Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
assume that such spiritual creatures must be considered part of the reality
analyzed in the Hellenistic sciences of physics, metaphysics and astronomy:
or put differently, since spiritual creatures were conceived as a part of physi-
cal reality, any medieval description of them must have been rooted in some
1
of the principles of the Hellenistic scientific heritage.
Such interdependence of the two realms works in both directions: not
only must one consider scientific explanatory mechanisms when trying to
explain biblical narrative but one cannot ignore that same biblical narrative
when formulating his overall cosmological paradigm.
It is precisely the case that a significant number of intellectuals in all
three religions share an almost common mythology of divine heavenly enti-
ties, based on divine revelation and canonical writings, while at the same
time sharing a basically similar scientific worldview, that makes medieval
angelology into a transcultural phenomenon. Hence medieval angelology
is extremely interreligious in its basic constitution, and it is on the basis
of this primordial identity that each medieval thinker arrived at his own
unique solution. Hence it is my conviction that the uniqueness of these
solutions can be never fully exposed without paying attention to the rich
2
cultural interchange that took place from the beginning. But the case study
1 Cf. Piron, Sylvain, Deplatonising the Celestial Hierarchy: Peter John Olivi’s
Interpretation of the Pseudo-Dionysius, in: Angels in Medieval Philosophical
Inquiry: Their Function and Significance, Eds. Isabel Irribarren and Martin
Lenz (Ashgate Studies in Medieval Philosophy), Aldershot 2008, pp. 29–44,
here 29: “The encounter of biblical and Neoplatonist angels produced one
of the most crucial questions that theologians had to face in the second half
of the thirteenth century: could they, or indeed, should they be identified?”
This particularistic assertion must be universalized in order to reconstruct the
general multicultural context of medieval philosophy.
2 This problematic can be seen in the clearest way in the above mentioned re-
cently published collection of essays dedicated to this topic, and see Irribaren
and Lenz (note 1). In the introduction to this volume the editors declare that
they have confined their discussion “to the Western Latin world, being com-
pelled by space and thematic coherence to exclude the very rich angelological
contribution coming from the Arabic and the Jewish tradition.” Indeed, nei-
ther the editors in their introduction, nor any of the other contributors of this
rich and illuminating volume mention any of the examples which I examine
in the following. I leave it to the reader to judge to what extent the following
western attitudes make sense, without giving any account of the polemical
context toward the Moslem and Jewish doctrines to which they developed in
parallel.
Divine Space and the Space of the Divine 91
The problem of space, as a most general category that strives to include all
physical entities, from the creator himself to the last element in the chain of
being and from the void that exists or does not exist beyond the universe
to the middle of the universe is one of the most central topics of medieval
3
cosmology.
The voidless Aristotelian Ptolemaic universe of Greek science (to exclude
atomist theories) is a perfectly concentric system made, from its very center
up to the outer sphere, of physical bodies that contain each other without
distance and that move each other through direct contact. It is a closed and
limited space, in which all parts, from the all-encompassing outer celestial
sphere to the center of the earth are both contained and containers. None of
these parts except its two extremes is motionless, and all motion, from the
eternal constant movement of the celestial bodies to the contingent move-
ment of physical bodies in the sublunar world of elements is both spatial
and local. On the physical level it is a universe built of places, in which
spatial language has only limited function, mostly as part of mathematical
order (especially important for the development of optics and mathematical
4
astronomy). Unlike the infinitude attributed to time in the ‘Physics’ (book
8, 250b–253a), the universe’s space is defined as finite (‘De caelo’ 271b18–
273a6). This definition would change only with early modern formulations
3 For some classic studies of the topic see Jammer, Max, Das Problem des
Raumes. Die Entwicklung der Raumtheorien, Darmstadt 1960; Sorabji, Ri-
chard, Matter, Space and Motion: Theories in Antiquity and Their Sequel,
Ithaca, New York 1988.
4 See Zekl, Hans Günter, Raum, in: Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie,
Eds. Joachim Ritter and Karlfried Gründer, Vol. 8, Basel 1992, c. 75: “Der
All-Körper ist gleichzeitig All-Ort”; Suarez-Nani, Tiziana, Les anges et la
philosophie. Subjectivitè et function cosmologique des substances séparées à
la fin du xiiie siècle (Étude de philosophie medieval 82), Paris 2002, p. 93.
92 Yossef Schwartz
of the infinity of cosmic space, which is identified with God and the divine
5
attributes, hence Henry More, Spinoza and Newton.
Aristotle’s discussion of place (xora, topos) in ‘Physics’, book iv
(208a27–212a31), defines the framework for any philosophical discussion
of these topics among medieval philosophers. In general medieval thinkers
adopt the Aristotelian dichotomy of the sublunar/translunar parts of the
universe. This dichotomy between earthly and heavenly realms raises the
question as to the exact way in which the spatial relations between them, the
6
one contained within the other, can be transformed into causal relations.
This discussion immediately involves the examination of the precise rela-
tion between space, motion and physical causality.
