william of conches - a dialogue on natural philosophy

8/19/2019 William of Conches - A Dialogue on Natural Philosophy

1/43

A Dialogue o Natural Philosophy

Dragmaticon Philosophiae)

Translation of the ew Latin ritical Text

with

a Short Introduction and Explanatory Notes

O" '

g c ; . ~ ' J C Y '

~ 1 \ t $ ' 1 ' 0 ' 1 ' 1 ' .

':11'1' a' '

; ; ; ; . ; , 1 ~ ' ' '

y Italo Ronca and Matthew Curr

University of Notre Dame Press

Notre Dame Indiana


2/43

NOTRE D NlE TEXTS

IN

MEDIEV L CULTURE

Vol 2

The Medieval Institute

University

of

Notre ame

John Van Bngen and Bdward D Bnglish Bditors


3/43

© 1997

y

The University of Notre Dame Press

Notre

Dame, Indiana 46556

All Rights Reserved

Designed by Wendy McMillen

Set in ro.5/13 Trump Mediaeval by The Book Page, Inc.

Printed in

the

United States of America

Library of

Congress

Cataloging-in-Publication Data

William, of Conches, 1080-ca. 1150.

[Dragmaticon philosoplriae. English]

A dialogue on natural philosophy Dragmaticon philosophiae /

William

of

Conches; translation

of

the new Latin critical text with

a short introduction and explanatory notes, ltalo Ronca and Matthew

Curr.

p.

cm - Notre Dame texts in medieval culture; v. 2

Includes llibliographical

e f ~ n ~ n e s

and indexes.

ISBN

o-26H-00881-7 (alk. pape[i ")

I. S c i e n e t : ~ Medieval. 2. Philosophy, Medieval. I. Ronca, Italo.

II. Curr, Matthew.

l l

Title.

IV.

Series.

QI24.97

.w5513

1997

113-dc20

° The paper

l Sed

in this publication meets the

minimum

requirements

of the American National Standard for Information Sciences-Permanence of

Pap :Jr for Printed Library Materials

ANSI

239.48 1984

i\'lanufactured in the United States

of

America


4/43

Preface

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations

Introduction

CONTENTS

WILLIAM OF

CONCHES:

DIALOGUE

ON NATURAL

PHILOSOPHY

DRAGMATICON

PHILOSOPHIAE

BOOK I

ix

xi

xiii

xv

I Prologue 3

2

Definition

of Substance 6

3

The Creating Substance: The Author s Confession of Faith 7

4. The Created Substance: The Five Classes

of Rational Beings 8

s Demons

or Angels 10

6.

The

Elements

13

7 Chaos and the Work of the Creator and Nature I7

BOOK II

I Prologue

2 The Creation

of

the

Four Elements from Chaos

3. What Caused the Creation of Such Elements

4 Why God Created Two Middle Elements

5 The Syzygy, or the Interconnection of the Elements

6

The Movement of the Elements

v

2

22

25

27

29

32


5/43

CONTENTS

BOOK III

r Prologue

2 There Are

No

Waters above

the

Heavens

3

The

Creation

of

the

Stars

4.

The

Creation of Animals and Man

5

The

Quintessence

6

The Movement

of

the

Stars and

the Firmament

7.

The

Heavenly Circles

BOOK VI

r

Prologue

2 he Planets: Saturn

3. Jupiter and Mars

4.

The

Retrograde

Motion

and Standsti ll of the Planets

5 Venus and Mercury

6. The Movement of

Venus and Mercury

7. The Natural

lVlovement of

the Sun

8

The

Four Seasons: Winter

9.

Spring

ro Summer

rr Autumn

12

The

Acciden1:al Motion of

the

Sun

13.

The

Eclipse of

the

Sun

14.

he

Moon

15.

The

Eclipse of

the Moon

BOOKV

r Prologue

2

Winds

3. Rain

4.

The

Rainbo v

5.

Hail

and Snow

6. Thunder, Coruscation, and Lightning

7.

Shooting Stars

8.

Comets

9.

Water

and the

Tides of

the

Ocean

ro

Why the

Sea

Is

Salt

rr The

Origin

of

the Water in

Wells

12

Flood

and

Conflagration

37

38

42

43

46

47

51

57

58

59

60

63

66

67

70

71

72

73

76

79

83

88

91

92

97

98

O

102

105

107

109

II3

II4

IIS


6/43

BOOK VI

I .

Prologue

Part

One:

The

Earth

2. The Form

of

the Earth

3 The

Qualities of the Earth

4 The Four Areas of Habitation of the Earth

5 Our Habitable Area

6 Things Supported

by the

Earth

Part Two: Man

7

Sperm

8 Intercourse

9 Conception and

the Formation

of

the

Fetus

ro Birth

and

Infancy

r r. Sensation

12. The Working of

the

Natural Virtues in Humans

r3 Growth

14 Sleep

5 The Virtue of Breath

16 The Virtue of the Soul

17 The Head and the Hair

18 The Meninges and the

Brain

19

The

Eyes

and the

Sight

20. Mirror

Images

and

Other

Amazing Phenomena

COncerning Sight

21.

Ears

and

Hearing

22. The Other Senses

23

Voluntary Motion

24

Imagination

and the Other Functions of the Soul

25 The

Human Soul

26 The Faculties of the Soul

27 Teaching and Learning

Notes

Select ibliography

CONTENTS Vii

2 0

24

26

27

r30

r6o

62

r65

r66

r67

r68

70

73

77

207


7/43

PREF CE

\Jf' Ii':

•

j

( L ~ < h . i s is

the

first English translation of the Dragmaticon as a

G w iif @ It developed together with my critical edition of

the

Latin

text, published

in

the

Corpus christianorum

series (

Continuatio

mediaevalis .

The translation is not meant to be definitive,

nor

is it

intended to

be

an

elegant·

work

of

ar t an

aim

alien

to

the

form

mentis of William of Conches.

Rather,

in this

translation Matthew Curr and I have tried,

after

several

attempts

in various directions, to achieve the

modest

goal of

a faithful rendering of William's own style. Even so, William's some

times obscure brevity and variable technical terminology proved a

constant

challenge to

our

ideal of fidelity to

his

Latin. Technical

terms

in

the

language of twelfth-century natural philosophy have been ren

dered literally whenever

it

was possible

to

do so

without

danger of

serious misunderstanding. Thus, in speaking of the elements, we pre

ferred

the

literal

1

acute/obtuse

to sharp/blunt,

1

but

we

clearly

had

to

abandon literalness

in the

case of

animales

actiones: the faculties

of

the

soul

1

and

not

11

animal actions

1

A real

dilemma

was posed by

the

remarkable (and certainly in

tentional) difference in style between the prologues and the dialogue

proper:

any

serious attempt at rendering

the

original difference would

have

resulted

in

pomposity.

So

we did

not

resort

to any

rhetorical

device, leaving

the

difference

to shine through the

vocabulary or

the

syntax.

Another

difficulty was

the

rendering of

the

more

subtle dif-

ferences in style between the first books

and

the anthropological

0

section of Book VI, or between this and the u meteorological parts of

ix


8/43

X PREF CE

Book

V.

Such differences derive from William s massive, sometimes

verbatim,

utilization

of different source materials (Constantine

the

African for Book n, Seneca s.Naturales

quaestiones

for Book

V .

These alterations

in

style cannot always be reflected

in the

transla

tion. We have also been concerned

to

provide an English version

that

is fluent and readable.

As coauthors of this book,

Matthew

urr and I have shared

the

task in the following way: urr did the first draft, which we discussed

together section

by

section; I

then

rewrote the translation, paying par

ticular attention to the factual correctness; urr finally revised it,

focusing his

attention

on idiom and style.

After a three-year

maturation

(during which I prepared the Latin

edition for the Corpus

christianorum i

I undertook a

new and

thor

ough revision of the whole

text

while

writing the

explanatory notes.

For these and

the introduction

(which was

written

last), I am solely

responsible.

