CUSANUS REVIVAL OF ERIUGENA AS A RENAISSANCE REDEFINITION OF CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY?

Cesare Cat

The philosophical relationship between John Eriugena and Nicholas of Cues, connecting directly two different thinkers through six centuries, is a fundamental moment in the history of Christian Neoplatonism. Cusanus is the most relevant interpreter of Eriugenas thought, between Eckhart and the German Idealism. The strong influence of the Irish philosopher on Cusanus work is decisive. The idea of God as the infi nite One wherein all beings are contained; and the conception of the universe as a self-creation of God, elaborated by Eriugena, constitute the fulcrum of Cusanus metaphysical system. Eriugena and Cusanus can be seen as two successive moments in a unique historical line of thought. In the relationship between Johannes Scotus Eriugena and Nicholas of Cues, we can recognize a fundamental prosecution of a philosophical-theological perspective grounded on the concept of God as the infi nite One (infinita Unitas). Cusanus is an original Renaissance interpreter of a specific tradition of medieval thought, in which the divine principle is conceived as an absolute infi nite Unity, and, consequently, the human being as essentially participating in It. Th is tradition of thought was explicitly condemned by the Christian orthodoxy in 1210. During the fi fteenth century, the Cardinal and Bishop Nicholas of Cues recovered and reinterpreted this philosophical tradition as a refused sapientia. There is a specific cultural heritage of Eriugena in Cusanus system of thought. Th is heritage can be considered as the step along a determined philosophical path from Proclus to Dionysius, to Eriugena, to Eckhart and his school, to Cusanus. In this sense, Cusanus, like Marsilio Ficino (but in a completely different way), realized in the European Renaissance an extraordi-

60

CUSANUS REVIVAL OF ERIUGENA AS A RENAISSANCE REDEFINITION...

nary synthesis of Neoplatonic and Christian perspectives. Finally, in Cusanus thought we can discern a peculiar revival of a heterodox theological point of view. The fundamental link between Eriugena and Cusanus was considered and examined by some penetrating and well-documented research over past decades and today we can assume it as historiographical certitude.1 I refer to the analysis of Riccati, regarding the metaphysical apparatus of divine creation in Cusanus and Eriugena, that widely clarify the common frame of thought in their Christian Neoplatonism; the works of Beierwaltes, in which we can comprehend all the historical theoretical aspects of the relationship Eriugena-Cusanus; the fundamental research of Moran on the ontological conceptions of the two authors; the study of Cantn, on the ideas of theophania and concordantia the study of Kijewska on the idea of divine NonBeing in the two thinkers; the study of Duclow, in which the role of Eriugena and Cusanus in the development of the idea of Deus Absconditus, considering the influence of Meister Eckhart between them, is discussed. The results of this research have determined a fi nal clarification about the fundamental relationship between Nicholas of Cues and Eriugena. In the light of the preceding scientific contributions, the present paper intends to observe the relationship between Eriugena and Cusanus in the context of the development of Medieval Neoplatonism, considering their link as a moment of a tradition of Christian thought, alternative and in many aspects opposite to Scholastic philosophy. The aim of my short considerations is to open a perspective on the problematical connection between John Scotus Eriugena, condemned as a heretical thinker in 1210, and the Bishop and Cardinal Nicholas of Cues. Eriugenas presence in Cusanus work can reveal the endeavor of Cusanus philosophy, to redefi ne the parameters of Christian orthodoxy by considering the rejected tradition of Neoplatonism.

See the following works: D. Duclow,. Masters of learned ignorance : Eriugena, Eckhart, Cusanus, Ashgate 2006; A. Kijewska, Divine Non-Being in Eriugena and Cusanus, Philoteos, 2 (2002), pp. 155-167; J.L. Cantn, Teofana y Concordia. Leyendo a Escoto Erigena y Nicols de Cues, in M. Alvarez-Gomez (ed.), Lo Caminos de Pensamiento en Nicolas de Cusa, Salamanca 2002, pp. 107-134; D. Moran, Pantheism in Eriugena and Nicholas of Cusa, American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 1 (1990), pp. 131-152; W. Beierwaltes, Eriugena und Cusanus, in Eriugena redivivus. Zur Wirkungsgeschichte seines Denkens im Mittelalter und im bergang zur Neuzeit, Heidelberg 1985, pp. 311-343; C. Riccati, Processio et esplicatio La doctrine de la creation chez Jean Scot et Nicolas de Cues, Napoli 1983; C. Riccati, Eriugena e Cusano: due concezioni del mondo come esplicazione della natura intellettuale, Torino 1977.

