theology: Biblical Exegesis in the Service of Scholarship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2016

Malcolm de Mowbray
Malcolm de Mowbray*
Affiliation:
London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“One can only grant the theological faculty the arrogant claim that the philosophical faculty is its maidservant (leaving aside the question of whether the latter bears the torch before, or carries the train after her mistress) on the condition that she is not banished or gagged.” Thus wrote Immanuel Kant, paraphrasing Peter Damian, in his Der Streit der Fakultäten of 1798, shortly after being freed from a ban on writing about religion. Kant argued that the role of the philosophy faculty in universities was to lay down the truth for the use of the more practically orientated higher faculties, including that of theology. It could only perform this function if it was totally free.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 59 , 2004 , pp. 1 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by Fordham University 

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 “Auch kann man allenfalls der theologischen Fakultät den stolzen Anspruch, daß die philosophische ihrer Magd sei, einräumen (wobei doch noch immer die Frage bleibt: ob diese ihrer gnädigen Frau die Fackel vorträgt oder die Schleppe nachträgt), wenn man sie nur nicht verjagt, oder ihr den Mund zubindet” (Kant, Immanuel, Der Streit der Fakultäten, ed. Reich, Klaus [Hamburg, 1959], 21). Much of the research for this article was made possible by an appointment as research assistant to Prof. Jonathan Israel of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton. I am particularly grateful to Glen Bowersock and Giles Constable for not only tolerating, but positively encouraging, my trespasses into their periods.Google Scholar

2 For a thirteenth-century liberation, see, e.g., Gilson, Étienne, Études de philosophie médiévale (Strasbourg, 1921), 1–124, which is still influential and which does at least discuss the meaning of the phrase and its true origins. For the seventeenth century, see most recently Israel, Jonathan I., Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650–1750 (Oxford, 2001), 10–11, where philosophy's position as handmaiden is opposed to libertas philosophica or libertas philosophandi. Libertas philosophica referred, of course, to freedom from the tyranny of a philosophical sect.Google Scholar

3 Although often with the admission that he did not use such a formula; see, e.g., Solère, Jean-Luc, “Avant-propos,” in La servante et la consolatrice: La philosophic dans ses rapports avec la théologie au Moyen Âge, ed. Solère, Jean-Luc and Kaluza, Zénon (Paris, 2002), v–xv, at v and n. 2, where the meaning of the phrase is summed up as that philosophy “n'est pas maîtresse, ni chez elle ni chez les autres,” and it is then admitted that this distorts what Peter Damian actually said.Google Scholar

4 It seems necessary to point this out, since scholars frequently search for the formula or point out that such and such an author does not use it in its common form. I have been unable to ascertain the precise moment when use of the formula began, but it becomes frequent after the middle of the seventeenth century.Google Scholar

5 There exists an excellent and thorough survey up to the twelfth century in Baudoux, Bernard, “Philosophia ‘ancilla theologiae,”’ Antonianum, 12 (1937): 293–326, on which this account draws heavily. Also of use for the thirteenth century and later is Franciscus Clemens, Jacobus, De scholasticorum sententia philosophiam esse theologiae ancillam commentatio, (Münster, 1856), reprinted in Antonio Piolanti, Un pioniere della filosofia cristiana della metà dell'Ottocento: Franz Jakob Clemens (†1862), (Vatican, 1988); this text suffers from many misprints, but is usable. Neither of these is well known, possibly because they are both in Latin. For a discussion of some of the Greek sources, see also Henrichs, Albert, “Philosophy, the Handmaiden of Theology,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 9 (1968): 437–50, who uses Clemens but seems unaware of Baudoux, and Annewies van den Hoek, “Mistress and Servant: An Allegorical Theme in Philo, Clement and Origen,” in Origeniana Quarta: Die Referate des 4. internationalen Origeneskongresses , ed. Lies, Lothar (Innsbruck, 1987), 344–48.Google Scholar

6 On these attitudes and their relationship, see de Lubac, Henri, Exégèse médiévale: Les quatre sens de l'Écriture, 4 vols. (Paris, 1959), 1:74–94.Google Scholar

7 For an introduction to Philo, see Runia, David, “Philo, Alexandrian and Jew,” in Exegesis and Philosophy: Studies on Philo of Alexandria, Collected Studies 332 (Aldershot, 1990), I (1–18).Google Scholar

8 For an account of Homeric exegesis, see Lamberton, Robert, Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition (Berkeley, 1986).Google Scholar

9 The idea that the Greeks derived their philosophy from Moses goes back at least to Aristobulus and other Alexandrian Jews of the second century BC, but was itself derived from much older claims for philosophy's barbarian origins; see Droge, Arthur J., Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture (Tübingen, 1989), 1–29; Baudoux, , “Ancilla theologiae,” 295 n. 4; Mansfeld, Jaap, “Philosophy in the Service of Scripture: Philo's Exegetical Strategies,” in The Question of “Eclecticism”: Studies in Later Greek Philosophy , ed. Dillon, J. M. and Long, A. A. (Berkeley, 1988), 70–102, at 72.Google Scholar

10 For a discussion of the role of philosophy in Philo's exegesis, see Mansfeld, , “Philosophy,” esp. 74–89.Google Scholar

11 Philo's allegorical method is frequently described as Stoic (e.g., Lamberton, , Homer the Theologian, 45, 47; Runia, , “Philo,” 8), but this has been called into question by Long, A. A., “Stoic Readings of Homer,” chap. 3 in Stoic Studies (Berkeley, 1996), 58–84, where it is denied that the Stoics ever indulged in allegory or that the Homeric allegorists whom Philo follows, such as Heraclitus, were in fact Stoics. On this point, see also the introduction to Dawson, David, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria (Berkeley, 1992). Dawson also presents an interesting discussion of Philo's etymological method and his justification for employing it on the Greek text of the Septuagint (ibid., 84–86).Google Scholar