The

introduction was partly adapted from the

more

de

tailed and technical introduction to the critical edition,

but it

was

conceived anew for less specialized readers who are

not

necessarily

fluent in Latin.

The

notes are usually \though

not

always) expansions

on

selected

items taken

from

the

source register of

the

Latin

text

(the

apparatus fontium . Finally, the diagrams I xcept for the English cap

tions) are adapted from my edition of the Latin text. They are based

on the

medieval n1anuscripts

particularly on

MS

Montpellier, Fae. de

Medecine, H 145.

Italo Ronca


9/43

~

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

. e wish to thank

all

our

friends and colleagues impossible

to nanfe

individually) for

their continuous support

and encourage-

ment,

in particular

those

who

were involved

in one way

or another,

whether

reading

through the

early drafts, typing, editing, or

making

numerous valuable suggestions. We are especially grateful

to

Charles

Burnett

of

the

Warburg

Institute,

University of London, who me-

ticulously read

the

final version, improving

it in

many details, and to

Mark D. Jordan of

the

University of Notre Dame,

who

showed in-

terest

in this translation

and recommended

it

for publication

in the

United States.

Italo Ronca and atthew urr

xi


10/43


11/43

ABBREVIATIONS

CC Corpus christianorum. Series latina

Du

Cange

Du

Cange, Sieur Ch.

Du

FresneJ,

Glossarium ad scriptores mediae t

infimae latinitatis

Gl. Boet. William of Conches, Glosae super Iioethium

Gl. Macrob. William of Couches,

Glosae super Macrobium

Gl. Plat.

Gl. Prise.

LS)

MGH

Philos.

PL

William of Couches, Glosae super Platonem

William of Couches, Glosae super Priscianum

H. Liddell, R Scott, and H. Jones,

A Greek English Lexicon

Monumenta Germaniae historica

William of Conches,

Philosophia

Patrologia latina cursus completus .

,

ed.

J

P

Migne

xiii


12/43


13/43

INTRODUCTION

William of

Conches's

Life and Career

~ ; ; :

?'·'

( >

_ f]:,n

hardly add anything new to Tullio Gregory's

circumstantial

~

of William of Conches's life and works,

1

and

this

brief intro-

duction is

not the

right forum for

yet

another discussion of

the

scanty

jand largely inferential) evidence at

our

disposal. Instead, I will sum-

marize William's life

and

career so as

to

enable readers

to put the

ragmaticon into some kind of historical frame.

William was born

at

Couches, a

small

town near Evreux, in Nor-

mandy, in a country of mutton-heads under the dense sky of Nor-

mandy,112 probably

around 1090.

We know

from

his

famous

disciple

John of Salisbury c.

III5-80)

that, before

forming

his

own

disciples

in grammar,

1

William had himself been formed at

the

solid school of

Bernard of Chartres,

3

becoming after him

11

the most

splendid teacher

of grammar.

114

John

further informs

us

that

he himself

went

of his

own free

will to the grammarian from

Conches and heard him for a

period of

three

years.

5

There

is

still

no agreement on where John of

Salisbury heard William. It seems reasonable to think of Chartres, as

was first argued in

detail in

1862 by C. Schaarschmidt,

whom

nearly

all

modem

authorities (Klibansky

Garin, Gregory, Jeauneau, Dronke,

Haring) follow. R.

W.

Southern, however, questioned both

the

s i g n i i ~

cance of the School of

Chartres

and John's staying there, adducing

inferential proofs in favor of Paris.

6

This opened a long controversy

with P. Dronke and

N.

M. Haring.

7

With Dorothy J. Elford I am in

clined to believe that William both studied and taught

at

Chartres.

8

xv


14/43

{Vi

lNTRODUCTlON

t

is possible

that

he began his teaching career at the cathedral

school of Chartre:s where Bernard himself,

who

had been a teacher

there since

1114

and chancellor since r

124, might

have appointed his

former disciple. .

A

clue in the prologue to Book

VI

also points to the

early

1120S

as a probable beginning of his scholastic career. There

William admits to

still

experiencing some difficulty

in

"retaining and

understanding completely and perfectly" all the complex philosophi

cal doctrines he professes, although he has

11

taught them to

others for

twenty years and longer.

119

Since those words, and the composition of

the

Dragmaticon

as a whole, m_ay be approximately dated to the years

1144-49

(and more precisely to

I 147-49\i

his career may have begun

around

1125, not

long before he

set

out to

write

the

youthful i-

losophia

usually dated between

n25

and u30).

John of Salisbury informs us of the circumstances of William's

possible early retirement

after

he

lost his popular

stand in

the

bitter

controversy wit"h the

11

Cornificians," facile educational reformists

who propounded. a drastic shortening of the basic school training.

10

He

does

not

say,

ho1Never

whether

William was

reinstated in

his former

post

when the Cornificians themselves were eventually defeated.

11

It

is possible,

though not

certain,

that

1

embittered by the decadence of

the schools

and

the attack of William of St.

Thierry

who denounced

him

as heretic, he left Chartres to return to his native Normandy,

under the protection of Geoffrey Plantagenet.

1112

Here he was probably

appointed a private tutor to Geoffrey's two young sons, one

of

whom,

Henry {born at Le Mans

in 1133)

was

to

become.Henry

II

king of

England.

13

And here/ supported by his

mighty

protector

the

Duke

of

Normandy

and

Count

of Anjou,

1114

he was able to rewrite at his

leisure

the

imperfect

Philosophia

as a largely

new work

(in fact, his

major

systematic

treatise),

the Dragmaticon.

In this

work

William

constructed a dialogue resembling those of Plato and Cicero

in

every

thing

except the fixed roles assigned by the

1

dramatic genre" to the

two partners:

the

11

Duke of Normandy" asks questions, and· a

11

name

less philosopher" (that is, William of Couches) answers them.

That

the

l ragmaticon

is, and was

intended

to be, more

than

a

mere''

second edition" of the

Philosophia

15

has been forcefully proven

by Gregory and confirmed

by

Elford

in

a systematic comparison of

the

philosophical contents

of both

works.

16

Elsewhere, I have also dealt

with

this question in detail.

17

Of Williain's

last

years we

know nothing

except

that

he

must

have survived his noble patron (who died

in 1151)

by a few years, since

he was still alive in n54: Alberic of Trois-Fontaines Idied after

1252),

the

compiler of

an important

chronicle,

mentions our

philosopher

in


15/43

INTRODUCTION xvii

his

entry for

I

r54

the year Henry

II

became

king:

in his

[Henry s]

time Master

William

of

Conches

was regarded as a philosopher of

great

fame.

1118

The

Relative Chronology of

William

of Conches's

Works

By

addressing

his

patron as

11

Duke of Normandy

and

Count of

Anjou

1

11

William

provides one of very few clues to

an approximate

dating

of

the

general prologue of

the Dragmaticon

(and,

by

i1nplica-

tion, of the entire dialogue):

since

Geoffrey Plantagenet assumed the

title of

11

duke of

Normandy

11

in r 144

and

passed it on to his son

Henry

at

the

end

of

1149

1

we have

the

two

terms within

which

to locate

William s work.

1119

Assuming that William worked on the Dragmati-

con while he

was

a tutor to Geoffrey

s sons, we may narrow down

the approximate date of composition

to the years r

147-49,

a

time

when

Henry was

in

Normandy and mature

enough

to

e instructed

in

natural philosophy (he had been

in

Bristol

in

rr42/43, 1146/47,

and

again

in 1149/50

when

Geoffrey

transferred

to

him the

duchy of

Normandy).

20

An

additional imore

speculative)

clue to

narrowing

down

the

time frame to the years

around

1148 might

be

the

outcome

of Gilbert

de

la

Porrf.e

1

s appearance

at the council

of

Reims

(1r48).

