Questa affermazione, assieme alla prospettiva di tendenza panenteistica che egli sostenne nel De divisione naturae, gli valsero il sospetto di eresia. Il divino e la ragione[ modifica modifica wikitesto ] Per Scoto Eriugena filosofia e teologia si identificano. Proprio per questa sua totale identificazione dei principi religiosi con quelli filosofici, Eriugena ebbe molti nemici. Tali "specie" o "forme" sono aspetti del pensiero divino.

Author:Zululmaran Fenrizshura
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):5 October 2005
PDF File Size:9.98 Mb
ePub File Size:20.98 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Life and Writings 1. It is also certain that Johannes had been installed for some time at the court of Charles the Bald, the West Frankish king, but he was also associated with other ecclesiastical centers, including Rheims, Laon, Soissons, and Compigne. Eriugena had a justified reputation among his contemporaries as a man of considerable learning. Brennan, Two partial commentaries c. Eriugena has a rich and eclectic knowledge of the liberal arts tradition, including Isidore, Cassiodorus, and Cicero.

He had a reputation for dialectic, as his opponents recognized when they criticized him for bringing his dialectical skills to bear on theological discussion. Indeed, Copernicus would later single out Martianus for praise for his theory that Mercury and Venus orbit the sun instead of the earth. Eriugena went further than Martianus in placing Mars and Jupiter in orbit around the sun also. The influence of Eriugena is difficult to gauge but the echoes are unmistakable among his immediate posterity among the Carolingians such as Heiric of Auxerre —c.

Gottschalk had already been condemned by a synod at Mainz in and another at Quierzy in and had been imprisoned in the abbey of Hautvillers where he remained until his death in , but Prudentius, the bishop of Troyes, appeared to side with him.

While purporting merely to interpret Augustinian texts, this early theological treatise is philosophically significant for its rationalistic, dialectical analysis of key theological concepts and its reliance on argument rather than scriptural citation. Eriugena then argues that philosophy has four principal parts—division, definition, demonstration, and resolution—and the pursuit of this fourfold method of reasoning will lead to truth.

Eriugena argues in De divina praedestinatione that God, being perfectly good, wants all humans to be saved, and does not predestine souls to damnation. Since God is outside time, He cannot be said to fore-know or to pre-destine, terms that involve temporal predicates.

Human nature, on the other hand, was created rational, and rationality requires freedom. Florus too attacked Eriugena. Subsequently, On Divine Predestination was condemned by the bishops in France at the councils of Valence and Langres , in part for its over-use of logical method or dialectic dialectica.

Paul at Athens, but was more likely a late fifth or early sixth-century Christian follower of Proclus. Anastasius decried the word-for-word translation, however he contributed to it, thereby indicating its importance Harrington, Soon after completing his translation of Pseudo-Dionysius c. It is possible he made other translations which have not survived or which cannot be definitively attributed to him, e.

The first printed edition of this dialogue appeared in and subsequently an edition by Floss appeared in which is now contained in PL Sheldon-Williams had assembled materials for the edition of Books Four and Five and had completed a draft English translation of these books, which was published separately in one volume edited by John J. All five books of the Periphyseon have appeared in this series.

Floss in Gale and Floss had published editions that combined into a single text both the text of the main body of the manuscript and the various marginal annotations in different hands. This composite version disguised the gradual evolution of the text and Jeauneau is of the opinion that this mixed type of edition is inadequate to the needs of scholarship.

The new Jeauneau edition is based on six manuscripts, including two manuscripts, Paris Bibl. One special difficulty in editing the Periphyseon is that the earliest manuscripts preserve only the first three books whereas the extant manuscripts for Books Four and Five date from the twelfth century.

Avranches and Cambridge, both twelfth century manuscripts, are the sole witnesses for the end of Book Four and the whole of Book Five in Stage Two versions, with Avranches noticeably less accurate than Cambridge in several places. It is probable that Eriugena died sometime around An apocryphal tale, dating from the twelfth century, records that Eriugena was stabbed to death by his students with their pens! His originality is largely due to the manner in which he assimilated often translating the Neoplatonic thought of Eastern Christian writers such as the Cappadocians, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus, as well as Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Maximus Confessor.

Though he took the view that the authorities of East and West were not in conflict, nevertheless he usually expressed a preference for the Eastern Church Fathers. An especially important authority was Maximus Confessor, whose account of the return of all things Eriugena copiously borrowed.

Eriugena enthusiastically incorporated many Greek Christian theological concepts: God, the One, creates by self-emanation; creation is a timeless, and hence on-going and always contemporary, event; human nature is originally a Platonic Idea in the mind of God; human nature is a certain intellectual concept formed eternally in the mind of God, Periphyseon, IV. In his discussion of this cosmological saga, Eriugena always appeals to dialectic and the order of reasons in order to mediate between the various sources.