Cesare Cat

61

Eriugenas thought is widely developed in Cusanus work, as we can immediately comprehend by considering some fundamental topics of Cusanus system. Nevertheless, Nicholas of Cues explicitly refers to Johannes Scottigena in few places of his writings. I fi nally intend to offer an interpretation of this ostensible paradox: we see simultaneously a decisive influence of Eriugenas ideas and a minute presence of his name in Cusanus pages. As I will assert, I believe there could be a theological-historical reason to explain the paradox. Cusanus mentions Eriugenas name in his work Apologia doctae ignorantiae (1449). It is interesting to note that the name of Eriugena appears in the fi rst work composed by Cusanus after his appointment as a Cardinal; the Apologia is the work in which he defends himself about the heresy charges expressed by the Scholastic philosopher Johannes Wenck in his De ignota litteratura(1442).2 In the Apologia docta ignorantiae, Nicholas of Cues refers twice to Eriugena, along with Meister Eckhart, Theodoric of Chartres, Maximus Confessor, David of Dinant, Berthold of Moosburg, Robert Grosseteste and Hugh of Saint Victor. In defending of his metaphysical system, Nicholas of Cues defi nes a line of Neoplatonic thinkers that are alien to Aristotelian Scholastic philosophy.
Sed si se gratiam assequi sperat, ut de caecitate ad lumen transferatur, legat cum intellectu Mysticam theologiam iam dictam, Maximum monachum, Hugonem de Sancto Victore, Robertum Lincolniensem, Iohannem Scotigenam, abbatem Vercellensem et ceteros moderniores commentatores illius libelli; et indubie se hactenus caecum fuisse reperiet.3 Sunt alii, qui illos videntes sapientes putant ignorantes et errantes, quando in eis legunt eis insolita, et maxime, quando reperiunt eos tunc se doctos credere, quando cognoscunt se ignorantes. Unde recte admonent omnes sancti, quod illis debilibus mentis oculis lux intellectualis subtrahatur. Sunt autem illis nequaquam libri sancti Dionysii, Marii Victorini ad Candidum Arrianum, Clavis physicae Theodori Iohannis Scotigenae , Tomi David de Dynanto, Commen-

Cf. E. Vansteenberghe, Giovanni Wenck, De ignota litteratura, Beitrge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, VIII, 6, 1910. On the relationship between Cusano and Wenck, see: R. Haubst, Studien zu Nicolaus von Kues und Joannes Wenck, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Teologie des Mittelalters, XXXVIII, I (1995), 1-43; G. Santinello, Introduzione a Nicolo Cusano, in Scritti filosofici II, Bologna, 1965, 21 sgg; J. Hopkins, Nicholas of Cusa on Learned Ignorance and Nicholas of Cusas Debate with John Wenck, Speculum, 56 (1981), pp. 930-931; K. Flash, Wissen oder Wissen des Nichtwissens. Johannes Wenck gegen Nikolaus von Kues, in: K. Flasch, Einfhrung in die Philosophie des Mittelalters, Darmstadt, 1987, pp. 181-195. Nicolai de Cusa, Apologia Doctae Ignorantiae, 30, Opera Omnia, vol. II, HeidelbergLeipzig, 1932, p. 21.

62

CUSANUS REVIVAL OF ERIUGENA AS A RENAISSANCE REDEFINITION...

taria fratris Iohannis de Mossbach in Propositiones Proculi et consimiles libri ostendendi.4

