|< в начало	<< назад	к содержанию	вперед >>	в конец >|

CHAPTER I

Bonaventure and the Coincidence of Opposites

The Middle Ages produced many striking personalities who were both religious leaders and intellectual giants. In this array of: religious personalities - which includes such thinkers as Anselm of Canterbury, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Thomas Aquinas - Bonaventure takes his place among the most eminent men of his era. Born in 1217 in the tiny village of Bagnoregio near Orvieto in central Italy,¹ Bonaventure became a leading figure in the complex culture of the high Middle Ages. As a master at the University of Paris, he rose to the intellectual leadership of the young Franciscan Order. When he was forty years old, he was elected Minister General of the Order at one of the most critical points in its history. For seventeen years he served as General, resolving tensions within the Order and taking an active part in the intellectual controversies of the time. Elevated to the cardinalate in 1273, he spent the last months of his life in intense work at the Second Council of Lyons, at which he died on July 15, 1274. Two centuries later, in 1482, he was canonized under Pope Sixtus IV, and in 1588 was declared a doctor of the Church by Sixtus V.

Bonaventure achieved eminence in several areas. In view of his accomplishments as Minister General, he is esteemed as the second founder of the Order, whose talents for mediation enabled him to draw together disparate factions and to establish the Order on a firm organizational basis. A gifted stylist, he was one of the most eloquent preachers and controversialists of the turbulent mid-thirteenth century, employing his oratorical skill not only to preach the Gospel, but to defend the mendicant orders and theological tradition against varied attacks. As a saint and spiritual writer, he composed some of the richest and most influential treatises of mystical theology in the Christian tradition; throughout the centuries his writings have been a primary source of Franciscan spirituality. In his achievement as a philosopher-theologian, he ranks with Thomas Aquinas as one of the greatest synthetic minds in a century that was outstanding for its theological synthesis, Bonaventure achieved for the medieval Augustinian tradition a synthesis comparable to that produced by Thomas with Aristotelian philosophy.

Bonaventure's Integral Synthesis

Bonaventure's thought represents one of the greatest intellectual achievements of the Middle Ages. It is enormously rich and complex, like the Gothic cathedrals that flowered in the same period. There is reason to think that Bonaventure's synthesis is the most integral in the Middle Ages. It comes at the high point of scholastic development, when the logical and metaphysical tools were available and the design of the summa had been elaborated. With this design and these precision instruments, Bonaventure constructed a synthesis that is a microcosm of the medieval world. It is a many-faceted diamond reflecting the variety of medieval experience.

Where Thomas Aquinas' choice of materials for his synthesis was selective, Bonaventure's was expansive. Thomas chose the abstract logic of the schools and laid aside symbolism and mysticism. Whereas Thomas abandoned Augustinian illumination for Aristotelian abstraction, Bonaventure attempted to bind them together. Thomas approached God through the cosmological argument, rejecting Anselm's ontological argument and turning aside from Augustine's inner way through subjectivity. In contrast Bonaventure integrated all three in a complex approach to God that was both rational and mystical. Following this comprehensive design, Bonaventure worked out a rich integration of Plato and Aristotle, Augustine and the Greek Fathers, the Pseudo-Dionysius and Francis of Assisi. He brought together the cosmic Logos-Christology of the Greek Fathers with the Western sense of particularity expressed in Francis' devotion to the humanity of Christ. In the theology of history, he blended cosmic Christocentricity with elements drawn from the radical eschatology of Joachim of Fiore. One might argue whether Bonaventure's desire to integrate so much was laudable or whether his performance was effective; yet one can look to his system as perhaps the richest integrative venture of the Middle Ages.

The integral nature of Bonaventure's vision is seen most strikingly in his Itinerarium mentis in Deum, written at the mid-point of his career, and in the Collationes in Hexaemeron, lectures delivered the year before his death.² In each of these he blended logic, metaphysics, symbolism, and mysticism. In his early works, composed during his years at the University of Paris, he employed the more austere scholastic method of commentary on Scripture, commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, disputed questions, and a condensed summa under the title of Breviloquium³ In his mid-career he wrote a number of specifically mystical and devotional works, and over many years he preached numerous sermons. If one views not only the synthetic works like the Itinerarium, but Bonaventure's corpus as a whole, he will find a variety of literary genres which, taken together, constitute a most comprehensive medieval synthesis.

Bonaventure's thought is not only rich in itself and reflects the variety of the Middle Ages, but in a larger context it reflects one of the major currents of Western philosophy and theology. This is the Platonic, or more technically, the Christian Neo-Platonic tradition. Originating in Plato, it flowed through the Neo-Platonists and into Christian theology, where it was developed by the Greek Fathers in the East and Augustine in the West. In the East it emphasized the dynamism of God in the Trinitarian processions and God's involvement in the world through the Logos in creation. Man was seen as image of God, drawn by the Spirit in a dynamic return to his archetype. In Augustine the image doctrine took on specifically Western qualities through a detailed psychological analysis of subjectivity. In the ninth century the Greek Fathers' tradition flowed into the West through John Scotus Erigena's translations of the PseudoDionysius. Blending with Augustinian elements in Anselm and the Victorines in the twelfth century, the tradition flowed in the thirteenth century to Alexander of Hales, Bonaventure's teacher at the University of Paris. Bonaventure produced the major medieval synthesis of this tradition, integrating into it distinctly Franciscan elements.