For Eriugena, true philosophy is vera ratio and indeed, all appeal to authority is nothing other than an appeal to right reason Periphyseon, I. Vera ratio underlies both the cosmos and reason. Eriugena is therefore a strongly rationalistic in the Medieval sense of the word philosopher, attempting to make sense of divine revelation in scripture and nature in terms consistent with the evidence of reason based on the rules of Dialectic.

Dialectic, moreover, is not just about the organization of words and thoughts but also describes the structure of reality itself. Thus, in the Periphyseon IV. Thus, Maximus allows him to expand and clarify the insights received from Dionysius and provides him with an eclectic philosophical and theological vocabulary: the Maximian oeuvre offers a palimpsest of Neo-Aristotelian and Neoplatonic philosophical terms and concepts along with a rich theological vocabulary which is mostly a synthesis of terms and concepts derived from Pseudo-Dionysius and the Cappadocian Fathers Gregory Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil the Great.

If contemplated and read from the right perspective, scripture and creation become transparent to divine presence.

Eriugena will go further and correlate these cosmic movements with the two main operations of dialectic: division and analysis; this allows him to construct a deep correspondence between epistemology and ontology. Through the ideas of Pseudo-Dionysius and Maximus, Eriugena overcomes the distrust of visible and material nature found in Neoplatonism; rather he believes contemplating the theophanies encountered in nature which has been redeemed through the incarnation of the Logos is necessary for the return of creation to its divine source.

The human being as officina omnium plays a central role in the process of return reditus because as a primordial idea in the divine mind, it can mediate between the primordial causes and the created effects. However, only through the incarnation in which Christ assumes human nature in its totality , can the full, cosmic scope of this process of mediation and unification through the human being as officina omnium be realized: through the incarnation of Christ the Logos, the universal human nature and through it the rest of creation is unified, redeemed and ultimately divinized.

Informed by Dionysius notion of theophanic cosmic order, Eriugena is more comfortable with the complexities of Neoplatonic cosmology and with mediation medietas and less preoccupied with the issue of divine simplicity. Nevertheless, the Augustinian strain is not lost in Eriugena: both the human being and the creation have a Trinitarian structure. Nature is to be understood as what is real in the widest sense, the totality of all things that are and are not.

Nature includes both God and creation and has four divisions: nature which creates and is not created God , nature which creates and is created the Primordial Causes , nature which is created and does not create the Created Temporal Effects , and nature which is neither created nor creates Non-Being. The original intention expressed at III. The topic of creation requires Eriugena to address issues related to the Biblical account of creation, and thus, in Book Three, he embarks on his own version of a Hexaemeron.

The momentous event of the emergence of human nature on the Sixth Day of creation requires extended treatment, and Eriugena is forced to devote a fourth book to this topic, thus relegating the return of all things to God to a fifth book. Thus, Eriugena was forced to depart from his original plan of four books and add a fifth. This change of plan is particularly important in that it helps to identify different stages of composition of the text.

Echoing similar divisions in Augustine De civitate Dei Bk. There are several remarkable aspects of this division. First of all, division is defined by Eriugena in De praedestinatione as a branch of dialectic.

Secondly, the four divisions are not strictly a hierarchy in the usual Neoplatonic sense where there are higher and lower orders, rather, as Eriugena will explain, the first and fourth divisions both refer to God as the Beginning and End of all things, and the second and third divisions may also be thought to express the unity of the cause-effect relation.

Finally, the division is an attempt to show that nature is a dialectical coming together of being and non-being. Creation is normally understood as coming into being from non-being. God as creator is then a kind of transcendent non-being above the being of creation. These themes are rigorously discussed and disentangled throughout the dialogue. According to this classification, God, because of his transcendence is said not to be. Periphyseon, I. In other words, a particular level may be affirmed to be real by those on a lower or on the same level, but the one above it is thought not to be real in the same way.

If humans are thought to exist in a certain way, then angels do not exist in that way. The third mode I. This mode contrasts things which have come into effect with those things which are still contained in their causes. According to this mode, actual things, which are the effects of the causes, have being, whereas those things which are still virtual in the Primary Causes e.

The fourth mode I. The assumption is that things graspable by intellect alone belong to a realm above the material, corporeal world and hence are timeless. The fifth mode offered by Eriugena is essentially theological and applies solely to humans: those sanctified by grace are said to be, whereas sinners who have renounced the divine image are said not to be.

One of the striking features of this complex—and certainly, in this form, original—account is that being and non-being are treated as correlative categories: something may be said to be under one mode and not to be under another. Attribution of being is subject to the dialectic of affirmation and negation. According to Eriugena—who in this respect is following a tradition which includes Augustine and Boethius as well as Dionysius and other Greek authors—the Aristotelian categories are considered to describe only the created world and do not properly apply to God I.