The figures named by Cusanus as real interpreters of the Christian tradition many of whom were condemned as heretical by the official orthodoxy are commentators of Proclus and Dionysius. Besides those references in the Apologia, we cannot fi nd an explicit quotation of Eriugenas name in Cusanus writings, except a private epistula to Bernhard von Waging (September, 9, 1454). In this letter, Eriugena is defi ned as the man qui primo transtulit Dionysium tempore Karole magni5. According to Nicholas of Cues, Eriugena is fi rst of all the translator and interpreter of Dionysius Neoplatonic tradition, which means a rediscovering of Proclus in a metaphysical Christian perspective. In the Apologia docta ignorantiae and in his letter, Cusanus is indirectly asserting that the real key to approach Christianity from a philosophical point of view is not Aristotle, but rather Proclus. Th is is a fundamental point of connection between Nicholas of Cues, Eriugena and Berthold of Moosburg. Successor of Eckhart in the School of Kln since 1335, Bertholds Commentarium is focused on the concept of divine Infi nite One, as defi ned by Proclus Theologia Platonica.6 There is a specific reason for the unusual focusing of a philosophical Commentarium on Proclus, instead on Aristotle. The shift of auctoritates proposed by Berthold is caused by the necessity to defi ne the divine principle as the Infi nite One a defi nition inadmissible in the metaphysical apparatus of the Aristotelian categories. Hence, when Nicholas of Cues develops Eriugenas teaching in the path of Neoplatonism, his aim consists in redefi ning the Christian orthodoxy grounded on the Aristotelian Scholasticism. In fact, in several Cusanus concepts in which we can recognize Eriugena as the principal source, it is possible to recognize the Proclus and Dionysus idea of God as the Infinita Unitas. God is defi ned by Nicholas of Cues as the entitas omnium, the quidditas quidditatum (in the work De coniecturis); the essentia essentiarum (in the work De visione Dei); the forma formarum (in the work De dato Patris Luminum). He explains the etymology of the term thes as deriving from theo (to run) and theoro (to see). All those defi nitions are also present in Eriugenas

4 5

Nicolai de Cusa, Apologia Doctae Ignorantiae, 43, p. 30. Cf. W. Beierwaltes, Eriugena und Cusanus, p. 313 n. 5; D. Moran, The philosophy of John Scottus Eriugena in the Middle Ages, Cambridge 1989, p. 279. Cf. B. de Mottoni Faes, Il Commento di Bertoldo di Moosburg alla Elemntatio theologica di Proclo, in Studi Medievali (1971) 417-461; R. Imbach, Le (no)platonisme mdival. Proclus latin et lcoledominicane allemande, Reveu de thologe et de philosophie 110(1978) 427-448..

Cesare Cat

63

work and represent a hermeneutical translation of Dionysius assertions in De divinis nominibus. According to Dionysius, God is the quidditas of any creature and at the same time is above all being, above all things that are and are not. We fi nd the same conception in Eriugenas system and in the developments of Nicholas of Cues. In the Peyphyseon (I, 517 b-c) God is defi ned by Eriugena as the contrariorum contrarietas, and Cusanus clarify the essence of God as oppositio oppositionis (De visione dei, 13). Both those conceptions refer to the idea of God as the Infinita Unitas considered by Berthold in his Commentarium of Proclus Theologia Platonica. Hence, the idea of God at the centre of Eriugenas and Cusanus system is a Platonic concept developed by Proclus and later by Dionysus the Areopagite in a Christian perspective. Plato and Proclus were not considered as fundamental auctoritates by the official medieval orthodoxy, in order to defi ne the profi le of Christian truth. Th rough his revival of Eriugenas philosophy, Nicholas of Cues purposed such a theological-philosophical shift . The shift is evident, by considering the notion of creatio described by Cusanus especially in his work De Genesi, and shaped on Eriugenas idea of processio. Cusanus took his conception of creation as a theophany from Eriugenas system. According to Nicholas of Cues, the creatio is not a mere creatio ex nihilo like in the Aristotelian-Scholastic perspective; creation is a contractio, a self-manifestation, an internal ontological movement of the infi nite indeterminate divine principle. As Moran explains, Cusanus general philosophy of explicatio and implicatio, of infi nity and fi nitude, expresses in a different technical terminology some of the central insight of Eriugenas system. Of course, it is almost impossible to separate the Dionysian influence from what is purely Eriugenian, but we can say that Cusanus was Eriugenas greatest disciple.7 We can consider the idea of the divine principle as a Deus Absconditus (Hidden God). Th is conception is expressed in Eriugenas expression: divina ignorantia summa ac vera sapientia, corresponding to Cusanus famous conception of docta ignorantia. The common background of this idea is the apophatic theology explained by Dionysius with a philosophical vocabulary shaped on Proclus terminology.8 According to Cusanus philosophy, divine principle cannot be known in itself. God is conceived as the absolute Maximum. Human mind attains knowledge in a comparative way, by moving from what is known to what is unknown, through an analogical connection with previously established
7 8

Cf. Moran, the Philosophy of John Scottus Eriugena, p. 281. Cf. D. Carabine, The Unknown God: Negative Theology in the Platonic Tradition: Plato to Eriugena, Louvain 1995.