Contrary

to

what had happened to Abelard

at

Sens

in

r

140,

Gilbert's

subtlety

and

learning

impressed the assembly;

and

conceding perhaps more to his

opponents than he really bel\eved

Gilbert managed to substitute, for

the

condemnation they

demanded, an

undertaking

that

he

would cor-

rect

his

book

in

accordance with an agreed profession of faith, if it

.. .

needed

correction.

1121

f

this is true,

it

is a

remarkable

parallel to

what

happened to

William,

who

included

at the beginning

of

his

new

work

both a

retractatio errorum

and a carefully worded

confessio fi_dei

The

striking

similarity in the reaction

of

the

two

11

Chartrians

11

to

similar

ecclesiastical accusations would

at

least

point

to a similar intellec-

tual

climate

surrounding both events-an indication that the council

of

Reims and

the

composition

of the general prologue may not

have

been far

apart

from each other

in

time as well as

in

place. But

this

re-

mains

speculation. For

want

of

hard

historical evidence,

the

six years

1144-49

(and especially

rr47-49)

are

the most

likely period for

the

composition of the

Dragmaticon

As for William

s other works, the list of those certainly authentic

is not

yet

complete

or

definitive.

Apart

from

the systematic

treatises,

which can

be

attributed

to

his

11

youth

11

and

0

maturity

11

respectively,


16/43

iii INTRODUCTION

William of Conches

wrote

several comments on authors

glosae

super auctores),

mLostly-but not exclusively-philosophers. As it is,

not

all comments that he planned to write, and may have written,

have been recovered: this is

the

case of

the comment on

Martianus

Capella, which the

Glosae

super

Boethium

(William's earliest

known

work) announces as being planned for the immediate future.

22

On the other hand, some of the extant

Glosae,

transmitted i :

double (and even triple) versions believed to have been composed by

William himself at different stages

in

his scholastic career, might still

prove, on a close scrutiny, to be

nothing

more than different textual

traditions of one and the same original, with corrections, expan

sions, or omissions

by

intelligent readers or innovative scribes. To

some extent, this seems to be the case of the Glosae super Platonem,

for which Gregory

23

implied two different versions, one preceding

and the

other

following

the Philosophia.

However,

the

editor of the

later//

Timaeus

glosses rightly suspected that the so-called ear

lier redaction, known from MS C.620 of the University Library,

Uppsala, and edited by Toni Schmid, could just as well be

the

work

of a compiler sun1marizing William of Couches or making lavish

Use

of his

works/'

24

\Ve

now know

that

the supposed earlier redaction

in

fact contains a 1nixture of passages extracted from the independent

glosses of Bernard

[of

Chartres], William, and others by a late twelfth

or thirteenth-century scribe.

25

On the strength of these considerations, I take the liberty further

to

update

and slightly modify the provisional list

and

relative chro

nology of William of Conches's authentic works compiled by Edouard

Jeauneau. My ve:rsion is as follows:

Youthful Works

r Glosae super Boethium De cons. phil.)

2 . Glosae super Macrobium Comm.

n

Cic. Somn.)

3. Philosophia

4 Glosae super Priscianum

jfirst version)

Mature Works

s.

Glosae

super

Platonem {in Tlmaeum)

6.

Dragmaticon

7 Glosae super Priscianum (second version)

With

regard to some still controversial questions about the rela

tive chronology of those certainly authentic works and the dubious


17/43

INTRODUCTION

x iX

authorship of others that have been attributed to William of Conches,

the

following

points

should be noted:

1. The Glosae in Iuuenalem, of

which

an inadequate modern

edition exists (ed.

B.

Wilson [Paris, r980])

is no longer attrib

uted to William.

2 .

The Glosae super Martianum, if it

was ever written, could

be placed second

or third

(before or after

the

Glosae super

Macrobium .

3. I cannot follow Jeauneau in assigning

the

Glosae super

Priscianum to William's

1

old age. William can hardly have

died long after r r

54

(the year of his death is usually given as

I

155

)

that

is,

only

a few years after

the

Dragmaticon

was

completed.

How

could he become old so suddenly and

still

have

the

stamina to write such a long and demanding work?

4. The attribution

of a very popular florilegium of moral max

ims drawn from pagan authors, the Moralium dogma phi-

losophorum, earlier attributed to various authors and then to

William,

remains

uncertain.

26

5.

The Compendium philosophiae, sometimes called the Tertia

philosophia,

in

six

books recalling

the

Dragmaticon,

known

from

three

MSS and partly published by C. Ottaviano,

27

is not

William's work, but a manipulation of William's Philosophia

by

some

theologian near

to

Hugh of St. Victor:

the

compiler

rewrote

the entire

first book of

the

Philosophia,

expanding

it

into

Books

I-III

and reproduced

the

rest as Books

IV-VI.

28

6. The Magna de naturis philosophia,

mentioned in earlier lit

erature

as William's

main

work, of which his Philosophia

was assumed

to

be

an

excerpt,

29

has never existed.

The

tradi

tion

goes back to an article in the Histoire littiraire de la

France

(Paris, r763), pp. 455-66,

1130

whose author was perhaps

thinking of Vincent of Beauvais's Speculum natmale.

7. Similarly,

B.

Lawn's assumption of a much fuller version of ,

the

Dragmaticon,

antedating

the

Philosophia

and used by

the

compiler of the gynecological section of

the

Oxford MS Bodi.

Auct. F.3.10 (in

his

Prose Salernitan Questions= MS

B

writ

ten

c.

1200

cannot

be validated and should be dismissed.

A sensible

refutation

of Lawn's proto-Dragmaticon

theory

is given by Elford. She in turn suggests as one of

many

pos

sible

alternatives

to that theory

the

existence of a fuller ver

sion of

the Dragmaticon

compiled later.

31

But a deutero-


18/43

:X

INTRODUCTION

Dragmaticon is as hnprobable as a

11

proto-Dragmaticon

11

: a

close comparison of

all

11

gynecological

11

texts

that

B shares

with the

Dragmaticon proves beyond

doubt that the

anony

mous

compiler of B borrowed (and variously adapted)

them

from

an

M.S

of

the

lesser class of our

extant

Dragmaticon.

32

The Dragmaticon

Authorship

and

Title

Th


19/43

INTRODUCTJON XXi

that

treatise at I.r.8 make

Philosophia

a confusing and inappropriate

title for the dialogue. Secunda philosophia would be appropriate but

can hardly be authentic: William reedited and made second edi

tions of

most

of his comments on the auctores, but not one is

known

to have been titled

Secundae glossae

or the like.

What is, then, the

merit

of

Dragmaticon philosophi{

a e, apart

from the scanty manuscript evidence?

The

word dragmaticon (used

as a neuter

noun

and spelled with -gm- or -mm- is a late medieval

transliteration of the Greek adjective 5paµaTlK6v. The -gm- cluster

and the substantivization is due to the analogy

with pragmaticon

35

and

didascalicon,

respectively.

The

Greek adjective is attested

in

Latin as early as Diomedes

1

Ars grammatica,

Book

1

where it quali

fies one of

the three

kinds of poems,

the

poema dramaticon,

or

the active one

1

in which characters act alone

without

the poefs in

teracting.11 Diomedes distinguishes the dramatic or active poem

(exemplified by classical drama and Virgil's first Eclogue from the

exegetic or narrative

(exemplified by

the

first three Georgics and

Lucretius

poem

1

where the poet himself speaks without the in

terference of any character

1

)

and

the common

or mixed

(the case of

the Homeric poems and Virgil's

Aeneid,

where both the poet himself

and

the

characters speak:

.

36

This

passage

may

have been influenced

by Suetonius'

De poematis

and appears to be

an

expansion on Aris

totle's Poetics 3

1

dealing with the three manners of poetic imitation

µLµT}aL


20/43

di

INTRODUCTION

question

{interrogatio) and its derivative adjective dragmaticum

as a quasi-synonyrri of questioning

interrogativum), since this

kind of dialogue

11

takes place

through

question

and

answer.