But it is only with the Arabs, especially Alfarabi, Avicenna, Algazali
in his influential scientific philosophical encyclopedia ‘The Intention of
the Philosophers’ (Latin ‘Metaphysica’) and Maimonides’ ‘Guide of the
Perplexed’ – I limit my discussion here to works that later on became wide-
spread among European Scholastics – that this principle became part of
a systematic cosmology, one that combines Aristotelian and Ptolemaic
teaching within a strong Neoplatonic framework. The process of emana-
tion as described in Avicenna’s ‘Metaphysics’ creates a unified universe in
which the cognitive, the mental and the physical are closely related, creating
a cosmological picture which is completely parallel to the human triad of
7
body – soul – intellect. In a voidless universe body is a defined extension
and its local definition derives from the surface of the matter in which it is
contained. Soul is an organic part of body, either unseparated in a completely
hylemorphic definition or a separate substance from elsewhere which is
8
mysteriously united with its body. In both cases however this location
differs from the material location of bodies in that the soul has no defined
5 Cf. Funkenstein, Amos, Theology and the Scientific Imagination from the
Middle Ages to the Seventeenth Century, Princeton, New Jersey 1986, pp.
23–116; Grant, Edward, The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle
Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts, Cambridge
1996, p. 125.
6 Grant, Edward, Planets, Stars and Orbs: The Medieval Cosmos 1200–1687,
Cambridge 1996, pp. 569–617.
7 Avicenna Latinus, Liber de philosophia prima sive scientia divina, tract 1, cap.
5, tract 10, cap. 1, Ed. S. Van Riet, Louvain/Leiden 1977, i, 31–42, ii, 522–530.
8 On the western reception of Avicennian psychological doctrines see Hasse,
Dag Nikolaus, Avicenna’s ‘De Anima’ in the Latin West: The Formation of a
Peripatetic Philosophy of the Soul 1160–1300, London/Torino 2000.
Divine Space and the Space of the Divine 93
and essential single place in the body. Human intellect adds a further element
that does not exist in other sublunar species and that in all the Arab systems
mentioned above is linked to the agent intellect as a natural place outside
the particular human body and outside the sublunar realm.
The description of angels in their holy scriptures provided Moslems and
Jews with an important part of their cosmology. In their mythical appearances
in human shape they provide an example of an accidental relationship between
spiritual substance and material body. In their essential form they could be
integrated into the heavenly system, where they took their place as the mani-
festation of the spiritual forces active in the otherwise fully material Aristo-
telian universe that normally knows only material efficient causality. Their
natural place is the place of their orbs to which they relate in a way similar to
the way human intellect relates to human body and soul. This ‘divine space’
9
– rooted in late Neoplatonic interpretations of Aristotle – mediates between
10
the theological concepts of divine omnipresence and the physical-cosmolog-
ical reality. Early modern scientific deism would either further develop this
11
mediated pleroma as the workplace of magical powers or give it up altogether
12
in favor of divine omnipotent and omnipresent power.
It is not the development of Arab (Moslem and Jewish) theories that I would
like to describe here in detail but its reception in Latin scholastic litera-
ture of the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. I shall therefore now
try and provide a few short remarks on the most essential and common
elements of Arab cosmology as it is known in the West. Although I could
easily bring the examples from Avicenna or Algazali I shall focus instead on
Maimonides. In his philosophical work ‘The Guide of the Perplexed’ (arab.
‘Dalālat al-Hā’irīn’, hebr. ‘Moreh Nevukhim’, lat. ‘Dux Neutrorum’), the
general tendency of Arab falsafa toward rationalization and demythologi-
zation of angelic figures reached its most extreme form. Once it was trans-
lated into Latin during the 1230’s–1240’s it became one of the most repre-
sentative pieces of Arab speculation on that matter, mostly because as a
Jewish thinker Maimonides used biblical authorities that were familiar to
his Christian reader, different from Moslem philosophers who, if at all, use
the mythical figures of Koranic tradition.
In the opening chapter of ‘Guide’ ii Maimonides offers his well known
13
summary of Aristotelian physics and metaphysics in 26 prepositions.
Based on these premises he can move on in chapter 1 (chapter 2 in the Latin
translation) to demonstrate God’s existence (ready to pay the price that
such an apodictic knowledge of God requires from him, i.e. to accept ad hoc
proposition 26 concerning the eternal movement of the heavenly sphere).
After doing all this, and before moving to his well known discussion of
14
creation, Maimonides dedicates the next chapters, 2–12, to the translunar
13 This introductory part of the second book has occasionally been perceived as an
independent unit and as such was indeed copied separately in different traditions
and languages. The Moslem (Persian) philosopher Muhammad al-Tabrizi wrote
a commentary on it, as did some European Jews, and see Schwartz, Yossef, Ein-
leitung, in: Hillel von Verona, Über die Vollendung der Seele [Sefer tagmule
ha-nefesh], übersetzt und eingeleitet von Yossef Schwartz (Herders Bibliothek
der Philosophie des Mittelaters 17), Freiburg i.Br. 2009, pp. 11, 285, n. 21. It was
translated separately into Latin and circulated among the scholastics under the
title ‘De uno deo benedicto’ before the full translation became widespread, and
see Kluxen, Wolfgang, Die Geschichte des Maimonides im lateinischen Abend-
land als Beispiel einer Christlich-Jüdischen Begegnung, in: Judentum im Mit-
telalter. Beiträge zum Christlich-Jüdischen Gespräch, Ed. Paul Wilpert (Miscel-
lanea mediaevalia 4), Berlin 1966, pp. 146–182; For a critical edition of ‘De uno
deo benedicto’ see Kluxen, op. cit. pp. 167–182; Hasselhoff, Görge K., Dicit
Rabbi Moyses. Studien zum Bild von Moss Maimonides im lateinischen Westen
vom 13. bis zum 15. Jahrhundert, Würzburg 2004, pp.88–122.