12 Και μην ώσπερ τά έγκύκλια συμβάλλεται προς φιλοσοφίας άνάληψιν, ούτω και φιλοσοφία προς σοφίας κτησιν. έστι γαρ φιλοσοφία έπιτήδευσις σοφίας, σοφία δέ επιστήμη θείων και ανθρωπίνων και των τούτων αίτιων (Philo of Alexandria, De congressu quaerendae eruditionis gratia 14.79, in Philo, ed. Colson, F. H. and Whitaker, G. H., 10 vols., Loeb Classical Library [London, 1929–62], 4:496–97; Baudoux, , “Ancilla theologiae,” 295–96). Cf. also the passages from Philo of Alexandria, Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis 3.244–45, in Colson, and Whitaker, , eds., Philo, 1:466–67, and Philo of Alexandria, Questions and Answers on Genesis, in Philo Supplement, 1, trans. Marcus, Ralph, Loeb Classical Library (London, 1953), 205–6. As a possible origin for Philo's interpretation, Henrichs (“Handmaiden of Theology,” 444) cites a fragment attributed to Ariston of Chios (ca. 250 BC), which reads, “those who waste their effort with the propaedeutic disciplines but neglect philosophy resemble the suitors of Penelope, who when they failed to win over the mistress mingled with the handmaidens.” Google Scholar

13 For a survey of Clement's use of Philo, see Runia, David, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (Assen, 1993), 132–56, esp. 139.Google Scholar

14 Κυρία τοίνυν ή σοφία της φιλοσοφίας ως έκείνη της προπαιδείας (Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 1.5.30, in Clemens Alexandrinus: Stromata Buch I–VI, ed. Stählin, Otto and Früchtel, Ludwig, GCS 52 [Berlin, 1985], 19; PG 8:721; Baudoux, , “Ancilla theologiae,” 297). The translation is from Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis: Books One to Three , trans. Ferguson, John, Fathers of the Church 85 (Washington, DC, 1991), 44.Google Scholar

15 Clement, , Stromateis 1.5.28–9.45, GCS 52, 17–30; PG 8:717–43. On Clement's attitude towards philosophy and its use in exegesis, see Mortley, Raoul, Connaissance religieuse et herméneutique chez Clément d'Alexandrie (Leiden, 1973), 158–74; Lilla, Salvatore R. C., Clement of Alexandria: A Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism (Oxford, 1971), 9–59 (but see the criticisms in Runia, Philo in Christian Literature, 151–53). On Clement's equation of the Old Testament and Greek philosophy in terms of their roles in leading to the truth, see also Van den Hoek, , “Mistress and Servant,” 346.Google Scholar

16 Όσπερ φασί φιλοσόφων παίδες περί γεωμετρίας και μουσικής γραμματικής τε και ρητορικής και αστρονομίας, ώς συνερίθων φιλοσοφία, τοΰθ' ήμεΐς εϊπωμεν και περί αύτής φιλοσοφίας προς χριστιανισμόν (Origen, , Epistola ad Gregorium 1, in Grégoire le Thaumaturge: Remerciement à Origeène suivi de la Lettre d'Orígène à Grégoire, ed. Crouzel, Henri, SC 148 [Paris, 1969], 178–95, at 179; PG 11:88; Baudoux, “Ancilla theologiae” [n. 5 above], 298–99).Google Scholar

17 Origen, , Contra Celsum 3.58, in Origène: Contre Celse, 3, ed. Borret, Marcel, SC 136 (Paris, 1968), 134–37; PG 11:996–97. On the theme of philosophy as preparatory study in Origen, see also Van den Hoek, , “Mistress and Servant” (n. 5 above), 346–47, and Henrichs, “Handmaiden of Theology” (n. 5 above), 445–46.Google Scholar

18 Origen, , De principiis 4.2.4–5, in Origène: Traité des Principes, 3, ed. Crouzel, Henri and Simonetti, Manlio, SC 268 (Paris, 1980), 310–19; PG 11:363A–68B.Google Scholar

19 Origen, , De principiis 4.2.9, in Traité des Principes, ed. Crouzel, and Simonetti, , 335–41; PG 11:381A–84A.Google Scholar

20 Origen, , De principiis 4.2.6, in Traité des Principes, ed. Crouzel, and Simonetti, , 322–25; PG 11:369A–70A. The reference is to Gal. 4:21–31. On Origen's use of Philo, see Runia, , Philo in Christian Literature (n. 7 above), 157–83.Google Scholar

21 Origen, , Ad Gregorium 2; in Grégoire le Thaumaturge, ed. Crouzel, , 188–91; PG 11:88–89. For a detailed survey of the interpretations of these passages, see Folliet, Georges, ”La Spoliatio Aegyptiorum (Exode 3:21–23; 11:2–3; 12:35–36): Les interprétations de cette image chez les pères et autres écrivains ecclésiastiques,” Traditio 57 (2002): 1–48.Google Scholar

22 This occurs in Origen, In Leviticum homeliae 7.6; PG 12:490–91. The use of this passage is also dealt with in Folliet, , “Spoliatio Aegyptiorum,” passim.Google Scholar

23 Baudoux, , “Ancilla theologiae,” 300–301. On Didymus, see also Henrichs, , “Handmaiden of Theology,” 446–50 and Runia, , Philo in Christian Literature, 197–204.Google Scholar

24 Baudoux, , “Ancilla theologiae,” 300–301; for the passage of John of Damascus, see also Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos , ed. Kotter, Bonifatius, Patristische Texte und Studien 7 (Berlin, 1969), 54, lines 53–60. This text was later translated into Latin, but the only modern edition does not include the relevant passage (St. John Damascene, Dialectica: Version of Robert Grosseteste , ed. Colligan, Owen A. [New York, 1953]). On the development of the idea of theology as Regina artium , see de Lubac, H., Exégèse médiévale(n. 6 above), 1:74–94.Google Scholar

