Cusanus_Eriugena

CUSANUS’ REVIVAL OF ERIUGENA AS A RENAISSANCEREDEFINITION OF CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY?Cesare Catà

Th e philosophical relationship between John Eriugena and Nicholas of Cues, connecting directly two diff erent thinkers through six centuries, is a fundamental moment in the history of Christian Neoplatonism. Cusanus is the most relevant interpreter of Eriugena’s thought, between Eckhart and the German Idealism. Th e strong infl uence of the Irish philosopher on Cusanus’ work is decisive. Th e 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, elabo-rated 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 Eriu-gena 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” (infi nita Unitas). Cusanus is an original Renaissance interpreter of a specifi c 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 or-thodoxy in 1210. During the fi ft eenth century, the Cardinal and Bishop Ni-cholas of Cues recovered and reinterpreted this philosophical tradition as a refused sapientia.

Th ere is a specifi c cultural heritage of Eriugena in Cusanus’ system of thought. Th is heritage can be considered as the step along a determined phil-osophical path from Proclus to Dionysius, to Eriugena, to Eckhart and his school, to Cusanus. In this sense, Cusanus, like Marsilio Ficino (but in a com-pletely diff erent 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.

Th e fundamental link between Eriugena and Cusanus was considered and examined by some penetrating and well-documented research over past dec-ades 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 rela-tionship Eriugena-Cusanus; the fundamental research of Moran on the onto-logical conceptions of the two authors; the study of Cantòn, on the ideas of theophania and concordantia the study of Kijewska on the idea of divine Non-Being 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 infl uence of Meister Eckhart between them, is discussed. Th e results of this research have determined a fi nal clarifi cation about the fundamental rela-tionship between Nicholas of Cues and Eriugena.

In the light of the preceding scientifi c contributions, the present paper in-tends to observe the relationship between Eriugena and Cusanus in the con-text 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.

Th e aim of my short considerations is to open a perspective on the prob-lematical connection between John Scotus Eriugena, condemned as a hereti-cal thinker in 1210, and the Bishop and Cardinal Nicholas of Cues. Eriugena’s 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.

1 See the following works: D. Duclow,. Masters of learned ignorance : Eriugena, Eckhart, Cusanus, Ashgate 2006; A. Kijewska, „Divine Non-Being in Eriugena and Cusanus“, Phi-loteos, 2 (2002), pp. 155-167; J.L. Cantòn, „Teofanìa y Concordia. Leyendo a Escoto Eriùge-na y Nicolàs 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 Übergang zur Neuzeit, Heidelberg 1985, pp. 311-343; C. Riccati, Proces-sio 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 intel-lettuale, Torino 1977.

Cesare Catà 61

Eriugena’s thought is widely developed in Cusanus’ work, as we can imme-diately comprehend by considering some fundamental topics of Cusanus’ sys-tem. Nevertheless, Nicholas of Cues explicitly refers to “Johannes Scottigena” in few places of his writings. I fi nally intend to off er an interpretation of this ostensible paradox: we see simultaneously a decisive infl uence of Eriugena’s 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 Eriugena’s name in his work Apologia doctae ignoran-tiae (1449). It is interesting to note that the name of Eriugena appears in the fi rst work composed by Cusanus aft er his appointment as a Cardinal; the Ap-ologia is the work in which he defends himself about the heresy charges ex-pressed by the Scholastic philosopher Johannes Wenck in his De ignota litter-atura(1442).2

In the Apologia docta ignorantiae, Nicholas of Cues refers twice to Eriu-gena, along with Meister Eckhart, Th eodoric of Chartres, Maximus Confes-sor, David of Dinant, Berthold of Moosburg, Robert Grosseteste and Hugh of Saint Victor. In defending of his metaphysical system, Nicholas of Cues de-fi 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 Ver-cellensem et ceteros moderniores commentatores illius libelli; et indubie se hacte-nus 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 Th eodori Iohannis Scotigenae Περιφυσεως, Tomi David de Dynanto, Commen-

2 Cf. E. Vansteenberghe, “Giovanni Wenck, De ignota litteratura”, Beiträge 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. San-tinello, Introduzione a Nicolo Cusano, in Scritti fi losofi ci II, Bologna, 1965, 21 sgg; J. Hop-kins, “Nicholas of Cusa on Learned Ignorance and Nicholas of Cusa’s 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, Einführung in die Philosophie des Mittelalters, Darmstadt, 1987, pp. 181-195.