14 For the discussion and its reception among the scholastics see Rohner, Anselm,
Das Schöpfungsproblem bei Moses Maimonides, Albertus Magnus und Tho-
mas von Aquin (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters
11/5), Münster 1913; Davidson, Herbert A., Proofs for Eternity, Creation and
Divine Space and the Space of the Divine 95
the Existence of God in Medieval Islamic and Jewish Philosophy, New York
1987; Burrell, David B., Freedom and Creation in Three Traditions, Notre
Dame, Indiana 1993.
15 Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed ii, 6, translated with Intro-
duction and notes by Shlomo Pines, Chicago/London 1963, p. 262; Rabbi
Mossei Aegyptii, Dux seu Director dubitantium aut perplexorum, ii, 7, Ed.
Augustini Iustiniani, Paris 1520, Fol. 43r.
16 Maimonides’ demythologized enlightenment reaches its peak in the present
context in the following claim (Guide [note 15], ii, 6; Pines, 263): “If you told
a man who is one of those who deem themselves the sages of Israel that the
deity sends an angel, who enters the womb of a woman and forms the fetus
there, he would be pleased with this assertion and would accept it and would
regard it as a manifestation of greatness and power on the part of the deity, and
also of His wisdom, may He be exalted. Nevertheless he would also believe at
the same time that the angel is a body formed of burning fire and that his size
is equal to that of a third part of the whole world. He would regard all this as
possible with respect to God. But if you tell him that God has placed in the
sperm a formative force shaping the limbs and giving them their configuration
96 Yossef Schwartz
and that this force is the angel, or that all the forms derive from the act of the
Active Intellect and that the latter is the angel and the prince of the world
constantly mentioned by the sages, the man would shrink from this opinion.”
17 Cf. Klein-Braslavi, Sara, Maimonides’ Commentary on Jacob’s Dream of the
Ladder, in: Bar- Ilan: Annual of Bar-Ilan University Studies in Judaica and the
Humanities 22–23 (Moshe Schwartz Memorial Volume), Ramat-Gan 1987,
pp. 329–350.
18 Guide (note 15), i, Introduction, pp. 12f.
19 Guide (note 15), ii, 10, pp. 272f.
20 Guide (note 15), i, 15, p. 41.
Divine Space and the Space of the Divine 97
21
ically in the physical sense but epistemologically. We shall see below what
role such allegoric interpretation plays within the cosmological discussion.
In Chapter 9 Maimonides developed his well known hypothesis
22
concerning the four orbs/globes. Against Ptolemy and with some ‘ancient
23
astronomers’ and Andalusian contemporaries he suggest that Mercury
24
and Venus shall be located with the three other planets above the sun.
Therefore the number of elementary celestial primal movements might be
reduced to four: the movement of the moon, sun, five planets, and the sphere
21 Cf. Schwartz, Yossef, Ecce est locus apud me. Eckharts’ und Maimonides’
Raumvorstellung als Begriff des Göttlichen, in: Raum und Raumvorstellun-
gen im Mittelalter, Eds. Jan A. Aertsen and Andreas Speer (Miscellanea Medi-
aevalia 25), Berlin 1997, pp. 348–364.
22 By using the term ‘globe’ to translate the Arabic Kura (instead of Pines’
‘sphere’) I accept the terminological suggestion of Gad Freudenthal; see
Freudenthal, Gad, Maimonides on the Scope of Metaphysics alias Ma’aseh
Merkavah: The Evolution of his Views, in: Maimónides y su época, Eds. Car-
los del Valle, Santiago Garcia-Jalón and Juan Pedro Monferrer, Madrid 2007,
pp. 221–230, here 225.
23 Among these Andalusians Maimonides refers mainly to Jabir ibn Aflah and
his followers, see Guide (note 15) ii, 9, pp. 268f.
24 Guide (note 15), ii, 9, p. 268, Dux (note 15), ii, 10, fol. 44r: “Know that re-
garding the spheres of Venus and Mercury there exists a difference of opinion
among the early mathematicians about whether they are above the sun or be-
low the sun. For there is no demonstration proving to us what the position
of these two spheres is. The doctrine of all the ancients was that the sphere of
Venus and Mercury are above the sun. […] Then Ptolemy came and decided in
favor of the opinion that they were both below the sun […]. Then came latter-
day groups of people in Andalusia who became very proficient in mathemat-
ics and explained, conforming to Ptolemy’s premises, that Venus and Mercury
were above the sun.” The difficulty in reaching an agreement in this matter
derives from the main method of argumentation used here. Ptolemy based
his calculation of the order of the planets on their relative velocity in relation
to the fixed stars. Venus and Mercury however are equal in that matter to the
sun. All three complete their circle in one year. Therefore Ptolemy could only
adopt the common order of his time. For a detailed description of Greek and
Arabic attitudes on the matter see Albertus Magnus, De caelo et mundo, lib.