25 Origen advocated the use of philosophy to combat the Greeks and barbarians who were hostile to Christianity: it was better to attack them on their ground than try to defend one's own; see Crouzel, Henri, Origène et la philosophie (Toulouse, 1962), 149–50.Google Scholar

26 Mansfeld, , “Philosophy” (n. 9 above), 84.Google Scholar

27 Chadwick, Henry, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition: Studies in Justin, Clement and Origen (Oxford, 1966), 11. See also the discussion in Jaeger, Werner, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia (Cambridge, MA, 1962), 26–35.Google Scholar

28 These statements all seem to echo Numenius's famous saying: “What is Plato but Moses in Attic Greek?” (from Clement, Stromateis 1.150.4, GCS 52, 93; PG 8:893B–96A).Google Scholar

29 See also the comments in Bowersock, G. W., Hellenism in Late Antiquity (Ann Arbor, 1990), 42, on Christianity and pagan religion.Google Scholar

30 On Ambrose's use of Philo, see Lucchesi, Enzo, L'usage de Philon dans l'oeuvre exégétique de Saint Ambroise (Leiden, 1977); Runia, , Philo in Christian Literature, 291–311.Google Scholar

31 “Sara virtus vera est, vera sapientia, Agar autem est versutia, tamquam ancilla perfections virtutis; alia enim sapientia spiritalis, alia sapientia huius mundi. Ideo etiam Aegyptia scribitur, quia philosophica eruditio abundavit in Aegypto” (Ambrose, , De Abraham libri duo 2.10.73, in Opera omnia di Sant' Ambrogio, ed. Gori, Franco [Milan, 1984], 2.2, 230; PL 14:515C).Google Scholar

32 On Ambrose's attitude towards philosophy, see Madec, Goulven, Saint Ambroise et la philosophie (Paris, 1974).Google Scholar

33 For a brief survey of Jerome's reading of Philo and his attitude to philosophy, see Runia, , Philo in Christian Literature (n. 7 above), 312–19.Google Scholar

34 Epistola 21.13 § 6, in Hieronymus, , Epistulae, 1, ed. Hilberg, Isidor, CSEL 54 (Vienna, 1996), 122; PL 22:385.Google Scholar

35 “Legerat in Deuteromonio (Cap. 21) Domini voce praeceptum, mulieris captivae radendum caput, supercilia, omnes pilos et ungues corporis amputandos et sic earn habendam in conjugio. Quid ergo mirum, si et ego sapientiam saecularem propter eloquii venustatem et membrorum pulchritudinem de ancilla atque captiva Israhelitin facere cupio, si, quidquid in ea mortuum est idolatriae, voluptatis, erroris, libidinum, vel praecido vel rado et mixtus purissimo corpori vernaculos ex ea genero domino sabaoth?” (Epistola ad Magnum, oratorem urbis Romae 70.2 § 5, in Hieronymus, , Epistulae 1, 702; PL 22:666).Google Scholar

36 “Sin autem adamaveris captivam mulierem, id est sapientiam saecularem, et eius pulchritudine captus fueris, decalva earn et inlecebras crinium atque ornamenta verborum cum emortuis unguibus seca” (Epistola 66.8 § 4, in Hieronymus, , Epistulae 1, 658; PL 22:644). On these letters, see also Folliet, , “Spoliatio Aegyptiorum” (n. 21 above), 10–11.Google Scholar

37 “Philosophi autem qui vocantur, si qua forte vera et fidei nostrae accommodata dixerunt, maxime Platonici, non solum formidanda non sunt, sed ab eis etiam tanquam ab iniustis possessoribus in usum nostrum vindicanda” (Augustine, , De doctrina Christiana 2.40.60, in idem, De doctrina Christiana, ed. Simonetti, M. [Verona, 1994], 118; PL 34:63). See also Folliet, , “Spoliatio Aegyptiorum,” 12–13.Google Scholar

38 Alcuin, , Disputatio de vera philosophia, in PL 101:849–54, at 853B–C. See Alberi, Mary, “The ‘Mystery of the Incarnation’ and Wisdom's House (Prov. 9:1) in Alcuin's Disputatio de vera philosophia” Journal of Theological Studies 48 (1997): 505–16.Google Scholar

39 On the circumstances and dating of this letter, see the Introduction to Pierre Damien: Lettre sur la toute-puissance divine, ed. Cantin, André, SC 191 (Paris, 1972), 31–33. Jerome's statement can be found in Epistola 22.5, Hieronymus, , Epistulae 1, 150; PL 22:397.Google Scholar

40 “Quae tamen artis humanae peritia, si quando tractandis sacris eloquiis adhibetur, non debet ius magisterii sibimet arroganter arripere, sed velut ancilla dominae quodam famulatus obsequio subservire, ne, si praecedit, oberret, et dum exteriorum verborum sequitur consequentias, intimae virtutis lumen et rectum veritatis tramitem perdat” (Damian, Peter, De divina omnipotentia 7.56–62, in Cantin, , ed., La toute-puissance divine, 414–16; PL 145:603C–D).Google Scholar

41 “Dans la célèbre formule de S. Pierre Damien, c'est donc l'idée d'esclavage qui l'emporte, et de beaucoup, sur celle d'utilisation” (Gilson, , Études [n. 2 above], 36). Whilst he was aware of the Greek origins of the servant theme, and of its true meaning, Gilson wished to show that the liberation of philosophy began with Aquinas, and accordingly made the greatest possible contrast between Damian's position and that of Thomas. According to Gilson, Damian was against any idea of using dialectic and would have been opposed to all philosophy had he known about it. Apart from the obvious question of why one would want a slave that one did not intend to use, Gilson's interpretation does not accord with the sense of the text.Google Scholar