3 Nicolai de Cusa, Apologia Doctae Ignorantiae, § 30, Opera Omnia, vol. II, Heidelberg–Leip-zig, 1932, p. 21.


taria fratris Iohannis de Mossbach in Propositiones Proculi et consimiles libri os-tendendi”.4

Th e fi gures named by Cusanus as real interpreters of the Christian tradi-tion – many of whom were condemned as heretical by the offi cial orthodoxy – are commentators of Proclus and Dionysius.

Besides those references in the Apologia, we cannot fi nd an explicit quo-tation of Eriugena’s 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 magni”5. Accord-ing 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 Christi-anity from a philosophical point of view is not Aristotle, but rather Proclus.

Th is is a fundamental point of connection between Nicholas of Cues, Eriu-gena and Berthold of Moosburg. Successor of Eckhart in the School of Köln since 1335, Berthold’s Commentarium is focused on the concept of divine In-fi nite One, as defi ned by Proclus’ Th eologia Platonica.6 Th ere is a specifi c rea-son for the unusual focusing of a philosophical Commentarium on Proclus, instead on Aristotle. Th e “shift of auctoritates” proposed by Berthold is caused by the necessity to defi ne the divine principle as the Infi nite One – a defi ni-tion inadmissible in the metaphysical apparatus of the Aristotelian categories.

Hence, when Nicholas of Cues develops Eriugena’s teaching in the path of Neoplatonism, his aim consists in redefi ning the Christian orthodoxy ground-ed on the Aristotelian Scholasticism. In fact, in several Cusanus’ concepts in which we can recognize Eriugena as the principal source, it is possible to rec-ognize the Proclus’ and Dionysus’ idea of God as the Infi nita Unitas.

God is defi ned by Nicholas of Cues as the entitas omnium, the quiddi-tas quidditatum (in the work De coniecturis); the essentia essentiarum (in the work De visione Dei); the forma formarum (in the work De dato Patris Lumi-num). He explains the etymology of the term “theòs” as deriving from theo (to run) and theoro (to see). All those defi nitions are also present in Eriugena’s

4 Nicolai de Cusa, Apologia Doctae Ignorantiae, § 43, p. 30.5 Cf. W. Beierwaltes, Eriugena und Cusanus, p. 313 n. 5; D. Moran, Th e philosophy of John

Scottus Eriugena in the Middle Ages, Cambridge 1989, p. 279.6 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 (néo)platonisme médiéval. Proclus latin et l’écoledominicane allemande”, Reveu de théologíe et de philosophie 110(1978) 427-448..

Cesare Catà 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 Eriugena’s system and in the developments of Nicho-las 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 opposi-tio oppositionis (De visione dei, § 13). Both those conceptions refer to the idea of God as the Infi nita Unitas considered by Berthold in his Commentarium of Proclus’ Th eologia Platonica. Hence, the idea of God at the centre of Eriuge-na’s 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 offi cial medieval orthodoxy, in order to defi ne the profi le of Christian truth. Th rough his “revival” of Eriu-gena’s philosophy, Nicholas of Cues purposed such a theological-philosophical shift .

Th e “shift ” is evident, by considering the notion of creatio described by Cusanus especially in his work De Genesi, and shaped on Eriugena’s idea of processio. Cusanus took his conception of creation as a theophany from Eriu-gena’s system. According to Nicholas of Cues, the creatio is not a mere creatio ex nihilo – like in the Aristotelian-Scholastic perspective; creation is a con-tractio, a self-manifestation, an internal ontological movement of the infi nite indeterminate divine principle. As Moran explains, “Cusanus’ general philoso-phy of explicatio and implicatio, of infi nity and fi nitude, expresses in a diff er-ent technical terminology some of the central insight of Eriugena’s system. Of course, it is almost impossible to separate the Dionysian infl uence from what is purely Eriugenian, but we can say that Cusanus was Eriugena’s greatest dis-ciple”.7

