Adolar Zumkeller and the History of the Augustinian Hermits

When we think of all the manuscripts that witness to the period spanning from the mid-thirteenth to the early fourteenth centuries – by most accounts quite a short period of history – of those manuscripts whose primary subject is theology, we are not often struck by the relationship between their composition (if it is a collection, what reason lies behind the bringing together of these texts?) and the person who copied or brought together the collection (who was it? If they were of a religious order, which?).  So often we look at texts and focus only on that part of the manuscript that interests us, and so often our sense of the composition is undone by later rebinding.  Looking into the relationship between composition and the compiler (perhaps we want to say, to borrow Jacob Neusner’s point about systematic thinking, that they are often ‘a composition, not merely a composite, held together by an encompassing logic’ [Chapters in the Formative History of Judaism: Second Series: More Questions and Answers (Lanham, MD, 2009), 79]) can often yield some interesting information about the religious orders at work in the universities: what figures were they interested in? what theological questions were dominating the intellectual scene? 

One of the many great things that Adolar Zumkeller has given us in his various works on the Augustinian Order is a keen sensitivity to the tightness of the community as it emerged in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries.  The constellation of the students and teachers of the Order, at least initially, around Giles of Rome (and of course, Augustine himself) served to show that the Order was keen to establish itself through the strengthening of its members: Augustine and Giles were not just particularly good people to study in order to become well versed in theology; both figures were held up to support the spiritual growth of those who were exercising their vocation to live according to the particular charism of the Augustinian Order.  Zumkeller draws our attention to the focus of the Order on study, for ‘[t]he study of sacred scripture was understood to be the most noble work of the friars, a kind of divine service.’ (Adolar Zumkeller, Theology and History of the Augustinian School in the Middle Ages, John E. Rotelle (ed), The Augustinian Series, vol. 6 (Villanova, PA: Augustinian Press, 1996), 11) In fact, it was Giles’s position that the ‘study of theology’, combined with ‘regular observance’, would not only ensure the growth of the Order, but also the humility of the Order, as we read from Giles in 1292: ‘Maintain and foster the study of theology with all your effort because this, along with regular observance, is necessary for our Order to grow and even to exalt in humility.’ (Analecta Augustiniana IV (1911-1912) 203, as given in A. Zumkeller, Theology and History of the Augustinian School (1996), 11).  If the study of theology were the means by which the Order would grow - not just in size, but in spiritual formation - it shows that the interest shown in gathering together reportationes of texts was key to establishing a clear Augustinian theology, as with the outstanding example of Vat. lat. 1086 where we find over 500 quaestiones from Paris compiled by Prosper de Reggio Emilia in the second decade of the fourteenth century.  This is to say, the development of a theology that is informed by studying Augustine himself, under the direction and guidance afforded by the works of Giles, which understands itself as necessarily recording, preserving and even engaging with the theological opinions of other, non-Augustinians in Paris.  Even though Zumkeller is keen to impress on us the seriousness with which the Order was dedicated to forming students in Augustine through Giles of Rome (ibid. 11-16), such an Augustinian theology seems to demand of her students, not an attitude of being closed in (an otherwise easy conclusion to draw), but an engagement with contemporary intellectual debate – indeed a very Augustinian desire.  It seems true also that this meant taking particular note of those theologians who were espousing opinions which were perceived to be, in some sense, Augustinian or of particular interest to Augustinian theological concerns.  Meister Eckhart actually serves as a very good example of this: Vat. lat. 1086 – certainly a manuscript that shows strong Augustinian principles - is one of only two manuscripts that witness to Eckhart’s Parisian Questions, and of all nine it contains six.  Similarly, the fragment of an otherwise unknown Eckhart text in Troyes found by P. Walter Senner OP is given as a note to a Question by James of Viterbo – another important and influential Augustinian.  Clearly Eckhart was considered important by the Augustinians by the early fourteenth century.  The other witness to Eckhart’s Parisian Questions, Avignon Bibliothèque Municipale Ms. 1071, witnesses to the first three, which have received much more attention for their content than any of the others (notwithstanding the fact that Qq. VI-IX from Vat. lat. 1086 are comparatively recently rediscovered), although this manuscript contains many anonymous texts (some have been identified, see Alessandra Beccarisi’s note on this manuscript in her article ‘Eckhart’s Latin Works’ in Jeremiah Hackett (ed.) A Companion to Meister Eckhart (Leiden: Brill, 2013): 85-124, here 91).  Perhaps Avignon, MS 1071 needs further exploration…