42 This has been pointed out by Grabmann, Martin, Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode, 2 vols. (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1909), 1:232; see also idem, Die theol. Erkenntnisund Einleitungslehre des hl. Thomas von Aquin auf Grund seiner Schrift “In Boethium de Trinitate” in Zusammenhang der Scholastik des 13. und beginnenden 14. Jahrhunderts dargestellt, Thomistische Studien 4 (Freiburg i.d. Schweiz, 1948), 183. In fact, Damian implies that in a secular context dialectic is a valid form of inquiry.Google Scholar

43 See n. 41 above.Google Scholar

44 See the texts cited in Folliet, , “Spoliatio Aegyptiorum,” 25–26. On Damian's life, see Resnick, Irven Michael, Divine Power and Possibility in St. Peter Damian's De Divina Omnipotentia (Leiden, 1992), 7–22.Google Scholar

45 Damian, Peter, Opusculum XIII. De perfectione monachorum , in PL 145:291–328.Google Scholar

46 Damian, , De perfectione monachorum, chap. 8; PL 145:303B–304D. Gregory's allegorical reading is most fully worked out in Homeliae in Ezechiel 2.2.10–12, in Grégoire le Grand: Homélies sur Ézéchiel , ed. Morel, Charles, SC 360 (Paris, 1990), 100–112; PL 76:954–55. It is also used in idem, Moralia in Iob 6.37, in Gregorius Magnus: Moralia in Iob libri IX , ed. Adriaen, Marcus, CCL 143 (Turnhout, 1979), 330.Google Scholar

47 Damian, , De perfectione monachorum, chap. 9; PL 145:304D–305B. The etymology of the name probably comes from Jerome, De nominibus Hebraicis; see PL 23:815–904A, at 819–20.Google Scholar

48 Damian, , De perfedione monachorum, chap. 10–11; PL 145:306B–D.Google Scholar

49 Ibid., chap. 9; PL 145:306D–307D; see also Folliet, , “Spoliatio Aegyptiorum” (n. 21 above), 25–26.Google Scholar

50 “Quamobrem sufficiat nobis brevi compendio fidem defendere quam tenemus; sapientibus autem huius saeculi quae sua sunt cedimus” (Damian, , Divina omnipotentia 7.92–94, in Cantin, , ed., La toute-puissance divine [n. 39 above], 416; PL 145:604B).Google Scholar

51 This revival of knowledge included a renewed acquaintance with the Greek Fathers, including Origen and John of Damascus; see Chenu, M.-D., La théologie au douzième siècle (Paris, 1966), 281–84.Google Scholar

52 “Omnes artes naturales divinae scientiae famulantur; et inferior sapientia recte ordinata ad superiorem conducit” (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis christianae fidei, Prol., chap. 6, in PL 176:185; Baudoux, , “Ancilla theologiae” [n. 5 above], 304 n. 1).Google Scholar

53 Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis, Prol., chap. 2, PL 176:183A-184A; Baudoux, , “Ancilla theologiae,” 303–4; see also Clemens, , Commentatio (n. 5 above), 4–5, in Piolanti, , Clemens (n. 5 above), 80–81.Google Scholar

54 For other twelfth-century uses, see Baudoux, , “Ancilla theologiae,” 303–5.Google Scholar

55 “Nunc profecto, quantum percipio, ad omnium disciplinarum finem et consummationem proficiscimur, quam quidem vos ethicam, idest moralem, nos divinitatem nominare consuevimus, nos illam videlicet ex eo ad quod comprehendendum tenditur, idest Deum, sic nuncupantes, vos ex illis per que illuc pervenitur, hoc est moribus bonis, quas virtutes vocatis” (Abelard, Peter, Collationes, ed. Marenbon, John and Orlandi, Giovanni [Oxford, 2001], 82, my translation; PL 178:1636C–D).Google Scholar

56 For an important qualification, however, see Marenbon, John, The Philosophy of Peter Abelard (Cambridge, 1997), 307–10, and Abelard, , Collationes, 1–liv.Google Scholar

57 “Longe quippe aliarum studia citra summum bonum remanent nec beatitudinis contingunt eminentiam, nec ullus in eis fructus apparet nisi quantum huic summe deserviunt philosophie, tamquam circa dominam occupate pedisseque” (ibid., 84; PL 178:1637B).Google Scholar

58 “Quasi quodam pedissequarum ducatu pertingamus ad dominam” (Abelard, , Collationes, 84).Google Scholar

59 Monfrin, J., ed., Abélard: Historia calamitatum, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1962), 83; PL 178:141A–42A.Google Scholar

60 “Quod enim mirabile est, cum per etatum seriem et temporum successionem humana in ceteris rebus intelligentia crescat, in fide, cuius erroris summum periculum imminet, nullus est profectus; sed eque minores ut maiores, eque rustici ut literati de hac sentire asseruntur, et ille firmissimus in fide dicitur qui communem populi non excedit sensum” (Abelard, , Collationes, 10; PL 178:1614D–15A).Google Scholar

61 Marenbon, , Philosophy of Abelard, 213–15, 328–30.Google Scholar

62 See, e.g., the passage in Petrus Abaelardus: Introductio ad theologiam 1.12, in PL 178:998B–C, mostly repeated in idem, Theologia Christiana 1.2, PL 178:1126C–D. This attitude is, of course, justified by Romans 1–2.Google Scholar