64

CUSANUS REVIVAL OF ERIUGENA AS A RENAISSANCE REDEFINITION...

knowledge. The absolute cannot be comprehended in a comparative relation. Because of its infi nity, Maximum cannot be grasped through the comparative process from the known to the unknown. Hence, divine principle can be never encompassed by human mind. Real and deep human knowledge of divine principle consists in knowing that he does not know. Learned ignorance, or docta ignorantia, is the progressive awareness concerning the structural limits of human mind, in the light of the infi nite nature of divine principle.9 Th is central idea of Cusanus system of thought is fundamentally expressed in Eriugenas philosophy. In the fi rst book of Periphyseon, certainly known by Cusanus, Eriugena widely explains that human mind cannot grasp the essence of reality, because of the infi nity of Divine principle. Human mind is able to understand only quia est, never quid est the essence.10 According to Eriugenas perspective, one should approach intellectually the divine principle, with respectful silence. Eriugena clearly utilizes the Dionysian distinction between cataphatic and apophatic theology.11 Human being makes affi rmations regarding divinity, applying to the Creator the attributes of created things. The attributes cannot defi ne God and the essence of reality, thereby conserving its inconceivable truth. We fi nd the same philosophical doctrine in Eriugena and Cusanus, in a shared cultural background of sources. A fundamental consequence of the idea of the Deus absconditus in Cusanus and Eriugena, is the conception of the essential harmony and reciprocity between fides (faith) and ratio (raison), theology and philosophy, Holy Scripture and speculation. Eriugenas philosophy is construed on the principles of dialectical reasoning, whereby true philosophy and true religion are identical. Eriugena declared in many passages of his work the fundamental unity of true philosophy and true religion, the harmony of human reason and holy authority. There is no faith without a rational investigation and comprehension; reciprocally, there is no reason, without an acceptance and a desire of the inconceivable and mystic Mystery of reality. In Cusanus idea of docta ignorantia is expressed the same conception of a reciprocity and a complementary between faith and reason. Significantly, Cusanus and Eriugena were both great philosophical interpreters of Holy Scripture. Eriugena wrote a thoughtful commentary on the Gospel by St. John.12 Nicholas of Cues composed 293 Sermons on theological
9 10

11 12

Cusanus, Docta ignorantia, I, 1-3, Opera omnia, vo. I, HeildelbergLeipzig 1932. Iohannis Scotti seu Eriugenae Periphyseon. Liber primus, ed. E. Jeauneau, Turnholti 1999, p. 443C, p. 5; 487AB, p. 63. Cf. p. Rorem, Eriugenas commentary on the Dionysian Celestial hierarchy, Toronto 2005. Cf. John J. Contreni, P. P. Neill, Glossae divinae historiae: The Biblical Glosses of John Scottus Eriugena, Firenze 1997.

Cesare Cat

65

topics, especially considering the words of St. John. In the light of the conception of reciprocity between faith and reason, Eriugena and Cusanus do not make a real distinction between Holy Scripture and speculative researching. That is because they developed a large part of their philosophical works, by commenting upon the Holy Scripture. Another common topic of Eriugena and Cusanus is the conception of human being as a potentially divine creature. In Eriugenas conception is perfectly developed the principle of homo imago dei: human being is considered as an image of Gods Nature.13 According to Eriugenas philosophy, God created the universe by creating man as a rational human being.14 Human being is the intermediary (medietas) between created universe and Creator. Human being is able to transcend all that is animal nature, through his intellectual strength (theosis). Th is same conception is developed in Cusanus thought in the typical Renaissance image of human being as a microcosms. In Cusanus philosophy, human being desires to realize his own divine nature, by using his mind (filiatio Dei). Cusanus conceptions regarding the relationship between human and God expressed in his work De filiatione Dei, can be considered as a reinterpretation of Eriugenas idea of theosis. Eriugena and Nicholas of Cues considered the mind as the essence of man. Like the divine mind, human mind is prior to all the created things. The substance of the whole man is nothing else but the concept of him in the Mind of his Artificer15, wrote Eriugena. And Cusanus considered the mens (human mind) as the specific point of connection between human and divine, through the power of docta ignorantia. Th is anthropological vision grounds itself on a peculiar metaphysical conception of God. God is conceived as the opposite of the opposites. Cusanus famous theological conception of coincidentia oppositorum is originally expressed by Eriugena: God est enim ipse similium similitudo et dissimilitudo dissimilium, oppositorum oppositio, contrariorum contrarietas.16According to Cusanus, Coincidentia autem illa est contradictio sine contradictione, sicut fi nis sine fi ne. Et tu mihi dicis, Domine, quod sicut alteritas in unitate et sine alteritate, quia unitas, sic contradictio sine alteratione non est [...]. Oppositio oppositorum est oppositio sine oppositione, sicut fi nis fi nitorum est fi nis sine