2, tract. 3, cap. 2, Ed. Paul Hossfeld (Ed. colon. v,1), Aschendorff 1971, pp. 168,
13–169, 52. Without mentioning the discussion of Maimonides Albert accepts
the same opinion concerning the location of Mercury and Venus.
98 Yossef Schwartz
25
of the fixed stars. Hence the basic cosmological movements that Aris-
totle, according to medieval diverse traditions, estimated with 47 or 55 can
be further reduced not only to ten but even to four. These four basic move-
ments stand in direct relation to a series of fourfold cosmological structures
26
in the trans and sublunar realms. As mentioned above, Maimonides does
not believe that the debate concerning the exact location of Mercury and
Venus can be definitely settled through scientific arguments, and therefore
he is more than happy to call on in his support a series of rabbinic assertions
27
that seems to support his opinion.
Maimonides uses this cosmological hypothesis in order to formulate a
strong metaphysical claim, one that establishes a firm continuity between the
two separate realms of the sublunar and translunar universe, reducing every
28
movement in the elemental world to a concrete heavenly remote cause.
25 Guide (note 15), ii, 9, p. 269: “Accordingly, the number of informed spheres
[…] is four; namely the sphere of the fixed stars, that of the five planets, that
of the sun, and that of the moon.”
26 Guide (note 15) ii, 10, p. 271, Dux (note 15), ii, 11, fol. 44v: “The spheres are
four; the elements moved by the spheres are four; and the forces proceeding
from the spheres into that which exists in general are four […]. Similarly the
causes of every motion belonging to the sphere are four: namely, the shape
of the sphere – I mean to say its sphericity; its soul; and its intellect through
which it has conceptions […]; and the separate intellect, which is its beloved.
[…] There are thus four causes of the motion of spheres and four sorts of gen-
eral forces proceeding from it toward us. These are, as we have explained, the
force causing the generation of the minerals, the force of the vegetative soul,
the force of the animal soul, and the force of the rational soul.”
27 Ibid., p. 272, Dux (note 15), fol. 45r: “They said in Midrash Rabbi Tanhuma:
How many steps were in the ladder? Four – which refers to the dictum: And
behold a ladder set up on the earth.’ […] that the angels of God, whom [Jacob]
saw ascending and descending were only four […] – two ascending and two
descending – and that the four gathered together upon one step of the ladder,
all four being in one row”.
28 Guide (note 15), ii, 10, pp. 270f.: “[I]t occurred to me that while the four
spheres having stars have forces that overflow from them as a whole toward
all the things subject to generation – these spheres being the causes of the later
– each spheres is also specially assigned to one of the four elements […]. Thus
the sphere of the moon moves the water, the sphere of the sun the fire, while
the sphere of the other planets move the air. It is because of the multiplicity of
the motions of these planets – their differences, their retrogressions, their di-
Divine Space and the Space of the Divine 99
rect progressions, and their stations – that the shape of the air, its differences,
and its rapid contractions and expansions are multiple. The sphere of the fixed
stars moves the earth.”
29 Freudenthal (note 22), pp. 228–230.
30 Guide (note 15), ii, 7, p. 266, Dux (note 15), ii, 8, fol. 43v.
31 Ibid., p. 227.
32 Guide (note 15) ii, 30, pp. 348–359.
100 Yossef Schwartz
Whatever the final judgment relating to the role played by Arab thought
in Western intellectual history since the 12th century might be, one surely
cannot write such a history of Europe without understanding precisely the
position taken by the Christian authors toward their Arab predecessors.
This is true for most realms of Scholastic thought but it is even more crucial
here precisely because a large part of Arab speculation on these matters was
rejected or avoided by the Christian theologians, and because these rejec-
tions seem to function as a strong emotive force toward new formulations
and definitions.
As Marcia Colish argues, angelology as part not only of devotional and
exegetical literature but also of systematic cosmology and natural philoso-
phy is developed among Latin theologians not before the first half of the
33
13th century.
Once Aristotelian physics and metaphysics becomes an integral part of
the theological imagination, then the existence of purely spiritual entities,
such as angels, enables medieval thinkers to break through the limitations
of classical Aristotelian discourse. Among the Latins, the breakthrough was
neatly related to the encounter with Arab cosmology.
Following these general assertions I would like to emphasize the fact that
it is well nigh impossible to suggest any definitive description of the high
scholastic attitude toward Arabic cosmology. The vast corpus of Albertus
Magnus’ writings alone is full of different claims that seem to reflect
changing attitudes or different rhetorical strategies. In this short paper I
shall try and give a synthesis of main attitudes with very limited historical
contextual remarks.
During the formative period of scholastic encounter with Arab philoso-
phy, one shall not be surprised by the fact that the two most systematic-
critical texts to come out of this polemic, i.e. the well known ‘reactionary’
texts of the 1270’s, especially the condemnation of 1277 and ‘De errores
41
and suggest a crucial subdivision within the cosmic notion of place. It is
mostly through such analytic precision that the scholastics try to resolve
the paradox pointed out by Tiziana Suarez-Nani, i.e. that angels according
to the Catholic truth as presented by Thomas Aquinas are deprived of any
42
locality, that they do not have place.