63 Marenbon, , Philosophy of Abelard, 304–10; for Abelard's views on Epicurus, see Collationes, lxix–lxxi.Google Scholar

64 “Ab Egyptiis argentea vasa et aurea sic accipienda sunt mutuo, quod spoliatis eisdem ditentur Ebrei, non ut iidem in servitutem illorum quasi ad participium pretii venundati redigantur, quoniam et si doctrina celestis eloquii de sapientia et eloquentia philosophici dogmatis quasi mutuum ad sui ornatum assumat, interdum ei tamen deservire non debet nec intellectus ipsius ad illius intellectum ullatenus inclinari. Puella etiam de hostibus capta, que pilis rasis et ungulis circumcisis viro Israelitico jungitur, dominari non debet eidem, set obsequi potius ut subjecta” (Denifle, H. and Chatelain, A., eds., Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, 4 vols. [Paris, 1891–99; facsimile ed. Brussels, , 1964], 1:114). On the background to Gregory's letter, see Fernand van Steenberghen, La philosophic au XIII e siècle, 2nd ed. (Louvain, 1991), 93–95.Google Scholar

65 “Ipsi doctrinis variis et peregrinis abducti redigunt caput in caudam et ancille cogunt famulari reginam, videlicet documentis terrenis celeste; quod est gratie tribuendo naturae” (Denifle, and Chatelain, , Chartularium, 1:115).Google Scholar

66 Ibid. Google Scholar

67 On Bonaventure, see van Steenberghen, , Philosophie au XIII e siècle, 177–244.Google Scholar

68 “Et sicut omnes illae ab una luce habebant originem, sic omnes istae cognitiones ad cognitionem sacrae Scripturae ordinantur, in ea clauduntur et in illa perficiuntur, et mediante illa ad aeternam illuminationem ordinantur” (Bonaventure, , De reductione artium ad theologian, 7, in idem, Opera omnia, 11 vols. [Quaracchi, 1882–1902], 5:317–25, at 322; Clemens, , Commentatio [n. 5 above], 17, at Piolanti, Clemens [n. 5 above], 93).Google Scholar

69 “Et sic patet, quomodo multiformis sapientia Dei, quae lucide traditur in sacra Scriptura, occultatur in omni cognitione et in omni natura. Patet etiam, quomodo omnes cognitiones famulantur theologiae; et ideo ipsa assumit exempla et utitur vocabulis pertinentibus ad omne genus cognitionis” (Bonaventure, , De reductione 26, in idem, Opera, 5:325 [original italics]; Clemens, , Commentatio, 17, at Piolanti, Clemens, 93).Google Scholar

70 “Philosophia quidem agit de rebus, ut sunt in natura, seu in anima secundum notitiam naturaliter insitam, vel etiam acquisitam; sed theologia, tanquam scientia supra fidem fundata et per Spiritum sanctum revelata, agit et de eis quae spectant ad gratiam et gloriam et etiam ad Sapientiam aeternam. Unde ipsa, substernens sibi philosophicam cognitionem et assumens de naturis rerum, quantum sibi opus est ad fabricandum speculum, per quod fiat repraesentatio divinorum; quasi scalam erigit, quae in sui infimo tangit terram, sed in suo cacumine tangit caelum” (Bonaventure, , Breviloquium, prologus 3, in idem, Opera, 5:199–291, at 205; Clemens, , Commentatio, 15–16, in Piolanti, , Clemens, 91–92).Google Scholar

71 Van Steenberghen, , Philosophic au XIII e siècle, 185–203.Google Scholar

72 On the relationship between philosophy and theology in Roger Bacon, see Trottmann, Christian, “Roger Bacon de la philosophic à la théologie et retour,” in La servante et la consolatrice, ed. Solère, and Kaluza, (n. 3 above), 95–116.Google Scholar

73 Bridges, John Henry, ed., The “Opus Majus” of Roger Bacon, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (Frankfurt am Main, 1964), 1:32.Google Scholar

74 “Dico igitur, quod est una scientia dominatrix aliarum, ut theologia, cui reliquae penitus sunt necessariae, et sine quibus ad effectum pervenire non potest; virtutem in suum jus vindicat, ad cujus nutum et imperium caeterae jacent; una tamen est sapientia perfecta, quae in sacra scriptura totaliter continetur, per jus canonicum et philosophiam explicanda, et expositio veritatis divinae per illas scientias habetur. Nam ipsa cum eis velut in palmam explicatur, et tamen totam sapientiam in pugnum colligit per seipsum. Quoniam ab uno Deo data est tota sapientia et uni mundo, et propter unum finem” (ibid.).Google Scholar

75 Ibid., 1:35.Google Scholar

76 On the doctrine of the possible and agent intellects, see Kuksewicz, Z., “The Potential and the Agent Intellect,” in Kretzmann, Norman, Kenny, Anthony, and Pinborg, Jan, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge, 1982), 595–601.Google Scholar

77 Bridges, , ed., Opus majus, 1:38–41.Google Scholar

78 Ibid., 1:41–42.Google Scholar

79 “Caeterum totius philosophiae decursus, consistit in eo, ut per cognitionem suae creaturae cognoscatur creator. … Philosophia enim speculativa decurrit usque ad cognitionem creatoris per creaturas. Et moralis philosophia morum honestatem, leges justas, et cultum Dei statuit. … Cum igitur haec sint omnino necessaria christianis, et omnino consona sapientiae Dei, manifestum est quod philosophia necessaria est legi divinae et fidelibus in ea gloriantibus” (ibid., 1:42–43).Google Scholar

80 Clement's history is scattered through bks. 1, 5, and 6 of the Stromateis. Augustine's is to be found in De civitate Dei, bks. 8 and 18.Google Scholar

81 “Christiani debent ad suam professionem quae sapientia Dei est caetera pertractare, et vias philosophorum infidelium complere; non solum quia posteriores sumus, et debemus addere ad eorum opera, sed ut cogamus sapientiam philosophorum nostrae deservire” (Bridges, , ed., Opus majus, 1:57).Google Scholar