We can consider the idea of the divine principle as a “Deus Absconditus” (Hidden God). Th is conception is expressed in Eriugena’s expression: “divi-na ignorantia summa ac vera sapientia”, corresponding to Cusanus’ famous conception of “docta ignorantia”. Th e 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 Cf. Moran, the Philosophy of John Scottus Eriugena, p. 281.8 Cf. D. Carabine, Th e Unknown God: Negative Th eology in the Platonic Tradition: Plato to

Eriugena, Louvain 1995.


knowledge. Th e 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 nev-er 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 Eriugena’s 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 Eriuge-na’s 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 re-garding divinity, applying to the Creator the attributes of created things. Th e 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 fi des (faith) and ratio (raison), theology and philosophy, Holy Scripture and speculation.

Eriugena’s philosophy is construed on the principles of “dialectical rea-soning”, whereby “true philosophy and true religion are identical”. Eriugena declared in many passages of his work the fundamental unity of true phi-losophy and true religion, the harmony of human reason and holy authority. Th ere is no faith without a rational investigation and comprehension; recip-rocally, there is no reason, without an acceptance and a desire of the incon-ceivable 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.

Signifi cantly, Cusanus and Eriugena were both great philosophical inter-preters of Holy Scripture. Eriugena wrote a thoughtful commentary on the Gospel by St. John.12 Nicholas of Cues composed 293 Sermons on theological

9 Cusanus, Docta ignorantia, I, § 1-3, Opera omnia, vo. I, Heildelberg–Leipzig 1932.10 Iohannis Scotti seu Eriugenae Periphyseon. Liber primus, ed. E. Jeauneau, Turnholti 1999,

p. 443C, p. 5; 487AB, p. 63.11 Cf. p. Rorem, Eriugena’s commentary on the Dionysian Celestial hierarchy, Toronto 2005.12 Cf. John J. Contreni, P. P. Ó’Neill, Glossae divinae historiae: Th e Biblical Glosses of John

Scottus Eriugena, Firenze 1997.

Cesare Catà 65

topics, especially considering the words of St. John. In the light of the con-ception of reciprocity between faith and reason, Eriugena and Cusanus do not make a real distinction between Holy Scripture and speculative researching. Th at 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 “hu-man being” as a potentially divine creature. In Eriugena’s conception is per-fectly developed the principle of “homo imago dei”: human being is considered as an image of God’s Nature.13 According to Eriugena’s philosophy, God creat-ed 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 (fi liatio Dei). Cusanus’ conceptions regarding the relationship between human and God expressed in his work De fi liatione Dei, can be considered as a reinterpretation of Eriugena’s 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. “Th e sub-stance of the whole man is nothing else but the concept of him in the Mind of his Artifi cer”15, wrote Eriugena. And Cusanus considered the “mens” (hu-man mind) as the specifi c “point of connection” between human and divine, through the power of docta ignorantia.

Th is anthropological vision grounds itself on a peculiar metaphysical con-ception of God. God is conceived as the “opposite of the opposites”. Cusanus’ famous theological conception of “coincidentia oppositorum” is originally ex-pressed 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 Iohannis Scotti seu Eriugenae Periphyseon. Liber quartus, 771B, ed. E. Jeauneau, Turnholti 2000, p. 44.

14 Cf. D. Moran, Th e philosophy of John Scottus Eriugena, p. 236-238.15 Eriugenae Periphyseon IV, 768B, p. 40.16 Eriugenae Periphyseon 517B-C, p. 103.


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 Eriugena’s concep-tion of divine infi nity (infi nitas), as the annihilation and overcoming of fi ni-tude. Any determined opposition is cancelled in the infi nity of divine princi-ple. God is the Unity without diff erences.18 Th e “oppositions” present in the the created universe are an ontological consequence of divine “explicatio” (Cu-sanus) or “processio” (Eriugena). Creatures, considered in their specifi c nature, are nothing.19 Th e 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 creat-ing 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. Th e 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 Eriugena’s conception of processio and redi-tus as the essential aspects of created universe is clearly indebted to Proclus’ philosophy, with which he became acquainted also through Dionysius. In Fif-teenth 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. Th e develop-ment of divine nature in its division and unifi cation is interpreted in Chris-tian 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 Cusa-

17 Nicolai de Cusa, De visione Dei § 53-54, Opera omnia, vol. VI, Heidelberg–Hamburg 2000, p. 63

18 Cf. K. Flasch, Die Metaphysik des Einen bei Nikolaus von Kues. Problemgeschichtliche Stel-lung und systematische Bedeutung, Leiden 1973.