4

Fur

thermore, the word

dragmaticon

appears

in an

amplified redaction

of doubtful authenticity in a fifteenth-century MS of the Biblioteca

Nazionale Marcial1a

in

Venice containing the

Glosae super Platonem

(that is, William's comment on the Latin Timaeus translated by Cal

cidius).42

Although

dragmaticon

looks very

much

like William's own

coinage

1

the

question still remains

to

be asked

whether

or not

he

in

tended to give his dialogue the title of Dragmaticon philosophiae.

The

phrase would make sense

to

readers who knew

that

dragmaticon

was one of

three

possible kinds of twelfth-century dialogue. Still, the

descriptive genitive philosophiae sounds awkward; one would expect

de philosophia or de substantiis from Dragmaticon l.r.7 and I I .

The

genitive can only be

1

descriptive" or

epexegeticus as in

1

arbor fici

.

The

phrase sounds awkward

to

us because the

noun in

the genitive

case, the nomen specifi_cum, is well known, while the nomen generi-

cum

presupposes a currency as a technical term of twelfth-century

literary rhetoric for which only poor evidence can be adduced. Never

theless, the phrase is idiomatically correct and seems likely

to

cor

respond to William

1

s own intention ia generic title of Dragmaticon

alone

would

perhaps have sounded vague

to

him,

much

as

Dialogue

would to us).

On the other hand, no mention is

made

of a dragmaticon

as

a treatise in dialogue form) or of a dragmaticon philosophiae) in the

known

indirect tradition.

The

crown witness for the indirect tradi

tion, the

Speculum naturale

of Vincent of Beauvais, refers only

to

11

Guilli)elmus de Conchisn; and

the title Dialogus de substantiis

physicis, given

to the

first

printed

edition of

the

Dragmaticon by

Guglielmo Gratarolo Strasburg, 1567), is not found

in

the MSS.

For all these reasons, I am no longer inclined to regard the con

ventional

title

Dragmaticon as an early redactor's extrapolation from

I 1. r r (

1

dragmatice distinguemus

1

.

The grammarian William knew

the word as a technical term at least from Calcidius and from the

ancient

grammarians

1

tradition.

He

needed

an

appropriate

title to

distinguish the dialogue from its "first redaction/' the Philosophia.

Moreover, in choosing the dialogue form and widening the scope of

his subject matter to a near-encyclopedia, he had probably cherished

the thought of emulating Hugh of St. Victor's Didascalicon com

pleted before n37). The popularity of

this

title, a bold innovat,ion of

the r 13os

1

and the consideration of the Diomedes/Bede passage, are


21/43

INTRODUCTION XXiii

likely to have suggested the analogic choice of Dragmaticon. Thus,

the dialogue may have

been

called Dragmaticon by William himself,

a tit le soon expanded to Dragmaticon philosophiae by the redactor re

sponsible for several additions

to the text

of the twin MSS (perhaps by

analogy

with

Philosophia mundi .

The Purpose of the Dragmaticon

A close comparison with the Philosophia reveals a multiplicity of

purposes of the Dragmaticon, most of them explicitly stated by the

author himself in the general prologue. William wants:

• To rewrite and

update

the

Philosophia

by retaining

what

is

still true or applicable, by

omitting

certain sections now out

dated or wrong,

and

by adding some new material, unknown

or

not

considered n his youth

Vl.1.r),

in fact, more than the

reader of the prologue is made to assume

(I.r.8).

• To retract his youthful errors I.r.8-11) and,

by

implication, to

satisfy the suspicious hierarchy of his Catholic orthodoxy by a

circumstantial (sometimes ironically ambiguous and tongue

in-cheek) profession of faith

(I.3.r-5).

• To provide his powerful protector, purported to be keenly in

terested in philosophical questions,

43

and his noble pupils

with

something

that

pertains to science (that is, suitable

to

scientific studies, I. r.5 ) -an understatement, typical of the

general prologue,

that

is intended

to mean

a relevant contri

bution to modern science.

This overall intent is further

narrowed down a few lines later, when the Dragmaticon is de

scribed as a

work

dealing

with

substances philosophically

and relevant to

the

reading of the philosophers who are stud

ied in today's schools (I.r.6-7)

According to William's unassuming modesty

1

the Dragmaticon is a

work of his maturity, intended to replace the imperfect and outdated

youthful

Philosophia

with

a corrected, updated, and

somewhat

en

larged

version-as it were

a second edition of essentially

the

same

work. At-close scrutiny,

this

second edition

reveals itself as a sub

stantially new work,

both in

form and in content.

The

classical dia

logue form, involving the mighty duke as co-protagonist lat times as

an orthodox inquisitor), is after all a clever device, aiming at removing

in the reader any residual

or

possible suspicion about the author's

Abelardian

(and heretical) views.

At

the same time the philosophus


22/43

dV

INTRODUCTJON

sine nomine,

1

' overtly supported by such

an

authority, may still

vent

his strong feelings

at

his archenemies of old, the prelates,

and

do

so

with

impunity, therefore more boldly

than

ever before (despite

re-

tractatio

and

confessio fidei .

As for the contents, the

Dragmaticon

is

a considerably

e11larged

and

much

more balanced

new

11

reference

work.

1144

It is written

not

only for the private

use

of the duke and his

sons, but also for the better understanding of the school

authors-that

is, for the benefit of all serious students of natural philosophy.

NOTES

r

T. Gregory,

Anima mundi

La filosofia di Guglielmo di Conches e

la Scuola di Chartres Florence, 1955 .

2. Dragmaticon V1.r.1,

11

in patria ueruecum crassoque sub aere Nor

manniae sum natus": an adaptation of Juvenal's Satire

X.50

in typical self

irony.

3.

See John of Salisbury, Metalogicon l.24 PL 199:856).

4. John of Salisbury, Metalogicon Ls PL 199:832).

5. John of Salisbury, Metalogicon Il.10 PL 199:868). The triennium

has been narrowed. down to the years 1137/38-1140/41: see Gregory,

Anima

mundi,

p.

2

n.5.

6.

R.

W. Southern,

11

Humanism and the School of Chartres," in Me-

dieval Humanism and Other Studies (Oxford, 1970)

1

pp. 61-85.

7. Dronke replied to Southern in "New Approaches to the School of

Chartres,

11

Anuario de estudios medievales 6 1971): 117-40; and Haring in

11

Chartres and Paris Revisited," in Essays in Honor

of

Anton Charles Pegis,

ed. J.

R.

0

1

Donnell {Toronto,

1974),

pp. 268-329. Southern countered in his

1978

Stenton Lecture, Platonism, Scholastic Method, and the School of

Chartres (Reading, 1979) and

"The

Schools of Paris and the School of Char

tres,"

in

Renaiss.ance and Renewal

in

the Twelfth Century,

ed.

R.

L.

Benson

and G. Constable

with

Darol D. Lanham (Oxford, 1982), pp. 113-37.

He

was

supported by K.

S. B.

Keats-Rohan

in

"The Chronology of John of Salisbury's

Studies in France: A Reading of

Metalogicon

II.re," Studi medievali

28

(1987): 193-203.

8. D.

J.

Elford,

11

William of Couches,"

n

A History

of

Twelfth-CentUiy

Western Philosophy, ed. P. Dronke {Cambridge, 1988), p. 309 n.7.

9. Dragmaticon V1.r.1.

10.

John

of

Salisbury,

Metalogicon

l.24

PL 199:856).

rr.

John of Salisbury,

Metalogicon

I.5 PL 199:832).

12. Gregory, Anima mundi, p. 3.

r3. Dragmaticon l.r.5. M. D. Knowles, "Henry

II

of England,

11

in

Ency

clopaedia Britannica, 1977 edition, Macropaedia, 8:764. Gregory, Anima

mundi p. 8 n.4) gives the improbable year l

139

{a printing error?) as Henry's

date of

birth.