A most systematic integration of these different definitions of place in
their cosmological context is to be found in the ‘Summa philosophiae’. Its
English author, writing in the early 1270s’, first states the problematic of
spiritual substances that cannot be located, neither in place nor in space,
43
since they have no physical dimensional existence. Hence the author
provides a series of definitions for locality, such as locus circumscriptivus and
definitivus, then implementing them on a series of entities, from the highest
sphere, to the inferior orbs, spirits and souls. The first heaven, since it is not
contained by any physical entity, has only a corporeal but not a circum-
scriptive definitive place, while the inferior spheres have both circumscrip-
tive and corporeal. Spiritual substances have neither circumscriptive nor
corporeal spatial definition. Instead the author adopt the Thomistic solu-
tion: their place is defined by their operations. The soul finally is defined
as having essentially solely a definitive place and only accidentally having a
44
circumscriptive place, which is the body animated by it. The beginnings of
41 For Abelard as an early source for the description of angelic location as ‘cir-
cumscribable’ see Marenbon, John, Abelard on Angels, in: Angels in Medieval
Philosophical Inquiry (note 1), pp. 63–72, esp. pp. 69–71. Abelard might be
considered as a direct source for the Lombard who further develops this dif-
ferentiation in a manner that would become crucial for later authors and who
relates it to a whole index of authorities and topics, cf. Magistri Petri Lom-
bardi Sententiae in iv libris distinctae, Lib. 1, Dist. 37, Cap. 5–8; Roma 1971,
pp. 270, 1–273, 10.
42 Suarez-Nani (note 4), pp. 87–90; eadem (note 36), p. 106.
43 [Pseudo] Grosseteste, Summa philosophiae v, 26, in: Die philosophischen
Werke des Robert Grosseteste, Bischofs von Lincoln, Ed. Ludwig Baur, Mün-
ster 1912, pp. 275–643, here 365: Rei enim spiritualis nullus est contactus.
44 Ibid., Cap. 23, p. 452: (Qualiter intelligentiae possint esse in loco, et quot modis,
et de earum localitate): In loco aliquid esse potest vel per se vel per accidens;
vel circumscriptive, ut corpora omnia citra corpus caeli primi cetera omnia
continens; vel definitive, et hoc dupliciter, id est per modum corporalem, quo
omne corpus necessario terminatum sit et finitum ac situatum, vel per modum
spiritualem, quo omnis creatura corporea et incorporeal virtute et actio, sicut
et forma, terminate sit et infinita esse non possit. […] Caelum ergo primum
cetera omnia concludens alicubi est per modum non circumscriptum ab aliquot
Divine Space and the Space of the Divine 105
alio corpora, sed corporaliter tantum definitum. Sphaerae vero inferiores cum
omnibus infra contentis in loco sunt et circumscriptive atque etiam corporaliter
definitive. Spiritus autem creati in loco sunt quidem definitive per modum
tamen non corporalem, cum non sint dimensionalia, sed spiritualem, […]. Ibi
ergo est, ubi operator, omnisque locus, in quo operator unicus est ei locus, […].
Anima itaque, cum corpus vivificat, vere et per se in loco definitive est, sed per
accidens in loco circumscriptivo.
45 Thomas Aquinas, Summae Theologiae (note 39), i, q. 79, art. 10, solutio.
106 Yossef Schwartz
50 It seems worth noting that already in the early attempt at controlling heretical
philosophical-theological opinions in Paris 1241 the short list of ten articles
included four that were directly related to angels, and see Chartularium uni-
versitatis Parisiensis, Ed. Heinrich Denifle, i, Paris 1889, p. 171: art. 4: quod
anime glorificate non sunt in cello empireo cum angelis; Art. 6: quod angelus in
eodem instanti potest esse in diversis locis et esse ubique si voluerit.
51 Errores Philosophorum (note 49), i, 14, 10: [Aristotles] dixit tot esse angelos
vel tot intelligentias quot sunt orbes.
52 Ibid., v, 3; Koch (note 49), 24: Quod angelus est actio pura. A permanent mix-
ture of both terminologies can be found by the author of the ‘Summa philos-
ophiae’, for example in Tractatus x; Baur (note 43), 421ff. The titles of the
chapters speak about intelligentiae while the text moves easily back and forth
between the natural terminology of intelligences and the theological ‘angels’.
See chapter 1, p. 421: substantias intellectuales incorporeas, quas theologi a min-
isterio angelos dicunt. Chapter 2, p. 422: Est autem intelligentia vel angelus […].
53 Ibid., v, 2; Koch (note 49), 24: Quod angelus nihil potest movere immediate
nisi caeleste corpus.
108 Yossef Schwartz
54 Rigo, Caterina, Zur Rezeption des Moses Maimonides im Werk des Alber-
tus Magnus, in: Albertus Magnus. Zum Gedenken nach 800 Jahren: Neue
Zugänge, Aspekte und Perspektiven, Eds. Walter Senner et alii, Berlin 2001,
pp. 29–66, here 48f., 52f.