19 Cf. Nicolai de Cusa, De docta ignorantia, II, § 3, p. 69-70; Eriugenae Periphyseon I, 516C,p. 102.

20 Eriugenae Periphyseon. Liber quintus 866a, ed. E. Jeauneau, Turnholti 2003, p. 10.21 Proclus, Elements of Th eology, translated by E. R. Dodds, Oxford University Press 1963,

propositions 33-4, p. 36-39.

Cesare Catà 67

nus and Eriugena encountered is a philosophical way, alternative to Th omistic Scholasticism.

Th e 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 Chris-tian original interpretation of Neoplatonic metaphysics. It is a conception fun-damentally alternative to Th omistic Scholasticism thesis of God as a personal and determinate principle.

In the context of Renaissance diatribes between Aristotle’s and Plato’s 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 clarifi cation 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 concep-tion, refused by Aristotle, of Deus as the “actus infi nitus”.22 It is the denial of any unexpressed potentiality of reality. According to Aristotle, Scholasticism interpreted divine universe as a potentia ordinata (ordinate power), depend-ing 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 uni-verse. Th at is because Aristotelian categories cannot be assumed, in order to defi ne and comprehend the divine principle.

In Eriugena’s philosophy, the ineff ability of God is founded on the meta-physical reviewing of the ten Aristotelian categories, asserting that their capa-bility to comprehend is “wholly extinguished” in respect to the divine princi-ple.23

Th e 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 Neopla-tonism philosophically alternative to Th omistic Scholasticism.

In this tradition of thought, there is a fundamental rejection of Aristotle’s theological conceptions. Th e fundamental Hellenic auctoritas is Proclus, ac-cording 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 Neo-platonic conception of God behind the Aristotelian categories.

22 Cf. C. Catà, La Croce e l’Inconcepibile. Il pensiero di Nicola Cusano tra fi losofi a e predica-zione, Macerata 2009.

23 Cf. Eriugenae Periphyseon I, 463C, p. 33.


Th e Renaissance bishop and cardinal Nicholas of Cues developed the in-strument of Eriugena’s work as a key for a redefi nition of Christian ortho-doxy.

Th e explicit Cusanus’ quotation of Eriugena in the Apologia doctae igno-rantiae should corroborate my thesis. Cusanus, in order to defend his philoso-phy 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 infi nita Unitas.24

In the light of the document of the “Codex Additivus 11035”, conserved in the British Museum, it is known that Cusanus studied Eriugena’s Periphy-seon, at least the fi rst Book.25 In the light of another document, the “Cod. Lat. 6734”, conserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris, we know that Cusa-nus encountered indirectly a large part of Eriugena’s Periphyseon, through his reading of Honorius’ Clavis Physicae.26 Finally, Cusanus knew perfectly Eriu-gena’s translations from Dionysius.27

As I noted, in many cases Cusanus refers to Dionysius some Eriugena’s original expressions. For instance, as the source of the philosophical concep-tion 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 Eriugena’s 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 oft en 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”, offi cially condemned, philosophical tradition. We have to remind the political-religious roles developed by Cusanus during his life (of-fi cial Pope’s 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 in-triguing 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 offi -cial 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 Nicolai de Cusa, Apologia doctae ignorantiae, 830, p.25 Cf. J. Koch, Mitteilungen und Forschungen der Cusanus-Gesellschaft , 3, 1963, pp. 86-100.26 Cf. P. Lucentini, Platonismo Medievale, Firenze, 1979, pp. 77-103.27 Cf. L. Baur, “Nicolaus Cusanus und Dionysius im Lichte der Zitate und Rand-bemerkungen

des Cusanus”, Cusanus-Texte III, Heidelberg 1941.

Cesare Catà 69

Th e philosophical condemnation of Eriugena’s 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, infi nita Unitas; b) the human possi-bility of “becoming God”, expressed in the theory of the deifi catio; c) the con-ception of the fi nal reditus ad Unum of all created beings, that is an indirect de-nial of hell (and a possible consideration of the conception of “apokatastasis”).