14.-Dragmaticon I.r. I The phrase

11

Dux Normannorum et Comes An

degauensium" is therefore the most important clue to the dating of the gen

eral prologue and, by implication, of the dialogue as a whole.


23/43

INTRODUCTION

X:XV

15·

Against

the

opinion of early scholars, subsumed in G. Manitius's

notorious statement, Dies ist . kein neues Werk, sondern

nur

die in

Dialogform-zwischen Philosophus

und

Discipulus

[sic]-gebrachte

Philoso

phia mundi

{Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters,

vol. 3

[Munich,

1931],

p. 217).

16. Gregory,

Anima

mundi;

D.

J

Elford, Developments

in

the

Natural

Philosophy of William of Couches (diss., Cambridge,

1983).

17. See I Ronca, Ragione e Fede in Guglielmo di Conches: per una edi

zione critica del

1

Dragmaticon

1

1

11

in Studi di filologia classica in onore di

Giusto Monaco (Palermo, 1991) 4:1535-59

1

especially pp. 1538 and following.

18. Monumenta Germaniae historica,

Scriptores, vol. 23, ed. Scheffer

Boichorst (Berlin, 1874)

1

p. 842.

19. Gregory, Anima mundi, p. 7 n.5.

20.

J.

D. North, Some Norman Horoscopes, in Adelard

of Bath,

ed. Ch. Burnett (London,

1987}

1

p.

158.

2r.

J

Marenbon

1

Early Medieval Philosophy 480-I I 50): An Introduc

tion {London,

1983)

1

p. 118.

22. See E. Jeauneau, Glosae super Platonem (Paris,

1965)

1

p. r2 n.5

1

quoting from Cl. Boet. MS Troyes, Bihl. mun. lI01, fol. 17vb}.

23. Gregory,

Anima

mundi, pp. 14-17; E. Garin,

Studi sul Platonismo

medievale (Florence, 1958)

1

pp. 56-62.

24.

11

L'oeuvre d'un compilateur

resumant

Guillaume de Conches ou

puisant abondamment dans ses oeuvres (Jeauneau, Glosae super Platonem,

p. 14). Jeauneau's hypothesis is confirmed by similar cases of later compilers

or

deliberate innovators

within the textual

transmission of

the

Dragmati

con, as I have shown in

the

introduction to my critical edition.

25.

P.

E.

Dutton, The Glosae super Platonem

of

Bernard of Chartres

(Toronto, 1991), pp.

19

1

20-21, 259-60.

26. See Gregory,

Anima

mundi, pp. 19-26.

27. C. Ottaviano

1

Un brano inedito della Philosophia di Guglielmo

di Conches

(Naples, 1935

).

28. See Gregory, Anima

mundi,

pp. 28-40.

29. So, for instance, K. Werner, Die Kosmologie und

Naturlehre

des

scholastischen Mittelalters

mit

spezieller Beziehung auf Wilhelm

van

Conches,

11

Sitzungsberichte der Wiener

Akademie

der Wissenschaften,

philos.-hist. Klasse 7 1873): 309.

30. Elford, Developments, p. 207.

3r. B. Lawn, I quesiti salernitani {Cava dei Tirreni, r969)

1

Nota

ag

giuntil G (pp. 236-38}; Lawn, he Prose Salernitan Questions (London, r979),

pp. x:v-x:vii; Elford, Developments,

11

pp. 204-14.

32. Lawn has replied to

Elford's criticism n

An

Answer to Mrs. El

ford's Criticism/' typescript dated 25 May 1985. I thank Charles Burnett for

sending me,

at

the

suggestion of

the

author, a copy of

this

unpublished text,

which I was not able to consider before. Lawn's answer, however

1

has not

convinced me of his basic assumption of the existence of a fuller text of that

section, antedating

the

vulgate Dragmaticon

and

compiled by William of

Conches himself.

33. I Ronca, Reason and Faith in the Dragmaticon:

The

Problematic

Relation between Philosophica Ratio and Diuina Pagina, in Knowledge

and

the Sciences in Medieval Philosophy: Proceedings of the Eighth Interna-


24/43

cvi INTROOUCT10N

tional Congress of Medieval Philosophy, Helsinki 24-29 August 1987

1

vol. 2,

ed.

S.

Knuuttila,

R.

T'y6rinoja, and

S.

Ebbesen (Helsinki, 1990)

pp. 331-41.

34. Obscuri quidem nominis et nullius auctoritatis.

11

So William of

St. Thierry in his letter of 1141 to Bernard of Clairvaux, Concerning the

Errors of William

o.f

Conches

De

erroribus Guilelmi de Conchis,

PL I8o:

333-40).

See

the

modern critical

edition

by

J

Leclercq

in

Revue

binidictine

79 (1969): 375-91,

especially

382-9r.

35.

See H. Flatten, Die Philosophie des Wilhelm von Conches (Koblenz,

1929), p. II n.I3.

36.

Diomedes

edited

by

H.

Keil in Grammatici latini (Lipsiae

1855;

reprint, Hildesheim, I961)

1:482.I4-25.

37. See Grammatici latini, 7:428.7-I4 (Dositheus) and 4: 487.I7-23

(Anon., In artem l)onati)i Servius, In Vergilii carmina comm. (ed. Hagen

[Lipsiae 1902; reprint, Hildesheim, I96IJj,

3:

fasc. 2 (Philargyrius).

38.

See Gram.matici latini, 7:259.14-260.2.

39.

See Th V.2067 .14-28.

40. MS Paris, BibL Nat., Lat. 15130

fol. 5b: S[unt] igitur teste Bo[ecio]

tria genera coll[ocu]tionis: didascalic[umJ quad fit inter magistrum et dis

cipulum,

didascalos enim est magisterLJ] dra{g]mati[c)o[n] id est interro

gationum, dragma enim est interrogatioi enar[ratiuu]m [,]quad fit

inter

lo

quentem er audientem, continua [enim] or[aci]o est.

4I. Petrus Helias,

umma

super Priscianum, ed.

L.

Reilly {Toronto,

1993 , I:158.59-61:

Invenitur

etiarn

dragma matis

tercie declinationis

et

est

'interrogatio', unde dragmaticus [read rather dragmaticum,

with W]

genus

loquendi dicitur quasi 'interrogativum' quad fit per interrogationem et re

sponsionem. '

42. MS Marcianus Lat. Z

225

(=I870). Contrary to Garin Studi sul

Pla-

tonismo medieva.le, p. 71 and Gregory Anima mundi, p. IS), who have

considered the amplified redaction as authentic, I am convinced

that

the first

chapters of the Glosae in the MS Marcianus are the result of a deliberate am

plification by a late redactor.

43.

This is

the

apparent reason

why the

duke of Normandy is assigned

the

role of questioner

in

the

dialogue. There are other reasons, less transpar

ent and more subtle; see Ronca, Reason and Faith.

11

44. Despite :its enlarged contents, the Dragmaticon is still far from

being,

and

was never meant to be, a comprehensive scientific

summa

or en

cyclopedia: see, e.g., 111.6. I, VI.4.8,

6. 1,

6.I2.


25/43

HERE BEGINS THE DI LOGUE ON

N TUR L PHILOSOPHY Y THE

M STER

WILLI M O CoNCHEs


26/43


27/43

BOOK

ON

1

Prologue

[r] You ask, venerable Duke of Normandy and ount of Anjou, why

teachers

in

our time are less trusted than

in

the past. The reason for

this, you should understand, lies

not

only

with the

teachers

them-

selves

but

also

with the

pupils and

the

prelates. For

two

things

make

a person s teaching reliable: namely,

when it

is known

that he

pos

sesses

the

particular quality that, first, would not allow him

to

be

deceived

by another

and, second,

would

not

make him

wish to de

ceive another. The first of

these

is acquired by science,

the

second by

justice.