Chris Wojtulewicz

Divine Production in Late Medieval Trinitarian Theology

Book Review 

JT Paasch, Divine Production in Late Medieval Trinitarian Theology. Henry of Ghent, Duns Scotus and William Ockham, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012)

Pages: 203 + xiii        ISBN 978-0-19-964637-1

Paasch aims to shed light on what he admits is a perplexing issue of how we encounter God as Trinity, in a divine internal production process, not involving creation, but one in which all products co-exist eternally and are not sub-ordinate to the producer. He considers the treatment given divine production by three prominent figures, Henry of Ghent, Duns Scotus and William Ockham who all held views that were innovative and reflective of medieval developments in this topic. The book takes the form of a medieval 'punch-up' that could have occurred as the three slogged out their attempts to embrace Aristotle with the Nicene Creed in scholarly debate. It is pointed out that any such meeting did not occur as these men lived in successive generations, though in practise, Scotus did respond to Henry and Ockham to his two predecessors.

Paasch splits the book into two main sections covering, 'how a divine person is produced', and 'how a divine person is a producer'. The parallel structure to each section first of all presents the bold pitch of Henry. This is then countered as Scotus exposes the flaws in Henry before presenting his own amendments. In the first section looking at the 'elements of production', Ockham challenges Scotus before flooring Henry. During 'round two', considering 'the producer', Scotus and Ockham knock out Henry without coming to blows themselves.

The theological hits are rendered in a series of proposals and counter proposals that are formatted in an algebraic style which is generally straightforward although unavoidable repetitions and cross-referencing interrupt the flow a little. These proposals develop the framework of the arguments with amplification by the author. The reader is led through the discussion with the three medieval heavyweights and throughout Henry begins as the plausible instigator who is first trumped by Scotus before being nailed by Ockham.

A brief background shows how the ideas of Aristotle's eternal creation from material and Avicenna's production by emanation moulded the thoughts of later Christian thought. When considering the ingredients that go into production, Aristotle begins with a lump of material and this undergoes change. As creation is ex nihilo, then if divine production is ex nihilo it is like creation. So to be either from material or ex nihilo brings difficulty. Paasch shows how Henry treats the divine essence as a lump of matter and provides a convenient way to understand the Nicene Creed's statement that 'the Son is begotten from the substance of the Father.'  The case against Henry is given by Scotus who moves away from the Aristotelian idea of production from material. Scotus says that when the Father begets the Son there is a sharing of the divine essence, rather than just bringing him into existence without materials. Ockham is then introduced to eliminate Henry's thoughts of a lump of matter and counters Scotus by emphasising the sharing of divine essence rather than production of another person.

Part two also begins by showing how the three medievals all draw from Aristotle as the debate moves to consider how the divine person is a suitable producer capable of production. Paasch states, “Action requires a capable agent, a capable recipient and the right circumstances” (110). The agent needs the active power as the recipient needs to be capable of passively being acted upon. Henry is first shown to emphasise that power consists in a relationship with the activity and so the reproductive power of the Father is from the divine essence and possible because of the “act of relatedness that points towards his act of producing the Son” (135). Scotus is then recalled to present how this emphasis on relationship is misguided and the better term to describe production is expression. Thirdly the views of Ockham are presented to show how he contrasted with Henry, partially agreed with Scotus but ultimately emphasised the divine essence as the source of production.

The author presents an account of how the three scholars blended creative philosophy with careful theology in their attempt to answer creation and subordination issues in the Trinitarian mystery of divine production. The joy of the book is through the gradual unveiling of the mechanics of divine production and also the twists and turns provided by considering the perspectives of Henry, Scotus and Ockham in turn. Each chapter steps from one line of medieval thought to a more developed one and so the conclusions don't just present the thought of the key players but an illuminated medieval view on divine production.   

Ian Richardson