82 “Atque de indiciis futurorum, et de operibus astronomiae, et alkymiae, et scientiae experimentalis, quae hominibus imperitis videntur esse aut falsa aut indigna Christianis” (Bacon, Roger, Opus minus , in idem, Opera quaedam hactenus inedita [London, 1859], 316).Google Scholar

83 “Sed praeter has scientias est una perfectior omnibus, cui omnes famulantur, et quae omnes miro modo certificat: et haec vocatur scientia experimentalis” (Bacon, R., Opus tertium , in idem, Opera inedita, 43). Cf. Bridges, , ed., Opus majus, 2:221, where it is stated that experimental science has the same relationship to the other sciences as sailing to carpentry.Google Scholar

84 “Non recipit veritates in terminis aliarum scientiarum, sed tamen utitur eis sicut ancillis” (Bacon, , Opera inedita, 44).Google Scholar

85 Bridges, , ed., Opus majus (n. 73 above), 2:202.Google Scholar

86 Ibid., 2:215.Google Scholar

87 Ibid., 2:169–71.Google Scholar

88 If this is correct, then Roger Bacon's thinking shows very strong similarities to that of Clement of Alexandria.Google Scholar

89 Ibid., 1:61.Google Scholar

90 Ibid., 1:61–62.Google Scholar

91 Ibid., 1:56, 62–63. On the role of ethics in relation to theology, see Trottmann, , “Roger Bacon” (n. 72 above).Google Scholar

92 “Et propter hoc complens philosophiam per hujusmodi veritates non debet dici theologicus nec transcendere metas philosophiae; quoniam ista quae sunt communia philosophiae et theologiae potest secure tractare et ea quae communiter habent recipi a fidelibus et infidelibus” (Bridges, , ed., Opus majus, 1:63–64).Google Scholar

93 Bacon, , Opera inedita, 325–28.Google Scholar

94 Ibid., 322–23.Google Scholar

95 Aristotle, Metaphysics 1.2.982a 14–20.Google Scholar

96 τΗι μεν γαρ άρχικωτάτη και ήγεμονικωτάτη, και ή ώσπερ δούλας ούδ7 άντειπεΐν τάς άλλας έπιστήμας δίκαιον, ή του τέλους και τάγαθοΰ τοιαύτη (τούτου γαρ ένεκα τάλλα) (ibid., 3.2.996b 11–14). The translation is from Aristotle, Metaphysics. Books I–IX , ed. Tredennick, Hugh, Loeb Classical Library (London, 1933), 105 (original italics). In Metaphysics 1.2.982b 5–7 he had written: “And that science is supreme, and superior to the subsidiary, which knows for what end each action is to be done; i.e., the Good in each particular case, and in general the highest Good in the whole of nature” (Tredennick, trans., Metaphysics I–IX, 13).Google Scholar

97 Magnus, Albertus, Summa theologiae sive de mirabili scientia Dei, libri I pars I quaestiones 1–50A, ed. Siedler, D., Kübel, W., and Vodels, H. G. (Münster, 1978), 23.Google Scholar

98 “Principia autem illa in ipsis non sunt, sed in ea quae primum principium considerat, haec autem est theologia, ut dicit Philosophus; omnes ergo ancillantur ad istam, et nulla perfecta ratione libertatis libera est, nisi ista sola quae ad nihil aliud refertur, quod sit extra ipsam. Dicit enim Philosophus in i primae philosophiae, quod liberum dicimus, quod causa sui est, hoc est, quod ad nullum, ut sit, habet respicere. Sola ergo libera est et sola sui causa est, et ex hoc sapientia est. … Et sicut probatum est in primis rationibus, impossibile est, quod haec scientia finem in aliis scientiis habeat, sed ipsa est finis aliarum scientiarum, ad quam omnes aliae referuntur ut ancillae. Et hoc modo haec sola libera est; omnibus enim existentibus et suffragantibus nobis et ad voluptatem et ad necessitatem, ista post omnia habita et in omnibus habitis quaeritur. Et ideo gratia sui quaeritur et ideo libera et domina est et sapientia et omnibus potior” (ibid.). Aristotle's arguments are contained in Metaphysics 1.1, 2. On Albertus's attitude to philosophy, see van Steenberghen, Philosophic au XIII e siècle (n. 64 above), 245–75.Google Scholar

99 Aquinas, Thomas, Expositio super librum Boethii de Trinitate, ed. Decker, Bruno (Leiden, 1955), quaest. 2, art. 3: “Utrum in scientia fidei quae est de deo liceat rationibus philosophicis et auctoritatibus uti.” A detailed analysis of this work is to be found in Grabmann, Einleitungslehre (n. 42 above). For a briefer discussion see Chenu, M.-D., La théologie comme science au XIII e siècle, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1943), 71–101.Google Scholar

100 Aquinas, , De Trinitate, 92–93. For the texts, see nn. 35–37 above.Google Scholar

101 “Si quid autem in dictis philosophorum invenitur contrarium fidei, hoc non est philosophia, sed magis philosophiae abusus ex defectu rationis” (ibid., 94).Google Scholar

102 Ibid. Google Scholar

103 “Tamen utentes philosophia in sacra doctrina possunt dupliciter errare. Uno modo in hoc quod utantur his quae sunt contra fidem, quae non sunt philosophiae, sed corruptio vel abusus eius, sicut Origenes fecit. Alio modo, ut ea quae sunt fidei includantur sub metis philosophiae, ut scilicet si aliquis credere nolit nisi quod per philosophiam haberi potest, cum e converso philosophia sit ad metas fidei redigenda” (ibid., 95).Google Scholar