13

14 15 16

Iohannis Scotti seu Eriugenae Periphyseon. Liber quartus, 771B, ed. E. Jeauneau, Turnholti 2000, p. 44. Cf. D. Moran, The philosophy of John Scottus Eriugena, p. 236-238. Eriugenae Periphyseon IV, 768B, p. 40. Eriugenae Periphyseon 517B-C, p. 103.

66

CUSANUS REVIVAL OF ERIUGENA AS A RENAISSANCE REDEFINITION...

fi ne. Es igitur tu Deus oppositio oppositorum, quia est infi nitus. Et quia est infi nitus est ipsa infi nitas.17 Cusanus defi ned God as the oppositio oppositorum sine oppositione. Th is idea is taken from Eriugena ad verbum, and is founded on Eriugenas conception of divine infi nity (infinitas), as the annihilation and overcoming of fi nitude. Any determined opposition is cancelled in the infi nity of divine principle. God is the Unity without differences.18 The oppositions present in the the created universe are an ontological consequence of divine explicatio (Cusanus) or processio (Eriugena). Creatures, considered in their specific nature, are nothing.19 The ontological status of a creature metaphysically depends on the being it receives from God. According to Eriugena, the created universe exists essentially through a participation in the divine nature. By creating the universe, God was creating himself (theophania). In a Neo-Platonic background derived from Proclus philosophy, Eriugena asserts that there is no visible or corporeal thing which is not the symbol of something incorporeal and intelligible.20 Eriugena elaborated his philosophical system, as a Christian hermeneutics of Proclus. The Irish monk develops the idea of reality as a procession from the divine One to multiplicity, and the eschatological perspective of the return of being into the original Unity.21 Eriugenas conception of processio and reditus as the essential aspects of created universe is clearly indebted to Proclus philosophy, with which he became acquainted also through Dionysius. In Fifteenth century, Nicholas of Cues follows this tradition of thought. According to Cusanus, every created thing comes from the One and returns to It. Like Eriugena, Cusanus adopted Proclus metaphysics, in order to read the cyclical process of processio and reditus in a historical and holy sense. The development of divine nature in its division and unification is interpreted in Christian terms as creation and redemption. In Eriugena and Cusanus we fi nd the identical ideas of creation, defi ned as an infi nite vision, or a perfect beauty. Finally, the relationship between Cusanus and Eriugena can be considered as the sharing of a Christian Neoplatonic background grounded on Proclus idea of infi nite One. Th is tradition of Neoplatonic thought in which Cusa17

18

19

20 21

Nicolai de Cusa, De visione Dei 53-54, Opera omnia, vol. VI, HeidelbergHamburg 2000, p. 63 Cf. K. Flasch, Die Metaphysik des Einen bei Nikolaus von Kues. Problemgeschichtliche Stellung und systematische Bedeutung, Leiden 1973. Cf. Nicolai de Cusa, De docta ignorantia, II, 3, p. 69-70; Eriugenae Periphyseon I, 516C, p. 102. Eriugenae Periphyseon. Liber quintus 866a, ed. E. Jeauneau, Turnholti 2003, p. 10. Proclus, Elements of Theology, translated by E. R. Dodds, Oxford University Press 1963, propositions 33-4, p. 36-39.