In the Periphyseon, Eriugena repeats the position of the De Praedestinatione that God does not know evil, and, in a genuine sense, God may be said not to know anything; his ignorance is the highest wisdom. He moves from darkness into the light, from self-ignorance into self-knowledge.

The divine self-creation or self-manifestation I. The Word enfolds in itself the Ideas or Primary Causes of all things and in that sense all things are always already in God: …the Creative nature permits nothing outside itself because outside it nothing can be, yet everything which it has created and creates it contains within itself, but in such a way that it itself is other, because it is superessential, than what it creates within itself.

Periphyseon, III. Eriugena stresses both the divine transcendence above and immanence in creation. The immanence of God in the world is at the same time the immanence of creatures within God. Creatures however, as fallen, do not yet know that they reside in God. In cosmological terms, however, God and the creature are one and the same: It follows that we ought not to understand God and the creature as two things distinct from one another, but as one and the same.

For both the creature, by subsisting, is in God; and God, by manifesting himself, in a marvelous and ineffable manner creates himself in the creature…. In the thirteenth century, expressions such as these led to the accusation of heresy, i.

Since God cannot be said to be anything, God cannot be simply identified with any or every creature either. These reasons rationes, logoi are productive of the things of which they are the reasons. Their number is infinite and none has priority over the other, e. Each is a divine theophany, a way in which the divine nature is manifested.

The very nature of these Causes is to flow out from themselves, bringing about their Effects. In his understanding of this causal procession, Eriugena accepts Neoplatonic principles: like produces like; incorporeal causes produce incorporeal effects; an eternal cause produces an eternal effect. Since the causes are immaterial, intellectual and eternal, so their created effects are essentially incorporeal, immaterial, intellectual, and eternal.

Eriugena, however, thinks of cause and effect as mutually dependent, relative terms Periphyseon, V. By nature, they are eternal and incorruptible, but Eriugena also thinks of individual created things as located spatially and temporally. He seems to think there are two kinds of time: an unchanging time a reason or ratio in the divine mind,Periphyseon, V.


Scòto Eriùgena, Giovanni

Life and Writings 1. It is also certain that Johannes had been installed for some time at the court of Charles the Bald, the West Frankish king, but he was also associated with other ecclesiastical centers, including Rheims, Laon, Soissons, and Compigne. Eriugena had a justified reputation among his contemporaries as a man of considerable learning. Brennan, Two partial commentaries c.


Giovanni Scoto: Riassunto. L’inizio della scolastica

The form of exposition is that of dialogue ; the method of reasoning is the syllogism. The first is God as the ground or origin of all things; the second, Platonic ideas or forms; the third, phenomena , the material world; and the last is God as the final end or goal of all things, and that into which the world of created things ultimately returns. Just as He reveals Himself to the mind and the soul in higher intellectual and spiritual truth, so He reveals Himself to the senses in the created world around us. Creation is, therefore, a process of unfolding of the Divine Nature. The Division of Nature has been called the final achievement of ancient philosophy, a work which "synthesizes the philosophical accomplishments of fifteen centuries.


Giovanni Scoto Eriugena

Giovanni Scoto Eriugena Vita e opere. Tra le altre opere, oltre a un commentario al vangelo di Matteo giuntoci frammentario e a un perduto trattato sulla visione di Dio, si ricorda una consistente produzione poetica caratterizzata dal bilinguismo latino-greco e dalla preponderanza di temi filosofici e teologici. Dal punto di vista teologico la quadripartizione delle nature implica un duplice approccio, mutuato dallo ps. La conoscenza. Caduta e ritorno. Ad essa seguono il reditus generalis e il reditus specialis.


John Scottus Eriugena

Per Scoto, invece, le nozioni di non essere e di male indicano soltanto una mancanza di essere e quindi egli ritiene che non si possa attribuire una qualche consistenza ontologica ad essi. La natura universale si articola in quattro nature, che rappresentano il procedere delle creature da Dio e il loro ritorno a Dio. Esse sono quelle che la tradizione platonica chiamava idee , modelli o archetipi delle cose. I primi momenti della teofania sono pertanto le idee o forme primordiali di tutte le cose, che vengono articolandosi in generi e specie. In tal modo Scoto Eriugena intreccia, in un equilibrio sempre pericolante, il modello neoplatonico , eterno e atemporale, della processione e del ritorno a Dio con il racconto biblico della creazione, del peccato, della redenzione e della resurrezione finale, che si svolgono nel tempo. Sola la negativa nega che la divina essenza o sostanza sia qualcuna delle cose che sono, che possono essere dette o capite.

Related Articles