Although this tradition was eclipsed in the late thirteenth century, it continued in mystical writings and reappeared in Nicholas of Cusa and the Platonists of the Renaissance. Eclipsed again by scientific rationalism and empiricism, it reappeared in German romanticism: in Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. Elements of this tradition have emerged again in the twentieth century: in the theologies of Paul Tillich and Karl Rahner, in the theology of hope and in the process thought of Alfred North Whitehead and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Since Bonaventure was the major synthesizer of this tradition in the Middle Ages, whose genius made unique contributions, a knowledge of his thought is indispensable to understand both the history of this current and certain crucial aspects of its inner dynamics.

Bonaventure's Thought Obscured

In spite of Bonaventure's great achievement, the significance of his thought has been obscured both in the Middle Ages and in the twentieth century. During the Middle Ages, Bonaventure's thought was obscured by the shift of consciousness that occurred in the thirteenth century as a result of the Aristotelian influx in theology and the success of the Thomistic-Aristotelian synthesis. The Platonism that had formed the matrix of previous medieval theology was replaced by a newly discovered Aristotelianism, derived largely from Muslim sources and transformed by Thomas into a new Christian synthesis. In the sphere of philosophy, the Aristotelianism ushered in a new empirical cast of mind and an interest in the study of nature on its own terms. This led to a shift of consciousness in theology: on the relation of faith and reason, on knowledge of God and on God's relation to the world. In contrast with the new Aristotelianism, Bonaventure's synthesis represents the end of an era - summing up as it does the Platonic-based, more mystical theological speculation of the earlier Middle Ages.

Although Bonaventure attracted disciples, such as Matthew of Aquasparta, within a generation after his death theological questions shifted to an Aristotelian context. By the end of the thirteenth century, even within the Franciscan school issues were formulated in an Aristotelian way. In this context Duns Scotus emerged as the Franciscan champion. On major theological questions, two schools of thought developed: the Thomistic and the Scotist. These two schools tended to polarize themselves around certain issues, such as the purpose of the Incarnation. Even the Franciscan order tended to look upon Duns Scotus as its intellectual leader and guide rather than upon Bonaventure. The latter was admired as the second founder of the Order and the great theologian of Franciscan spirituality. But a certain clouding continued to obscure Bonaventure's total intellectual achievement and his position in the history of Western thought.

Again in the modern era Bonaventure's vision has been obscured, this time by the emergence of neo-scholasticism. At first glance, this may seem strange since neo-scholasticism greatly stimulated Bonaventurian scholarship. Beginning in the nineteenth century and continuing through the first half of the twentieth century, the neo-scholastic revival aroused widespread interest in medieval thought. In this climate, the ten-volume critical edition of Bonaventure's texts was published from 1882 to 1902 by a small group of Franciscan scholars known as the Quaracchi editors.⁴ judged a monumental scholarly achievement, especially for its time, the Quaracchi edition has provided a firm basis for continuing Bonaventurian studies. Yet the neo-scholastic revival was chiefly a revival of the thought of Thomas Aquinas. His thought was studied with great enthusiasm, and the Middle Ages were interpreted in the light of his synthesis. The theological issues of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were formulated in terms of Thomas' position. Although Bonaventurian research moved apace, it never reached the quantity of Thomist scholarship, nor did the Bonaventurian vision find its way into the larger intellectual public as a philosophical or theological movement as was the case with Thomism. Hence Bonaventure's thought was obscured in being overshadowed by the sheer power and popularity of Thomism. In this situation it was difficult to see Bonaventure's world on its own terms and to assess his place in the history of Western thought.

Against this background it is not surprising to find Bonaventure interpreted as a Thomist. In the early years of neo-scholasticism there was a tendency to see Bonaventure as a Thomist, or at least as an incipient Thomist. If he did not reach the fullness of Thomas' positions, it was due to the fact that during his university period he did not have sufficient knowledge of Aristotle's texts. Later when these became available, he was too engaged in administering the Franciscan Order to assimilate them. The tendency to interpret Bonaventure as a Thomist can be seen in the scholia to the critical texts of Bonaventure, written by the Quaracchi editors and published at the end of the nineteenth century.⁵ In 1924 Etienne Gilson challenged this interpretation in his book La philosophic de Saint Bonaventure,⁶ where he maintained that Thomas and Bonaventure presented different world views, each valid in itself but each irreducible to the other. Although Gilson highlighted the differences between Thomas and Bonaventure, problems still remained. Frequently when Bonaventure's thought was studied, it was examined precisely where it had something to say to the cardinal points of Thomas' vision. In instances where Bonaventure's thought did not touch upon these points, it tended not to be examined or not to be taken with equal seriousness. Often these points of nonconvergence were the most central in Bonaventure's synthesis; hence this tendency has led to a blurring of distinctive elements in Bonaventure's vision.