104 “Ad septimum dicendum quod scientiae quae habent ordinem ad invicem hoc modo se habent quod una potest uti principiis alterius, sicut scientiae posteriores utuntur principiis scientiarum priorum, sive sint superiores sive inferiores; unde metaphysica, quae est omnibus superior, utitur his quae in aliis scientiis sunt probata. Et similiter theologia, cum omnes aliae scientiae sint huic quasi famulantes et preambulae in via generationis, quamvis sint dignitate posteriores, potest uti principiis omnium aliarum scientiarum” (ibid., 97).Google Scholar

105 Aquinas, , Summa theologiae 1.1.5.Google Scholar

106 “Et ideo non accipit ab aliis scientiis tanquam a superioribus, sed utitur eis tanquam inferioribus et ancillis, sicut architectonicae utuntur subministrantibus, ut civilis militari. Et hoc ipsum quod sic utitur eis, non est propter defectum vel insufficientem eius, sed propter defectum intellectus nostri; qui ex his quae per naturalem rationem ex qua procedunt aliae scientiae cognoscuntur, facilius manducitur in ea quae sunt supra rationem, quae in hac scientia traduntur” (ibid.).Google Scholar

107 “Dicendum quod aliarum scientiarum principia vel sunt per se nota, et probari non possunt; vel per aliquam rationem naturalem probantur in aliqua alia scientia. Propria autem huius scientiae cognitio est quae est per revelationem, non autem quae est per naturalem rationem. Et ideo non pertinet ad earn probare principia aliarum scientiarum, sed solum iudicare de eis; quidquid enim in aliis scientiis invenitur veritati huius scientiae repugnans, totum condemnatur ut falsum” (ibid., 1.1.6).Google Scholar

108 Idem, Summa contra gentiles 1.2.Google Scholar

109 See, for instance, idem, Tractatus de unitate intellectus contra Averroistas, ed. Keeler, Leo W. (Rome, 1936).Google Scholar

110 Bacon, Francis, The Advancement of Learning, ed. Kiernan, Michael (Oxford, 2000), 146, in the section De cultura animi. The corresponding Latin from Francis Bacon, De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum libri IX, 7.3 reads: “Quod si quis objiciat, Animorum Curationem, Theologiae Sacrae Munus esse, verissimum est quod asserit; Attamen Philosophiam Moralem in Famulitium Theologiae recipi, instar Ancillae Prudentis, & Pedissequae fidelis, quae ad omnes ejus nutus praestò sit, & ministret, quid prohibeat? Etenim quemadmodùm in Psalmo habetur, quod Oculi Ancillae perpetuò ad manus Dominae respiciunt; cùm tamen minimè dubium sit, quin haud pauca Ancillae Judicio & Curae relinquantur; Eodem modo & Ethica obsequium Theologiae omninò praestare debet, ejusque Praeceptis morigera esse; ita tamen ut & ipsa, intra suos limites, haud pauca sana & utilia Documenta, continere possit” (Rawley, William, ed., Opera Francisci Baronis de Verulamio … tomus primus: qui continet De dignitate & augmentis scientiarum libros IX [London, 1623], 366 [original italics]). It is most likely that Bacon was arguing against the followers of Petrus Ramus, who did not consider ethics as a legitimate part of philosophical enquiry, but believed it to be entirely contained in scripture.Google Scholar

111 The work was first published in Tommaso Campanella, Atheismus triumphatus, seu contra Antichristianismum, &c. De gentilismo non retinendo: De praedestinatione et reprobatione, et auxiliis divinae gratiae cento Thomisticus (Paris, 1636), although it is mentioned in idem, Apologia pro Galileo (Frankfurt, 1622). The text used here is from idem, Disputationum in quatuor partes suae philosophiae realis libri quatuor: Pro Rep. Literaria ac Christiana, idest vere rationali, stabilienda contra sectarios, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1637), intended as a new philosophy curriculum for Christian universities, where it appears as part of the prologue. It was published again with slight changes as De gentilismo non retinendo, quaestio unica (Paris, 1693). On Campanella's views on the relationship between philosophy and theology, see Ponzio, Paolo, Copernicanesimo e Teologia: Scrittura e Natura in Campanella, Galilei e Foscarini (Bari, 1998), 123–48.Google Scholar

112 Campanella, , Disputationes … suae philosophiae, “Disputatio in prologum instauratarum scientiarum ad scholas Christianas, praesert. parisienses,” quaest. 1, art. 1: “Utrum expediat Philosopho Christiano alteram post Gentiles cudere Philosophiam, & undenam.” The passages he uses from Clement on sig. b1v are from Stromateis 1.3.4.Google Scholar

113 Campanella, , Disputationes … suae philosophiae, sig. b2r.Google Scholar

114 “Ad 4. vere sapientia vocavit scientias tanquam ancillas ad arcem, in quo verae scientiae sunt: in caeteris eas corrigit, resecat ungues, & capillos, ut Hieronymus admonet in Epistola ad Pammachium: sed ubi ancilla superbit supra Dominam suam. Eiice ancillam, dicit Dominus, non enim erunt haeredes cum filiis liberae, filii ancillae, superbientis iam in Macchiavellismo Averroistico: ac proinde faciamus nobis ancillas fideles bene servientes” (ibid., sig. b4r). The opening phrase is a paraphrase of Prov. 9:3, which was used in this sense by Aquinas, Contra gentiles 1. q. 1, acknowledged in Campanella, Apologia pro Galileo, 23. For the reference to Jerome, see n. 36 above. The final quotation is from Gal. 4:30, echoing Sarah's words in Gen. 21:10.Google Scholar

115 Campanella, , Disputationes … suae philosophiae, sig. b4v.Google Scholar

116 Ibid., quaest. 1, art. 2, “Utrum liceat Aristotelismus evertere vel saltern contradicere Aristoteli, & authoritatem minuere.” Google Scholar