Cesare Cat

67

nus and Eriugena encountered is a philosophical way, alternative to Thomistic Scholasticism. The main theme of the philosophical link between Cusanus and Eriugena is the idea of God as the infi nite One. Th is conception can be seen as a Christian original interpretation of Neoplatonic metaphysics. It is a conception fundamentally alternative to Thomistic Scholasticism thesis of God as a personal and determinate principle. In the context of Renaissance diatribes between Aristotles and Platos great scholars, Nicholas of Cues became the interpreter of a tradition of thought, whose aim was to refuse an Aristotelian interpretation of divine things. In fact, all Cusanus philosophy is a progressive clarification of divine power in an anti-Aristotelian sense. Cusanus fi nal theological defi nition of God as the power itself (posse ipsum) is nothing else than an assertion of the conception, refused by Aristotle, of Deus as the actus infinitus.22 It is the denial of any unexpressed potentiality of reality. According to Aristotle, Scholasticism interpreted divine universe as a potentia ordinata (ordinate power), depending on the potentia absoluta (absolute power) of God. Nicholas of Cues refused this theological-philosophical conception, through the defi nition of God as a posse ipsum. According to Cusanus, there is no distinction, in God, between esse and facere. Hence, divine power is completely expressed in created universe. That is because Aristotelian categories cannot be assumed, in order to defi ne and comprehend the divine principle. In Eriugenas philosophy, the ineffability of God is founded on the metaphysical reviewing of the ten Aristotelian categories, asserting that their capability to comprehend is wholly extinguished in respect to the divine principle.23 The conception of One (En) expressed by Proclus corresponds to the idea of divina Unitas defi ned by Eriugena, and to the notion of Non-Aliud described by Cusanus. Th is tradition of spiritual thought consists in a Christian Neoplatonism philosophically alternative to Thomistic Scholasticism. In this tradition of thought, there is a fundamental rejection of Aristotles theological conceptions. The fundamental Hellenic auctoritas is Proclus, according to Dionysus. Th is tradition, we can say, started with Eriugena: with his philosophy and his complete translation and exegesis of the works of the Areopagite. Th is translation would serve for centuries not only as the standard version of Dionysian work, but also as the starting point for a Christian Neoplatonic conception of God behind the Aristotelian categories.
22

23

Cf. C. Cat, La Croce e lInconcepibile. Il pensiero di Nicola Cusano tra filosofia e predicazione, Macerata 2009. Cf. Eriugenae Periphyseon I, 463C, p. 33.

68

CUSANUS REVIVAL OF ERIUGENA AS A RENAISSANCE REDEFINITION...

The Renaissance bishop and cardinal Nicholas of Cues developed the instrument of Eriugenas work as a key for a redefi nition of Christian orthodoxy. The explicit Cusanus quotation of Eriugena in the Apologia doctae ignorantiae should corroborate my thesis. Cusanus, in order to defend his philosophy from the charge of heresy moved by Johannes Wenck, describes a line of savior thinkers, whose philosophy was centred on the concepts of human knowledge as a docta ignorantia and God as the infinita Unitas.24 In the light of the document of the Codex Additivus 11035, conserved in the British Museum, it is known that Cusanus studied Eriugenas Periphyseon, at least the fi rst Book.25 In the light of another document, the Cod. Lat. 6734, conserved in the Bibliothque Nationale of Paris, we know that Cusanus encountered indirectly a large part of Eriugenas Periphyseon, through his reading of Honorius Clavis Physicae.26 Finally, Cusanus knew perfectly Eriugenas translations from Dionysius.27 As I noted, in many cases Cusanus refers to Dionysius some Eriugenas original expressions. For instance, as the source of the philosophical conception of God as the oppositorum oppositio, Cusanus indicates Dionysius. But this expression is never present in Dionysian works ad litteram, while it is present in Eriugenas writings, as we saw. When Cusanus refers to Dionysius he cannot distinguish between him and Eriugena. In other cases, the same phenomenon appears with Meister Eckhart. Cusanus seems often to consider Dionysius, Eriugena and Eckhart as a unique system of thought. Nicholas of Cues is conscious to be a modern interpreter of a unitary philosophical-spiritual tradition. Certainly, he was aware to connect his ideas with a heretical, officially condemned, philosophical tradition. We have to remind the political-religious roles developed by Cusanus during his life (official Popes ambassador, Bishop, Cardinal) and the condemnation of heresy received by the Irish monk in 1210 (like Eckhart in 1329). Considering his structural philosophical relation with Eriugena, it is intriguing to ask: why a high member of the Church of his time was following in the footsteps of a heretical Irish monk, while the fundaments of the official orthodoxy were founded on the Scholastic theological principles? Why did Cusanus connect his philosophy with the Christian tradition of Neoplatonic thought, alternative to Scholasticism?
24 25 26 27