55 Winkler, Norbert, Seele – Engel – Intelligenzen. Ein philosophiegeschicht-
licher Einblick, in: Fragmenta Melanchthoniana 3: Melanchthons Wirkung in
der europäischen Bildungsgeschichte, Eds. Günter Frank and Sebastian Lalla,
Heidelberg 2007, pp. 239–264, here 255–261, esp. 258f.
56 Fidora, Alexander, From Arabic into Latin into Hebrew: Aristotelian Psy-
chology and its Contribution to the Rationalisation of Theological Traditions,
in: Philosophical Psychology in Medieval Arabic and Latin Aristotelianism,
Eds. Jörg A. Tellkamp and Luis Xavier López Farjeat, Leiden (in print). I
would like to thank Professor Fidora for letting me use his manuscript.
57 Each of these treatises has two critical editions; only the second was also
translated into English: Joseph T. Muckle, The Treatise ‘De anima’ of Do-
minicus Gundissalinus, in: Medieval Studies 2 (1940), pp. 23–103; El Tractatus
‘De Anima’ atribuido a Dominicus Gundi[s]salinus. Estudio, Edición Critica
y traducción Castellana, Eds. Concepción Alonso del Real and María Jesús
Soto Bruna, Pamplona 2009; Des Dominicus Gundisalinus Schrift von dem
Divine Space and the Space of the Divine 109
Hervorgang der Welt (De processione mundi), Ed. Georg Bülow, in: Beiträge
zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters 29.3, Münster 1925; De Pro-
cessione Mundi. Studio y edición critica del tratado de Domingo Gundisalvo,
Eds. Concepción Alonso del Real and María Jesús Soto Bruna, Pamplona
1999; Dominicus Gundissalinus, the Procession of the World (De processione
mundi), translated from the Latin with an introduction and notes by John A.
Laumakis, Marquette 2002.
58 See especially propositions 3, 8–9 and 18. Cf. also D’Ancona Costa, Cristina,
La doctrine de la création ‘mediante intelligentia’ dans le ‘Liber de causis’ et
dans ses sources, in: Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 76
(1992), pp. 209–233.
59 Avicenna Latinus, Liber de philosophia prima sive scientia divina, Ed. Simone
van Riet, 2 vols., Louvain/Leiden 1977–1980, vol. i, pp. 486f., 522–530.
60 Albertus Magnus, De homine i, 3, Ed. Henryk Anzulewicz and Joachim
Söder (Opera Omnia, Ed. Colon. 27,2), Münster 2008, pp. 75, 10–77, 12.
61 Ibid., p. 76, 13–33.
62 Albertus Magnus, Super Dionysium De caelestis hierarchia, Ed. Paulus Simon
and Wilhelmus Kübel (Opera Omnia, Ed. Colon. 36,1), Münster 1993, c. 13,
p. 207, 31–41.
63 Ibid., p. 212, 17–26.
110 Yossef Schwartz
These are precisely the two facets of Arab cosmology where the celestial
entities mediate between the divine and the created universe and the orbs
mediate between the separate intellects (angels) and the sublunar elements.
A most detailed description of the different attitudes toward the problem
of mediated creation is given by Thomas in his ‘Quaestiones disputatae de
potentia’. His final judgment of such attitudes, including the one to be found
in the ‘Liber de causis’, is that it leads directly to idolatry, since it leads the
believer into the false conclusion that he should worship the direct ‘proxi-
64
mate’ causes, instead of the one true creator.
Although Thomas’ statement in his commentary on ‘De causis’ itself is
rather ambiguous, he reject this position clearly and systematically in his late
‘De substantiis separatis’, talking generally about those (aliqui) who derived
from the spiritual substances their origin in a first and highest author (Ch.
9). In chapter 10 he identifies this position explicitly with Avicenna and the
‘Liber de causis’, hence referring to the very same Toledean Arab tradition
as Albert. The spatial aspects of this claim follow immediately in Chapter
17, modifying Augustine’s famous response to the question concerning the
exact place in which the universe has been created. As incorporeal entities
angels have no place within the order of the created cosmos, unless one
In its most extreme formulation this rejection would not be limited anymore
to the pure theological discourse of angels but would be formulated as a
strong assertion of natural philosophy, i.e. that the heavens are inanimate.
A possible turning point here is to be found in the early writings of Albert,
70
during the 1240s’.
But even earlier one can trace some interesting assertions in favour of
such an Arab doctrine, or against it. A clear evidence for the reception of
Avicennian cosmology and metaphysics is to be found in the ‘Liber de causis
primis et secundis’, most probably composed in the first quarter of the 13th
71
century. Its author treats intelligentiae as synonym with angelos, relating
72
it to the process of creation and emanation and to the soul of the heavens.
A relatively early refutation of these doctrines might be found in the writ-
ings of William of Auvergne, especially in his ‘De universo’, written during
the early 1230s. Here William sharply refuted both the concept of animated
73
heaven as well as the idea of mediatory causes.
One can see the ambiguity most clearly in Aquinas’ ‘De causis’ commen-
74
tary, written in 1272, and shortly afterwards in the unambiguous denial
formulated by Bishop Tempier and in the ‘Errores philosophorum’.