117 Ibid., sig. c4r.Google Scholar

118 Ibid., sig. d1r. The reference is to Augustine, De Genesi contra Manichaeos 1.18.19; PL 34:187.Google Scholar

119 Campanella, , Disputationes … suae philosophiae, sig. e1r–v.Google Scholar

120 Campanella, , Apologia pro Galileo, 23.Google Scholar

121 “Non ergo fugat scientias, sed utitur eis ad convocandos homines in regnum coelorum; quoniam sibi sunt ancillae, & veraciter serviunt, non contradicunt. Nam quae contradicunt, scientiae non sunt, sed phantasiae philosophorum vanorum” (ibid.).Google Scholar

122 “Et in quaestione nostra, utrum expediat novam cudere philosophiam, ostendimus, quod hoc tempore, quando superbit ancilla supra dominam theologiam, explodenda sit sicut Agar” (ibid., 25).Google Scholar

123 The final phrase is an adaptation of Horace, Epistulae 1.1.14.Google Scholar

124 Campanella, Apologia pro Galileo (n. 111 above), 27. That Campanella invented the formula is argued by Sutton, Robert B., “The Phrase Libertas Philosophandi,” Journal of the History of Ideas 14 (1953): 310–16, but similar phrases, e.g., ratio libera philosophandi, were used in Francesco Patrizi, Discussiones peripateticae (Venice, 1571), while the idea of freedom to dissent from any principles, and especially those of Aristotle, goes back at least to Lorenzo Valla; Valla, Laurentius, Repastinatio dialectice et philosophie , ed. Zippel, G. (Padua, 1982), 2–4.Google Scholar

125 On the reintroduction of Aristotelian philosophy at Wittenberg, see Kusukawa, Sachiko, The Transformation of Natural Philosophy: The Case of Philip Melanchthon (Cambridge, 1995), 65–74. On Protestant histories of philosophy, see Malusa, Luciano, “Renaissance Antecedents to the Historiography of Philosophy,” in Santinello, G., ed., Models of the History of Philosophy: From Its Origins in the Renaissance to the “Historia Philosophica” (Dordrecht, 1993), 3–65, at 52–59.Google Scholar

126 The original does not survive but is paraphrased in Adriaan Heereboord, Epistola ad Curatores (Leiden, 1648), which also serves as the preface to idem, Meletemata philosophica (Leiden, 1654). The Meletemata is a collection of different works, all with individual pagination, that evolved through the many subsequent editions. On Heereboord, see Dibon, Paul, La philosophic néerlandaise au siècle d'or: L'enseignement philosophique dans les universités à l'époque précartésienne (1575–1650) (Amsterdam, 1954), 107–19; on his history of philosophy see Verbeek, Theo, “Tradition and Novelty: Descartes and Some Cartesians,” in Sorell, Tom, ed., The Rise of Modern Philosophy: The Tension between the New and Traditional Philosophies from Machiavelli to Leibniz (Oxford, 1993), 167–96, at 180–88.Google Scholar

127 Heereboord, , Epistola ad Curatores, 1–4.Google Scholar

128 “Disp. IX De usu philosophiae in theologia,” and “Disp. X De abusu philosophiae in theologia” of Disputationes selectae 2, 213–21, in idem, Meletemata. .Google Scholar

129 “Non debet Philosophia instar Herae dominari Theologiae, sed instar ancillae servire: Theologia instar Sarae est, Philosophia instar Hagar. Theologia regina est omnium facultatum et disciplinarum, Philosophia pedissequa. Itaque invertunt ordinem, Lombardus, Aquinas, Scotus, et omnes de grege illo Scholastici, qua veteres qua recentiores, dum articulos fidei probaturi, quaestiones Theologicas decisuri, rationes Philosophicas atque authoritates Aristotelis praemittunt verbo Dei et Authoritati divinae, atque ita dominum Aristotelem sequitur non passibus aequis Dominus Israelis” (ibid., 2, 218). See also his “Pro libertatem philosophandi,” directly based on Campanella (ibid., 2, 330–34).Google Scholar

130 Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal (Amsterdam, 1710), Discours préliminaire de la conformité de la foy avec la raison, 17, in Die philosophischen Schriften von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz , ed. Gerhardt, C. J., 7 vols. (Berlin, 1875–90; repr. Hildesheim, 1960–61), 6:60. The reference is to Baron, Robert, Philosophia theologiae ancillans, hoc est. Pia & sobria explicatio quaestionum philosophicarum in disputationibus theologicis subinde occurrentium, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1658), a work written at the request of some Dutch students to explain philosophical questions that were of use in deciding theological controversies.Google Scholar

131 Leibniz, , Théodicée, ed. Gerhardt, , 6:60.Google Scholar

132 Meijer, Lodewijk, Philosophia S. Scripturae interpres (Amsterdam, 1666).Google Scholar

133 Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan, ed. Tuck, Richard (Cambridge, 1996), 462 (original italics).Google Scholar

134 See [Irenaeus Philalethius], Bedenkingen, Op den Staat des Geschils, over de Cartesiaensche Philosophie, en op de Nader Openinghe over eenige stucken de Theologie raeckende (Rotterdam, 1656), 39. This was probably written by the Leiden theologian Abraham Heidanus together with the philosophy professor Johannes de Raey. Heidanus supported Cartesianism because, as he saw it, it was incapable of being mixed with theology (see ibid., 39–45). De Raey advocated the separation of philosophy from all the higher faculties as a means of defending Cartesianism, which was incapable of fulfilling a propaedeutic role in relation to subjects that had been based on Aristotelian philosophy.Google Scholar

135 See n. 5 above. On the origins of the work, see Piolanti, , Clemens, 15–16; on its influence, ibid., 21–22, 62–74.Google Scholar