Nicolai de Cusa, Apologia doctae ignorantiae, 830, p. Cf. J. Koch, Mitteilungen und Forschungen der Cusanus-Gesellschaft, 3, 1963, pp. 86-100. Cf. P. Lucentini, Platonismo Medievale, Firenze, 1979, pp. 77-103. Cf. L. Baur, Nicolaus Cusanus und Dionysius im Lichte der Zitate und Rand-bemerkungen des Cusanus, Cusanus-Texte III, Heidelberg 1941.

Cesare Cat

69

The philosophical condemnation of Eriugenas philosophy, like in the later case of Eckhart, was centered on some decisive theological questions: a) the idea of God as an in impersonal principle, infinita Unitas; b) the human possibility of becoming God, expressed in the theory of the deificatio; c) the conception of the fi nal reditus ad Unum of all created beings, that is an indirect denial of hell (and a possible consideration of the conception of apokatastasis). Those philosophical topics are widely affi rmed in all Cusanus work, as we saw. The idea of God as infi nite One corresponds to Cusanus conception of God as Non-aliud, or posse ipsum; the human possibility to becoming God is described and argued by the Bishop of Brixen in a specific essay, De filiatione Dei28; the idea of the fi nal reditus of all created being in the primeval Unity is implicit in Cusanus conception of the created universe as a contractio Dei. I intend to underline the theoretical correspondence between the charges against Cusanus expressed by Johannes Wenck in his De ignota literatura and the charge of pantheism pronounced against Eriugena for his condemnation as heretical. In both the cases, an Aristotelian Scholastic perspective is considering the heterodox conception of a Christian Neo-Platonic vision. That is because Wencks judgement and the charges against Eriugena present an identical theological profi le. In his De ignota literatura, Wenck maintains the association between Eriugena and David of Dinant and Amaury of Bne originally expressed in his condemnation of 1210/1225. Cusanus philosophy is included in this categorization. In 1225 condemnation of Eriugena, the Periphyseon is rejected as a heretical work, and is explicitly associated with the 1210 pronunciation of Peter Coberlius, archibishop of Sens, against the quaternuli of David of Dinant and the writings of natural philosophy of Amaury. Thomas Aquinas would offer a theoretical strong background for the rejection of Davids and Amaurys philosophies. He individuates a formal pantheism in Amaury and a material pantheism in David of Dinant.29 Aquinas intends to refute Amaurys principle of God as the principium formale omnium rerum and the Davids conception of Deum esse materiam primam. Those ideas, in Eriugenas condemnation, are associated with the principle expressed in the Periphyseon of God as the essentia omnium, forma formarum. 30 By pursuing an identical methodology, Johannes Wenck in his De ignota literatura develops the charges of pantheism against Nicholas of Cues, by observing this link Amaury and David.
28

29 30

Cf. N. Hudson, Becoming God: The Doctrine of Theosis in Nicholas of Cusa, Washington 2007. Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, 3-8; Summa contra Gentiles, I. Cf. Eriugenae Periphyseon I, 500A, p. 80.

70

CUSANUS REVIVAL OF ERIUGENA AS A RENAISSANCE REDEFINITION...