Th ose philosophical topics are widely affi rmed in all Cusanus’ work, as we saw. Th e 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 specifi c essay, De fi liatione 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 con-sidering the heterodox conception of a Christian Neo-Platonic vision. Th at is because Wenck’s judgement and the charges against Eriugena present an iden-tical theological profi le.

In his De ignota literatura, Wenck maintains the association between Eriu-gena and David of Dinant and Amaury of Bène originally expressed in his condemnation of 1210/1225. Cusanus’ philosophy is included in this categori-zation.

In 1225 condemnation of Eriugena, the Periphyseon is rejected as a hereti-cal work, and is explicitly associated with the 1210 pronunciation of Peter Co-berlius, archibishop of Sens, against the quaternuli of David of Dinant and the writings of natural philosophy of Amaury. Th omas Aquinas would off er a theoretical strong background for the rejection of David’s and Amaury’s phi-losophies. He individuates a “formal pantheism” in Amaury and a “material pantheism” in David of Dinant.29

Aquinas intends to refute Amaury’s principle of God as the principium formale omnium rerum and the David’s conception of Deum esse materiam primam. Th ose ideas, in Eriugena’s 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 Cf. N. Hudson, Becoming God: Th e Doctrine of Th eosis in Nicholas of Cusa, Washington 2007.

29 Cf. Th omas Aquinas, Summa Th eologiae, I, 3-8; Summa contra Gentiles, I.30 Cf. Eriugenae Periphyseon I, 500A, p. 80.


We can explain this correspondence between Johannes Wenck’s 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 codifi ed by Th omas 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 appoint-ed 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-po-litical appointment – purpose a real redefi nition of the parameters of Chris-tian orthodoxy.

He defends openly the concept of God as forma omnium that was at the centre of Eriugena’s condemnation, as Johannes Wenck noted. In fact, Cusa-nus named Eriugena along with Meister Eckhart, David of Dinant, Amaury of Bène, 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 cul-tural endeavor must be understood, in the historical context of the Renais-sance Humanism, in which ancient traditions drove to new defi nitions of God and human being, like in the case of Marsilio Ficino.

Th e Neoplatonic condemned ideas of Eriugena’s 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 an-lysis would be corroborated by an analytic observation of Cusanus’ Sermons.

Th e Sermones of Nicholas of Cues represent an extremely precious source. Here, the presence of Eriugena is particularly evident, and it would be neces-sary to off er a specifi c study on this question. We can recognize in Cusanus’ preaching several explicit references to Eriugena’s comment on the Gospel of John, like in the sermons Verbum caro factus est (December, 27, 1453); Dies Sanctifi catus (December, 25, 1440); Ubi est qui natus est Rex Iudaeorum (Janu-ary, 7, 1456); Tota Pulchra (September, 8, 1456).

Th e presence of Eriugena’s 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. Th e 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 Catà 71

cholas of Cues reconnected with the ancient tradition of thought represented by Eriugena’s work, in order to redefi ne the aspects of Christian identity es-tablished by Scholastic orthodoxy.

Th e structural historical-philosophical link between Cusanus and Eriuge-na, 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 Ficino’s work, we can comprehend the similarity and the diff erence 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 diff erent. 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 Pla-tonic message, through Eriugena’s philosophy and his tradition (Eckhart and the German Mystics).

Cusanus is the other main root, besides Ficino, of Renaissance Neopla-tonism. Th rough Cusanus, Eriugena’s philosophy infl uenced and characterized some fundamental topics of Renaissance culture.

Th e 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 Fift eenth century, Nicholas of Cues received Eriugena’s philosophical heritage, and developed it in the culture of European Renaissance. Cusanus elaborated philosophically some typical Renaissance topics in the light of Eri-ugena’s philosophy: such as the conception of an ontological link between hu-man 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 Eriugena’s tradition of thought. Th is tradition, alternative to Th omistic Scholasticism, was handed down to Cu-sanus, 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. Th e idea of in-fi nita Unitas as the inconceivable essence of divine principle is the fundamen-tal aspect of this tradition of thought. We can comprehend the historical-the-ological reason for which a Renaissance bishop and cardinal followed in the footsteps of an ancient heretical Irish monk.

Documents

Cusanus_Eriugena