Perhaps the major cause obscuring Bonaventure's vision was the neo-scholastic emphasis on philosophy. The neo-scholastic revival was primarily a revival of medieval philosophy. Scholars attempted to extract from medieval thinkers, chiefly from Thomas Aquinas, a philosophical core which could then be used to dialogue with modern philosophical issues and with such thinkers as Descartes, Kant, and Hegel. Both Thomas and Bonaventure have suffered by having their philosophy extracted from their theological synthesis, for their larger theological concern affected their philosophy. In this Bonaventure has suffered more than Thomas, since the Franciscan's philosophical elements are rooted in areas that are clearly theological: the doctrine of the Trinity and Christology. The Trinitarian perspective permeates Bonaventure's entire vision in a way that is not the case in Thomas'. It affects his doctrine of creation, his metaphysics of exemplar-ism and epistemology of illumination. This has led to two tendencies: to view Bonaventure's entire system solely as theology, or if philosophical elements are extracted, they tend to be examined without contact with the Trinitarian mystery that gives them vitality. The relation between philosophy and theology in Bonaventure is subtle and complex. In order to reach the heart of Bonaventure's vision without mutilating it, the philosopher must be able to sort out intricate, interpenetrating relations between philosophy and theology. In an era dominated by Thomism, which maintains a different relation between philosophy and theology, the Thomist perspective was often unconsciously imposed on Bonaventure, thus distorting both his philosophy and theology.

The neo-scholastic emphasis on philosophy, then, tended to produce a confused image of Bonaventure the philosopher and theologian. But it further tended to produce a deceptive image of Bonaventure the mystical writer, in contrast with Thomas the metaphysician. Gilson states in the conclusion of his book on Bonaventure: "Hence St. Bonaventure's doctrine marks for us the culminating point of Christian mysticism and constitutes the completest synthesis it has ever achieved. Thus it must be clear that it can never be properly comparable in any point with the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas."⁷ There is, of course, no doubt that Bonaventure is a great mystical writer and that his synthesis integrates the mystical dimension as essential to his vision. But his mystical synthesis contains distinctive theological and philosophical dimensions which merit study on their own right. Although Gilson's treatment of Bonaventure deals precisely with these philosophical dimensions, the image of Bonaventure the mystical writer has tended to keep philosophers and theologians from investigating certain central elements in his system.

Coincidence of Opposites

The basic problem in understanding Bonaventure's vision - a problem which is at the same time the source of its richness - is its integral nature. The images of Bonaventure as philosopher, theologian, and mystical writer are inaccurate in isolation. Bonaventure is all three - not in isolation, but in interrelation. To understand one of these images accurately, we must understand it in relation to the other two. In order to see Bonaventure's vision clearly, we must view it in its organic unity. We need a path, a road, a bridge that will lead us directly into the heart of Bonaventure's world view so that we can study it from the inside - in its integral wholeness, without obscurity or distortion. Once we have entered and have seen the organic structure of his thought, we are not limited merely to admire its harmony and beauty. At first glance, we might think this is all we can do, since Bonaventure is a mystic, poet, and theologian. As a mystic, he may seem beyond logical analysis; as a poet, beyond linguistic analysis; as a theologian, beyond philosophical analysis. I contend that this is not the case. If we can find the proper analytic tools, we can give a detailed systematic account of his vision in its totality and in its parts.

I believe that such a path into his vision can be found in the coincidentia oppositorum and that precision tools for analysis are available in the logic of the coincidence of opposites. For the last several years I have claimed in a number of articles that the coincidentia oppositorum is the indigenous logic of Bonaventure's vision and that it provides the single unifying structure in all the dimensions of his thought.⁸ It is present in his philosophy, his theology, and his mysticism, binding together his thought as a whole. If we were to approach Bonaventure's thought through another path or attempt to analyze its structure in a different way, I believe we would not penetrate into the depth and unity of his vision. The coincidence of opposites, then, is the key to understand Bonaventure's thought. This is the thesis of the present book, and its aim is to spell out this thesis in detail by analyzing Bonaventure's texts and the structure of his thought. In the course of this study, I will maintain that by clarifying Bonaventure's vision, the coincidence of opposites enables us to situate him more accurately within the history of thought. In the light of the coincidence of opposites, we can see how he is related to his predecessors, to the controversies of the thirteenth century, and to subsequent thought, especially to some of the most central issues of the twentieth century.

Context of Bonaventurian Scholarship

I would like