We can explain this correspondence between Johannes Wencks opusculum and the condemnation of Eriugena, by considering the cultural backgrounds of those disputationes: in both the cases, there is a rejection of a Neo-platonic conception of Christianity, grounded on the principles that will be codified by Thomas Aquinas. Nicholas of Cues is conscious of the theological substance of the question. In fact, he did not answer the charges of Wenck, until he would be appointed as a Cardinal. It is important to note that the beginning of the Apologia doctae ignorantiae declares his appointment: this a formal imprimatur for the daring thesis that he will defend in his writing. By following Eriugena and his tradition, Nicholas of Cues in the framework of his powerful theological-political appointment purpose a real redefi nition of the parameters of Christian orthodoxy. He defends openly the concept of God as forma omnium that was at the centre of Eriugenas condemnation, as Johannes Wenck noted. In fact, Cusanus named Eriugena along with Meister Eckhart, David of Dinant, Amaury of Bne, Th ierry of Chartres and Robert Grosseteste: in all those philosophers we fi nd a defi nition of the concept of God as forma omnium. We can fi nally understand why the presence of Eriugena and his tradition is at same time profuse and hidden in Cusanus work. With his philosophy, Nicholas of Cues was draft ing a new profi le of Christian orthodoxy. Th is cultural endeavor must be understood, in the historical context of the Renaissance Humanism, in which ancient traditions drove to new defi nitions of God and human being, like in the case of Marsilio Ficino. The Neoplatonic condemned ideas of Eriugenas heritage can be seen, as the material through which the Renaissance philosopher Nicholas of Cues shaped a peculiar and daring idea of Christian vision. My hermeneutical anlysis would be corroborated by an analytic observation of Cusanus Sermons. The Sermones of Nicholas of Cues represent an extremely precious source. Here, the presence of Eriugena is particularly evident, and it would be necessary to offer a specific study on this question. We can recognize in Cusanus preaching several explicit references to Eriugenas comment on the Gospel of John, like in the sermons Verbum caro factus est (December, 27, 1453); Dies Sanctificatus (December, 25, 1440); Ubi est qui natus est Rex Iudaeorum (January, 7, 1456); Tota Pulchra (September, 8, 1456). The presence of Eriugenas philosophical heritage in Cusanus Sermones reveals the relevance of the Neoplatonic background in the re-defi nition of Christian orthodoxy pursued by Nicholas of Cues. The preaching was in all the Middle Ages the principal instrument of expression for heterodox ideas in European culture (like in the case of Meister Eckhart). We can conclude that in the heart of Renaissance age, in the context of an intellectual renovatio of Western culture, the Neoplatonic philosopher Ni-

Cesare Cat

71

cholas of Cues reconnected with the ancient tradition of thought represented by Eriugenas work, in order to redefi ne the aspects of Christian identity established by Scholastic orthodoxy. The structural historical-philosophical link between Cusanus and Eriugena, can be seen as a reconnection with the tradition of thought of Christian Neoplatonism, in the context of the Humanistic debates between Platonic and Aristotelian disciples during Renaissance. If we consider Cusanus by comparing his philosophy with Marsilio Ficinos work, we can comprehend the similarity and the difference of those thinkers. Like Ficino, Cusanus realized an extraordinary synthesis of Platonic sources and Christian conceptions; the methodologies and the sources developed by Ficino and Cusanus are completely different. On one hand, Marsilio Ficino pursued a philological work of translation and exegesis of the original Greek texts; on the other hand, Nicholas of Cues received and interpreted the Platonic message, through Eriugenas philosophy and his tradition (Eckhart and the German Mystics). Cusanus is the other main root, besides Ficino, of Renaissance Neoplatonism. Th rough Cusanus, Eriugenas philosophy influenced and characterized some fundamental topics of Renaissance culture. The structural relationship between Eriugena and Nicholas of Cues reveals a fundamental moment of the history of the idea of God as the infi nite One. Eriugena elaborated this fundamental concept, by realizing a genial synthesis between a Neoplatonic background and a Christian perspective. He looked at the works of Proclus, Saint Augustine and Dionysius the Aeropagite, in order to shape an original, powerful and brilliant philosophical-mystical work. In Fifteenth century, Nicholas of Cues received Eriugenas philosophical heritage, and developed it in the culture of European Renaissance. Cusanus elaborated philosophically some typical Renaissance topics in the light of Eriugenas philosophy: such as the conception of an ontological link between human and divine, the divinization of man, the harmony between reason and faith, and the cult of the pure holy beauty. Cusanus is a modern interpreter of Eriugenas tradition of thought. Th is tradition, alternative to Thomistic Scholasticism, was handed down to Cusanus, by a line of thinkers in which we can indicate Th ierry of Chartres, Meister Eckhart, Berthold of Moosburg. In this way, Nicholas of Cues rediscovered in a rejected tradition of thought the possibility for a radical redefi nition of Christian orthodoxy. The idea of infinita Unitas as the inconceivable essence of divine principle is the fundamental aspect of this tradition of thought. We can comprehend the historical-theological reason for which a Renaissance bishop and cardinal followed in the footsteps of an ancient heretical Irish monk.