[ ]

Science,

in

fact, not only teaches the

nature

of things,

but

also presses

home

the

proper meanings of

words

and

uncovers

the

tricks of sophistry. Therefore, once

he has

acquired such abilities

through eager

learning

and

strengthened them

through

habit

and

practice, a

teacher cannot

easily

be

deceived regarding

either the

nature

of things or

the

use of words. Justice,

on the other

hand,

which

is the h bit

of

the

mind of

bestowing wh t

is

right upon e ch per-

son 2

expels from

the mind any

desire

to

deceive and, as

it

were, corn- -

pels everyone to teach. Therefore, because virtually everyone of our

time

approaches

the

office of teaching

without

these two

requisites,

they are

themselves

the reason why they are less trusted.

[3]

The pupils are also not without blame: they have aban

doned

the

Pythagorean model of teaching, according

to which

a pupil

should

listen and believe for

seven

years, and ask

questions only in

the

eighth.

3

Instead, from

the

first day of school,

even

before

sitting

3


28/43

4 OOK ONE

down,

they

question and, in fact,

what

is worse,

they

pass judgment.

They

study

carelessly for the space of a single year and

think th t

the whole of wisdom has accrued to them, whereas they have merely

snatched

r gs

from it;

they leave school full of

the wind

of

loquacity

and pride, empty of a solid knowledge of things. And when their par-

ents or others listen to them and discover that

there

is little or noth-

ing of any use in

what

they say, they are

at

once led to believe that

this is all the pupils received from their teachers:

so

the

authority

of

the teacher is impaired.

[4] The prelates, too, but especially the bishops, are

not

with-

out blame either, since

they

see

to their own interests and

not

fesus

Christ s;

5

in

fact,

to

be able to squander

the

goods of

their

churches

without

any apposition, they exclude wise

and

noble men from

the

clergy and, just to keep positions filled, include foolish

and

ignoble

people, shadows of clerics,

not

clerics at all. As a result, those who

could advance

in

science if they devoted themselves to studying,

realizing

that they

would gain

nothing but

hatred

and

envy from

such studies, and

that

the bishops are seeking a rich coffer rather

than

a rich mind, follow a different path

n

life: they crave wealth

and profit and, while impoverishing their minds, only labor

to

enrich

their coffers.

s] These are therefore the reasons, most illustrious Duke, why

all the dignity and prestige of teachers has faded away, and all sci-

entific endeavor has virtually disappeared,

without

hope. In you,

however, and in your sons there rests some hope: you have imbued

them

from a tender age not, as others do,

with

a taste for playing dice,

but

with

love for the liberal arts, the fragrance of which they will

long preserve, as

in

that

saying of Horace:

The

jar will long keep

the

fragrance of what

it

was once steeped

in

when new.

116

Therefore, ex-

cited and encouraged by that hope, we have set out to write for

you

and your sons something suitable to scientific stlidies.

If this

work

will find favor with you,

we

shall under your gracious auspices also

obtain

the approbation of others. For

who

will dare to disapprove of

something

that

one

hears is approved of

by

people of such standing

and character?

[6]

But since science

in

all

its

branches is concerned

with

either

things or words, and since a thing can be either a substance or an

accident, we are now going to deal

with

substances, and we shall

do so in terms of philosophy. For the same matter can be dealt with

in terms

of dialectic, sophistry, rhetoric, or philosophy. To ·consider

whether something is individual or universal is the concern of dia-

lectic;

to

prove that that same thing exists, when it does not, or


29/43

PROLOGUE

that

it

does not exist, when in fact

it

does, is

the aim

of sophistry;

to

prove

whether

that

same thing

is

worthy

of praise

or blame

is

the task

of rhetoric;

but to examine

the

nature

of that

same

thing,

its

behavior and functions, is

the task

of philosophy. Therefore,

the

dialectician

sophist, orator,

and

philosopher can debate

about

one

and

the

same thing from

different points of view

and

with differ-

ent aims.

[7J Now some people, failing

to understand

this, have rooted

out

all real things from dialectic and sophistic disputes, but they have re-

tained

the

names

of things,

which

alone

they

proclaimed

to be

uni-

versal or individual.

Then

an even more foolish age succeeded, one

that excluded

both

the things and

their names and

reduced all dis-

putation

to

four

or

five

mere

nouns.

8

However, because

they

were

not of God,

both

sects failed of their

own

accord. Therefore,

we

have

decided

to

deal philosophically with substances. Anyone who con-

siders the matter thoroughly will find this approach useful for the

pursuit of

science and necessary for reading

the

philosophers.

[8}

There

is, however, a little

book

of

ours on the same

subject,

entitled Philosophia it

is

quite

imperfect, as

it

was composed

in

our

imperfect youth.

In

that

booklet truths

are interspersed with false-

hoods and

many

points

that

ought to

have been

made

were omitted.

It is our plan, therefore,

to retain

whatever is true in that booklet, to

condemn its

falsehoods,

and to

supply its omissions. But before

the

proper dialogue begins, we have determined

to condemn

indi-

vidually all those wrong statements

that

seem to us to be contrary to

the Catholic faith. Consequently, we call on those who possess that

little

book to condemn and remove

these same statements

as we do.

For

it

is not words that make a heretic, but stubborn defense.

[9]

In

that

booklet

we

said

that

there

were

three constituents in

the

Godhead: power, wisdom,

and

will;

and

that power was

the

Father, wisdom

tl e

Son,

and

will

the Holy

Spirit. What

we

have said

about

power, that

it

is the Father,

or about

will, that

it

is

the

Holy

Spirit,

may

be defended in

one way or

another. However, since

this

idea is found

neither

in

the

Gospel nor in the writings of the

Church

fathers,

we condemn it

in

the

words of

the

apostle:

1

Avoid profane

novelty in words.

119

Concerning

wisdom, that is

the

Son,

we

do not

condemn

our

statement, since

the

apostle says:

Christ

the

power

of

God and the wisdom of

God.

111

n

that

same little

book

we

at-

tempted

to

show in what way the

Father begot

the

Son, and that

the

question

Who shall declare his generation?

implied

difficulty,

not

impossibility.

This

again

we condemn

and declare

that it

should

be condemned by others.


30/43

6

BOOK ONE

[ro]

When we

spoke

in that

little book about

the

creation of

the

first man

we said that God neither took a rib from Adam nor created

the woman

from a rib,

but

from a part of

that

same mass of clay

out

of

which he had

molded

the

body of

the man.

We

then

concluded

that

the

state1nent

the

woman

was created from a rib of Adam was

meant

metaphorically. This, too, we con_demn

and

advise others

to do likewise, according to holy

and

divine Scripture,

which

says:

And

the

Lord God caused a deep sleep

to

fall upon Adam and He

took one of his ribs/}

12

and used it as material to form

the

woman.

[rr]

These, then, are

the

points

that we

condemn in

that

book;

we

do

not

list

all

the

other points individually as false or futile but

simply

do

not

cite them

in this work. But so

much

for these things.

Now

let

us deal

with

the

substances, as

we

proposed. But because

an

uninterrupted exposition produces boredom

13

and

boredom annoy-

ance, we shall divide up our discourse in

the

form of a dialogue. You,

therefore,

most

serene Duke, should ask

the

questions;

let

a philoso-

pher who shall remain unnamed reply to them.

2.

Definition ol Substance

[r] DUKE Seeing

that

I

have been

given

the

task of questioning

and

since you propose

to

deal with substance, I ask whether you under-

stand

the term

substance to have only one or several meanings.

PHILOSOPHER.

Nobody

who

understands

the

writings of

the

authors

correctly

would

doubt that this

term

has

many

meanings. For some-

times

the

body,

sometimes the

spirit and

sometimes the

compound

of both is called substance;

whence

some writers give

the

following

definition

o

substance: Substance is a thing existing in itsel£.n

14

Sometimes those

things themselves as

well

as

their

genera

and

spe-

cies are terrrled substance, so that Aristotle divides it into a first and

a second subst:ince.

15

Sometimes,

n the

same way

that

the act of living is called life, so

the

act of subsist ing is called substance,

as

in

Generation

is

an

en-

trance

to

substance; corruption is a departure from substance.