The most detailed Arabic teaching as reflected in ‘De erorres philos-
ophorum’ belongs to Avicenna’s and to Algazali’s metaphysical works.
Articles 6–9 in the chapters dedicated to the errors of Avicenna relate to
75
his theory of emanation. Article 10 (repeated in Algazali, Art. 5) is dedi-
cated to the false conception of the celestial spheres as animated living enti-
ties, being analogous to the human body – mind system. Against such an
assumption the author quotes as Catholic authority Damascenus, claiming
76
that the heavens are inanimate and insensible. The same mistake is attrib-
uted to Maimonides as well. In his case however, the author emphasized that
the heavens are not only animated but also must be regarded as rational souls
Ulterius erravit circa supercaelestias corpora, ponens ea esse animata et dicens
ipsa esse animalia rationalis, adducens pro se illud Psalmi [Ps 18, 2]: ‘Caeli
enarrant gloriam Dei’, et illud Iob [Job 38, 7]: ‘Cum me laudarent simul astra
77
matutina’, quae omnia patent IIo libro De expositione legis, cap. Vo.
Finally the condemnation of 1277 clearly states the fallacies of the doctrines
of animated heaven, especially in Articles 102 and 110:
Art. 102: Quod anima celi est intelligentia, et orbes celestes non sunt instrumenta
intelligentiarum sed organa, sicut auris et oculus sunt organa virtutis sensitive.
Art. 110: Quod motus celi sunt propter animam intellectivam; et anima
intellectiva sive intellectus non potest educi, nisi mediante corpore.
76 Errores Philosophorum, vi, 10; Koch (note 49), 30: Ulterius erravit circa
animationem caeli. Posuit enim caelum animatum. Cuius animam non solum
dicit motorem appropriatum, secundum quod Philosophus et Commentator
nisi sunt dicere, sed quod fieret unum ex anima caeli et caelo sicut et anima
nostra et corpore nostro. Quod est contra Damascenum, qui dicit IIo libro [De
fide orthodoxa] capitulo VIo caelos esse inanimatos et insensibiles; in relation to
Algazali cf. ibid, viii, 5; Koch (note 49), 38.
77 Cf. ibid, xii [Maimonides], 5; Koch (note 49), 60.
114 Yossef Schwartz
78
that Maimonides himself claims originality. The four orbs/globes theory
– according to Gad Freudenthal, at least in its precise formulation truly an
79
independent theory of Maimonides – creates a multifaceted system that
connects all ontological realms and cosmological levels. One can find some
traces of it in Albert’s ‘De caelo et mundo’, but they are not more than
isolated pieces, without any connection whatsoever to the original context
80
and content, and without mentioning Maimonides’ name even once.
A relatively lawful description of it is found in the ‘Summa philosophiae’.
Here as well the reference to Maimonides’ hypothesis does not mean a
81
general acceptance of its theoretical framework.
As usual the situation radically changes whan we move to the writings of
Meister Eckhart. In a previous work I dealt with Maimonides’ and Eckhart’s
82
concept of place as divine attribute. In the following I would like to relate
it to the question about the various possible levels of immaterial physical
causality. Maimonides relates his hypothesis of the four globes directly to
83
the question of physical influence at a distance.
As we have seen above, this dynamic moment cannot be understood
without taking into account the overall architecture of the Maimonidean
universe. The opposite motivation can be seen among the Dominicans as
78 Guide (note 15), ii, 9, p. 269: “Now this number is for me a very important
basis for a notion that has occurred to me and that I have not seen explicitly
stated by any philosopher”.
79 Freudentahl (note 22), p. 226.
80 For the full list see Rigo (note 54), p. 51, n. 122.
81 Summa philosophiae xv, 28, Baur (note 43), 584: Aestimavit tamen Rabbi
Moyses solem dominari fundamento ignis, cuius est et actio inter cetera elementa
praecipua, lunam vero fundamento aquae, cuius est inter cetera elementa
fluxibilitas maxima; cetrosque quinque fundamento aeris, qui una cum terra
in via generationis et mixtionis radicale principium est, licet reliqua duo, id est
ignis et aqua, quandoque concurrant. – Supradictum est etiam orbem stellarum
fixarum dominari fundamento terrae. Quattuor itaque qualitates elementares
singulis singillatim elementis a praedictis octo orbibus immediatius, et ab orbe
none mediate imprimi omnino supponimus.
82 Schwartz (note 21).
83 Cf. Guide (note 15), ii, 12, 277–280; For a general description of the problem
in its Arab – Latin context see Wood, Rega, The Influence of Arabic Aristote-
lianism on Scholastic Natural Philosophy: Projectile Motion, the Place of the
Universe, and Elemental Composition, in: The Cambridge History of Medi-
eval Philosophy, Ed. Robert Pasnau, Volume 1, Cambridge 2010, pp. 247–266,
here 249f.
Divine Space and the Space of the Divine 115
87
Hence it is no coincidence that next to Dante and in a much more accu-
rate manner Eckhart is one of the very few medieval scholars who, after the
Parisian condemnations of the 1270’s, has no difficulties accepting Arab
88
angelology. He argues for the animation of heavenly spheres and, like
Dante, for mediated creation through angels that are identified with the
Aristotelian intelligences. This he does most clearly in his commentary on
89
Genesis 1, 26: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostrum.