16

Sometimes possession, because

it

makes man's existence possible

is

called substance

1

as

in

11

Give

me the portion

of

the

substance

that

is

my due,

1117

and

again,

11

He

wasted

his

whole

substance on whores and

riotous living.

1118

[2] DuKE Since this

term

is used

to

mean so many things, say which

meaning you accord

it

in this work.


31/43

THE CREATING SUBSTANCE 7

PHILOSOPHER.

Virtually everywhere in this

work

the term

1

sub-

stance

is understood

to be

a thing existing

in

itself.

DUKE Now

that

we

agree

about the meaning

of

the

term, go on

with

the

subject matter.

PHILOSOPHER.

Substance is a

thing

existing

in

itself,

but there

is one

substance

that creates

and another

that is created. Concerning

the

creating substance, which precedes

the other in

time and dignity,

we shall briefly state our faith, lest

it

be thought to differ from the

Catholic

faith. But

you should

defer your

questioning

for

the time

being

and

not

ask

for explanations, since

it

is written, There is

no

merit in

a faith for

which

human

reason provides experiential

evidence.

19

DUKE

So be it.

3. The

Creating Substance:

(The

Author's

Confession

of Faith]

[r]

PHILOSOPHER.

We believe that there is one creating substance,

immense beyond length

or width

or thickness, wise and just without

application

or

disposition, compassionate

and

pious without suffer-

ing, moving everything without being moved, existing in every place

essentially,

neither

expanded

nor

contracted, always

present without

past

and

future, omnipotent, omniscient.

[ ] We believe that

there

are

three

persons in

the

Godhead:

the

Father unbegotten;

the

Son

only begotten

by

the

Father, never parted

from

him, neither

succeeding

nor

preceding;

the

Holy Spirit proceed-

ing from both.

That

no

one of these persons is the same as the other;

however, that all

three

are

the

same, all are

equal in

power, wisdom,

will, and action; that many things

they

can do

they

choose not to do,

but nothing

they

choose

to

do

they

cannot do. That each one of them

is a person-namely, an individual essence endowed with rational

nature-that all of them are one existing reality and one God.

[3]

We believe

that

one of these persons,

that

is

the

Son, was

incarnate

from a virgin, so that He,

who

was a

son in

divinity, would

be

· son in humanity;

that

He is true

God and

true man, in two

na-

tures,

neither nature

mingling with

or

changing

the

other; brought

into being from true flesh

and

rational soul,

though

without a father

according

to the

flesh; and that

the

same person as before is

both

cre-

ator and

created, maker

and

made. And so what was earlier

unheard


32/43

OOK ONE

of is now true:

the Creator

is a creature, because

God

is a

man.

For

with

what

effrontery would anyone who accepts God

to

be a man

deny the Creator

to

be a creature? But

who

does

not

accept

this

is

not

a Catholic.

[4] It is also true that this man created heaven and earth, that

this God

has been

dead;

He

was not, however, a man when

He

ere·

ated these

things,

but

was God when dead. We believe that

this true

God and inan suffered

under

Pontius Pilate, was crucified, and died.

That

his

body,

with

its divinity

but without

its divine soul, lay

in

the

sepulcher; his soul and his same divinity

without

body descended

to

hell. On the third day

He

arose with soul and body united;

He

often appeared

to

the

apostles

in

many

manifestations.

On

the

forti·

eth

day

He

ascended

to

heaven, while they watched. On the fiftieth

day

He

sent the

Holy

Spirit in tongues of fire; and

He will come

to

judge the living and the dead.

5] Thus

we believe, approving

some

propositions with

human

reason; others,

although

possibly

contrary to

human reason, we

yet believe and profess

with

absolute

certainty

because they were

written by men

to

whom the Spirit

had

revealed them: men who

professed

neither

to

lie

nor

to

affirm anything

but

certainty. But if

any religious person should read this small work of ours, and some·

thing

in

it should appear to deviate from the faith, he

should

cor-

rect it either by spoken or by written word, and we will not object

to

altering it.

DuKE. It seems

to

me you have ended the confession of your faith.

It

remains, therefore, that you next speak

about

created substance.

4.

The Created Substance:

[The Five

Classes

of Rational Beings]

[r] PHILOSOPHER. Created substance is divided in two, for it is either

invisible or visible. But in order

to

dwell a little longer on the subject

of visible substance, which needs much more discussion, concerning

the invisible

\Ve

will not adduce our

own

opinion, but Plato s.

DUKE. If the opinion of a pagan is

to be

cited, I prefer

you to quote

Plato

than

any other, for

he

accords better with our faith.

[2] PHILOSOPl:J:ER. Plato, the most learned of philosophers, divided the

world

into

five regions: heaven, ether, air, the moist region, and earth.


33/43

THE CREATED

SUBSTANCE

r The five regions

of

the world and their creatures.

He

calls

heaven

the

region

in

which

the

fixed stars are found; ether

the

region

stretching from

there as far as

the lunar

circle; air

the

upper

half

of the atmosphere;

the

moist region

the lower part

of

the

atmosphere.

He wanted none

of

these

regions

to be without rational

living beings. Therefore he said

that

there existed in heaven a visible

rational

immortal and

impassible living being namely

the

stars;

that on earth there was a visible rational passible and mortal being

namely man;

in the three middle regions he said there

were

crea-

tures

that

shared

some of

the

qualities of

the two

outermost

regions

but

differed

in

others

[fig

r

]

2

0

[3] We shall give a definition common to these three groups of

intermediate creatures;

the

intelligent reader may

work

out from

the

definition

which

characteristics

they

share with

the

outermost

ones

and

which

they

lac.k. So

the

middle creature which is located

in the

three regions is defined by Plato as rational

immortal

invis·

ible passible. The three groups differ however with regard

to their

passions. For owing

to

their

natural

goodness

the two

higher ones

love human beings rejoice with them in

their

prosperity and mourn

at

their

adversity. In this

way they

are passible for joy

and

sorrow are

counted among the

passions.

[4]

The

creature

of the ether however has greater knowledge

and

dignity so that

it sometimes

rules over

the creature

of

the

air.


34/43

IO BOOK ONE

But the

creature

of the air runs

to

and fro between God and man

almost as a mediator and reveals the will of God

to

men through a

voice

a

dream

imagination

or

visible signs.

He

reports the prayers

of man to God

who is not ignorant of his needs

yet

wishes

to be

asked. For this reason

he

is called an angel, that is, a messenger.

5] The c:reature of the

moist

region is passible in a different

way: he is full of wickedness, hatred, and envyi it

tortures

him to see

men do well

but it delights him

to

see

them in

distress, because he

fell through his pride from the very place

to

which man ascends

through humility This Creature suggests base thoughts

makes man

sharp-tongued and quarrelsome

causes

backbiting

and false testi

mony,

incites

men

to dishonest

actions:

in

short, he

rushes

about

to

prevent all good.

Sometimes

he takes on some bodily for1n and

has

intercourse

with a woman; from that union a

human

being is often

produced.

[6] DUKE This

seems

to

be

abhorrent

to our faith.

PHILOSOPHER If you do not believe me

believe Augustine, who

affirms

that the

Huns were

born

like

this

in

the

marshes

of

the

Maeotis.

21

DUKE

Let

it

be, then

as

we

are

not

allowed to contradict

such

an au

thority. But

go on

to the next point.

s.

[Demons or

Angels]

[

r] PHILOSOPHER

These three classes

of

living beings are called

demons by the Greeks.

DUKE

You appear

to contradict

yourself. For at first you laid down

that two classes Were good and the third

was

wicked; now you call

all of them demons.

How

then is it possible

that one

and the

same

class

should be

good as well as demonic?

PHILOSOPHER

Now

you

are speaking

like

one of the commoners.

For

you

think

as I infer from your words

that a

demon

is the

same

as a devil, Vlrhich is not the case. For a demon is said

to

be any in

visible being

which

uses reason

as

if

knowing. Of

these

the two

higher orders are called calodemons that is

good knowing ones ;

the lower order is called cacodemon that is

1

11

evil

knowing

one

1

for


35/43

DEMONS OR ANGELS

calos means ngood, cacos bad.

1122

So

what do

you find confusing in

this? After all, both types of demons are called angels.

[ ]

DUKE

When

Plato divides the good angels into two categories,

and Scripture divides

them

into

nine,

it

seems

that

there

are too few

categories

in

the former and too many in the latter.

PHILOSOPHER

Although

it may seem

like

that

to some,

it

is in fact

not true. For

it

so happens

that

one and

the same thing may

be di-

vided, according to different

points

of view, sometimes into inore

and sometimes into

fewer parts,

without there

ever being too

many

or too few. Therefore, Plato divided the calodemons or good angels,

into

two according

to

place; Scripture,

on the

other

hand, divided

them

into nine according to rank.

[3] DUKE

Since Plato calls them living beings

and

since every living

being is a

body, or

at

least has a body, he differs greatly from Scrip-

ture,

which

says

about the

good angels,

Who makes the

spirits his

own

angels,

n

23

and about the

bad angels, uwhen

an unclean

spirit

has

come out of a

man,

etc.

1124

PHILOSOPHER If Plato had been

in

agreement with Scripture

in

every

instance, he would not have been an Academic. But

why

do you con-

sider him to

be

contrary to Scripture in

view

of the above,

when

the

same

Scripture accords

with

him in

this very

issue? For Gregory

says in his

Moralia [Commentary

on

JobL

By

comparison with our

bodies they are spirits,

but

by comparison

with

the

highest and

infinite

Spirit

they ought to be

called bodies.

25

And

Augustine, in

a

chapter

of his

Enchiridion

asks,

What

sort

of bodies

do

angels

have?f/

26

[4] DUKE An example which tries to resolve one dispute

by

means

of

another achieves nothing.

7

But tell

me

whose

opinion

you support

and how you explain these authors.

PHILOSOPHER Since

each opinion

is defended by a great judge, and

on

this point neither

danger

nor

salvation of

the

soul is

at

stake,

we

confirm

or condemn neither. But those who

hold

that angels are

corporeal explain the authorities that seem to contradict them as fol-

lows: air is

sometimes

called a spirit, as

in The

spirit of God moved

upon

the

face of

the

water ;

28

whence the inhalation and

exhalation

of air is called

breathing

[spirare}


36/43

I

BOOK

ONE

s1Therefore, angels are spirits-that is, thin aerial or

ethereal

bodies-so

that

by their natural agility they are able at once to be

here and

somewhere

else. As is the case of the visual beam,

which

nobody

doubts

is material,

it

is

at

one

moment

in

the

east and

then

suddenly in the west, and touches sun and

earth

almost

in

the

same

instant. As a result of this, some believe that demons

have

a knowl-

edge of the future. For when

someone

consults them

about

some-

thing

they

do

not know, for example, whether a friend tarrying abroad

will

soon

return,

immediately,

in

the wink of an eye, they arrive at

that

place where

he

is; seeing

that

he has already begun

the

journey

back, they count how many days

he

will take to return, and say, He

will

arrive

at

such

and

such

a

time.

11

Similarly, a

human

being could

look

into the future if his

sight

were not deficient or the swelling of

the

earth

did

not prevent him

seeing further, when he turns his eyes

in

the direction of that person.

[6]

Others

believe

that

demons read

men's

minds because, before

anyone

can

tell that I want something, they

often

predict what it is;

however, they do this not from knowledge, but from conjecture.

29

For

fi: om

time immemorial, by long practice and experience, they

are used.to recognizing

the

signs

that

precede, accompany,

or

follow

an

event.

Thus when

they see signs preceding an event, they care-

fully turn over

in their minds

what

it may be. As when, for example,

they see someone often directing his gaze to a woman: because they

know

that

where there is pain there is a hand and where there is

love there is an

eye,

30

seeing that he turns pale at one moment and

blushes at the next, that he stammers or

talks

brokenly, they conjec-

ture he is in love,

but

do not really know.

[7]

So

it is that

demons

were

never

certain

about

Christ

while

He was

on earth. For they saw in

Him

some signs typical of man,

such as hunger, thirst, and such like; others typical of God, such as

bringing the dead

back to

life and healing

the

blind. But thinking

in

their own pride

that

it

would

not be fitting for God to become man,

they Were

unaware

of what Christ was. For if they

had known

this,

they would never have urged men

to

crucify Him.

[8]

DUKE

I see the point of those

who

hold that angels are bodies; but

as

to those

who say

those same

angels are spirits, I do not know how

they interpret

the

authorities cited above.

PHILOSOPHER. Those who hold this

opinion explain Gregory s au-

thority as follows: the angels share this with the Creator, that they

are

not

bodies; they

have this in common with our

bodies, that they


37/43

THE ELEMENTS

13

are confined within one place, so that nothing of them exists outside

it, whereas the Creator is everywhere in his totality.

[9] Therefore, by comparison

with

our bodies they are spirits,

but

compared with the

Creator

who

is spirit

uncircumscribed

by

place, they should be called bodies. For they are like bodies in

that

they

are confined within one place. It does not follow, however, that

if they

are bodies by comparison

with the

Creator,

they

1

are, there-

fore,

bodies : in the same way

human

wisdom, compared to divine

knowledge, is nothing,

although it

is

not true

that human wisdom

is nothing.

Again, one might say that the earth, by comparison with

the heavens, has no dimension; this, however, does not

mean

that

the

earth

has no dimension.

[ro]

DUKE

It is

certain

that

such deductions can be disproved by

many similar examples, but

it

is not clear to me how

they

explain

Augustine's authority.

PHILOSOPHER. They

maintain that Augustine,

when he

asks

what

types of bodies angels have

is actually asking what bodies

they

assume when

they

appear

to

men in human form: as in

the

case of

the

three angels who appeared to Abraham

at

the

foothill of Mamre,

when he saw

three but adored one;

3

or in

the

case of those who

were received as guests

by

Lot;

32

or with

that

angel

who

led Tobias

the younger

to

Raguel.

33

Augustine asks

in

these cases

whether they

are really human bodies

or

other kinds of bodies having the appear-

ance of men.

[rr] DUKE

It is

not

safe

to

go

on

disputing such issues. Let us, there-

fore, dismiss them

and deal with the other invisible things.

PHILOSOPHER.

Apart

from the

angels

the

souls of men are invisible.

But because

we

are

to speak about

man

later

let us

defer talking

about them until then, so that the discussion of man may be a single

continuous piece.

34

Further the two upper elements are invisible, so

we will discuss them

next

together with the other two.

6. The

Elements

[r] DUKE Since you intend dealing with

the

elements, would you

please take

your

time over it. For

it

is impossible for

something

to


38/43

4 BOOK ONE

gain praise for both haste and perfection; moreover, no author has

given an accurate account of

the

elements.

35

PHILOSOPHER. I

shall

do as you wish, but before I deal with the ele-

ments,

I

ask

you not to require necessary reasons in every case: it is

quite sufficient for us to provide probable reasons.

36

But compare

our

account

with the

accounts of

other

writers

and

give your approval to

those who in your opinion have written best on this subject. For it

should not be asked who said something, but

what they

said. How-

ever1 I do not deny

that

personal excellence should give greater

distinction to a

g ~ o

work.

[2J

DUKE I shall be satisfied

with

mere probability,

when

necessity

cannot be found.

PHILOSOPHER

n element

is

what

is found

to

be the first thing in the

constitution of a body and

the

last in its resolution.

37

First

in

the con-

stitution

is

that

which constitutes

but

is not constituted; last in

the

resolution is

that which

divides

but

is not divided.

Now

reason de-

mands

that

just

as each body

can be

divi

william of conches - a dialogue on natural philosophy

Documents