In this part Eckhart concentrates on the plural faciamus which in the Chris-
tian-Jewish debate was usually interpreted by the Christians as referring
to the trinity. Eckhart quotes at length Maimonides who understands the
plural as referring to God and the secondary causes.
All these metaphysical speculations culminate in a spatial cosmological
formulation in Eckhart’s encounter with Maimonides’ interpretation of
Jacob’s ladder dream (Gen. 28, 12–13) in the ‘Liber parabolarum Gene-
90
sis’. As usual in Eckhart’s encounter with Maimonides, the length, depth
and eagerness with which he accepts the doctrine involved has no parallel
in scholastic literature. At the same time the final result is quite far from
the original tendency of Maimonides and reflects the fact that this enthusi-
astic adoption is produced by an independent and critical mind. The whole
universe, thus Eckhart following Maimonides, is built of hierarchical onto-
logical degrees, each of them representing a fourfold division: the four heav-
enly sphaeras, four elements that are influenced by them, four causes of the
heavenly movement of the sphere (quatuor causae motus sphaerici), the four
virtues descending from the translunal to the elemental world, and the four
91
directions of the earth. To this Eckhart adds the four Aristotelian causes
(efficiens, formalis, finalis et materialis) and the fourfold division of the
92
universe according to Macrobius.
The dynamic movement of the angels up and down the ladder represent
the descending of the cause to its effects and the ascending of the effects to
their causes (quia causa descendit in effectum et e converso effectus quasi
88 Magistri Echardi, Expositio Libri Sapientiae 12, Ed. Heribert Fischer et alii,
(Meister Eckhart, Die Lateinischen Werke ii), Stuttgart 1992, p. 333, 1–4: Cae-
los enim animatos habentes intelectum probat Rabbi Moyses l. ii c. 6 per illud
quod scriptum est: ‘caeli enarrant gloriam dei’. This claim stands in direct con-
tradiction with ‘De erorres philosophorum’ quoted above, see above (note 77).
89 Magistri Echardi, Prologi Expositio libri Genesis 116, Ed. Konrad Weiss
(Meister Eckhart, Die Lateinischen Werke i), Stuttgart 1964, pp. 273, 1–274, 3.
90 Magistri Echardi, Liber parabolarum Genesis 204–213, Ed. Konrad Weiss
(Meister Eckhart, Die Lateinischen Werke i), Stuttgart 1964, pp. 677, 1–689, 14.
91 Ibid. 204, 210–211, p. 678, 13–16, pp. 687, 1–688, 15.
92 Ibid. 212, p. 689, 1–5.
Divine Space and the Space of the Divine 117
v. Concluding remarks
in the 13th century. There he claims that there was no significant advance
in late scholastic thought after 1277, i.e. beyond the teaching of Bonaven-
ture and Aquinas. “The science of angels became complete in the thirteenth
95
century.” I believe that Keck concludes here his important study with a
mistaken claim, ignoring the revolutionary elements in 14th century thought
96
concerning angels. What I have tried to show in the examples quoted in
this paper is that the turning point of 1277 – precisely in the context of our
present topic – was not a reactionary turn against the common metaphysical
synthesis but a conclusive formulation of the general attitude.
The intercultural encounter described here has immediate cosmological
implications. There exists no space, at least in the modern meaning of the
term, in an Aristotelian voidless ‘closed universe’, made of physical bodies,
97
materially containing each other. In such a cosmos the only possible spatial
discourse is provided by scientiae mediae such as mathematical astronomy
and optics. However, besides the mathematization of cosmic hierarchy there
is the possibility of its theologization. Here the mythical figure of angels
plays important role. None of our scholastic thinkers believes in any kind of
void space, neither within nor beyond the universe. In spite of this, imma-
terial creatures like angels and other forms of separate substances, and the
immaterial causality they produce, present the opportunity to discuss the
hypothetical and realistic possibilities of divine, immaterial, hence ‘empty’
spaces. Ockham’s discussion of the movement of angels in space and their
location, in comparison with Thomas discussion of the same questions
shortly before the condemnations of the 1270’s demonstrate the potential of
98
such theological ideas. Scholars such as Alexander Koyré, Anneliese Maier
and Amos Funkenstein who pointed out the significance of these discussions
for the development of early modern science emphasizing the definition of
95 Keck, David, Angels & Angelology in the Middle Ages, New York/Oxford
1998, pp. 112–114, here 114.
96 Ockham’s most radical assertion concerning the nature of place and of loco-
motion takes place within his discussion of angels, and see William of Ock-
ham, Quodlibetal Questions, translated by Alfred J. Freddoso and Francis
E. Kelley, New Haven/London 1991, i, 4–5, pp. 23–33 (Is an angel in a place
through his substance? Can an angel move locally?); i, 8, pp. 42–46 (Can an
angel move through a vacuum?).
97 Here the well known description of Koyré, Alexander, From the Closed
World to the Infinite Universe, Baltimore/London 1957.
98 Maier, Anneliese, Metaphysische Hintergründe der spätscholastischen Natur-
philosophie, Roma 1955, pp. 227–269.
Divine Space and the Space of the Divine 119